Comment by Roman Kozlowski on February 24, 2010 at 12:57pm

You mention 'religious science', what is that?

Comment by RevLindsay G King on February 24, 2010 at 1:12pm

"I guess I'm OK with Religious Science, I just wish they didn't call It God, because the word God has a loaded interpretation for all of us. Why don't they just call it Mind?"

Jim, I like your comments and your question.

Years ago, I decided that I, too, did not like the name "God". As you say, this name, used by all monotheist theologians and the clergy who preach about the "god" of monotheism, is so "loaded". Bright children when told "God made everything, including you" will often ask: "If God made everything? Then who made God?

Why do they ask this? Because, they--as I once did--conceptualize God as a supernatural, invisible, human-like and masculine being--one who hears and answers our prayers as if he is an invisible and father-like figure sitting and listening to us.
==========
TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM I HAVE DECIDED TO GIVE GOD TWO NAMES AND USE ACRONYMS
====================================================================

In my opinion, the god-hypothesis about which I write is too big to be contained in a masculine and proper noun. Therefore, I will use acronyms and give "god" two names: The first name is G0D, and the second name is GOD--GG, for short.

First I will to say what GG is not:

GG is not a supernatural, invisible and person-like being of any kind--separate and apart from us. I repeat: As Nicola Tesla said, "God has no properties." Interestingly, Tesla also suggested that we combine the teachings of Christianity and Buddhism.

On page page 19 of his book, The GOD Delusion, Richard Dawkins dismisses the, "interventionist, miracle-wreaking, thought-reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering God of the Bible"--the one preached about and prayed to by the clergy of all religions and spoken of in ordinary language.

On page 31 of his book, he defines the God of theism as, "... a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it , including us." Then he adds: "God, in the sense defined is a delusion; and as later chapters will show, a pernicious delusion." That is, one that is destructive and deadly.

Along with Dawkins I have no problem rejecting the idol-like God of theism.

BTW, I respect where pantheists are coming from, But am not a pantheist--that is, one who says that matter, in total, is GOD. However, I can accept that matter emanates from, and is interpenetrated, by GG.

Those who follow the ideas of Alfred North Whitehead call this panentheism. To avoid confusing pantheism with panentheism, I prefer the doublet unitheism. Artist, Warren Farr and I talk about this at www.unitheist.org

GG, as I understand the god-hypothesis--includes all that which is: in, through and around matter, while at the same time is not confined to matter. The new astronomy and the new physics is all about exploring all this. Have you heard about the work being done with Zero-point Energy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy
http://www.google.ca/search?q=zero+point+field&ie=utf-8&oe=...

Interestingly, the idea of other names for "god" is not new. When writing in English, Orthodox Jews, throughout history, have used the symbol G-d to avoid making GOD an object to which we can point.

Also note: In the book of Genesis, there are two names for "god"==Yahweh and Elohim. It literally means: I AM ALL THE POWER THERE IS.

The widely respected psychologist, Dr. Stanley Krippner, in this forum, speaks highly the use of an acronym as a valid way of writing the divine name.

GG is not a being, but is Being itself. The Aramaic word for God, used by Jesus, makes this clear. Hebrew uses a plural form.

When Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman, in John 4, he did not say, God is "a" spirit. He said GOD IS SPIRIT--the Spirit which is behind all that is Good, Orderly, and Desirable, which I am sure even atheists think of as a G0OD idea.
============================
BTW, the ancient Hebrews and Greeks used uncial letters--all capitals. Lower case writing is a modern invention.
=======================0000000000000000=========================

Comment by Roman Kozlowski on February 24, 2010 at 2:27pm

Anything that is worshiped can be termed a god, inasmuch as the worshiper attributes to it might greater than his own and venerates it. A person can even let his belly be a god. (Ro 16:18; Php 3:18, 19) The Bible makes mention of many gods (Ps 86:8; 1Co 8:5, 6).

Hebrew Terms. Among the Hebrew words that are translated “God” is ´El, probably meaning “Mighty One; Strong One.” (Ge 14:18) It is used with reference to Jehovah, to other gods, and to men. It is also used extensively in the makeup of proper names, such as Elisha (meaning “God Is Salvation”) and Michael (“Who Is Like God?”). In some places ´El appears with the definite article (ha·´El´, literally, “the God”) with reference to Jhvh, thereby distinguishing him from other gods.—Ge 46:3; 2Sa 22:31.

At Isaiah 9:6 Jesus Christ is prophetically called ´El Gib·bohr´, “Mighty God” (not ´El Shad·dai´ [God Almighty], which is applied to Yahweh at Genesis 17:1).

The plural form, ´e·lim´, is used when referring to other gods, such as at Exodus 15:11 (“gods”). It is also used as the plural of majesty and excellence, as in Psalm 89:6: “Who can resemble Jehovah among the sons of God [bi·beneh´ ´E·lim´]?” That the plural form is used to denote a single individual here and in a number of other places is supported by the translation of ´E·lim´ by the singular form The·os´ in the Greek Septuagint; likewise by Deus in the Latin Vulgate.

The Hebrew word ´elo·him´ (gods) appears to be from a root meaning “be strong.” ´Elo·him´ is the plural of ´eloh´ah (god). Sometimes this plural refers to a number of gods (Ge 31:30, 32; 35:2), but more often it is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. ´Elo·him´ is used in the Scriptures with reference to Yahweh himself, to angels, to idol gods (singular and plural), and to men.

