Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
behavioralist

Defining God!

6 posts in this topic

1.

I wonder if we can come upon a definition of God we agree on.

I propose that God is the cosmos elevated through an elevation of perception to the role of entity, so that it becomes social in practical fact, the light being akin to the milk of motherhood, the rock and gravity forming a nest and so forth through the accommodations of nurturing. This means evolution did not adapt to anything that was not provided with due care and eternal commitment.

Before we can elevate something it must either belong at the bottom so that we are deluded, or it must have fallen, and if we have a definition we agree upon we can discuss “which is the case” ---if there is a cognitive degeneration associated with the adaptation to human society resulting in the objectification of the cosmos and inorganic matter. Think of it: society as the first godless state of life! ---peddling belief for all its worth, another commodity like war, that will never run out of customers because people are so gullible.

What we are seeing of the cosmos becomes an evolved physical attribute (like an organism’s solutions: acorns, eggs, ovipositors…) if it is a manifestation of an entity evolved beyond conceptualization within our dimensional limits.

The Big Bang theory suggests a likeness to an egg, for example. First you don’t see it, but now you do. Maybe it’s more marsupial, being so dark out there. The issue is that the cosmos is an evolved reproductive effect if it is God, and as such it manifests super-evolved social intent, the way a bird manifests that it is evolving around a diet of flies, which, in reflection, is the compassion not to encroach upon millions of other niches.

The natural spontaneous emotional resource is how we liberate others. To free everyone by one's actions frees oneself, and then emotion is intuition: someone is not free if I do this, so I don't do it.

It’s hard to miss a social intent in a manifestation, except by obsessive and irreversible self-absorption.

2.

For interaction to exist there must be perception, and perception already eludes man where it is not predicated upon senses similar to ours. This elusiveness of what perception other forms are endowed with may mostly be due to how long man has been ignoring nature.

Bonding with nature, up to the point of symbiotic adaptations, once served as irrefutable mutuality of perception in intimacy, while merely observing nature in the now-alien wild may conjure more “possible” explanations, adapted to an architect’s mental processes (which nature’s architects manage very well without, thank you!), explanations that reflect our disassociation and how egotistically we cling to this disassociation as if having learned it like a prostitute who has learned to always use condoms after a few obligatory vacations.

Any child, from Genesis onward, must stop caring about the natural evolving world and begin lording over it. Caring is unseemly. “Intelligent Life” struts on its planet, and if it finds aliens on other worlds who do not they will not be considered intelligent.

Lording, however smart, is not applying evolution to a problem anymore than trigonometry is.

Nothing on Earth is more creative than vegetation, and yet finding its senses is a chore, and “big brain” is hardly its distinction. Vegetation is as beneficent as the cosmos, and in the view of most animals it may seem more alert and sensitive, but that may be just that children play best with other children.

How do we ask a plant that has evolved the status of shrine and Mecca in the forest how it can be perceptive except by committing to being tutored by it? Is that what the subconscious used to do?

Discovery is not seeing, not hearing, not smelling, but is discovery itself! Is it natural to be discovering far beyond sight, sound and smell even when one is equipped for these? Do bonds, not individuals, do the discovering? Is man the animal so inured to things beyond his senses that he has ceased to discover anything but the tools of mayhem? Can senses become a handicap in contrived privacy or solitude, a kind of xenophobia: “But trees are blinder than snails! But God has only rocks and gases; he can’t hear you!”?

Who could be seeking something that perceives us while devoid of all recognized biology, when even the biology we recognize as non-animal organic life finds us either indifferent or mystified about how it finds and sustains its roles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I'm more then happen to define God by what I can conceive of God being BUT holding the knowledge that God is much bigger then that definition.

I know it's trite and somewhat old but when it comes to God, we're all blind men describing an Elephant, what we say/feel is true but it's not the whole picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.

I wonder if we can come upon a definition of God we agree on.

How about we agree that God, if it exists, is beyond our ability to comprehend and so is undefinable. How about we agree that, if you want to believe god exists, fine, but you don't in any way let that belief affect or influence how you behave to other human beings - because God is incomprehensible to you so you can't know what God is, or wants (if God wants anything).

