The English language lacks a proper term with which to designate deity. The word God is comparatively meaningless, as it gives no hint of the gender or dignity of Divinity other than merely signifying “good.” Since either a masculine or a feminine term is inappropriate and obviously incomplete, and a neuter term entirely too negative, a word is needed which will express the undivided potencies of both positive and negative in equilibrium.
The custom of depicting God either as male or female is the outgrowth of man’s oldest form of worship: phallicism. Masculine and feminine properties are presumed to be positive and negative respectively. Hence God, being an active or positive agent, was conceived to be masculine; nature, being a passive or negative body, was regarded as feminine in that it received into itself and nurtured to maturity the germinal essences of Divine Life. The proponents of a masculine God declare that in the beginning was activity, the positive cause of existence. On the other hand, the proponents of the pre-eminence of the feminine principle declare that activity first issued from a universal matrix; consequently that which comes forth from the matrix is subordinate to its own origin. To a certain degree the Madonna expresses this concept, for the man child is creation born out of the womb of SPACE – the Holy Mother of Ages.
Among many ancient peoples God was considered as being androgynous, and referred to as the Great Father-Mother. When the Creator was represented by an image, various subtle devices were employed to indicate its hermaphroditic nature. The Iswara of the Hindus is depicted with one side of his body male and the other female. In Greek and Roman statuary frequent examples are found of a masculine divinity wearing female garments and vice versa, or a heavily-bearded god may have his hair arranged in a distinctly feminine coiffure. Again, the structure of the face of such deities as Bacchus and Dionysus often shows a sensitive, feminine countenance disguised by a beard or some article of masculine adornment. In other cases the feminine counterpart of the deity is considered as a separate individuality. For this reason each of the gods was declared to have had his consort or feminine aspect of his own being. Thus Mithras, the Persian Light-Savior, is considered to be masculine, but a certain portion of himself divided from the rest becomes Mithra, a feminine and maternal potency. As previously noted, in India each god has his shakti, or feminine part.
In spite of the repeated emphasis upon our age of enlightenment, the majority of people still continue the age-honored practice of molding God into a likeness of themselves. The reason for this probably lies in the fact that man, possessing a spark of Divinity within himself, feels his kinship with God and believes himself privileged to rush in where angels fear to tread, and give definition to the undefinable. God being, as Ingersoll so well expressed it, “the noblest work of man,” we find in the attributes of the God people worship, a definite key to their own ethical and philosophic status. It is noticeable that people with puerile intelligences and petty concerns conceive God to be localized as a neighborhood sprite who spends most of his time eavesdropping, and who can afford to ignore universal concerns while he heaps maledictions upon some poor, benighted wretch who did not keep his eyes closed during grace! On the other hand, those who have learned to know something of the greater verities of life worship a growing God. This does not presuppose that God is necessarily increasing, but rather that man’ increasing capacity to comprehend ever reveals more of the stupendous nature of Divinity. As a person approaches a physical object, the object apparently increases in size. The same is true of the mind as it approaches the subject of its consideration. Hence, to the philosopher God extends through the infinitude of time, distance, and thought, and to him it is inconceivable that even for a second Deity should descend into a state less dignified than the all-inclusiveness of its intrinsic nature.
The modern religious thinker is no longer inclined to venerate a deity who is simply a highly glorified King George III. In that now vanishing picturesque period of absolute monarchies when fretful and senile princes, arrayed in ridiculous periwigs, ruled by “divine right,” God was invested with all the propensities of the “blood royal,” and the celestial hierarchies were metamorphosed into landed gentry.
God is best defined as the first manifestation of Infinite Existence, the limitation of Limitlessness.
