The properties of God.

[wussup]

If God is a being of light (I’ve yet to read a Bible that says that, but maybe some New Agers have infiltrated the Church since my readings), it only means that interactions between God and the physical universe are limited by the velocity of light. Light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation have several mysterious properties, but the ability of an EM wave to exist in all time simultaneously is not one of them. The velocity of light is a function of finite space and finite time.

You may stop the name-dropping or concept-dropping any time, thank you. Personally, I find statements such as, " I suspect his concept of Boehms holographic universe is a concept Spinoza would have explored deeply," as flatulently pretentious.

Please do not take that statement personally. In the course of a half century of discourse I’ve encountered a large number of people, mostly holding some sort of professorship, who cannot complete a sentence without dropping the name of some learned person, or some arcane idea which no one else has read anything about. This is so tiresome. But most importantly, it does not further this thread.

1. 1 John 1:5 God is Light (KJV, not exactly new age); also, john 1:9; 3:19; 8:12; Zech 14:6; lots more. Nevertheless, I would not want someone to think I believe God to have as a trait a being of light, but rather that he at least have the properties a being of light would have (plus a few others). Briefly stated, light is not a function of finite space and finite time.
2. I have it on good authority that Boehm also thought his ideas of a holographic universe were just a bag of farts (I would name my source, but well, you know)
3. You seem to have covered the full gambit of the phenomenology of human experience, where an educated person cannot seek truth in the learning of another by recognizing the work of an intellect mightier than sein, or he has an arcane idea no one else has read about.

 

[greylorn]

Hmmm…Greylorn. Fascinating. Yes, and it is not only football players. It is anyone who does something so intensely that they are simply present as awareness, in a sort of witness like state. In that state what is happening at “the moment” (it seems in a way bereft of time, though it moves) already foretells the the forthcoming by feel and by knowledge.

Having experienced that, I can only add that there is more, as what you speak of yet has an object of awareness, however more refined it may be from the ordinary “sleep” state of every day hum-drum.

As to my “slogan,” such statements are often distillations of far broader insights and are meant more to get attention than to provide a complete map. So don’t dismiss it just yet, but no matter. I know what it means to me and some like me.

I am amused and encouraged by your accurate phrase “Practitioners of both faiths denied the reality of my experience.” Delightful and true. You might enjoy a dose of Ken Wilbur or two.

Offhand, as a gambit, I would say that the First Law implies that Energy IS and can appear formed according to identification with a perspective. Energy and matter are the identical Substance, form being, for the lack of a better analogy, holographically “real” as complexities of wave patterns (Word) in the primal Substance.

The Second Law implies, I would say, that over time the potential of energy to transmute in the appearance of forms diminishes, though the energy still IS This can foster a speculation about the nature of experience at the point of final quiescence.

Poor analogy, but: brass bowl struck by attention = sound, manifestation. No attention = no sound, potential, where sound = experience. In either case, the bowl “is.” The “striking” may be similar to your won waking up from a deep sleep. “You” weren’t, but awakened, saw yourself awaken, actually, and then, awake you “are.” Potential and Kinetic.

The God is the Infinite and Always IS moment of Potential.

That could be a start.

Detales,

It is refreshing to get a reply from someone sharing either his own thoughts and ideas, or his best forthright interpretation of the well-considered ideas of others. We could have some good discussions if you stay obnoxious and abjure pretentiousness. Or not. But let’s not do “gambits,” please. I write to share my ideas and explore the ideas of others, and to exchange criticisms. Ideas shape the lives of all human beings on planet earth and probably elsewhere. I take them seriously or not at all. Please do the same in our conversations at least.

I suspect that the planet has honored you by giving you a unique set of experiences. As with any experience, these can only be related to those who have had them. (It is not possible to share the experience of sight with a blind man.) So when you allude to your experiences, psychic or whatever, be assured that neither I nor others here can relate to them without an explanation in depth.

If such an explanation furthers the thread, I would welcome it.

