God

[jbseth]

Hi All,

I've created this topic so that we, the members of this forum, can share with the rest of us, our thoughts, ideas, and issues about God.



For me, when I say something about God, I'm typically referring to what Seth call's, All That Is.  I typically use the term God, instead of All That Is, because it's just much easier to write.  I've contemplated using the term acronym ATI instead, but this term may confuse members who are fairly new to Seth's ideas.


I'm aware that for many people, when they think of God, they are either thinking about the Hebrew / Old Testament wrathful, angry and vengeful idea of God, or the Christian concept of God. In some cases, they may also be thinking about the Islamic concept of Allah.

However, I'm also aware that in the world, there are in fact very many different beliefs about God. The beliefs about God in the Hindu religion, for example is much different than the beliefs of the God of the major Western (Hebrew / Christian / Islamic) Religions. In the Hindu religion, their version of God is often described via its various aspects, such as Brahma, the Creator, Vishnu, the Sustainer and Shiva, the Destroyer. Furthermore, in Hinduism the gender of God is sometimes visualized as being male, Krishna, a God, or female, Lakshmi, a Goddess. This is much different than the major Western Religions, where the gender of God is always considered a male.

Then there's the beliefs about God and deities of the many native religions (the aborigine's, the voodoo religion of Haiti, the druids, the Celts, etc.). These are all somewhat different from each other.

To me, the bottom line here is this, all of these various ideas and beliefs about God, are just that. They are peoples "beliefs" about God.

Now, since many of these beliefs don't agree with each other, then at least some of them must not be true. Thus, the question we're all faced with is this, how do we decide which ones, if any, are true.

For me, I come to the conclusion that what Seth tells us about All That Is, is probably a belief that is closer to the truth about God than any of these other "beliefs". That's where I'm at.


jbseth

[Sena]

jbseth, thanks for starting this topic. Seth did have a lot to say about God:

"The Hebrews conceived of an overseer god, an angry and just and sometimes cruel god; and many sects denied, then, the idea that other living beings beside man possessed inner spirits. The earlier beliefs represented a far better representation of inner reality, in which man, observing nature, let nature speak and reveal its secrets.

(9:45.) The Hebrew god, however, represented a projection of a far different kind. Man was growing more and more aware of the ego, of a sense of power over nature, and many of the later miracles are presented in such a way that nature is forced to behave differently than in its usual mode. God becomes man's ally against nature.

The early Hebrew god became a symbol of man's unleashed ego. God behaved exactly as an enraged child would, had he those powers, sending thunder and lightning and fire against his enemies, destroying them. Man's emerging ego therefore brought forth emotional and psychological problems and challenges. The sense of separation from nature grew. Nature became a tool to use against others.

Sometime before the emergence of the Hebrew god these tendencies were apparent. In many ancient, now-forgotten tribal religions, recourse was also made to the gods to turn nature against the enemy. Before this time, however, man felt a part of nature, not separated from it. It was regarded as an extension of his being, as he felt an extension of its reality. One cannot use oneself as a weapon against oneself in those terms. (Pause.)

[... 5 paragraphs ...]

Now: At this point, the god inside became the god outside.

[... 5 paragraphs ...]

(10:24.) God, therefore, became an idea projected outward, independent of the individual, divorced from nature. He became the reflection of man's emerging ego, with all of its brilliance, savagery, power, and intent for mastery. The adventure was a highly creative one despite the obvious disadvantages, and represented an "evolution" of consciousness that enriched man's subjective experience, and indeed added to the dimensions of reality itself.

To be effectively organized, however, inner and outer experience had to appear as separate, disconnected events. Historically the characteristics of God changed as man's ego changed. These characteristics of the ego, however, were supported by strong inner changes.

[... 6 paragraphs ...]

The ego feared for its position, frightened that it would dissolve back into the inner self from which it came. Yet in its emergence it provided the inner self with a new kind of feedback, a different view not only of itself; but through this, the inner self was able to glimpse possibilities of development of which it had not previously been aware. In your terms, by the time of Christ, the ego was sure enough of its position so that the projected picture of God could begin to change."

—Seth Speaks Chapter 21: Session 587, July 28, 1971

"God knows itself through the flesh."
—The Unknown reality Vol.2 Appendix 15: (For Session 710)

"There is what you may call a god, but hardly in terms of which you can conceive. Using your terms, you are indeed a part of this god. You are indeed infinite. You have immediate, instant personal (underlined) connection with this god, using your terms. You are directly connected to this god. You cannot be disconnected because this god is what you are made of.

