... and by this, I don't want your typical platitudes.
I require, in specifics, exactly what God is. I find the phrase 'God is Love', for instance, to be highly suspect: it refers to an unstable, nebulous inner passion as if it were a Platonic Form. So instead I'd like something a bit more concrete - what is the ontological nature of God? Is it a being or Being? Does it live as we do? Is it sentient in any intelligible sense? Is it static or permeable? What, if any, is its purpose? And, most importantly, what does it feel like to the believer, who supposes himself to have direct contact with it through the mediation of the Holy Spirit?
Please, no romantic semantics (lulz, rhyme). 'God is Love', 'God is Triune', and so forth will not do. In short, I want a daseinalysis of God. What is its Being?
A question for Christians: what IS God?
Moderator: Moderators
-
McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #2
God is unknowable. This answer precludes us from saying anything about God and to my mind is not much different from God is not. But it is a matter of personal preference.
God is the uncaused first cause. God is defined as the ultimate unknown. This is quite unsatisfactory to me, since it says nothing else about God.
God is spirit. What then is spirit?
God is Love. Even in context of this quote, this can only be said to be metaphorically true.
God is the Creator. That only states what God did, not what God is.
God is the uncaused first cause. God is defined as the ultimate unknown. This is quite unsatisfactory to me, since it says nothing else about God.
God is spirit. What then is spirit?
God is Love. Even in context of this quote, this can only be said to be metaphorically true.
God is the Creator. That only states what God did, not what God is.
[url=http://atheism.about.com/library/books/full/aafprAtheismGod.htm][i]In Atheism: The Case Against God[/i][/url], George Smith wrote:Defining the concept of god is not an optional chore to be undertaken at the theist’s convenience. It is a necessary prerequisite for intelligibility. Assuming that the theist does not believe his theism to be nonsense, he has the responsibility of explaining the content of his belief. Failing this, to state that “god exists” is to communicate nothing at all; it is as if nothing has been said.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
Post #3
Those aren't quite what I mean, McCulloch, though I thank you for your attempt.
Any extant thing or entity has what are called in phenomenology 'existentials' - that is to say, basic qualities which are less important than 'essence' (the Being itself, which is knowable only to itself) but which are more important and more telling than mere properties such as color or stature or personal disposition.
Take, for instance, consciousness. I have found, along with others, that my consciousness seems 'spatial'; I cannot define it, or even explain it, but it seems to definitely have some sort of dimensional aspect to it: it feels spatial, as if I were peering out of a transparent cube. This vague feeling is consistent, if ineffable in anything but a sort of poetic sense, and thus I can say that this 'spatiality' is an existential component of my consciousness, whereas consciousness itself, pure consciousness, my consciousness, known only to me subjectively, is an essential (if one accepts the concept of 'essence'). Saying that 'God is Love' refers only to a property of God, as do the concepts 'omnipotence', 'omniscience', and 'omnibenevolence'. One cannot know God's essentials, but one can, if one has direct contact with it, as the Christians claim, know its existentials, just as you, if you and I were somehow to merge consciousnesses, would know what I mean by 'spatial'. Thus the Christians ought to be able to say, in descriptive language, what God, for lack of a better term, 'feels like', which is no different from what it is.
This all sounds a bit fuzzy, but it really isn't. Christians ought to be able to report with some degree of consistency God's existentials.
To rephrase my question in two ways, which, according to Christian ontology, ought really to be one way:
1. What does God 'feel like' to the believer?
2. What does God 'feel like' to itself?
Any extant thing or entity has what are called in phenomenology 'existentials' - that is to say, basic qualities which are less important than 'essence' (the Being itself, which is knowable only to itself) but which are more important and more telling than mere properties such as color or stature or personal disposition.
Take, for instance, consciousness. I have found, along with others, that my consciousness seems 'spatial'; I cannot define it, or even explain it, but it seems to definitely have some sort of dimensional aspect to it: it feels spatial, as if I were peering out of a transparent cube. This vague feeling is consistent, if ineffable in anything but a sort of poetic sense, and thus I can say that this 'spatiality' is an existential component of my consciousness, whereas consciousness itself, pure consciousness, my consciousness, known only to me subjectively, is an essential (if one accepts the concept of 'essence'). Saying that 'God is Love' refers only to a property of God, as do the concepts 'omnipotence', 'omniscience', and 'omnibenevolence'. One cannot know God's essentials, but one can, if one has direct contact with it, as the Christians claim, know its existentials, just as you, if you and I were somehow to merge consciousnesses, would know what I mean by 'spatial'. Thus the Christians ought to be able to say, in descriptive language, what God, for lack of a better term, 'feels like', which is no different from what it is.
This all sounds a bit fuzzy, but it really isn't. Christians ought to be able to report with some degree of consistency God's existentials.
To rephrase my question in two ways, which, according to Christian ontology, ought really to be one way:
1. What does God 'feel like' to the believer?
2. What does God 'feel like' to itself?
Post #4
Dionysus
McCulloch
Sounds like a short conversation. I don't think I can eat enough Wheaties to tackle notions of ultimate realities. Why can't a thing be defined by its attributes? We don't even understand anything fundamental about what we can sense and measure in this natural universe. What is 'energy' anyway? Maybe we are all ultimately the same thing but combined in different ways. That would make our attributes THE item of conversation. When it comes to God and the supernatural, why should we arbitrarily define spirit quantums and then try to use that to deny the possibility of god/s? Isn't that a lot of wasted breath?Any extant thing or entity has what are called in phenomenology 'existentials' - that is to say, basic qualities which are less important than 'essence' (the Being itself, which is knowable only to itself) but which are more important and more telling than mere properties such as color or stature or personal disposition.
