70 replies to this topic

[susmariosep]

More concordance of Stranger's gods.


I am placing here the rest of the result of my indexing work on Stranger's gods with my self-cobbled concordancer produced with the macro program of Wordperfect 5.1, Dos version.

Readers can use this concordance to cross-reference the gods so as to get a more thorough description of each, in a brief, easy, and quick manner.

It was my idea also to do such concordances on the dense philosophical writings of some posters here like Nate, in order also to make their thoughts brief, easy, and quick -- notwithstanding their apparently dense feature. But I haven't gotten to that task yet.

Concordance of Stranger's Gods (last part)

Grandfather -- These two Gods are 'maintainer' Gods just like the __ Lord Visnu, although in a lesser capacity.

Jehovah -- The Christians say that __ Yahweh created it.

Jesus -- I have also mentioned how the Hindus when they die, they don't encounter __ unless they are Hindu-Christians but anyone of the Hindu gods or demigods they might worship.

Kings -- This phrase applies to many great __ ultimately, it applies to this Supreme Lord and King.

Lord -- These two Gods are 'maintainer' Gods just like the Grandfather __ Vishnu, although in a lesser capacity.

Lord -- The Supreme __ not only has the last word on the decisions the  other Gods are contemplating regarding whatever issue...

Lord -- The third one being __ Shiva .

Lord -- The actual Creator of the material universe is another 'Son' of __ Visnu ,but of a very different nature.

Lord -- This Universal Form refers to ,first and foremost, the __ Maha Visnu.

Lord __ I mentioned the Supreme __ and stated that only He could be ì considered 'infinite'.

Lord -- This phrase applies to many great Kings, but ultimately, it applies to this Supreme __ and King.

Lord -- This is the one they call The Supreme __.

Maha -- This Universal Form refers to, first and foremost, the Lord __ Visnu.

Shiva -- The third one being Lord __.

Shiva -- The Hindu Trinity consists of the three giants -- Visnu, Brahma, and __.

Son -- The actual Creator of the material universe is another __' of Lord Visnu, but of a very different nature.

Son -- We barely know of the __ the Father, so it is understandable how we cannot begin to comprehend of his supreme status.

Supreme -- The __ Lord not only has the last word on the decisions the other Gods are contemplating regarding whatever issue...

Supreme -- I mentioned the __ Lord and stated that only He could be considered 'infinite'.

Supreme -- I was hoping you would ask why 'He' should ì be considered __?

Supreme -- there is ONE that is absolutely infinite, both in existence and power. This is the one they call The __ Lord.

Supreme --- This phrase applies to many great Kings,but ultimately, it applies to this __ Lord and King.

Supreme -- in their own kind of way, they do work in unison and for the will of the __ the occasion arises.

Trinity -- The Hindu __ consists of the three giants -- Visnu, Brahma, and Shiva.

Trinity -- Lord Brahma is the second in line in the Hindu __.

Visnu -- These two Gods are 'maintainer' Gods just like the Grandfather Lord __, although in a lesser capacity.

Visnu -- The actual Creator of the material universe is another 'Son' of Lord __ of a very different nature.

Visnu -- This Universal Form refers to, first and foremost, the Lord Maha __.

Yahweh -- The Christians say that Jehovah __ created it.

Well, I am glad that finally I did finish some concordancing work which I had been boasting about on doing since when I started getting impatient and querulous about the dense writings of guys here who affect such a kind of writing habit, like those some of course only who contribute philosophy messages.

Now, back to specifically thinking about a finite God and the advantages all around of such a God instead of an infinite one.

Susma

[susmariosep]

The troubles with an infinite God.


First, thanks, Stranger, for your patience to tell me about the gods. I guess this word is the best to use in reference to them. Just like when we refer to the Greek and the Roman gods and goddesses.

Come to think about it, you are not bringing in the Greek and Roman gods, what of the Chinese ones? Your circle of acquaintanceship is almost exclusively with the Hindu ones, those chaps from India which meditation experts from India, shall we say? trade in.


This thread is about thinking of a finite God instead of an infinite one. And I am of the persuasion that such an idea will be better for us to understand the troubles with accepting God's existence, troubles like the existence of evil and a good God, or the miracles of God.

What do you think, Stranger, do the gods of your acquaintance and intimacy, can they agree with me about my view, that a finite God, the Number One, among them, and according to you, from Whom all the rest and all creation derive, will save us from all the perplexities attendant otherwise on accepting a God understood as infinite?

I am most intrigued, about your gods and about the dead still around and can get in touch with you. So, in order not to go off topic, we must bring these chaps around with us here to join in our discussion.

