Who?What Is God?

[philo1944]

As I approach the twilight of my life (I am 80) and the day comes ever closer when I will meet my Maker: I find myself contemplating the concept of God. And that is what God is: a concept, an idea, a universal being who is everywhere at the same time. And it is that very abstractness that makes it hard to comprehend who God is.

Ordinary mortals have a difficult time grasping the reality of a formless, invisible, omnipresent and omnipotent divine being. They need symbols – idols, icons, crucifixes - that they can see and touch and worship. Indeed, the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans needed symbols to explain the mysteries of nature and the intricacies of the human psyche that they could not comprehend. And so, they invented gods like Osiris and Apollo and Athena; giving each one an attribute that would rationalize their ignorance and let them off the hook, so to speak. The subsequent world religions amalgamated the pagan gods into one Supreme Being whom they named God, or Allah or Jehovah.

In the immediate aftermath of Jesus’s departure from the earth, his apostles and disciples carried on his message and teachings; and essentially stuck to the script. However, as the early Christian church grew in size and influence, they believed that they need not restrict themselves to being the stewards of Christ; they could obtain real power by posing as the sole interpreters of Christ’s message. Jesus had to portrayed as the Son of God, so perfect that he could not possibly be just human. This despite the fact – according to some Biblical scholars – that Jesus himself did not claim divinity during His sojourn on earth. To start with, they handpicked four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John which served their purpose. They also ignored – and virtually banished – some other contemporary gospels that did not conform to the message they wished to convey. To consolidate and perpetuate their power, the clergy proclaimed themselves as God’s representatives on earth – a view that prevails even today, particularly among Catholics; although much less so than in the Middle Ages, when the threat of religious sanctions like excommunication was so terrifying that the general populace was completely cowed down. To be sure, the recent revelations about pedophile priests have shown that if these worthies were indeed God’s representatives on earth, then God has chosen very poorly.

Another tactic the Church employed to consolidate their power was GUILT. I have often wondered why – despite the many wonderful teachings and miraculous events of Jesus’ life – the most potent and prevalent symbol of Christ is the method of his execution. It is almost as if Christians need to be constantly reminded that their Lord and Saviour died for their sins – and therefore they owe Him, big time. Indeed, the concept of Original Sin has been a powerful weapon in the armoury of the Church, almost since its inception. We are all sinners – and who alone can absolve us of our sins? You got it.

I would like to make it clear that I am using Christianly only as an example. Right from the time of the ancient Egyptians, religion – or gods, as they called them – have been suborned by self-styled priests. Priests (or novices) train in seminaries or madrassas or whatever, where they are taught by other priests. And those priests are trained by…you get the picture. I am still trying to figure out where God enters into this equation. Do we really need interpreters or intermediaries to understand the Bible, or the Koran, or the Torah, or the Avesta? Isn’t the word of the God clear enough? And which version of God is being addressed by the ubiquitous rituals and ceremonies – of which we are so enamoured? Let’s face it. Most of us have performed pujas or masses and so on (which themselves are manmade) in expectation of a quid pro quo – a promotion or a cure or whatever. Very few of us offer prayers merely for the exaltation of communicating with our Maker.

Which brings me back to my original question: who is God. Is He some benevolent, merciful, all-seeing entity who exudes only goodness and light? Is He an all powerful being who controls every aspect of our existence? If He is indeed all powerful and good, why does he permit atrocities like wars and the Holocaust; and permit one group of humans to inflict unbearable pain and suffering on another group of humans. Does Satan really exist, or is he an excuse we made up for evil behaviour? It’s the devil who is making me do terrible things – not really my responsibility. And what happens when we shuffle off this mortal coil? Do God and Satan compete for our souls? Or did God grant us free will so that we alone are responsible for our actions, both good and bad. Like Yul Brynner famously declared in The King and I; is a puzzlement.

[Age]

As I approach the twilight of my life (I am 80) and the day comes ever closer when I will meet my Maker: I find myself contemplating the concept of God.

Firstly 'you' can only meet your so-called 'Maker', here, in this One and only Universe, when 'you' are conscious.

And that is what God is: a concept, an idea, a universal being who is everywhere at the same time.

What God is, is the visible One Universe, Itself.

Who God is, is the the invisible One Mind, Itself.

And it is that very abstractness that makes it hard to comprehend who God is.

But, it is not hard at all to comprehend who God is. That is, once 'you' know who God is. Just like it is not hard at all to comprehend who 'I' am, exactly, once 'you' become aware of, and know, who 'I' am, exactly.

