I'm going to try my best to try not to sound like I'm writing a comic book but in all honesty I believe God...or what we percieve to be an omnipotent being responsible for everything we see before us, is the universe itself.
For instance, I'd like to believe that the saying "God is everywhere and in everyone" kind of makes sense. If everyone and everthing has some trace of the omnipotent being in them, then the combination of everything should be God....weirdly enough even the concept of nothingness would be included.
In short...I think that what human percieve as God is a perfect oxymoronic combination of everything and nothing; if that makes any sense.
Originally posted by wakkawakkawakka
I'm going to try my best to try not to sound like I'm writing a comic book but in all honesty I believe God...or what we percieve to be an omnipotent being responsible for everything we see before us, is the universe itself.For instance, I'd like to believe that the saying "God is everywhere and in everyone" kind of makes sense. If everyone and everthing has some trace of the omnipotent being in them, then the combination of everything should be God....weirdly enough even the concept of nothingness would be included.
In short...I think that what human percieve as God is a perfect oxymoronic combination of everything and nothing; if that makes any sense.
Why would one need to worship God then?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Because He's worthy.Remember...God created all of this neat stuff we call life!
🙂
But we are not talking about the same god. You are talking about a god that is separate from the universe, and requires worship. What wakkawakkawakka is talking about is the universe being god.
Originally posted by wakkawakkawakkaPanentheist, are ye?
For instance, I'd like to believe that the saying "God is everywhere and in everyone" kind of makes sense. If everyone and everthing has some trace of the omnipotent being in them, then the combination of everything should be God....weirdly enough even the concept of nothingness would be included.In short...I think that what human percieve as God is a perfect oxymoronic combination of everything and nothing; if that makes any sense.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why would one need to worship God then?
Spoiler:😐
I don't know
Originally posted by Mindship
Panentheist, are ye?
Originally posted by wakkawakkawakka
I'm going to give the best answer that I can possibly think of that is prefectly quantifiable which is...Spoiler:😐...
I don't know
😆 If the universe is a living being that we could call God, then we are part of God, and cannot be separate from God. There would be no reason to worship that kind of God. It would be like your blood worshiping you.
Originally posted by wakkawakkawakka
I'm going to try my best to try not to sound like I'm writing a comic book but in all honesty I believe God...or what we percieve to be an omnipotent being responsible for everything we see before us, is the universe itself.For instance, I'd like to believe that the saying "God is everywhere and in everyone" kind of makes sense. If everyone and everthing has some trace of the omnipotent being in them, then the combination of everything should be God....weirdly enough even the concept of nothingness would be included.
In short...I think that what human percieve as God is a perfect oxymoronic combination of everything and nothing; if that makes any sense.
We know from science that even nothingness is something.
It does make sense what you'e saying, btw. That is partially what I believe, as well. Sure, I also believe that god is an actual personage...................in our limited understanding of what can be Him (or her/it).
I also believe everything is love and His divine essence.
The pantheistic elements of God you refer to are what Christians call the "light of Christ" that is the divine part of everything in this universe. I think Muslims have a similar belief of a divine essence permeating the universe. I know the Hindu's do, as well.
If everything is divine, nothing is. It removes all meaningful sense of divine to simply label existence as it. I can only see such logic as being justification for acceptance of others or one's life, not as a template for God.
Christians and Muslims make the distinction at least. Even if something has an element of the divine, to say "I am God" is blasphemy in either religion.
Also, if the universe is God, we eliminate sentience from the idea of God, again making it functionally inert. Humans are sentient, and in such a model we'd be part of "God." But, despite being made of the same stuff as, say, a book, we most certainly aren't the book. The book has no awareness, no life, etc. "God" only has sentience if we ignore reasonable and obvious distinctions between different entities. Humans have awareness, God does not, in such a belief system.
Pantheism only makes sense, imo, if you're high and saying cliche hippy things like "We're all ONE!" Otherwise it's just worship of the natural universe...which isn't terrible, mind you, but is also pointless.
Originally posted by Digi
If everything is divine, nothing is. It removes all meaningful sense of divine to simply label existence as it. I can only see such logic as being justification for acceptance of others or one's life, not as a template for God.Christians and Muslims make the distinction at least. Even if something has an element of the divine, to say "I am God" is blasphemy in either religion.
Also, if the universe is God, we eliminate sentience from the idea of God, again making it functionally inert. Humans are sentient, and in such a model we'd be part of "God." But, despite being made of the same stuff as, say, a book, we most certainly aren't the book. The book has no awareness, no life, etc. "God" only has sentience if we ignore reasonable and obvious distinctions between different entities. Humans have awareness, God does not, in such a belief system.
Pantheism only makes sense, imo, if you're high and saying cliche hippy things like "We're all ONE!" Otherwise it's just worship of the natural universe...which isn't terrible, mind you, but is also pointless.
The idea of sentience is not real (IMO). It is a way of categorizing the world around us (an concept we made up). The universe manifests what we call life, but this idea that there is a braking point between life and non-life, is artificial and man-made.
However, I don't see any reason to worship God. If the universe is God, then living the best life we can is sufficient.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The idea of sentience is not real (IMO). It is a way of categorizing the world around us (an concept we made up). The universe manifests what we call life, but this idea that there is a braking point between life and non-life, is artificial and man-made.However, I don't see any reason to worship God. If the universe is God, then living the best life we can is sufficient.
That's reasonable. I just think there ceases to be a reason to call it "God" at that point. "The beauty and majesty of the universe" can be awe-inspiring without ascribing a word to it that usually has supernatural or religious connotation.
I've seen this in other places with other people as well. They're talking about a purely physical, natural thing, but people enjoy using mystic words and phrases to placate their sense of spirituality.
Originally posted by Digi
That's reasonable. I just think there ceases to be a reason to call it "God" at that point. "The beauty and majesty of the universe" can be awe-inspiring without ascribing a word to it that usually has supernatural or religious connotation.I've seen this in other places with other people as well. They're talking about a purely physical, natural thing, but people enjoy using mystic words and phrases to placate their sense of spirituality.
I only use the word God here. I normally use the word Mystic Law or Nam Myoho Renge Kyo. However, I have tried to use that here, but no one understands what I'm talking about. Sometimes it is just easier to say God.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I only use the word God here. I normally use the word Mystic Law or Nam Myoho Renge Kyo. However, I have tried to use that here, but no one understands what I'm talking about. Sometimes it is just easier to say God.
Gotcha. I'd remove the mystic monikers entirely, but that's me. In describing the universe in something other than causal, physical terms, it usually suggests the supernatural, paranormal, divine, or transcendent in a way that is usually not consistent with reality, or that needlessly obfuscates the meaning.
For example, I've heard of friendship or Brotherhood (the capital "B" kind) referred to in mystic terms. And it's like, why not just call it a good friendship, that occasionally is hard to describe using our language? But no, it's a mystic bond that transcends the material world. Really?
You can call it what you want, obviously. I don't take exception to that. I just usually don't see the reason to call something "The Divine Plan" or "Mystic Law" if it essentially amounts to describing causality (though Mystic Law may refer to something else entirely...I am not entirely sure how you apply it).