It sure sounds the same to me.

So then why do Christian theologians and clerics always insist on speaking of God as though God is a separate entity from us?

Hi to all...

spider:

I want you to know how appreciative I am that people have differing opinions... truly!

I do not want to seem as though I am being condescending or arrogant, because I truly do not feel as though I am. The matter of fact way that I sometimes come across is a reflection of my self-confidence. It is not, however, closed to what I feel to be reasonable outside information.

You are more than welcome anytime here just as everyone else is. Most often, I allow threads which I begin to have a life of their own. Lately I have begun an attempt to focus this broad-based acceptance of outside information a little more acutely.



For relational purposes, often times I will apply another's perspective as best I can during a conversation. Of course this is completely contingient upon how I understand another's viewpoint. I have a long way to go before the balance which I seek has conditioned the peaks and valleys of this human condition. perhaps this may never happen, although the completion of this goal is not of essence, while the pursuit absolutely is.

spider, my earlier response was cut short, unexpectedly. I had more to say, therefore this one should be taken in conjunction with the last.



I posted my clarification for this earlier in this thread:



and also this:




It would follow that 'God' is indivisible.




Eljay:


Earlier we had been discussing the following notion, which I once again outlined above for spider's refreshment:



To this you had responded as such:




While our arrivals at the understanding may indeed vary in exegesis, the acceptance of the said premise is shared.

I claim that a monotheistic 'God' which 'created' all things must be indivisible because before any other thing existed, 'God' was the only thing.

If one holds the belief that Jesus, the holy spirit, and 'God' each came into existance simultaneuosly, it would follow that the belief in a monotheistic 'God' ceases.

I do not mean to imply that my conclusion is your acceptance or belief, just an extrapolation concerned.

I believe we currently shared an understanding of the other's perspective, as presented thus far...

creativesoul,

therein is the distinction that I make about the "Godhead" of Christianity, in that Jesus, the Living Word, is that God of the Bible. Leaning entirely on the language used and further reiterances by the testimonies of Jesus' words by others.

This "trinity" thing is an elusive concept, but simply put, The Father did it all through The Son, thus The Son as God.

But it is also Clear that the Son was and is in and with The Father. Scripturally, The Father only speaks to The Son and The Son speaks for The Father to man.

This is odd and perplexing outside of having the Holy Spirit indwellt that tesifies also of The Son to us that are so equipped.

Beyond that, Abra's perceptions and others are a fit.....in that we all know absolutely nothing direct from the original source exxcept that which is being communicated through nature itself, and fills all things.

My point is large.

We are all subject to assessment by a force greater than creation itself, and none of us can sit in judgement of any other, but love and listen and acknowledge the shared wonder of the beauty of life itself...and hope to be harmonious with one another.

My conviction rests in my faith, and even my faith is a conscious choice, but I don't preclude others as lacking, but having made choices that rest well within.

It doesn't matter that God has manifested a presence as this or that, but that the very presence among us is acknowledged is certainly enough to temper conscience and conduct and build character that is universally acknowledged. This is another divergence from my brethren in Christ, but I know we are not our own...we are all under authority and all follw the dictates of our own consciences for good or ill and we can only respect one another to be clear within oneself that all is well.

The twisties are still divisive but somehow I believe we all are saying the same thing with different convictions and experiences.

It is fun to feel everybody and the heart. I hear and feel the same thing spoken of out of conviction and sincerity.

Wouldn't that be consistent with judgement?

I believe so. But I am not the Judge

Hi wouldee...



The biblical version of 'God' revolves around applying human qualities and physiological emotion to the concept of 'God', while simultaneously insisting that man cannot have a comprehension of 'Gods' thoughts. This notion alone begs further questioning.

I no longer believe in the personification of 'God', although I once did.




The acceptance of 'God' being prior to, while at the same time being completely separate, in any measure, from anything which came after is a logically impossible conceptual notion of existance, in my opinion.




One question I would have for those who believe in a judgemental 'God' as you have just described, is this:

If one believes(through a personal understanding of 'Gods' will) as though 'God' does not want man to judge one another, why would it then be acceptable, to this 'God', for man to judge(assess) 'Gods' will?



While this statement may be genuine wouldee, for you to also state the following could easily be taken to suggest otherwise:







I am not sure that I fully understand your meaning here.




I am not so sure that the same thing is spoken, however, one can easily recognize the conviction(s).




We are all judges wouldee, in some way. One's discernment capabilities are crucial for the ability to place an appropriate value assessment on individual experience. I feel it is when one assumes(without having a proper basis for understanding) that one shows what they are made of.

The questions poses where did "god" evolve from? This would suggest that he came from something and so that would mean that he may have been the first "human" (?)but not the first "thing".

The whole thing really does not make a lot of sense when you start putting science into the equation.

Hi 2much:





That question must be taken as a given, being that one must be willing to accept the premise that 'God' existed before all creation.