Ordinary mortals have a difficult time grasping the reality of a formless, invisible, omnipresent and omnipotent divine being.

Why are 'you' judging 'others' on 'you', exactly?

They need symbols – idols, icons, crucifixes - that they can see and touch and worship. Indeed, the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans needed symbols to explain the mysteries of nature and the intricacies of the human psyche that they could not comprehend.

Can you not see the contradiction, here?

'your claim' that human beings, in days prior to the one when this is being written, needed symbols to explain 'the mysteries', of things, that they could not comprehend, is a contradiction of sorts.

1. One could not explain what they could not yet comprehend.

2. One can not explain 'a mystery' because, by definition, 'it' is, still, 'a mystery'.

And, by the way, you human beings need 'symbols/language' to explain things, otherwise how could you 'explain'?

And so, they invented gods like Osiris and Apollo and Athena; giving each one an attribute that would rationalize their ignorance and let them off the hook, so to speak.

Do you also invent 'things', each one given an attribute, in order to somehow and so-call 'rationalize' your own ignorance, as well?

The subsequent world religions amalgamated the pagan gods into one Supreme Being whom they named God, or Allah or Jehovah.

Is 'that Supreme Being' the 'same One' as you invented and call the 'Maker'?

In the immediate aftermath of Jesus’s departure from the earth, his apostles and disciples carried on his message and teachings; and essentially stuck to the script. However, as the early Christian church grew in size and influence, they believed that they need not restrict themselves to being the stewards of Christ; they could obtain real power by posing as the sole interpreters of Christ’s message. Jesus had to portrayed as the Son of God, so perfect that he could not possibly be just human. This despite the fact – according to some Biblical scholars – that Jesus himself did not claim divinity during His sojourn on earth. To start with, they handpicked four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John which served their purpose. They also ignored – and virtually banished – some other contemporary gospels that did not conform to the message they wished to convey. To consolidate and perpetuate their power, the clergy proclaimed themselves as God’s representatives on earth – a view that prevails even today, particularly among Catholics; although much less so than in the Middle Ages, when the threat of religious sanctions like excommunication was so terrifying that the general populace was completely cowed down. To be sure, the recent revelations about pedophile priests have shown that if these worthies were indeed God’s representatives on earth, then God has chosen very poorly.

Another tactic the Church employed to consolidate their power was GUILT. I have often wondered why – despite the many wonderful teachings and miraculous events of Jesus’ life – the most potent and prevalent symbol of Christ is the method of his execution. It is almost as if Christians need to be constantly reminded that their Lord and Saviour died for their sins – and therefore they owe Him, big time. Indeed, the concept of Original Sin has been a powerful weapon in the armoury of the Church, almost since its inception. We are all sinners – and who alone can absolve us of our sins? You got it.

I would like to make it clear that I am using Christianly only as an example. Right from the time of the ancient Egyptians, religion – or gods, as they called them – have been suborned by self-styled priests. Priests (or novices) train in seminaries or madrassas or whatever, where they are taught by other priests. And those priests are trained by…you get the picture. I am still trying to figure out where God enters into this equation. Do we really need interpreters or intermediaries to understand the Bible, or the Koran, or the Torah, or the Avesta? Isn’t the word of the God clear enough? And which version of God is being addressed by the ubiquitous rituals and ceremonies – of which we are so enamoured? Let’s face it. Most of us have performed pujas or masses and so on (which themselves are manmade) in expectation of a quid pro quo – a promotion or a cure or whatever. Very few of us offer prayers merely for the exaltation of communicating with our Maker.

Which brings me back to my original question: who is God.

Again, the word God, in the sense of 'who', is just the Mind, Itself. Of which there is only One.

Is He some benevolent, merciful, all-seeing entity who exudes only goodness and light?

Besides the obvious fact that God could not be, and is not, a so-called 'he', the rest is exactly True and Right.

Is He an all powerful being who controls every aspect of our existence?

God allows you human beings to have control over your own lives. The reason why will become very obvious, along the way.

If He is indeed all powerful and good, why does he permit atrocities like wars and the Holocaust; and permit one group of humans to inflict unbearable pain and suffering on another group of humans.

Because you human beings learn best, by your mistakes/Wrong doings.

And, the Wrong that you adult human beings have been doing, in say the last few thousand years or so, is relatively nothing but within just a tiny fraction of period, compared to how long you have lived for and could continue to live for.

