An argument for not calling god by that name.

[martins name]

As Leo has talked about, Muslims are not allowed to draw pictures of god, originally because god can't be symbolized. 
I think calling it god, rather than, for example, pure presence, is making that same mistake, because, the word god is creating an unnecessary layer of abstraction/symbolization that people will hang attributes on, which is counterproductive for not-knowing.
I think that that layer of abstraction is only meant for stage blue people so they can put the concept of god at the top of their moral hierarchies. Our culture is beyond stage blue now so there is no need for it anymore.

It's also off-putting for outsiders and potential newcomers who think we are talking about a pre-rational god. 

[Nahm]

@martins name Met God yet?

[martins name]

Yes

[martins name]

Calling it god is flashy for the ego but counter productive on the cushion imo @Nahm

[Leo Gura]

Calling it presence is extremely deceptive though.

Everyone thinks they have presence so they don't think they're missing anything.

Whereas with God, it's clear to most people that they are missing an experience of God.

Take someone like Sam Harris. He has meditated for years, he even has some degree of awakening to no-self, and he would readily agree with you about presence, but he is not conscious of what God is.

Presence or awareness are way too neutral of terms. These terms actually make many Buddhists believe there is no God.

[martins name]

@Leo Gura You could call it pure consciousness, Truth, pure Being, Infinity or ultimate reality instead, presence is just a suggestion. God brings with it too much blue bagage.

[Leo Gura]

@martins name I do it call it those things, but that still does not communicate the significance of there being a God!

[Shin]

14 minutes ago, martins name said:

@Leo Gura You could call it pure consciousness, Truth, pure Being, Infinity or ultimate reality instead, presence is just a suggestion. God brings with it too much blue bagage.

If you have the experience for even just one second, it's the perfect word ?

[martins name]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

does not communicate the significance of there being a God!

That is playing with the pre-existing blue bagage. The pre-rational conceptualization of god should be separated from the new trans-rational understanding of god imo.

It doens't help people understand what it is, as its a bad pointer.

Peter Ralston never uses "god", to my knowledge, for that reason i think.

[martins name]

2 minutes ago, Shin said:

it's the perfect word

But not as a pointer for people who have never had the experience. And i don't agree bdw. I think the less is said about it the better.

[Highest]

The totally formless self-aware Consciousness is infinite, can manifest/take the form of any reality it wants aka is omnipotent. What do you call such a thing? Simply it is God. It's an appropriate word. You can become conscious that it is GOD, it can be cognized, made aware of.

[Shin]

18 minutes ago, martins name said:

But not as a pointer for people who have never had the experience. And i don't agree bdw. I think the less is said about it the better.

 

[Nahm]

2 hours ago, martins name said:

Calling it god is flashy for the ego but counter productive on the cushion imo @Nahm

Says the ego. 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, martins name said:

Peter Ralston never uses "god", to my knowledge, for that reason i think.

And thereby his work is deceptive.

He doesn't use the word God outwardly because he has a tight-lipped and sober style.

He's fully of aware of God though. He just withholds that from you.

[Shadowraix]

It doesn't matter what you call it. It's bologne to anybody who doesn't understand what you are pointing to. If you say anything other than God you'll get bunched up with being compared to new age bs or some other strawman. 

[Shadowraix]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

And thereby his work is deceptive.

Any word is somewhat deceptive in of itself. Because we try to create a mutual consensus of word meanings but it's really not. It's all relative. That's why we always have to explain what we mean to match meanings up. Buddhists may say there is no God but what do they mean by God? May not be the same thing as the meaning you use. 

[Joseph Maynor]

I like the word being myself.  But then I don't put any Metaphysical jibber-jabber constraints on being either.  it's just being.  It is what it is and it doesn't really benefit from linguistic description.

Edited February 17, 2019 by Joseph Maynor

[Truth Addict]

God is the perfect word.

Because it's really Wow!

It's like how come I couldn't see It before? Oh my God! Amazing! Hallelujah!

God implies (Infinite Intelligence + Infinite Love + Infinite Beauty) = Absolute Infinity.

[Forestluv]

@martins name A higher truth shouldn’t conceed to a lower falsehood.

Recently, it’s been determined that Pluto does not qualify as a planet. We didn’t change the meaning of the term “planet” so pluto would now qualify as a planet. And we didn’t give pluto a new name so people could keep calling pluto a planet. Rather the truth was told: pluto is not a planet. Deal with it. Similarly, God is not some old bearded man in the sky. Deal with it. 

We update terms to reflect higher understanding and truth. Conceeding language to irrational nonsensense merely perpetuates falsehoods. 

Updating the term God to point to a higher truth is precisely what is needed for people to face their belief in an irrational idea of god. It’s the most direct approach. 

[SgtPepper]

Use whatever word you like. The only thing I said when I realized God is "Oh my God, oh my God" with my jaw open, acknowledging the extent of this realization.