Which type of God do you believe in?

[Jin-Roh]

I figure that I might as well open this up for the first discussion of such a forum. Besides, I figure its time to take an informal poll on this anyway.

[Duder]

Thank you, Jin-Roh, and the rest of the admin staff, for a theism thread that is more open to posters with a variety of views. I hope it attracts interest!

[PantaRhea]

I've searched (I think) this forum and I can't find any discussion of Process Theology. Is this the place for such a discussion?

[NeilUnreal]

My own view has similarities to both panentheism and monotheism. I picked monotheism for the purposes of this poll, but neither response alone quite captures what I believe. It's more accurate to say that my Christianity is colored by by Zen and Taoist philosophy, rather than by post-Helenistic Judaism and classical Western philosophy.

-Neil

[CatholicSage]

orthodox Christian monotheism.

[bar Jonah]

I've searched (I think) this forum and I can't find any discussion of Process Theology. Is this the place for such a discussion?
It is the place. It's just there are so few of such heretics that we really don't get very many. Kind of like the Neo-Hymenaewhatsits.

[PantaRhea]

It is the place. It's just there are so few of such heretics that we really don't get very many. Kind of like the Neo-Hymenaewhatsits.
Huh! I can't imagine why not many heretics show up here! :eek: Is the wonderful love of God still being displayed by burning 'em?

[bar Jonah]

We show our live by not using green wood. :riwink:

[guacamole]

apple cider doughnut monotheism with maple icing and sprinkles.

[shunyadragon]

I figure that I might as well open this up for the first discussion of such a forum. Besides, I figure its time to take an informal poll on this anyway.Eventhough I share the belief of a monotheistic God with the Jews, Christians, Moslems and many others. I do not share the anthropomorphic manipulative concepts that these older theologies hold. My view allows for the less theistic beliefs of Buddhism, Taoism and others to be in some ways valid also. Each religion of the world reveals some of the attributes of God, eventhough they become shrouded in the dust and burdens of language and culture over the centuries.

God is essentially hidden and unknown.

God is universally personal with existence and humanity through creation and revelation. God is less specifically personal in my view running around answering specific prayers. Existence is a reflection of the attributes of God. A constantly evolving and changing existence are attributes of God.

Gods attributes become known to humanity through Revelation.

The scriptures of the world are the human view of God in the world view of God and the revelation of the time they were written. Humanity evolves physically and spiritually.

The nature of existence as science has discovered is a reflection of the progressive cyclic evolving nature of creation that is also apparent in the religions of the world. Religion and the human worldview change. Each religion tries to stop time and freeze revelation in the worldview of the time as they age, but the witness of creation and revelation leave them behind in the dust of antiquity. This is why ancient religions are pretty much totally irrelavent to today's world.

[BeHereNow]

A friend once told me that God is the space between life and death. I thought that was poignant.

[BlackOpal12]

As a Buddhist, most people would qualify me as a monist. And I can accept that, because its close enough for general classification.

(Oh yeah, for those who aren't up on the term, monism is the belief that all is god, god is all, interpenetrating, inseparable, and intrinsic to existence. Granted, the exactitudes are a little different from a Buddhist perspective, but that's life.)

The Opal

[Heathen Dawn]

Polytheistic + Panentheistic: one Creator-God containing the universe but greater than it, and who is manifest to mankind as a multitude of personal and (mostly) anthropomorphic Gods and Goddesses. It’s called soft polytheism.

[technomage]

Somewhere between Monotheism, Monism, and Panentheism. There is one Deity, who created everything, and Who indwells all of Creation. IMO, the Wiccan theology of "the Lord and the Lady" are a human-invented concept of an Entity that is basically beyond human conception. Sort of an attempt to "unscrew the inscrutable."

We show our live by not using green wood. :riwink:
You are a NAUGHTY MAN! :lol:

Justin

[PantaRhea]

As a Buddhist, most people would qualify me as a monist. And I can accept that, because its close enough for general classification.

(Oh yeah, for those who aren't up on the term, monism is the belief that all is god, god is all, interpenetrating, inseparable, and intrinsic to existence. Granted, the exactitudes are a little different from a Buddhist perspective, but that's life.)

The Opal
There is a lot that the Buddhist have in common with us Process Theists. Ya should check it out sometime, eh?

[BlackOpal12]

There is a lot that the Buddhist have in common with us Process Theists. Ya should check it out sometime, eh?

I've been studying Christian theology for 8 years at this point. I've studied process theology. You'd be amazed how little there is, beyond the pseudo-deism, that the two share. Sorry, man.