Had I found any insights in your slogan, I’d not have labeled it a slogan.

I don’t know Ken Wilbur. If you care to share in a personal message what he might offer, I’d certainly check him out if it looks like I can learn something from him. If he only does quips, not interested.

You did well on the First Law of Thermodynamics, but not on basic reading skills. I’d referenced Newton’s 2nd Law explicitly. This is not the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Why would I have invited you to relate the 2nd and 1st laws of Thermodynamics to one another? That’s already been done by guys smarter that both of us and your cat combined.

The brass bowl analogy was, as you noted, poor, but instructive nonetheless for it offers insights into your style of thought. One of my few neighbors is a certified Buddhist. Wanna-be’s from here and thereabouts, and from a mini-monastery a hard road away come weekly to hear him teach. He begins his sessions by whacking a Tibetan bowl which produces the most glorious and rich sound. Then he begins the most dreadful, trite, and low-level Buddhist teachings. I could only attend a few of these sessions.

Now, I love this guy, whose name is John and who is a wise and excellent person. On a few occasions when his wife and ministerial duties allow, we’ve gotten together in his hot tub on cold winter nights to smoke Cuban cigars and drink expensive Port wine (I can drop names with the best). After some nicotine and alcohol, John’s true wisdom emerges from the dogma with which he normally wraps himself, his human pretentiousness evaporates in the steam and chlorine fumes, and I learn things of value.

You have such potential, I suspect. Next time you communicate, have a few shots or glasses. It opens the mind to honesty, at the minor cost of perfect clarity. Clarity can be achieved in subsequent discussions.

This statement, “The God is the Infinite and Always IS moment of Potential,” makes zero sense to me. I am tired of people who know no math referring to God as infinite. It is worse that those who know that infinity is a non-real concept, the result of dividing something by zero, should resort to mistaking the result of a high-school level mathematical error as an attribute of the Creator of the universe.

So, no, that’s not a start.

 

[Detales]

First things first: “'if there is a Heavenly Father does that mean there is a Heavenly Mother, and if there are does that mean they have parents, and if they do, when does it stop?" Pretty deep question for a four year old, and no, I never had a conversation such as this with her.”

Absolutely wonderful! And this is why, other than the transcendence aspect which forces gender neutrality, in Christian Science God is often "Father/Mother God. That resonates with Krshna and Kali and Horus and Isis. Not exactly of course, but interestingly. We do it with Jesus and Mary. Gotta love a kid like that. Similar to how my marriage ended over an inability of the wife to come up with her own reason for baptizing the boy other than “The Church says we have to so he can go to heaven.” Well, there may be better reasons, but that is another thread.

I don’t know that much about Spinoza, though my understanding that his books were on the Index immediately endears him to me. I also agree with Wussup that had he met Bohm, the two would have had a good go at friendship, or not, but at least would have had some bodacious debates and dialogs. Bohm’s *Wholeness and the Implicate Order *goes a bit beyond Spinoza concepts, I think, and it would be really interesting to see what would come of such a question as “Is Spinoza’s determinism a misreading of the quantum nature of Wholeness?” It would be, since they both agree that Reality is of a piece, very interesting to where they would go with something like that. I would also suppose that Bohm would give far less credence to the idea of rights being derived from the state, as I believe he might more likely argue that rights are derived from a recognition of the other as Self. As Ramana said, “There are no others.”

In any case, Wussup is right. It is a very difficult thing to talk about in English. I have pointed out on here many times not only the difficulties inherent in the dualistic nature of English grammar, but of the whole idea of translation. By translation, I do not mean the simple transference of an extracted meaning from words into another tongue. I mean as well a coherent and complete understanding of the psychological milieu of the author being translated. Remember, the ancient ontology Wussup refers to predates even the time before the Enlightenment when scientific, political, and religious matters were inextricably bound in the Western “world,” Only later around the time of Kant were they parsed and teased out from on another as distinct realms of consideration. We take such differentiation as matter of fact and dating back to the time of the Patriarchs. They emphatically do not.

