View Full Version : What is a god?
What is a god.
Atheists either state that the claims made for gods are not credible and therefore not believable or state outright that such things simply do not exist. But what exactly are we arguing against?
So what is a god? How many have been defined and how do they differ from each other?
Does anyone have a definitive statement that describes the Christian god? If we can establish clearly what we are arguing against then perhaps the arguments will take on new value.
Cris
Generally: "a" god, I think, can be one of many entities or forces. "a" god is personified and worshipped by a people who believe that the given being has supernatural powers or attributes. The personification of a force or entity which is thought to control at least some part of nature or reality.
Monotheistically: God, I think, is that which is believed to be "the" perfect, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent creator of all things. The single supreme agency through which can be explained the phenomena of everything.
Of course, that doesn't help much. A few thoughts on the subject:
* Any number of magickers over the years noted the idea of magickal effects coming from "vibrations" which could influence the physical environment. I give this idea some credit, except that I have yet to vibrate a door open from ten feet away as an act of will without stomping until I beat a hole in the floor. However, the sameness of certain things did not strike me until I had dropped out of college; sameness, that is, in a specific sense.
To this end, one might theorize that a god is a being of human creation; a manifestation of the energies invested in a limited expression of hope. That a billion people believe in a god might, by this approach, make the god real, though its authority would still be earthly, as such. Lysander Spooner pointed out that no body of people can award to a government any powers that the people did not thitherto possess. This is a simple fact of the nature of artifice, as such, and will actually become easier to justify as an assertion when a hole is punched into it. Right now, it's airtight in my opinion; a record of observation more than a theoretic assertion. Likewise, with notions of vibratory force, we might say that the people cannot award the god any powers which they do not possess beforehand. (Let me preempt a Christian-based objection regarding the healings of Jesus: here we get back into fact versus faith; I'm aware that the Bible says Jesus raised the dead, but it's a boast at worst, an a myth at best until such a resurrection can be demonstrated. Thus, when the people of Christendom, by the vibratory notion, lend enough energy to their god to make it real, they might invest in it the idea of resurrectory power, but they cannot, as noted, demonstrate it as yet, except as an article of faith.
* A god can be a psychological quirk. Here I find myself among my theistic forte. Many at Exosci are familiar with my theistic self-classification. I am comfortable with this, though I'll be damned if I can describe its figurehead in any exact terms. Suffice to say that my goddess is well-known as a psychological device; she only visits when I'm tired and alone; she always speaks in my vernacular, and so forth. She writes no laws but those which are self-evident in nature, and claims no authority over my eternal soul. The point of it is that I'm well aware that this goddess is a creation of my own, though the philosophy that led me to her accepts this in its own right. But, to be honest, the world simply looks a lot nicer, and feels nicer, when I see clouds dancing instead of swirling according to this or that formula. I have much use for the formulae, but my world is largely aesthetic. Thus, the larger part of my worldly perception has to do with the relationship 'twixt things. My goddess is very nearly a drug, inviting a specific state of mind and therefore a specific electrochemical condition. Music is music. Some of it sounds nice, some of it sucks. Some of it taps something beyond my perception, and there's where the goddess kicks in, giving me a template by which I might assimilate what I perceive until such time as the more rational aspect of my person chooses to engage the objective sense of the music. But it is not the Almighty delivering good rhythm; it is merely a parlor trick to make the world sweeter--after all, a spoonful of sugar ....
* I'm a fan of the classic, "God is that than which nothing greater in the Universe can be conceived." I interpret this to mean God=everything. In this sense, the "Universe" becomes the event and arena itself. God becomes the subjective mystery of the whole Universe. From this sense, I can even make heads and tails of the most part of Christianity, but like most of my interpretational methods, such ideas usually are met with resistance to the point of hostility. On a few occasions I have written that oneness with God equals human perpetuity in the Universe, so that we might witness "the end" as such. The more we learn about the Universe, the more we learn about God ... this is an approach which dominates much of my religous waxings at Exosci.