Does Satan really exist,

Yes, but like God, largely not in 'the way' you have been Wrongly instructed to believe so. Misinterpretations have been continually passed on, and passed down, through the generations. So, 'the interpretation' that you have 'now', 'currently', is not what the word 's]\atan' meant nor was intended to mean, 'in the beginning'.

or is he an excuse we made up for evil behaviour?

Like God, 'satan' is not a 'he'.

It’s the devil who is making me do terrible things

When, and if, you also know what the 'satan' and/or 'devil' word were intended to mean, then you will see the Truth in that statement.

– not really my responsibility. And what happens when we shuffle off this mortal coil?

The visible physical body just transforms into an/other shape/s and form/s, while obviously remaining in this One and only Universe.

Some of the invisible thoughts and emotions, also known as the 'person' and/or 'soul', just 'now' exist within other bodies, again still, here, in this One and only Universe, as well.

Do God and Satan compete for our souls?

The Right, and good, thoughts within every human body are in relation to God, and, the Wrong, and bad/evil, thoughts within every body are in relation to satan.

Or did God grant us free will so that we alone are responsible for our actions, both good and bad.

Through the visible physical Universe the human body evolved, created with the ability to freely choose, or in other words, 'free will'.

All adult human beings are, or are meant to be, responsible for all of their mis/behaviors, as well as children.

All children are not, meant to be, responsible for absolutely any behavior at all.

Like Yul Brynner famously declared in The King and I; is a puzzlement.

[Impenitent]

Who? What Is God?

God is whatever you make him/her/it to be...

-Imp

[Walker]

Christianity has persisted on a big scale. You have described the methods that came to be, throughout history.

Any other method that would have tried to insure the persistence of Christ residing in the consciousness of man, very well could have resulted in scholars today studying Christianity as some extinct religion, long forgotten.

The success of persistence is the evidence that verifies the past methods of Christianity.

[MikeNovack]

Christianity has persisted on a big scale. You have described the methods that came to be, throughout history.
Any other method that would have tried to insure the persistence of Christ residing in the consciousness of man, very well could have resulted in scholars today studying Christianity as some extinct religion, long forgotten.

The success of persistence is the evidence that verifies the past methods of Christianity.

Which is it? Size or persistence? If persistence, among still extant religions there are others older than Christianity (some with size too, but many without). Same with size, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism (the latter two being older as well). If persistence, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Yazzidism older, the latter two much older (Yazzidism might be older than Zoroastrianism)

[Belinda]

As I approach the twilight of my life (I am 80) and the day comes ever closer when I will meet my Maker: I find myself contemplating the concept of God. And that is what God is: a concept, an idea, a universal being who is everywhere at the same time. And it is that very abstractness that makes it hard to comprehend who God is.

Ordinary mortals have a difficult time grasping the reality of a formless, invisible, omnipresent and omnipotent divine being. They need symbols – idols, icons, crucifixes - that they can see and touch and worship. Indeed, the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans needed symbols to explain the mysteries of nature and the intricacies of the human psyche that they could not comprehend. And so, they invented gods like Osiris and Apollo and Athena; giving each one an attribute that would rationalize their ignorance and let them off the hook, so to speak. The subsequent world religions amalgamated the pagan gods into one Supreme Being whom they named God, or Allah or Jehovah.

In the immediate aftermath of Jesus’s departure from the earth, his apostles and disciples carried on his message and teachings; and essentially stuck to the script. However, as the early Christian church grew in size and influence, they believed that they need not restrict themselves to being the stewards of Christ; they could obtain real power by posing as the sole interpreters of Christ’s message. Jesus had to portrayed as the Son of God, so perfect that he could not possibly be just human. This despite the fact – according to some Biblical scholars – that Jesus himself did not claim divinity during His sojourn on earth. To start with, they handpicked four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John which served their purpose. They also ignored – and virtually banished – some other contemporary gospels that did not conform to the message they wished to convey. To consolidate and perpetuate their power, the clergy proclaimed themselves as God’s representatives on earth – a view that prevails even today, particularly among Catholics; although much less so than in the Middle Ages, when the threat of religious sanctions like excommunication was so terrifying that the general populace was completely cowed down. To be sure, the recent revelations about pedophile priests have shown that if these worthies were indeed God’s representatives on earth, then God has chosen very poorly.

