The Godhead

[Gatekeeper]

Just some thoughts I've had recently: I think that God consists of three parts, first we have the masculine (Fatherly) aspects of God, then we have the feminine (Motherly) aspects of God. The masculine being the "breath of life", the feminine being "matter" and/or the earth.

God formed mankind from the earth and breathed life into humanity. From the womb of "mother" earth we were formed, and by the breath of the "father" we were given life. "The LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

The above are only two aspects of the Godhead -- the masculine (Breath of life) and the feminine (Matter/earth) but there is a third aspect of God which is represented by the "Holy Spirit" -- The love and Wisdom of God. -- All three together complete the Godhead or "marriage" -- Jesus being a perfect and complete manifestation of the Godhead on earth (Anointed one).


Godhead:

• Masculine aspects of God (Father/breath of life)

• Feminine aspects of God (Mother/matter/earth)

• The loving wisdom of God (Tree of life/Holy Spirit)

Son of God:

• The complete and perfect manifestation of the Godhead on earth (Christ/anointed one)

I believe God formed all things from Himself, the heavens (Universe) and the earth (Our planet) being a part of Gods entirety. I believe the masculine part of God is spirit or the life giving force of existence (Breath of life). On that same note, I believe the feminine part of God is the material universe, which would (In part) include the earth. I also believe that Gods essence and/or wisdom is "Love". I believe that love (God's wisdom) is the Holy Spirit, and what is also known as the tree of life.

The masculine aspect of God has made the earth (Our planet) habitable, thus the earth (our planet) has become our "mother". In other words, the masculine (+) and feminine (-) aspects of God coupled (Merged) together create "life".

Being made in the image of both suggests that we are able to access both the masculine (Positive/spiritual) aspects of God and the feminine (Negative/material) aspects of God. In other words, we have been given great power (Dominion) over all the earths hosts, able to both destroy life and to create and/or sustain life (Flesh vs. Spirit).

Love (The Holy Spirit) being the binding and life sustaining element of the (positive/spiritual) and the (Negative/material) aspects of God, and even of our own being, much like love being the binding element in a marriage. Love determines whether we are born of the Spirit, or whether we remain natural. Without love, there is no marriage, binding, or glue to hold us together.

"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God" (Romans 8:13-16)
​

Any thoughts?


GK

 

[Thomas]

Hi GK —

It's an interesting premise, and I have appended the distinctions we would draw in Christianity.

I think that God consists of three parts...

We would say that God is one, God is not a composite.

first we have the masculine (Fatherly) aspects of God, then we have the feminine (Motherly) aspects of God. The masculine being the "breath of life", the feminine being "matter" and/or the earth.

Well OK, but that's not Scriptural. We tend to treat these kind of ideas as cosmological, in that God is determined according to the experience of nature.

God formed mankind from the earth and breathed life into humanity. From the womb of "mother" earth we were formed, and by the breath of the "father" we were given life. "The LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

OK. but no mention of 'mother' ... I would say this text is more in line with evolutionary development.

The above are only two aspects of the Godhead -- the masculine (Breath of life) and the feminine (Matter/earth) but there is a third aspect of God which is represented by the "Holy Spirit" -- The love and Wisdom of God. -- All three together complete the Godhead or "marriage" -- Jesus being a perfect and complete manifestation of the Godhead on earth (Anointed one).

No, that's making Scripture fit your presuppositions, rather than listening to what Scripture is actually saying.

God is one, but the words of Jesus Christ, in which He proclaims His own divinity; His relationship to the Father; His relationship to the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit's relationship to the Father, lead to one of two conclusions: either the whole thing collapses in internal paradox, or there is a revelation about the nature of the Divine Being.

The authors of the New Testament obviously thought the latter.

Having said that, the relationship of the three persons of the Blessed Trinity are external relations — one can be a son, a father, and a son and father, without undergoing any internal change.

Christian Theology insists that all and any Trinitarian models can only ever be that, models, or analogies. The actuality of the Divine Existence is, and will always be, a Mystery that cannot be contained by the human intellect.

The most useful model was given by Augustine, and is called the psychological model: God the Father is God, and God is self-aware; the self-awareness of God we call 'Son', in the same way that 'I' can think about 'me' or 'myself' as though 'I' was other than 'me'.

In man, the 'I' is always conceptual, in regard to the reality of what is, so there is Adam, and there is what Adam thinks himself to be, and we can separate the two, by virtue of the fact there is only one Adam, and adam's self-identity is akin, I suppose, to a virtual Adam?

In God however, being perfect, and under no constraint or limitation, His self knowledge is equal in every way to that which it is knowledge of, so if God is, for the sake of argument a 'person' — a rational substance of an individual nature, as Boethius defines it — then the Son is equally a person, and the Son is, and the Son has, everything the Father is and has, but the Son receives it all from the Father, or as we say this proceeds from the Father as the Father's self-knowledge ... so the Father knows Himself in the Son.

So Father is, without any limitation or determination,
He is being-beyond-being;
The Son is all the Father knows (Logos)

The Spirit encompasses how the Father responds to His self-knowledge, one might say how the Father delights in His own self-hood; and this delight proceeds from the Father, as does this self-knowledge, and this delight is also a person in the sense that it is as perfectly the Father as the Father is Himself ...

So the Son receives all the Father is, and the Son receives all the Father is with all the delight that the Father has in His own self-being ...

