God is Not a Person

reply to post by DISRAELI


I was trying to say that perhaps, instead of simply stating what the bible says, you could explain it so that it makes sense in light of what we're discussing here.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

In response to that invitation, I'll post the definition that I previously linked;

Originally posted by DISRAELI
It would be appropriate to add here a full copy of the "Christian definition of God" that I've used elsewhere.

The Creator.
That which is not the Universe, but the originator of the Universe.

I'd like to expand the original definition
(very cautiously, because Philosophy isn't really my field)

Let's make it a really trinitarian one;

God is a Creator
God is one who Communicates
God is one who becomes Incarnate

God is a Creator

I see this view as distinct from both Monism and Dualism.

As I understand the difference;
Monism resolves everything to one point of origin.
Dualism resolves everything to two points of origin, distinct and independent.

Creation theory falls short of being genuine Monism, because the created universe is understood as distinct from God.

Creation theory falls short of being genuine Dualism, because the created universe is understood as dependent upon God.

My private theory is that Creation teaching ought to be called "One-and-a-half-ism", but I don't suppose it will catch on.

As far as I can see, this involves the traditional teaching of "ex nihilo" ("out of nothing") Creation.

Because if God is "creating" using pre-existing raw material, then the material is not genuinely dependent upon him- this has become Dualism.

Or if God is producing the material of the universe "out of himself", then the material is not genuinely distinct- this has become Monism.

"Ex nihilo" is the only logical alternative, which is presumably why the teaching was developed in the first place.

God is one who Communicates

This assumption is built into Biblical religion.

In the first place, the Bible is believed to contain examples of communication (as reported, for example, by the prophets).

Furthermore, the Bible is believed to reflect a policy of communication.
It is said that God is using the Bible to "reveal himself", and so Biblical religion used to be described as "revealed religion".

The belief that "God is one who Communicates" links back with the belief that "God is one who Creates".

In the first place, some of the content of the communication points to God as Creator.

The proper Biblical answer to the question "Why do you believe your God made the universe?" is not really "Because that's the only way to account for the universe."
The truly Biblical answer is "Because he says he did, and I believe him."

But I think the very act of communication also points to God as a Creator.

Any act of communication necessarily implies a distinction between the communicator and the other party.
I've already said the Biblical understanding of Creation involves a distinction between God and the universe.

An act of communication implies the existence of a "will" in the communicator, or at least some sort of analogy of one.
But the same could be said, surely, of an act of "Creation".

Finally, a God who creates a universe thereby sets up a relationship between himself and the universe.
The effect of communication is to set up a relationship between himself and individuals (or even a group of individuals) within the same universe.

I assume that a purely monistic deity would not be communicating with, or setting up a relationship with, parts of itself.

My point is that
The idea of the God who Creates
and the idea of the God who Communicates
are very akin to one another.

The kind of God who would Create would also be the kind of God who could Communicate.

God is one who becomes Incarnate

I could hardly, really, leave this out of a definition of the Christian God.

The understanding is that the Incarnation is a more direct presence of God within the created universe.

If this is true, it's the ultimate form of Communication, as the author of Hebrews points out;
"God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets
but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son".

But it's also the ultimate form of "establishing a relationship";

Because the doctrine of the Incarnation is that the Creator and his creation, divinity and humanity, are bound together within the person of the Son.
The bond is understood to be irrevocable.
It's impossible for a relationship to get any closer than that.

Anyone who tries to understand the church's teaching about the Incarnation will discover that it's all about finding the right "balance".

On the one hand, the distinction between the divinity and the humanity must not be exaggerated, to the point that the unity disappears.
On the other hand, the unity between them must not be exaggerated, to the point that the distinction disappears.
The correct position is somewhere halfway between the two extremes.

But this is exactly what I said, at the beginning of this piece, about Creation;
That it occupied a halfway position between Monism and Dualism.

So it seems to me that the "balancing act" which Jehovah's Witnesses love to mock, when it comes in the teaching about the Incarnation, is also inherent in the very doctrine of the Creation itself.

The kind of God who would Create is also the kind of God who could become Incarnate.


I began by naming the Christian God as
The one who Creates
The one who Communicates
The one who becomes Incarnate.

I now suggest that these three ideas are akin to one another.
They belong together, naturally.

