If God is everywhere, why can’t God be everything?

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by u-dog

Perhaps it is in this context that the Doctrine of the Trinity has its fullest meaning? God the "father" exists outside of time and holds all of creation including time in "his" eternal hand experiencing every moment all the time for all time. God the "son" is incarnate in the creation experiencing moment by moment just like the creatures. God the SPirit is radically immanent in and around every molecule of creation in each moment. Is it possible for God to be both transcendant and immanent, distant and intimate apart from a doctrine of triunity or something like it?

This is some of my personal cutting room floor material from a couple of days ago.

Originally Posted by Empy

This sounds like how I see the oneness of the holy trinity – Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

The Father (God), is everything, all three.

The Son is the “creation” of the father.

The Holy Spirit is the relationship between the two.

All three are technically distinct entities, yet ultimately are one dynamic consciousness.

[dsdrane]

Not sure how this pans out theologically, but my rector once likened the Triune God to the three physical states of H2O: ice, water, and vapor.

All three are H2O and yet are completely distinct.

Three in one, and one in three,
Ruler of the earth and sea....

[u-dog]

Doctrinal language is such a suple, dynamic use of language. The reason people hate it or find it stifling is that they believe that a doctrine is the END of a conversation. In fact, just the opposite is true! Doctrinal language is the way in which we KEEP the conversation from ever ending. To say that God is both three and one is to make a statement that can never be reconciled with itself and therefore remains dynamic forever. Doctrine is not the box wherein truth is stored (cryogenically preserved) It is the place where truth is so dynamically in motion that in can never be domesticated! Thank you Patrick, Antony, david, Brent and others for entering this space with me. I'm having EVER so much fun!

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by u-dog

Your point Patrick is that God both DOES and DOESN'T move/change/process that somehow God exists in a way that holds and embraces BOTH movement and nonmovement?

Ok... so maybe I didn't get it. am I close?

But you put it into singular sentence form.

[Zerbie]

When I look at any portion of that picture, all portions appear still. When I'm not looking at the picture because I'm reading above or below it, all portions appear to move. But I can tell that it isn't moving even though I see it doing so.


I hate these brain games. They're so strange.

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by u-dog

Doctrinal language is such a suple, dynamic use of language. The reason people hate it or find it stifling is that they believe that a doctrine is the END of a conversation. In fact, just the opposite is true! Doctrinal language is the way in which we KEEP the conversation from ever ending. To say that God is both three and one is to make a statement that can never be reconciled with itself and therefore remains dynamic forever. Doctrine is not the box wherein truth is stored (cryogenically preserved) It is the place where truth is so dynamically in motion that in can never be domesticated! Thank you Patrick, Antony, david, Brent and others for entering this space with me. I'm having EVER so much fun!

We're having fun too

[Emproph]

(not to be confused with plain ol’ duality of consciousness syndrome, which we ALL have)

Originally Posted by Zerbie

When I look at any portion of that picture, all portions appear still. When I'm not looking at the picture because I'm reading above or below it, all portions appear to move. But I can tell that it isn't moving even though I see it doing so.

I think that says a lot about the intensity, and integrity of your perception. I had to open my eyes real wide, and then think as fast as I could to try and soak up the whole picture at once to get it to stop moving..for about 2 seconds...

I hate these brain games. They're so strange.

This one was meant to expose a thought concept, effortlessly. Like movies often do. I'll have to work on the effortless part though.

So I’m trying to imbue the idea of our oneness with our seemingly separate surroundings.

Do you ever see the air? For me it seems like once you perceive yourself as one with the air, since the air is connected to/with everything, it’s much easier to imagine that there is no separation between me and my environment. (I almost wrote: “me and my argument”)

I know it may sound crazy, but does anyone else ever “see the air.”

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by u-dog

Is it possible for God to be both transcendant and immanent, distant and intimate apart from a doctrine of triunity or something like it?

I don’t think so. For a god to have a creation requires a duality. Which necessarily requires a triunity.

1. Father
2. Son
3. Father and Son relationship.

The age old adage, the whole is greater than the sum of it’s parts. The parts being the Father and the Son, and the whole being the Father, Son, AND their relationship -- which infects and infuses each side of the relationship.