[... 1 paragraph ...]

Now: This is a personal god, in your terms. It is a personal god because this god represents the part of that which is, which is yourself, you see. No one else can speak to this particular portion of this god. You are your own entity. The part of you that is formed from All That Is, is this god; is aware of all your needs because god is also, in this respect, yourself. Though hardly the self that you will recognize in a mirror."

—TES7 Session 305 November 30, 1966

[Sena]

"This (precognitive ability) steers the cell through mazes of probabilities, while allowing it to retain knowledge of its own greatest fulfillment — the idea of itself, which is always alive in any given period of your time. On a different kind of scale, then, each individual has the same sort of idealized version of the self, and so does each species. Here I mean each species, and I am not simply referring to mankind. Obviously these are not apparent to the physical senses, yet they are strong energy centers that to some degree do stimulate the physical senses toward activity. To that degree, then, there are indeed "tree gods," gods of the forest, and "gods of being" connected with each person.

[... 8 paragraphs ...]

(Pause.) Because you are people, you personify what you perceive — "peopleize" it. You imagine such "spirits" to be small people, endowed with your own kind of characteristics. Instead there are simply species of consciousness, entirely different from your own, not usually perceived physically under most conditions. They are indeed connected with flora and fauna, but also with the animals and yourselves, and they are the "earth gods" that Ruburt imagined as a young person.

You each have your own earth god. The term may not be the best, but it is meant to express that portion of you that is as yet unexpressed in your terms — the idealized earth version of yourself, which you are becoming. The idealized earth version is not meant to mean a perfect self in flesh at all; instead, it represents a psychic reality in which your own abilities fulfill themselves in relationship with your earthly environment to the fullest extent possible, within the time and place you have already chosen.

That earth-god portion of yourself attempts to direct you through probabilities. Again, on deep biological levels beneath normal consciousness, and on psychic levels above normal consciousness, you are aware of the integrity of your being — but also of your great connection, while living in flesh, with the natural environment of time and space. The earth-god concept can be consciously used, but only to your greatest advantage if you understand the purposes of your conscious mind and its relationship with your biological nature."

—The Unknown Reality Vol.1 Section 2: Session 691 March 25, 1974

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi All,

Yes, Seth did say quite a bit about God. He also said the following in "Seth Speaks", Chapter 14, Session 560; where he seems to be equating God with All That Is.

Now: God is more than the sum of all the probable systems of reality he has created, and yet he is within each one of these, without exception. He is therefore within each man and woman. He is also within each spider, shadow, and frog, and this is what man does not like to admit.

God can only be experienced, and you experience him whether or not you realize it, through your own existence. He is not male or female, however, and I use the terms only for convenience's sake. In the most inescapable truth, he is not human in your terms at all, nor in your terms is he a personality. Your ideas of personality are too limited to contain the multitudinous facets of his multidimensional existence.

(10:55.) On the other hand, he is human, in that he is a portion of each individual; and within the vastness of his experience he holds an "idea-shape" of himself as human, to which you can relate.  He literally was made flesh to dwell among you, for he forms your flesh in that he is responsible for the energy that gives vitality and validity to your private multidimensional self, which in turn forms your image in accordance with your own ideas.

This private multidimensional self, or the soul, has then an eternal validity. It is upheld, supported, maintained by the energy, the inconceivable vitality, of All That Is.

jbseth

[Sena]

God can only be experienced, and you experience him whether or not you realize it, through your own existence.

jbseth,
This is significantly different from Christian theology, which maintains that we have to rely on "revelation" to know the nature of God.

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi All,

Yeah Sena, I completely agree.

Oddly enough, I would also say that from a Seth standpoint, the Christians were sort of right, but probably don't realize it. From a Seth standpoint, I would say that revelation occurs as a result of communication with the inner self and the inner senses.  I would also say that, as Seth explains it, an understanding of the inner self and the entity, does give us some limited insight into the nature of All That Is. 

I really, really, liked your Reply #2 Seth quote from "The Unknown Reality", Vol.1 Section 2: Session 691 March 25, 1974.  I would say that the concepts that Seth gives us in this quote is very much not like any Christian Theology.

jbseth

[Deb]

I've created this topic so that we, the members of this forum, can share with the rest of us, our thoughts, ideas, and issues about God.

Sorry I've been out of the loop, didn't want to let this topic get completely away from me, but...

