Holy Worlds Christian Forum
https://archive.holyworlds.org/

The Is and the Is Not.
https://archive.holyworlds.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=6760		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Turtleman [ July 31st, 2012, 5:53 pm ]
Post subject:  The Is and the Is Not.
You know in Exodus when God calls himself "I am" after reading this statement I got to thinking. What if God IS existence. I know what you're thinking, What? Here, think of it like this. Their are two "Places" The Is and the Is Not. They are both Infinite and there is this sort of grey area in between them. God is the consciousness of the Is where things that do Exist "Are", while the Is Not does not have a consciousness because it is the place where things that don't exist "Are". Cosmological I like to think of it like this. There is a massive glowing sphere (The IS) in the middle of a infinite Darkness (the Is Not.) The Is can be as big as God desires.

So what does this mean? It means that God (the Is) has drawn everything in the "Multi-Vurse" From the Is Not into himself the Is. Most worlds exist in the grey an area in-between the Is and the Is Not. These are "Fallen Worlds" Worlds that have Sin. Notably worlds closer to the Is have more "possibilities" (F.T.L., Cobha, Ect.) Make sense? Furthermore Demons exist close to the Is Not and feed off our Is or Souls when we do things that are attuned to the Is Not (A.K.A Sin). I hope I explained that well enough.

So what do you think?
Author:  Neil of Erk [ August 2nd, 2012, 7:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Is and the Is Not.
What you're talking about is very close to a Catholic concept...the name escapes me, but the basic idea is similar.

What I have to say is, close, but not quite, in my opinion.

"I Am" is said because God doesn't have a "was" or a "will-be", he is outside of time (he created it, after all) and experiences everything within time at once. Thus, "I Am" is the ultimate claim of God-hood because only God can claim to be outside of Time.

As for being "drawn in" to God's "Is", the truth is not that we exist within God but rather that we exist within God's Will.

And there couldn't be a grey area. Something either is or is not. Technically, by definition non-existence doesn't actually exist. There is only that which is. Non-existence is a convenient conceptual place-holder.

Even if non-existence actually existed, there wouldn't be something inherently evil about it. Evil is the absence of good, not the absence of matter.
Author:  PlatinumBeetle [ September 5th, 2012, 9:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Is and the Is Not.
Very interesting. This sounds like a good basis for a fantasy cosmology. I would object to your saying that God is existence itself or the consciousness of existence, that is pantheism and not monotheism (which would be more like Hinduism than Christianity), but the explanation you give afterwards seems to show you meant the very scriptural idea that God is the source of existence and the only self-existent thing, and you were just struggling with words - something that I can sympathize with. I also think that there are "shades of grey" when it comes to existence, for example the fictional cosmology we are discussing right now is less real than we are, and we ourselves are less real than God, and absolute nothingness (your "Is Not") is less real than anything because by definition it doesn't exist. Overall this is a very cool idea that could serve all kinds of narrative functions but I think I would change the terminology slightly for greater clarity. The way I see it you need at least four terms (I might add a fifth or sixth...). Here's what you've got so far and some suggested alternative names in parenthesis:

I AM (The Light, the Center) = God, the self-existent one and source of all being.
The Is (The White, the Inner Sphere) = the glorious worlds free from sin.
The Grey (The May Be, the Outer Sphere) = the fallen worlds such as our own
The Is Not (The Black, Outside) = the void of nonexistence

If I were to pursue or develop this idea I might also add a realm closer to God than the Is representing those worlds that are free from even the possibility of sin (the difference being like that between the Eden of Genesis and the New Jerusalem of Revelation) or maybe realms closer to the Is Not than the Grey representing worlds without the possibility of salvation...like Hell. But then these are just thoughts. Oh and I'd like to point out your identification of lesser reality with sin and greater reality with union to God is very similar to how C. S. Lewis presented Heaven and Hell in his fiction, especially The Great Divorce. One question though; if those worlds closer to the "edge" are less real than the ones closer to the "center" than why would they be the ones with less possibilities? What I mean is that the worlds of fantasy and science fiction are full of greater possibilities than the real world, yet the worlds of fiction are manifestly less real than ours... but now I'm confusing myself :D .

Could I please get permission to use this idea? The more I think about it, the more I like it!
Author:  kingjon [ September 6th, 2012, 5:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Is and the Is Not.
Neil of Erk wrote:
What you're talking about is very close to a Catholic concept...the name escapes me, but the basic idea is similar.

What I have to say is, close, but not quite, in my opinion.

"I Am" is said because God doesn't have a "was" or a "will-be", he is outside of time (he created it, after all) and experiences everything within time at once. Thus, "I Am" is the ultimate claim of God-hood because only God can claim to be outside of Time.

Mmm ... Catholics can say something like that because they accept the traditions of the Church (including the Septuagint) as at least nearly as authoritative as Scripture. For Protestants, however, drawing any conclusions from the particular phrasing of the Name which Moses is instructed to convey is far less reasonable, since Hebrew doesn't have a verb "to be" at all, and (from what my dad---who took a course in Hebrew while he was in grad school, and remembers enough to consult the original text and the relevant reference books for OT questions---says) their notions of verb tense don't map at all cleanly to ours. (I've heard of it being translated "I will be who I will be", or even more speculatively "I will be with you.")

Neil of Erk wrote:
As for being "drawn in" to God's "Is", the truth is not that we exist within God but rather that we exist within God's Will.

I've formulated my position on this before as something like: "God exists whether or not we say so; we exist because God says so."

Neil of Erk wrote:
And there couldn't be a grey area. Something either is or is not. Technically, by definition non-existence doesn't actually exist. There is only that which is. Non-existence is a convenient conceptual place-holder.

Well, there's "that which was, but is not" and "that which is not, but may yet come to pass," and the notion of things existing as ideas as orthogonal to their existence as physical objects.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/