Excerpt from the Process Teaching "GOD IS"

Originally posted by rwingett
So god is indescribable. What is the point of contention here?

"1.3 But though we may not describe GOD because GOD is infinite, yet we may describe the parts of GOD. And the parts of GOD are the parts of all existence............ "

Apparently. (If GOD = UNIVERSE. I would prefer to use IT, like Curly in City Slickers.)

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
"1.3 But though we may not describe GOD because GOD is infinite, yet we may describe the parts of GOD. And the parts of GOD are the parts of all existence............ "

Apparently. (If GOD = UNIVERSE. I would prefer to use IT, like Curly in City Slickers.)

Alright, I see the distinction that is being made here. I will withdraw my argument for now while I formulate a devastating and merciless counter-attack.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
"1.3 But though we may not describe GOD because GOD is infinite, yet we may describe the parts of GOD. And the parts of GOD are the parts of all existence............ "

Apparently. (If GOD = UNIVERSE. I would prefer to use IT, like Curly in City Slickers.)

Well done Bosse! I have a friend who insists on using IT.
GOD and God are not the same.
GOD is Totality.
God is the being who called himself Iamwhoiam.

Originally posted by caissad4
Well done Bosse! I have a friend who insists on using IT.
GOD and God are not the same.
GOD is Totality.
God is the being who called himself Iamwhoiam.

Yet you quite readily use the word 'His' when referring to GOD. By doing so you are implying that GOD is a conscious entity. And why confuse everyone by using the same three letters that everyone else uses to mean something else? Why not use something like 'super-universe' as 'universe' is more commonly used to mean 'the observable universe'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet you quite readily use the word 'His' when referring to GOD. By doing so you are implying that GOD is a conscious entity. And why confuse everyone by using the same three letters that everyone else uses to mean something else? Why not use something like 'super-universe' as 'universe' is more commonly used to mean 'the observable universe'.

No, 'his' clearly refers to God, not GOD. Don't you get it?

And why should people modify their frames of reference to suit you?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
No, 'his' clearly refers to God, not GOD. Don't you get it?

No, I must be missing something. Are you saying that in caissad4's sentence:
Buried within this nightmare of disarray we can only know GOD within ourselves and thereby see His presence in the shattered pieces of the image which surround us......
There are two separate things being talked about, GOD and God?

And why should people modify their frames of reference to suit you?
I don't remember asking them to. What do you mean by that?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I must be missing something. Are you saying that in caissad4's sentence:
[b]Buried within this nightmare of disarray we can only know GOD within ourselves and thereby see His presence in the shattered pieces of the image which surround us......
There are two separate things being talked about, GOD and God?

And why should people modify thei ...[text shortened]... ames of reference to suit you?
I don't remember asking them to. What do you mean by that?[/b]

I checked that post to see if there were personal pronouns...Eyes need testing.

Yes, that's an error -- 'its' would convey the idea much better. Introducing 'his' adds a dodgy anthropocentric bent. But putting that aside, I do hope you understand the difference between GOD and God.

When you bossily suggest that people modify the terms of their beliefs, you are asking them to change their frame of reference. Stop being so bossy!

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I do hope you understand the difference between GOD and God.

I do once it is explained to me. However, since it is not in any dictionary that I know of, it should be explained by anyone who uses it, when first introducing the word.

When you bossily suggest that people modify the terms of their beliefs, you are asking them to change their frame of reference. Stop being so bossy!
I was merely suggesting the use of different words for the sake of better communication. The word in question (GOD), according to the previous posts explaining what it means, has nothing to do with belief, and if it is to be used, should be usable by anyone whatever their beliefs.

Originally posted by caissad4
God is the being who called himself Iamwhatiam.

God = Tina Turner?

Originally posted by caissad4
Buried within this nightmare of disarray we can only know GOD within ourselves and thereby see His presence in the shattered pieces of the image which surround us......

Is Processean teaching a latter-day form of Gnosticism?

Does art help?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Is Processean teaching a latter-day form of Gnosticism?

Does art help?

Yes. Positive and negative are opposite sides of the same coin, so to speak.
Look very closely at the picture I use here. It shows death actually comprised of life. Look very closely. It was used in a Process magazine.

Originally posted by Green Paladin
God = Tina Turner?

I do not know. Maybe you should ask someone who purports to believe in the Jewish-Christian-Islamic silliness. They are the so-called Sons of Abraham, I am not.

Originally posted by caissad4
I do not know. Maybe you should ask someone who purports to believe in the Jewish-Christian-Islamic silliness. They are the so-called Sons of Abraham, I am not.

If your beliefs cant similarly be classified as 'silliness', why have you not responded to all the posts pointing out the glaring contradictions in your original post?

Originally posted by twhitehead
If your beliefs cant similarly be classified as 'silliness', why have you not responded to all the posts pointing out the glaring contradictions in your original post?

Yes, you are correct. The pronoun "he" should not have been used.

Originally posted by caissad4
Yes, you are correct. The pronoun "he" should not have been used.

That was not the only contradiction pointed out. You also use many words which would not stand up very well to scrutiny, such as 'source', 'power' etc.
I am still very uncomfortable with your choice of the letter 'G' 'O' and 'D' to describe your concept which is as you acknowledge nothing to do with what is commonly meant by the same three letters albeit in a different case. It hints to me too strongly of the popular and deceptive practice of theists of hijacking words in order to try and confuse and mislead the reader into thinking that a definition can change an object. For example calling something that is dead 'alive' does not change its state but it can fool the gullible.

If you check the thread titled "God" you will see that some posters use "God" and "GOD" interchangeably, and not one poster thought that "GOD" was referring to what you were talking about.