I think that Bohm’s considerations regarding English relative to Wholeness are priceless, if impossible to activate due to common culture. But that only makes it that much more important to pay attention to the assumptions and errors inherent in our language, and therefore in our perceptions and thinking. it is also wise to note that our dealing with the alleged “real” world proceeds, except in the very highly trained, by more omission that actual observation. This is in fact why stage magic is possible at all, and why those sorts of perceptions or lacuna are now the subject of study relative even to religious thought. Nuff said for the moment, but if you get a chance to read a highly popular critique of Galileo’s discovery of the four moons of Jupiter, you might be in for a good laugh. But the point of it would be in seeing the difference we now have in parsing experience more finely, and not arguing that because the head has seven openings and there are seven metals, that there must perforce be only seven significant heavenly bodies. The spiritual materialism on here reminds me of such arguments!

 

[greylorn]

1. 1 John 1:5 God is Light (KJV, not exactly new age); also, john 1:9; 3:19; 8:12; Zech 14:6; lots more. Nevertheless, I would not want someone to think I believe God to have as a trait a being of light, but rather that he at least have the properties a being of light would have (plus a few others). Briefly stated, light is not a function of finite space and finite time.
2. I have it on good authority that Boehm also thought his ideas of a holographic universe were just a bag of farts (I would name my source, but well, you know)
3. You seem to have covered the full gambit of the phenomenology of human experience, where an educated person cannot seek truth in the learning of another by recognizing the work of an intellect mightier than sein, or he has an arcane idea no one else has read about.

1.) I shall eagerly await your explanation of those properties which a “being of light” would have, in the context of the conventional understanding of light. I’ll expect your explanation to explain the relationship between the finite velocity of light, the permittivity and permeability constants (in vacuum) and the allegedly non-finite properties of God.

2.)
That was good! Thanks for the laugh. If you get booted off the forum for using only a four letter word to describe gaseous emissions, I’ll write a note in your behalf.

3.)
Do I detect a trace of subtle sarcasm?

Nonetheless, I have an arcane idea. The freedom to have such an idea came after discovering that a large number of individuals who were smarter and better educated than me had gotten some fundamental, important ideas dreadfully wrong. This is inevitable. People who dare to invent previously unknown ideas will make mistakes. What is unfortunate is that others who are not capable of understanding accept their errors as truth, and teach them as truth, or even worse, as dogma. .

Actually I have several arcane ideas, integrated with one another into an unusual theory of “everything” which includes, unlike conventional theories of everything, a Creator. A few people have read about them, and a physicist who won a Pulitizer Prize quoted two entire chapters from my first book in a book of his own which sold much better than mine.

 

[Detales]

Greylorn~~“be assured that neither I nor others here can relate to them without an explanation in depth” I am very very experientially assured of that. That is precisely why I don’t go into depth and why you are missing so much Gold that is on these pages. To explicate and define, let alone argue the actuality of those experiences of transcendent value, only makes for more confusion. But mostly it points out that there is a gulf between the literal external evaluation of events as seen objectively from the outside and experiencing meaning from the inside. Both are necessary, but one alone is devastating. The effects of such a one sided view can only be overcome by shock, as was my case, or by deliberate practice, or Grace. I recommend Grace. So I think I will be in your category of “not at all,” despite wholly and completely being responsible for my own stripes.

The insights in my slogan are from my side of the words, and are simply a flag for any of similar colors.

Don’t insult my cat. It walks through walls and made Einstein blush at his ignorance. Your assessment of you and me, however, I accept.

So you found your friend’s Buddhism a bomb in a bowl. Interesting. But your drug and heat induced conversations support Mark 4:33,34, eh?

Thanks for the advice. I take a beer a day by subcutaneous injection, and do ok by it.