When applying to Yahweh, ´Elo·him´ is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. (Ge 1:1) Regarding this, Aaron Ember wrote: “That the language of the O[ld] T[estament] has entirely given up the idea of plurality in . . . [´Elo·him´] (as applied to the God of Israel) is especially shown by the fact that it is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute. . . . [´Elo·him´] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty, being equal to The Great God.”—The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. XXI, 1905, p. 208.

The title ´Elo·him´ draws attention to Yahweh’s strength as the Creator. It appears 35 times by itself in the account of creation, and every time the verb describing what he said and did is in the singular number. (Ge 1:1–2:4) In him resides the sum and substance of infinite forces.

At Psalm 8:5, the angels are also referred to as ´elo·him´, as is confirmed by Paul’s quotation of the passage at Hebrews 2:6-8. They are called beneh´ ha·´Elo·him´, “sons of God” (KJ); “sons of the true God” (NW), at Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, by Koehler and Baumgartner (1958), page 134, says: “(individual) divine beings, gods.” And page 51 says: “the (single) gods,” and it cites Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Hence, at Psalm 8:5 ´elo·him´ is rendered “angels” (LXX); “godlike ones” (NW).

The word ´elo·him´ is also used when referring to idol gods. Sometimes this plural form means simply “gods.” (Ex 12:12; 20:23) At other times it is the plural of excellence and only one god (or goddess) is referred to. However, these gods were clearly not trinities.—1Sa 5:7b (Dagon); 1Ki 11:5 (“goddess” Ashtoreth); Da 1:2b (Marduk).

At Psalm 82:1, 6, ´elo·him´ is used of men, human judges in Israel. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. They were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Yahweh. Similarly Moses was told that he was to serve as “God” to Aaron and to Pharaoh.—Ex 4:16, ftn; 7:1.

In many places in the Scriptures ´Elo·him´ is also found preceded by the definite article ha. (Ge 5:22) Concerning the use of ha·´Elo·him´, F. Zorell says: “In the Holy Scriptures especially the one true God, Jahve, is designated by this word; . . . ‘Jahve is the [one true] God’ De 4:35; 4:39; Jos 22:34; 2Sa 7:28; 1Ki 8:60 etc.”—Lexicon Hebraicum Veteris Testamenti, Rome, 1984, p. 54; brackets his.

The Greek Term. The usual Greek equivalent of ´El and ´Elo·him´ in the Septuagint translation and the word for “God” or “god” in the Christian Greek Scriptures is the·os´

God is not a nameless God. His name is YHWH. (De 6:4; Ps 83:18) He is God by reason of his creatorship. (Ge 1:1; Re 4:11) The true God is real (Joh 7:28), a person (Ac 3:19; Heb 9:24), and not lifeless natural law operating without a living lawgiver, not blind force working through a series of accidents to develop one thing or another. The 1956 edition of The Encyclopedia Americana (Vol. XII, p. 743) commented under the heading “God”: “In the Christian, Mohammedan, and Jewish sense, the Supreme Being, the First Cause, and in a general sense, as considered nowadays throughout the civilized world, a spiritual being, self-existent, eternal and absolutely free and all-powerful, distinct from the matter which he has created in many forms, and which he conserves and controls. There does not seem to have been a period of history where mankind was without belief in a supernatural author and governor of the universe.”

Comment by Kernel John on February 25, 2010 at 7:36am

Jim, you say, “Evolution is perfection.” Is perfection a static state or a state of continuous change” Can perfection improve on itself and ,if it does, is this through evolutionary change? Is there a difference between the notion of change and development? The traditional notion of perfection would be something that can no longer improve – after all it’s perfect. When you say that our planet has not been annihilated by a meteor and is perfect, would you not agree that it is nevertheless possible for the planet to be annihilated and this probability smacks of imperfection. Yes, I agree, there is much to be thankful for but I suspect evolution is not perfection and itself based on more fundamental principles – yet to be discovered. Is evolution perfection or does it blindly follow the path of least resistance. Thanks for the piece.

Comment by ®ønäLÐ Hernandez on March 26, 2010 at 7:28pm

Jim, I agree with you 100%
I believe that your words God = Super Mind = Super Consciousness & Perfection are all correct!
All those words are connected.
My believe is that perfection is only achieved when you master yourself, your subconcious and master it to achieve anything.
With the power of focus.
it has been told through out time that the world we live in is an illusion created by our own thoughts.
I think this is true.
I have learned that all we ever do or think is habits.
Mastering your emotions. mastering your subconcious mind to please yourself and achieving your goals in the persuit of happines, will bring happiness.

Humans chase happiness.
Humas love challenges.

You will be happy as long as you keep chasing the dream.
You will be happy once you have mastered yourself.
I think that it is possible, and that the mind has all the answeres if you just learn to completly block the outside world, thoughts, and points of views and focus.
I have many more thoughts and ideas...And i like talking to them to see how many people have limitations on themselfs and how many dont.
Im surprised at how much people are unwilling to open up their minds to the truth.
Believe in the unbelievable and do not ever limit yourself.
I feel this deep inside. HAHA I am a looney who talks, thinks, and never relates.
But I think I am one of the few people with so much believe in myself and the power of the mind.
Anything is possible.
Its your choice to think positive..or negative.

I also know that alot of people will think this is either madness.....or brilliance!
It's remadkable how often those two traits coincide.

I have never had much of an obbssesion, but now I have made it my obssesion to better myself.
I am open open to learn anything you guys have to teach me.
I am 18, I love to work and I have many great ideas about the world.
I hope you guys have some more great ideas to share? Opinions? or facts?
Crazy ideas? orrestricted ideas?

Comment