Your perception of God

[romansh]

19 hours ago, John Hunt said:

I'm a bit warmer than that, in so far as I feel Jesus is relevant in his moral teaching. But basically, yes.

Whether it was Jesus or some later editor, I suppose it is irrelevant and belongs on a different thread?

As to "morality", evolution has definitely given us a capacity to have a "sense of morality". Now what we pick to be moral about, is likely to be a reflection of our immediate social in-group and past interactions. Me personally? I am a little skeptical of "morality" as thing. In an unfolding universe it is a little hard to take morality seriously, at least for me.

But I suppose 'Jesus', with a little guided interpretation, is a good place as any to pick up some rules of thumb.

[John Hunt]

2 hours ago, romansh said:

But I suppose 'Jesus', with a little guided interpretation, is a good place as any to pick up some rules of thumb.

I think he's a good example of the teachers who posit the Golden Rule as the basis of the way we should live. Maybe the best, dunno, just happens to be the cultural tradition I was bought up in. For the rest, guess I'm more of a panentheist. I try and look for the commonality of good religious teaching across the traditions rather than the bad bits - of which Christianity seems to have more than most.

[romansh]

8 minutes ago, John Hunt said:

I think he's a good example of the teachers who posit the Golden Rule as the basis of the way we should live.

When you say "he", do you think it is Jesus's words, or more of a composite of possibly some Jesus's thoughts and actions together with later additions of thoughts of scribes? I know in some ways it makes no difference.

11 minutes ago, John Hunt said:

just happens to be the cultural tradition I was bought up in.

Yeah ... my cultural tradition is to think critically (in its broader sense) about what God might be and what makes for a sensible path to follow. In some ways Progressive Christianity has broken away from very cultural traditions, hence my interest.

15 minutes ago, John Hunt said:

... guess I'm more of a panentheist

Here I see the concept of panentheism maintaining a slight sense of duality or can't completely accept oneness. God is in everything. As opposed to God being everything.  Some questions that come to mind are, what is this that is in everything? Some have answered "Love", but that seems untrue. How can we tell whatever it is is in everything? I can't help thinking that this concept of panentheism is a reflection of God that can be found in the more traditional Abrahamic religions.

[John Hunt]

19 hours ago, romansh said:

When you say "he", do you think it is Jesus's words, or more of a composite of possibly some Jesus's thoughts and actions together with later additions of thoughts of scribes? I know in some ways it makes no difference.

I tend to follow the Jesus Seminar, in thinking that he said about half of what was attributed to him. The parables, mostly.

 

19 hours ago, romansh said:

Yeah ... my cultural tradition is to think critically (in its broader sense) about what God might be and what makes for a sensible path to follow. In some ways Progressive Christianity has broken away from very cultural traditions, hence my interest.

I very much identify with that.

 

19 hours ago, romansh said:

Here I see the concept of panentheism maintaining a slight sense of duality or can't completely accept oneness. God is in everything. As opposed to God being everything.  Some questions that come to mind are, what is this that is in everything? Some have answered "Love", but that seems untrue. How can we tell whatever it is is in everything? I can't help thinking that this concept of panentheism is a reflection of God that can be found in the more traditional Abrahamic religions.

I agree. I think it's possible that consciousness of some kind is in or behind everything. I'm not a scientist by any means, but reading (in so far as I understand it) bits of scientists like Planck, Schopenhauer, Jeans, even Einstein, it seems credible. "Love," no, but in some sense "positive" or "good" - maybe. I could expand on that it you like, but my thoughts are naturally tentative.

[PaulS]

I don't know what it is properly labelled, but I lean toward thinking that God 'is' everything.  So anything that happens is - happening to God, is within God, and is of God.  I think this fits your understanding of the 'universe unfolding' too, Rom.  God simply is the existence of everything.  I don't know if that means God has any sort of consciousness or understanding of what is happening in any sense of the word as it means to us, but for me it leaves room for the mystical (the things that I have experienced that don't have any explanation to me) but also helps me accept non-duality and the understanding that life just 'is'.  For me it also explains this physical body and its current consciousness 'dying' and its atoms disassembling and moving off to find new uses elsewhere, but never leaving the closed system (i.e. the universe unfolding - God).

[David Sundaram]

From my book, Godspeak 2000:

Everybody in existence is spiritually motivated by a mindfully discriminating intrinsic potency. This was termed ‘atman’ or ‘soul’ by sages of old, who recognized everyone and everything as an immediate expression of the universally present, intelligently creative essence which they understood to be the real meaning of ‘Brahman’ and ‘God’. But, because such words have been misappropriated by cus­tom and their significance sometimes grossly distorted by mis­usage, I generally refer to it alter­natively, as 'Intelligence', 'Creativity', 'Life Itself' or the 'Life-Force'. However labeled, it is the source ‘element’ from which all Being springs, thecore I-Am-That-I-Am, That Which Is at root within each and everyone.

Full pdf (where the worldly activity of said 'God' is extensively expounded upon) is freely downloadable from:
https://davidsundom.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/6/5/7765474/godspeak2000.pdf

Edited December 8, 2022 by David Sundaram