A different way of thinking about God?

Originally posted by rwingett
The more you stretch the term, the less coherent it becomes. Eventually it's so all-encompassing that it becomes meaningless.

I disagree (though maybe it depends on which way you’re stretching it). The word itself is neither coherent nor incoherent. I think the 3-O concept of “God” is incoherent. When an Advaita Vedantin uses the term to refer to Brahman, I have no such problem.

However, when people can’t agree in discourse what the word means or refers to (if anything), then the discourse becomes incoherent—and that, I agree, happens a lot. And I admit that I get tired of having to footnote my usage of the term. The problem is that, not restricting myself to one paradigm, I have no good singular word to use. So I borrow them all (except that 3-O thingy).

EDIT: Okay, I'll agree that it can't be coherently used to encompass all religious/spiritual discourse without becoming meaningless. If a Sufi and a Baptist, say, are both using the word, each after their own fashion, they are not really talking to one another meaningfully. (Maybe also for a Greek Orthodox and a Baptist--Kirksey excepted).

Originally posted by vistesd
I disagree (though maybe it depends on which way you’re stretching it). The word itself is neither coherent nor incoherent. I think the 3-O concept of “God” is incoherent. When an Advaita Vedantin uses the term to refer to Brahman, I have no such problem.

However, when people can’t agree in discourse what the word means or refers to (if anything), then ...[text shortened]... one another meaningfully. (Maybe also for a Greek Orthodox and a Baptist--Kirksey excepted).

As I say, I agree the term has a certain amount of elasticity to it. You can encompass many contradictory concepts under the heading of 'god' and still make it a useful term. But if you harken back to Ammanion's initial post, for someone to cobble together a mishmash of banal platitudes like that and slap the label 'god' on it, is absurd. You might as well say that god is whatever makes me feel good.

Originally posted by rwingett
As I say, I agree the term has a certain amount of elasticity to it. You can encompass many contradictory concepts under the heading of 'god' and still make it a useful term. But if you harken back to Ammanion's initial post, for someone to cobble together a mishmash of banal platitudes like that and slap the label 'god' on it, is absurd. You might as well say that god is whatever makes me feel good.

You know—I just re-read this all, and I misunderstood your point. My bad—brain sludge.

There is a difference between using the term in ways that conflict with how other people use it—and trying to stretch it across all conceivable meanings in an attempt to encompass them all. It can’t, for example, simultaneously refer to a supernatural being that is separate from the cosmos and the all-being that includes the cosmos.

You’re right.