God vs gods

Elijah John · Post by **Elijah John** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 7:46 am

Here on this site, one often hears from non-believers statements and questions doubting the existence of "gods", plural. Not sure why that is. Why not just question God, singular? In Western culture, that would be a more relevant question.

Hardy anyone believes in "gods" anymore. Hindus and Pagans maybe. But most folks here in in the West are either Jewish, Christian of Muslim. Monotheism is predominant.
(Whether or not Trinitarians are actual Monotheists is another debate).

But this leads to an important question. Why philosohically, (excluding reasons of upbringing or cultural conditioning) do SO many in the West believe in God, singular, as opposed to "gods" plural?

What IS the case for Monotheism, as opposed to Polytheism?

(please, this is not intended to become a "prove God or gods exists", thread)

Zzyzx · Post by **Zzyzx** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 11:04 am

.

bishblaize wrote: [Replying to post 108 by Zzyzx]

Would you agree that all thoughts about anything are necessarily interpretations?

No I would not agree.

Interpret is defined as: "To explain or tell the meaning of; to expound; to translate orally into intelligible or familiar language or terms; to decipher; to define; -- applied especially to language, but also to dreams, signs, conduct, mysteries, etc." http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/interpret

What has that to do with someone's claim that they "experience God?"

Thunder9010 · Post by **Thunder9010** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 4:33 pm

Danmark wrote: If God were a pure spirit and that spirit was something not supernatural, but of some sort of undefined and unknowable energy that also has some kind of personhood or personality, I'd say that would be truly godlike.
But descriptions like
"... they look exactly like we do. It's not much of a stretch to say that we are the same sort of being, albeit infinitely ... smaller for lack of a better word. This is the way the Greeks, Vikings and countless others saw it. A mortal could quite literally earn godhood and the gods were so similar to humans that made this transition possible"
... describe a Greek or Viking God; that is, an anthropomorphic creation.

Perhaps it is more similar to a Viking or Greek god. So what? The greater point is whether it is more like the Hebrew God. Is the Hebrew God ever presented to us as a completely disembodied pure spirit?

I think you're extremely biased by your former religion. There are a couple passages of scripture that say "God is a spirit." Those passages are used to disregard everything in the Bible that suggests that while God certainly is a spirit, he is also a physical being. The notion that he is a physical being is far more Biblical than the post-Biblical theology positing that he is only a spirit. Jesus has a body. The regaining of that physical body is supposedly the greatest event in human history. By Christ redeeming his own physical body, all of us will regain our physical bodies. If possessing a physical body demeans and degrades and limits, what's the point Christ's resurrection?

I expect the problem is another post-Biblical teaching claiming that our bodies are inherently evil and a curse. For our temporary mortal bodies, this might be true. But Christ would not have redeemed his own body and all of ours in the process if our future immortal resurrected body demeaned us or made us less. I cannot explain why, but apparently it makes us more, not less. There would be no point in redeeming it. The most fundamental teaching in New Testament Christianity was that Jesus was risen from the dead.

The notion of God being a "pure spirit" (whatever that means precisely) gains great popularity among the Greek/Roman world after the apostles. It's a new and different idea after all. But it isn't actually taught in the Bible. An embodied Son of God certainly is.

As to personal "experience of God" and the desire to share it, I was an evangelical Christian from age 6 to 30 something, including 2 years as a lay missionary. I think I know exactly what you are talking about. But it is a manifestation of the unconscious mind combined with years of teaching or indoctrination. At any rate it is highly subjective. My sometimes used sig line describes my central thought on these matters:
"The unconscious mind is so great, unfathomable and mysterious that it is mistaken for god."

The very fact that we are effectively built to experience the divine is very interesting. Why do you suppose that is? If we are purely the product of evolution, what possible advantage can there be for this tendency to experience divinity?

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 5:01 pm

Thunder9010 wrote: I think you're extremely biased by your former religion. There are a couple passages of scripture that say "God is a spirit." Those passages are used to disregard everything in the Bible that suggests that while God certainly is a spirit, he is also a physical being. ....The very fact that we are effectively built to experience the divine is very interesting. Why do you suppose that is? If we are purely the product of evolution, what possible advantage can there be for this tendency to experience divinity?

It is ironic that you suggest I am biased by my former religion. It is the same as yours. I have simply outgrown it. Despite the fact I was raised to believe in the Trinity, I never did. The duality perhaps, but not the Trinity. Like you, I understood my Christian background and beliefs, but I never believed it exactly as presented. Like a Christian should, I evaluated for myself and did not just take another's word for what Christianity really was or should be. I studied enough that eventually I realized that even the theology teachers, the Bible scholars and the Ministers who addressed their congregations knew more about the origin of scripture and church history and doctrine than they were willing to share publicly; that they had their own grave doubts.

