Not Less than Personal -- according to EduChris

[McCulloch]

[God] is not less than personal.

I don't understand what this means.

The not less than I understand from mathematics and other places. It can mean one of two slightly different things. If the object of this phrase is something discreet, that is counted rather than measured, it means a certain number equal to or greater than the number indicated. Not less than 40 children waited to sit on Santa's knee. This means that there were a number of children waiting to sit on Santa's knee. The number is not exactly specified, but it could be as few as 40 or it could be more. If the object of the phrase is continuous, that is something that can be measured rather than counted, then it means a certain quantity or greater is indicated. He had not less than four pints of ale before staggering home. This means that he had four pints and an undisclosed amount more.

But I do not understand how this phrase applies to personality or personhood. As I understand it, personhood is binary. Either an entity is a person or it is not a person. I just do not understand what it means for an entity to be less than personal. Even more, I really do not understand what it might mean for an entity to be more than personal. Is this EduChris' way to define God as being one or more (perhaps three) persons?

[Divine Insight]

It's been my experience that philosophers often of create vague phrases like this for the express purpose of being vague. And they also seem to like to act like as if these phrases should be crystal clear and self-evident to anyone.

But like you, I too have questioned the precisely meaning of this phase.

I had already asked if this was meant to imply that God is necessarily anthropomorphic. The answer I got there was that God can be far greater than the sum total of what it means to be a person in human form, but simply can't be less.

In this sense the "is not less than" is a qualitative operator proclaiming that God has at least all of the qualities of being a human person, but may indeed include additional powers and capabilities both physical and psychic or mental.

I had also wondered if the idea of a person, or the quality of "Being Personal", implies a psychic perspective of being egotistical (i.e. the illusion of being an entity that is totally separate from everything else)

For me this would imply that God should be just as egotistical as we are, if not more so. Of course some religions certainly portray God to be highly egotistical lusting to be worshiped and glorified even by lowly humans. Some religions proclaim God to be jealous and vengeful, and that we should fear his wrath as he easily become uncontrollably angry in a very profoundly egotistical way.

I personally dismiss these primitive views of an egotistical God who loses his temper over such petty things. In fact, from my perspective this would indeed make such a God quite less than many mortal persons who are not nearly as immature, egotistical, or ignorant. So in these religions God would need to be far less than personal, in terms of the quality of personality of some mortal humans.

In other words, religions that portray God to be a jealous egotistical God who becomes angry over petty things have actually reduced the concept of God to being of less quality than many mature adult humans. Such a God would need to have a very immature personality more akin to a very young person who has not yet even learned to control their basic emotions.

~~~~~

Having said all of the above, I can see what some philosophers are attempting to get at when they proclaim something of this nature.

They are attempting to suggest that if there exists a God at all, that God must necessarily be at least as sentient and consciously aware as we are. Otherwise, what would be the point in even calling it a God?

A God that has no conscious awareness would just be an unconscious force or energy. What's the point in even referring to an unconscious energy as a God?

The very concept of God implies that God has some sort of conscious capability. And surely if it's suitable to be called a God that conscious ability must be far greater than that of a mere mortal person. Otherwise, everyday mortal people could be considered to be Gods.

~~~~

In various Eastern Mystical philosophies the mystics have addressed this concepts in depth.

They too would suggest that God is "not less than personal" in the sense that God's consciousness must, at the very least, include ours. So the mind of God cannot be less than that which it includes.

However, the Mystics suggest that we are merely a facet of this mind that we call God. So in this sense God has no ego. And neither do we. On the contrary the Eastern mystics point out that the very illusion of the ego (of being a totally separate entity that is somehow detached from all else that exists) is itself the greatest of all delusions.

This is truly remarkable, because the Eastern Mystics are then saying that any religion that has portrayed God to be highly egotistical or self-centered in any way (like lusting to be worshiped or glorified) are actually religions that are demanding that God is extremely deluded into thinking of itself as being egotistically important.

So the Mystics would caution that if a person is going to define God to be "not less than personal" they should first become enlightened to the emptiness of the illusion of ego.

Only then will this concept of "not less than personal" begin to make any real sense.

But as long as the very concept of "personal" is being tied to an illusion of ego (i.e. an illusion of separation from all else), then to think of God as being an extension of that is already heading in the wrong direction.

