God is???

[OAT]

I do believe that God is an entity (Of sorts). Existence itself (in my mind) is a living organism, so if this is true, then how would one be able to set our minds apart from what is/

Again, God is not just the 'base' in my view. He consists of all things.
Sure, I suppose if one attributes purposeful intent to what is (Creation), than they have already recognized a force behind the formation of existence itself.

Every thing we touch, smell, etc is a very tiny part of Gods entirety in my mind (Everything existing is a tiny part of God).

Sounds to like you are advocating a form of monism. If so, then if I am evil, God is evil. If I am good, God is good. If I am full of lust, then God is full of lust. If I am altruistic, then God is altruistic. In the end, the concept of God is rendered meaningless don't you think?

 

[Gatekeeper]

Sounds to like you are advocating a form of monism. If so, then if I am evil, God is evil. If I am good, God is good. If I am full of lust, then God is full of lust. If I am altruistic, then God is altruistic. In the end, the concept of God is rendered meaningless don't you think?

What is evil? What is good for that matter? We all have an opinion on the subject, but in the end what if there is only wise and unwise? What if there is no evil ..... No good? What if they are mere ideas conceptualized by humans in attempt to identify the harmful and harmless realities of our existence?

Personally, I think it a bit senseless to place our characteristics on God. In my mind, God is far greater than we could ever be. What would God have to be lustful of - if all things exist within himself?

In my view God is our life force .... He sustains us. Every finite creature lives independently within His entirety. Although all things were created from Gods own substance, I don't believe that He is like any of us at all.

I sometimes wonder if God acts consciously, or is He simply a self sustaining entity existing as He is eternally? Truth is we don't know. God could be anything .... maybe even a collection of each of our views.

I myself enjoy contemplating who (What) He is .... Even though I will never know (In this lifetime) the reality of His being. All we have are our personal ideas about who God is, and these ideas often times are very sacred to each individual. We could all be right to some extent. Even if God is existence in its entirety, it hardy renders the concept of God meaningless (At least not to me). I see God in nearly everything, which lends me the awareness and motivation to give proper respect to all things.

GK

 

[greymare]

How about ...God just ..IS!!

 

[shawn]

How about ...God just ..IS!!

It is a bit oversimplified is all.

 

[greymare]

lol.thats how i like to keep it... nice and simple. LOL

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Re: IF there is a God . . . then He would be . . .

IF there is a God . . . then He would be:

Known only through his "causeless mercy" via His "devotee of His devotee's mercy" [IOW, via His disciplic succession].

IF there is a God . . . then He would be:
the Absolute Truth --the quintessence of Truth would be embodied in His Persona as the fountain head of all personality traits.

1-the Richest,
2-the strongest,
3-the most intelligent,
4-the most beautiful,
5-the most famous,
and,
6-the most renounced.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
If there is NO GOD, then we the people are souls transmigrating from body/species of life repeatedly birth after birth ---with the souls' journey being a path that experieneces the 4-Catagories of Activities [eat, sleep, mate & defend] during each birth affording and thus allowing for the experience to act while evolving (our Souls' experience of 'Acts') from birth as ameobas to sub-marine life forms; to slithering; to crawling; to walking on all four limbs; to flying; to walking; to penthouse flats; to prime-ministers; to Golf professional ---all done on one's own recognisance (ergo, individual karma) ---all the while deep in the heart of the "Soul in Maya" [the soul living in illusion birth after birth] the soul is actually seeking out the Absolute Personality [the personage of God].

But seeking out the Absolute Personality [the personage of God] can only be Known only through his "causeless mercy" and/or via His "devotee of His devotee's mercy" [IOW, via His disciplic succession].

The same absolute principle exists in the discipline of Science & Arts:
ie: Medical Universities produce Doctors; Automotive Trade Schools produce auoto-mechanics; Pizza vendors produce Pizza ---each has its own trade secrets known only by those that applied themselves to teachers of the craft ---not otherwise.

A well made loaf of bread is the product of a 'true and tested' recipe passed down to the present ---that is the only way Knowledge is obtained ---from the Absolute source.