Your last paragraph makes a giant assumption, that we are "built to experience the divine." This is an unsupported claim. We may be able to experience the illusion of divinity, just as we are able to be fooled by a magician's illusion. Our credulity or even gullibility is hardly evidence there is a god or any other supernatural being or force.

What are these verses that suggest God is not a spirit or that he is also a physical being? And if the Bible suggests such a contradiction, why shouldn't I reject it for being contradictory rather than accepting such a contradiction?

Thunder9010 · Post by **Thunder9010** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 7:09 pm

[Replying to post 113 by Danmark]
I'm suggesting that many of the core Christian assumptions of absolute truth are not nearly so absolute as you might think they are.

Is the Bible contradictory? The short answer is yes. The entire notion of Biblical infallibility was always nonsense to begin with. The Bible never claims to be infallible. Passages in the Bible that are misused to "prove" the ridiculous notion of Biblical infallibility cannot possibly be talking about the Bible for one very simple reason: The Bible didn't exist yet and wouldn't exist for another several hundred years. With a couple of obvious exceptions, I doubt that most of the New Testament writers had any inking that their writings would one day be regarded as scripture. If belief in Christianity must live or die on an infallible Bible that never contradicts itself, then far too much Christian belief is being set up for failure.

As to my contention that we are "built to experience the divine" I'm talking about the pineal gland.
http://theintentionexperiment.com/the-human-antenna.htm
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cienc ... rain66.htm
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/20 ... 22854.html

People who have messed with their pineal gland using magnetic stimulus have reported seeing ghosts and other supernatural phenomena.

As to scriptural support for God the Father having a body?
Genesis - 1:26-27 God is the template used to create humans.
Exodus 33:11 - "The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friends." So apparently God has a face.
Genesis 3:8 - "Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God amo4ng the trees of the garden." So God is walking around. Adam and Eve hear him. How does a being of pure spirit do this?
Exodus 33:20-23 "But, he said, you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." So apparently God has a face, hands and a back. He also apparently has a physical location in this instance.
Exodus 34:5 "Then the Lord came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the Lord." So God stood. How does that work if you're pure spirit?

A better breakdown can be found here: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/spirit.html

Had to dig around a bit to understand the source, but Steve Wells is an avowed unbeliever, yet he demonstrates that there is more scriptural evidence for an embodied God than an unembodied one.

Lastly, we must consider Hebrews 1:1-4

God, having spoken in former times in fragmentary and varied fashion to our forefathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by a Son whom he appointed to be the heir of everything and through whom he also made the universe. He is the reflection of Gods glory and the exact likeness of his being, and he holds everything together by his powerful word. After he had provided a cleansing from sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Highest Majesty.

If God the Father lacks a body, then it can hardly be said that the Son and Father are exactly alike. If one has a physical body and the other does not then that alone constitutes a rather huge difference between the two. So if the Father is a spirit and only a spirit, but the Son is both embodied and a spirit, then this passage of scripture is quite blatantly false.

The tendency of those claiming that God the Father is a spirit and only a spirit is to chalk all references and evidences of the God the Father's physical body up to "it's just metaphorical." I think there is more than enough scripture to question the way "God is a Spirit" is being interpreted by traditional Christian theologians.

NOTE: Isn't it interesting that I can use the very Trinitarian biased translations of the Bible to shoot holes in the Trinity? Part and parcel to the "official" Trinity is the belief that God the Father is a spirit and only a spirit.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 7:34 pm

Thunder9010 wrote: [Replying to post 113 by Danmark]
I'm suggesting that many of the core Christian assumptions of absolute truth are not nearly so absolute as you might think they are.

Is the Bible contradictory? The short answer is yes. The entire notion of Biblical infallibility was always nonsense to begin with. The Bible never claims to be infallible. Passages in the Bible that are misused to "prove" the ridiculous notion of Biblical infallibility cannot possibly be talking about the Bible for one very simple reason: The Bible didn't exist yet and wouldn't exist for another several hundred years. With a couple of obvious exceptions, I doubt that most of the New Testament writers had any inking that their writings would one day be regarded as scripture. If belief in Christianity must live or die on an infallible Bible that never contradicts itself, then far too much Christian belief is being set up for failure.
....
People who have messed with their pineal gland using magnetic stimulus have reported seeing ghosts and other supernatural phenomena.

I think I agree with every bit of this except your assumption that I might be one who joins in "assumptions of absolute truth are not nearly so absolute as you might think they are."
As I say, I agree with you. The problem for those sophisticated or educated sufficiently to recognize the fallibility of the Bible as the 'absolute word of God' is that they lose their authority to claim it speaks for God.