So the Father gives Himself to the Son; He gives the Son selfhood, which is His spirit, and that selfhood is the same as the Father, and that Selfhood, which is the Father, is the Spirit ... so Three Persons in an eternal 'circumincession' of self-gift.

However, the Father gives to the Son and the Holy Spirit; the Son gives back to the Father and the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit gives back to the Father and the Son ... but the gift of both Son and Holy Spirit is not equal to the gift of the Father, so the Son and the Holy Spirit, rather than give back what has been given them, make something of the gift and offer that back to the Father, and that, I would argue, is why there is existence.

And why we say creatio ex nihilo.

As Scripture says, it is only when the Spirit of God dwells in the soul of man can man recognise the Son, and he who sees the Son sees the Father, and he who is in the Spirit, is in the Son, is in the Father.

And this is possible here, now, in this world ... all you need is love ... and this is the 'secret' of the beatitude of the blessed of God.

+++

A contemplation of Meister Eckhart say, or the Cloud of Unknowing, will affirm all that I have written here.

+++

I believe God formed all things from Himself, the heavens (Universe) and the earth (Our planet) being a part of Gods entirety.

In which case it would, in all its parts, be divine, omniscient, omnipotent, beyond time and space, not subject to change or alteration, not growing nor decaying ... I think you get my point.

If what you say is true, then God is finite, and subject to corruption and death. God could have already gone quite mad, in which case we're all in trouble.

+++

I don't contend with your beliefs, but I do contend when you put words on the sacred page as it were, when you make Scripture say things it does not say.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Gatekeeper]

Hi GK —

It's an interesting premise, and I have appended the distinctions we would draw in Christianity.

We would say that God is one, God is not a composite.


Well OK, but that's not Scriptural. We tend to treat these kind of ideas as cosmological, in that God is determined according to the experience of nature.


OK. but no mention of 'mother' ... I would say this text is more in line with evolutionary development.


No, that's making Scripture fit your presuppositions, rather than listening to what Scripture is actually saying.

God is one, but the words of Jesus Christ, in which He proclaims His own divinity; His relationship to the Father; His relationship to the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit's relationship to the Father, lead to one of two conclusions: either the whole thing collapses in internal paradox, or there is a revelation about the nature of the Divine Being.

The authors of the New Testament obviously thought the latter.

Having said that, the relationship of the three persons of the Blessed Trinity are external relations — one can be a son, a father, and a son and father, without undergoing any internal change.

Christian Theology insists that all and any Trinitarian models can only ever be that, models, or analogies. The actuality of the Divine Existence is, and will always be, a Mystery that cannot be contained by the human intellect.

The most useful model was given by Augustine, and is called the psychological model: God the Father is God, and God is self-aware; the self-awareness of God we call 'Son', in the same way that 'I' can think about 'me' or 'myself' as though 'I' was other than 'me'.

In man, the 'I' is always conceptual, in regard to the reality of what is, so there is Adam, and there is what Adam thinks himself to be, and we can separate the two, by virtue of the fact there is only one Adam, and adam's self-identity is akin, I suppose, to a virtual Adam?

In God however, being perfect, and under no constraint or limitation, His self knowledge is equal in every way to that which it is knowledge of, so if God is, for the sake of argument a 'person' — a rational substance of an individual nature, as Boethius defines it — then the Son is equally a person, and the Son is, and the Son has, everything the Father is and has, but the Son receives it all from the Father, or as we say this proceeds from the Father as the Father's self-knowledge ... so the Father knows Himself in the Son.

So Father is, without any limitation or determination,
He is being-beyond-being;
The Son is all the Father knows (Logos)

The Spirit encompasses how the Father responds to His self-knowledge, one might say how the Father delights in His own self-hood; and this delight proceeds from the Father, as does this self-knowledge, and this delight is also a person in the sense that it is as perfectly the Father as the Father is Himself ...

So the Son receives all the Father is, and the Son receives all the Father is with all the delight that the Father has in His own self-being ...

So the Father gives Himself to the Son; He gives the Son selfhood, which is His spirit, and that selfhood is the same as the Father, and that Selfhood, which is the Father, is the Spirit ... so Three Persons in an eternal 'circumincession' of self-gift.

However, the Father gives to the Son and the Holy Spirit; the Son gives back to the Father and the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit gives back to the Father and the Son ... but the gift of both Son and Holy Spirit is not equal to the gift of the Father, so the Son and the Holy Spirit, rather than give back what has been given them, make something of the gift and offer that back to the Father, and that, I would argue, is why there is existence.

And why we say creatio ex nihilo.

As Scripture says, it is only when the Spirit of God dwells in the soul of man can man recognise the Son, and he who sees the Son sees the Father, and he who is in the Spirit, is in the Son, is in the Father.

And this is possible here, now, in this world ... all you need is love ... and this is the 'secret' of the beatitude of the blessed of God.

+++

A contemplation of Meister Eckhart say, or the Cloud of Unknowing, will affirm all that I have written here.

+++


In which case it would, in all its parts, be divine, omniscient, omnipotent, beyond time and space, not subject to change or alteration, not growing nor decaying ... I think you get my point.

If what you say is true, then God is finite, and subject to corruption and death. God could have already gone quite mad, in which case we're all in trouble.