Whether you can believe them or not, they all belong to the same kind of God.

edit on 20-2-2011 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

reply to post by DISRAELI


I've already responded on that thread, but I'd like to carry it over to here.

Creation theory falls short of being genuine Monism, because the created universe is understood as distinct from God.

I've always been told that "God" is all around us, as in, he's part of everything. How does that fit into the above quote?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

OK, I'll copy across the response I gave on the other thread.

As I point out in the definition you've just looked at, the act of communication implies a distinction.
People do not communicate with parts of themselves- they communicate with "others".
If God communicates with the universe or what is within the universe, then God must in some sense be distinct from the universe.


(Although even in Christian philosophy God is also "in" the whole universe, in the sense that it is utterly dependent upon him)

reply to post by DISRAELI

As I point out in the definition you've just looked at, the act of communication implies a distinction.
People do not communicate with parts of themselves- they communicate with "others".
If God communicates with the universe or what is within the universe, then God must in some sense be distinct from the universe.

Who says? Usually, it's said to be voices in your head, or dreams and visions. Doesn't that usually come from the mind? Isn't the mind part of us? Hasn't the Bible said that "God" can be found inside of us as well as outside?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Even those examples are only "part of yourself communicating with you", not the other way round.
If God and the universe were the same thing, then God communicating with part of the universe would be like you trying to communicate with your big toe. You don't do that, except in fun, and you're not really expecting the big toe to respond.
The only real analogy to the kind of relationship found in the Bible between God and human individuals is the relationship between two different persons. They communicate. They have things to say to each other. Therefore they are distinct.

reply to post by wildtimes


Excellent thread topic. Stars and a Flag!

I believe in a cosmic, universal "GOD" consciousness. My GOD doesn't write books with pen and ink, but it's word is written in the existence of everything and its voice heard in the wind, the slapping waves of a quite beach or the thunderous roar of volcanic upheaval.

I like to compare the biblical company of God as a corporate entity that laid claim to Earth and proceeded to assign borders to its franchisees. El Elyon is the CEO, while Yahweh's franchise was assigned territories of the Middle East, other "sons of god" had other franchises. (Deuteronomy 32:8)

In Job, the corporation has something of a "Saturnia" party, where human life becomes a play thing/game for the CEO and the regional manager, Satan.

Psalms 82 describes some sort of board meeting where the CEO lays down the law of what are the profits and losses, and the consequences of franchisees not meeting quotas. I think he even fires a few in that meeting!

At any rate, the guy who sat down in Abraham's tent and ate Sarah's cakes and Abraham's BBQ while discussing offspring, is not the universal GOD consciousness, who's word IS written in stone!

reply to post by DISRAELI

I'll post the definition that I previously linked;

If I'm reading the time-stamp right, this was in Feb of 2011.

I'm curious, has your view or opinion changed at all since you posted that item? It's been going on two years ago.

Do you study these issues? Or, have you already made up your mind, and damned be the newer ideas?

Honestly, I want to know. I want to know how you stick to it when there is so much open, fluid dialogue that calls it all into question.

Please, don't leave. Or, if you must, Godspeed.

reply to post by DISRAELI

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord..."- Isaiah

This is a copy/paste of your signature.

Do you really want to "reason together", as the Lord saith?
Or, do you want to bow out and sign off and thereby declare everyone here is "wrong"?
No offense intended. I'd like for "us" to "reason together." I think it proves my trajectory is not just automatically to be dismissed out of hand.

Thanks for hanging in there so far!

reply to post by windword

I believe in a cosmic, universal "GOD" consciousness. My GOD doesn't write books with pen and ink, but it's word is written in the existence of everything and its voice heard in the wind, the slapping waves of a quite beach or the thunderous roar of volcanic upheaval.

I totally concur,
and to my surprise and delight, the Founding Fathers themselves were not averse to thinking along these lines.

It really does legitimately bring up the question of what the Founding Fathers believed, and hoped, for the future of this nation.
Has it been corrupted entirely?

The all is all last I checked people were apart of the all.

Originally posted by Manunnaki
The all is all last I checked people were apart of the all.

And.....?
Would you like to be more conversational here, so we can determine how your thinking and reasoning works?
I am familiar with the Yin/Yang-Enlightenment-Unity school. Sometimes, though, those who have had Abrahamic-religion input only do not get the "all is all" concept.