Beware of false witness and 'Fat-Finger' data-inputters,
Bhaktajan

Hare Krishna!
.

 

[Ahanu]

How about ...God just ..IS!!

Great observation.

The Essence of God is?

It is.

(surprise!)

All we can say is It exists. It's like the brain in a vat scenario; the supercomputer (or the Essence of God) transcends our world, and so we say It's unknowable, whereas everything that's said here about God is a reference to the virtual world (or the Primal Will).

That's my understanding in a nutshell.

 

[NeoGnostic Pantheist]

I think everything is divine, and reality is the greatest and most complexed form of divinity. As far as God goes, I've never encountered any super natural Gods so there's not much I can say about them.

 

[The Undecided]

Who (What) is God to you? When you think about God, what do you visualize (If anything)? Even among the Christian populace, there are many differing views. Some believe God is a man like us, while others believe He is a spirit. What exactly does God consist of. Does He exist somewhere within existence itself, or does He exist outside of existence (If that's even possible) Maybe He's something else entirely to you?

I read a short book on Hermetic philosophy years ago. In that book, God was referred as "The All". This view resonated with me in a profound way. I simply cannot NOT believe that god is absolutely everything now. Everything we see, touch, feel, smell and even all that is still unknown is a part of Gods entirety. I can't imagine Him existing as a small element of existence. To me it makes sense that He is both the creator and the created. He is both infinite and finite according to my view. We exist as a tiny part of Him, created from God's substance itself.

Anyway, I thought it might be interesting to share our personal views of God, and what we each view Him to consist of.

James

To me the word God is very full of conflicting ideas and understanding. The most prominent idea being that God is micromanaging every aspect of our lives and controls everything. This to me contradicts the idea of free will. I prefere the idea of a life force that is within everything and is connecting everything. A universal ocean of consciousness, and all living things are drops of water in that oceans. This is what I believe people are referring to when they talk about Brahman and the Tao. So, to me the idea of God is one of universal consciousness rather than a conscious being who oversees everything. There is no He or She for that matter, these are labels. As it says in the first verse of the Tao Te Ching:

"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth.
The named is the mother of the ten thousand things."

What we refer to as God is beyond names or labels. That which we name is creation. That which we cannot name is the cause of creation, or the nameless. So the Tao is a reference to that which we cannot describe. I guess the same could be said for the word God.

TU

 

[The Undecided]

I prefer Buddhism's take on reality - that there is no Creator God.

Why? If God is self-sufficient, then he/she/it has no need to create the world etc. because there would be no purpose to it. If God is good, then how can there be so much evil in the world? If God is compassionate, how is it that other beings have to die in order for us to live? If God is omniscience, how is it that there is such messiness in the world? etc. etc.

Is it possible for the world to come into existence without a Creator God. According to Buddhism, yes.

Hi OAT,

Have look at the theory of Gaia. It describes earth as a self sustaining system that, through a feedback system, allows for design without a designer.

TU

 

[The Undecided]

This quote doesn't directly refer to God. But some would say that God is Truth. It is from an ancient Indian text which is part of the Hindu scriptures, the Vedas.

"Truth is one, sages call It by different names" (Rig- Veda).

 

[path_of_one]

Who (What) is God to you?

Limitless light and love. God Herself is the source and ground of all being- She is being itself, creativity and change and all the forces that allow the manifest multiverse to be possible.

When you think about God, what do you visualize (If anything)?

When I think of the Divine- of God Herself- I generally think of sound. I think of vibration and sound. Visually, I think of white light expanding into every direction. Sometimes, if I think about Her before the beginning of all that is manifest reality, I think of a tiny point of light that holds infinite power and love.

He is both infinite and finite according to my view. We exist as a tiny part of Him, created from God's substance itself.

That's about how I see it. God Herself has always (and will always) held everything that ever was, is, or will be within Her embrace. We are but extensions of Her limitless light, and deep down, what makes us real is only Her grace flowing through us. It is the relationships between all things, the connections between them, that are eternal and real. The rest is ephemeral- an ever-changing work of art that unfolds from Her force as creatrix-destroyer.