* One negation: God is not a paradox. It's a nice claim, though, that God can be a number of fundamentally contradictory things. However, this is the sacrifice of the intellect. To meet the necessary demands of God's existence according to Alpha/Omega templates, we might consider Roger Waters: Time is linear, memory's a stranger, history's for fools, and man is a tool in the hands of the Great God Almighty. Time becomes a fiction without a beginning or an end. Without time there is no change, and we could not even perceive the illusion of change or growth; even perception requires the passing of time. Thus: What came before the Big Bang? Stay tuned, the answer is coming one of these days. Thus: What came before God? One cannot avoid this question without rendering time itself a fancy of arrogance. God cannot be timeless or eternal; much like the people, God cannot invest in his creations something that he is not. As far as paradoxical impossibilities go, much of that problem is the perception of the human. Certain words we use to describe processes have specific definitions. The Christian Bible asserts that nothing is impossible with God; yet the Catholic Encyclopedia makes a wonderful point to consider: it is impossible for God to make a square circle because the words mean two different things. A circle cannot be a square by its fundamental nature. A square cannot be a circle for the same reasons. God has not failed to make a square circle; god has merely operated according to the nature of things.
Enough ... for a question to which I have no answer, I have certainly spent a few words. Call it two cents, and we'll see what happens from there.
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
With respect to time, the Big Bang theory and universe:
If I remember correctly, according to the theory, time did not exist during singularity (pre-bang) and the resulting universe which is the subject of study is actually a mini-verse known as "our" universe or the "observable" universe. As expansive as our universe is, being a fan of the "boundless" universe of everything, I have a difficult time discounting the great "beyond".
For all I know, I could just be part of some free-radical floating around in some unknown creature's body. ;)
God = everything = the boundless universe. A variation of sorts.
Originally posted by mirror
For all I know, I could just be part of some free-radical floating around in some unknown creature's body. ;)
God = everything = the boundless universe. A variation of sorts.
If you're going to ask what god is, you might as well ask what god does (or did). For me, the notion of 'god' encapsulates "the being that created the unvierse". This can involve a pantheon rather than an individual, but creation is involved.
I believe in the big bang. I also believe that we'll most likely never know what caused that big bang; it's outside the realm of physics. Could we be a free radical, inhabiting the colon of some mysterious extrauniversal being? Quite possibly. Equally, there could be nothing outside the universe. It's also possible that we're a science experiment, and that our universe was indeed created in seven days, albeit by a being who can have no contact with its creation.
So: if a god created the universe, it doesn't matter. He'll never affect us (again), and we'll never affect him.
If God is the boundless universe which created our mini-verse then we exist with God - through God, with God and in God.
Originally posted by mirror
If God is the boundless universe which created our mini-verse then we exist with God - through God, with God and in God. And if god is a mug of coffee, I may just have drunk him.
And your colon may now contain all the ingredients necessary for us to be able to witness a big bang in our lifetime.
Originally posted by mirror
And your colon may now contain all the ingredients necessary for us to be able to witness a big bang in our lifetime. Talk about pressure... okay, I'll see what I can do.
Have faith and/or let nature take its course.
some_guy01
05-11-01, 10:48 PM
I think gods or god was created through the human mind in order to simplify life and explain the unexplainable. Ancient civilizations had many gods because they had little understanding of what was happening in nature around them. An example could be weather patterns. Several cultures thought that seasonal storms were punishments from gods for not doing what ever they were suppossed to do. In today's society god is pretty much a way of explaining things we do not understand yet and thats the way it has been and probably will continue to be.
Would you like an Amen or a Hallelujah for that apt summation? And no, sir, I'm not being sarcastic. Welcome to Exosci; we look forward to your insights.
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
some_guy01
05-12-01, 12:42 AM
neither, just a simple nod and understanding of what I was saying, by the way thanks for the welcome, you seem to be a connoisseur yourself at this debate thing.
Lyndale,
God is.
You have very nicely shown, not just by these words alone, but more by the underlying sentiment and assumption, everything that atheists find objectionable. You have epitomized the fundamental theist attitude of the classic unashamed unsupported assertion.
