Thoughts about God

[DreamBliss]

So far, in my spiritual journey, I have been exposed to two views about God.

 

As a Christian God is seen as the bearded man in the sky somewhere. God is seperate. God is loving, but can be angry or jealous. God judges, God is affected by the things we do, think or say. God hates sin. God is outside of me, seperate from me. God has some sort of plan for His creation. This idea of God does not evolve.

 

Now, as whatever this is, the Source is seen as both outside of and one with all of creation. The Source is seen as an energy, The Source has no ego. The Source remians unaffected by what I do, say or think. The Source sees the Truth of who I am. The Source has no plans and does not judge. The Source just is. The Source may be loving in essence, but there is uncertainty here, because if love exists then so does the possibility of its opposite. This idea of God, as Source, is still evolving.

 

But this brings up two nearly identical questions.

 

If the Christian idea of God is true, and Heaven is perfect, where did the sin of jealousy come from, that Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels woudl fall? There can be no imperfection in perfection. If God is perfect, if Heaven, His home is perfect, then sin can not exist there. It could no more grow there then a redwood seed could sprout and grow on the moon.

 

If, on the other hand, God is not seperate, if the Source is one with all of creation, how did parts of itself decide that they wanted to be seperate, to become you and I, the things in creation, and experience things from that persepctive? If the Source is in some unchanging state, free of any ego, and therefrore desireless, how did parts of itself desire to experience seperation? It would be the same as if my arm suddendly desired to experience life seperate from my body, and dropped off.

 

This is telling me there is something wrong with both perspectives of God. There are holes in each definition where there should be no holes.

 

What do you think? What is your explanation?

Edited July 30, 2014 by DreamBliss

[rene]

Hi DreamBliss

I think all humans experience a singular ____, and try to express what they sense, that which resonates in their hearts, in their own way - with the tools and nomenclature their culture provides. Some may perceive ____ to a greater degree than others, and some may be better at expressing what they understand than others.

 

That said,

All ideas or concepts about ____ wil be limited not only by the tools at hand, but also the reality that ____ cannot be fully described, even when understood. Because of this, any idea professed to be complete will, naturally, have the holes in it you describe; the more complex the idea, the more fish-netty it becomes.

The idea closest to expressing my understanding is found within the 'simultaneous both'. We are both separate and not-separate, from each other and ____, at the same time. Both.

Standing alone and unchanging,
Ever present and in motion.
Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things.
I do not know its name ( ___ )
Call it Tao.
LZ:25

warm regards

[Green Tiger]

 

There are some enlightened Christians who have said you should see Jesus in everyone you meet. He's the prisoner, the beggar, the servant, and everyone else.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

I don't believe in either view of God. I think everything comes to be from cause and effect, and there isn't an absolute person or consciousness or energy that started it all off, or transcends cause and effect, or is one with everything.

 

For me 'Tao' is the nature of things, a verb rather than a noun, not a special thing that is one with everything or that everything comes from.

 

I am not a theist or pantheist, and I'm not an atheist either because I don't believe in materialism. Many people tend to think that there's either some sort of God, or only the physical, and it doesn't occur to them that there could be spiritual things without any sort of God: a nontheistic spirituality.

[gentlewind]

To be honest I have no 'concrete' thoughts about g_d. We can theorize all we want about what g_d is or is not, but in my humble opinion its a waste of time and energy. Hopefully no one will find my words offensive!!!

 

I have been banned from a 'spiritual' forum because I said organised religion is nothing more than mind control. The religious members were offended and couldn't bring themselves to forgive me - turn the other cheek!!!

 

The term I prefer when discussing this subject is, Source. I have no clue as to what the Source is, but am of the opinion that all Life comes from the Source.

 

Creating ego influenced g_d's appears to be a popular pastime on our planet!

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

So far, in my spiritual journey, I have been exposed to two views about God.

 

As a Christian God is seen as the bearded man in the sky somewhere. God is seperate. God is loving, but can be angry or jealous. God judges, God is affected by the things we do, think or say. God hates sin. God is outside of me, seperate from me. God has some sort of plan for His creation. This idea of God does not evolve.