That type of thinking will only serve to envision God as being extremely egotistical and thus extremely separate from our conscious awareness.

In fact, this is what the Abrahamic religions have done. They have imagined God to be the ultimate ego that requires praise, glory, recognition, obedience, authority over "others", etc.

And then they imagine themselves to be these "others" that this egotistical God lusts to rule over.

And they imagine that they will ultimately be preserved as "tiny egos" who will forever spend eternity worshiping and glorifying this "Big Ego" which they call God.

So ironically the Abrahamic religions have actually become nothing more than an extreme case of worshiping the Ego as God. As well as a desire to have their own individual egos preserved for eternity by this head honcho ego called "God".

~~~~~

So that's how I see it.

Sorry for the long-winded explanation but I felt it was necessary.

In an Eastern Mystical picture I would agree that any God cannot be "less than personal". Where the concept of any ego attached to that idea has been totally recognized to be a false delusion.

But in western religions where the ego is worshiped both as God, and as being the prime thing that must be "saved" by this egotistical God and preserved eternally as an eternal ego that will always be separate from God as a conscious entity, is truly is nothing more than a worshiping of the delusion of the ego.

It is the extreme opposite of Eastern Mysticism where recognition of the emptiness of the delusion of the ego is considered the key to spiritual enlightenment.

Eastern mystics point out the false delusion of the ego.

Western Abrahamics worship the ego to the hilt creating a God out of it.

[Nilloc James]

It's been my experience that philosophers often of create vague phrases like this for the express purpose of being vague. And they also seem to like to act like as if these phrases should be crystal clear and self-evident to anyone. 

In defence of philosophers: good philosophers don't (e.g Dennet spends half his lectures making sure everyone understands his language).

I agree with the rest of your post though!

[Divine Insight]

It's been my experience that philosophers often of create vague phrases like this for the express purpose of being vague. And they also seem to like to act like as if these phrases should be crystal clear and self-evident to anyone. 

In defence of philosophers: good philosophers don't (e.g Dennet spends half his lectures making sure everyone understands his language).

I agree with the rest of your post though!

You are totally correct. I made a very bad and improper statement. Shame on me. Please accept my apology.

I should have said:

"It's been my experience that often times amateur philosophers on the Internet will create vague phrases like this for the express purpose of being vague. And they also seem to like to act like as if these phrases should be crystal clear and self-evident to anyone."

As you point out, professional philosophers will go to great lengths to define their terms as clearly as possible before they even beginning to discuss them.

Clarification: I don't mean this to imply that I think EduChris is an amateur philosopher (I wasn't even thinking of the thread title). I'm just pointing out that often times less than professional philosophy is often argued from a perspective that makes ill-defined assumptions about terms or phrases without clarifying in detail how they are being used in a specific context.

[ttruscott]

...

In other words, religions that portray God to be a jealous egotistical God who becomes angry over petty things have actually reduced the concept of God to being of less quality than many mature adult humans. Such a God would need to have a very immature personality more akin to a very young person who has not yet even learned to control their basic emotions.

...

Your way of thinking about this is a bit off:

When GOD allowed us to choose the kind of life we wanted, HE encouraged us to follow HIM as to reject HIM was to become enslaved to sin, unable to ever free ourselves from evil or stop trying to pervert others.

We could choose anything but rather than standing up to be counted: who's for Jehovah, who's for Ba'al, who's for satan ? I think it was much more organic than that, a slow growing of awareness, then interest, then hanging around, then commitment to a particular cause until everyone's own faith was evident to themselves and each other and they were settled in it.

Then came the call to act, to decide once and for all: to choose which kind of life we wanted to have, which kind of life we hoped would make us the happiest by making this choice:

1. a life with this (supposed) GOD who was perfect and (supposedly) created us to join HIM in that perfection and in loving holy communion forever but who would damn anyone who became HIS irredeemable enemy by rejecting HIS plan for their creation,
or
2. a life in which we were just as important as this obviously false god, better in fact because we were not liars about ourselves. A life in which we are our own GOD and our laws and our love is the epitomé of perfection. A life in which we bow to no one.
or
3. a life being (or following) any other kind of god of any description based upon thoughts that though they decided this Jehovah was a false god, he did have a good gig going and they wanted in on the action.

