A sovereign God question

[3bob]

How many here have experienced "God" as a sovereign Being?

 

How many here believe in God as a sovereign Being?

 

How many wonder why God is not acting as a sovereign Being when it comes to mankind on Earth?

(going by all or many indications)

 

Also, is a sovereign God 100% responsible and accountable for his creation(s), just as we are 100% responsible and accountable for our karma? (although we do get help with it)

 

[taiwabbit]

How many here believe in God as a sovereign Being?

Can you please further define this with specifics as you what you mean subjectively?

[3bob]

God (the Father) as a sovereign Being, that is pretty straightforward.

[SonOfTheGods]

God (the Father) as a sovereign Being, that is pretty straightforward.

Hopefully, once one attains enlightenment, all thoughts of an external god should dissipate.

 

The god of the abrahamic religions is as blood thirsty-demonic as they come, and anyone who is enlightened should know better.

[3bob]

that wasn't the question, if you want to pursue that line start another string.

[SonOfTheGods]

that wasn't the question, if you want to pursue that line start another string.

So you struck down both replies.

 

Why not just give us your correct answer then

 

3bob

How many here believe in God as a sovereign Being?

 

SonOfTheGods

Hopefully, once one attains enlightenment, all thoughts of an external god should dissipate.

sounds pretty clear to me

Edited September 3, 2013 by SonOfTheGods

[3bob]

SOTG,

I didn't start this string to argue about the experience or belief just seeing how many are into same, obviously you are not into same which is fine for you so have at in your own string... is that asking to much?

 

By the way in your own string I suggest not limiting "sovereign" to just Abrahamic religions. (which I somewhat did here via the terminology although such was not stated or meant as the limit)

[Jeff]

Hi 3bob,

 

For what it is worth, I have found many "divine beings", but I have never found a "God, the Father". It may also just be the way that I conceive of the concept.

 

Regards,

Jeff

[Seth Ananda]

I don't like to say 'I believe' because for me its it's based on my direct experience and not some far off fantasy based on words in a book.

 

So, In my experience there is an active side to the Divine. Naos, Divine intelligence, the interactive mind of existence.

 

It is utterly Sovereign.

 

I consider schools that focus only on 'Being', 'Oneness' or the 'Unconditioned' to be incomplete and missing half the picture.

 

They may be really good at getting students to have or 'recognise' that experience/state but it takes something else to meet the Universal Mind.

 

Those schools are naturally good for people who are not ready to accept something 'greater' than themselves or themSelves yet.

 

Oneness, Peace, Bliss and Being are like the safe side of Divinity.

They are safe as in they/it won't ask anything of you personally. In fact often within those schools, your personality {and you personally} does not even really matter, as its all about the underlying vastness and so on...

 

But these schools can only really satisfy the mind and not the heart, not ultimately. The Heart requires relationship.

[RiverSnake]

I don't like to say 'I believe' because for me its it's based on my direct experience and not some far off fantasy based on words in a book.

 

So, In my experience there is an active side to the Divine. Naos, Divine intelligence, the interactive mind of existence.

 

It is utterly Sovereign.

 

I consider schools that focus only on 'Being', 'Oneness' or the 'Unconditioned' to be incomplete and missing half the picture.

 

They may be really good at getting students to have or 'recognise' that experience/state but it takes something else to meet the Universal Mind.

 

Those schools are naturally good for people who are not ready to accept something 'greater' than themselves or themSelves yet.

 

Oneness, Peace, Bliss and Being are like the safe side of Divinity.

They are safe as in they/it won't ask anything of you personally. In fact often within those schools, your personality {and you personally} does not even really matter, as its all about the underlying vastness and so on...

 

But these schools can only really satisfy the mind and not the heart, not ultimately. The Heart requires relationship.

Seth, in your experience what is the best way to approach and experience this sovereign aspect of the Divine?

 

My, 2 cents, Peace

[3bob]

"It is utterly Sovereign"

Seth,

 

Thanks for stepping up to plate! (as we say in the US) Nice to hear your feelings on the matter.

 

 

 

[roger]

3bob,

 

I strongly believe in a Father/Mother God/Goddess as an all-good, all-powerful Being.

 

In Neale Donald Walsch's book, Conversations with God, God says, "Do you imagine that God can't laugh at a good joke?"