 

Now, as whatever this is, the Source is seen as both outside of and one with all of creation. The Source is seen as an energy, The Source has no ego. The Source remians unaffected by what I do, say or think. The Source sees the Truth of who I am. The Source has no plans and does not judge. The Source just is. The Source may be loving in essence, but there is uncertainty here, because if love exists then so does the possibility of its opposite. This idea of God, as Source, is still evolving.

 

But this brings up two nearly identical questions.

 

If the Christian idea of God is true, and Heaven is perfect, where did the sin of jealousy come from, that Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels woudl fall? There can be no imperfection in perfection. If God is perfect, if Heaven, His home is perfect, then sin can not exist there. It could no more grow there then a redwood seed could sprout and grow on the moon.

 

If, on the other hand, God is not seperate, if the Source is one with all of creation, how did parts of itself decide that they wanted to be seperate, to become you and I, the things in creation, and experience things from that persepctive? If the Source is in some unchanging state, free of any ego, and therefrore desireless, how did parts of itself desire to experience seperation? It would be the same as if my arm suddendly desired to experience life seperate from my body, and dropped off.

 

This is telling me there is something wrong with both perspectives of God. There are holes in each definition where there should be no holes.

 

What do you think? What is your explanation?

 

 

Separation from the source of creation is an illusion, dream, facade, a lie. but more believable - in general regards to civilization and selfish pursuits - than that we are all god.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

 

There are some enlightened Christians who have said you should see Jesus in everyone you meet. He's the prisoner, the beggar, the servant, and everyone else.

 

 

Jesus is trapped in the psychotic game of what if! (lol thread matrix)

[gentlewind]

Mark Twain - India has 2,000,000 gods, and worships them all. In religion, other countries are paupers; India is the only millionaire.

[GrandmasterP]

There's no 'God' as such.

It's all Tao and there's absolutely no requirement to worship Tao.

Unless one wants to do so.

Hope that helps.

Edited July 30, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[silent thunder]

To be honest I have no 'concrete' thoughts about g_d. We can theorize all we want about what g_d is or is not, but in my humble opinion its a waste of time and energy. Hopefully no one will find my words offensive!!!

 

I have been banned from a 'spiritual' forum because I said organised religion is nothing more than mind control. The religious members were offended and couldn't bring themselves to forgive me - turn the other cheek!!!

 

The term I prefer when discussing this subject is, Source. I have no clue as to what the Source is, but am of the opinion that all Life comes from the Source.

 

Creating ego influenced g_d's appears to be a popular pastime on our planet!

I'm partial to the term Source as well.

I appreciate its neutrality and inclusiveness.

 

In the end, defining _____ is much like the 'what if' game.

It is a game without end, that begins whenever and has no discernible rules, until you break someone else's and they then try to break you in response.

[rene]

 

There are some enlightened Christians who have said you should see Jesus in everyone you meet. He's the prisoner, the beggar, the servant, and everyone else.

 

Hi Green Tiger, yes! those who see easily recognize the ____ within everyone. I leave it to others to explore and debate the delightful manifested differences between people and their ideas; I play down in the roots. (-:

 

warm regards

 

 

p.s..RV - nice to see you too!

 

 

[Green Tiger]

 

Hi Green Tiger, yes! those who see easily recognize the ____ within everyone. I leave it to others to explore and debate the delightful manifested differences between people and their ideas; I play down in the roots. (-:

 

warm regards

 

 

p.s..RV - nice to see you too!

 

I like that you use ___ instead of saying 'God'. Words are symbols and ___ really cannot be adequately symbolized.

 

The ___ that can be called 'God' is not the true ___.

[rene]

I like that you use ___ instead of saying 'God'. Words are symbols and ___ really cannot be adequately symbolized.

 

The ___ that can be called 'God' is not the true ___.

 

 

Only for clarity, I dont use ____ to symbolize 'God'.

 

I use ____ to represent that which palpably resonates within; that we weave and sing into ideas like 'God', 'Source' 'Separate', 'Not-Separate' and 'Tao'. Yes, even 'Tao' is just an idea.... or so it seems to me. (-:

 

warmest regards

[DreamBliss]

To be honest I have no 'concrete' thoughts about g_d. We can theorize all we want about what g_d is or is not, but in my humble opinion its a waste of time and energy. Hopefully no one will find my words offensive!!!