Their relationship being the Holy Spirit between them. It is a "holy" "spirit" because it is a love relationship. Love is holy, and a relationship is movement, which is spirit.

The Holy Spirit changes the very nature of the Son AND the Father. In that the Father is changed by the knowledge of it's own creation(s). (which of course is the result of the Father to begin with, which then makes a perfect loop...)

Movement by nature requires movement from the Father, or at the very least, the creation of the perception of movement - by the Father.

Perhaps it's a direction we should be looking for...

Genesis 1:26

Let us make [hu]man[s] in our image.

Spoken like true parents eh?

This is also one of those Biblical parts I take as literal. The "in our image" part. If we are made in their image, then we are imbued with the same type of capacity (insane curiosity) to understand.

Thus, I think it is possible to understand the nature of the conundrum of the Being that we call God. And that to see the nature of the conundrum, is to see God. The inherent duality of oneness. IOW, I think the triunity is visible in waking life.

A nearly incomprehensible understanding, at least on this side of the trinity - at this time anyway. Because it essentially requires the acceptance of all pain and all fear as being necessary for the greater good. The greater good being the goal of eternal fearlessness - immunity from "falling from grace" again.
Isn’t this what we signed up for as those who've accepted the golden rule into our hearts as “lord?”

Originally Posted by Empy

To the extent that the Son is inherently dual (good / bad), so too is the Father.

Or the secular version:

To the extent that creation is inherently dualistic (+ / -), So too is the source of its creation.

If conundrum is confusion and confusion is pain and pain is fear,

And the eternal conundrum is the acceptance of all pain and fear as necessary for the greater good,

then what?

[dsdrane]

Originally Posted by Emproph

I know it may sound crazy, but does anyone else ever “see the air.”

Yup........[is that 10 characters yet?]

[Emproph]

MERCYME LYRICS*

"Here With Me"

I long for your embrace
Every single day
To meet you in this place
And see you face to face

Will you show me?
Reveal yourself to me
Because of your mercy
I fall down on my knees

And I can feel your presence here with me
Suddenly I'm lost within your beauty
Caught up in the wonder of your touch
Here in this moment I surrender to your love

You're everywhere I go
I am not alone
You call me as your own
To know you and be known

You are holy
And I fall down on my knees

I can feel your presence here with me
Suddenly I'm lost within your beauty
Caught up in the wonder of your touch
Here in this moment I surrender to your love

I surrender to your grace
I surrender to the one who took my place

I can feel your presence here with me
Suddenly I'm lost within your beauty
Caught up in the wonder of your touch
Here in this moment I surrender:

I can feel your presence here with me
Suddenly I'm lost within your beauty
Caught up in the wonder of your touch
Here in this moment I surrender to your love

