from my understanding of what people call "God".

However this does not support the god of the Bible in the least .........


Energy is us ............

If anything I am not attempting to support the god basically depicted in the Bible, but trying to work through new insights mainly unearthed via the marvelous discoveries of science. Copernicus et al.

and you use the same words to describe it then you confuse.
The words God, Bible, Jesus are used. It forces one to think back on what was taught before.
Use the word energy.
Everything in the universe is interconnected.
Everything in the universe is dependent on everything else.
Everything holds the secrets of the universe inside.
Perhaps when the final question is answered there will be a god there, but until that time a better word is energy.

Your first two "everything" statements are important insights.
What we are struggling to understand is whether there is anything under these "everythings" that provides the energy for events. I think we must used the traditional words as vehicles of communication. Otherwise we have a language problem in speaking in a gibberish no one understands.

We believe that this energy is always at work building, lifting, luring the creation on. A good example is evolution. Another example is the selfless ethic we call, among other things, love. Why does some reading of "do unto others..." lie at the heart of almost every religion and religious impulse?

people existed before religion ...........

When you use the word 'god' then you are bound by what people think of as god
If you are starting to have a different view point then you need to use new words
energy is easier to explain than 'god'
yes there are many kinds of energy but each can explained

I bet it is easier for you to explain the force or energy of gavity to someone than it is to explain god to them

to abandon that word is to abandon them.

A generation ago an English cleric wrote a book called "Your God is too small." That is still what some of us are trying to say. This line of thought is primarily addressed to the religious--thus I am posting it on "religion." The non-religious having difficulty with the word God to begin with, will have a more difficult time being asked to redefine what they may despise in the first place.

Yes they have some sort of meaning for god but they are all different
and that causes a huge problem

There you go assuming again
I was trained in religion but I am not religious. Perhaps the non-religious have a better understanding of god than the religious because they are not locked into a narrow view of god. Perhaps they have a better understanding of god than you. Also, they are better able to shift their definition than a religious person. They are more open. I do not feel that the non-religious 'despise' god. They despise the people that try to force religion on them. That is a huge difference.

Religion is nothing more than trying to make sense of the world around us. Some people need a god to do that, others do not. For you to use the word 'despise' is very rude and dismissive.

If I understand you correctly there are people out there that are trying to find a different way to understand the world around them. That god is not a being but is in everything. And I say that the use of the words force, forces, energy explains this better.


In the beginning the forces created the heavens. And all I am saying is that perhaps we will find a God with the last question. The non-religious I do not think would have a problem with this and the religious already feel that a force did create the heavens just that they call this force god. By doing it this way I have combined ALL peoples. Everyone is included. No one is left out. I have yet to find a religion that can do that.

Yes, It is also my experience that a number of the non-religious have a better grasp on this whole area than any of the "religious"--because many of the religious are trapped in some fundamentalism and are unable to see anything beyond it. Many of you who are non-religious are not trapped, and can examine things with more flexibility. Even if and when we disagree, I applaud it.

And then there are the non-religious bigots who regularly assault us for reasons which are probably more interior than exterior or rational. increasingly I just let them alone to work out their anger.

when I encounter religious bigotry.

You've made a Significant Statement and a Remarkable Post, all in one subthread. The Great Father has bestowed his Blessing on your thoughts from his mountaintop.

He's on a roll.

how condescending he's being.

Let's take for a premise that the religion-based view of an active god or gods is and always has been hogwash. We are still left with the question of how the universe got started. What was there before the big bang?

If you are not asserting there is a nanny god that decides the outcome of football games and decides who dies of cancer and who goes into remission, then what is the point?

We are here. Deal with it.

From a SCIENTIFIC point of view, I am certainly interested in any SCIENTIFIC insights into what could have preceded the big bang, or the possibility of multiple universes, etc. But that has nothing to do with any gods, unless you twist the word "science" into meaning "the ultimate god".

But that's BS as far as I'm concerned. All gods are and always have been the answer to the questions we fear and do not understand. I don't fear the beginning of the universe. It doesn't affect me.

My suggestion to anybody who takes this much time contemplating "gods" would be to just stop -- and go do something useful with your time instead.

if yu were to respond to the post. I've said nothing about creation or the big bang or other universes. What about what I actually said?,

this is very similar to the view present in indigenous religions that all things embody pneuma,or spirit, but do so without limiting it. Is this close to what you mean?