+++

I don't contend with your beliefs, but I do contend when you put words on the sacred page as it were, when you make Scripture say things it does not say.

God bless,

Thomas

O.k, so does God exist somewhere within existence in your view? Existence is the totality of things existing, so God certainly cannot exist outside of what exists, and [if] God exists within, then there would be influences outside His being that he would be subject to.

Omnipresent is to be present in all places at all times, omnipotent would mean having unlimited authority, and omniscient would be to have an unlimited and complete knowledge. [If] God is to have all these, then it makes sense to me that God is All in All and All Things existing, perfectly complete and in perfect control over ALL.

"Panentheism" of which I personally subscribe (It just makes sense).

"Creation" has "always" been (It simply existed in another form prior to what it is now). Creation (As we know it) was "brought forth", but it was brought forth through the many changes taking place within an infinite existence. Just as we go through changes, and take on new forms, so it was with "creation" itself.

There was never a time that existence came into being - Existence was not created; it has always been, and will always be. Creation as we know it (On the other hand) was formed through the many changes taking place within existence itself. Creation is simply a finite 'part' of an infinite reality ... Constantly going through changes. Everything finite exists as a part of the infinite and are eternal in nature, only the finite parts of existence go through many transformations, changing from one form to another.

There is common thought that something simply cannot be formed from nothing, so I have a view for you to consider. If something cannot come from nothing, then something has always existed, correct? Call that something existence or God, it simply cannot be denied, as something most certainly exists. Existence being defined as the totality of existing things. Therefore, nothing could possibly exist outside of that which exists, correct?

So, If this is true than we are but a tiny part of existence itself. My question for you is this: Does God exist within and as a part of the totality of existing things, or is it more likely that God "Is" the totality of existing things (Existence itself or Life)? I ask this because if God exists within, then there are influences out side of His being in which God would be subject to.

God is certainly ONE, I personally think of God as having two fundamental aspects to His being "male" (+) and "female" (-). Much like a battery being one yet having both positive (Male) and negative (Female) terminals, God has both male and female aspects to His being, and together the two aspects of God's Oneness make up who God is, which is both the spiritual and material aspects of all existence.

What happens when you connect the positive to the negative terminals of a battery? You get Juice! The same is true in Gods case. When the male aspect of God (Spirit) merges with the female aspect of God (Matter) you get "Life". This basic principle (Male/female) is further demonstrated throughout the animal kingdom. It is also clearly stated in scripture:

"God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."​

Without the spirit and without material matter, there is no life to be had. It takes a combination, a union of spirit and matter to create living souls (Living beings). I do wonder if we are much different than the animal kingdom, though. We certainly have been given dominion, but are we truly any different than other animals, or living things? Genesis was written for man, so it is only natural that a bit more detail be placed on "our" creation. Perhaps we aren't altogether "special" except in that we are more intelligent and more powerful, able to be vessels of death or vessels of life.



GK

 

[Thomas]

O.k, so does God exist somewhere within existence in your view?

Depends how you define 'existence'?

God is a spirit (John 4:24); God is love (1 John 4:7) ... does 'love' exist? Does 'spirit'? Science would tell us no, as neither can be quantified ...

Scripture (Colossians 1) says:
"Who is the image of the invisible God,
the firstborn of every creature:
For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth,
visible and invisible,
whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers:
all things were created by him and in him.
And he is before all, and by him all things consist."
So no, it would seem God does not exist within existence, but prior to it, and thus other than it.

Existence is the totality of things existing, so God certainly cannot exist outside of what exists,

Actually that's logically wrong, because it assumes God is a 'thing' like other 'things', whereas, by definition, God is in a class of Its own, and thus not subject to the laws that govern 'things'.

... and [if] God exists within, then there would be influences outside His being that he would be subject to.

Again, logically wrong. Because God is in a class of Its own, God is not subject to other things.

Omnipresent is to be present in all places at all times, omnipotent would mean having unlimited authority, and omniscient would be to have an unlimited and complete knowledge. [If] God is to have all these, then it makes sense to me that God is All in All and All Things existing, perfectly complete and in perfect control over ALL.

It only makes sense if you're treating God as a thing like other things, which I suggest is an error. God is not like other things — as Scripture says:
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways,
and my thoughts than your thoughts."
Isaiah 55:8-9

"Creation" has "always" been (It simply existed in another form prior to what it is now). Creation (As we know it) was "brought forth", but it was brought forth through the many changes taking place within an infinite existence. Just as we go through changes, and take on new forms, so it was with "creation" itself.

Interesting theory, and one to which I subscribe, in parts ... but something has to begin somewhere, and Kalaam's Argument, which is itself a theory, rather upsets that premise ... doesn't disprove it, but does set up logical problems.

And we have no evidence that creation always existed as a contiguous phenomena. Creatio ex nihilo just relocates 'further back' along your timeline.

The metaphysical argument is, 'why is there anything at all?'

And, from another perspective, the entity which is you never existed before, although the materiality of you was forged in the first moment of the Big Bang.

There was never a time that existence came into being ...

I think you're wrong here. I think 'existence' is a predicate of creation. One can predicate a creation in which nothing exists.

There is common thought that something simply cannot be formed from nothing...

Agreed. But then we do not think as God thinks, do we? Nor is the universe without its mysteries.

... so I have a view for you to consider. If something cannot come from nothing, then something has always existed, correct?

No. I don't accept your premise.