 

He also says something that Paramhansa Yogananda taught, which is that, if the CREATION can have personality, then the CREATOR must be capable of having it.

 

I will add though that in another one of Walsch's books "God" says, "God is not a singular super-being, but All Being." But the thing is that YOU and I are equally that Universal Being.

 

Why doesn't "God" do something about the world? Well, first of all, He/She IS acting, just not in the way a PERSON might find appropriate or helpful. God may have been involved in some way in the creation of this website, for example.

 

Why is there evil? Because God WANTS there to be!

 

God explains in Walsch's book, Tomorrow's God, that EVERYTHING that could possibly happen, has happened somewhere in the Universe, so All That Is could FULLY experience life.

 

In other words, God (All That Is) wanted ALL POSSIBILITIES to exist, so we could have "total experience."

[3bob]

Roger,

 

I have some agreement with you although I'm mostly into or interested in the teachings of Vedanta and certain forms of Hinduism. (where the universal Shakti is taught) Thus a melding of Christianity (as it is often known) into non-dualistic school of teaching is at least a problematic to perhaps an impossible foray for me...

Edited September 5, 2013 by 3bob

[dawei]

But these schools can only really satisfy the mind and not the heart, not ultimately. The Heart requires relationship.

 

Do you separate man out of the 'ten thousand'?

 

I can only interpret from your use of 'heart' that you maybe want to treat man differently than everything else which has arisen in material form.

[Seth Ananda]

Do you separate man out of the 'ten thousand'?

 

I can only interpret from your use of 'heart' that you maybe want to treat man differently than everything else which has arisen in material form.

 

Hmm im not sure what you mean, unless you are trying to box me within a Taoist set of definitions?

 

I could say of course man is different to ten thousand other things, because hey, they are ten thousand other things... lol

[dawei]

Hmm im not sure what you mean, unless you are trying to box me within a Taoist set of definitions?

 

I could say of course man is different to ten thousand other things, because hey, they are ten thousand other things... lol

 

I am not trying to box you in. You seem to admit there are 10,000 things out there; do you subdivide them all into what their individual needs may be vs another's needs?

 

I am just trying to see how much you simply subdivide down to the lowest level and stop treating some things on equal level.

 

As an example: What is the 'need' for those things which do not have a heart?

 

 

I guess I am trying to figure out your basis for your comment that the 'heart needs relationships', when there are things which equally share existence which do not have a heart.

 

and when you said it is 'utterly Sovereign'... is it Sovereign over those things which do not possess a heart? If so, is the Sovereign-ness exactly the same over both (all) or differ because of things nature (has a heart vs does not have a heart).

 

I am not saying your simply speaking human-centric but my responses are looking at that idea on some level...

Edited September 8, 2013 by dawei

[Seth Ananda]

As an example: What is the 'need' for those things which do not have a heart?

 

Well as an animist, I don't really consider that 'things' don't have hearts.

 

I hope it would be obvious that I am not talking about the physical heart here...

 

But back on to Humans, the heart needs relationship to be deeply fulfilled, and as far as I am concerned, the fulfillment of the heart is more important than the fulfillment of the mind.

 

All I can really say is that until I had that experience, I really had no Idea what I had been missing.

[xor]

How many here have experienced "God" as a sovereign Being?

 

I haven't.

 

How many here believe in God as a sovereign Being?

 

Nope. The entire idea has always seemed foreign to me.

[dawei]

Well as an animist, I don't really consider that 'things' don't have hearts.

 

I hope it would be obvious that I am not talking about the physical heart here...

 

But back on to Humans, the heart needs relationship to be deeply fulfilled, and as far as I am concerned, the fulfillment of the heart is more important than the fulfillment of the mind.

 

All I can really say is that until I had that experience, I really had no Idea what I had been missing.

 

I was not sure your meaning of 'heart' and that's why I asked... Thanks for the explanation... now I can understand your angle and meaning.

 

I would then agree with what you are suggesting that everything has a 'heart'... and to me, there is an inner connection it has to the 'source'; so we may use different words for what it may find it needs/seeks (relationship vs source) and have a different 'other' in mind but we are not really separating things up so much.

[Jadespear]

Where does this idea of a sovereign anything come from? Rather than asking what others believe, would it not make more sense to understand the basis of such a belief in the first place?