We are part of Her. But we are able to forget.

Can't wait to read all the other responses... interesting.

Basically, god would be our perfect selves in potential, that which our inner daimon/genius/higher-self would point the way to with a "calling" towards personal growth.

In many forms of Paganism, there is simultaneously the belief in some absolute (the ground of being, the force(s) that are the prime mover(s)), gods and goddesses (as distinct kinds of disincarnate but non-omni beings), and the "god-self" or "higher-self" or "deep self" of every individual. The god-self is what is connection to and of one substance with all other beings and the absolute.

Much of the work is awakening to this higher self and fostering a better relationship with it- enabling the communication between higher self and the rest of self. It is a process of integration, not denial. The animalistic and humanistic tendencies are not rejected, but rather integrated and refined through the perspective and input of the higher self.

So, really- the process is one of divinization. The god inside is the god outside... and the god that is within the gods/goddesses.

 

[OAT]

Hi OAT,

Have look at the theory of Gaia. It describes earth as a self sustaining system that, through a feedback system, allows for design without a designer.

TU

Thanks TU. I speculate more on how the whole of existence come into being, whether through a creative agent ie. a first cause or through an impersonal mechanism without the need to postulate a creative agent.

 

[OAT]

To me the word God is very full of conflicting ideas and understanding. The most prominent idea being that God is micromanaging every aspect of our lives and controls everything. This to me contradicts the idea of free will.

To me, free will is an illusion.

I prefere the idea of a life force that is within everything and is connecting everything. A universal ocean of consciousness, and all living things are drops of water in that oceans. This is what I believe people are referring to when they talk about Brahman and the Tao. So, to me the idea of God is one of universal consciousness rather than a conscious being who oversees everything.

I have problem with such monistic concept. How is it that I am part of the ocean of consciousness and yet does not have the consciousness of the ocean? In other words, I should be part of everyone else's consciousness, but yet the fact that each of us is only aware of our own consciousness and not others seemed to contradict such monistic idea.

 

[citizenzen]

To me, free will is an illusion.

Have you met rodgertutt?

But seriously...

Will is certainly not limitless. The conditions that we live under limit our choices tremendously. Time limits our choices. Economics, our psychology, our age, our health and countless other factors contribute to funnel down our choices to a limited amount.

But even within those limitations of outside conditions and inside intellect and emotion there are options and we exercise them everyday. If free will is an illusion, then all of life is an illusion. If all life is illusion, we still live as if it were real anyway.

Perhaps you could explain you views so I could understand them better.

 

[path_of_one]

How is it that I am part of the ocean of consciousness and yet does not have the consciousness of the ocean?

We can choose to forget. We can be sleeping to the broader being of which we are a part.

Our cells are part of us... they ARE us. But they probably don't realize this. It doesn't make their being as part of a larger process of being any less true.

Further, it would seem that at least some people wake up and are able to have the consciousness of the ocean. These become the great spiritual teachers of the ages. I figure it might be challenging, but just because my consciousness is not yet at this point doesn't mean it is impossible for everyone.

In other words, I should be part of everyone else's consciousness, but yet the fact that each of us is only aware of our own consciousness and not others seemed to contradict such monistic idea.

This is not true for everyone. Some people are quite empathic. There are also oodles of theories and ideas, ranging from Jungian psychology to shared dreamspace that demonstrate that at least some people think that some part of our consciousness is aware of others'.

Again, I think what is experienced by me is not necessarily the limit of human potential or experience.

 

[OAT]

Have you met rodgertutt?

But seriously...

Will is certainly not limitless. The conditions that we live under limit our choices tremendously. Time limits our choices. Economics, our psychology, our age, our health and countless other factors contribute to funnel down our choices to a limited amount.

But even within those limitations of outside conditions and inside intellect and emotion there are options and we exercise them everyday. If free will is an illusion, then all of life is an illusion. If all life is illusion, we still live as if it were real anyway.

Perhaps you could explain you views so I could understand them better.

My conclusion that free will is an illusion is based on Buddhist teaching on dependent arising and emptiness.