Call that something existence or God, it simply cannot be denied, as something most certainly exists.

Well it can be denied ... but go on ...

Existence being defined as the totality of existing things.

Is it? Not in my book. I think a number of things have to be determined before one starts talking about totalities.

What is it to exist?

How do we define the existence of any one thing?

You have to answer that before you move on to collectives.

Therefore, nothing could possibly exist outside of that which exists, correct?

No, you haven't stipulated what you mean by 'exist' as such.

My question for you is this: Does God exist within and as a part of the totality of existing things...

No. As it is evident in Scripture. God existed before anything that can be said to 'exist' as the term is commonly understood.

... or is it more likely that God "Is" the totality of existing things (Existence itself or Life)?

No. Not at all. if that were true, then there would be no 'things' ...

I ask this because if God exists within, then there are influences out side of His being in which God would be subject to.

God doesn't exist within. The Kingdom exists within (cf Luke 17:21), but that is not the King, and Christ spoke of the Kingdom in many and varied metaphors... the Kingdom is within, it is without ... it is everywhere ...

God is certainly ONE, I personally think of God as having two fundamental aspects to His being "male" (+) and "female" (-).

OK. I tend to think God is beyond gender, which is cosmological.

Much like a battery being one yet having both positive (Male) and negative (Female) terminals, God has both male and female aspects to His being, and together the two aspects of God's Oneness make up who God is, which is both the spiritual and material aspects of all existence.

Now you're into your own narrative, not Scripture at all.

What happens when you connect the positive to the negative terminals of a battery? You get Juice! The same is true in Gods case.

Well you get a huge spark, a short, and a flat battery.

The point is, you're now into your own imagination, and rich as that may be, it's not what Scripture says.

This basic principle (Male/female) is further demonstrated throughout the animal kingdom. It is also clearly stated in scripture:

"God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."​

OK.So he created male and female in his own image, so his own image transcends male and female. I would say, the image is before male and female, which is a subsequent determination, and nothing to do with the nature of God, at all.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Amergin]

Just some thoughts I've had recently: I think that God consists of three parts, first we have the masculine (Fatherly) aspects of God, then we have the feminine (Motherly) aspects of God. The masculine being the "breath of life", the feminine being "matter" and/or the earth.

God formed mankind from the earth and breathed life into humanity. From the womb of "mother" earth we were formed, and by the breath of the "father" we were given life. "The LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

The above are only two aspects of the Godhead -- the masculine (Breath of life) and the feminine (Matter/earth) but there is a third aspect of God which is represented by the "Holy Spirit" -- The love and Wisdom of God. -- All three together complete the Godhead or "marriage" -- Jesus being a perfect and complete manifestation of the Godhead on earth (Anointed one).

The Godhead or Trinity was a faulty concept because it lacked the feminine part. The Father God is widely believed (JHWY, Zeus, Dagda, Ahura Mazda, Jupiter, Aed Alainn, Odin, Amun, and Brahma.) He is quite similar in all of those names.

However it lacks an appropriate name for the feminine part. The Feminine part of the Godhead is known as Gaia, Brigit, Danu, Hera, Mother Earth, and others. However, because Christianity came mainly from Roman Mithraism with its Trinity of Ahura Mazda (father), Mithra (Son and Solar), and Spenta Maingu (Holy Spirit in Farsi) it lacked a feminine named God part. Catholicism elevated Mary, the mother of Jesus, as the Mother Goddess. She is prayed to seriously. In Islam a similar cult used Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad as an Earth Goddess substitute. Mary and Fatima are never called gods but fill in the metaphorical role.

The Wisdom God is clearly identified as Spenta Maingu by the Persians, and a direct translation to the European languages (like English) as "Holy Spirit." Christianity and Islam have failed to design the Trinity with father, mother, and wisdom spirit.

Celtic religion had a father god, Aed Álainn or Dagda. It had a Mother Goddess (Brigit, Danu, or Sila na nGig). Filling the role of Wisdom was Lugh (son of Aed Álainn, and Sun God, bringer of light and wisdom.)

Godhead:

• Masculine aspects of God (Father/breath of life)

• Feminine aspects of God (Mother/matter/earth)

• The loving wisdom of God (Tree of life/Holy Spirit

Father God, Mother Goddess, and Wisdom carrier.

Son of God:

• The complete and perfect manifestation of the Godhead on earth (Christ/anointed one)

The sixteen historical sons of God (Kersey Graves) were never considered the equal of the Father or Mother Gods.
Even Jesus was initially deified as a "created god" subordinate to the Father by St. Paul and Bishop Arius. Athanasius with Constantine formed the illogical Christian Trinity of all three gods being one yet the Gospels clearly contradict this.

I believe God formed all things from Himself, the heavens (Universe) and the earth (Our planet) being a part of Gods entirety. I believe the masculine part of God is spirit or the life giving force of existence (Breath of life). On that same note, I believe the feminine part of God is the material universe, which would (In part) include the earth. I also believe that Gods essence and/or wisdom is "Love". I believe that love (God's wisdom) is the Holy Spirit, and what is also known as the tree of life.

This could make sense if the Gods are metaphors for the actual creation of the Universe by purely natural, unconscious/inanimate physical forces. Early modern humans preferred to give names for the creation force and parts of what it created. The Unified Force Theory may well be my view of what Theists consider the Creator God.