But even though there are only two words we can derive multiple meanings and interpretations.
Does “God is” mean that a god simply exists and he is an object independent of us that we may question and examine? Or does “God is” mean that this entity represents everything that there is including us, a whole, the entire ‘everything’, an essential “is-ness”? Or is the phrase perhaps simply an unfinished sentence where at sometime in the future a rational explanation might appear, e.g. God is …x…? Or does it mean something else?
But worst is the underlying assumption that this thing exists and is unquestionable and needs no explanation, an arrogant insistence that this concept is obvious and only the stupid would dare to raise questions.
But does the phrase “God is” tell us anything factual, or help us understand more of the nature of this concept we call god? No it explains nothing except to reveal an attitude held by some that undermines the foundations on which humanity has based its survival and progress: rational thought and human ingenuity.
Cris
Lyndale,
Don’t take my comments as a personal attack on you although I can see how they could be interpreted that way. It is not you I am attacking but the religious principles, thoughts, and ideas that you quote.
I hold no hatred for anyone but I have no respect for any religion, especially Christianity. Religions represent a danger to the survival of humanity and I hold the right to defend myself to the bitter end. Christianity maintains that it is the afterlife and God that are the real objectives for humans and that this physical life is just temporary. In other words physical death represents a gateway to heaven. This promotes a fatalistic attitude in people that discourages them from making greater efforts while they are alive to improve the prospects of humanity. They would say, “What is the point of making an effort, we are just here waiting to eventually meet God, nothing else matters”.
We have seen significant evidence that Christianity has persecuted scientists throughout the ages, which must certainly have discouraged other potential scientists from useful research. Christianity has effectively and seriously stifled human progress. Progress that might have enabled us to have more cures for the dreadful deceases that we still have in the world, and for which I might one day have to endure and perhaps die.
But to this day no one can show that the supernatural exists and no one can show that a god or any gods exist. Christians live in a false world of fictional fantasies with no substance to support their irrational faith. Yet the distraction of people away from rational thought and science is significantly detrimental to the whole of humanity.
It is for these basic reasons that I see Christianity as one of the greatest evils ever to face humanity. And I wholeheartedly seek its downfall and destruction.
Cris
what i like to now is,who gave the word god?what does this mean?where do we fit in?
well i personally think there is some devine being,not in body form,but some sort of energy,immense power thats everywhere,all around us,we crave for knowledge,but unfortunately our brains just cant cope with the knowing,perhaps our desendants will have the answer.
So many questions, so few answers. All that has changed is that over the ages, thanks to our enhanced senses (ex. microscopes and telescopes), the old answers very often are shown to be in error or incomplete. The new `answers' very often prove to be just as in error or incomplete. Does it make any difference that `God' and `Science' are attempts at answers? The only difference as far as I can see is that there has never been a war, never been killing (I hope), because someone does not agree with my `Science'.
"There are things that are known and things that are unknown; in between is exploration." Anonymous
good reply,u hit the nail on the head
cya rich68
rlpete2
05-30-01, 01:26 AM
It's easy to understand the need to create gods, when you reflect on people's reaction to misfortunes today. "How could this happen?" "Someone's going to pay for this (crime or accident)!" It seems to be in the human charactar to assume intent behind dramatic events, to assess blame. We're not comfortable with explanation that "stuff" happens, although a slogan expressing a thought something like that was popular a few years back. If there is a God, I'm convinced it is not defined adequately by any creed; no religion has it right. Perhaps he/she/it exists in the seven(?) dimensions we theorize but can't observe. But the faith of a particular group will, at least at one time, have answered a social and psychological need. And each of us is apt to find or develop the god we need for our own view of ourself and the world. Therefor there will be no consensus as to the nature of God.