But I take heart in your last comparison of the infinitude of Deity to the nature of mathematical infinity. Such an apples and oranges view, tsk tsk… 'Sides, you just proved 0=1, and can be blessed proud of yourself! Of course my statement makes no sense to you. I would have said the same durned thing before the rug was unceremoniously and without notice pulled out from under me. But lucky for me, me didn’t live to tell the tale.

 

[greylorn]

you kids keep off my lawn!

This lawn is for strolling on, across, or through, not for dumping your rubbish.

 

[grannymh]

Granny, dear,
I would personally love to see you give up your transcendency fixation, at least for the purpose of this thread, which is about the properties of God. Transcendency is not a property. It is a word which stands for the absence of meaning, a word which tells the world that its user refuses to consider any concept which might integrate spirit with the physical.

I have tried to explain to you before that the words physical and material are not properly used synonymously. Matter is only one component of the physical universe, and a relatively minor component at that. You know this, so you have my permission to write in the context of your knowledge, instead of implying that I or anyone else is proposing that God is a material being. (And while we’re at it, let’s not make the new-agers’ mistake of calling God an “energy being,” which is almost as absurd.)

The only advantage to calling God a transcendent being is to be able to use a big word to say nothing relevant about interesting questions such as, how does God interact with the physical universe? Why did He create it? Etc.

The world of science has been moving away from any possible integration with theology for the last three centuries, leaving atheism to take over, because of closed-minded individuals who would rather cling to grade-school dogma than consider the potential of a single alternative idea. I have enough work to do without you hijacking my thread and trying to drag it back to the dark ages.

You will notice that I do not post to sections and threads which are devoted to rehashing principles of the Catholic faith. I avoid these threads out of respect for those who want to have a safe space to discuss the ideas they’ve chosen to believe. Perhaps you, and several other dogmatic Catholics would offer those who want to consider alternative ideas about our acknowledged Creator the same courtesy.

Let’s make this a no dogma zone.

Kindly take this reply as intended, with appreciation for your faith (once my own) and a personal appreciation of you, but with a need to set some boundaries. Thank you!

Good morning, Greylorn,

You will absolutely never guess what popped into my head around 3:30 AM–the laws of thermodynamics which you once explained. Though I seem to remember you quibbled about one of them. There they were marching around in my head as if they owned the universe, And here I was, the little kid in the story “The Emperor’s New Clothes”. The only and real difference was that the thermodynamics were real and visible clothes of the universe.

So if I can enter the no dogma zone later with my Pepsi, I’ll try to make some sense of my thoughts. On the other hand, as I have said before, you have my respect. So I will leave it up to you to determine if I am following the guidelines set in the OP.
Your evaluation is welcomed since I would never want to hijack any thread.

To begin, the word transcendence can be used in any number of ways. For the purpose of this thread, I would use the word as a relationship in the pecking order of rocks on up. Even though the original concept of pantheism is a lovely and appealing thought, I don’t buy it. Therefore, I would discern the OP first sentence as meaning there are two entities, one capable of creating and the second entity the created physical universe. With two, there needs to be some kind of relationship. Actually transcendence is only one aspect of that relationship.

Yes, I did and do understand your explanation of the words physical and material. Thank you. And I still have trouble at times with their usage so I appreciate any correction. However, I did not imply that anyone was proposing God is a material being. What I did see was that a couple of posters were describing God’s actions as if He were a working part of the universe. There is a neat word that begins with the letter a (I think) that describes this.

Regarding God’s presence in the world, I’m with you in that I prefer to stay away from that particular dogma in this particular kind of discussion. That is why I like the phrase transcendent being – because it shows that God is a different entity from His creation without denying God’s presence within. Or in the context of the OP, God has different properties than His creation. If at all possible, I prefer “both / and” to the mutually exclusive “or”.