It is far more apparent in these indigenous religions that it sometime is in the Abrahamic models. Yet all religions reach toward that insight.

Do you see this energy, or pneuma, as co-extensive with the material universe or as containing but extending beyond it?

And do you see this energy as being accessible through its embodiments or personificarions?

Energy (God) is in under and with all things. Co-extensive may mean pantheism. We mean panentheism. It is not the same as things, but the force that gives things meaning and reality. God is not a tree, but is that which gives the tree its own creative impulse--its life force.

A steam engine is a piece of machinery, but what is is that makes it a machine capable of activity? I realize that is a poor analogy.
I'm not sure what you mean in your second question. Say more.

but wanted to be sure. We agree there completely.

Sorry if I was a bit nebulous on the second question. Let me preface this by saying that I don't beleve in «the supernatural.» If God/energy/pneuma/spirit exists, then God/energy/pneuma/spirit is itself natural. I have seen Native and other holy men and women perform ritual acts in which they invoked this energy/pneuma through specific avatars. Eagle, say, or Sun or Changing Woman. These rutual acts have produced physically percrptible effects, from staunching bleeding to jump-starting failed organs. Other ceremonies have other purposes.

It seems to me that these phenomena are possible precisely because the same underlying energy/pneuma runs through patient, healer, and the avatar invoked. In effect, it is energy/pneuma acting upon itself to restore sophia, justice, dharma, hozho, grace, whayever a given culture calls it. Does this fit in with the concepts you'e describing?

I’ve been rummaging around in a book written by Tom Hayden, an acquaintance from our radical Chicago days. Tom has never been known as a theologian, but his book, The Gospel of the Earth resonates with some of the things I have been trying to say recently. A quote or two:

We have abandoned the spirit of the natural world, for a sky God that is separate from the earth…The sacred earth is interchangeable with God …We divide grace from nature and spirit from matter at our peril ...Since God has acquired the image of a bearded gentlemen, a term like sacred, which revokes no human shape, seems more appropriate … Long ago the sacred was believed to reside on earth. Then came an era when God and the sacred were projected from earth to a glorious cloud. Today we need a sacred presence more than an absentee landlord.

Perhaps “the sacred presence in the living earth” is better than my term “energy.” At least it is closer to more traditional religious language. But we are saying much the same thing. Hayden calls this a sacred spiritual insight, and evokes religious saints from across the centuries to testify to its reality.

I just ordered it.

concepts that have been discussed for three thousand years. I'm sorry I just don't find anything new in what you're trying to say here.

There really is nothing new here. It is only insights that are now more apparent with thanks to a number of scientific gifts--in this case chiefly Copernicus. What I am suggesting has been at the heart of religious reality for at least three thousand years. What we are finding is a fresh way to articulate them, using the insights our modern culture has offered.

Use of the word "energy" throws me off a little, since energy has such a well-defined scientific meaning, but I realize there is maybe not a good English word for what you are saying.

Your discussion of this type of God is interesting because it leads to a thought I have always had - that particle physics may someday discover that there is something about matter that we we cannot or never will understand - sort of an analogue to the Godel theorem in mathematics. This could be in the form of some paradoxical force that might be what we call God. Today it seems that particle physics becomes more and more complex the deeper we go - something that to me is counter-intuitive.

It is beyond my knowledge field, even thought I read widely about it. Beyond its own discipline I believe it has much to offer to our wider discussions. I'm pleased you are part of this group. Your insights will prove of great value.

Massimo Pigliucci gives a comprehensible description of it in a 2 part essay. The first part of the essay describes the terminology (mostly realism and anti-realism as it applies to philosophy of science), and the second part gets into more detail about the what we can understand about matter.

An excerpt from the second part of the essay:

why would any of this underlying "structure" need to be called "god"? If it actually constitutes a better understanding of physical reality (which it may or may not), well and good, but why drag religion and theology into the mix? Does Pigliucci do that, or even hint at it?

Neither Pigliucci nor I said anything about God. I was responding to the part of post #12 that talks about our understanding of the nature of matter.

is part and parcel of the OP's proposed concept of "god", and the post you were directly responding to refers explicitly to a "god" based on the underlying matter/energy structure of nature . You do see that, right? So again, what justifies calling any of it "god" in the first place?

