Defining God

[J. Stew]

God is what is happening/what is, when you don't think, or put what is happening in the form of concepts. The reason that people are confused about what God is is that they can't stop thinking. Is there an argument against this please. If there is an argument that the concept of 'God' is an outdated idea used to conceptually define things we don't understand i.e. Zeus God of lightening, then please say so.

[RJT]

I get the impression that many atheists think that God is a crutch that man has used for thousands of years. That God is only a crutch. In light of our awareness vis a vis science, this crutch is no longer needed.

Although I can understand this thinking, I disagree with it. First, because I think that many over state or assume that we know so much about the way of all the world. From my perspective we know so little. We are babies in what we know of the Universe. This is not to say that because we know so little that we still need that crutch of a God. It just seems to me that there is a big jump from our modern perceptions to no God.

I don’t see that God is a crutch, so I come from a different starting point.

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
It just seems to me that there is a big jump from our modern perceptions to no God.


[/ QUOTE ]

This relates to what I meant when I said God is not what we think. It seems that we think we can explain things with science, which we can, but that leads to the conditioning of our minds. We think we can explain, in conceptual terms, how things work, which leads to believing in conceptual ideas rather than the truth we already know as which is reality. It seems that people who know God experientially, just know themselves really well, and people who are religious understand the concept of God.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
It just seems to me that there is a big jump from our modern perceptions to no God.


[/ QUOTE ] Allthought, I agree with this statement, I think our knowledge is enough to cast great doubt on the worlds religions.

[RJT]

I think I basically agree with what you are saying; other than the conclusion you reach. I don’t mean this sentence to contradict itself. I still conclude with God. You seem to conclude that it is only a better understanding of ourselves. Seems to be similar thought processes though.

To illustrate my thinking: What little I read about string theory for example - scientists seem to think they are on to something. To me this seems simply more of the same, but to a better degree of understanding of how things (might) work. It does not lead me away from God.

[jt1]

I have a great problem with Atheists unless I figure they just mean that there is no human like father figure type God looking down upon us. This is a position that can backed up with a plethora of logical statements.

But stating that there can't be or there's unlikely to be some mysterious all powerful unknowable force that rules all of existence (and non-existence)is an expression of faith of which no logic exists to back it up. It is the same as saying that Humananity knows pretty much most of what there is to know, and since We haven't yet discovered God then most likely there's no such thing.

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I basically agree with what you are saying; other than the conclusion you reach. I don’t mean this sentence to contradict itself. I still conclude with God. You seem to conclude that it is only a better understanding of ourselves. Seems to be similar thought processes though.

To illustrate my thinking: What little I read about string theory for example - scientists seem to think they are on to something. To me this seems simply more of the same, but to a better degree of understanding of how things (might) work. It does not lead me away from God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we're on the same page. I didn't mean to conclude that a deeper conceptual understanding of self = a deeper conceptual understanding of God. It's like a deeper conceptual understanding of self, of the thoughts that make up the self or ego, lead to a letting go of conceptual ideas themselves because you see that concepts themselves are what hazes reality and reality IMO is truth/God. Does that make sense?

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a great problem with Atheists unless I figure they just mean that there is no human like father figure type God looking down upon us. This is a position that can backed up with a plethora of logical statements.

But stating that there can't be or there's unlikely to be some mysterious all powerful unknowable force that rules all of existence (and non-existence)is an expression of faith of which no logic exists to back it up. It is the same as saying that Humananity knows pretty much most of what there is to know, and since We haven't yet discovered God then most likely there's no such thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was not referring to Atheism here, rather saying that it is the absence of belief, belief in concepts in general, that provides a clear mind which can see reality clearly which IMO is truth. And asking if reality = truth then does reality = God or, the Universe itself?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think I basically agree with what you are saying; other than the conclusion you reach. I don’t mean this sentence to contradict itself. I still conclude with God. You seem to conclude that it is only a better understanding of ourselves. Seems to be similar thought processes though.