It's not easy for Western thinkers, while it may come naturally to Occidental thinkers brought up on the concepts.

reply to post by wildtimes


I'm esoteric and in being so I understand the whole duality which is basically what yin/yang is.

I'm christian so I understand the whole beginning and end.

I'm a spiritualist so I understand the whole shamanism aspect.

Put it all together and you pretty much understand that whoever god is as a macrocosm in his entirety has a multiple personality disorder that is ruled by 2 major personalities that can be explained as hate/love.

He is a necromancer that can manipulate spiritual energy. And embodies the beginning and end of time. Which there are none because it's infinite. Thus the contradictory perception.

What I'm saying is that to be all means all is included and that means the worst of what you can think of. If you can imagine throwing babies in the air and catching them on stakes and watching them die.

It's apart of everything therefore an aspect of god.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by DISRAELI

 

I've already responded on that thread, but I'd like to carry it over to here.

Creation theory falls short of being genuine Monism, because the created universe is understood as distinct from God.

I've always been told that "God" is all around us, as in, he's part of everything. How does that fit into the above quote?

I think that you're confusing omnipresence with pantheism.

By logical definition, the creation cannot be the creator.

reply to post by wildtimes

But it's not really a question of "newer ideas", is it?
The concept of the "impersonal" God is as old as the Greek philosophers, which is as old as the Biblical teaching.
It's more a question of choosing heads or tails, believing the Biblical statements or not believing them.
No new "facts" have emerged, so there is no reason why the passage of time as such should affect the choice.

Originally posted by wildtimes
Do you really want to "reason together", as the Lord saith?
Or, do you want to bow out and sign off and thereby declare everyone here is "wrong"?

That is somewhat unjust.
It is not the reason I gave for offering to leave the Deists to continue their discussion in peace.

reply to post by DISRAELI

Even those examples are only "part of yourself communicating with you", not the other way round.
If God and the universe were the same thing, then God communicating with part of the universe would be like you trying to communicate with your big toe. You don't do that, except in fun, and you're not really expecting the big toe to respond.

That's because you haven't figured out "God" is within everything. And so you view yourself as separate from "God". Maybe the whole problem isn't that "God" is separated from the universe, but that we have separated ourselves from "God".

The only real analogy to the kind of relationship found in the Bible between God and human individuals is the relationship between two different persons. They communicate. They have things to say to each other. Therefore they are distinct.

Consider the possibility of different "consciousness". Two separate components that are part of the same device have to communicate with each other because they are assigned different purposes and therefore have different functions, but together, they perform an important task that allows the rest of the system to run smoothly.

Just because we talk to an inner part of ourselves that is connected to us, does not mean it has no divinity or no connection to divinity. Who says we are not divine in totality? I'm not sure you understand exactly what communication means.

reply to post by DISRAELI

It's more a question of choosing heads or tails, believing the Biblical statements or not believing them.
No new "facts" have emerged, so there is no reason why the passage of time as such should affect the choice.

No new facts have emerged?

I disagree entirely with this. How do you explain the "dismissal" of the Greek and Roman pantheons? In my view, the Bible is no different from those religious beliefs. Do you still believe in Zeus, Thor, Aphrodite, Persephone, Mercury, etc etc etc?

The Biblical statements are now just as old and tired as those "pantheon theories" were at one point.

MANY new "facts" have emerged in the last 2000 years! I'm a little tired now, but, erm, evolution, and meterology, and space exploration, and magnetic field study, and quantum physics, and Isaac Newton, and Einstein, and....

really?
Okay, I see. You've chosen to "cut off" your learning with the "Bible" as arranged by a panel of bishops' votes 1600+ years ago. Case closed.
Right?

Really?
Can you explain to me why you stick with it in the face of recent "factual findings"?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

If God talks to me (hypothetically, but as he talks to an Elijah or an Isaiah), then God considers himself to be separate from me.
Communication implies distinction.

reply to post by DISRAELI

That is somewhat unjust.
It is not the reason I gave for offering to leave the Deists to continue their discussion in peace.

DISRAELI, if you have important information to offer that disputes the theory and thinking of Deists, why would you withhold it?

I come to this forum every day, and I read every thread to see the prevailing ATS "wave" here. When I see something that causes me to think, reflect, discern what part of my understanding is questionable, I take the time to research and look into ideas that may very well differ from mine.

How else are we supposed to grow as a species?