As soon as people start trying to define God, they define 'rules' they believe God would want us to live by. Then they define the prejudices, bigotries and discriminations those rules delimit. If we don't try to define God, or pretend we know what God is or wants, wouldn't we generally get along much better?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God : the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe

: a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions

: a person and especially a man who is greatly loved or admired

Full Definition of GOD

1

capitalized
:
the supreme or ultimate reality: as

a
:
the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe

b
Christian Science
:
the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit
:
infinite Mind

2

:
a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship;
specifically
:
one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

3

:
a person or thing of supreme value

4

:
a powerful ruler

external.jpg See god defined for English-language learners »

See god defined for kids »

Examples of GOD

  • Does she believe in God?
  • I pray to God that no one was seriously injured in the accident.
  • the gods and goddesses of ancient Egypt
  • a myth about the god of war
  • an offering for the gods
  • a professor who was regarded as a kind of god
  • a guitar god like Jimi Hendrix

Origin of GOD

Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German gotgod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

God is who you say he is and so that is why no one can agree on who god is. A person needs to step up to a greater understanding. In order to know God at all you must understand that you can never fully know him. It is spiritual practice and divinity that define a relationship with God and only through that relationship can you define who God is for yourself. Ultimately God is who you say he is. That's why Jesus asked: Who do you say that I am?

God does reveal himself to the heart of a man by spiritual means that also seep into our physicality so that we know that he is real. In The Spirit it is known that we deal with Principalities more than we do the physical face of God who is a mystery and always surprises. Be open to your growth as a spiritual child, be earnest in understanding who God is for yourself. You cannot worry about what others think about God. I guarantee that during your life here on earth in this body there will be no group or cluster that can totally agree on who God is. Some will remain quiet and pretend to agree or perhaps they will put full faith in another mans explanation, when this happens, (except in the case of the purest of faith) true knowledge is warped and limited.

The reason for the warping and limitations are because exact definitions have been put in place. There are rules and laws of the universe, so there are some defining boundaries I think people SHOULD be able to agree on, but as for now, as a group we will not be able to agree on or define as a whole group who God is.

I think it is possible to come to some conclusions after many many many many discussions, but only also if spiritual practice is also applied and I can pretty much guarantee that won't happen.

edit: smaller groups it is possible, on this website, no, the whole world, no, not even a neighborhood or one particular family usually can come to any exact conclusions. It is meant for us all to have our private experience with God, even though he can and should be celebrated corporately.

Edited by SpiritWriter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

God is who you say he is and so that is why no one can agree on who god is. A person needs to step up to a greater understanding. In order to know God at all you must understand that you can never fully know him. It is spiritual practice and divinity that define a relationship with God and only through that relationship can you define who God is for yourself. Ultimately God is who you say he is. That's why Jesus asked: Who do you say that I am?

God does reveal himself to the heart of a man by spiritual means that also seep into our physicality so that we know that he is real. In The Spirit it is known that we deal with Principalities more than we do the physical face of God who is a mystery and always surprises. Be open to your growth as a spiritual child, be earnest in understanding who God is for yourself. You cannot worry about what others think about God. I guarantee that during your life here on earth in this body there will be no group or cluster that can totally agree on who God is. Some will remain quiet and pretend to agree or perhaps they will put full faith in another mans explanation, when this happens, (except in the case of the purest of faith) true knowledge is warped and limited.

The reason for the warping and limitations are because exact definitions have been put in place. There are rules and laws of the universe, so there are some defining boundaries I think people SHOULD be able to agree on, but as for now, as a group we will not be able to agree on or define as a whole group who God is.

I think it is possible to come to some conclusions after many many many many discussions, but only also if spiritual practice is also applied and I can pretty much guarantee that won't happen.

edit: smaller groups it is possible, on this website, no, the whole world, no, not even a neighborhood or one particular family usually can come to any exact conclusions. It is meant for us all to have our private experience with God, even though he can and should be celebrated corporately.

I notice you are saying one can never fully understand God. Isn't it an inference of that postulate that God can't produce a lesser entity who also does fully understand him?

Let us say you are mistaken, and that Life is itself an entity, no matter what it's form or Point in evolution, something that at conception has this one gift: it fully understands God, because it is his offspring. "A soul!"

And, in man, an oddity of being able to deprive each soul of its natural existence and employ the organism for selfish purposes with its apparent consent, this not being the consent of said "soul",

the desire for such exploitation arsing from the most desperate cases of being employed, which would generally be those employed youngest, those who appealed to some deviant form of parental predation nearest to birth.

Edited by behavioralist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.