I was saying that I asked God to tell me what He thinks of Himself, whether He is finite or infinite; and so far He has not been answering me in respect of my question about His finite-ness or His infinite-ness.

In your case, you are in a happy situation, you not only have one God but several and even your dead brother to tell you about the gods, about themselves, and also about that world where they and I assume God dwell.

I will try to bring in the matter of how these chaps or these gods and those humans dead but still around can be of help in our creational world as opposed to the recreational one*.

In reard to that request about asking them for the cheapest and the best car wax-coating product, I am disappointed you did not ask them, but instead gave me the brand you yourself patronize, saying that you won't trouble them about such earthly matters.

Well, then tell me what matters on this our earth can we trouble them with, and they can be knowledgeable about?

Susma

*Do you remember a post I placed here about the creational vs the recreational in man's endeavors? Here, if you care to read it again or the first time.

The creational vs the recreational

[stranger]

Susma,

I'm not sure if I understood your question.

"What do you think Stranger, do the gods of your acquaintanceship and intimacy,
can they agree with me about my view, that a finite God, the Number One, among them, and according to you, from whom all the rest and all creation derive, will save us from all the perplexities attendant otherwise on accepting a God understood as inginite?"

"can they agree with me about my view, that a finite God, the Number One,..."

Susma, I don't know if it's an error on your part. Maybe you meant to say, ''an infinite God, the Number One,..." Because, as I remember, I said that the only truly infinite one was Him--the Supreme Lord.

Also.

"I will try to bring in the matter of how these chaps,or these gods, and those human dead,but still around, can be of help in our creational world as opposed to the recreational one."

Susma, could you please specify more clearly. What do you mean by ''our creational world?" I'm gonna check that old post of your in the meantime.

And last question.

"Well, then tell me what matters on this our earth can we trouble them with,and they can be knowledgeable about?"

Hopefully not, but there may come a time when you might find yourself feeling so down and out, so emotionally alone, without anyone even caring about you, that you will need spiritual nurture. There are times when even family or friends cannot help us cope with feelings of emptiness. Material prosperity,also, doesn't always bring total happiness. Happiness is at least having a notion of having a sense of someone watching over us. If one can 'share' his activities with the unseen one, one will never walk alone. It's like having a private connection that stretches from the inside of your mind and out of the brain out into infinity. Anyone can tap into that eternally flowing source. All it takes is a little trust.

God is a personal entity, but His impersonal energy is strong enough for those not too comfortable with his personal nature. Some people even consider the almost blinding light to be superior to the personal form. Whatever the case, the point is to be aligned with that energy, either personally or impersonally. It is not a good idea to be detached from it. Nothing will happen,but eventually, one might find that it is boring when you have no one to share your joys with. The unseen force,although impersonal, is very much 'alive',though neutral. In other words, it is only following our every whim. It is so subtle also, that we tend to think,often, that is isn't there.

later,
stranger

[stranger]

Susma,

Pardon me, I misspelled the word infinite in quoting your original question.
(the first question above)

stranger

[susmariosep]

A better stranger now.


This is an intentional diversion, but we are all here to be of company to each other and all that company implies.


Dear Stranger, I notice you don't, shall I say, blow up as you used to do before.

Is that a change in you? Then I am happy for you.

Before you used to be very angry with my posts which to you seem to be very irreverent of God, gods, and spirits.

I think my posts are still like that, only as I also believe in God, I think He should not be angry with me and with others like me.

You know why? Because I and we did not put ourselves here; He is the one who put us here. So even at the risk of vexing Him off no end, I will say this about Him and to Him, and to you also, Stranger, who to me appears, you that is, to be very zealous about the defense of God, et alii, I mean the honor due to Him, and also the fear and trembling.

I mean God must deal with us according to our terms and limitations and even our whims; otherwise, God, (addressing Him) do a better job, make us more sane and more intelligent and more lasting.


Then also Stranger, I notice that you no longer at least with me, threaten ills for acting in a seemingly irreverent manner with God, et alii.

I must commend you then, that you are now basically academic instead of being ad baculum.


Best regards, and I will be back with more on a finite God.


Susma

[stranger]

Susma,

"Stranger, is that a change in you?"

Maybe.