To attempt an analysis of the fabric of even the groundwork of SPACE far exceeds the capacity of any human intellect. Never in the history of philosophy has there been evolved a mind capable of grasping all the multitudinous elements of Being. The world is filled with people who foolishly try to teach or seek to be taught the length, breadth, and thickness of ultimates, when but a moment’s true thinking would demonstrate the fallacy and futility of such effort. Since the groundwork of SPACE – the ultimate abstraction – transcends every faculty and every dimension, it can never be comprehended by a reasoning organism that must necessarily arrive at its conclusions on the basis of faculty and dimension. For the human mind to understand that which is greater than itself is as impossible as for a mere man to swallow the ocean. The effort of the human mind to circumscribe the entirety of manifestation is comparable to a mollusk trying to enclose the sea within its shell. Realizing, therefore, how apropos is the ancient statement that to define Deity is to defile it, we are forced to accept the inevitable conclusion of the ages: namely, that the ultimates of beginning and end are alike unknowable. These conclusions are in harmony with the deductions of both Socrates and Buddha.
When considering the nature of primordial substance, the average school of philosophy postulates an active first Cause; otherwise it is wholly at a loss to explain how creation can be the product of a passive power. Activity is accordingly postulated as a fundamental attribute of Being. To me, however it is inconceivable that the first Cause (or more correctly the Causeless Cause) should be either positive or negative. Rather it seems more fitting to posit a permanent condition which is neither positive in an “active” sense nor negative in a “passive” sense, but which is power in absolute suspension. For lack of a better defining term we might conceive of Eternal Being as an enduring neitherness, partaking of neither the presence nor the absence of any tangible force or condition. The condition of the Absolute can only be suggested by a suspended neitherness of both activity and inertia.
The state of monarchy is the most supreme thing upon earth, for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon god's throne, but even by God himself are called gods...for if you will consider the attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a king...to dispute what God does is blasphemy...so it is sedition in subjects to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power. I would not have you meddle with such ancient rights of mine as I have received from my predecessors
We know that the Jewish God [Jehovah] is not the father of all men and the ideal of love, justice and mercy...On the contrary, he is the God of vengeance down to the fourth generation, just and merciful only to his own people, but foe to all other nations, denying them human rights and commanding their enslavement that Israel might appropriate their riches and rule over them
The god venerated by the world's many Catholics is not the volcano god Jehovah but Aton, or Adon, the sun god of the broken kings of old cast out of the country they brought to the brink of ruin. The Vatican and the Church it has established are founded upon the same solar theocracy as was common on the banks of the Nile and as that conveyed in secret by the priesthoods of the sun at Heliopolis, Giza, Amarna, Avaris, Tanis, and Alexandria.
We have already seen that the Egyptians gave to every one of their kings the title of God, and in this custom of idolatrous flattery, they were followed by the Greeks of Alexandria. The Ptolemies and their queens were all styled gods. The Saviour-gods were succeeded on the throne by the Brother-gods, the Beneficent-gods, the Father-loving gods, the Illustrious-gods, and others. Such were the titles given to the several Ptolemies. This custom was copied by some of the Greek kings of Syria, and in part continued under the Roman emperors, though Augustus, on his Alexandrian coins, only claims the lower rank of being a Son of God
Question: What is the most powerful name of god...?
Question: What is its power?
Answer: To move the universe
It seems in the books of Moses that god did not appear to the Israelites under the name of Jehovah, even though the previous Book of Genesis introduced this as the name of god. In the Exodus we have god declaring himself as, “god of thy fathers,” “I am that I am” “God Almighty,” etc. It is even openly written in Exodus 6:3 that the Israelites did not know god by the name of Jehovah,"…but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them"
While through lack of adequate terminology it is necessary to approach a definition of the Absolute from a negative point of view, the blank sheet of paper signifies not emptiness but an utter and incomprehensible fullness when an attempt is made to define the indefinable.