BrainDrain
05-30-01, 05:12 PM
Religion and faith answer a fundamental need in the human psyche: self-worth. Under religion, you are the creation of a perfect God, and "he" considers you his son/daughter. Without a God, there is no point to your existence ... no fundamental reason for you to be here, and your death will only be the destruction of a insignificant speck of dust in an ever-expanding universe. Religion says that after this hard life, you'll get to live in a perfect place without all of the hate and misery of this world. It's a nice dream. I wish I could believe it.
Dark Quasar
06-04-01, 11:04 AM
No one of usual people can be sure about this. But I think, that the more someone studies Nature, the more he get to know about God.
its all very well learning nature/science and then feeling this overwelming need to be close to god,or better understanding of god,the thing is why do we need to think there must be a god,just because every thing is perfectly put together!or is it the fact that people cant except that it was a freak of nature,i for one think once your number is up,thats your lot,after all i didnt remember coming into this world,and im pretty sure i wont remember leaving it either.pennys for your thoughts
Dark Quasar,
Firstly a very warm welcome to you there in Moscow.
Originally posted by Dark Quasar
No one of usual people can be sure about this. But I think, that the more someone studies Nature, the more he get to know about God.
Well now I guess this view depends very much on how you see nature. We can view nature as anything or any event that is natural, or is not man made or caused.
So here are a few examples –
UV radiation from the sun tends to cause skin cancer and kill people.
Earthquakes tend to kill people.
Volcanic eruptions tend to kill people.
Tornadoes tend to cause destruction and kill people.
Lightning tends to kill people.
Mosquitoes spread diseases that kill people.
Bacterial infections without man made treatment kill people.
The more one learns about nature the more one realizes that the natural environment is an incredibly dangerous and hostile place. Is this the God you mean, the one that causes random death and destruction?
Cris
But I think, that the more someone studies Nature, the more he get to know about God.I'm curious of your opinion regarding the reverse; that is, whether the more one studies of God, the more one learns of Nature. It is to me quite strange that the most authoritative religions in history have had difficulty demonstrating this. It seems that among tribal and shamanistic religions, nature is [the] god(s). In this sense, what one learns about the world cannot, as such, contradict God. Among primitive cultures acting under anthropogenic assumptions, a god can change his mind, a benefit of such interactive fancy. The modern versions of the religions of Abraham are curious in this sense, too. At one time, the Muslim empires led the world in literacy, commerce, and even science. Indeed, even today, Sufism takes what new knowledge it crosses and writes it up as a process of the One God and therefore something to think about. The unscientific nature of jihad-Islam arises from its fundamentalist nature; there is reasonable argument that the modern fundamentalist movement of Islam gained force with each purging of intelligentsia, such as is seen under the reigns of Kemal Ataturk and Ruollah Khomeni. A culture with seemingly reduced critical thinking skills has no need for science, except perhaps the practical chemistry to blow up one's neighbor. I can't say that I've ever heard of conflicts 'twixt Judaism and scientific discovery. As I've mentioned in my more political rants, I can't recall ever voting down a Judaic-sponsored censorship initiative. But Christianity ... I tip my hat to the Catholics in the sense that the Pope apologized for the bit with scientists those few centuries back. However, there seems to be a resistance to certain sciences that extends beyond the fundamentalist movement of Christianity. Whether anti-evolutionary, anti-education, or even anti-life, Christianity seems to foster in its adherents a general malaise of divsiveness that often manifests itself in the information exchange. (It should be noted here that at least one fair-sized Christian sect flourishing in the modern day bears, in its history, serious congregational convulsions regarding the propriety of bicycles; this story itself is a different difficulty with the information exchange, but ....)
It seems that if we look at certain religions--certain ideas of God--we become focused utterly on the figurehead. Ideas of God prevail, and often cinch tight without the resistance of instinctive doubt. Thus the practicality of a diverse society is subject to the moral scrutiny of a single god; thus superstition inspires scientific "discoveries" that are not, necessarily possible. (e.g.--A Christian archaeologist claims to have found Noah's Ark, I believe, in Turkey. This is well and fine except for the notion that the flood involved in the placement of this apparent boat appears to have been local, as in not covering the world; thus, the "discovery" means nothing to a good deal of literalist, fundmentalist Christians. What happens, then, when such objections push aside evidence of Biblical veracity because that veracity is not manifest according to traditional literalism?)
