Is God changing?

[_Amore]

Jo,
Thanks for your comments about I AM THAT I AM and how truth can be expressed in various religious (& I'd add also nonreligious) symbols.


Tobin,
I really enjoy reading you & Subgenius's way of thinking, even if I don't agree completely.
Questioning what we think we know is good - doubt & faith are both important.

If you consider God as consciousness (as Moses, Buddha, Jesus & others have), how can you deny God?
If you consider the definition of God as love, how can you deny God?

It breaks my heart to know there are so many living in hellish conditions- many of which are absurd when others have such abundance. But the fault is not some external being - but rather the many human beings that could and ideally would be more compassionate/loving/godly (each of us to some extent). "The kingdom of God is within you" - where else would you experience anything?

[_Tobin]

Tobin,
I really enjoy reading you & Subgenius's way of thinking, even if I don't agree completely.
If you consider God as consciousness (as Moses, Buddha, Jesus & others have), how can you deny God?
If you consider the definition of God as love, how can you deny God?

It breaks my heart to know there are so many living in hellish conditions- many of which are absurd when others have such abundance. But the fault is not some external being - but rather the many human beings that could and ideally would be more compassionate/loving/godly (each of us to some extent). "The kingdom of God is within you" - where else would you experience anything?

I don't believe in a God that is consciousness. In fact, I don't believe in a God at all. I believe what people may be experiencing in the scriptures for example are nothing more than advanced beings millions, if not billions, of years more evolved than ourselves. So in answer the OP, I believe what people are mistaking for God is changing and continuing to evolve, as are we. One day when I die, I hope that I'll encounter such beings. If so, I fully expect them to be beyond me but by the sheer fact they have preserved my being there may be hope that I'll continue to change and evolve myself. Otherwise, my death will be the end and I won't care.

[_Amore]

Tobin,
I really enjoy reading you & Subgenius's way of thinking, even if I don't agree completely.
If you consider God as consciousness (as Moses, Buddha, Jesus & others have), how can you deny God?
If you consider the definition of God as love, how can you deny God?

It breaks my heart to know there are so many living in hellish conditions- many of which are absurd when others have such abundance. But the fault is not some external being - but rather the many human beings that could and ideally would be more compassionate/loving/godly (each of us to some extent). "The kingdom of God is within you" - where else would you experience anything?

I don't believe in a God that is consciousness. In fact, I don't believe in a God at all. I believe what people may be experiencing in the scriptures for example are nothing more than advanced beings millions, if not billions, of years more evolved than ourselves. So in answer the OP, I believe what people are mistaking for God is changing and continuing to evolve, as are we. One day when I die, I hope that I'll encounter such beings. If so, I fully expect them to be beyond me but by the sheer fact they have preserved my being there may be hope that I'll continue to change and evolve myself. Otherwise, my death will be the end and I won't care.

There is likely some valid possibility that what you imagine is true.
At least, there are probably "worlds without number", various dimensions of consciousness & different natural laws that are nothing like ours.

How do you define God, Tobin?
Could it be that you only reject the less reasonable definitions of God, but accept other truths even if you don't attribute them to God?

[_Tobin]

How do you define God, Tobin?

If something like God exists, it is just some beings vastly more intelligent and advanced than myself. It's something to aspire to and to learn from.

[_Amore]

How do you define God, Tobin?

If something like God exists, it is just some beings vastly more intelligent and advanced than myself. It's something to aspire to and to learn from.

Yeah, I think that could be one definition, but not the only one.

What do you think of when Jesus said, "The kingdom (realm/experience) of God is within you"?
Do you accept the way God is described as our own subjective experience within as another valid way of considering the phenomena, God?

[_Tobin]

What do you think of when Jesus said, "The kingdom (realm/experience) of God is within you"?

If you wish to be an enlightened, civilized being, it is within you to do so and behave that way if you wish. I imagine the kingdom of God is enlightened beings that treat each other as they should be treated.

Do you accept the way God is described as our own subjective experience within as another valid way of considering the phenomena, God?

I don't believe in a subjective God. If god-like beings exist, then they need to demonstrate that they exist and we should be able to see and speak with them. We may not understand them very well or at all since we are so primitive, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have credible evidence of them.

[_Amore]

What do you think of when Jesus said, "The kingdom (realm/experience) of God is within you"?