The fact that this method of finding all those who sincerely wanted to live with GOD in heaven in perfect loving, holy communion allowed for others to set themselves up as "gods in opposition" so to speak was a necessary part of the meaning of true free will but

nowhere is it said that GOD must make nice with these false gods who have led astray so many of HIS creation by their own claims and promises that mimicked HIS, dragging some to hell with them by their choice and by defiling HIS church with temptations and depravities, before they could learn holiness.

These false gods:
- enticed 1/3 of the angels to join them in their rebellion and were sent to tartarus, not a petty thing.
- taught their followers to defile HIS elect so that the judgment must be postponed until all the elect could be brought to redemption and holiness by the lessons they learned from living under the suffering caused by sin on earth, not a petty thing.
- are the substantive cause of all the suffering in ALL creation, not a petty thing.

Not at all petty things.

I guess if my child was enticed to a life of drugged depravity in a satanic or political cult, I must have nothing to say about it, eh? Equating GOD's righteous anger over the treatment of HIS church by these false gods and their perverted followers to the magnanimous thoughtful considerations of a man at peace with his life is ludicrous...your mature adult human must be faced with the defence of his family by the most perverted criminals in history and the choice of doing whatever it takes to get them free, before there is any comparison at all.

What would the mature adult human say on the courtroom steps to the TV cameras about those destroying his family....?

I know what GOD said and I applaud HIS defence of His children, the elect on earth.

Peace, Ted

[Divine Insight]

Your way of thinking about this is a bit off:

Obviously I'll disagree with you on this point. But I must say that you have some interesting things to say. Not necessarily valid, but certainly interesting.

When GOD allowed us to choose the kind of life we wanted, HE encouraged us to follow HIM as to reject HIM was to become enslaved to sin, unable to ever free ourselves from evil or stop trying to pervert others.

Well, I personally know that this particular claim is necessarily a false claim.

I do not accept that the Bible has anything to do with God. I most certainly do not "follow" the teachings of the Bible, nor do I even agree with many of them. But in Christianity this is what it means to "Follow HIM".

So in a Christian sense I most certainly do not follow the Christian God.

Yet it is totally false accusation that I am enslaved to sin, or that I even remotely pervert others.

So I know from my very own existence that this claim is false. It is indeed a blatant lie. Period Amen.

There is no truth to this false claim that people who do not accept or follow the Biblical teachings of the Hebrew legends of God are necessarily "enslaved to sin" or that they are unable to "stop perverting others".

Those are outright lies. They are falsehoods. And since the Hebrew fables proclaim that they are true, we (or at least I) can be absolutely certain that the Hebrew fables contain outright lies.

I imagine that people who are enslaved to sin and the perversion of others wouldn't be able to see that these are lies. Obviously for them the charges could not be denied.

But for me those charges are utterly false.

I don't even smoke cigarettes anymore. Smoking cigarettes was probably the "Biggest Sin" of my entire life, if only because it was clearly not good for my health. But even I managed to quit that nasty habit on my own well over a decade ago.

In addition, even when I was a smoker I passionately warned other people not to pick up the filthy habit. And I confess to feeling disappointed in myself for not being a better example by continually clinging to the filthy habit as long as I did.

But I didn't need any God to free my from my bad habit. I managed to free myself entirely on my own.

These false gods:
- enticed 1/3 of the angels to join them in their rebellion and were sent to tartarus, not a petty thing.
- taught their followers to defile HIS elect so that the judgment must be postponed until all the elect could be brought to redemption and holiness by the lessons they learned from living under the suffering caused by sin on earth, not a petty thing.
- are the substantive cause of all the suffering in ALL creation, not a petty thing.

Not at all petty things.

I'm sorry ttruscott, but the fictional tale of 1/3 of Gods angels falling from grace was indeed a fictional story written by a bishop who was simply trying to offer a fictional apologetic fantasy for Christianity.

I don't thing anyone actually considers those stories to be part of any accepted "Holy Scriptures". Unless of course you believe that Bishop himself was divinely inspired in his fictional writings.




Choices?

1. a life with this (supposed) GOD who was perfect and (supposedly) created us to join HIM in that perfection and in loving holy communion forever but who would damn anyone who became HIS irredeemable enemy by rejecting HIS plan for their creation,

IMHO, before he could justify damning anyone for rejecting HIS plan he would need to make clear precisely what that plan was.

But no one seems to know what the plan is ttruscott.

