As suggested in my previous post, man has for over 3000 years been unable to get complete agreement (or in fact anything anywhere near it) on the existance or non-existance of the One God. I do not intend to dive into that quandry directly, preferring to let everyone form their own conclusions.
I do intend though to try to draw a more logical and better picture of God, one with greater integrity and wider appeal, that allows all believers to more closely unify their belief with other believers (and perhaps even allowing non-believers a glimpse of what others ‘see’, or convince themselves they see, and why).
First though, we need to agree on something.
While our minds may be in many ways superior to a computer (and possibly also inferior in some respects 🙂 ), when sharing our ideas with other members of our race (who have minds full of their own understanding, which is in some way different to our own) We, through necessity, must abbreviate a lot of what we want to say because our time and our vocabulary are ‘limited’, finite.
When trying to discuss ideas about a God that is not finite but IN-finite therefore, we are forced to adopt finite, and in some cases pre-conceived (prefabricated by someone else), concepts to try and take the place of, or represent our ideas of, something that we were not properly designed to do. ( With ‘justice’ 🙂 )
This is a little like trying to convey the idea of an ocean to someone who has never seen one before by showing them a glass of water. Try as you might it just ain’t going to do the entirity of what an Ocean is any kind of ‘Justice’.
OK… so – with the idea that If God exists (and i confess to moving closer to the idea that God does exist in our Universe, although the form, or forms, is/are not perfectly clear to me just yet) God is far more than our words are ever likely to adequately ‘justify’- lets see if we can progress to that better ‘vision’.
Oh – just so we can all be working from roughly the same page: A brief class in Logic.
Saying a thing is ‘this’ does not logically mean that it cannot also be ‘that’.
Example: Just because an orange is round does not mean it cannot be orange. Nor does it mean it cannot be green – consider an unripened orange!
Slightly more complex example: Saying God is Light does not mean God is not also Love – it also does not mean that God cannot be/exist in darkness!!!
That is going to throw what some people believe right out the window! Let me expand a little further in the hope that such people don’t leave with their false understandings intact (or just leave full stop.)
Humans see only a very small portion of the spectrum of ‘Light’ – the ‘visible’ spectrum is actually only a very minute variation in electro-magnetic wavelengths of matter compared to all possible wavelengths. We define darkness as being the absence of ‘Light’ and yet cats can see perfectly well in what to us is almost total darkness. We must be very careful that we do not discount the presence of something merely because our eyes (or our mind or our equipment) cannot detect it. What to us as humans is ‘darkness’ may in fact contain God in any number of other ‘forms’.
Analogy’s (such as are frequently used in the Bible, say) may be useful in the strict terms of their context and to define one aspect or idea relating to one perspective of something but extending them to mean more than they were originally intended is (knowing the human capacity to misunderstand or misinterpret) able to be corrupted and great caution needs to be constantly exercised to not confuse what was meant, or mishear what is being said (and what, at the same time, is NOT being stated).
Back to the logic class…
Saying something is NOT something means just that! – it is not…! You cannot logically say what a thing IS by saying what it is not. This is a very common mistake most of us make every day – our Limited finite minds have the concept of Duality down fairly well: up/down, light/dark, good/evil, hot/cold – we tend to define something by it’s not being it’s opposite. This is rarely a good or accurate idea.
Where we begin to ‘boggle’ is in relativity and also by making false assumptions about ‘true’ opposites.
What is the opposite of being Rich?
If you answered: being poor (i.e. having no money) then you get a ‘d’ in logic!
Score top marks if you answered: being very deep in DEBT!
I said most of us get duality (or believe we do) but fail in relativity. the problem the above example demonstrates is in only seeing HALF the full picture… having money is one end of the spectrum of wealth. Being poor is in the middle of the spectrum (a ‘zero’ point). The true Opposite of being rich is OWING lots of money to someone else. i.e. having negative riches.
Relativity puts another spin on our ‘duality’ perspective. What we understand as hot and cold gets very confusing when we realise that pouring liquid nitrogen on our hands actually BOILS the nitrogen while freezing our skin (don’t try this at home folks!) Hot to us may be freezing to God and vice versa. What God understands of as ‘good’ may seem to us to be ‘bad’ while what we do as ‘good’ may in fact be not what God wants us to do at all!
So I hope i have shaken your belief systems up just a little to allow you to see things differently to what you did when you read the first line of this ‘salvo’ on the War on Error!
I will leave my discussion of some of religion’s major errors for the next Salvo. – Stay tuned!