I don't follow particle physics that closely, but from what I do know, it seems a mess where they add more and more dimensions to the universe to make the sums come out right. Of course, as I suspected my thoughts are far from original. After writing the last post, I googled "Godel" and "particle physics" and got an interesting lecture by Hawking, where he describes it exactly (of course with much more detail and understanding

Godel and the End of the Universe

Here is the part I like

Up to now, most people have implicitly assumed that there is an ultimate theory that we will eventually discover. Indeed, I myself have suggested we might find it quite soon. However, M-theory has made me wonder if this is true. Maybe it is not possible to formulate the theory of the universe in a finite number of statements. This is very reminiscent of Godel's theorem. This says that any finite system of axioms is not sufficient to prove every result in mathematics.

The second chapter concentrates on how believers have been redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ. But it does have verse 8, which looks a bit problematic for the suggestions of this OP:

As I said, Colossians is about the reality of Jesus being God, being a physical person, and dying and rising again. To take the quote about all things being created through Jesus, and being held together in him, while ignoring the repeated insistence on Jesus, and God, as a person, is daring, to say the least. It's removing the whole context of what the author says, and just repeating the words.

Would you still call yourself a Christian? If so, do you believe Jesus can have been anointed without a person to anoint them? How would that work?

1-the identification of Jesus as all of God in human form we can experience.

2-the Christ principle, Here borrowing from Greek thought, it is not the Jesus of history that is pictured, but the Christ of faith. This Christic principle is not just Jesus in the flesh, but the source of life by which all things have being. It is a beautiful bit of poetry that is akin to what we find in most all religions.

Can Jesus have been anointed without an anointer? Certainly the Bible was developed out of a world view in which that system made sense. If one takes the Bible seriously one must take seriously the world view almost universal at the time. But if it is no longer a world view which holds today, then perhaps we need to find images which come from our very different world view. I have not arrived at that yet, but I'm working on it. ((And at my age I better hurry!!))

(well, not again, since you've never explained it in the first place), why any of this qualifies as "god" or needs to be labeled as such. Why is there a "problem" that requires solving here, other than for people like you, who realize how senseless and at odds with reality many of the tenets of organized religions are, but who still need to go around calling something, anything "god", because they couldn't make sense of their lives if they didn't, or worse, some people might think they were... *gasp*....ATHEISTS?

And tell us honestly Charles...when you discuss "theology" with your Christian cronies in that ivory tower, do you tell them to their faces that you think that most of what they believe is outdated, and downright false? Or do you sing a completely different tune to them than you do to us?

which was discredited as a scientific concept over a hundred years ago. Or the unified field theory, which would be a physical aspect to the Universe and has nothing to do with human emotions.
There are many ways to feel connected to the Universe, it is just a mistake to think the Universe feel connected to you in turn.

In the thread for The God Problem Part 1, in response to my comment (click here), you said I had predicted some of the things you would say in Part 2. And you were right.

We are pretty much on the same page regarding concepts of God, because I like the concepts discussed in the article on The Nature of God, which points out how Hindu, Taoist, Judaic, Christian and other concepts of God can be seen as very similar. God is what makes the Universe alive, and is the heart an essential substance of all things -- the primordial vibration of Divine Light Energy, Source and Essence of all life and form, and "Word" made flesh in all of us.

However, we do still differ in our beliefs about certain things.

For example, while Paul, the author of Colossians and many of the other epistles and books of the Christian church canon, did express much of the truth that the apostles had learned from Jesus, he was also wrong about much. He wrongly assumed he understood the Torah and Tanakh, and assumed that "Christianity" should supersede Judaism. He even feuded with James and others about that. (See About Christianity.)

That has proven problematic, especially since Paul was the first to produce and distribute his written work he had a lot of influence over Mark, Luke, Matthew, and, to a certain but lesser extent, John. And I think that's why Thomas Jefferson and other Enlightenment thinkers considered Paul the guy who "corrupted" Christianity and was responsible for what it became during the Dark Ages, the Inquisitions, Crusades, and, in certain cases, ever since (e.g., because of the "religious right&quot .

I promote a unique message, as you know, because it deals with all these important and crucial issues. But the message is rejected by most people, mainly because of the declaration the author has made -- that he is the "modern son of man."