If one focuses on a god, will they necessarily learn nature? This is one of the curious aspects of gods that I've noticed. There are gods which seem so wholly removed from observable nature as to have nothing to do with it. Depending on which sect of faith you ask, the Christian god can be exceptionally antiseptic: miracles simply happen ... never mind that Bob over there got an infinispectromatomic measurement of that angel in the sky. To the other, there are versions of God that are vulgar and common and akin to human spirits.
Even if it's just a holy monotone: This is my Gogli, which took two and a half nanoseconds to design and implement on the very scale and density at which you observe it ..., it would be something.
I agree that to study nature is to study God. But I wonder if one learns nature by studying God. I don't think so, and I wonder at the reasons.
Welcome to Sciforums, DQ ... thank you for making sure my brain got some exercise tonight.
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
In the book <u>Contact</u>, there was a kinda weird god that was part of nature.
Somehow he implemented a message into pi, like the 200 billionth billionth digit started a perfect circle in 11 base math.
I think, that the more someone studies Nature, the more he get to know about God.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From my own experience DQ, I have to say that my only feeling is that the more I learn of Nature, the more in awe I am of the infinite variety of life on this unique and lonely planet. The god-thing doesn't enter into it in the least.
Dark Quasar
06-06-01, 05:15 PM
I didn't expect that. You don't understand what i mean, maybe because i have no habit to write so large messages, putting all my thoughts into multi-page works, so it's my fault. I'll try to explain (what is really hard to do, because i really want to sleep, but can't not to explain what i think).
Here i can see some strange assotiation: Nature..... - is disaster. I think this is wrong.
Studying Nature, for me, is studiyng it's principles and laws. These may be physical, biological, psychological and other laws, that helps human to understand Universe structure. The more i got to know about them, the more i was thinking about Universe was developed, but not just accidentally created from the waste.
And Whoever did this, i think He is God. And He is VERY intelligent. If we think in criterions of modern [pseudo-science], spreading everywhere in our world by [pseudo-scientists], then we are - just NO MORE THAN walking billions of chemical reactions.
And... i NEVER unite God and religion (+ Bible, bearded cloud-sitting old guy that intervents into our lives, and so on).
I have more to say, but it's very late. 2:11! Glad to be participial to this forum, but i think i gotta go sleep. Bye everyone!
P.S.: Sorry for my typos etc., i just have no more powers to check what i wrote (Last time letting myself to go sleep so late. Even before holidays). Bye again. Zzzzzzzzzzzzz......
DarkQuasar ...,
Often what happens is that I start out with a short comment and, well, it grows. For instance, there's a recent post in which I started in the Children of Adam and Eve thread in the Christianity forum where I meant only to present a sarcastic quote from an English theological comedy, and instead vomited out a few paragraphs apparently making genetics into a philosophy instead of a science. As with your post: I acknowledge the notion that that the more someone studies Nature, the more he get to know about God. I can't seem to figure out, though, why the converse is not consistent in most of its forms. This quandary runs as long in me as I have accepted that the word God equates to the whole of "creation", and sack the names and personalities except as affinities.
That much runs stock and standard with me; the rest appears, and felt to be at the time, a loose string of the ideas that motivate me to the question.If we think in criterions of modern [pseudo-science], spreading everywhere in our world by [pseudo-scientists], then we are - just NO MORE THAN walking billions of chemical reactions. I would, instead, assert electric reactions; to the other, I am unsure if lightning even has a specific chemical structure ... it seems that it can occur in disparate media: I don't imagine a lightning bolt in Iowa is the same as the electrical discharges observed near the center of the galaxy. I really should undertake some form of theoretical mathematics, as it would enhance my expression of certain fundamental concepts, but I suffered through so much fundamental algebra (without ever failing it, either, though I gave that my damnedest) that it has been joked on more than one occasion that I dropped out of college in a desperate attempt to avoid confronting calculus. (Actually, it was mostly alcohol-related, but a word of advice to parents: don't ever tell your kids, right before they head off to school, that you think college is a bad idea because you don't think they can finish. It's easy enough to convince us--I slept through my first midterm exams because I was hung over.)
