God as an immortal 'being'

[imhereforyou]

For your own point of view, is it absolutely necessary for God to be this supreme being of everything that's immortal?
In other words, does God need to be something more that we can't understand, perfect and incapable of being flawed, or can it be something (or a series of somethings) that were entirely mortal and flawed, not all powerful and all knowing like many claim, that was simply more technically advanced than anything we've seen before or since?
Why or why not?

[steveb1]

For your own point of view, is it absolutely necessary for God to be this supreme being of everything that's immortal?
In other words, does God need to be something more that we can't understand, perfect and incapable of being flawed, or can it be something (or a series of somethings) that were entirely mortal and flawed, not all powerful and all knowing like many claim, that was simply more technically advanced than anything we've seen before or since?
Why or why not?

Yes, for me, God is not exactly immortal, but rather eternal.
"Immortal" connotes a mortal being who has, by whatever means, passed into immortality; whereas "Eternal" connotes a being who has been always existent in an "eternal Now", never having been a mortal being to begin with.

Other essentials for my God-definition are:

God is real, but not a creator, intervener, or judge

God has no power, if by power is meant the ability to create, maintain, and intervene within the physical cosmos. God's only "power" is God's ability to transform persons from within - as a living, loving Presence in the soul.
God has no power of miraculous physical intervention.
And I see that as a virtue, not a flaw.

God is not an object of intellectual/scientific/philosophical knowledge, but rather of direct personal experience, as in mystical union and "gnosis". Since experience trumps faith, faith-about, and faith-in, then experience of God does, too.

At base, humans are not separate from God, according to the principle that, at base, the Atman is not separate from the Brahman, or in the sense that (as 2 Peter states), we are to become partakers or participants in the Divine Nature.

So "God" includes both the infinite Divine Awareness and Divine Being and our own limited awareness and being. This can be realized spontaneously, or through the hundreds of "lenses" or meditative, contemplative methods that have been designed specifically to attain God as an object of personal experience.

[imhereforyou]

[Replying to post 2 by steveb1]

Interesting - and thanks for the input. How did you come to this conclusion, being that it appears you were a former Christian?

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 2 by steveb1]

Interesting - and thanks for the input. How did you come to this conclusion, being that it appears you were a former Christian?

Thanks for the kind words and comment. Long story, I'll try to trim it -

As I was leaving Christianity I still knew that I would always be religious by nature, so that I would probably always "believe" in the Sacred Transcendent in one way or another. So quite naturally I read comparative religion, Eastern religion, New Testament scholarship, and the ideas of "modern" sages like Krishnamurti, Osho (yes, I know he's controversial), Ramana Maharshi, Ken Wilber, Alan B. Wallace, Adyashanti, a little Ram Dass, etc. I also had the privilege of having been taught by the late NT scholar Marcus Borg who had a great influence on my thinking. I also delved deeply into Carl Jung and "depth" psychology.

During that process I discovered that I was a panentheist (not pantheist). I found that I could "have" a deity Who did not need to be a creator, intervener, or judge in order to be real, and Whose real "power" and "activity" functioned as a transforming Presence in the soul/my deepest subjectivity. A God who is both "here" (immanent) and "more than here" (transcendent). That is, the God of the mystics, of the Gnostics, of divine union and communion. Not a acting as manipulator of matter, but rather as an "invitational" (not coercive) activity within me.

And during that process I came across an article about "good Christians" whom the media and the general culture have a tendency to despise. It was written by the Buddhist sensei Jose Tirado, who is of the Jodo Shinshu/Shin Buddhist school. I then looked into Shin and found that it fit like a glove. Its Amida Buddha, although not a deity, nonetheless shares several functions in common with the panentheistic notion of a non-creating deity, and also with the mystical notion of a sacred Ultimate working with us from within.

So I converted to Shin maybe 9 years or so ago. I am a solitary practitioner and attend no Hondo or local Sangha. I just keep up with the practice of Nembutsu recitation - Shin's only practice, which is simply a prayer of thanksgiving: "Namo Amida Butsu" / "I take refuge in Amida Buddha". Other than that, I keep reading Shin books and visit Shin-related websites - that's my "church" these days. One of the most helpful teachers in the Shin universe is John Pareskevopoulos -

https://www.amazon.com/John-Paraskevopo ... sr=1-2-ent

- whose work has been most beneficial to my journey in Shin.

Anyway, I guess that's about it. I hope that answers your question. If there's anything I've left out, please feel free to ask more questions.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by imhereforyou]

I don't know if I would say God "needs" to be. He is what he is, and yes, I believe YHWH the God of the bible and Creator is indeed immortal. Although the expression "immortal" doesn't actually occur in the Hebrew Scriptures, it is clear in the bible Almighty God is not subject to death.

New World Translation

PSALMS 36:9
With you [YHWH] is the source of life

PSALMS 90:2
From everlasting to everlasting, you are God.

HABAKKUK 1:12
Are you not from everlasting, O Jehovah? O my God, my Holy One, you do not die.

[JehovahsWitness]

In other words, does God need to be something more that we can't understand, perfect and incapable of being flawed, or can it be something (or a series of somethings) that were entirely mortal and flawed, not all powerful and all knowing like many claim, that was simply more technically advanced than anything we've seen before or since?
Why or why not?