Re:

As to my contention that we are "built to experience the divine" I'm talking about the pineal gland.
http://theintentionexperiment.com/the-human-antenna.htm
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cienc ... rain66.htm
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/20 ... 22854.html

I'll reserve judgment until there are peer reviewed studies documenting the pineal gland has something to do with seeing God.

In the meantime, I have no doubt that many if not all who claim to see ghosts, gods, or goblins may in fact be suffering from some organic brain dysfunction, just as I have no doubt some who claim to have visions may be suffering from a mental disorder.

And I would not limit this kind of reported phenomena to the mentally ill. Given the power of the unconscious and the incredible vividness of dreams, I have little doubt normal people are capable of wondrous visions that seem so real, it may be hard to distinguish them from 'real' events.

It's been a while since I confessed this here, so I guess I'll do so again for newer members. 25 or so years ago I was alone in a small sailboat in Washington's San Juan Islands. I'd been living alone on the boat for a summer. I was anchored out in a beautiful bay, relaxing in the cabin when, in the early afternoon as I was contemplating Jesus as no more or less divine than anyone else; comparing him to a zen master, his parables to zen koans, Jesus boarded my boat. He climbed down the companion way, looked directly at me, smiled and said in English, "Keep it up. You are on the right track." Then he disappeared as mysteriously as he had arrived.

This was very real to me and I swore at the time to never attempt to categorize or explain it away. But whenever someone wants to tell me he "knows" something about Jesus, or divine truth, I quietly reply that I have had my own revelation that tells me they are wrong. Whatever my experience was, it's every bit as authentic as Saul/Paul's or Joseph Smith's or that of anyone else.

Thunder9010 · Post by **Thunder9010** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 8:33 pm

Danmark wrote: I think I agree with every bit of this except your assumption that I might be one who joins in "assumptions of absolute truth are not nearly so absolute as you might think they are."

The statement was not directed at you. It was more directed at folks who have broad sweeping notions of absolute truth. Biblical infallibility is a huge one. There are countless examples that could also be pointed to.

As I say, I agree with you. The problem for those sophisticated or educated sufficiently to recognize the fallibility of the Bible as the 'absolute word of God' is that they lose their authority to claim it speaks for God.

When I was a kid, I didn't have a problem with it because I didn't really think about it. As an adult, I have a very big problem with basing all things Christian on a fragmentary collection of books that are thousands of years old.

It is my experience that God can speak for himself. Who are we to say He cannot?

In the meantime, I have no doubt that many if not all who claim to see ghosts, gods, or goblins may in fact be suffering from some organic brain dysfunction, just as I have no doubt some who claim to have visions may be suffering from a mental disorder.

And I would not limit this kind of reported phenomena to the mentally ill. Given the power of the unconscious and the incredible vividness of dreams, I have little doubt normal people are capable of wondrous visions that seem so real, it may be hard to distinguish them from 'real' events.

It's been a while since I confessed this here, so I guess I'll do so again for newer members. 25 or so years ago I was alone in a small sailboat in Washington's San Juan Islands. I'd been living alone on the boat for a summer. I was anchored out in a beautiful bay, relaxing in the cabin when, in the early afternoon as I was contemplating Jesus as no more or less divine than anyone else; comparing him to a zen master, his parables to zen koans, Jesus boarded my boat. He climbed down the companion way, looked directly at me, smiled and said in English, "Keep it up. You are on the right track." Then he disappeared as mysteriously as he had arrived.

This was very real to me and I swore at the time to never attempt to categorize or explain it away. But whenever someone wants to tell me he "knows" something about Jesus, or divine truth, I quietly reply that I have had my own revelation that tells me they are wrong. Whatever my experience was, it's every bit as authentic as Saul/Paul's or Joseph Smith's or that of anyone else.

I really appreciate you sharing your experience. It is very interesting. As you have said you do not wish to categorize or explain it, out of respect for your experience I won't attempt to analyze it. (I hope I'm understanding you correctly about that.)

Yes there are singular personal experiences. If we choose to discount many of those as hallucination, that's fine. But what about the experiences that are had by a group of people collectively? How can exactly the same hallucination be experienced by multiple people all at the same time?

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 8:55 pm

Thunder9010 wrote: Yes there are singular personal experiences. If we choose to discount many of those as hallucination, that's fine. But what about the experiences that are had by a group of people collectively? How can exactly the same hallucination be experienced by multiple people all at the same time?

That's a good question. First, let's exclude all of those reports that are too old to be properly documented and other such reports from doubtful sources.

