“God is not Absolute”

[Pazuzu bin Hanbi]

Anything that creates has potential energy and, therefore, subject to mutability. And if mutable, then it cannot remain absolute but becomes relative. To understand Absolute Reality you must eradicate any concept of a ‘creator god’ that subsists and acts in real time. Absolute Reality, if it exists, must do so as a non agent.

Any thoughts on this?

[Greatest I Am]

Anything that creates has potential energy and, therefore, subject to mutability. And if mutable, then it cannot remain absolute but becomes relative. To understand Absolute Reality you must eradicate any concept of a ‘creator god’ that subsists and acts in real time. Absolute Reality, if it exists, must do so as a non agent.

Any thoughts on this?

I would say that God can change, not that He does nor exist.
If He could not change then all of life would be useless because all information would be lost to the greater reality that is God.
He would be spinning His wheels and getting nowhere for no reason.
God must be allowed to absorb data or His existence is stagnant and useless as well as ours.

He is perfect but this perfection must be allowed to evolve if He is to have a reason for maintaining His own existence.

Regards
DL

[r~]

God is not an immutable absolute Newtonian mass.
God is a spirit; a force; a quantum wave.

God is existence.
Existence is change.

God is change and evolution and life.

I am
ItS
r~

Words are but an image of god.

[Voco]

God is not an immutable absolute Newtonian mass.
God is a spirit; a force; a quantum wave.

God is existence.
Existence is change.

God is change and evolution and life.

I am
ItS
r~

Words are but an image of god.

While the poetry of the statement is nice, I'm a little surprised by the claim.

If God is change, evolution and life, can He act as an individual in the ways described by Christians? Can change, evolution, and life, have moral authority? Can they like some things and destest others? Can they issue commandments or send to earth a son?

By defining God as change, evolution, and life, are we not simply describing another, entirely different, entity with the same name used for the Christian God?

[Greatest I Am]

God is not an immutable absolute Newtonian mass.
God is a spirit; a force; a quantum wave.

God is existence.
Existence is change.

God is change and evolution and life.

I am
ItS
r~

Words are but an image of god.

While the poetry of the statement is nice, I'm a little surprised by the claim.

If God is change, evolution and life, can He act as an individual in the ways described by Christians? Can change, evolution, and life, have moral authority? Can they like some things and destest others? Can they issue commandments or send to earth a son?

By defining God as change, evolution, and life, are we not simply describing another, entirely different, entity with the same name used for the Christian God?

Christianity or any other religion does not have a legitimate claim for themselves only to the one true God.
God is the God of all men. He is a universal God. He began with ownership of the whole universe and will end the same way. He claims by right all souls. They are all His creations. They are all His perfect works.

Regards
DL

[Voco]

Christianity or any other religion does not have a legitimate claim for themselves only to the one true God.
God is the God of all men. He is a universal God. He began with ownership of the whole universe and will end the same way. He claims by right all souls. They are all His creations. They are all His perfect works.

Regards
DL

Christians don't claim God is "theirs" they claim he acts in a certain way, just as you make claims that he created everything and claims legitimate ownership to it.

I never proposed that they believed that they "owned" god. I only questioned whether the description of God provided by the user "r~" was compatable with any religious beliefs about the nature of God, and if not, are they really talking about the same thing?

If they are not talking about the same thing, can both exist simultaneously? If not (and two separate entities that BOTH created the universe seem incompatible to me) which does exist? Does either?

The same questions extend to the description of God you have just provided.

[Greatest I Am]

Christianity or any other religion does not have a legitimate claim for themselves only to the one true God.
God is the God of all men. He is a universal God. He began with ownership of the whole universe and will end the same way. He claims by right all souls. They are all His creations. They are all His perfect works.

Regards
DL

Christians don't claim God is "theirs" they claim he acts in a certain way, just as you make claims that he created everything and claims legitimate ownership to it.

I never proposed that they believed that they "owned" god. I only questioned whether the description of God provided by the user "r~" was compatable with any religious beliefs about the nature of God, and if not, are they really talking about the same thing?

If they are not talking about the same thing, can both exist simultaneously? If not (and two separate entities that BOTH created the universe seem incompatible to me) which does exist? Does either?

The same questions extend to the description of God you have just provided.

Christians do believe that God is for them alone. Only through me is often quoted as their pronouncement of faith. To not know their Christ is to go to hell.

They are wrong of course but tell them that.

There are many descriptions for God. Many Bibles. All have some merit.
Some build a flat demographic shape to their philosophy with God on top and all others in one row below.
Some build a demography with Popes and saints and others forming multi levels.
At the end of all of them is one taking the position of power.

There can only be one God or most high in all religions.

God does not share power.

