More Contradictions in Religion...

[gdo]

1,800 centuries?   Ummm...  that would be 180,000 years.  

Oh well, but lets not exagerate.  OK?  

[Beth]

gdo,

Did I say 1,800 centuries somewhere? Which is certainly a typo possibility!  

And if I did this in the context of the development of Christianity, then of course, I meant 1,800 years, not centuries.

But words count, and if I did do this, then thanks for correcting my obvious error.

~Beth

[gdo]

Leyla, conceptually there is only one creator with 7 faces.  An individuated power is not god but A power of god.  Christianity is a monotheistic religion.

[Beth]

gdo and leyla,

Let's look at what is being said here and clear up a few things, for there are three distinct things being discussed in a big wad:  Monotheism, Divine Powers and Gender-Godheads.

Monotheism means: GOD is ONE; mono-theos.  

In order for God to be a real God, a perfect and complete deity, an omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent deity, then God cannot ever be anything other than these things; God cannot change in any way; God must remain ONE in all ways.  This logical fact has caused serious problems for systematic theologies in all religions.

Technically speaking, Christianity is not a true monothesitic religion.

Even Judaism is not technically monotheistic given all the different names of God, e.g., El, Elah, Elohim, and Yahweh, with each name carrying a different meaning.

El is singular and masculine.  Elah is singular and feminine.  Elohim is either dual or plural. Yahweh is actually a verb, which makes deity able to create change, BUT, actually prevents that deity from being a true monotheistic--unchangeable godhead.

Either "El" or "Elah" would be a true monotheistic deity, but without being able to 'act within this world' would be of no consequence to this world. So, Yahweh had to be created so it could be present and create change within this world.

Recognizing the monotheistic problem in Judaism, Christianity could have been a true monotheistic religion by reconciling this problem of an unchanged deity that could still create change in the world, through the Greek understanding of the multivalent Logos, as found in the Gospel of John ... BUT...the subsequent theology of Roman Catholic Christianity was never able to have it's cake and eat it too.  

Instead of going with the Greek Logos idea, which allowed "everyone and everything" "to share in the essence of God," the early Catholic Church tried to make it work where Jesus was the 'only such person to be both human and divine' and therefore ended up creating the conundrum of needing a two-in-one deity. Their solution to this dualized-deity problem was to come up with the idea of 'two' in 'one substance'--the Greek word used for this 'substance' was 'homoousious', which means 'same substance'.

Moreover, it all just got crazier when considering the post-resurrection sending of the Holy Spirit, it too being a part of the godhead but separate from humanity, so they actually ended up creating the larger conundrum of needing three-in-one; making all three aspects be a part of that same 'one substance'. This they did by saying that there were three hypostases (three natures) of homoousious (one substance), i.e., the Trinity of the Godhead. This doesn't logically work in maintaining a true monotheistic concept, so the early Church thinkers finally just decided to call it a Trinity and leave the problem alone.  Believe or not, the conundrum remains unsolved even today.

Now...

While Judaism and Christianity never succeeded in being true monotheistic religions, they were very successful in being patriarchal religions.

Patriarchal Religion is just one of MANY FACES that "God has worn" through the eons.  

As a successful patriarchal religion FIRST, the above conundrum has been left alluding to different powers that have all been attributed to God, i.e., Father, Son and Holy spirit, in order for their concept of God to work.  In other words, a patriarchal religion that claims three aspects of a singular deity.

Goddess worship, which is a matriarchal religion, is another mask--and is not really a true polytheistic religion any more than Christianity is a true monotheistic religion.

Just like Christianity, it too has its powers that work through the foundation of that religion as well, e.g., different faces of the Goddess--Maiden, Mother and Crone, plus the different personalities of all the different goddesses, e.g., Isis, Astarte, Hecate, and all the others. But Goddess worship maintains that there is only ONE GODDESS.

