Defining the true nature of Godhead

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
Post Reply
David
Newbie Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:53 am
Christian: No
Location: Somerset UK

Defining the true nature of Godhead

Post by David »

This for me is the clearest most logical definition of the nature of Godhead that I have ever come across. It is quoted from Nigel Kerner's recently reprinted book “The Song of The Greys” (Hodder & Stoughton). Kerner defines Godhead and then meticulously accounts for the origins of the physical universe with a rationale that I cannot fault. I have posted this quote on another theology website and have been discussing it at length. But I found that no one really wanted to stray beyond the confines of a biblical definition of God. I'm hoping for a more fruitful discussion on this forum!! So here's the quote:
“Let us assume for the moment that there is an ultimate effect measured and related to in terms of a given point, or special placement. As explained previously, Entropy clearly demonstrates that the Universal momentum relative to any such given axial centre, or point, proceeds in a direction of increasing relative randomness - increasing states of chaos when judged one point to another. This singular directional drift, order to chaos, presents a fundamental principle we all just have to face. The established atomic physicality of the Universe proffers a distinct directive of the break up of order, as well as a continual separation of points judged relatively. The Universe is expanding - planets, stars, galaxies are flying apart from each other relative to each other, everywhere. If we view far enough forward, this, plus the increasing states of chaos, would imply a point of ultimate chaotic subversion, with the separation of points, but it would also imply the reverse in the opposite direction. A singularity - a pole of sheer perfection - a resource at which all absolutes centre. A centre where there is no separation of points, where all points exist in perfect union - harmony - balance, so as to be seen only in the aspect of the WHOLE - or what is affirmed conceptually as the ALL TOGETHER - the ALL.

The first and most important characteristic that must be realised from our three dimensional atom-made "point of view" is that this ultimate polarity of PERFECTION is outside Space/Time, atoms, etc. It is not "solid", matter based, substantial. It is metaphysical and abstract. So the point of final perfect inheritance of all Existence may be, in fact, expressed in terms of that other wonder at the centre of our own existence - 'THOUGHTNESS'..... An implied coincidence on the face of it, but one that holds the final clue to understanding the Universe and men. Since the polarity of perfection is metaphysical, it is abstract, outside Space/Time and atoms, its nature is therefore outside the scope of a matter-based separation set organism - Us - to investigate empirically. Further, all its effects, qualities, characteristics, would be out of the context of our mind to imagine, abstract, not substantially referenced in our terms of reality. What could, therefore, imply the nature of this final state in terms of such abstraction from our substance based point of view? We have to remember it is a state of perfect balance, such that ALL is in potential to BE, or not to BE. I have for the sake of argument, called this "effect" GODNESS. When all characteristics that might be ascribed to what is OVERALL are considered, what BASIC COMMON DENOMINATORS will emerge? Let's consider what they might be.

Since GODHEAD, as we have defined the phenomenon, is a state of absolute balance where all elements, qualities, characteristics, only exist as potentials, (because they are reconciled without contradiction in absolute totality) a change or move away from this state of ultimate reconciliation would imply that WILL is present to make the decision for this change, and that it is absolutely free, because nothing obliges it NOT to make this change within the perfection of absolutes, as an absolute itself. That movement would further imply that the potential SCOPE for the change had to exist and that this scope, if fulfilled, would provide an absolute difference to ultimate perfect union, (i.e. separation into parts).

As I have said, in such an absolute and final disposition, all factors, elements, must have no actual reality - they would have to be pure POTENTIALITY. A nothingness of pure potential to be actual. Further - this ultimate polarity of Perfection can only be an implied singularity, intrinsically, because it has no actual existence, as such. It can only be viewed away from itself, as such and known as such away from itself. In order that it may be viewed as this, there must be somewhere, something else, that it may be viewed from. And here lies the crucial clue to overall existential design. PERFECTION and IMPERFECTION have to exist together in an eternal continuum of reference, to be such as they are!

There must be, in other words, a facility an accommodation, for what is absolute in FREE WILL to allow for existence in separation. There must be "scope", so to speak, for CHAOS if there is UNION. There must be scope for the separation of elements, points, to exist. If there is scope for the absolute union of elements as the OVERALL, then the OVERALL must include as part of its empirical make-up - so to speak - the ONE part. This facility for separation of points to exist, this accommodation, in our three dimensional universal terms, is what we call SPACE/TIME.”
Post Reply