Aaron
Admin
Age : 37
Joined : 24 Jan 2007
Posts : 1087
Location: : Connecticut
|  Subject: Re: Is god "impersonal" ?  Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:20 am | |
| | Gnomon wrote: | | The main "split" that I see within the Deism "community", is between the Paineites and the New Agers. Those who view the Deity as a symbolic abstraction like "Reason" or "Truth", or "Word" are the intellectual descendants of Thomas Paine and western philosophy. But those who view the Deity as a more literal spirit or force (chi, prana, etheric body, etc.) within all of us are probably more influenced by Eastern religious philosophies. |
The funny thing is that I see myself in both of those descriptions.
The other thing that I find funny is that many deists seem to be under the impression that Thomas Paine somehow invented Deism or that he was a "leading deist thinker" of his day, both of which are incorrect.
Sure Paine might be the most influential person in the modern deist movement, but 'Age of Reason' had very little effect on the spread of Deism during it's day. It really served more as an overview of the deist thought that had been developed and circulated across Europe and America for the better part of the previous century and a half, as well as a well formulated attack on Christianity and Islam in general. Paine actually added very little to deist philosophy or thought other then adding a very accessible piece of work to an already well established tradition.
_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich" ~ Warren Zevon |
|
The Paineful Truth
Joined : 19 Sep 2007
Posts : 356
Location: : Arizona
| | Subject: Re: Is god "impersonal" ? Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:28 pm | |
| | Helium wrote: | | Quote: | | I compare "God" to a human body. Human beings and everything else in the universe are individual cells within that body. |
Well, I don't agree with you and Paine.
I'm of more a Libertarian point of view where all the cells aren't equal and all the cells aren't as good. IN fact quite of a few of the cells are cancerous, such as Hitler, and some of the cells are quite good like Ghandi and Martin Luther. |
How is that disagreeing? Hitler just gets excreted and flushed down the toilet.
Gnomon, I agree with Aaron, I see myself as both. It's the ones who think a personal relationship is where God talks back that I don't agree with. |
|
Thoreau
Joined : 25 Jan 2008
Posts : 8
Location: : Western Milky Way, just past the 7-11
| | Subject: Re: Is god "impersonal" ? Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:01 pm | |
| My analogy about "God" and the human body was very rough, I admit. Essentially, I was trying to illustrate my own view of "God" as interpenetrating and penetrating everything that exists. I do, however, subscribe to the Eastern view that there is no evil, strictly speaking. There is only ignorance and delusion. As a result, we are all good and "God-natured" at our most fundamental level. In other words, Hitler and Stalin, weren't evil; they performed "evil" deeds. But that doesn't absolve them from their actions. If there is a hell, I think they're paying. But I don't think that hell is by any means eternal.
I also feel very uncomfortable discussing "God" as God, the Super-Person. Yet, it's difficult to put into words how I perceive He/She/It. Rather than create, my "God" manifests. And, if "God" is not personal, is it a waste of time to worship? In my opinion, Vedanta comes closest to the "Nature of God" in saying "God" is both personal (Saguna Brahma) and impersonal (Nirguna Brahma). The Ineffable can manifest in a "personal" form, that humans can worship, but there is also a major aspect of He/She/It that is completely incomprehensible and unapproachable. I'll quit now, before I forget what the heck I was even talking about. |
|
Aaron
Admin
Age : 37
Joined : 24 Jan 2007
Posts : 1087
Location: : Connecticut
| | Subject: Re: Is god "impersonal" ? Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:38 pm | |
| | Thoreau wrote: | | My analogy about "God" and the human body was very rough, I admit. |
I catch your drift though and very much agree.
| Thoreau wrote: | | In my opinion, Vedanta comes closest to the "Nature of God" in saying "God" is both personal (Saguna Brahma) and impersonal (Nirguna Brahma). The Ineffable can manifest in a "personal" form, that humans can worship, but there is also a major aspect of He/She/It that is completely incomprehensible and unapproachable. I'll quit now, before I forget what the heck I was even talking about. |
Yes I like Vedanta quite a bit myself but I don't always agree with their interpretation of "the Non-dual". But in all fairness it's a concept that's impossible to describe in language which is necessarily dualistic. In other words it has to be experienced to be known.
_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich" ~ Warren Zevon |
|