If individual understanding leads one to believe that 'God' was not prior to all things, then I would say that that understanding describes no 'God', at least in a creator of all things sense.



I believe that knowledge has indeed improved human understanding of the concept of 'God' in many aspects, if for no other reason, we better understand what 'God' most probably is not.

god evolved from our need to explain the unexplained, like all other gods

I don't believe it is a logical imperative that God created everything out of God. Couldn't 'God' create the matter ex nihilo? This is a foundational belief of Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

This has always been an intriguing part of the anthropomorphic omni-god, which separates essence from it's source. It begs for reason. It necessarily applies concept of intent('Gods' will). It creates the illusion of division in the indivisible. It is the epitome of human (mis)understanding.


The only thing which can conceive through itself, is 'God'... If 'God' was all there was, then it follows that all there was was 'God'. So then, either 'God' was nothing, or 'God' was something... or both.


I would argue this notion of 'nothing'...


If one truly believes that a nothing can exist outside and independantly of a something, it is no longer a 'nothing'.

The line between nothing and something does not exist.

Therefore either both exist or neither exist.

For a nothing to exist, it becomes a something.

There is no such thing as a nothing.



No thing is truly separate from original form, all will eventually return to this 'nothing'.


It must follow that 'God' is indivisible.

Creatio ex nihilo means "Created from nothing". Not that there is a great nothingness, which was crafted into something, but that everything was created from nothing. Think about a chair, if you were to make one you would need wood and screws and tools, but God could create it without any other created items. Most creation myths start with something already existing. Perhaps the world was created on the back of a turtle for instance. Christianity, Judaism and Islam all believe that God created the universe completely and didn't have a starting point. When God created the universe, all that existed was God. Then God created ex nihilo the universe. Not using any materials (the only material being God), but creating the universe completely from nothing.

spider:

I am aware of the translation...

Perhaps you failed to recognize the correlation, the first time.

Again...



You had said this:



No... ex nihilo describes the false notion of 'nothing', as I already outlined... there is no such thing.

Then you stated this, which illogically supported the above claim:




For 'God' to be all that existed, it follows then, that 'God' used all that 'God' had available...'God' used 'God'...

'God' is the starting point.

Thus, it follows... 'God' is indivisible...

Oh, man, taking all the mystical magical powers away from a god is such dirty work. What is a god if it can't create something simply by the mere power of its' thought?

Oh, wait if a god did that, than we would be nothing but thought, a total illusion that existed only in some dream state of the god who concieved it. Well that would sure blow free will our of the equation. Of couse, who knows what might exist in the thoughts of ....(nothing?) or something?

Could it be that phylosophy has unraveled every concept of a godly creator down to 'nothing'?

Interesting circular pattern here. A god who passes the time by creating a dream of creation and in so doing becomes aware of itself by making its creation pay tribute to the dream or would that be the dream maker?

So many questions! Any word magic from a 'creativesoul'?

Job security? Not many people would buy the concept of needing a middle man to talk to themselves or one connected to themselves. Hmmm, perhaps the madness in the wilderness is not necessary for enlightenment - well at least the wilderness part.

It wouldn’t blow free will out of the equation if we are the dreamer.

Pantheism rules. It’s the only philosophy that consistently makes sense.

It’s the perfect God. No hierarchical structure needed. Everything is one. Everything is equal.

The only reason that mankind invented a superior dictating God that act like a ruler is because he was arrogant enough to believe that he’s above all other animals, leaving him to then think that something must be above him. But it’s total arrogance to believe that we’re above anything. That’s an unwarranted illusion in the first place.

Well, even if the entity was separate from us, we still shouldn't need a middle man. Surely an all-knowing God would have thought of the concept of 1-800 numbers before we did.

I never could see the need for churches.

Hi Di:

Good to hear that you are already debating your psychology teacher...





Have not!





The operative term here, for me, is create. Although I often use the terms create and creation for conversational purposes, both require an individual distinction and/or the potentiality for self-manipulation.

Considering that a 'God' must be indivisible, no matter how one slices the universal pie, individual distinction is not an option.





Remove the notions of intent, purpose, and reason. Apply infinite and finite possibility and/or potentiality, and you'll be cooking with whole new 'brand' of energy...





Free will does not exist... individual thought manifests individual reality.





Nah... if that were the case, 'God' would not exist.





I gotta love ya...



I wonder what your take is on the ex nihilo issue at hand...

Hiya wench:



Abra:



Perhaps not the only reason, but definitely one worth mentioning... Agreed, none-the-less...

Dolphins, perhaps, have gotten the 'shortest' evolutionary straw thus far, in terms of the physical capability for the manipulation of the tools contained in this world...

"I wonder what your take is on the ex nihilo issue at hand... "

Actually, Creative, there has been a lot discussion, in the scientific community about Ex-nihio (out of nothing). There are quite a few who believe that 'creation' could begin from nothing, NATURALLY. No 'creator' required.