Biblical scholars have conjectured that the Old Testament is composed essentially of four major narratives, the "J," "E," "JE," and "P" documents woven together into one. The "J" documents are so named because in them God is always referred to as "Jehovah." They are the oldest, written around the ninth century BC, in the southern kingdom of Judah. The "E" documents, so called because in them God is referred to as "Elohim," were written about a hundred years after the "J" documents in the eighth century in the northern kingdom of Israel. Scholars assume the "P" or "Priestly" documents were composed some two-hundred years or so after the "E," about 600 BC. In the fifth century, Jewish priests combined portions of the "J" and"E" documents, adding a little handiwork of their own (known as pious fraud), which are referred to as "JE" documents, since God in these passages is referred to as "Jehovah-Elohim" (translated as "Lord God").
That there are two gods and two schools of thought, in the first books of the bible, is of major importance. It shows us that "history" was being deliberately, if not methodically, concocted.
The divine title "Lord", in the New Testament, is translated from the Greek "Kuros," which is the Persian name for the sun; God is "Gad," an Ammonian name for the sun; Jehovah by translation and declension, become Jupiter, which, according to Macrobius, is "the sun itself." Deity is from the Latin "Deus," which is traceable to "dies," a day - a period of time measured by the sun; Jesus is from "Jes"...which means "the one great fire from the sun," and Christ is derived from "Chris," a Chaldean term for the sun.
…all kings of Judea were called ‘God’ by the people.
We understand that a rational man cannot say, like Christ is meant to have done, that: "I and my Father are One," unless we are each first one within ourselves to begin with. The "Father" is complete and if we are ourselves not complete then how can we possibly be one with him or with anyone? The Christian who imagines that being one with the Father implies the abnegation of selfhood is a sadist to his own being. He commits a cardinal sin with just this kind of illogical thinking. How can a mere nothing, a human zero, merge with god? After all, who is it that comprehends this state of oneness? Logically, it is only a self that can merge or bond with god's self.
The knowledge of god, or even of the son of god, is worthless to the one who does not deeply know him or herself. The chaos and debauch in our world is the result of this lack of self-knowledge. The casualties from drugs and from false spiritual paths and teachers also stand as testimony to our assertion and thesis.
Although we may resist accepting it, the youth could care less about Jesus and God. The young ones who appear to care are often forced to do so as a consequence of the inevitable indoctrination process of punitive parents and guardians.
Jesus said, "When you see one who was not born of woman, fall on your faces and worship. That one is your Father."
Pascal said that God is a circle, of which the center is everywhere and the circumference nowhere. But how is one to imagine a circle apart from its circumference? The Zohar adopts the antithesis of this paradoxical image and in respect of the circle of Pascal would say rather that the circumference is everywhere, while that which is nowhere is the center.
Our culture has been deeply penetrated by the notion that "man"-not woman-is created in the image of God. This notion persists, despite the likelihood that the creation goes in the other direction:that God is a human projection of the image of man. No known religion, past or present, ever succeeded in establishing a completely sexless deity. Worship was always accorded either a female or a male, occasionally a sexually united couple or an androgynous symbol of them; but deities had a sex just as people have a sex. The ancient Greek and others whose culture accepted homosexuality naturally worshipped homosexual gods.
GOD is the English/Angelish Transliteration of the Latin Word Deus, Deus is an alternate spelling of the Greek Word Zeus.
...gods, angels and spirits can bring about great changes in a nation's fortunes. The focus of these changes will often be an individual. For example, Alexander the Great or Napoleon were vehicles for a great spirit, and for a while carried all before them in a remarkable way. No one could oppose them and they succeeded in everything they did - until the spirit left them. Then quite suddenty everything began to go wrong.
We see the same process in the case of artists who become vehicles for the expression of a god or spirit for a certain period of their lives. Then they suddenly seem to 'find their voice' and create masterpiece after masterpiece with a sure hand, sometimes transforming the consciousness of a while generation, even changing the whole direction of a culture in history. But when the spirit leaves, an artist never again creates with the same genius.
Similarly if a spirit weaves through an individual to create a work of art, the same great spirit may once again be present whenever that work of art is contemplated by others. One of his contemporaries said: 'When Bach plays the organ, even God comes to Mass.'
Plato said "God is," and inferred all else that could be said upon that subject as depreciatory.