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

[antonyh]

Imagine holding a padlock and throwing it at a plate glass window. Imagine the the cracks and breaking that radiates from the point of impact.

I once had this image in my mind when I spent time thinking about the subject of this thread. I grew up believing that God was a separate being to me and that God was a separate being to the universe. There was a dualism.

That dualism is the padlock. What happens when you throw that padlock at the plate class window?

The universe cracks and shatters. People feel alone and separated from each other and creation. Humans feel the shadows of shame that separates them from themselves. God has to separate from himself to die to bring humanity to himself. Blood sacrifice. War. Death. Pestilence.

Then the Buddha comes along and says it is dualism itself that is the source of suffering. We are one. Our sense of separation is an illusion that produces profound suffering.

Christianity and Western Civilization are built on dualism. Have we got it all wrong?

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by antonyh

Imagine holding a padlock and throwing it at a plate glass window. Imagine the the cracks and breaking that radiates from the point of impact.

I once had this image in my mind when I spent time thinking about the subject of this thread. I grew up believing that God was a separate being to me and that God was a separate being to the universe. There was a dualism.

That dualism is the padlock. What happens when you throw that padlock at the plate class window?

The universe cracks and shatters. People feel alone and separated from each other and creation. Humans feel the shadows of shame that separates them from themselves. God has to separate from himself to die to bring humanity to himself. Blood sacrifice. War. Death. Pestilence.

Then the Buddha comes along and says it is dualism itself that is the source of suffering. We are one. Our sense of separation is an illusion that produces profound suffering.

Christianity and Western Civilization is built on dualism. Have we got it all wrong?

The universe is just as cracked and shattered in Tibet, China, Thailand, Cambodia, Japan, and Budhist Myanmar as anywhere else. I think you need to look elsewhere to find the reason why.

No, I don't think we have it wrong. But you already knew that about me, right?

[dsdrane]

I need a drink.

[pnggrad79]

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?

U-dog,
I think you have hit the nail on the head, at least to what my "finite" mind can wrap itself around. I also think that God is SOOOO much bigger than the boxes we have put him in in our finiteness that I think he just laughs at our silliness and will amaze us with his glory in the end and it will be nothing like we ever imagined in our wildest dreams. I think God is about love and not all the hate that has been done in his name. So, I think God can be finite and infinite, real and sometimes unreal, and human and immortal all at the same time, because hey, He "thunk" it all up.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by u-dog

The universe is just as cracked and shattered in Tibet, China, Thailand, Cambodia, Japan, and Budhist Myanmar as anywhere else. I think you need to look elsewhere to find the reason why.

No, I don't think we have it wrong. But you already knew that about me, right?

Ahem. This closet Buddhist wishes to point out that the word has two- not one- Ds. Its a tiny matter- yes. But it represents one of the core principles of Buddhism: awareness.

Maybe that's the issue here. We only see what we're used to.

I don't think Buddhism has to be 'right', however, one of its observations is that human beings seem to have an inordinate need to be right, which hardly leads to happiness.

God! I'm a pill today!

Where's my cushion?

[Vanessa White]

My head hurts also on this one, yet I feel COMPELLED to think about it. Is part of the struggle in the fact that we try to make the infinity of God a concept that we can understand as mere mortals, therefore, we make him finite, in theory anyway, in order to understand his infiniteness???? I know, not a word, but do you get my meaning? When I think about the vastness of God, which is hard because it is so massive of a concept, I think about the hand of God having created, and therefore being part of, EVERYTHING. And, then I imagine that God watches over that which his/her hand has made, but that God does not in turn, create every event that occurs on this earth. I mean, indirectly God creates the events, but only in the sense that God created the humans that then create the said events.

Do those thoughts sound like they belong here??? I have to say that I linger here and read, feeling almost intimidated to jump in. But what the heck, I am among friends, right????

[andrewlittle]

Originally Posted by Vanessa White

My head hurts also on this one, yet I feel COMPELLED to think about it. Is part of the struggle in the fact that we try to make the infinity of God a concept that we can understand as mere mortals, therefore, we make him finite, in theory anyway, in order to understand his infiniteness???? I know, not a word, but do you get my meaning? When I think about the vastness of God, which is hard because it is so massive of a concept, I think about the hand of God having created, and therefore being part of, EVERYTHING. And, then I imagine that God watches over that which his/her hand has made, but that God does not in turn, create every event that occurs on this earth. I mean, indirectly God creates the events, but only in the sense that God created the humans that then create the said events.

Do those thoughts sound like they belong here??? I have to say that I linger here and read, feeling almost intimidated to jump in. But what the heck, I am among friends, right????

I think, Vanessa, that you would a deep affinity with Process Theology, a theology most often championed by Marjorie H. Suchocki, and John B. Cobb, Jr. A central tenet is that theologizing and theology are processes towards understanding God, rather than static concepts that claim to know the truth of God.

[Vanessa White]

Thanks, Andrew. I want to do some reading now, I think.

[antonyh]

I think that often we make these conversations intellectual instead of experiential. I think experience could bring us closer to the mystery.

For instance, if I get out my meditation pillow and sit for meditation, what happens?

I am following my breath. Thoughts arise constantly conspiring for my attention. I note them and return to my breath. Thoughts arise: "I'm bored", "My back hurts", "I'm not worthy". I note them and return to my breath.

Somewhere in meditation practice you become aware of the vast reality that lies beyond thought. It peeps through like rays of sunshine piercing the heavy forest. These rays of insight are tinged with joy, anticipation, connection, love.

This underlying reality, the rays of sunshine piercing the heavy forest. Is it universal consciousness? Are we all part of it, connected as one? Is this God? Am I discovering that underneath it all I am divine?

or is God filling this space in my being? Is my being communing with His Being.