• The gods of the Greeks and the Romans were decidedly flawed and if I'm not mistaken mortal. Anyone (from Elvis to Shiva) or anything (from money to sex) can be made "a god". That doesn't mean these "gods" necessarily exist or reflect reality but evidently people have chosen to worship all kinds of gods throughout the ages and immortality or perfection doesn't generally seem to be a prerequisite for their decisions.

That said none of these so-called "gods" are any I would choose personally to worship since I can see no reason why I should worship anyone but The Creator. I can I see no lasting value, purpose or benefit for myself or others of worshipping any of these "lesser" gods.

[onewithhim]

For your own point of view, is it absolutely necessary for God to be this supreme being of everything that's immortal?
In other words, does God need to be something more that we can't understand, perfect and incapable of being flawed, or can it be something (or a series of somethings) that were entirely mortal and flawed, not all powerful and all knowing like many claim, that was simply more technically advanced than anything we've seen before or since?
Why or why not?

Yes, for me, God is not exactly immortal, but rather eternal.
"Immortal" connotes a mortal being who has, by whatever means, passed into immortality; whereas "Eternal" connotes a being who has been always existent in an "eternal Now", never having been a mortal being to begin with.

Other essentials for my God-definition are:

God is real, but not a creator, intervener, or judge

God has no power, if by power is meant the ability to create, maintain, and intervene within the physical cosmos. God's only "power" is God's ability to transform persons from within - as a living, loving Presence in the soul.
God has no power of miraculous physical intervention.
And I see that as a virtue, not a flaw.

God is not an object of intellectual/scientific/philosophical knowledge, but rather of direct personal experience, as in mystical union and "gnosis". Since experience trumps faith, faith-about, and faith-in, then experience of God does, too.

At base, humans are not separate from God, according to the principle that, at base, the Atman is not separate from the Brahman, or in the sense that (as 2 Peter states), we are to become partakers or participants in the Divine Nature.

So "God" includes both the infinite Divine Awareness and Divine Being and our own limited awareness and being. This can be realized spontaneously, or through the hundreds of "lenses" or meditative, contemplative methods that have been designed specifically to attain God as an object of personal experience.

You say that God doesn't create, right? Then how did the universe come to be?

[onewithhim]

For your own point of view, is it absolutely necessary for God to be this supreme being of everything that's immortal?
In other words, does God need to be something more that we can't understand, perfect and incapable of being flawed, or can it be something (or a series of somethings) that were entirely mortal and flawed, not all powerful and all knowing like many claim, that was simply more technically advanced than anything we've seen before or since?
Why or why not?

I feel that of course, God is immortal/eternal, perfect and without flaw. If he was not we humans would be in an impossible situation. How could we rely on a flawed God? How could an imperfect God create and sustain this vast universe? This marvelous, intricate universe belies the idea of a limited, flawed God. I'm thankful that he is the all-powerful, loving, Source of all life. And even further---he has provided so many wonderful things for our pleasure. He made this awesome planet expressly for our abode.... and our enjoyment.

"This is what Jehovah has said, the Creator of the heavens, He, the true God, the Former of the earth...who did not create it simply for nothing, who formed it to be inhabited." (Isaiah 45:18)

"[Oh Jehovah] how abundant your goodness is, which you have treasured up for those fearing you! Which you have rendered to those taking refuge in you." (Psalms 31:17a, 19)

"O Jehovah, you are my God. I exalt you, I laud your name, for you have done wonderful things....You have become a stronghold to the lowly one, a stronghold to the poor one in the distress that he has, a refuge from the rainstorm, a shade from the heat, when the blast of the tyrannical ones is like a rainstorm against a wall." (Isaiah 25:1,4)

[Checkpoint]

For your own point of view, is it absolutely necessary for God to be this supreme being of everything that's immortal?
In other words, does God need to be something more that we can't understand, perfect and incapable of being flawed, or can it be something (or a series of somethings) that were entirely mortal and flawed, not all powerful and all knowing like many claim, that was simply more technically advanced than anything we've seen before or since?
Why or why not?

My pov is that it is "absolutely necessary" that God be all He says He is and all that Jesus and his followers said and believed He is.

I am one of those who live by faith, not by sight.

Hebrews 11:

1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that
what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

1 Timothy 6:16

God alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.

[onewithhim]

For your own point of view, is it absolutely necessary for God to be this supreme being of everything that's immortal?
In other words, does God need to be something more that we can't understand, perfect and incapable of being flawed, or can it be something (or a series of somethings) that were entirely mortal and flawed, not all powerful and all knowing like many claim, that was simply more technically advanced than anything we've seen before or since?
Why or why not?

My pov is that it is "absolutely necessary" that God be all He says He is and all that Jesus and his followers said and believed He is.

I am one of those who live by faith, not by sight.

Hebrews 11:

1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that
what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

1 Timothy 6:16

God alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.

I'm with you. One thing, though.....I believe that I Timothy 6:16 refers to Jesus, as indicated in verse 14. (That doesn't mean that he is God .)