One other comment about your opening comment that the user of the word transcendent "refuses to consider any concept which might integrate spirit with the physical. Kindly note that even though I mixed up the usage of physical matter, I was clear that the human person is both physical body and spiritual soul. In the past I have referred to this union of spirit and physical or as you put it “integrate”. As we both know, this integration is expressed in any number of concepts. I don’t want to go into that. Maybe the idea of God being simply Spirit is a practical one.

I don’t know how to solve our differences about the dark ages except to agree to disagree. If physical laws of the universe were defined in the dark ages, would they be discredited today? The flat earth law was discredited so does that mean that all laws of the physical universe which existed in the dark ages are wrong? Can physical phenomena exist even if their “law” is not known? On top of this, my kids think of the dark ages as that before color TV. Then they wink at me.

The weird thing about my half-asleep thoughts about physics was that I started to wonder how they compared to the biological operations of the digestive system. I believe in the essential unity of the universe so I would think that there would be a common denominator of physics and biology which would have to be a property of the creating entity.

Be assured that I take your post as kindly intended. You are a long-time friend. I, of all people, understand boundaries and your right to set them. And I will offer your posters the “same courtesy” that you do to other thread topics.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Regarding Warpspeedpetey maximal state of existence, when my daughter was 4 I remember her mother going in to read her a bedside story. Half way through the story telling session her mother came storming out of her bedroom (because she was just a stormy kind of gal) angry at me (because she was always angry at me) because my daughter asked her 'if there is a Heavenly Father does that mean there is a Heavenly Mother, and if there are does that mean they have parents, and if they do, when does it stop?" Pretty deep question for a four year old, and no, I never had a conversation such as this with her.

are you asking how we stop an ICR (infinite causal regression)?

 

[jkiernan56]

Exactly!!! With all due respect (or none as the case may be), I hope the moderators don’t close the thread as 1HOLYCATHOLIC (odd name, even Jesus questioned the affirmation he was ‘good’, let alone ‘holy’). I have been long absent from the forum, but see that this question has some potential.

Would it not be an odd God who did not have the property of connectedness with His Creation?

Yes, God has connectedness with His Creation. God (who I believe REALLY IS pure spirit in essence) “wills” existence to all of physical and spiritual reality independent of His own existence). God who is existence gives existence. Nothing can exist that is not willed and held in existence by sheer will and thought by this sheer Pure Spirit.

I can will myself to think a thought and keep that thought in my mind. That thought exists as long as I will it to. Once I cease to think the thought, it no longer exists. Pure existence (Existence that is NOT CAUSED) thinks and wills the existence of the universe. That WAS MY EXPERIENCE. It is confirmed by DOGMA.

What REALLY IS (Objective Truth) is what defines what is worthy of my belief. It is not belief that makes something true. I REALLY DO believe that God is pure spirit who thinks and wills all that exists … to exist. I REALLY DO believe this is what is REAL in and of ITSELF (ie - in ESSENCE).

God does have “CONNECTEDNESS” with His creation. It is called existence. But where does this existence of the universe come from?

What is real in the universe HAS EXISTENCE. What HAS EXISTENCE has existence by a pure SPIRIT (spirit = being with KNOWLEDGE and WILL - the ability to know and to act). Some spirits are also joined to physical reality (human beings). Some spirits have no connectedness to physical reality (Angels). Science will never be able to measure Spirit. It is not something that can be observed under a microscope, or measured to have “X” number of atoms or particles. Science cannot measure Spirit.

Only something can come from something. Spirits (humans and angels) can only come from Spirit. There is one pure Spirit who gives existence to all other spirits (ie - something from something). The existence of Spirit cannot be given (created) unless it is something already possessed. Now talking about physical/material reality - physical reality cannot come from nothing. Whatever physical reality comes from, must have the “means” to produce physical reality. Does that mean God also possesses physical reality in order to give physical reality? I have to look into this more - because this is making me pause how to answer this.