Buddhism teaches that all sentient beings comprised at least four of the five aggregates. It also teaches that these aggegrates are empty of any substance, essence etc. These aggregates are therefore illusory. Therefore the worlds that all sentient beings inhabit are also illusory. Our so called free will is within the realms of existence and therefore is illusory.

Another way to look at it is that all our choices are dependent on all kinds of factors and conditions, some of which we are conscious of and some of which we are not conscious of. Since our choices are always dependent on something else, strictly speaking, our choices are not free. So free will is an illusion.

 

[OAT]

[/FONT][/COLOR]

We can choose to forget. We can be sleeping to the broader being of which we are a part.

Our cells are part of us... they ARE us. But they probably don't realize this. It doesn't make their being as part of a larger process of being any less true.

Further, it would seem that at least some people wake up and are able to have the consciousness of the ocean. These become the great spiritual teachers of the ages. I figure it might be challenging, but just because my consciousness is not yet at this point doesn't mean it is impossible for everyone.



This is not true for everyone. Some people are quite empathic. There are also oodles of theories and ideas, ranging from Jungian psychology to shared dreamspace that demonstrate that at least some people think that some part of our consciousness is aware of others'.

Again, I think what is experienced by me is not necessarily the limit of human potential or experience.

If someone wants to postulate a "one" consciousness, then he should also postulate a mechanism by which a partial consciousness of the "one" consciousness is disconnected with the "one" consciousness. This will help to explain why each of us is an individual.

However, when the partial consciousness connects with the "one" consciousness, does the individual loses its individuality? If one holds to the concept of a "one" consciousness,then the answer must be a yes. So eventually, there will be left only this "one" consciousness and no individuals. If so, all the sages that manages to merge with the one consciousness will no longer exist as individual sages and we should not have the existence of individual sages in our midst. This does not seem to accord with the reality that there are many individual sages in the past and at present.

 

[shawn]

If someone wants to postulate a "one" consciousness, then he should also postulate a mechanism by which a partial consciousness of the "one" consciousness is disconnected with the "one" consciousness. This will help to explain why each of us is an individual.

We can call this a reducing valve for lack of better terms.
I am sure we could come up with a more technical phrase if you require.
When you breath, are you always conscious of doing so?
or,
is another part of you busy keeping that going.
It is still you, but it is distinct....isn't it.

I wonder what part of you is bothered by what will happen to you after you return to yourself?

 

[Gatekeeper]

If someone wants to postulate a "one" consciousness, then he should also postulate a mechanism by which a partial consciousness of the "one" consciousness is disconnected with the "one" consciousness. This will help to explain why each of us is an individual.

This all puzzles me, but I believe it is possible that when we die, our life force merges back into the flow of life itself.

Think about this, our brains file our memories, thoughts, and so forth, right? We gain access to them only when we experience certain stimuli. Perhaps existence is conscious and much like a human brain?

Also, If we are capable of suppressing our memories, and capable of a multitude of thoughts, all while separating one thought from another, then why couldn't the same be true for existence itself?

We could very well be a product in the mind of "The All". Maybe our lives, our individuality, and all we know are a simple sparks of "The All's" consciousness merged with matter?

I think that our individuality (As we know it) may be finite, just as our bodies are finite. Even so, our bodies continue to go through cycles of change x infinity. Why would our individuality be any different? I'm simply not convinced that we will retain our individuality after we die. I think we will simply start over as we merge back into the flow of life.

However, when the partial consciousness connects with the "one" consciousness, does the individual loses its individuality? If one holds to the concept of a "one" consciousness,then the answer must be a yes. So eventually, there will be left only this "one" consciousness and no individuals.

Each of us could be like the neurons and nerve endings in our brains, existing as part of the "All's" own intelligence center, transmitting and receiving data until we die. At which point our life force could merge back into the flow of life itself.

If so, all the sages that manages to merge with the one consciousness will no longer exist as individual sages and we should not have the existence of individual sages in our midst. This does not seem to accord with the reality that there are many individual sages in the past and at present.

It could be that we have them in our midst until their personal energy runs its course (In this life)? Then again, maybe there is no such thing as a true sage, or enlightened soul at all.