As he say, it is no wonder he's rejected. It was predicable, and was predicted, because he doesn't meet anyone's expectations. He serves only God, and rather than exalt himself he merely wants to liberate and empower humanity.

I think there is a quote from Isaiah that is very telling. It's quoted in the beginning of the article on Prophecies Regarding He Who Fulfills Them:

There are many prophecies about him in the legends and scriptures of all religions. However, the prophecies in the Hebrew book of Isaiah are perhaps the most specific, and Jesus of Nazareth agreed with them, which is why he said that the next "son of man" would "first" be rejected by his generation and suffer many things before the judgment he delivers is recognized and acknowledged.

“Listen to me, and hearken all peoples, from far: the Lord has called me, and from the womb of my mother has God made mention of my name. And the Lord God has made my mouth and pen like a sharp sword, in the shadow of God’s hand have I been hidden; and the Lord has made me as a polished arrow, in God’s quiver I have been concealed. And God said to me: 'You are My servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.' But I said: 'I have labored in vain, I have spent my strength for naught and vanity; yet surely my righteousness is with the Lord, and my satisfaction with my God.' And now says my God that formed me from the womb to be a loyal servant, to bring Jacob back to God, and that Israel be gathered unto God — for I am honorable in the sight of the Lord, and my God is become my strength. Indeed, God said: 'It is not enough that you should be My servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the offspring of Israel. I will also give you for a light of all the nations, that My salvation may be unto the ends of the earth.' Thus said the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One, to him who is despised of men, to him who is abhorred of nations, to a servant of rulers: ‘They shall see, and they shall lower themselves and acknowledge God; because of the Lord that is faithful, even the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you.’” – Isaiah 49:1-7

The author (or authors) of the book of Isaiah revealed much about the modern son of man, even though most Jews, Christians and Muslims do not understand Isaiah. For the man who fulfills prophecies is sent not to favor one nation or religion over others, or to establish a new religion, but to fulfill the religions of the world and embrace all nations. His mission is about reminding humanity of essential universal truths and the will of God, and about our spiritual relationship with God and with each other.

But, he is rejected and despised because he dares to judge the political and religious leaders of the world, and he is only human and flawed. In fact, as the Prophet Isaiah prophesied, he is like Jacob who was called Israel because he struggled with God, and he has been covetous and willful. But, after having been severely stricken and afflicted, and suffered many things, he has become increasingly contrite of spirit, realizes his vain folly, and he recognizes God as his only refuge.

"The message" again...and again...and that word "promote". Are you sure you don't need de-programming?

And mods, mentioning "the message" over and over is one thing...but now this poster is putting links to "the message" in her posts. That's coming dangerously close to a line, if not over it. We don't need cult members using this forum to try to recruit new acolytes.

The 'promotion' that's going on may just be promotion of his books. He may still be looking for that first acolyte; but if a few people buy the product while that search is on, it's still profitable.

But whether it's him or just one of his "followers", it's very inappropriate.

Still struggling to build that cult.

because it was making the link between speaker and website editor too explicit, I guess. And now SarahM32 is using Adamson's exact wording, capitalisation and all:

and all the still-unanswered questions in it.

Some things never change. You're still engaging in the same behavior, and harboring the same prejudice against non-believers, as you were when you arrived on DU two years ago.

is a Serious Progressive Theologian. Don't weary his academic ears with outdated nonsense...or facts. He has his own.

are three very complex and interesting disciplines. It is amazing to have all three summed up in a couple of sentences.

that he gets it all wrong in just two or three sentences.

At least he leaves out the goat herders.

in a set of otherwise worthy philosophical speculations. still i'm still not seeing how this is different from the 'god of the gaps'? by attempting to make god larger it seems to me this is again redefining well-worn concepts and dressing them up in 'dancing wu-li' language.

far more interesting to me anyway is the concept of god as the 'ground of being'. ontology has it's own logic. cybernetics, basically, and the internet itself relies heavily on this 'non-ordinary' logic. i rather worry about putting information theory on the altar however as the singularists (and matrix nuts) are wont, but if any field of abstract inquiry lends itself to let's say imaginative speculation, it's ontology.

As someone else says in this thread, what you're saying isn't new, but the need to wrestle with questions like the ones you raise continually renews itself from generation to generation.