The answer to this question does separate the West and the East. Thomas Merton was friends with the Dali Lama, but if you read his books on Contemplation, he still espouses dualism, that a distinct Being fills our being.

I guess I wonder if it really matters? As I said in a prior post, dualism does have profound effects on how we think about reality and our sense of separation from ourselves, each other, the creation and God.

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Ahem. This closet Buddhist wishes to point out that the word has two- not one- Ds. Its a tiny matter- yes. But it represents one of the core principles of Buddhism: awareness.

Maybe that's the issue here. We only see what we're used to.

I don't think Buddhism has to be 'right', however, one of its observations is that human beings seem to have an inordinate need to be right, which hardly leads to happiness.

God! I'm a pill today!

Where's my cushion?

DAMN!! THANK YOU DANIEL!! every time I write that word it looks wrong. I tried adding extra "h"s and that didn't help. TWO 'D' s? hmmph. who'd have guessed?

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by antonyh

This underlying reality, the rays of sunshine piercing the heavy forest. Is it universal consciousness? Are we all part of it, connected as one? Is this God? Am I discovering that underneath it all I am divine?

or is God filling this space in my being? Is my being communing with His Being.

The answer to this question does separate the West and the East. Thomas Merton was friends with the Dali Lama, but if you read his books on Contemplation, he still espouses dualism, that a distinct Being fills our being.

I guess I wonder if it really matters? As I said in a prior post, dualism does have profound effects on how we think about reality and our sense of separation from ourselves, each other, the creation and God.

This is a beautiful post Antonyh and I have had little glimpses of the same experience while in prayer with my "wholly other" God. so ... maybe it doesn't matter. I have never been a devotee of "dualism". sexual dualism results in the horrors of patriarchy. spiritual dualism (physical=bad, spiritual=good) results in anti-body spiritualities that hurt people. I have never really considered that understanding God as apart from us was dualism. And... I'm not convinced. AND I'm not convinced it matters.

[BrentRichards]

Originally Posted by u-dog

DAMN!! THANK YOU DANIEL!! every time I write that word it looks wrong. I tried adding extra "h"s and that didn't help. TWO 'D' s? hmmph. who'd have guessed?

Think of the roly-poly guy (not Buddha, I don't think, but everybody calls him that) ... he's definitely a double-D.

[Ducks]

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Daniel

God! I'm a pill today!

Where's my cushion?

Here’s your tennis racket back too...

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

I think, Vanessa, that you would a deep affinity with Process Theology, a theology most often championed by Marjorie H. Suchocki, and John B. Cobb, Jr. A central tenet is that theologizing and theology are processes towards understanding God, rather than static concepts that claim to know the truth of God.

What if the nature of God is duality? What if the nature of oneness is duality.

But like time, and the idea of movement, the nature of God's "duality," is virtually uncomparable to our version of it.

Our version of duality is of course, right and wrong, good and bad, black and white, and all combinations inbetween, but BOTH equal.

God's version might be ALL Good, with the addition of good and bad as equals.

In other words, it couldn't be "bad" that would be the opposite to God's Good, but the idea of bad being the equal opposite to good that would be God's "opposite."

The idea of Time and "no time" might be a better venue to start from in attempting to understand such a conundrum though.

It's often said that outside of our physical reality - or within the realm of God's/spiritual reality - and u-dog alluded to this - that there is "no time."

I think a better way of thinking about it is that it's not that there "no time," but in the "ultimate" state, there is ALL TIME. To consider God is to consider infinite potential. The reality of which would seem to be all time and all space and all creation(s) of any kind to be in perfect harmonious balance, because EVERY possible combination (integer/fraction) exists.

Giving the illusion of a rock solid stasis of being, yet in reality is a perpetual state of increasing dynamic - but only visible subjectively, or while you're moving, and "trying" to look at it.

The closer you look at it, the more beautiful it becomes, there is no limit to God's/Love's beauty, but for our own ability and willingness to perceive it.

I thought I was actually going to come to a point here, but nope, it seems God still seems like a process.
___
On a lighter note:

Look at me, I'm God! I'm moving AND not moving AT THE SAME TIME!!!



Now does anyone else see that moving? Because it's NOT moving. So technically, this is the nature of the phenomenon we're trying to understand.

Look at any particular portion of that image, and that portion ceases to move. Yet the rest of it appears to continue to move. In that sense, it would almost seem that the perception of movement/time is projection on our part..

[u-dog]

But I get what Patrick is trying to say (I think) and I agree (I think)

Normally and conventionally we talk about God as though he is moving ... in the same way that we move ... in and through space/time. I wanted to punch through this conventional way of thinking and posit that God, being eternal and infinite, REALLY DOESN'T MOVE (like the pictures that Patrick posted above) .

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?

[dsdrane]

Originally Posted by Emproph

Now does anyone else see that moving?

Indeed.

And I'm sober...I swear!

I know this is something of an old chestnut, but I do love the image of the yin and yang, where movement is explicitly implied.

I've often thought how this would work in 3-D...and where God fits in....

[Emproph]

Ok now try it.

Originally Posted by Emproph

Look at me, I'm God! I'm moving AND not moving AT THE SAME TIME!!!

I'm smooving

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by Emproph

Ok now try it.

Wow, that is freaky.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by dsdrane

Indeed.

And I'm sober...I swear!

You have no idea what a relief it is to hear that.

[Vanessa White]

And then I don't, and then I do, and then I don't- And I never start drinking before noon, so no danger of that... Moving, and continuity, meaning, circles due to being never ending, infinite, yet keeping all aspects connected.

Not sure how, but that seems like that should relate to it in some way, circular v. linear.

Do I even know what I am talking about??????