But I really should learn theoretical mathematics because something about the method of working a Mandelbrot set fascinates me and might possibly give me a device by which I can punch a hole in the philosophical sense of determinism that prevents people from understanding that in the end, yes, life is merely a phase in an event we call the Universe. Even if we demonstrate the presence of spirit, it must necessarily have a medium of operation, else it would not exist at all.
See? I did it again. Really, I should have stopped after the second sentence.
thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:
Dark Quasar
06-07-01, 06:44 AM
Want to add one thing about our chemical/electricical discord. If you meant electric reactions in human's brain, then i'll say, that they are just a trace of chemical reactions. For example, while you read and realize what i wrote, first of all it's a chemical reaction in your eye's retina: rodopsine (not sure it's translated like this; it's one of the proteines, contained in our retina) is untwisting, when affected by the light, and THIS is, in end total, produces electrical impulse, that runs in our nervious hutches into brain. I can explain every human action like this. Very romantic, isn't it?
But i believe, that human is DAMN MORE complex, than our modern science think. Even with these infinite long and difficult biological/chemical/electrical processes.
Uvidims'a ;) Bye!
And this, DQ
>>>And Whoever did this, i think He is God. And He is VERY intelligent.<<<
Is what I mean by God; the 'god-thing'.
well the concept of GOD, could be a supreme person,or thing,who is the ultimate controller of the universe.Finding the beginning of the idea of god would be very difficult for,unlike anything we have experienced here he is eternal.you could say he has no beginning or end.but we also would say we have this same eternal nature,the thing is we are covered by our material bodies made from earth,water,air,underneath this material covering we exist as an eternal spiritual being,a tiny part of the supreme being.we have the same qualities as god however he has them in unlimited qunatities,and we have them in small quantities.as far as i can see this creation being gods first,he has somewhat different perspective to us.
DEVILDOG
06-09-01, 03:50 AM
GOD IS....THE GREATEST EXAMPLE OF MASS HYSTERIA KNOWN TO MAN.
Most of the people I have encountered believe in God because their parents believed. They were raised in church since as far back as they can remember. (I was raised Catholic). After I made my confirmation I was allowed to choose. I have been to several churches including Baptist, Missionary Baptist, Pentecostal?, Presbyterian, and Catholic of course. I've even done some looking into Voodoo and Paganism.
Voodoo for example is believed by many to be associated with Satan but they pray to St. Peter or Papa Legba as he is called. They believe the magic was taught to Ham, son of Noah, by Watcher Angels. Pagan gods were named as Saints to convert more Pagans to christianity. The Christmas Tree, a long standing symbol of Christ's birth and everlasting love, was actually a Pagan tradition which was also converted over.
Brainwashing can be achieved by continually repeating something over and over again. If you continually bring a child to church, they will believe it to be the truth due to repetativeness of the Bible. This is my theory on the belief in Faith. My father-in-law became a minister for this exact reason. He later got a psychology degree. He then sat down and reread the Bible from cover to cover hoping to get a better understanding of it to help in his preachings. He has given up his ministry, and I quote, "Because the bible contradicts itself from cover to cover and top to bottom."
But, like I said, this is only MY opinion of the Faith.:D
Deadwood
06-09-01, 07:00 AM
Who is God?
God is triune (Father, Son and Holy Spirit)
God is good.
God is kind.
God is slow to anger and full of compassion.
He is a jealous God (that we may turn to evil, demons etc, does not want us to be consumed by evil.)
No sin in Him can be found.
It is impossible for god to lie (therefore He cannot deceive and always keeps His promises).
God is all-knowing-all-powerful-all-present.
God is the author of life.
He created all, but He Himself was not created.
God is perfect, no fault in Him can be found.
He is a just and merciful God.
He is a loving God.