There is even some dispute that 'nothing' is not possible. Virtual particles exist, that is not a theory, it has been proven. Also known, is that even in a perfect vacuum pairs of virtual particles are created and destroyed continuously.

Now, I'm not a scientist and much of the theory, escapes me but what I understand is that energy (what ever that is) is the, shall I dare to use the word - priori of the equation. Without energy creation (Ex-nihio) might not be possible.

That being the case, the next best definition of god, might simply be Pure Energy! Of course there is still the question of the 'source' of energy. But in any case, it does support the idea that IF god is equated to pure energy, then god is indivisible.

Does that make sense?

Scientific theories are quite intriguing. And there are actually quite a few differnet “theories” as to how it all began. I put “theories” in quotes because a lot of them really are totally unsupported conjectures. String “Theory” does even have a genuine “theory” yet. It should be called “String Guessing”.

In any case, the most well-accepted ‘theory’ in science today is the theory of Inflation put forth by Alan Guth. It’s not accepted as ‘fact’, but thus far it’s the most supported theory of all theories concerning creation. It’s based on quantum field theory and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It basically presumes the existence of quantum fields, and quantum fluctuations. So it presumes this a priori essence of quantum fields. But quantum fields have no “substance” in and of themselves. All they have is the potential to become “substance”. In other words, a quantum field is undetectable. Only a ripple within the quantum field is detectable. So one could think of the quantum field as being spirit (or non-physcial) and the ripples in the quantum field as being physical.

In this way, all physical reality is nothing more than vibrations of spirit. This is how God manifests the universe. The universe is a manifestation of spirit.

Now that’s not what physics is saying. Physics is just saying that the physical world is a manifestation of the quantum field. But the quantum field has no measurable or detectable property when unexcited. So I’m the one who is saying that the quantum field is ‘spirit-like’ in its qualities. Physics doesn’t say anything other than to postulate that it exists and has the potential to manifest measurable properties.

I wouldn’t call the quantum field ‘energy’. I don’t think it fits the physical meaning of that word. It has the potential to produce energy, as well as matter. It also produces space and time. It produces everything that we can measure, observe, and/or detect.

It kind of interesting if you stop and thing about it. There are really only four aspects to the universe. Space, Time, Energy, and Matter. What else is there?

Ironically it was just one man, Albert Einstein, who showed us how all four of these things are related.

He showed us that Space and Time are interchangeable. They are basically the same “Stuff”. They are two faces of the same essence. He shows us this clearly with his mathematical relationships in his ‘Theory’ of Relatively. Relationships that have been observed to be true! Our universe really does behave the way he describes it.

Albert Einstein also is the one who showed us that matter and energy are interchangeable. They are basically the same “Stuff”. They are two faces of the same essence. He shows us this with his famous equation E = MC^2. And we have seen the results of this truth via the atom bomb, as well as nuclear generators. This mass to energy conversation is precisely how the sun works. The sun gets it’s energy from its mass. It only takes the tiniest fraction of matter to produce gobs of energy.

Imagine what that means! You are made of matter! Imagine how much energy is in you! If the mass of your entire body was instantly transformed into pure energy the resulting explosion would totally vaporize the entire planet earth!

Makes you feel kind of powerful huh?

Now, here’s something even more interesting,….

A much lesser known scientist by the name of Emmy Noether made to more discoveries which she shared with Albert Einstein and he instantly recognized her genius! This really goes to show how disgustingly male chauvinistic our world really is. Emmy Noether made discoveries as profound as Albert Einstein’s yet almost no one ever heard of her name!!!

Emmy Noether recognized a mathematical relationship between the conservation of energy and time!

The fact that you can perform the same experiment at differnet times and get the same results is what causes energy to be conserved. Or, you can look at it in the reverse. The fact that energy is conserved is what allows you to do experiments at differnet times and get the same results.

In short, she proved mathematically that the conservation of energy is directly dependent on the laws of physics being constant in time. She made a direct link between Energy and Time!

She didn’t stop there!

She also showed that the conservation of momentum is directly dependent on the laws of physics being constant through out space. Well this may seem a little less direct to the non-mathematician. But since momentum is directly related to mass, this makes a directly link between Mass and Space!

So Albert Einstein showed that Energy and Matter are interconnected, and Space and Time are interconnected.

Emmy Noether showed that Energy and Time are interconnected, and Space and Matter are interconnected!

Everything is connected!

It’s all one thing. If you give or take at any part of it, the other parts react directly. And this is the sum total of the universe. What else is there besides Energy, Matter, Time, and Space? It’s all one interconnected thing. Albert Einstein got all the glory for revealing half of if. Emmy Noether got nothing for revealing the other half!

So even though the universe is one, unfortunately humanity is still a bunch of bigoted chauvinistic pigs.

They even decided that God should be a man. How disgusting is that!