Marc-Olivier Jodoin on
52 Definition of God
"Do you believe in God?"
"I do not understand the question."
This is my answer in a court of law. The
court does not have time to define "God." The undefined question
has no answer.
If you please, I can give you, the
reader, a hint of the right direction.
Godhood is a future (not final) state
of those who are now human beings.
Simple, isn't it? Every individual has a
personal view of the future and crafts a god concept
Some people are more comfortable working
in the other direction. They wait to be given a god concept and
then conform to the heavenly parent's pattern. Inheriting
attributes from a parent seems scientifically acceptable and
leads to the same conclusion stated above.
Article 50 "Dreaming failure" and
article 51 "Duality in dreams" studied relationships between
self and other. The building was a metaphor for the world in
which people may be aware of each other. After writing
those articles, I realized that the metaphor leads directly to
the above definition of God. We are now asking whether we believe
in ourselves, using future vision.
Let us review: Progressing toward
enlightenment using several passes through the building or world
was called reincarnation. Progressing out of the building to one
of higher order was called resurrection. Positing an unlimited
succession of buildings at ever higher orders introduced
Ernstraudian theory of eternal progression.
Monotheism proposes emulating a divine
model addressed as God (Allah, etc.). Theological systems target
some levels within the Ernstraudian sequence. A few
mention resurrection to a superficially described post-mortal
place. Others offer more detail, suggesting that growth beyond
this world will exceed the growth we experienced here. Eternity
is a long time; it is a relief to believe that our growth never
stops. Indeed, I speak of "a" future state, not "the" future
state. Any set of future states is unique to an individual, and
there is no terminal state. The
Ernstraudian approach is "proceed at your own pace."
Buddhism, a nontheist practice, is easily
accommodated in this system. A Buddhist writer taught that it is
appropriate to address an opponent as a future Buddha,
encouraging us to pay high regard to fellow humans and appreciate
every individual's potential. There is an obvious benefit in this
gem. Instead of
morbid preoccupation with a self-limiting "fallen state," the
future-Buddha view conveys a positive image of the human
position. It is fundamental that
we go where we look. Let us pursue enlightenment, not mercy.
We shed the limitations whenever we decide to learn, and it is
unacceptable to surmise that very few humans will advance to
Hopefully, atheism omits defining
which God does not exist. It is simpler to choose "none of
the above" without creating a new dogma called "none."
Ernstraudian theory dissolves the categorical distinctions by
starting at the self and projecting forward. Sentient
beings with vision do not deny their own existence. Their
next step is to acknowledge their potential. Simple, isn't
This may be all the
god-related discussion you want to endure. For the courageous,
here is enrichment discussion of the human collective
subconscious and the overlapping of developmental
Consider the human collective
subconscious: People inherently hold before themselves (worship)
an expectation of what they hope to become. This practice is
deeper and more fundamental than mere goal setting. It is an
innate human function that explains the man-made god, an
understanding of divinity limited by how far we project our own
futures. The mirror image or inverse statement is that God made
man. Ernstraudian philosophy acknowledges and addresses both
Not everything is reversible. An event
cannot un-happen. However, the current metaphors can be read in
either direction, just as some phenomena of physics can be
repeated in either direction, for example, gamma ray in or gamma
ray out. The thought that we create the god who created us is not
entirely circular. It can be viewed from opposite ends.
Regardless where creation began,
we do create our own worlds.
One of my mental games is imagining a
final judgment in which a person is sent to the place that he
describes as heaven. Basically, the system grants people what
they request. The selfish are shortchanged, left far behind those
who have learned being for others. "Your just reward" is not a
happy phrase. We create our own worlds and our own heavens, too,
unskilled though we may be.
The higher orders we are discussing
overlap. Mortals obviously pass on at different stages of
development. Death, reincarnation, resurrection, or progression
is not a process that occurs automatically when one reaches a
prescribed degree of learning. One steps into a personal
"millennium" state or heaven when ready, not when a Messiah
arrives. Buddhism similarly recognizes bodhisattvas who remain
among us although they are prepared for the higher order. Thus,
overlapping orders of development can be found in a given place
Written scriptures raise awareness to a degree, but
Article 22 "Rising above altruism" shows that mortals are not
limited to descriptions found in the Bible. Hopefully, we ascend
above the "fallen state" view of humans by being more enlightened
than those humans to and about whom the Bible was written. As my
vision increases with age, my expectations increase above what
was read to me as a child.
The dynamic heaven of growth is not well
described in ancient writings. In fact, failure to grow is death.
Eternal existence alone does not distinguish us from the material
world. The capacity to grow makes us living creatures. Entering a
state of no growth would be a descent below our present
Ernstraudian theory is a growth model.
Using the building metaphor in
50, each of us is working on a next building to
experience. We play it forward: our present expectations are
foundational to our future creations.
Click here to COMMENT
Subscribe for free gifts to share.
Being For Others Blog copyright © 2020 Kent Busse