Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00702)

Dear Dallas,

The first part of your posting (before "As to God") is peripheral (at 
best) to the point I'm trying to make. But I'd like to reply to 
certain statements in the second part.

>>> If we personalize this concept we dwarf it.

On the contrary, if we depersonalize it we sterilize it. "Dwarf" has 
a material connotation that's inappropriate when discussing 
transcendental matters (i.e., transcending our notions of physical 
space).

>>> In reality it has no "Form." If we give one mentally to IT, we 
make it in our mind smaller than the Universe or illimitable SPACE.

Again the terminology connoting material size is inappropriate. But 
a more important objection here is that there is a distinction 
between an object and our mental image of it. Whatever mental image 
of God we have, God is not that, and so God cannot be limited by our 
mental constructs.

>>> If we perceive that the DIVINE PRINCIPLE is universal, we admit 
that it is everything and cannot be separate from or different from 
anything in Nature (the Universe.)

This is an expression of the immanent/transcendent dichotomy, over 
which many philosophical battles have been fought. Those who have 
seen directly have described God's situation as BOTH immanent and 
transcendent simultaneously, in a manner that's probably 
inconceivable (at least, I've never been able to conceive of it 
satisfactorily). But "inconceivable" is not at all the same 
as "impossible."

>>> It is quite fruitless to discuss individual views about "God." 
They are the result of self-limited ideas and premises.

Yes, if they're based on speculation. But I'm speaking of direct 
experience of God. You may accept or not accept the testimony of 
witnesses, but such testimony is categorically different from 
speculation.

Robert