Another tactic the Church employed to consolidate their power was GUILT. I have often wondered why – despite the many wonderful teachings and miraculous events of Jesus’ life – the most potent and prevalent symbol of Christ is the method of his execution. It is almost as if Christians need to be constantly reminded that their Lord and Saviour died for their sins – and therefore they owe Him, big time. Indeed, the concept of Original Sin has been a powerful weapon in the armoury of the Church, almost since its inception. We are all sinners – and who alone can absolve us of our sins? You got it.

I would like to make it clear that I am using Christianly only as an example. Right from the time of the ancient Egyptians, religion – or gods, as they called them – have been suborned by self-styled priests. Priests (or novices) train in seminaries or madrassas or whatever, where they are taught by other priests. And those priests are trained by…you get the picture. I am still trying to figure out where God enters into this equation. Do we really need interpreters or intermediaries to understand the Bible, or the Koran, or the Torah, or the Avesta? Isn’t the word of the God clear enough? And which version of God is being addressed by the ubiquitous rituals and ceremonies – of which we are so enamoured? Let’s face it. Most of us have performed pujas or masses and so on (which themselves are manmade) in expectation of a quid pro quo – a promotion or a cure or whatever. Very few of us offer prayers merely for the exaltation of communicating with our Maker.

Which brings me back to my original question: who is God. Is He some benevolent, merciful, all-seeing entity who exudes only goodness and light? Is He an all powerful being who controls every aspect of our existence? If He is indeed all powerful and good, why does he permit atrocities like wars and the Holocaust; and permit one group of humans to inflict unbearable pain and suffering on another group of humans. Does Satan really exist, or is he an excuse we made up for evil behaviour? It’s the devil who is making me do terrible things – not really my responsibility. And what happens when we shuffle off this mortal coil? Do God and Satan compete for our souls? Or did God grant us free will so that we alone are responsible for our actions, both good and bad. Like Yul Brynner famously declared in The King and I; is a puzzlement.

Since you seem to be asking other people the answer to those questions, you could ask the priests ; telling people about God is what priests are for.

[MikeNovack]

Since you seem to be asking other people the answer to those questions, you could ask the priests ; telling people about God is what priests are for.

An excellent point. This occupational specialty is ancient. Selected persons in the community trained in ways to contact the divine, be that ritual, trance, drugs, etc. Then bring back to the community some sense of the divine.

There are some exceptions, where the congregants are invited to experience for themselves. Some times via drugs (and an experienced journey guide), more usually dance to a trance state. Sometimes by sound.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

What if you want to be anadromous of them?

[Belinda]

Since you seem to be asking other people the answer to those questions, you could ask the priests ; telling people about God is what priests are for.

An excellent point. This occupational specialty is ancient. Selected persons in the community trained in ways to contact the divine, be that ritual, trance, drugs, etc. Then bring back to the community some sense of the divine.

There are some exceptions, where the congregants are invited to experience for themselves. Some times via drugs (and an experienced journey guide), more usually dance to a trance state. Sometimes by sound.

I am glad you understand and agree with me Mike. However I was hinting that some people form their own opinions sans priests.

Your second paragraph illustrates my preference for the mystic and immanent God, notably "There are some exceptions, where the congregants are invited to experience for themselves. "

[MikeNovack]

Your second paragraph illustrates my preference for the mystic and immanent God, notably "There are some exceptions, where the congregants are invited to experience for themselves. "

Or for contact with something else, which was why I used the more general "sense of the divine". As I said in my introduction, interest in comparative religion, not all by academic study, some by experience. My definition of religion broader than just those who believe the divine is "The mystic and immanent God".

Some on the interface between academic and experience. For example, my experience with "Ghost Dance" (late 19th Century, originally Paiute but spread to other tribes) was a demonstration that if you did the prescribed dance moves for some time you WOULD enter a trance state conducive to mystical experience. On the other hand, my experience with Afro-Cuban "voodoo" (Yoruba, polytheist) was by invitation from actual practitioners. Our hosts said they didn't expect us to be drawn into the dance but warned possible "if the Orishas wanted to meet us".

[Walker]

Christianity has persisted on a big scale. You have described the methods that came to be, throughout history.
Any other method that would have tried to insure the persistence of Christ residing in the consciousness of man, very well could have resulted in scholars today studying Christianity as some extinct religion, long forgotten.

The success of persistence is the evidence that verifies the past methods of Christianity.

Which is it? Size or persistence? If persistence, among still extant religions there are others older than Christianity (some with size too, but many without). Same with size, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism (the latter two being older as well). If persistence, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Yazzidism older, the latter two much older (Yazzidism might be older than Zoroastrianism)

Look to the consistent principle that undergirds the particular, MikeNovack.