 

The idea of "sovereign" obviously comes from cultures from antiquity who ruled, governed, and maintained their civilizations through force. The concept of "sovereignty" is directly tied to omnipotence, of being all powerful and able to force anything to do anything. Is there any evidence that not only a force such as this exists, but that it also comes from a sentient being?

 

The idea of "God" as such as this is Western/Islamic conceptual creation.

 

In truth, are we not all "sovereign" unto ourselves? In absolute power over ourselves, in absolute control over ourselves? The idea expressed and extended outwardly, power over anything outside of ourselves comes from the cultures that created it, that were attempting to control and dominate other people, things, concepts, and ideas to their own ends....mostly for their own survival, inspired greatly by fear, greed, and egotistical pride.

 

"Truth is not contingent upon belief."

[traveler]

Seth Ananda: All I can really say is that until I had that experience, I really had no Idea what I had been missing.

 

Please share your experience with us if it is not too personal.

[traveler]

There is nothing like experience to clarify what we are talking about. If you wake in the night and see an angel standing there, then what else can anyone expect other than you will now believe in angels. If you have touched an immortal and felt flesh and bones then you suddenly feel a deep conviction that immortals actually have physical bodies. See, experience is all that matters. No one has the same beliefs because no one has the same experiences. Are these other-world beings actual and real? They say they are more real than we are, that they are not archetypes. When we die or move on into another existence in any other way, do we stop being a person or stop being real? Are we less real because we are no longer here in this plane?

 

I have read that expanding consciousness is about becoming more not less. When you learn who you are, which is the crux of the meaning of enlightenment according to many teachers, why would that mean that you lose your own identity? Likewise, if you find God/Goddess through meditative prayer and find Him/Her to be real, then later find that All of Creation is a Void, who is to say which impression is most correct?

 

There is a light at the end of the tunnel. The dark night, or void, is breeched in the end and you find a world of Totality, Nirvana, where God/Goddess come back to being with you, beyond the Nothingness. This is my take on this, but Osho taught the same concept. "Experience and Non-experience merge to form something new, which is the seventh body. (Osho paraphrased)" That boils down to this: There is a God/Goddess and though you may feel that God is simply All That Is, and has no focal point, He/She is a Totality meaning that He/She not only has no focal point denoted by the Nothingness, but also HAS a focal point. Totality means all experiences, nothing left out. When I know myself in Totality it is all there, nothing left out. Nothing forgotten, everything accepted. This is balance. If we are expected to do this, does not this same law of existence apply even to God/Goddess or to All of Creation?

 

So I say there is nothing unreal about seeking a God/Goddess especially if you find such a relationship.

 

Here is an early experience of mine as an example of what I am talking about:

 

I had an experience near the end of 2006 which was a landmark in my path, a central experience. At the time, all else was thought of by me as either preceding or coming after this event. It was my first experience with this level of prayer - a prayer which opened and has never closed; even through all these years, I still feel this Light day and night. The Hindus call this samadhi, I call it Infinite Joy and Light, Ra calls this contact with Intelligent Infinity. This experience was not the final chorus which some call Unity, but a prelude to the Light, and new territory for me. Yes, I felt the Spirit before this, and since then, many other doors into this God-feeling have opened, but, this was a central experience, the key to all others of its kind.

 

When I was 17, I opened up communication with God through prayer and from then on heard a voice in my head; prayer had become a two-way conversation and grew from there. When I was quite older, I began meditating and studying metaphysics.

One thing I played with was expanding my awareness outward to include those around me and also expanded into objects or animals.

 

One day, I got an idea, "What if, while I am praying to God, I expand my awareness to include Him, just as I do with people or things?" I knelt in prayer and said, "Father." The prayer feeling came over me and then I expanded my awareness to include the place where this feeling came from. I pushed myself outward, growing myself into His dimension, into the place I called to when addressing God.

As soon as I had done this, I was dreadfully sorry. All thoughts using words fled from my mind. Only emotions remained, and they screamed with pain. Then even my emotions fled. I felt as if a giant glove had reached down and grabbed my head in a death grip.

I continued to call upon God. It took a great effort. "Father, can you hear me?” No answer. I was alone. Just me and this gripping feeling of nothingness. No words, no pictures. Every normal thought was suppressed.