Regards
DL

[Voco]

Christians do believe that God is for them alone. Only through me is often quoted as their pronouncement of faith. To not know their Christ is to go to hell.

They are wrong of course but tell them that.

There are many descriptions for God. Many Bibles. All have some merit.
Some build a flat demographic shape to their philosophy with God on top and all others in one row below.
Some build a demography with Popes and saints and others forming multi levels.
At the end of all of them is one taking the position of power.

There can only be one God or most high in all religions.

God does not share power.

Regards
DL

I'm not sure I understand your statment. Christians beleive that God behaves in a certain way, yes. This often includes the belief that people who do not accept Christ as a saviour will go to hell. But that doesn't mean that God "belongs" to the saved, only that he wll not punish them.

I fail to see how claiming that there is a powerful being called God who is nice to people who accept his son as a savior is the same as caliming that they "own" that God. It's a hypothesis about the way the world works, and is no more owned by it's adherence than light is only for people who accept photons. Christians do not claim that God only exists for them, only that he will treat them better.

Anyway, you make a lot of claims following this. While I don't contest that there are many religious texts, on what basis do you establish that "all hae some merit?" What is meant by merit? Usefulness in overcoming obstacles? Accuracy to the real manner in which the universe operates? Divine inspiration?

Further, you claim that all religions have a single God taking the position of power. I'm not sure this is true, or if it is true, how important it is. Many ancient polytheistic religions have stories of a "leader" God, yes, but he is often not omnipotent, and is at times overthrown by his inferiors. Can this transient status of authority really be equated to an omnipotent deity? Even if it can, what does this mean?

You also clim that "God does not share Power." As with all the other claims I have to ask, upon what basis do you make this claim?

[Cathar1950]

There can only be one God or most high in all religions.

God does not share power.

I take it you mean by God not sharing power you mean some kind of Platonic idea of God and absolute power or “all powerful” . Of course we can never really tell what you mean as you tend to be rather esoteric. If your looking at the Hebrew writings and stories you will find a rather limited God except in the later writings where God becomes more boast then fact. He can seem to find Adam and Eve or the Human and his mate because they are hiding. He has lunch with Abraham and has to check out for himself what he has heard about Sodom and Jacob wrestles with him all night and he has to run off before dawn. Some suggest God's power is enough power and not all power as he seem to share some degree of power with his creatures. It is hard to be all powerful and not have some relationship wit the universe. But frankly you don't make any sense except to you.
It seem that your claim that there can only be one God or that he doesn't like to share is unsupportable if not also irrational and amount to just some doubtful pious claim.

[Greatest I Am]

Christians do believe that God is for them alone. Only through me is often quoted as their pronouncement of faith. To not know their Christ is to go to hell.

They are wrong of course but tell them that.

There are many descriptions for God. Many Bibles. All have some merit.
Some build a flat demographic shape to their philosophy with God on top and all others in one row below.
Some build a demography with Popes and saints and others forming multi levels.
At the end of all of them is one taking the position of power.

There can only be one God or most high in all religions.

God does not share power.

Regards
DL

I'm not sure I understand your statment. Christians beleive that God behaves in a certain way, yes. This often includes the belief that people who do not accept Christ as a saviour will go to hell. But that doesn't mean that God "belongs" to the saved, only that he wll not punish them.

I fail to see how claiming that there is a powerful being called God who is nice to people who accept his son as a savior is the same as caliming that they "own" that God. It's a hypothesis about the way the world works, and is no more owned by it's adherence than light is only for people who accept photons. Christians do not claim that God only exists for them, only that he will treat them better.

Anyway, you make a lot of claims following this. While I don't contest that there are many religious texts, on what basis do you establish that "all hae some merit?" What is meant by merit? Usefulness in overcoming obstacles? Accuracy to the real manner in which the universe operates? Divine inspiration?

Further, you claim that all religions have a single God taking the position of power. I'm not sure this is true, or if it is true, how important it is. Many ancient polytheistic religions have stories of a "leader" God, yes, but he is often not omnipotent, and is at times overthrown by his inferiors. Can this transient status of authority really be equated to an omnipotent deity? Even if it can, what does this mean?

You also clim that "God does not share Power." As with all the other claims I have to ask, upon what basis do you make this claim?

This all depends on your definition of God.

If God is to be the epitome of all things then He must be at the top of the heap. To be omni this or omni that he must be at the top.

If someone is not at the top, they cannot be God. This is our highest title.

As to merit of other Bibles; I have found wisdom in some degree in all the one‘s that I have read. I read them as works of philosophy and they as well as ordinary works of philosophy have merit.

They all provide a guide to life and action.

If power is one of God’s attributes then the greatest share has to be His. He cannot be overthrown. If He can then He does not match the definition of God.

Regards
DL