The masculine aspect of God has made the earth (Our planet) habitable, thus the earth (our planet) has become our "mother". In other words, the masculine (+) and feminine (-) aspects of God coupled (Merged) together create "life".

This is again mythical metaphor to offer an imagined explanation for the Universe, Earth, and biological life. Male and Female arose only 2 billion years after asexual life began on Earth. It was well after the evolution of multicellular life forms that some mutated to sexual reproduction which accelerated the process of evolution. Asexual life still exists in bacteria, protista, some primitive multicellular animals, with hermaphrodite reproduction in some of those animals and plants (like fungi.)

Being made in the image of both suggests that we are able to access both the masculine (Positive/spiritual) aspects of God and the feminine (Negative/material) aspects of God. In other words, we have been given great power (Dominion) over all the earths hosts, able to both destroy life and to create and/or sustain life (Flesh vs. Spirit).

I might consider this a poetic and beautiful way to look at the actual blind random processes of creation and evolution.

Amergin

 

[Gatekeeper]

Depends how you define 'existence'?

God is a spirit (John 4:24); God is love (1 John 4:7) ... does 'love' exist? Does 'spirit'? Science would tell us no, as neither can be quantified ...

Spirit equates to that which gives us life, love is a value or principle; neither can be quantified, measured, identified, but that does not suggest that they do not exist.

Scripture (Colossians 1) says:
"Who is the image of the invisible God,
the firstborn of every creature:
For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth,
visible and invisible,
whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers:
all things were created by him and in him.
And he is before all, and by him all things consist."
So no, it would seem God does not exist within existence, but prior to it, and thus other than it.

Again, I'm using the definition that existence is the total of all things existing, which is a common definition of the term. You reject that definition, so there's no point in discussing this further with you.

Actually that's logically wrong, because it assumes God is a 'thing' like other 'things', whereas, by definition, God is in a class of Its own, and thus not subject to the laws that govern 'things'.

God is an entity - NOT a thing! You assume too much, Thomas, but you often take that liberty, don't you? God IS and we exist as a part of HIS being.

Again, logically wrong. Because God is in a class of Its own, God is not subject to other things.

Maybe because God IS all things --

It only makes sense if you're treating God as a thing like other things, which I suggest is an error. God is not like other things — as Scripture says:
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways,
and my thoughts than your thoughts."
Isaiah 55:8-9

I might suggest that we only know what we are able to observe on earth and what little we can obsreve in the Universe. We see things through a finite lens, but God is infinite, no beginning no end, so yes God ways are higher than our own, His thoughts higher than our thoughts, etc.

Interesting theory, and one to which I subscribe, in parts ... but something has to begin somewhere, and Kalaam's Argument, which is itself a theory, rather upsets that premise ... doesn't disprove it, but does set up logical problems.

It began when God formed "creation" from himself. As I suggested God has always existed, and if you would pay attention to what I'm actually saying instead of projecting your biases into my thoughts, we might get somewhere. The logical conclusion is that something has always existed as itself, and that many changes occur within the body that is existence.

And we have no evidence that creation always existed as a contiguous phenomena. Creatio ex nihilo just relocates 'further back' along your timeline.

No evidence that creation as we know it was a result of changes taking place within existence itself? I might suggest that it can be no other way.

The metaphysical argument is, 'why is there anything at all?'

Yeah, well I'm not worried about the why -- We obviously exist as a part of a larger body that is existence.

And, from another perspective, the entity which is you never existed before, although the materiality of you was forged in the first moment of the Big Bang.

I'd suggest that material matter has always existed, and from that matter I was made and given life by the Father. The material aspects of existence is our mother, or rather the feminine aspect of God.

I think you're wrong here. I think 'existence' is a predicate of creation. One can predicate a creation in which nothing exists.

So, are you suggesting that something can be created from nothing?

Agreed. But then we do not think as God thinks, do we? Nor is the universe without its mysteries.

How could we, Thomas? God is an infinite entity and we are finite entities.

No. I don't accept your premise.

I know --

Well it can be denied ... but go on ...

Can it? I suppose one can deny existence with their lips, but no one can escape life and consequence.

Is it? Not in my book. I think a number of things have to be determined before one starts talking about totalities.

Shoot!

How do we define the existence of any one thing?

We are creatures of awareness, Thomas -- Take it from there.

You have to answer that before you move on to collectives.

In Him we live and move and have our being --

No, you haven't stipulated what you mean by 'exist' as such.

I gave the definition of existence as it is defined in the dictionary -- You blindly reject that definition -- So be it!

No. As it is evident in Scripture. God existed before anything that can be said to 'exist' as the term is commonly understood.

You are saying that God existed prior to what exists? Oxymoron -- God existed as existence itself -- That is my premise, but for some reason you reject the definition that existence is the totality of things existing, go figure!

No. Not at all. if that were true, then there would be no 'things' ...

I suppose our cells are no things, and our blood cells are no things, etc. You make no sense!

God doesn't exist within. The Kingdom exists within (cf Luke 17:21), but that is not the King, and Christ spoke of the Kingdom in many and varied metaphors... the Kingdom is within, it is without ... it is everywhere ...

If God does not exist within all that exists, and God cannot exist outside of all that exists, then that must mean God is existence itself. thank you for making my point --

Now you're into your own narrative, not Scripture at all.

