Thursday, December 4, 2008

Limiting BEING, How Can "He" Possibly Be Described?

It's still too hard for me to refer to "God" or "YHWH" or "He". Too limiting, all of them. Saying He is too humanizing and even then leaves half off. God of course isn't even a name. YHWH is okay as long as I say the name with the translation of I AM in my mind. YHWH, Yahweh, Jehovah; they all sound like mythical deities when I say them. When I say I AM and remember what "He" showed me, it all makes sense and it works.
But even Existence, Being, an entity? I don't think even "entity" can cover God. It's much easier to think of Yeshua/Jesus. An exact representation for us. But is he the model of what WE can and will be or what God is? Because if he was the image of what God is, then that's still what we have in store, but we didn't get to be with him while he was human like we are now. All we can go by are the stories and accounts - those are wonderful but not enough. Without direct experience, we can't possibly drop our jaws in amazement at the feeling of being near him, knowing that we are in the presence of The Almighty Holy One. If we are able to be full of the spirit of God as he was, one with God (which is what Jesus prayed), when is that supposed to be? Jesus kept saying the kingdom was here whenever God worked, so it seems to mean that's the option now.
Overall, it still seems that we will all be "absorbed" into one great force or power of existence.

I can see why God told people, "Look, think of me as the Father," it's all beyond words otherwise. What scientific understanding was available then?
Now we have much more science, but many kids have no fathers. What is the newest way to understand? I keep imagining these guys back then, the ones who wrote down the scripture, trying to come up with words to explain the totally inexplicable; not only was it hard to come up with words in their language that could encompass the meaning, but words that defied their understanding of how things were.
Kind of like the guys in a movie I just watched last night called The Ghost Particle about two scientists who were ridiculed and rejected by some, by others considered merely wrong, until just a couple of years ago. One thing was rather nice; even though one of the men had Alzheimer's by the time he was awarded The Nobel Prize in Physics, the other is still fully cognizant and thrilled to have his life's work vindicated while he's still alive! That's so wonderful, look at how many only get respect and recognition posthumously. (By the way, this was about neutrinos).

This post is way too long and convoluted now, I'll stop for a while. It's just that I watched the DVD about neutrinos last night and then Stephen Hawkings The Universe tonight; these things always get me started!

1 comment:

  1. neutrinos? I read an essay of Isaac Asimov about neutrinos. if those things have mass, even if it's just a teenyweeny mass, then the expansion of the universe will come to a halt someday and will fall towards each other again (like bigbang in reverse.) But I don't think the scientific community has found any proof that it does have mass. that's why they believe the universe will keep on expanding until even the very components of the atoms will just spread away from each other and disintegrate.

    Hi! got here from Mel avilla alarilla's blog (entrecard 4 religion) where you quoted Isaiah stating that the Creator also created "evil". You are right, it was a direct quote and you were not quoting the scriptures out of context as he unfairly insinuated.