*************
M*W: Apparently, Jack, your idea of God was last seen around 54 days ago in the Gulf of Mexico.
Theist or not: What image of God do you actually have in your mind?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
M*W: Apparently, Jack, your idea of God was last seen around 54 days ago in the Gulf of Mexico.
God who, although possessing all opulences and potencies and being the summum bonum, is also the perfect person - IOW whatever qualities we possess as individuals that we deem as outstanding and meritorious (eg - beauty, strength, fame, intelligence, etc), god possesses them unsurpassed in full. This basically means that that while all potencies great and small can be attributed to god, the highest grade is that of desire (since such an entity has absolutely no need to guard or further amass their material position and situation) - IOW you are dealing with an entity that primarily assesses and reciprocates with us according to the grade of our desire. In this way, regardless whether we are a great ruler or an insignificant ant, we are all equal in god's eyes.
No idea what summum bonum means...
I personally think that human beings are proof that God and Creation aren't perfect. They too are on their own spiritual quest. Anything that is perfect has no need to develop. If there is no need for development then there is no need for growth. No need to create. No need to DO stuff.
God and Creation do all of these things, so they must be on their own development journey - that we are part of.
Perfection is static. Life isn't.
I wonder why there is this conviction, and how come it is so wide-spread.
Why couldn't perfection be dynamic?
Someone once said that perfection is boring. But how could something perfect (sic!) be boring?
I am not sure I understand.
Especially those of us who come from a Christian background will often enough have double or mutliple images of God - as the article in the OP describes.
We end up torn trying to reconcile something like this:
and something like this:
and something like this:
So how do such images reflect our desire, given that they seem to represent mutually exclusive things?
I suppose - For the sheer fun of it, or simply because one can.
I am finding this rather strange, and possibly to have a double or multiple meaning.
On the one hand, it makes sense to think that "How much you desire God, this much God reciprocates with you" or "How you desire God, this is how God reciprocates with you."
On the other hand, it seems to leave so much open to the individual!
Suppose one would say "I desire that God would be infinitely patient, infinitely wise, infinitely forgiving." How would that pass, would it be possible? Would God be so, simply because one wanted Him so?
Or how about "I desire that God would take a more active role in getting me to learn the Absolute Truth, so that I wouldn't have all those doubts and confusions anymore"?
Or "I desire that God be such as to give me ten million dollars, right now, in cash"?
Or even how about "I desire that God do things on my terms"?
hence the phrase "grade of desire"
the desire for personal material acquisition or even the portrayal of god in a particular manner for some particular purpose, while certainly not off the cards, are not celebrated as the highest grade of desire (namely because they both involve some inherent manipulation of one's constitutional nature (IOW its not our nature to be yoked with material acquisition or have the universe or the progenitor of the universe tweaked in some way to tickle our fancy)
perhaps one could scrape through with (in)famous ... but hardly strength, beauty, intelligence etcI am not sure I understand.
Especially those of us who come from a Christian background will often enough have double or mutliple images of God - as the article in the OP describes.
We end up torn trying to reconcile something like this:
perhaps the impression of god the punisher is pertinent to the inherently sinful, or god as the time factor, the destroyer of all things strikes a tune with the materially attached
bit of a stretch for summum bonum, omnipotent etcand something like this:
... but then being a pure emissary of god doesn't require that one play that card
hardly something one could reciprocate with (on a side point, even light has a source)and something like this:
... although there is the aspect of god being something greater than ourselves and the very thing that contextualizes our existence is a grand sublime manner
I gave a brief pros and cons above.
How did I go?
So if I am understanding you correctly, ideally, one should desire something like "I desire to be with God as He truly is, in ways He wants me to be with Him"?
You know what this sort of thing is called by many Christians? Pride. Vanity. Conceit. Lust. How-dare-you-you-will-suffer-for-this.
No, they prescribe you a very specific image of God, and this is the one you should follow. And if you don't, you are committing a grave offense against God's will and His little ones and will burn i.h.f.a.e.
IOW, your arguments seem sensible. But they break down once one comes into the actual society of people who believe in God. There, all common sense, assertiveness and the Declaration of Human Rights are off-limits. There, one is at the mercy of the theists' readiness to take offence - and nothing is easier than offend a theist, they take offence at anything and everything, and thereby heap insurmountable consequences upon oneself. And that is the way to God!
Makes me want to ...
I suppose it comes down to a person's own confidence and how blessed they are by God with right understanding ...
For me, the problem has always been in trying to reconcile the three types of images (sometimes more), and which image one should have in mind or "address" with a particular prayer.
For example, if asking for faith or proper knowledge, whom should one address? The Almighty Punisher? The Sublime Light? Whom?
When we say "Glorificamus Te, Adoramus Te" who is that Te, which one?
When we confess our sins and ask God for forgiveness, to whom do we say that?
When we try to have a "personal relationship with God" - which image of God fits this?
Or is there some generalized "all-purpose form of God"?
I find it impossible to meaningfully pray, confess sins, ask for forgiveness, mercy, wellbeing for others, express gratitude and so on - if I don't know whom exactly I am addressing.
Last edited:
Is it even possible to not portray God in such a particular manner for some particular purpose?
What does such a thing look like?
Oh by the way, glad to know you've given it some thought.
jan.
freebird!
You mean aside from portraying god to suit his own purposes?
Sure.
If we can grade ordinary biographies (or even autobiographies) as either closer to fact or fiction, why not?
Basically the problem is reconciled of having not only a clear notion of god, but also a clear notion of one's eternal constitutional relationship with him as well as a clear understanding of the purpose of the phenomenal world.
IOW if we are not clear on all three then we can house notions of god the vending machine for my desire, god the thwarter of my desire or a host of others
I meant whether it is even possible to portray God only in a manner suiting His own purposes.
It seems to me that in any way we would portray God, it would be an act of suiting our own purposes.
Unless we would do it in a way that would blatantly go against anything we might reasonably consider our own purposes - such as that beast who viciously devours everything and everyone (for all eternity, with no chance of redemption).
not sure why qualifying something as diametrically opposed to one's purposes renders it more accurate or closer to fact ...