He still loves us, though we are not perfect.
We were created in His image.
Thank God for who He is. For His love, grace and mercy, which has no bounds. And which has filled my life and many around me.
DEVILDOG
06-09-01, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by Deadwood
Who is God?
No sin in Him can be found.
.
How can you say this? Incest is a sin, yet the world was supposedly populated first by Adam and Eve, then once again, after the big flood, by Noah and his children. Last I checked inbreeding and incest are one in the same.
While on the subject of Noah, he was said to be over 200 years old when he built the Arc and over 700 when he died. Yet it can't be proven, but it is believed through "Faith".
Just remember, the Bible was written by man, for man, but it wasn't written by the Apostles themselves. It was written by others.
http://saints.catholic.org/images/stisidore.gif
Saint Isidore of Seville
(c.560 - 636)
Proposed Patron of Internet Users
THAT APPEARS TO BE BIBLICAL......DOESN'T IT?
Originally posted by Deadwood
Who is God?
It is impossible for god to lie (therefore He cannot deceive and always keeps His promises).
It's a while since I read the bible, but in Genesis didn't god deceive Abraham into thinking he had to sacrifice his son? I belive 'burnt offering' was the phrase.
pragmathen
06-11-01, 01:17 PM
<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
<i>Originally posted by Deadwood</i>
God is triune (Father, Son and Holy Spirit)
God is good.
God is kind.
<hr>
</blockquote>
God is a schizophrenic person with delusions of grandeur, what with having three specific deity-complexes arising within his psyche.
God is good to those that worship him, ruthlessly evil to those that don't.
God is kind to those that pay attention to him, sadistic to those that don't.
<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
God is slow to anger and full of compassion.
<hr>
</blockquote>
God is slow to anger, allowing the ignorant to proliferate and permitting indecencies in His name to be perpetuated ad infinitum; He is full of compassion to those that, under the Inquisition, convinced themselves they were witches and were thus, compassionately, granted an ignominious death.
<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
He is a jealous God (that we may turn to evil, demons etc, does not want us to be consumed by evil.)
<hr>
</blockquote>
He is a jealous God, full of contradictions, by which he commands his disciples to <i>not</i> be jealous of others, yet God is the ultimate Mr Green.
<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
No sin in Him can be found.
<hr>
</blockquote>
No sin in Him can be found because He decides, varyingly, what is right and wrong according to His own actions. Man's ways are not God's ways, meaning that God can get away with anything and call it justifiable and holy.
<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
It is impossible for god to lie (therefore He cannot deceive and always keeps His promises).
<hr>
</blockquote>
It is impossible for god to lie (therefore when He said unto Abraham, "Say to these people that your wife is really your sister" it was not a lie; when He said unto Abraham, "I wish you to take Isaac and sacrifice him" it was not a lie).
<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
God is all-knowing-all-powerful-all-present.
<hr>
</blockquote>
God is all-knowing-all-powerful-all-present, which means that God was present when countless lives were persecuted, hounded, and tortured mercilessly under the hands those that were supposedly in the service of Him (Holocaust, Inquisition, Crusades).
<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
God is the author of life.
<hr>
</blockquote>
God is the author of life, creating Adam whole, but insulting Eve by creating her from Adam's rib.
<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
He created all, but He Himself was not created.
<hr>
</blockquote>
He created all, but He Himself was not created, therefore man can blame no one else for the depravity instituted by God <i><b>except</b></i> God.
<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
God is perfect, no fault in Him can be found.
<hr>
</blockquote>
God is perfect (except for that one time when he wasn't explicit enough in his directions for Cain on what to offer as a suitable sacrifice), no fault in Him can be found (those that do find faults misunderstand Him).
<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
He is a just and merciful God.
He is a loving God.
He still loves us, though we are not perfect.
<hr>
</blockquote>
He is a just and merciful God, even though he outright killed a man that was trying to steady the Ark.
He is a loving God, even though he knew that Jacob purposely withheld his pourage in order that he might have Esau's firstborn blessing.