[PantaRhea]

I've been studying Christian theology for 8 years at this point. I've studied process theology. You'd be amazed how little there is, beyond the pseudo-deism, that the two share. Sorry, man.
Really? I've got a number of buddhist friends who find a lot in common - especially the idea that reality is not a substance. Have you looked, by any chance, at what Ryusei Takeda (1994) in "Mahayana Buddhism and Whitehead's Philosophy" Process Studies 23, no.2: 72-86; or Takao Tanaka (1977), "From a Buddhist Point of View", John Cobb's Theology in Process: 99-111; or John S. Yakota, (1994), "A Call to Compassion: Process Thought and the Conceptualization of Amida Buddha", Process Studies 23, no.2: 87-97?

The above are referenced in David Griffin's new book, Reenchantment without Supernaturalism, and there is also a good discussion of Buddhist thought compared to Process Theology on pp. 273-281.

You are the first, in fact, that I've run across that didn't see the similarities. But, you say I'd be amazed... I say ok, I'll be amazed.

[Jin-Roh]

I'm Curious, who voted "polytheistic"?

[Heathen Dawn]

I'm Curious, who voted "polytheistic"?

Not me. I’d vote it if it were possible to check both “polytheistic” and “panentheistic.”

[barryrob]

I figure that I might as well open this up for the first discussion of such a forum. Besides, I figure its time to take an informal poll on this anyway.



Deuteronomy 6:4 "Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.

Malachi 3:6 "For I am Jehovah; I have not changed.

Mark 12:29 Jesus answered: "The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah

Barryrob

[PantaRhea]

Deuteronomy 6:4 "Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.



Malachi 3:6 "For I am Jehovah; I have not changed.

Mark 12:29 Jesus answered: "The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah



Barryrob
Yep. I was talking to a friend just the other day and out of the blue she said,"God is sure one heck of a Jehova, ain't She?" :teeth:

[John Powell]

Jin-Roh:
I'm Curious, who voted "polytheistic"?


POWELL:
I did, but after you asked this question, so I guess I was the second one. I did it for my Mormon alter-ego, John Mormon. Although Mormons would typically associate themselves with monotheism since they worship a single Godhead and pray to the Father and polytheism seems to have the implication of disagreements among the Gods which isn't the case in Mormon theology, the way the survey was worded I felt like polytheism was the better match.

John Powell

[D. Medvedev Fan]

One God, three parts. He is not the universe, but He is active in it and is omipresent. Ony in hell do I believe one can escape His presence.

[shunyadragon]

One God, three parts. He is not the universe, but He is active in it and is omipresent. Ony in hell do I believe one can escape His presence.
A common archeac Greco-Roman religious belief.

[D. Medvedev Fan]

A common archeac Greco-Roman religious belief.
Really? I didn't know that. I thought that they were more polythiestic, where as my beliefs are more three manifestations of the same God.

[shunyadragon]

Really? I didn't know that. I thought that they were more polythiestic, where as my beliefs are more three manifestations of the same God.Your belief is very similar to most what westerners call polytheistic religions like the Hindus of vedic traditions. They believe in one and only one infinite and ultimate source manifest as other Gods. In the accepted definition of a God, the belief of the Trinity would be polytheistic and throw in the devil with his own domain as another lesser God, and OT commandment not to worship other Gods before Me you have a very polytheistic religion.

[Geifodd]

Being a polytheistic Satanist (who is somewhere between a Setian and a Gnostic Luciferian), I believe in the existence of many possible gods. Unlike soft polytheists, I believe that the gods are each distinct entities in their own right, rather than simply the multiple personifications of a single deity. This view is known as "hard polytheism."

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Polytheistic + Panentheistic: one Creator-God containing the universe but greater than it, and who is manifest to mankind as a multitude of personal and (mostly) anthropomorphic Gods and Goddesses. It’s called soft polytheism.
I chose Panentheism, but this quote describes me to a tee!

[sambo]

One of my favorite bumper sticker:

"Militant agnostic. I don't know and neither do you."

But if I had to believe then God would be a real fun and eccentric character. Not like the "wrathful" and "jealous" one in the bible. Why would God have these petty and childish emotions?

[Sahfed Guru]

I am a dualist

There are two eternal thngs
1. The transendent being, has character, is infinite, perfect etc, though he even transends these words, but i must used the second best to discribe the best.
2. Energy as in E=mc^2 energy. Finite, non-perfect, no character, thus cannot be called a diety.

In this case I am a unique Monotheist, a dualist monotheist rather than a monist