God WHO IS PURE EXISTENCE gives EXISTENCE to all created reality (spirit and material). GOD WHO IS PURE EXISTENCE could if He will, cease to will and think of His creation and it would no longer exist. Yes, that is dogma Greylorn. Dogma that every cell and fiber in my being acknowledges is Objective Truth. Science does not get to define reality - but acknowlege what is REALLY REAL. The Pot does not get to call the kettle black.

 

[wussup]

I gotta say that regardless of how smart I am, Mr. S’s Cat will certainly beat me (aaargh, I hated that class).

I think one big problem we are facing here is a consideration the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics are inviolate. In our macro level this is certainly true, however, much work is currently being done to show these laws do not always work in the universe. I could specifically refer you to the work regarding a model involving the Hamiltonian level where a dc circular spontaneous flow exists in absence of a magnetic field. The resulting spontaneous flow going in one direction of heat bath1 → bath 2 is against the temperature step and a violation of the Clausius form. Pretty interesting stuff. Point is that when studying the properties of God we have to be able to look beyond our finite mind to the necessarily transcendent nature of God.

My opinion, it is the vagaries of science, the deep dark mysteries that we uncover, the space between the tiniest particles, where we will realize that God is unknowable in our present limited capacity.

Granny suggested then rejected a pantheistic approach (something Spinoza is particularly known for). I think I am somewhat in her camp. I do not think that God is so much the ‘all inclusive’ resort of our universe so much as He is a separate autonomous God that is also a part of this universe he created in a way of interconnectedness.

 

[wussup]

“Is Spinoza’s determinism a misreading of the quantum nature of Wholeness?” It would be, since they both agree that Reality is of a piece, very interesting to where they would go with something like that. I would also suppose that Bohm would give far less credence to the idea of rights being derived from the state, as I believe he might more likely argue that rights are derived from a recognition of the other as Self.
It is a very difficult thing to talk about in English. I have pointed out on here many times not only the difficulties inherent in the dualistic nature of English grammar, but of the whole idea of translation. By translation, I do not mean the simple transference of an extracted meaning from words into another tongue. I mean as well a coherent and complete understanding of the psychological milieu of the author being translated. Remember, the ancient ontology Wussup refers to predates even the time before the Enlightenment when scientific, political, and religious matters were inextricably bound in the Western “world,” Only later around the time of Kant were they parsed and teased out from on another as distinct realms of consideration. We take such differentiation as matter of fact and dating back to the time of the Patriarchs. They emphatically do not.

Ohhh, what a great question. I will have to think on that for a while. As for Bohm’s ideas regarding the idea of rights, I think he and Spinoza would agree almost 100%. Both had an extremely unpleasant experience with the prevailing political establishment, if anything Spinoza’s life was far more unpleasant than Bohm’s (excommunicated, hounded by the religious elite intellectuals of the time, a threat to the the social order, attempts to kill him and burn him at the stake). I have carefully read Ethics and have come to the conclusion Spinoza was very careful to use euphemisms to explain his ideas when he felt it was expedient.

1.) I shall eagerly await your explanation of those properties which a “being of light” would have, in the context of the conventional understanding of light. I’ll expect your explanation to explain the relationship between the finite velocity of light, the permittivity and permeability constants (in vacuum) and the allegedly non-finite properties of God.

3.) Do I detect a trace of subtle sarcasm?

Nonetheless, I have an arcane idea. The freedom to have such an idea came after discovering that a large number of individuals who were smarter and better educated than me had gotten some fundamental, important ideas dreadfully wrong.

1. I think an explanation of the properties of God based on any single human scientific model is an analogy, and like all analogies falls apart in the details. I think that one property that God would have would be the property of being every-when present vs. the property of being every-where present. While the defacto result is the same (all-present etc…) I think the visualization of this characteristic is more accurate.
2. Ha, I have never been accused of subtlety. Maybe I am growing up.

I may be nitpicking but your “freedom to have such an idea came” about by the blood of patriots and tyrants watering the tree of liberty. A particularly lovely quote from Jefferson, and cannot be improved upon.

