Our Big Mistake: The Personification of 'God'

Biigs
When you die, will you be bummed out if God actually is an old man with a white beard sitting on a cloud at his desk, busy ignoring all the pleas and prayers of his little creations?

And actually our whole Universe is just a executive toy on the desk.

reply to post by swanne


Better:

Image should be understood as a symbol/word/body representative of a thought. e.g. To convey my thoughts I assign symbols/words to express them. This sentence is the image of my thoughts.

I believe that "God" is female. I say this because no matter if you are male or female, you come from a woman. Why wouldn't this pattern emulate itself to the highest level? Even the original term "God" (from Indo-European languages) denoted a female deity. And besides, if "God" can be all male, why not female? Check out Freemasons and the goddess. Monica Sjoo was onto something. Guess that's why her art was banned. It told the most ancient truth. God is female.

reply to post by Oannes


More likely that God is sexless. I mean how do we know that there isn't life outside of this planet that has more than 2 genders? Also keep in mind that single-celled organisms reproduce asexually. The two gender paradigm arose from our limited understanding of life as it pertains to this planet.

Very well put, though I wouldn't narrow it down to personification per se, as long as it can be put down in words or can be visualized.

Humans tend to pursue knowledge for something they don't understand. Some people find settlement in 'the word of God' and seek spiritual enlightenment. Other people think the answers require logical explanation and follow up on science.

In both cases the mind needs to be satisfied, the unknown needs to be categorized by the brain. Some of us lower this urge of the brain by meditation. In a full meditative state, there is no concept of words or visualisation. This will get you closer to the full truth then anything (disclaimer; just my theory, I've never meditated knowingly).

My idea is that complete spiritual enlightenment and fully explained science of everything are pretty much the same thing

Dark Ghost
But what happens when one attempts to personify something that is beyond their comprehension?

What if it has nothing to do with our attempts or lack thereof?

Have you seen Contact?

reply to post by Dark Ghost

Our Big Mistake: The Personification of 'God'

I humbly disagree.

The personification of God (YHWH - Jehovah/Yehowah/Yahweh) IS the closest way of KNOWING him.

There's no other intimate way of knowing Him other than Personally Knowing Him.

That is, knowing His attributes! His likes and dislikes.

And since we're made in His 'image and likeness' thus we reflect and can reflect the same attributes of love, wisdom, power, justice, mercy, compassion, happiness, sadness, as well as anger, etc.

Sadly, when it comes to anger, compare to God's we fail miserably as the Scripture rightly points out:

[Jam 1:20 NLT] "Human anger does not produce the righteousness God desires".

So, the way I understand it and see it - its the other way around.

Our big mistake is - not Personally Knowing God.

Just like a son or a daughter not personally knowing his/her parents very well.

On the extreme side, that's how soldiers of war are trained to view their enemies. View them as objects or anything else other than a human beings. This way, morality is suppressed (but only for a moment).

And by not Personifying God - as a Person/ a Living Being - He is reduced to a mere force, an abstract one at that.

On the other hand, God is a person but of a different substance - a higher substance in the spirit realm where Christ himself made an appearance to.

[Hbr 9:24 ASV] "For Christ entered not into a holy place made with hands, like in pattern to the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us:"

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Oannes

 

More likely that God is sexless. I mean how do we know that there isn't life outside of this planet that has more than 2 genders? Also keep in mind that single-celled organisms reproduce asexually. The two gender paradigm arose from our limited understanding of life as it pertains to this planet.

Or maybe our need to divide and conquer. The development of feminine and masculine has presented an opportunity - we either recognize the dual perspective and utilize it to establish equilibrium, or we reject the dual perspective and struggle to attain and maintain unified dominance, where division exists specifically as a subversive device by which to eliminate impurities and further secure unity.

Maybe it is in our nature to exercise the worst of ourselves, that we might recognize these flaws and be prompted to master and incorporate them into the checks and balances we've thus far crafted over the many years as developing hominids. We cannot rid ourselves of the weaknesses that define us, but we can use them to highlight our strengths and the attributes which make us worthwhile.

reply to post by Dark Ghost


Big S, Big F....!