So, whatever Christianity is with its multiple aspects of the godhead, then Goddess worship can be said to be the same thing--in the same way--only through opposing genders.  The former has a Male Godhead and the latter has a Female Godhead and each of these are the total ruler for the religion in their gendername.

The Greek pantheon, however, split between all their gods--both male and female--is truly polytheistic and is yet another mask of God.

Even Buddhism is mask of the Godhead in a genderless way.

Finally, all the powers found within all the different masks, may well be real when the masks are removed, but...the MASKS are NOT REAL.  

The many masks of God are all created by humans--for humans.  Simply put: whatever works for each one of us, well...works for each one of us. But the logical facts remain that:

A TRUE DEITY IS GENDERLESS.
 
A TRUE DEITY CANNOT EVER CHANGE, UNLESS THAT DEITY IS -- CHANGE ITSELF.
 
THIS WOULD SOLVE EVERYTHING.
 
~Beth

[gdo]

Cultures are many and change.  People are many and their languages are too and they change to reflect new ideas and inventions.  That happens on many levels.  

The references to the powers of god are not god but human ideas of what those powers are.  The WORDS we use do not define god, which is why in some forms of Judaism there is the 'holy unspeakable name of god'.  ONE person using one word in one time of human history cannot possibly define god.  

In ancient times the concept of god was largely a tribal definition that held meaning for THAT tribe, at that time.  That in no means that Judaism is not monotheistic.  Monotheism goes beyond the restraints of one cultural concept or definition.  

'...within whom we live and move and have our being....'

[Beth]

gdo wrote:

'...within whom we live and move and have our being....'

In order to justify monotheism for Judaism and Christianity, you have just quoted the ancient Greek philosopher Epimenides (600bce), who was subsequently quoted by Paul in the book of Acts.

Epimenides' poem Cretica is quoted twice in the New Testament. In the poem, Minos addresses Zeus thus:

They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one—
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.

The "lie" of the Cretians is that Zeus was mortal; Epimenides considered Zeus immortal.

Paul quotes it in Acts 17:28:

26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28`For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, `We are his offspring.'

Epimenides is referring to Zeus, and Paul is referring to Christ.

This same idea is also found in the theology of the LOGOS, which I referenced above.  

Moreover, as a theological idea, this is more to 'pantheism' than 'monotheism'.  

~Beth

SEE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

[gdo]

It is interesting that you use my last quote.  Does not matter.

'Argue for your limitations and you will keep them'

[Beth]

It is interesting that you use my last quote.  Does not matter.

'Argue for your limitations and you will keep them'

Why wouldn't I consider your quote? And yes, in the context that you placed it, it matters a lot.

Would you rather I had chosen something from your previous post, like:

The references to the powers of god are not god but human ideas of what those powers are. The WORDS we use do not define god...

which basically refutes any attempt to put any 'words' to use in "defining God", including your insistent description: "mono-"...

But I won't pick your newest quote apart, but would only say that I think that it applies to how we put limitations on God as well...we get stuck with 'em...

~Beth

[gdo]

Mono theism does not define god but describes a form of a religion.

Religion is definable.  Its forms come from  the properties of the cultures from whence they originated.  Most religions are tribal in origin, hence those religions use terms that are meaningful to that particular tribe and its context in place an time.  

Cultures and languages change to meet the way people in those cultures change and adapt.  

For some people  to have an idea of god, they have to isolate the powers and functions of god, just as they to other  things in their life to make them somewhat understandable and meaningful and practical.

There are many divisions or forms amongst those who follow Judaism and Christianity.  But they still do follow the concept of those forms to be monotheistic, even though the practices that they adhere to are different.

If we change the term god to some thing like, ALL THAT EVER WAS AND EVER COULD BE IN ALL SPACE AND TIME, you would still have the concept that the new name meant ONE.

[Beth]

gdo...I can't argue with anything that you just said!!!  

[gdo]

Thank You Beth!  

Most of the time we look at things from a personal and convenient perspective that is also comfortable for ourselves.  We all do it.  It is rare and difficult some times to step outside of ourselves (whoever and where ever) and try a different kind of sight.  