To illustrate my thinking: What little I read about string theory for example - scientists seem to think they are on to something. To me this seems simply more of the same, but to a better degree of understanding of how things (might) work. It does not lead me away from God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we're on the same page. I didn't mean to conclude that a deeper conceptual understanding of self = a deeper conceptual understanding of God. It's like a deeper conceptual understanding of self, of the thoughts that make up the self or ego, lead to a letting go of conceptual ideas themselves because you see that concepts themselves are what hazes reality and reality IMO is truth/God. Does that make sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

My position is that I conclude in better relationship with God. I had understood you to conclude for yourself in something akin to Truth. Hadn't realized before that you were somewhat equating it with God though. It depends on if you think of Truth as a object that has thought - or a being so to speak. If so then it is akin to God, it seems. If it is "inanimate" then we have the same processes, yet different conclusions. (This last sentence does not appear to be what you mean. Hadn't picked that up before.) Ditto to: does that make sense?

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]

It depends on if you think of Truth as a object that has thought - or a being so to speak. If so then it is akin to God, it seems.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm. . . please elaborate. I have the same difficulties defining truth as I do God which leads me to believe they are connected or may be the same as in Ultimate Truth = God. I notice in myself, that when my mind is quiet, I see reality in a clearer way. I see what is actually happening as opposed to what I think is going on. This leads me to see the truth about things to a greater degree. I wonder if an even more quiet mind would lead to a clearer reality which would make me see truth to a greater degree. And I wonder if seeing this truth or reality to a greater degree/clearer way, is experiencing God in a 'more quality-filled' way?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmmm. . . please elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure I can. I’ll try giving it a go tomorrow. In the meantime, your thoughts seem to suggest something on the line of what the Mystics Saints in my Religion (Catholic) seem to have experienced. A union with God. A moment of ecstasy we call it. You might want to do a search of St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila - two of the more famous ones; to give you a Catholic point of view of what you seem to be suggesting.

RJT

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hmmm. . . please elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure I can. I’ll try giving it a go tomorrow. In the meantime, your thoughts seem to suggest something on the line of what the Mystics Saints in my Religion (Catholic) seem to have experienced. A union with God. A moment of ecstasy we call it. You might want to do a search of St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila - two of the more famous ones; to give you a Catholic point of view of what you seem to be suggesting.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

"She was held back by a strong desire to be appreciated by others, but this finally left her in an experience of conversion in the presence of an image of "the sorely wounded Christ" (V 9.2). This conversion dislodged the egoism that had hindered her spiritual development. Thus, at the age of 39, she began to enjoy a vivid experience of God's presence within her." http://www.karmel.at/eng/teresa.htm

She was held back by the thoughts in her own head about what other people thought about her. She was insecure, or fearful, to some degree, and when that insecurity dissipated she was left with no fear because she saw that fear is a concept which is not real unless one believes it to be true. The ego is the concept of self which is derived from root fears and greed i.e. I want to be this I don't want to be that, and when that concept of self falls off, or there is a realization like this lady had, there is just self or God? Sorry, thinking out loud here. Thanks for the reference, this lady's experience seems to be the same as that which happens during meditation, but in a Catholic context.

[RJT]

Stew,

You are basically a Deist, correct? A God or Truth, but not a personal God. You seem to be the only one here who is one (carlo also I think to an extent). Mostly, I am curious how far along you are in your thinking or if you are just starting to explore it. Your posts have often been in the form of questions - wondering if they are mostly inquisitive remarks or more rhetorical in nature.

Care to expound a bit more on it?