I just read a biography of Einstein and he had problems with quantum mechanics and the EMW model for decades. It was really more the consequences of these theories than the math per see.

 

[Detales]

Regarding Spinoza’s wise use of euphemisms, I quote from my studiously ignored post #118 above: “As St Augustine said “There are many things which it is not useful for the vulgar crowd to know; and certain things which although they are false it is expedient for the people to believe otherwise.” (~~City of God)”

Here is another quote that might be applicable to the limitations inherent in the more physically oriented considerations to the transcendental Nature of God:

*“Never deny what each man’s service is. No talent can be denied anyone who evidences his talent, but his talent should and always will evidence where he received it and what type of seeding has happened. When you are seeded purely with the academic registration of time, you are seeded with what? The mechanical registration that never becomes the Divine Organ.”

Kenneth G. Mills, The Golden Nail, “Overtone of Creativity” pg. 252*

I again recommend a familiarity with Ken Wibur’s application of the crux of inner/outer modes of inquiry and analysis, particularly as outlined in A Brief History of Everything. Such a more inclusive framing of our question here might eliminate some of the apples/oranges ideas and some of the cross-talk. (pun intended )

Bindar Doondat, FZPC

 

[marybridget123]

Well said. You are sure you are Catholic?

I’m Catholic. But loved the inherent irony of your question!. mary bridget123

 

[wussup]

I have read The Golden Bough…, but not the Golden Nail, and I have seen in the bookstore the A Brief History of Everything. I thought the title to pretentious and blew it off. However, at your recommendation I will give another look.

 

[gearhead]

Speculating about mystical, unobservable universes is premature.

As is rejecting the possibility of them a priori.

So, let’s stick with known principles of physics and leave speculation to the History Channel pseudo-professors. Thanks, folks!

Nice.

Snide comments aside, it’s still valid and relevant to ask what you meant by the term “the physical universe” in the OP.

 

[marybridget123]

In following this thread, several things came to mind.

1. the consistent honor given to the many concepts of God
2. the excellent references to metaphysics in the postings
3. the potential for error or self-harm in settling on notions of any level of understanding He who is not to be defined.

Knowlege sets agreed upon for further debate, study or dialog needs to be recognized as “acquired”. “Acquired” knowlege [or anything else] implies possession. The potential self-harm is the underlying base of acquisition or possession. We unwittingly are trying to possess part of God through a knowlege or concept. Possession reduces God to ‘possessable’–i had to make up that word–sorry… I hope I have not offended anyone, as the mental energy and presentational skill in the posts has been beautiful, rewarding and great (vast/exploratory). best regards, mary bridget.

 

[wussup]

1. the potential for error or self-harm in settling on notions of any level of understanding He who is not to be defined.

The potential self-harm is the underlying base of acquisition or possession. We unwittingly are trying to possess part of God through a knowlege or concept.

This might be a little controversial, but I think the New Testament statement the 'you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free". I certainly have know [sic ] intention of possessing God in such a manner. For me, the limited knowledge of God I gain is a direct response to the Faith I have in his salvation. So, the more the Holy Spirit blesses me with Faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, and my Savior, the more ‘knowledge’ I gain. This should not be understood that the knowledge is a reward or a motivator for Faith, but rather an inevitable outcome. Also, its just fun.

 

[gearhead]

In following this thread, several things came to mind.

1. the consistent honor given to the many concepts of God
2. the excellent references to metaphysics in the postings
3. the potential for error or self-harm in settling on notions of any level of understanding He who is not to be defined.

Knowlege sets agreed upon for further debate, study or dialog needs to be recognized as “acquired”. “Acquired” knowlege [or anything else] implies possession. The potential self-harm is the underlying base of acquisition or possession. We unwittingly are trying to possess part of God through a knowlege or concept. Possession reduces God to ‘possessable’–i had to make up that word–sorry… I hope I have not offended anyone, as the mental energy and presentational skill in the posts has been beautiful, rewarding and great (vast/exploratory). best regards, mary bridget.