As I mentioned, I was exposed to such things from as early as I can remember. I do not doubt that there are times when entire groups agree that something supernatural occurred. On examination it has been my experience that frequently a kind of "mob psychology" [I don't mean that pejoratively] takes over when emotions are heightened among people who share the same hopes, values, and expectations. Even individuals misperceive on a regular basis. Hunters both alone and in groups mistake yellow tents for deer and shoot people unintentionally.

The group dynamic only makes each individual more susceptible.
A book on the subject is reviewed at
http://www.amazon.com/Global-Brain-Evol ... 0471419192

I've been in groups where under highly emotional experiences certain subgroups seem to agree on things happening that others simply did not see.

The secondary problem comes in the retelling of the event, often to the credulous who do not question the more outlandish details of such claims.

bishblaize · Post by **bishblaize** » Sun Oct 19, 2014 2:53 am

Zzyzx wrote:
No I would not agree.

Interpret is defined as: "To explain or tell the meaning of; to expound; to translate orally into intelligible or familiar language or terms; to decipher; to define; -- applied especially to language, but also to dreams, signs, conduct, mysteries, etc." http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/interpret

What has that to do with someone's claim that they "experience God?"

Sorry for the slow reply.

Many believe that all thoughts of the mind involve a complex web of interpretations. The illusion of the self, the chair I'm sat on, whether the room is nicely heated or not, how tasty my breakfast is, whether the weather is fine or whether the weather is not, good, evil, up down, left and right. None of these are absolute artefacts of reality, they're creations of the mind, interpretations of the stream of data one's sensory organs produce.

Do you have an example of thoughts you have that aren't based on a series of interpretations that your mind has spun?

Zzyzx · Post by **Zzyzx** » Sun Oct 19, 2014 3:19 am

.
[Replying to post 111 by Zzyzx]

Notice that in post 111 I quoted you saying "Would you agree that all thoughts about anything are necessarily interpretations?" and indicated that I did not agree.

I also asked What has that to do with someone's claim that they "experience God?"

Now you appear to favor a conjecture that your self and your chair are illusions. You are certainly entitled to consider yourself and your chair to be illusions. However, I am not bound to accept that "reasoning."

Are "gods" also illusions?

With the latter I might tend to agree " that the thousands of proposed invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities are illusions. However, it is difficult for me (and I trust, others) to accept your suggestion that my chair is an illusion.

bishblaize · Post by **bishblaize** » Sun Oct 19, 2014 5:21 am

Zzyzx wrote: However, it is difficult for me (and I trust, others) to accept your suggestion that my chair is an illusion.

Its easy to assume that the chair I'm sat on has an inherent realness. That it exists separate from myself. But that doesn't really stand up to logical scrutiny.

The thing I am sat on is made of wooden panels with a few screws in it. Suppose I move the screws and lay the wooden panels flat on the floor. Where's the chair now? Gone! With nothing more than a swish of a screwdriver I make an inherent 'thing' with a definite 'reality' disappear entirely from the universe!

The fairly obvious truth is that the existence of something is entirely contextual. I just moved the parts and the concept no longer applied. That's all it ever was. A concept, an interpretation my mind spun on the pile of atoms beneath by rear. Few things have an inherent reality outside of the context that the human mind puts on it. A fist only exists when a hand is clenched. Open the hand and its gone. The water only exists in my cup before I add an espresso. Then its gone and an americano is created. When the context changes, so thing disappears or appears.

And that's only the things we believe are objective. Subjective reality is even more shifty. But at least most of us recognize that it ebbs and flows in a contextualized manner.

The human mind confuses many things that are simply notional concepts, useful in the moment, with having an inherent reality separate from the human itself. Its the greatest of all human delusions.

I include the notion of self in that. Indeed is the belief in the afterlife anything more than the rock hard belief that the ego is such an inherent reality that it must continue even after the body has died?

So what the hell has this got to do with anything? When you begin to take the view that your mind is consistently making a reality out of things that aren't really there, creating interpretations again and again in a contextualized manner then trying to convince you they're true, you begin to become a lot more relaxed about other beliefs that people have. You realise that the belief doesn't matter so much as how it moves you towards your objectives.

To me believing that the world is inherently rational is no more a reality than believing the world sits on the back of four giant turtles or that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman. It may be more coherent, sure. But its not an inherent reality, its a belief system, the lens through which we give the world focus.

You believe that seeing a god is no more than a trick of the mind. I believe that the same can be said for all thoughts.

Thinking about something is by definition interpretation, or so I believe. However I've been proven wrong many times in my life so if there are examples of the day to day reality having an inherent existence rather than a mere contextual label, I'd love to hear about it.