 

I have been banned from a 'spiritual' forum because I said organised religion is nothing more than mind control. The religious members were offended and couldn't bring themselves to forgive me - turn the other cheek!!!

 

The term I prefer when discussing this subject is, Source. I have no clue as to what the Source is, but am of the opinion that all Life comes from the Source.

 

Creating ego influenced g_d's appears to be a popular pastime on our planet!

 

I am sorry to hear that happened to you. I love how unchristian Christians can tend to be. How they can read a passage such as "Turn the other cheek..." or "Love one another..." then do something like that. It makes me sad for them, that they are so immature and insecure in their faith. They haven't figured out yet that God is perfectly capable of defending Himself and has no need of any human defense or intervention. Also they have not yet learned that of something is True, nothing anyone does, says or thinks will change it. So if their beliefs are True, if the Bible is Truth, then it will live on, eternally and infinitely, no matter what. If it is not True then it will fade away. Nothing that is not True stands for long.

 

I agree that orgainized religion is mind control. And if a forums banned me for saying that, then I would be glad, because that would not be a healthy forums for me to be visiting. I think an organized religion such as Christanity is a basic, "baby food" sort of spirituality, perfect for those who are not ready for real "meat and potatoe" spiritaulity. I think O.R. speaks best to those who are very narrow or simple minded. If any of what I have said here hurts or sparks offense I do apologize. But I am only sharing my opinion, and as I was a Christian for 20 years, I think I earned that right. In my experience O.R. works well for those who are unable or unwilling to think for themselves.

 

My view of the originator, previously God, now Source, is that this is a sort of sentient energy that is one with all of creation, connecting all of us. But, as I said, I see the hole in this viewpoint. So my idea of Source may be changing again soon. I do think that everything started somehow, and I doubt the big bang theory is the answer. I am leaning towards an initial creation, from which everything evolved. But I may be leaving this viewpoint behind.

 

Unlike when I was a Christian, my beliefs about Source are free to change. I can release them as needed. My spiritual pratice is not a part of my identity. As a Christian my religion was a part of my identity. I think this is why Christians, and followers of other O.R., attack any who challenge their beliefs. Because any attack on their religion is also an attack on their identity. Millions have died in human history because of this stupdity, because of this thing called ego. Millions more may die before we all learn, as a race, how to move past the ego and live harmoniously with each other and our planet. Before we learn how to believe whatever we believe, and hold those beliefs loosely, not making them a part of our identity.

 

I guess when I started this thread I was hoping for some understanding. If we are one with the Source, yet we created this illusion of seperation, how does that work? Why would Source need or want to see itself from any other perspective? How could parts of the Source create this illusion? Because as I said, if the Source is desireless, then there should have been nothing that would drive the creation of this illusion of seperation.

 

And the idea that on dying, the ultimate goal is to merge back into the Source, sounds about as fun to me as the idea of sticking around Heaven for eternity. The astral planes are reportadly vast. I would like to go exploring once I am free of my physical body. That alone might take me many thousands of years. I have no more interest in going to Heaven than I do to end up in Hell, and no more interest in either of those than merging into the Source, no matter how wonderous the experience may be. I want to be free to explore. I want to experience the freedom there I have, as yet, been unable to experience here in physical reality.

 

I just don't want to adopt another Holy (pun intended) belief system, and this Advaitist's "We are all one with everything..." non-belief belief system seems to be as flawed as the Christian's. It was part of my definition of the Source, and it fits in some ways, such as everything's interconnectedness, but in other ways things don't seem right. Maybe my understanding is wrong. Just looking for clarity here.

Edited July 31, 2014 by DreamBliss

[rene]

I just don't want to adopt another Holy (pun intended) belief system, and this Advaitist's "We are all one with everything..." non-belief belief system seems to be as flawed as the Christian's. It was part of my definition of the Source, and it fits in some ways, such as everything's interconnectedness, but in other ways things don't seem right. Maybe my understanding is wrong. Just looking for clarity here.

 

Hi DreamBliss,

 

I think your understandings of the two systems are pretty spot-on. The "We are all one with everything" belief systems, and the "We are separate from Creator" belief systems, are opposite sides of the same coin... that spins in the "either/or" spiral.