YAY!!!

I have been thinking this for decades now - are you, OP, aware of Deism? Thought it might be up your alley; World Union of Deism
This part is taken from Thomas Paine's work:

"The God of truth is not the God of fable; when, therefore, any book is introduced into the world as the Word of God, and made a groundwork for religion, it ought to be scrutinized more than other books to see if it bear evidence of being what it is called. Our reverence to God demands that we do this, lest we ascribe to God what is not His, and our duty to ourselves demands it lest we take fable for fact, and rest our hope of salvation on a false foundation.

"It is not our calling a book holy that makes it so, any more than our calling a religion holy that entitles it to the name. Inquiry therefore is necessary in order to arrive at truth. But inquiry must have some principle to proceed on, some standard to judge by, superior to human authority.

"When we survey the works of creation, the revolutions of the planetary system, and the whole economy of what is called nature, which is no other than the laws the Creator has prescribed to matter, we see unerring order and universal harmony reigning throughout the whole. No one part contradicts another. The sun does not run against the moon, nor the moon against the sun, nor the planets against each other. Everything keeps its appointed time and place.

"This harmony in the works of God is so obvious, that the farmer of the field, though he cannot calculate eclipses, is as sensible of it as the philosophical astronomer. He sees the God of order in every part of the visible universe."

"Here, then, is the standard to which everything must be brought that pretends to be the work or Word of God, and by this standard it must be judged, independently of anything and everything that man can say or do. His opinion is like a feather in the scale compared with the standard that God Himself has set up."

I, also, am an agnostic; I call myself an Agnostic Deist....
it just makes the most sense to me. The "revealed religions" do not. Never have.

Since we know we did not create the creation or ourselves, yet we and the creation do exist, it is logical to believe that God, or an Eternal Cause or Creator created us.

This belief has absolutely nothing to do with revealed religion. In fact, all the absurdities of revealed religion are responsible for many sincere thinking people to reject and close their minds to natural religion/Deism.

The priests, ministers, and rabbis need to suppress, or at least complicate, the pure and simple belief and realization of Deism for their own job security.

And the power elites have no use for Deism because they can't use Deism to "inspire" mankind to wage war against itself for the elitists' own selfish purposes.

In fact, Deism, by focusing on the first creed of all religions, belief in God, could frustrate the war/money machine permanently.

The article is Deism vs Atheism and Christianity

Bravo for your post!! Great thread!

Unfortunately, the 'revealed religions' turn off SO MANY PEOPLE with their dogma and bickering over interpretations, that the whole issue gets overly complicated, unpleasant, and lost in translation.

Peace on Earth.

reply to post by wildtimes


By the contents of your post and the quotes therein, I am inclined to suggest that the "God" being referred to is not an actual entity...so much as a quality or characteristic held to be the paragon of constructive attributes. In other words, "God" is an abstract value applied to a quality deemed to be worthy of honorable mention and regard in the highest and most lauded of senses.

Am I mistaken?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

In other words, "God" is an abstract value applied to a quality deemed to be worthy of honorable mention and regard in the highest and most lauded of senses.

Am I mistaken?

[bold emphasis mine]
I would say more of a Force than a Quality, but yeah, you're pretty close. Also I like the term "Unity".

The Unity.

wildtimes
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

In other words, "God" is an abstract value applied to a quality deemed to be worthy of honorable mention and regard in the highest and most lauded of senses.

Am I mistaken?

[bold emphasis mine]
I would say more of a Force than a Quality, but yeah, you're pretty close. Also I like the term "Unity".

The Unity.

Hold on. You're talking about a universal application of the word "god", and I'm talking about the hominid application of the word. I humbly submit my suspicion that the hominid application is the only one we're going to be able to come close to nailing at this point in time, and frankly, it makes for a much more interesting study than the less-than-substantial cosmological counterpart...for the time being, anyway.

In addition, I find that unity is becoming highly overrated, given that division is only a hindrance when employed in a subversive manner. Unity hinders the evolution of thought, given that unity, by its very nature, excludes the possibility of radical thinking. This is where division becomes useful, but only in a progressive manner.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Unity hinders the evolution of thought, given that unity, by its very nature, excludes the possibility of radical thinking. This is where division becomes useful, but only in a progressive manner.