RJT

[J. Stew]

Hey RJT -

Quick history, I've spent the past two years rehabing my knee after a screwy surgery forced my to retire from playing pro ball. For a while I was very bitter at the doctor, at life, and eventually my mentality slid into depression. I reached a point where I physically felt like I was dying, I'm very hard on myself, which is how I made it to the pros, but which also caused me to beat myself up over these things I couldn't control. Anyways, I felt as though I had lost the meaning that I had had my whole life, but which I never attributed to anything. I was just normal and happy until I got injured, then I felt like I lost that. What I figured out, as I pulled myself out of depression, was that it was the thoughts in my head that were weighing my mentality down. I was carrying these 'burdens' around with me, that were really just fears I was holding onto. The fear itself was just thoughts, which, after practicing some meditation, reading a bunch of stuff, and just being real to myself, I realized was not really me, but my ego. The transition from feeling terrible to feeling generally normal led to my questioning of what is feeling normal, or having a mentality that isn't weighed down by the problems that my own mind created/creates. I also gained some clarity about who I am, which made me see the world around me in a clearer way. I am wondering if having an empty-mind, or a mind that is not weighed down by it's pre-conceived ideas about what it believes reality to be is the mind that is capable of experiencing God, or if 'God' has anything to do with that. I'm wondering if seeing truth, or the reality that is there without bias, that process that happens moment to moment, is God.

If I look at this self-introspection process as a path to realization, then I'm pretty early on the path, but I think the shock of being depressed and obsessing about getting out of it made me take some big initial steps in figuring out who I am, which I'm wondering if that is the same thing as understanding God? My questions are definitely sincere, thanks for your posts and insight.

-Stew

[RJT]

Stew,

I agree with a poster from another thread - and like that poster, without knowing much about Buddhism or Zen -too say your thoughts sound Buddhist. There have been a few post here regarding Buddhism (appears to be a few Sidharthas around here).

I understand you wanting to come to the table with as little bias as possible. To remove all bias and go from there - and really what you are saying to achieve a state of no bias and free from thought. You’re wondering if that point would be a moment of clarity. And if that clarity culminates in or is Truth, or it culminates in a union with God or is God , or if it culminates in or is nothingness.

I imagine that devote Buddhist have reached a point close enough to Nirvana that they can imagine what reaching it is. Perhaps, some say they have actually reached it. (I might be mixing up the ideas of Hindu Nirvana and Buddhist Nirvana, like I say, don’t know much there. But you get my point.) Like the examples of the two Saints I mentioned, some Mystics say that they have been in a state of Ecstasy.

I think to be totally unbiased one would have to start one’s own path and see if one can get to a point similar to the ideas of Nirvana or Ecstasy or perhaps reach one or the other independently of Religion. I can’t imagine that process without the aids of Religious texts. But, I think you might have already started such a process on your own so you might have a leg up (no pun intended if your surgery was on your leg).

RJT

p.s. As an aside, I have heard of Christian Buddhist. This sounds contradictory and might indeed be. The idea is interesting to me is why I mentioned it at all.

p.p.s. Your avatar is either going to aid you towards this moment of ecstasy or hinder it. Not sure which, really. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[J. Stew]

Ha ha, you guys have me pegged. Is my thinking that transparent? Is that a good or a bad thing /images/graemlins/smile.gif. I think Zen initially interested me because I'm stubborn about figuring out things for myself and that seemed to be what Zen was pointing to, know yourself, but isn't that what Christianity points to, 'know thyself?' You summed up my basic intention in one concise paragraph . . .

[ QUOTE ]
I understand you wanting to come to the table with as little bias as possible. To remove all bias and go from there - and really what you are saying to achieve a state of no bias and free from thought. You’re wondering if that point would be a moment of clarity. And if that clarity culminates in or is Truth, or it culminates in a union with God or is God , or if it culminates in or is nothingness.

[/ QUOTE ]

. . . which is insightful to say the least. I just showed my girlfriend what you wrote and she asked what an avatar is, whoops /images/graemlins/grin.gif. I think that for myself, to really understand myself, I need to only use religious text as a guideline, something to point in the general direction, but I need to be the one to realize that which is already inside me. I appreciate your opinion and look forward to bouncing ideas off you as I respect the fact that you can understand exactly where I'm at with just an initial introduction. Movie time with girlfriend, take care, Jeff