It is called an analogy --

The point is, you're now into your own imagination, and rich as that may be, it's not what Scripture says.

Show scriptures that counter my views, then --

OK.So he created male and female in his own image, so his own image transcends male and female. I would say, the image is before male and female, which is a subsequent determination, and nothing to do with the nature of God, at all.

I guess you are free to believe whatever you like, Thomas --



GK

 

[Thomas]

Spirit equates to that which gives us life, love is a value or principle; neither can be quantified, measured, identified, but that does not suggest that they do not exist.

No, I agree, but it does require what we mean by 'exist'.

Again, I'm using the definition that existence is the total of all things existing, which is a common definition of the term. You reject that definition, so there's no point in discussing this further with you.

Not at all. I determine the first definition as that which is accessible to the senses, then that which is accessible to the intellect (beyond the senses) then that which is beyond the intellect ... so my definition is as broad as it can be, but it requires determination beyond that.

Humans exist and are sensibly seen. Human nature exists, but as a universal category, evidenced only in its manifestation, but although human nature is more than the individual, each individual human being possesses that nature entirely. The Good exists, but not in the way a stone exists.

God is an entity - NOT a thing! You assume too much, Thomas, but you often take that liberty, don't you? God IS and we exist as a part of HIS being.

Well how do you differentiate between an 'entity', and a 'thing'? I'm not denying it, I'm saying it has to be qualified to prevent confusion.

God exists. God is an entity, but not a thing. We exist by virtue of His being, but He does not exist by virtue of ours, therefore I would say we are not part of God in the same way my left arm is part of me.

If the universe did not exist, there would still be God. And God would be no different, either way.

Maybe because God IS all things --
I might suggest that we only know what we are able to observe on earth and what little we can observe in the Universe. We see things through a finite lens, but God is infinite, no beginning no end, so yes God ways are higher than our own, His thoughts higher than our thoughts, etc.

I'm suggesting that God is more than all things, because God is not a thing, nor is God composed of things

It began when God formed "creation" from himself.

But that's not what Scripture says.

As I suggested God has always existed, and if you would pay attention to what I'm actually saying instead of projecting your biases into my thoughts, we might get somewhere. The logical conclusion is that something has always existed as itself, and that many changes occur within the body that is existence.

And if you would try and understand what I am saying ... I am saying God is Absolute, Infinite, and therefore not conditional, nor conditioned, by existence.

All things exist by virtue of God, but that does not mean that God exists by virtue of things. They point to His existence, and they say something about the relation between the two. It seems to me you are folding one into the other, so that both are the same? I'm saying God is absolutely independent of existing things.

No evidence that creation as we know it was a result of changes taking place within existence itself? I might suggest that it can be no other way.

But my point is God is not contained within existence, nor conditioned by it. I would say God is beyond that which you categorise as 'within', although immanently present to it, in itself, and in everything else.

For me, it's axiomatic that God existed before anything else did.

Yeah, well I'm not worried about the why

That's a shame. That's the whole point, to me.

I'd suggest that material matter has always existed, and from that matter I was made and given life by the Father. The material aspects of existence is our mother, or rather the feminine aspect of God.

OK. But that's not the Scriptural message, because Scripture states that God existed before matter.

Matter is contingent, and finite, and subject to change, growth and decay, cause and effect, and so on. God is not, therefore I don't see matter as God.

So, are you suggesting that something can be created from nothing?

Yes.

How could we, Thomas? God is an infinite entity and we are finite entities.

That is what I believe. Therefore nothing finite is God.

Can it? I suppose one can deny existence with their lips, but no one can escape life and consequence.

I'm not denying existence. I'm saying God is more than the sum of all that exists.

We are creatures of awareness, Thomas -- Take it from there.

OK.
1: I am aware of myself.
2: I am aware of other things.
3: Other things are not like me.
4: All other things are alike in that they are caused, and subject to causation.
5: God is neither of those two things.
6: God is prior to causation.
7: God is not anything that is caused, and nor is anything that is caused God.

In Him we live and move and have our being

That is true — but that assumes three things: Life, Movement and Being.
God is beyond all three as we understand those terms.

I gave the definition of existence as it is defined in the dictionary -- You blindly reject that definition -- So be it!

No, I don't reject it, nor am I blind, but nor do limit existence as you do.

You are saying that God existed prior to what exists? Oxymoron -- God existed as existence itself -- That is my premise, but for some reason you reject the definition that existence is the totality of things existing, go figure!

Easily. Existence necessarily infers its contrary — non-existence. Existence is usually defined as being present in time and space. If something is not present in time and space, it is said not to exist, although it might have once, or might do in the future.

God is not subject time and space, which means it is possible for many to claim God does not exist, and equally it is impossible to prove that God does exist.

But by that argument I accept that God does not exist in the same sense that other things exist, because by their existence, they can be seen, and become objects of proven determination.

I suppose our cells are no things, and our blood cells are no things, etc. You make no sense!

Actually I think I do. I think you're missing the point by insisting God must be material.

If God does not exist within all that exists, and God cannot exist outside of all that exists, then that must mean God is existence itself. thank you for making my point --

Nonsense. God exists within all things that exist by His presence to them, not by their essence or nature.

And why cannot God exist outside of all things that exist. If that is true, then should the universe cease to exist, which science can prove it will, then God ceases to exist also — which is nonsense.