2. a life in which we were just as important as this obviously false god, better in fact because we were not liars about ourselves. A life in which we are our own GOD and our laws and our love is the epitomé of perfection. A life in which we bow to no one.

A life of mutual respect where there is no ultimate ego that needs to be bowed to would indeed be the epitome of perfection.

An life of eternal oppression beneath an egotistical GOD is hardly perfect.

3. a life being (or following) any other kind of god of any description based upon thoughts that though they decided this Jehovah was a false god, he did have a good gig going and they wanted in on the action.

There are plenty of other God myths around that have very righteous loving GODS that represent genuine love.

What could possibly be wrong with choosing to want to believe in a genuinely loving God?

The jealous Biblical God is going to condemn someone to eternal damnation just because they imagined that an actual LOVING God might exist?

It seems to me that any GOD who could do that would be exhibiting his own demonic hateful nature to everyone.

The fact that this method of finding all those who sincerely wanted to live with GOD in heaven in perfect loving, holy communion allowed for others to set themselves up as "gods in opposition" so to speak was a necessary part of the meaning of true free will but

nowhere is it said that GOD must make nice with these false gods who have led astray so many of HIS creation by their own claims and promises that mimicked HIS, dragging some to hell with them by their choice and by defiling HIS church with temptations and depravities, before they could learn holiness.

Everything you've described here just sounds to me like a GOD who has an extreme case of arrogance. And could not possibly have the qualities of "Perfect Love" as you claim.

A GOD who has "Perfect Love" would not be chomping at the bit to cast people into eternal damnation for simply seeking LOVE elsewhere.

Especially considering the nasty things HE has done in HIS own book! He gave Satan permission to kill Job's entire family and beat up on Job simply because Job was losing faith.

That's an example of his "Perfect Love"?

It's no wonder people are running from this GOD as fast as they can.

I guess if my child was enticed to a life of drugged depravity in a satanic or political cult, I must have nothing to say about it, eh?

A totally false analogy and you know it.

This is a truly underhanded and despicable trait of Christianity. Proclaim that to merely not believe in Christianity equations to all manner of horrible sick and perverted things.

That is utter nonsense. It's a truly CHEAP SHOT at non-believers. In fact, it's so cheap that it truly reveals just how weak Christianity truly is.

Equating GOD's righteous anger over the treatment of HIS church by these false gods and their perverted followers to the magnanimous thoughtful considerations of a man at peace with his life is ludicrous...your mature adult human must be faced with the defence of his family by the most perverted criminals in history and the choice of doing whatever it takes to get them free, before there is any comparison at all.

What would the mature adult human say on the courtroom steps to the TV cameras about those destroying his family....?

I know what GOD said and I applaud HIS defence of His children, the elect on earth.

Peace, Ted

Well, your fundamentalism is obvious.

Just proclaim that anyone who refuses to believe in Christianity is a disgusting perverted heathen and that the Christian GOD is righteous in his hideous condemnation of them because NO OTHER GOD could possible represent PERFECT LOVE like the God or Christianity.

The truth is Ted that there is no truth to this position at all.

Other religions exist that offer truly loving GODS.

So your claim that all other GODS are out to corrupt and pervert people is simple a totally FALSE claim.

Therefore if Christianity is making this claim, then Christianity itself must necessarily be a FALSE religion. Because it's making FALSE claims.

[Nilloc James]

It's been my experience that philosophers often of create vague phrases like this for the express purpose of being vague. And they also seem to like to act like as if these phrases should be crystal clear and self-evident to anyone. 

In defence of philosophers: good philosophers don't (e.g Dennet spends half his lectures making sure everyone understands his language).

I agree with the rest of your post though!

You are totally correct. I made a very bad and improper statement. Shame on me. Please accept my apology.

I should have said:

"It's been my experience that often times amateur philosophers on the Internet will create vague phrases like this for the express purpose of being vague. And they also seem to like to act like as if these phrases should be crystal clear and self-evident to anyone."

As you point out, professional philosophers will go to great lengths to define their terms as clearly as possible before they even beginning to discuss them.

Clarification: I don't mean this to imply that I think EduChris is an amateur philosopher (I wasn't even thinking of the thread title). I'm just pointing out that often times less than professional philosophy is often argued from a perspective that makes ill-defined assumptions about terms or phrases without clarifying in detail how they are being used in a specific context.

Ironically this highlights what happens when language is used without explicit meaning being clear!