I doubt it’s what you intended, but this sounds like an argument for ignosticism.

 

[Detales]

Marybridget123~~“Knowledge sets agreed upon for further debate, study or dialog needs to be recognized as “acquired”. “Acquired” knowlege [or anything else] implies possession. The potential self-harm is the underlying base of acquisition or possession. We unwittingly are trying to possess part of God through a knowlege or concept. Possession reduces God to ‘possessable’–i had to make up that word–sorry… I hope I have not offended anyone, as the mental energy and presentational skill in the posts has been beautiful, rewarding and great (vast/exploratory). best regards, mary bridget.”

I absolutely agree with you about the dangers of acquired “knowledge.” I take recourse here to an aphorism from Borneo that states “All knowledge is theoretical until it is in the muscle.” The meaning to that aphorism to me is as follows:

There are several modalities of what we call knowledge. We know about objects and processes from the outside in an observational or scientific way by watching and or manipulating. We know, in the case of manipulating, first by thinking while doing as a teleological process, and then by “feel” as in driving a car, or operating a machine after years of experience, and even by simple presence, as Greylorn indicated in his sports analogy. '56 takes it a step further into a mode that Greylorn seems not to have experienced, or his arguments would be both less mechanistically inclined and far more compassionate and inclusive of the sensibilities of others and their current state. Though he keeps it a arm’s length, '56 takes us to the border of a special case called “Knowledge by Identity” of Gnosis. This is very distinct from Gnosticism and Ignosticism (thanks for the info, Gearhead)

This is why I am constantly questioning the value of faith, as faith is exactly what MB123 says: acquired “knowledge.” That makes it contents, not substance. Gnosis, or Knowledge by Identity, is direct Knowledge of Substance/ It is a far different order of knowledge than that of the intellect, book learning, or any form of contents in awareness. It is knowledge of the container, not the relational values of the material contained. It is my belief, founded on my own experience, literature on the subject, and conversations with those who have experienced such an Understanding, that it was a precipitation of his awareness into Gnosis that caused St. Augustin to stop writing and even wish to burn his work. (There is an relevant discussion of this matter in a closed thread called* Tolle 2*.)

Faith, in fact, it is no more than trust in an acquired chain of belief based on speculative interpretation of Scriptures and tradition by folks lesser in understanding than The Master. And there is a lot of doubt about the contribution of that story as to its originality. That is because all the elements of the Jesus story are anciently known and are part and parcel of what? Ways to Gnosis.

So I completely agree with MB123 that we are, in the intellectual stages of faith and religious “knowledge” mistaken in our effort to purport an actual Knowledge that would give the same authority to our statement as would a direct experience. Possession of knowledge about God is relatively meaningless and is no more than intellectual assertion. Even statements by those who have had direct experience are only pointers, having no other intrinsic value save as signals of that experience and the possibility of encouraging the desire for accomplishment through Self inquiry.

 

[wussup]

Detales, very well stated. Clearly you have done some thinking on this subject. The reason I first came to this forum a couple years ago was because I had experienced a faith building relationship with several Catholics and was curious about a religion that could bring about such spirituality. I have a very strong scientific background (I am a graduate of the 3 year nuclear power program) and have had personal challenges with giving up the ‘knowledge seeking’ and going after the ‘spiritual faith building seeking’. Sadly I found the forum is full of hypocritical bigots (to put it bluntly) who did not care about what was in the container because not only did they already now (incorrectly) what was in the container, but they dismissed the container as a container at all! This conversation about the properties of God is typical. A few folks give their ideas and are precious in the insight they provide on their faith, if not on a logically sound argument. Others ridicule and mock these beliefs without actually giving anything of substance to the ultimate goal of a christian, and that is to edify and testify. Hey, this is a Catholic forum and it is ok to espouse faith. I am fascinated by the depth of philosophical understanding and mystified at the sophistry expressed here.