So I rather think you've demonstrated the error of that argument.

It is called an analogy --

Then it's a poor one, because it leads to erroneous assumptions about the Godhead as Christianity understands it.

Show scriptures that counter my views, then --

Genesis says nothing about God making the universe out of Himself.
Genesis says nothing about a dual deity.
Colossians provides a complete metaphysics which refutes your arguments.

I guess you are free to believe whatever you like, Thomas --

No I'm not, because I don't assume that what I think is right, just because it makes sense to me. I tested my views and assumptions, and found them wanting. I used to believe a number of things about God that I no longer believe.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Gatekeeper]

Actually I think I do. I think you're missing the point by insisting God must be material.


Nonsense. God exists within all things that exist by His presence to them, not by their essence or nature.

And why cannot God exist outside of all things that exist. If that is true, then should the universe cease to exist, which science can prove it will, then God ceases to exist also — which is nonsense.

So I rather think you've demonstrated the error of that argument.


Then it's a poor one, because it leads to erroneous assumptions about the Godhead as Christianity understands it.

Thomas

God is more than just the material aspects of existence -- To me God is also the immaterial aspects of existence. The universe is simply a finite part of an infinite existence that is God. The universe is a part of God, not God in Gods entirety, but rather all existence in its entirety is God, consisting of both the material and the immaterial.

Surely you don't believe that existence ends with our universe? Just because we are hard pressed to see beyond our universe doesn't mean that there is nothing outside our universe. I'm of the mind that existence is infinite, never ending, and without border -- God being the infinite existence, and all things being a part of Gods being.


GK

 

[Thomas]

God is more than just the material aspects of existence -- To me God is also the immaterial aspects of existence. The universe is simply a finite part of an infinite existence that is God. The universe is a part of God, not God in Gods entirety, but rather all existence in its entirety is God, consisting of both the material and the immaterial.

OK. But this is panentheism, not Christianity. In Christianity, God is One and simple, not a composite, nor subject to the contingent.

God is the one and only self-subsisting actuality, so God exists as God, prior to and other than all any any modes of 'being' or 'existence'.

Christianity then (it would seem to me) regards God at the apogee as it were, we look to God in the absolute nature of 'Godness', and not God as immanently present in things. In that sense we align with the 'neti-neti' of Advaita Vedanta, and this sums up the apophatic or mystical dimension of Christianity ... God is in all things, but God is not anything that can be seen, by the eye of the senses or the eye of the mind, God is only accessible as the 'Divine Darkness' to the eye of the heart.

The Cosmos and all things in it is a Theophany (Gk theo (god) + -phaneia (to show), a witness and manifestation of God's creative act, but not God's being as such ... a distinction the Orthodox draw in the differences between God's essence and God's act (energia).

It's interesting that the Orthodox believe that God can only be known in His act, whereas we Romans believe God can be known in His essence. It's a point of difference between us.

"Any mundane reality could yield a theophany, if approached with reverent imagination: a place, a rock, a tree, a man or a woman." — Karen Armstrong; "Divinity and Gender: a God For Both Sexes"; The Economist (London, UK); Dec 21, 1996.

I agree with the above, the metaphysical poets say the same thing, but that is the act of God, not God as such.

In the same way I am much drawn to the Torii in Japan, and Shinto metaphysics generally.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[wil]

Just a note but many of us Christians consider you Romans quite Orthodox....

And as I see it there are many panentheistic Christians out there. Christians follow the teachings of Jesus. They are many, from your RCC, to Lutherans, to Presbys and JWs and Mormons and Baptists, and Rastas....all with a twist, but all centered around Christ. Your church does not hold a corner on Jesus...maybe Mary, definitely the pope and a cadre of saints we've got no need for those, but we enjoy our relationship with Jesus.

Our interpretations disagree, so what, here in the US as a colonialists we were REQUORED to attend the Anglican church once a month...you better get your ass into town and get your name on the attendance rolls or the gov't would come after you on the behalf of G!d....yeah right....we don't bow to that BS any more, the Anglicans (Episcapalians, Cath/light) was the Kings alternative to the RCC and we've moved on from there.

The Catholics today hold three distinctions, still the largest sect of Christianity, also the largest group of non-practicing Christians are Catholic, and they've created the largest group of folks who have left to find solace elsewhere....

If they continue to pound their collective fists on the table and say I am right, you are wrong, and you are not Christian, the numbers that have left and no longer practice will far exceed the faithful.....but they'll 'know' they have G!d on their side.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

I think the thing is that you can believe what you want to but if you want to define your views as Christian then they need to fit within Christianity or at least have a strong case in terms of scripture. otherwise they are your own set of beliefs and there is nowt wrong with that.

 

[wil]

So we'll take everyone that doesn't love their enemies as non christian.

Anyone who can't turn the other cheek or forgive 7x70 as non christian?

Anyone who can't love their neighbor as themselves as non christian...

What you have done to the least of these you have done to me... he challenges us to take care of our brother, the needy we see anywhere and everywhere...

Jesus gives us a pretty high bar to strive towards. Many of us fall short, I think the above are paramount in my book to strive towards....others think they are nothing but nice platitudes, but nothing worth actually looking at.

Sure we can argue semantics about the trinity, or whether someone has been saved or not, or the reality of heaven and hell, but I believe that Jesus gave us more of a challenge than arguing theology, but actually putting our feet on this planet and making a lasting affect, thru love....and that alone is Christianity.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

So we'll take everyone that doesn't love their enemies as non christian.