But you should remember that in the beginning of our association I was just as I am now. It was sometime after that, that I noticed almost total disregard for my replies to your posts. You were brushing off everyone left and right, and calling attention only to what you were writing. Nobody could reason with you then. Remember all the talk about Buddhism? First you wanted to tell us about it, then you ended up bashing the practice. Also, on certain threads you professed your theism and on others you would do the opposite. It doesn't bother me now,but back then I used to see it as an affront to the spiritually or religious minded. I know I was aggressive,and I'm sorry, but my intention was to set things right. It's like when you're very familiar with a subject and you hear others give out misinformation. Don't you feel the need to make corrections? Cause if you don't, then those others can burn all those associated with the subject. Although, I ,personally am not too crazy about religion,per se, I see it as a duty of mine to clarify whenever possible. You are very aware of the conflicts going on between and within the Christian sects. And then those conflicts with those outside of Christianity. Everybody's fighting each other and nobody's even close the actual truth of the matter. I don't consider myself a know-it-all,but with what little I know,it is a little too much for the average religious nut. Religious scholars are very well-read, but religiuos theory is not always correct. It was never my intention to talk 'religion' but sometimes it is expected of me by the powers that be.

I'll give you an example. I don't know about you,but, you know that the Catholic church doesn't recognize the name 'Jehovah' as one of the true names of the Judeo-Christian God. Whereas, in my case, even though I am not a Jehovah's Witness myself, it was the name given me to use when addressing Jehovah Himself.

Also, shortly after I had been introduced to Allah, one of the first things they made clear to me so that I would make clear for all others concerned, was to point out their independence of each other. You yourself know that most people in general consider them merely to be two different names for the same deity. Most people tend to take all the different names of God and consider them just names for the same deity. Jehovah and Yahweh do belong to the same deity,but not to Allah or Buddah.

Susma, do you more or less understand what I'm trying to say? I am not at all concerned with anyone's choice of religion, or lack thereof. My only concern is to point out the inherent differences between the different religions. But that's only on a general level. I am not too crazy about all the minor details. Just like when you're pointing out the different countries in a map, but not the individual cities within the different countries.

Susma, your relentless advocacy of the 'drafting of a new God', doesn't bother me any more. Nor does your preoccupation with whether God is finite or infinite.
I think I already made it clear. Only one God is infinite. The others you can consider finite.

later,
stranger

[susmariosep]

Bull's eye.


Dear Stranger:


I suspect that a lot of people here think that you are nuts.


But I already have the determination to take your testimony to be sincere in regard to your contacts with God, Allah, Jehovah, Yahweh, Vishnu, Brahma, et alii; but it does not help any much for me to put up with my own ingrained habit or bias to also see in you a nuts.

No, you are not a nuts; you just have experiences others don't. And I suspect many others who do, they impose upon themselves the very self-inhibitive policy of silence, and play along as though they don't have such experiences of contacts with the chaps we are dealing here with.

And that is why I am trying all the time to get you to extract things which I consider to be useful to my interest, on the physiological level and everything connected as closely as possible with the physiological level, which I call creational matters.

So far I am not satisfied; because those chaps are to my impression as relayed by you, are into essentially recreational matters, recreational like there are drugs which are important to keep alive with, and there are drugs which have been described very aptly as recreational.

More later.

Susma

[susmariosep]

More on benefits of a finite God.


From my stock reading, the biggest obstacle to the acceptance of a God is the inconsistent combination of the properties of God, and the root of the inconsistency lies in conceiving of a God that is infinite.

Consider this simple truth: If you expect your father or your son to be good in the nth degree in everything, then you are going to have an impossible time of accepting him.

For example, you think your father or your son is very bright, but he turns out to be not so bright and at times even stupid; now you certainly will have an impossible time in accepting your father or son.

Another example, suppose you conceive of your father or your son as of the utmost moral rectitude, then you see that he can't keep his hands off the rears of the office girls every so often, as the opportunity presents itself to take some liberties with these girls, thinking that no one notices and the girls don't mind either; then you are going to have an impossible time accepting your father or your son.

More later.


Susma

[susmariosep]

Still more on benefits of a finite God.


I have given two examples of how a finite God is more acceptable, namely, if God is not infinitely intelligent and God is not infinitely good, by bringing up one's father in the family or one's son, not being bright in the nth degree or not righteous.

But I am now asking myself how really -- aside from a rhetorical plea for concurrence from the reader, is a God Who is not infinitely intelligent and not infinitely good more acceptable to the thinking man.

How is the consideration that one's own father or son not being intelligent in the nth degree or not moral in an excelling measure, how is that consideration namely capable of making a finite God more acceptable; because that assumption about an earthly father or son of limited intelligence and of limited morality, that assumption can also be questioned on how it can make my father or son, your father or son, more acceptable, and thereby there is a benefit present in the relationship between father and son, so also between God and the thinking man?

Not a very brief, easy, and quick construction, I admit; but you get what I am driving at.