*brought to you by www.azlyrics.com. The source for all your www.azlyrics.com lyrics. Once again, that's www.azlyrics.com.

~~~

and especially don't watch this.

[paul]

"no person has seen God and lived"

so, if we see God, do we cease to be? or vice versa, to we have to cease to be to 'see' God. both.

"In God we live and move and have our being"

If God is life, and life is movement, do we only 'know' (like one with God, think the KJV idea of 'know') God when when we cease? otherwise our "knowledge" of God is in "part." part is not incomplete, it is occassional, because we only "cease" rarely.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by paul

"no person has seen God and lived"

That's assuming someone has seen God and not lived, in which case, how would we know that they saw God in the first place?

What about Jesus?

[paul]

Originally Posted by Emproph

That's assuming someone has seen God and not lived, in which case, how would we know that they saw God in the first place?

What about Jesus?

That was a rough quote (I'll look it up if you make me). I am taking it to a different place. Tying it into love, "God is love." I alluded to it when quoting the knowing and seeing in part. There is "no greater love than to give up your life", "we (can?) love because God first loved us."

In that context, Jesus saw God and died.

[paul]

As regards "God," it seems like we are children imagining what it will be like to be adults (to simply put).

Unless it is a "third eye" or spirit, do we really have the capacity, ability, to grasp God? To grasp in the sense of reaching a static conclusion about God.

It's a great picture that Emproph posted, that looks like it is moving, but isn't. It demonstrates that we don't see reality.

I really like the KJV translation in I Cor. 13 that says "we see through a glass darkly." We can all sit around a table and look at a glass of water. We would probably all affirm each other that, yes, that is a glass of water. But we have also learned that we don't see all there is to see about that glass of water, we don't have the capacity. If we look at the glass of water under an electron microscope, we discover that the glass of water is always moving. We would need an ability to see what is to see reality, and the only way to see reality is to keep looking. Once we stop to name it, we lose reality because it's moved on. "Walk by the spirit?"

I find it striking, when I read the I Cor.13 definitions of love, that "love" turns out to be appropriate response to failure, shortcoming. How about "love believes all things...?" Is that the appropriate response to not really seeing all things, seeing through a glass darkly?

Does this have anything whatsoever to do with what we're talking about, or did I just take advantage and try to hitch my own esoteric car to this train?

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by paul

As regards "God," it seems like we are children imagining what it will be like to be adults (to simply put).

Unless it is a "third eye" or spirit, do we really have the capacity, ability, to grasp God? To grasp in the sense of reaching a static conclusion about God.



Does this have anything whatsoever to do with what we're talking about, or did I just take advantage and try to hitch my own esoteric car to this train?

Hitch away. We at SF LOVE thread-drift - not that this is drifting anyway, it ain't. Emproph loves (you know this already Paul) to follow every angle of thought (howabout that? I accidentally typed "angel of thought." )

AS TO the capacity to perceive God. As I understand it, the sages have told us we do have the capacity, it has been undeveloped, and it requires immense one-pointed concentration to activate. The yogic sages tell us we CAN perceive God. That's all I dare say about that.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Emproph

(not to be confused with plain ol’ duality of consciousness syndrome, which we ALL have)



I think that says a lot about the intensity, and integrity of your perception. I had to open my eyes real wide, and then think as fast as I could to try and soak up the whole picture at once to get it to stop moving..for about 2 seconds...

Slow the thoughts down. Works better.

This one was meant to expose a thought concept, effortlessly. Like movies often do. I'll have to work on the effortless part though.

So I’m trying to imbue the idea of our oneness with our seemingly separate surroundings.

Do you ever see the air? For me it seems like once you perceive yourself as one with the air, since the air is connected to/with everything, it’s much easier to imagine that there is no separation between me and my environment. (I almost wrote: “me and my argument”)

I know it may sound crazy, but does anyone else ever “see the air.”

Not with eyes. Well, okay, here in the Phoenix valley, we often DO see the air with our eyes, because it's brown and full of particles. But in theory, no.

But we feel the air kinesthetically. The breath is the link between the individual and everything else. What we breathe may have been expired by plants. What we expire may be inhaled by plants. That breath fuels our bodies' metabolic processes. Therefore we are clearly connected in that way.

[paul]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

AS TO the capacity to perceive God. As I understand it, the sages have told us we do have the capacity, it has been undeveloped, and it requires immense one-pointed concentration to activate. The yogic sages tell us we CAN perceive God. That's all I dare say about that.

Hmmm. Yeah, we perceive God the spontaneously combust?

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by paul

Hmmm. Yeah, we perceive God the spontaneously combust?

"Spon-taneous combustion - caught him hurrying - he's dead!" (Okay, I'm waiting on Daniel or Dash to identify where that comes from.)

Sorry guys - had to. Really had to.

Paul: if ya wanna get more on the yogic sages and God perception, for real, add this to your reading list (what's this now? 6 books? ): Autobiography of a Yogi, by Paramahansa Yogananda. Should always be in print, it's kind of a classic. Fascinating stuff.

This book contains my all time number one favorite chapter title, chapter 20: "We do not visit Kashmir."

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Hitch away. We at SF LOVE thread-drift - not that this is drifting anyway, it ain't. Emproph loves (you know this already Paul) to follow every angle of thought (howabout that? I accidentally typed "angel of thought." )

And as meaningless coincidence would have it, I had nothing at all planned to add about angels and INSPECS in specific regard to his comments...

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by paul

Jesus saw God and died.

you've won this round...