 

Christianity and other diety based systems play on the 'separate' side, with all kinds of ideas and instructions to find/embrace Creator, etc, with the goal to 'let Him in' (meaning, you are separate until you do).

 

The 'everything is interconnected' (Source) systems fall apart when it's held that 'everything is only interconnected'; some traditions go as far as saying separatness/reality/you is (are) an illusion.

 

Either of those two are kind of hard to swallow as stand-alone systems: The first falls on their outer surface levels (only separate), and the second fails at a bit deeper level, because it, too, is exclusionary (only not-separate).

 

"Either/or" thinking is very hard to overcome; it's easier to choose one side of the coin or the other.

 

To me, you and I are both separate and not-separate at the same time.

 

You are a real person living wherever doing your thing - and I am a real person living somewhere other than where you are, doing my own separate thing. AND You and I are interconnected not only because we share the same ____ , but also through the sharing of hearts, energy and space; your thoughts and words affect me; mine, you. I perceive and dwell in the unboundaried connection we share as fully as I perceive and enjoy the uniqueness of our separate selves.

 

This idea is not everyone's cup of tea, but for me it's natural and as simple as breathing. I like simple. Even my 'after death' idea is simple, but this post is already too long. (-:

 

warm regards

[DreamBliss]

rene

 

I am curious, what are your "after death" thoughts? I re-read what you said in this thread but either I am missing it or it's not here. But I would love to get your perspective on this.

 

Also thank you for your last post. I think I agree with your point of view here. I just wish I could get a better handle on this. But maybe what I said in another thread is right. Maybe ____ is unknowable and unthinkable. Maybe feelings/intuition, feeling your way through, is the way to come to a better understanding here.

[rene]

Hi DreamBliss,

My perspective is that when we're dead, we're dead. Full stop, end of.

warm regards

[silent thunder]

Any experience I've had with _____ lies beyond the ability of words or ideas to express or convey them.

They also lie beyond my ability to even define them for myself in word and thought forms.

They exist in memory and in recall, as sensations mostly.

 

Some of them comforting, some disturbing, all of them inspiring and paradigm changing.

[thelerner]

While mainstream organized religions create rules and dogmas, most, maybe all, have mystical traditions where you can keep flavor of tradition while dropping much of the dogma and heading for the source.

[GrandmasterP]

While mainstream organized religions create rules and dogmas, most, maybe all, have mystical traditions where you can keep flavor of tradition while dropping much of the dogma and heading for the source.

 

They do say that freemasonry did so well in Scotland because the Calvinistic state church was down on ritual and the mystical.

Seems that many people crave ritual and mystery hence the masons sorta 'scratched an itch' that the official church could not.

[silent thunder]

They do say that freemasonry did so well in Scotland because the Calvinistic state church was down on ritual and the mystical. Seems that many people crave ritual and mystery hence the masons sorta 'scratched an itch' that the official church could not.

I think the ritual aspect of particularly the older catholic process is one of the few things they got right.

 

Ritual is a proven way to induce the spiritual and project one out of the mundane.

[3bob]

One could check out various Hindu concepts on God at:

 

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/disc/disc_14.html

Edited August 2, 2014 by 3bob

[GrandmasterP]

I think the ritual aspect of particularly the older catholic process is one of the few things they got right.

 

Ritual is a proven way to induce the spiritual and project one out of the mundane.

 

Yep.

Cultivation is ritualistic IMO.

We do the same things at the same times with intention that our 'actions' might be beneficial.

Same thang really.

Gotta admit to a soft spot for some ritual aspects

Russian Orthodox music for example and the full blown Baroque Roman Catholic Mass.

Then again I'm an opera buff and that's much same.

[silent thunder]

Yea, when you add music to the ritual... BOOM.

At least for me.

 

Music is one of my big go to's when I'm in a shit mood and just can't, or worse yet, don't want to change it.

Although I definitely prefer music without the human voice, or in foreign languages.

[gentlewind]

the ego provides

an onslaught of thoughts,

in the search for g_d.

 

alas, we'll all get lost

in the all consuming fog!

 

and some of us will disappear

maybe forever,

down a black hole or three;

but will be kept company

by the shadows of insanity!

 

Lenny Gazbowski©2014