What some people do not think of is that if there is truly a god that created the universe, then there is not such a thing as supernatural only the supra natural.  There is,that which we have not discovered or created a science or a language for.  Most language can only represent common experiences and events and ideas.  The more uncommon and event or idea or experience the fewer the words to represent it.  This is why that some people have a hard time describing their personal experiences regarding the religious and spiritual nature.  

When you know that 'god' is one, it may be hard to put it into common enough language for others to easily grasp.  Each persons experience will be different enough, but it will also be the same.  (not there is a contradiction for you)  LOL..

[Beth]

When you know that 'god' is one, it may be hard to put it into common enough language for others to easily grasp.  Each persons experience will be different enough, but it will also be the same.  (now there is a contradiction for you)  LOL..

Well...there you go again gdo!!!  As soon as I think you are talking straight, you curve things up again!  :doh:  

Outside of my scholarly expositions, I have personally pondered the "God is One" thing for quite a long time, and I have come to the conclusion that even this, as a description, puts limits on God.

In doing so, humans just create more room for disagreement:

One What?
One Who?
Which gender?
One Religion.
One Holy Book.
One Way.
This One not that One.
One -- or Nothing.

I don't know the answer to the mysterious identity of God gdo, but something tells me that we are all wrong...

~Beth

[ubiquitous]

To try to establish that there is a entity who is responsible for our existence and all that surrounds us is so far just a comfort notion, its o.k god will get 'em...not it won't! and why do i sometimes feel like saying no HE won't?
The macro world looks great but the subatomic world holds the answers of defining and locating the age old questions of consciousness, and we may well find that IT occupies all that IS and IS therefore as ONE.

YOU ARE GOD

[Beth]

ubi,

Until recent centuries, humans have wanted, and perhaps even needed, to place gender identification to powers that exceed our own.

And, it has then been a natural move to choose such a gender that each individual person can identify most with as being able to have such power.

It is not that women automatically choose a female gender and men a male gender, but rather, it obviously can apply both ways. But "men" and "women" are the only labels that we can consistently conceive of as having such power. That is why it is said that 'Humans create the gods in their own image'. Because, to date, that is exactly what we have done.

While investigations into the sub-atomic realm of consciousness is definately the best, and most current idea that is being studied and considered these days, I suspect that our delving into such will only prove to be one of the powers at hand in the universe, and not necessarily the greatest power of all. The universe is a very large place, no?

I think we are a long way from discovering the actual greatest power in the universe.  Mainly because we are, as a species, so far down the intelligence and awareness scale, we will naturally want to identify all new discoveries that we make in such a context as GOD.

In other words, there may be sub-sub-atomic levels of consciousness, or even sub-sub-sub levels, that we have yet to discover. We, as humans, must walk before we can run. Extending this metaphor, right now some of us are just now learning how to crawl.

With the sheer number of people on this planet (still lying in the cradle) totally stuck in gender identification deities, with many totally dependent upon ancient beliefs, it will be many years before this planet is transformed enough to be able to fully grasp and implement the next level, let alone any other levels that may supercede all the wonderful things that we are discovering about the sub-atomic realm of consciousness.

I think our discoveries into consciousness is telling us much more about ourselves, and our true identity, but not necessarily about what could be labeled as GOD. But once again, it is probably a natural human tendency for us to think such a thing.

Just my thoughts on this...

~Beth

[ubiquitous]

Yes one of the powers maybe, but its this "power" that has written all that is on this planet and tells of and then asks the question of an almighty creator.

We write with it and think with it and see it's power sprouting in all knowledge and science..this technology before you for example.. but we cannot locate it and it's not only located in humans it's located everywhere, just cause you can't hear a particle does'nt mean it does'nt think especially considering no one can locate your internal thoughts all though can see remnants in your external post's.

I suppose this type of post may belong in another domain (maybe you could advise) but am curious to read how people extrapolate there feelings into words and always find the word god as limiting, personally.