As far as I can tell no one has concrete definitions of their god/s. Any particular notion developed by enterprising theologians can easily be denied as man-made ('the finite making sense of the infinite') if it is shown to be logically inconsistent.This all sounds a bit fuzzy, but it really isn't. Christians ought to be able to report with some degree of consistency God's existentials.
McCulloch
And I don't think it is even a universal description of gods. Many gods aren't ultimate causes.God is the uncaused first cause. God is defined as the ultimate unknown. This is quite unsatisfactory to me, since it says nothing else about God.
Post #5
Because I have a theory, which I'm looking to validate, that religious concepts refer to particular states of experience: I have mentioned before possession, transubstantiation, transfiguration, and so forth, wherein two essences seem to somehow become exchanged or translated within one another - this to me seems to bely a basic fact about the nature of the psychology of religion, and even general human psychology as well. What it is I can't quite put my finger on yet, but this sort-of survey would go a long way towards that.
-
The Duke of Vandals
- Banned
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:48 pm
-
Negachrist
- Student
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 5:52 am
- Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Post #10
Hi, Dionysus.
I will post on your thread and see where it may go, since you have challenged me on another thread.
Start from the beginning. God is the creator, and the "force" or "power" that breathed life into man which was created from the dust of the earth.
Therefore, God is:
1. Creator
2. The source of life.
Man was originally created in the image (character) of God, but the freedom that comes from love allowed man to choose to disregard the character of God. God did not create robots, rather He desires His creation to WANT to know Him. Those who reject God do not want to know Him. They choose their own destiny by rejecting the source of life.
To know God requires the Truth about God's character. A return to the image in which man was originally created. This can be done by believing the Truth of the Gospels and understanding the example of God's forgiveness in the death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus.
Another aspect of God is righteousness, an understanding of right and wrong with a desire to do what is right. This leads to the wisdom aspect of God (love). The absence of righteousness is not love. In the case of men, men choose to turn love into something that fails to acknowledge God's righteousness. This is accomplished by using deception. But, God is Truth. Do not be decieved, because you cannot "feel" God while under deception. Unfortunately, the faith of a born again believer must be strong enough to overcome the accusations of men. Men will attempt to decieve you into thinking that you are in error believing in God. This is where the Word of God must be consulted to correctly assess the accusations put forth by men. Wavering faith will lead you into deception. The "feeling" will be lost. "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and with all your mind, and lean not on your own understanding." Mature the "feeling." Seek first His kingdom and His righteousness. Do not depart from it.
Being born of the Word of God is a process. It takes a relationship. It takes a love for the Creator who breathed life into your body. It takes a love for the Savior who gave His life for the forgiveness of men who do not know God.
Love God first, and He will teach you how to love your family, friends, and neighbors. Love righteousness first, and He will lead you out of error into life. A life full of a love for the lost who do not know God, nor love Him. Store up and treasure memories sharing this love with those who want it, with those who desire to also choose life.
Doesn't this world need more love and righteousness? And less foolishness and the suffering that goes with it?
rusty
I will post on your thread and see where it may go, since you have challenged me on another thread.
Start from the beginning. God is the creator, and the "force" or "power" that breathed life into man which was created from the dust of the earth.
Therefore, God is:
1. Creator
2. The source of life.
Man was originally created in the image (character) of God, but the freedom that comes from love allowed man to choose to disregard the character of God. God did not create robots, rather He desires His creation to WANT to know Him. Those who reject God do not want to know Him. They choose their own destiny by rejecting the source of life.
To know God requires the Truth about God's character. A return to the image in which man was originally created. This can be done by believing the Truth of the Gospels and understanding the example of God's forgiveness in the death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus.
"what does it feel like to the believer." First, it must obviously be a NEW feeling. A man going from not knowing God to knowing God IS a new feeling. Second, this feeling brings with it the forgiveness necessary to comprehend the "foregiveness" aspect of the character of God. Remember, God is love. Love has an aspect of forgiveness. Love without forgiveness simply would not be love.Dionysus wrote:
And, most importantly, what does it feel like to the believer, who supposes himself to have direct contact with it through the mediation of the Holy Spirit?
Another aspect of God is righteousness, an understanding of right and wrong with a desire to do what is right. This leads to the wisdom aspect of God (love). The absence of righteousness is not love. In the case of men, men choose to turn love into something that fails to acknowledge God's righteousness. This is accomplished by using deception. But, God is Truth. Do not be decieved, because you cannot "feel" God while under deception. Unfortunately, the faith of a born again believer must be strong enough to overcome the accusations of men. Men will attempt to decieve you into thinking that you are in error believing in God. This is where the Word of God must be consulted to correctly assess the accusations put forth by men. Wavering faith will lead you into deception. The "feeling" will be lost. "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and with all your mind, and lean not on your own understanding." Mature the "feeling." Seek first His kingdom and His righteousness. Do not depart from it.
Being born of the Word of God is a process. It takes a relationship. It takes a love for the Creator who breathed life into your body. It takes a love for the Savior who gave His life for the forgiveness of men who do not know God.
Love God first, and He will teach you how to love your family, friends, and neighbors. Love righteousness first, and He will lead you out of error into life. A life full of a love for the lost who do not know God, nor love Him. Store up and treasure memories sharing this love with those who want it, with those who desire to also choose life.
Doesn't this world need more love and righteousness? And less foolishness and the suffering that goes with it?
rusty