Let's put it this way, God not being infinite in every property we want to assign to Him: wisdom, goodness, justice, mercy, power, duration, presence, happy, in brief, God being a finite God, will save us from all the disappointments with God as every instance occurs in our eyes of His not being one or another of the positive attribute we assign to Him.

In other words, we will be saving ourselves from all the several frustrations by not imagining and thereby not expecting God to be infinite, frustrations which we have to bear with for otherwise imagining and expecting God to be infinite.

It's like the essential attitude of Buddhists' liberation from sorrow, conceived as hinged on negatively not giving attention to desire and positively -- if we may consider that positive, on overcoming desire by anesthetizing desire with meditation.

It's what I would call the consuelo de bobo* stratagem.


Therefore in a perverted manner, when we think of God as finite we will save ourselves from all the severally single frustrations with a God that to our eyes in instances repeated again and again to be deficient in each of the positive features we assign to Him in the infinite degree, namely, wisdom, goodness, justice, mercy, power, duration, presence, happy.


Then? Then we just have to deal with only one super all disappointment or frustration, namely, that God is not infinite. Anyway, we can never imagine what is infinity either, except by negating the finite imaginations we can have of things we can experience. And that kind of knowing, namely, in the negative manner is not knowing, but unknowing.

Still not being brief, easy, and quick, I must admit again.

There is no genuine properly speaking knowing something by negating something we do know. Take the case of a guy who is without any sense of taste, from birth for being born without taste buds, he cannot be knowing what is to taste by negating every sensation he has of touch, smell, sight, and hearing.


Summing up: There is a very big advantage to us in conceiving of a God that is finite instead of infinite, it saves us from all the severally single frustrations of His being deficient in every instance where He does not come out satisfactory to us in regard to each one of the attributes we assign to Him: wisdom, goodness, justice, mercy, power, duration, presence, happy.

We just have to deal with one disappointment or frustration, namely, that He is not infinite. That's what I would call more economical in terms of our psychology.

What about God? Don't worry your heads off about Him; He can handle His own frustrations. You see, even though we conceive of Him to be finite or even if in fact He is finite, yet for all the practical purposes for His Godness, He is more than adequate for Himself, enough not to feel insecure.

And in regard to our dependency on Him, His not being infinite in no way detracts from the favors we can expect from God, favors as we have known Him to dispense or not, from our history of relating with Him.

General Conclusion: A finite God is psychologically more soothing to us and also intellectually, because there is that beautiful merit of economy on both considerations.

Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate. -- Occam

And it does not detract nothing from God either that would make Him less God for all He is concerned with from Himself.


(Not very brief, easy, and quick, admittedly, and my apologies.)

Susma

*Spanish, consolation of the dunce.

[susmariosep]

A compromise then.


I personally don't find it difficult in any way to think of a God Who is finite instead of infinite.

We must remember that when we deal with God as with everything else we are involved with our own thinking, specially in regard to God; for with things which are accessible directly to our taste, smell, sight, hearing, touch, and also the super sense of awareness of our inner being, like the working of stomach for instance its grumbling, our thinking is the medium through which we make sense of everything.

But with God we are bereft of the senses altogether, and left only with our thinking.

And therefore in a very real sense our thinking of God being finite or infinite does not affect in the least what and if God is at all.

Important for me is that with a finite God, He can still be ascribed all the things that we have ascribed to Him and will ascribe to Him; and that is good enough for me.

In addition and very important, then we don't have to be reconciling in His acts how one property of His like mercy can be reconciled with another like Justice, which mercy and justice is also all of our thinking in the last analysis.

God is finite and He is still developing to be more and more up to our ideals or demanding expectations of Him. And He is working to do His best.

Now, for those who suffer intellectual neurosis with a God Who is finite instead of infinite, making Him infinite does not rid you of your neurosis but will multiply the neurosis several times over.

Maybe for the sake of compromise, let's just say that God is for you infinite but you just have to deal with Him according to your limited and deficient thinking.

What? you deny that your thinking is limited and deficient?

Well, in which case I can't the raison d'etre of your being here.

Now for those who can accept the idea of a God that is finite, and yet you feel uncomfortable, master the skill of attaining and maintaining a posture of equanimity. Maybe some mild sedative will help, like a cup of hot tea.

Susma

[susmariosep]

Good-bye to this thread.


I think I have said all I wanted to say in this thread; so, here's closing this thread and an invitation to join me in a new one, which I had been proposing to do some weeks back.

I am referring to the contacts of Stranger with God, and other gods, and spirit guides.

Go to the Free Speech section, I will start a new topic there, on "Grabbing the God and spirits of Stranger".

Susma