With time, the feeling went away. From then on, every time I tried to pray, I was thrust into this void. I realized that I would never be able to pray in the manner I had been using for years. Instead of avoiding prayer, I prayed more often. This nothingness persisted for a couple of months before I broke through into Infinite Joy and Light

 

This new sensation built and built until it felt as if light was pouring through every pore of my skin, through every square inch of my being. I was on fire with Light. I had entered the void as a result of attempting to include God within my expanding awareness as I prayed. But, what caused this feeling of Joy and Light to open, I can't say. It just happened. (journal)

 

Now, the question asked in this thread is whether or not God/Goddess is a sovereign being. I say yes, and I say no. Both are true for me.

[chegg]

From a christian (with a touch of mysticism) perspective:

 

 

"it is impossible to grasp this mystery by human reason" - St. Spyridon [1] [2]

 

 

That statement above should basically shut me up. But I will go on.......

 

We could however, make an attempt at crudely describing a few properties exhibited by GOD. What do we hear from others about GOD?

(i) He is the creator [bible].
(ii) He creates in his own image [bible].
(iii) He is the everlasting life/light [1] [2].
(iv) He has a 'will-pleasure' (not a desire) to manifest himself everywhere i.e., to manifest his total wisdom, total love and total almightyness. [1] [2].
(v) He has Manifested himself within himself. [1]
(vi) Grace is also an attribute of God (Ex. 34:6; 22:27; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2) [1]
(vii) God is not a respecter of persons. (Deut 10:17; Job 34:19; Acts 10:34; Rom 2:11; Eph 6:9). [1]
(viii) God is not biased. [1]
(ix) God has no partiality. [1]

 

 

Part (vii) gave me a wierd kind of feeling, sort of like "dont get too chummy with me bro". As far as having a direct experience of a soveriegn God goes, one couldn't possibly ever put it into words. I couldnt tell you what a banana tastes like. You would need to experience it directly for yourself. And so it is with God.

 

 

Incidentally, I like St. Spyridon's summary.....

 

"Listen, philosopher, to what I tell thee: we believe, that the Almighty God from out of nothing did create by His Word and His Spirit both heaven and earth, and all the world both visible and invisible. The Word is the Son of God, Who didst come down upon the earth on account of our sins; he wast born of a Virgin, He lived amongst mankind, and suffered and died for our salvation, and then He arose, having redeemed by His sufferings the Original Sin, and He hath resurrected with Him the human race. We believe, that He is One in Essence and Equal-in-Dignity with the Father, and we believe this without any sly rationalisations, since it is impossible to grasp this mystery by human reason"

 

 

 

Love to the Bums :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub:

Edited November 5, 2013 by chegg

[yabyum24]

The whole 'God' question is a tough one to answer, as it very much depends where you're coming from but I'll throw in my 2 cents.

 

Simple answer (usually to evangelical types on my doorstep) "I don't believe in god".

 

The truth is way more nuanced. I reject the idea of a "Sovereign" God, as such a being not only discriminates and judges but can also be offended etc. If there is such a being, then it has not attained samatha - or even tasted first jhana. It just rings like some kind of ridiculous projection that "believers" expect everyone else to believe in, in order to paper over their own insecurities. If your kid won't behave and doesn't believe in father Christmas or the bogey man anymore... well there's god you see.

 

Many Buddhists counter by saying that emptiness is the "ultimate" without seeing the obvious contradiction there. Some even present nirvana as a post-death final extinction, akin the the western materialist view of death. This has to be total nihilist baloney, as how would you ever know? Who could ever "know" complete and utter extinction and return to tell of it? (Shaivite objection here).

 

Their view is in opposition to the suttas where Buddha speaks of "consciousness without feature" - an unconditioned state. The earlier tantras speak of the mixture of bliss and awareness (awareness still there btw). By it's very nature, it has to be a state where the experience and the experient are indistinguishabe (Ksemaraja). But not extinguished.

 

So by positing an independent creator god we create a "positive" concept or idea, something dualistic (me vs my deity). By positing a "nothingness" or annihilation/cessation of awareness we create a negative concept or idea.

 

The final state is beyond any concepts because it is beyond duality and this is tough to grasp, when the only tools at our disposal to discuss it are relative concepts and ideas.

[silent thunder]

In order for me to see a God, I must blindfold myself.

The blindfold I place on myself projects a sweet and scary picture of God.

Wearing this, leaves little room for other perception, so I seldom wear it anymore...