Anyone who can't turn the other cheek or forgive 7x70 as non christian?

Anyone who can't love their neighbor as themselves as non christian...

What you have done to the least of these you have done to me... he challenges us to take care of our brother, the needy we see anywhere and everywhere...

Jesus gives us a pretty high bar to strive towards. Many of us fall short, I think the above are paramount in my book to strive towards....others think they are nothing but nice platitudes, but nothing worth actually looking at.

Sure we can argue semantics about the trinity, or whether someone has been saved or not, or the reality of heaven and hell, but I believe that Jesus gave us more of a challenge than arguing theology, but actually putting our feet on this planet and making a lasting affect, thru love....and that alone is Christianity.

if you say so wil

 

[wil]

if you say so wil

I was responding to being scripural in your post...are you disagreeing?

It is my opinion of course...as is every post by everyone here...

I think the thing is that you can believe what you want to but if you want to define your views as Christian then they need to fit within Christianity or at least have a strong case in terms of scripture. otherwise they are your own set of beliefs and there is nowt wrong with that.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

I was responding to being scripural in your post...are you disagreeing?

It is my opinion of course...as is every post by everyone here...

well i disagree with last bit about that alone is Christianity, as for the rest well if you say so.

you can believe what you like, however if you try and then pass off your beliefs as christianity when they are not then that is deception IMO.

 

[wil]

well i disagree with last bit about that alone is Christianity, as for the rest well if you say so.

you can believe what you like, however if you try and then pass off your beliefs as christianity when they are not then that is deception IMO.

So if you are hate poeple you can't be christian right?

if you don't forgive people, not christian belief right?

If you've got issues with your neighbor, don't love one another, not a Christian, right?

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

So if you are hate poeple you can't be christian right?

if you don't forgive people, not christian belief right?

If you've got issues with your neighbor, don't love one another, not a Christian, right?

if you want to go around judging people thats your call.

 

[Gatekeeper]

OK. But this is panentheism, not Christianity. In Christianity, God is One and simple, not a composite, nor subject to the contingent.

God is the one and only self-subsisting actuality, so God exists as God, prior to and other than all any any modes of 'being' or 'existence'.

Christianity then (it would seem to me) regards God at the apogee as it were, we look to God in the absolute nature of 'Godness', and not God as immanently present in things. In that sense we align with the 'neti-neti' of Advaita Vedanta, and this sums up the apophatic or mystical dimension of Christianity ... God is in all things, but God is not anything that can be seen, by the eye of the senses or the eye of the mind, God is only accessible as the 'Divine Darkness' to the eye of the heart.

The Cosmos and all things in it is a Theophany (Gk theo (god) + -phaneia (to show), a witness and manifestation of God's creative act, but not God's being as such ... a distinction the Orthodox draw in the differences between God's essence and God's act (energia).

It's interesting that the Orthodox believe that God can only be known in His act, whereas we Romans believe God can be known in His essence. It's a point of difference between us.

"Any mundane reality could yield a theophany, if approached with reverent imagination: a place, a rock, a tree, a man or a woman." — Karen Armstrong; "Divinity and Gender: a God For Both Sexes"; The Economist (London, UK); Dec 21, 1996.

I agree with the above, the metaphysical poets say the same thing, but that is the act of God, not God as such.

In the same way I am much drawn to the Torii in Japan, and Shinto metaphysics generally.

God bless,

Thomas

I'm a Panentheist Christian who believes in universal reconciliation. I am far from being orthodox, but I am a Christian just the same. You suggest that God is not a collection (Composite) yet you have 3 gods who make up the Godhead, so I'm confused -- Is God one God or three, or is it four?

Existence can be viewed as ONE entity, and much like the body of Christ being one body, having many parts, so it is with existence itself. In the same manner I am one body, but there are many things that contribute to the whole. My heart, my brain, my liver, my arms, legs, feet, my cells etc. It's all me, none of what makes me me is separate from my oneness as a living soul.

I Am a monotheist in the greatest sense of the term, as panentheism sees the whole of existence as being one God -- Not three separate Gods that somehow create the Godhead. I also view existence to be conscious, hence my view that love and wisdom is the essence of Gods being.

Jesus was a perfect representation of God's fullness, not only was he like us, but he also possessed God's love and wisdom, which is what completes every man, making us children of God.


GK

 

[Gatekeeper]

if you want to go around judging people thats your call.

According to you (And Thomas) Wil and I are not Christians because you 'think' we misrepresent Christianity. The truth is that the message of Jesus was never meant to become a religion, but rather a way of life as demonstrated by the man himself.

Being Christian entails surrender to God, which entails service to our fellow man and even other living beings. We were never meant to rule, but we were rather born to serve. Is this not the Christian message, NiceCupOfTea?


GK

 

[wil]

if you want to go around judging people thats your call.

Judging, I am asking a series of questions, a line of inquiry to define what you have previously stated. I am asking you to support your contention, judging no one.

I think the thing is that you can believe what you want to but if you want to define your views as Christian then they need to fit within Christianity or at least have a strong case in terms of scripture. otherwise they are your own set of beliefs and there is nowt wrong with that.

Evidently I am grossly misinterpretting your meaning...please clarify.