He still loves, though we are not perfect, as is evident of the numerous instances in which millions of innocent children and families have been destroyed in the name of Christianity.
<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
We were created in His image.
<hr>
</blockquote>
We were created in His image, that of a cosmic terrorist, insanely jealous of those that acknowledge Him, sending out purposely contradicting commandments which have application in one instance but none in others, setting up patriarchal systems whereby women can easily be subjugated and rendered nearly powerless, creating situations whereby the innocent must "confess" in order to be saved from the torture chamber, converting through guilt manipulations, and preying on the gullible and the ill-received.
<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
Thank God for who He is. For His love, grace and mercy, which has no bounds. And which has filled my life and many around me.
<hr>
</blockquote>
Thank God for who He is (that we may see Him as He really is, without the veil of ignorance and blind obedience). For His love, grace and mercy, which has no bounds (limited, only, to those that worship Him). And which has deteriorated and consumed and demoralized and stagnated the life of those around me.
But, alas, I am powerless to effect change within others. I can only sit idly by and watch the locust consume the field. But do I?
Deadwood, there are two sides to every coin, even with God. As good ol' Mark Twain once said, "Every man is like the moon; he has a dark side which he shows to no one." Unfortunately, for God, we've yet to see a consistent manifestation of his Good side.
thanks,
prag
DEVILDOG
06-12-01, 01:22 AM
prag:
Would an Amen be the right phrase to follow your thoughts, or simply a "that's what I'm talking about." be better suited?
Red Devil
06-14-01, 07:34 PM
You ask a good question, it appears well thought out. However, as an athiest, my answer is going to be obviously biased. I was having this discussion only the other night with friends. Firstly, my definition of a "god" is thus: Should an alien land nowadays, we would be friendly, inquisitive, or hostile depending on where this "alien" chooses to land. However, we would NOT think of him/it as a "god". In the days of pre-history, if such an occurrence took place it would as a "god came down on a chariot of fire" etc etc. Therefore it is a question of interpretation. Second point is this: the whole basis of religion was "invented" as an excuse to explain events away. Then, later on, religion became an excuse in itself, used as a means to subjugate the populace, to exert taxation of a kind, and to use itself as a lever in politics. For example, the "overlording" of earthly rulers with the "damnation to you all" theory if these rulers would not bow down to the church, who were after all only "peasants" made good. Science today has disproved religious arguements time and time again, indeed, in this "enlightened" society, we no longer need religion as an excuse for explaining things beyond our (then) severely limited comprehension. The universe formed by purely natural physics and not some "divine" architect. Finally, religion itself is responsible for more death and destruction (with the exception of Buddhism) than any other force in history. Religion is outmoded, dangerous and should now be considered a quaint byproduct of history and condemned to such.
Red Devil,
Nice first post. Welcome to sciforums.
The reference to Budhism is also interesting in that that particular religion does not recognize any gods.
Cris
Red Devil
06-17-01, 01:37 AM
Hi Cris - thanks for the welcome and the reply. Yes, my reference to Buddhism was deliberate in that they do NOT have a god, which makes it much more of a religion that those that have gods. If I am making myself clear that is? Those religions that state categorically that "their" god is correct and no other are bigots. Although I myself am an athiest, there isn't any religion that can "prove" their god is either actually real or right. Therefore the only religion worth its "salt" on this earth is Buddhism.
they do NOT have a god, which makes it much more of a religion that those that have gods. The reference to Budhism is also interesting in that that particular religion does not recognize any gods.
What is a god? Better yet: What is a religion?
If Budhism is a religion, how about Taoism and Confusism, or even stoicism?
Red Devil
06-20-01, 01:56 AM
Deadwood - You are saying nothing here but repeating the rhetoric spouted by religious leaders for centuries are "The Excuse" for their existence. Where is the originality of thought? There is none, as religion has died by suffocation long ago and is only being kept alive by people such as yourself (who is perfectly entitled to your opinion) and religious "leaders" who do not want to have to work for a living and cream off their "flocks".
]
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.