Hmmm. No, I disagree; or perhaps you're misunderstanding what I mean by "unity."

We are all connected; every plant, animal, stone, star, planet, moon, cloud, etc......
all of it is, according to my current thinking, an emanation - a manifestation - of one Unified 'organism'. Just as the microbes, bacteria, infinitessimally small atoms and sub-atomic particles and lots and lots of "empty" space, make up each of our bodies.

In my opinion. The bacteria in my gut don't understand that I walk around, do things, think things; they just live in me. Likewise, we are simply small 'fractals' of an overriding 'Unity' that we can't see.

We can imagine what it would be like to understand it; but we can't, at this point - on this plane, truly understand it.

reply to post by wildtimes


Given the barely synchronous nature of that "unity", I find it difficult to place any real importance on it in light of the topic. If you want to, then go for it. But I have nothing further to add in that regard.

Oannes
I believe that "God" is female. I say this because no matter if you are male or female, you come from a woman. Why wouldn't this pattern emulate itself to the highest level? Even the original term "God" (from Indo-European languages) denoted a female deity. And besides, if "God" can be all male, why not female? Check out Freemasons and the goddess. Monica Sjoo was onto something. Guess that's why her art was banned. It told the most ancient truth. God is female.

I happen to agree with you Oannes and the OP (if that's even possible.) To personify it or burden it with a human personality is in error. I just refer to it as the matrix or the universe or source.

Too bad most of the world wants to give it a name and dress it up in cultural costumes, avatars ultimately, to fight wars, either for it, with it, or against someone else's competing version (avatar) of it.

What we need are good definitions for instance and you Oannes mentioned of the indo-european origin of the word we use as "god".

matrix (n.) late 14c., "uterus, womb," from Old French matrice "womb, uterus," from Latin matrix (genitive matricis) "pregnant animal," in Late Latin "womb," also "source, origin," from mater (genitive matris) "mother" (see mother (n.1)). Sense of "place or medium where something is developed" is first recorded 1550s; sense of "embedding or enclosing mass" first recorded 1640s. Logical sense of "array of possible combinations of truth-values" is attested from 1914. As a verb from 1951. www.etymonline.com...

avatar (n.) 1784, "descent of a Hindu deity," from Sanskrit avatarana "descent" (of a deity to the earth in incarnate form), from ava- "down" + base of tarati "(he) crosses over," from PIE root *tere- "to cross over" (see through). In computer use, it seems to trace to the novel "Snowcrash" (1992) by Neal Stephenson.
Krishna
eighth avatar of Vishnu, 1875, from Sanskrit krshnah, literally "the Black One," from PIE *kers-no-, suffixed form of root *kers- "dark, dirty" (cf. Old Church Slavonic crunu, Russian coron, Serbo-Croatian crn, Czech cerny, Old Prussian krisnas "black," Lithuanian kersas "black and white, variegated").

Haven't had time to read. (or do anything today)

But S&F for the title alone. I will be back.

Well, it's certainly difficult to imagine a transdimensional, infinite and immortal omnipotent superentity "loving" you, or helping you score a touchdown.

God is an aspect of reality ,observing said reality through us.Male and Female nor do ANY human standards apply to an entity like that. Infinite and everything is GOD. Does the entity know us? I think so,but I'll have to die to figure all out.

I question WHY God (or the gods) require we mortals WORSHIP them and why humans have a need to be subserviant to a higher being.
It seems to me that the pesonification of "god" probably underlies this phenomena - What does "god" need with our worship?
If "god" is personified then all the shortcomings of "personhood" apply - "god" defeintely has an "ego" in this scenario.
Doesn't really seem like the timeless, omnicient, omnipotent super-being responsible for all creation, does it?

ganjoa

I appreciate this thread. I was just talking to my preacher the other day about how I no longer view God (purposely) in human terms, but rather something truly beyond my comprehension and grasp.

I agree with much of what you have here.

S&F