The success of persistence, and prevalence, is the evidence that verifies the past methods of … what is prevalently persisting today.

So, if you have disagreements with how Christianity has been conducted, perhaps alternative methods would have resulted in the religion's extinction, rather than utopia.

The caste system worked well in India for Hinduism, although folks traditionally found more limited opportunities for their character which were restricted to the caste.

A free for all of Egalitarianism unsuited for the times may have resulted in the death of Hinduism rather than its persistence and size, maybe Egalitarianism in some budding free thinker was the death of religions forgotten.

[MikeNovack]

So, if you have disagreements with how Christianity has been conducted, perhaps alternative methods would have resulted in the religion's extinction, rather than utopia.

Well it sure as hell resulted in the extinction of lots of religions. Shares that distinction with Islam. Sorry Walker, but that some religion thrived by going around forcing people of other religions to join or die I do not consider in its favor. Buddhism is also an ancient and thriving religion. So acting the way Christianity and Islam have is clearly NOT the only path to surviving and thriving. Necessity defense rejected.

[Belinda]

Your second paragraph illustrates my preference for the mystic and immanent God, notably "There are some exceptions, where the congregants are invited to experience for themselves. "

Or for contact with something else, which was why I used the more general "sense of the divine". As I said in my introduction, interest in comparative religion, not all by academic study, some by experience. My definition of religion broader than just those who believe the divine is "The mystic and immanent God".

Some on the interface between academic and experience. For example, my experience with "Ghost Dance" (late 19th Century, originally Paiute but spread to other tribes) was a demonstration that if you did the prescribed dance moves for some time you WOULD enter a trance state conducive to mystical experience. On the other hand, my experience with Afro-Cuban "voodoo" (Yoruba, polytheist) was by invitation from actual practitioners. Our hosts said they didn't expect us to be drawn into the dance but warned possible "if the Orishas wanted to meet us".

Do please tell me, Mike. Are you an anthropologist in real life?

[Belinda]

Your second paragraph illustrates my preference for the mystic and immanent God, notably "There are some exceptions, where the congregants are invited to experience for themselves. "

Or for contact with something else, which was why I used the more general "sense of the divine". As I said in my introduction, interest in comparative religion, not all by academic study, some by experience. My definition of religion broader than just those who believe the divine is "The mystic and immanent God".

Some on the interface between academic and experience. For example, my experience with "Ghost Dance" (late 19th Century, originally Paiute but spread to other tribes) was a demonstration that if you did the prescribed dance moves for some time you WOULD enter a trance state conducive to mystical experience. On the other hand, my experience with Afro-Cuban "voodoo" (Yoruba, polytheist) was by invitation from actual practitioners. Our hosts said they didn't expect us to be drawn into the dance but warned possible "if the Orishas wanted to meet us".

The Ghost Dance sounds like a hypnotic state. I've done something like it at University.The dance was directed , not at a deity, butat getting in touch with owning one's body with a view to personal autonomy.

I would expect the traditional Yoruba people to have various gods such as ancestors, a distant transcendent creator, and gods of place. I suppose that a hypnotic trance could be for getting in touch with any of those.

[MikeNovack]

Do please tell me, Mike. Are you an anthropologist in real life?
[/quote]

No --- my academic background was in the hard sciences (but like I said, interest in other things). When I got my BA, wasn't sure whether I wanted to go on with Physics or move to Philosophy. Since I had gone to school with NDF money, I decided to teach high school a while (what NDF was created for) and spent a decade teaching math and all sciences << besides the moral obligation, each year teaching forgave some of the loan, and when I began that, the Vietnam War still on and my draft board not taking 2As >>

Most of my working career designing/coding software (senior systems analyst and senior business analyst). Retired quite a while now. I'm over 80.

About the trance stuff -- yes of course the Yoruba rite folks are entering trance to contact the Orishas. You'd have to talk to one of THEM to decide if they believed aspects of some ONE or separate deities. Ghost Dance originally was to contact ancestors and the spirit of Buffalo -- but in this case we were just having demonstrated (by experience) that the particular combination of motions WOULD be disorienting/trance inducing relatively quickly-- sort of a hands on "see - this would do that". Most of us know that extended dancing, especially to exhaustion, can be trance inducing

Comparative religion doesn't mean looking ONLY at "one big god monotheism".