Seth sure DID have a lot to say about God/ATI. Just my search on "god energy" brought up 222 responses on the search engine, too much for me to read. I'm just putting a few down here, there may be some crossover with what's above.

Thanks for doing this! At this point in my life, I still have trouble with the word God because of my early Catholic upbringing. I try to overlook the word, but it but I still get a twinge of a combination of anger, dismay, guilt and frustration. For now on I'm going to (in my mind) call him Peg. Explanation at the bottom.

My god concept is now that it's simply the root or source of all consciousness. Sort of like a central broadcasting station. I'd probably have better words than that if I had an education in electronics.

"But, you see, even this overall pyramid gestalt is not static. All or most concepts of a god deal with a static god and herein lies the main theological difficulties. The awareness and experience of this overall gestalt constantly change and grow. Again, there is no static god. When you say, "This is God", then God is already something else. I am using the term God for simplicity's sake."
—TES7 Session 311 January 11,1967

"While there is a portion of All That Is, that is aware of itself as you, for example, a portion that is indeed focused within your existence, whose energy is directed within you, and to whom you can call for help when necessary, there is also an overall god-personality that is aware of itself also as something that is more than the sum of its creations. This is All That Is, in the deepest sense."
—TES7 Session 311 January 11,1967

To me God is just a label man created, and man's mind has forever tried to give the concept of god a shape that it could relate to in our quest to understand our place in all of creation. Seth: "god myth" and "It would never have occurred to you to imagine a god in any other than human terms" and "If you will try to accept the idea that your own existence is multidimensional, that you dwell within the medium of infinite probabilities, then you may catch a slight glimpse of the reality that is behind the word "god," and you may understand why it is almost impossible to capture a true understanding of that concept in words."
(from SS Sess. 560)

(Pause.) Because you are people, you personify what you perceive — "peopleize" it.

"This is known, that man forms his god in his own image."
—TES3 Session 96 October 12, 1964

"What you call God is the sum of all consciousness and yet the whole is more than the sum of its parts."
—TECS1 ESP Class Session, March 12, 1968

"We shall have a session dealing almost entirely with the nature of energy gestalts, and you will see that while these pyramid energy gestalts do, on the one hand, achieve a unitary character and sublime intelligence, on the other hand they form only an approximation of humanity's concept of a God. This unitary gestalt which we may call, and I prefer it to the word God, the primary energy gestalt.

"This primary energy gestalt may be thought of as straddling all realities, or existing in the infinite realities of which we have spoken. Yet in this prime gestalt that is unitary, there is again an infinite diversity and literally numberless personalities. Nor are these personalities that compose the prime psychic gestalt dependent or submissive to any one dominating personality within the gestalt."
—TES3 Session 96 October 12, 1964

"Many of the old ideas of precivilization come closer to anything near the truth. What you prefer to think of as God is basically and above all, indeed as I have said, an infinite energy gestalt: or pyramid consciousness."
—TES7 Session 311 January 11,1967

Sounds like what we think of as god is the ultimate oversoul—a Primary Energy Gestalt. Maybe we all should say PEG rather than GOD or ATI.

You each have your own earth god. The term may not be the best, but it is meant to express that portion of you that is as yet unexpressed in your terms — the idealized earth version of yourself, which you are becoming. The idealized earth version is not meant to mean a perfect self in flesh at all; instead, it represents a psychic reality in which your own abilities fulfill themselves in relationship with your earthly environment to the fullest extent possible, within the time and place you have already chosen.

I LOVE this, there is something so soothing and reassuring about it. Not meant to be perfect. That's not the message I grew up with and I'm still trying to overcome that.

[jbseth]

Hi Deb, Hi All,

I would agree that the word "God", just like the word "apple" is a label created by man.  However, some words can and do bring up very powerful emotional feelings for people. Often, it is the emotional feelings behind the words themselves that are really important.

For example, typically I would say that words like, "fence" and "sidewalk" are rather emotionally neutral. On the other hand, words like, "racism" and "sexual abuse" are definitely not. 

To me, the word God, while not completely emotionally neutral, doesn't bring up a lot of major negative feelings. However, I also get, that for some people, this is not the case.

It seems to me that there are several people here, in this forum, who probably experience very powerful negative emotional feelings behind this word, and so I would be OK with using the term ATI instead.

It's not that I don't like your term PEG; actually, I like it much better than ATI, it's just that I think that new members of this forum, who are fairly new to Seth's ideas, will probably have less confusion over the term ATI, than they might with the term PEG.

jbseth