If you wish to be an enlightened, civilized being, it is within you to do so and behave that way if you wish. I imagine the kingdom of God is enlightened beings that treat each other as they should be treated.

I like that.

Do you accept the way God is described as our own subjective experience within as another valid way of considering the phenomena, God?

I don't believe in a subjective God. If god-like beings exist, then they need to demonstrate that they exist and we should be able to see and speak with them. We may not understand them very well or at all since we are so primitive, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have credible evidence of them.

It makes sense if you think in terms of the traditional concepts of God - some external being out there.
But consider how you experience anything - all within you. You experience God within you.
To me, there are different ways of seeing God - objective truth and subjective truth.
Objective truth is worth striving for with the humble realization that we'll always fool ourselves with our subjectively limited views.
Subjective truth is also worth striving for with the humble realization that it's all in our heads/hearts - all subjective!
We feel - so we have TRUE physiological consequences of such feelings - but often feelings are illogical interpretations.
They say the greatest paradox is that feelings cannot be trusted, yet it is emotion that tells us the greatest truths.
If I'm scared of snakes - I am! It's a subjective truth that I need to acknowledge - and either accept, overcome or otherwise deal with it. If I ignore such truth, I'll tie myself into knots with lies and denial. But if I blindly accept my feelings, I may do stupid things out of fear etc., ignoring any relevant facts.

What do you think by, "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free"?

[_Tobin]

But consider how you experience anything - all within you. You experience God within you.
To me, there are different ways of seeing God - objective truth and subjective truth.
Objective truth is worth striving for with the humble realization that we'll always fool ourselves with our subjectively limited views.
Subjective truth is also worth striving for with the humble realization that it's all in our heads/hearts - all subjective!
We feel - so we have TRUE physiological consequences of such feelings - but often feelings are illogical interpretations.
They say the greatest paradox is that feelings cannot be trusted, yet it is emotion that tells us the greatest truths.
If I'm scared of snakes - I am! It's a subjective truth that I need to acknowledge - and either accept, overcome or otherwise deal with it. If I ignore such truth, I'll tie myself into knots with lies and denial. But if I blindly accept my feelings, I may do stupid things out of fear etc., ignoring any relevant facts.

What do you think by, "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free"?

There is probably no way to determine whether your feelings come from the bio-electrical impulses in your brain or are part of your God in your opinion. Parsimony would favor that it is all in your head.

[_subgenius]

But consider how you experience anything - all within you. You experience God within you.
To me, there are different ways of seeing God - objective truth and subjective truth.
Objective truth is worth striving for with the humble realization that we'll always fool ourselves with our subjectively limited views.
Subjective truth is also worth striving for with the humble realization that it's all in our heads/hearts - all subjective!
We feel - so we have TRUE physiological consequences of such feelings - but often feelings are illogical interpretations.
They say the greatest paradox is that feelings cannot be trusted, yet it is emotion that tells us the greatest truths.
If I'm scared of snakes - I am! It's a subjective truth that I need to acknowledge - and either accept, overcome or otherwise deal with it. If I ignore such truth, I'll tie myself into knots with lies and denial. But if I blindly accept my feelings, I may do stupid things out of fear etc., ignoring any relevant facts.

What do you think by, "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free"?

There is probably no way to determine whether your feelings come from the bio-electrical impulses in your brain or are part of your God in your opinion. Parsimony would favor that it is all in your head.

I believe you are using this term incorrectly, parsimony is neither an arbiter nor is it used as an affirmation of an ad hoc hypothesis.
However, it would seem that if one was to consider "the simpler" theory to be true - then God is certainly less complex than whatever system of chemical switches, environmental influences, and cellular gymnastics that you might propose in contra.

[_Tobin]

Parsimony would favor that it is all in your head.

I believe you are using this term incorrectly, parsimony is neither an arbiter nor is it used as an affirmation of an ad hoc hypothesis.

I didn't say it was. Reread what I said.

However, it would seem that if one was to consider "the simpler" theory to be true - then God is certainly less complex than whatever system of chemical switches, environmental influences, and cellular gymnastics that you might propose in contra.

Not if you consider all the ramifications of such a theory. You are trying to compare apples and oranges. The simple idea would be it was God vs all in your head. As I pointed out, parsimony would favor it being all in your head.