What is God?

[Sarapva]

... my God is what I make of him. My God is a reflection of what I consider right, and I always agree with my God, i sometimes feel ashamed in front of him, sometimes guilty, but generally i try to live according to his will, which is my own, but unlike his will, mine is weaker, bends more easily, so I need my God to always point at the directions which I deep inside with my subconsciousness consider right and just.

This is what I mean too, by "energy" - "God" to each of us is a personal thing. We're all "right" about what God is.

posted by Chi65:
Do you get an idea, what I mean with the common denominator?
In this case, its the concert, that has touched them, but it can as much be an important aha-moment, or what is "holy" (or touches or has touched you very deeply)

This is also the same thing! God is different to each of us, but also basically the same.

 

[scorpion da black]

well seprava
that happens often here...
life and death sitiuations that is

 

[Sarapva]

well seprava
that happens often here...
life and death sitiuations that is

When I lived in Alaska I had quite a few life and death situations - probably because it has an extreme climate (and is called "the land of extremes"). It's also not developed as much as the rest of the U.S. and you're pretty much on the edge of the wilderness all the time.

 

[Mycernius]

even when i look at the stars......what great coincidence, that the size of the sun and its distance from the moon are propotional ecactly to make an eclipse...
atheists say its coincidence....i say it is proof of God's creation.

That is incorrect and a fallacy. The moons does not perfectly cover the sun in an eclipse. It is either too large, where you get a total eclipse and the sun can't be seen, or an annular eclipse, where the moon is too far to completely cover the moon. The moons orbit around the sun is ellipitcal and is not proportionally exact. In fact several million years ago the moon orbit was further out and the face changed. Gravity of the moon and earth are slowing the moons spin down. In several thousand years time the moon will always be at the same place in the sky in a geo-syncronis orbit.

Atheism is just as dangerous as religion, because there's no salvation in the end,

Why do you need slavation. We are an animal that has evolved to the point where we can grasp abstract ideas like God. That all gods are abstract ideas that man has used in the past to answer question that he can't answer ie: a bronze age man didn't know what caused thunder, so a higher spirit must do it. We know now what causes thunder, it is a natural phenonmen. We die like all animals. Why are we any special from a wasp or a cow?

 

[Liver Shot]

When I lived in Alaska I had quite a few life and death situations - probably because it has an extreme climate (and is called "the land of extremes"). It's also not developed as much as the rest of the U.S. and you're pretty much on the edge of the wilderness all the time.

Ever read "Into the Wild" by Jon Krakauer, about the guy that starved to death up in Alaska?

 

[Haruspex]

My view is not that alien from yours Mycernius, I indeed admit that we're animals, but we're rather imperfect, we made a step forward, we're smart, we're sharp, we act all high and mighty... but at the same time we don't know what the heck to do with all the knowledge. We know many things, but we have no answer and that truly scares the living **** out of most people.
Do you like the idea of dying and decomposing? I for one don't, I'd rather burn in hell forever and ever than lose my consciousness. Even if its just pain and suffering I want to feel something, even if im punished for all my remaining years, eternally, forever I still want to have my thoughts, I still want to have my personality.
We're different from a wasp or a cow... we're animals all the same, but they weren't given the gift of overwhelming comprehension, nor have they been cursed by the curse of overwhelming comprehension. For better or for worse, they don't know what will happen to them, on the other hand we know how f****d we are. We know that there might not be a "heaven" and we might die and rot for good.

 

[Liver Shot]

My view is not that alien from yours Mycernius, I indeed admit that we're animals, but we're rather imperfect, we made a step forward, we're smart, we're sharp, we act all high and mighty... but at the same time we don't know what the heck to do with all the knowledge. We know many things, but we have no answer and that truly scares the living **** out of most people.
Do you like the idea of dying and decomposing? I for one don't, I'd rather burn in hell forever and ever than lost my consciousness. Even if its just pain and suffering I want to feel something, even if im punished for all my remaining years, eternally, forever I still want to have my thoughts, I still want to have my personality.
We're different from a wasp or a cow... we're animals all the same, but they weren't given the gift of overwhelming comprehension, nor have they been cursed by the curse of overwhelming comprehension. For better or for worse, they don't know what will happen to them, on the other hand we know how f****d we are. We know that there might not be a "heaven" and we might die and rot for good.

This is obviously coming from someone who has never been through extensive torture, starvation, etc. I think if you had experience with those things, you'd probably strongly reconsider.

 

[Haruspex]

Never, I would never reconsider, you don't know how bloody afraid I am of death.

 

[scorpion da black]

fear of death is fearing the ambigous step laying after...
i think God can sooth that thought.

wel mycernius...dont be so closed to one idea...view every thing in this universe..and tell me sint a proof of a greater power to creat ...???
no coincidence can make such unique being.

 

[Liver Shot]

Never, I would never reconsider, you don't know how bloody afraid I am of death.

Once again, you've never gone through these things, so I don't think your opinion is a very well educated one. Many Cambodians, for example, committed suicide during the reign of the Khmer Rouge in the 1970s due to starvation and torture. Apparently for many people, life can be unbearable under these types of situations. Since you haven't been through anything like that, I don't see how you can speak as if you know such pain.

 

[Sarapva]

Ever read "Into the Wild" by Jon Krakauer, about the guy that starved to death up in Alaska?

I haven't read that yet, but I heard about it when it came out. I think that happened when I was in Alaska, in the '80s. I remember hearing about a man when I was there (I think it's the same man) who wrote a journal of his experiences and knew he was about to die, and I think he was living in an abandoned school bus. He was in an isolated spot and got weaker and weaker from starvation.

posted by Mycernius:
That is incorrect and a fallacy. The moons does not perfectly cover the sun in an eclipse.

I think this is not getting the point Scorpion da black was making, which (if I'm right) is a wonderment of our universe that leads us to think there must be a higher power behind it. It doesn't matter what the exact scientific explanation is.

posted by Derfel:
Never, I would never reconsider, you don't know how bloody afraid I am of death.

I can understand how thinking about death can make a person afraid - actually terrified. After all, we're all going to die - we know that and can't escape it. But I think if you looked for some books, Derfel, about near death experiences, it might help calm these thoughts. So many people say that getting near to death was a peaceful, very soothing experience. And of course I don't believe that we're unconscious after death.

 

[Kinsao]

Now, I haven't read all details on this thread, so I might be repeating in my opinion the views of others, too.

I believe there is such a thing as 'God'. I think this is a spirit, and exists as a form of energy (perhaps 'wavelength', as someone suggested earlier?) which is and can be in a physical form, which can be perceptible to us, and in forms measurable by science, and also manifesting itself in ways which are as yet not understood by science. I don't see a conflict between scientific explanations and God - of course the world has to 'work' somehow, and science finds explanations for this that the human brain can understand. We train our brains, we also evolve, we learn and understand more and more, and there is still much more that we do not understand about how the world works. I believe that 'God' is the energy that enabled the universe to come into existence, and that this energy has no beginning and no end (because even if it was created out of the big bang, even the bang must have had a cause, yes?). I believe it caused 'existence' (science has not fully explained this, neither has 'religion') and that this energy and spirit continues to intervene in the physical and spiritual dimensions of the universe continually - in the form of phenomena that are explicable by science, and those that are not yet.

As for suffering, I bring forward the old argument of free will. In order to eradicate all suffering (much of which is caused by human action), it would be necessary to eradicate free will, and why would it be any good for God to have made puppets rather than creatures with free will? We have mental abilities above those of animals in some respects; if this is caused by evolution of our brains, it is scientific but does not deny the existence of God in any way, for why should humans not have evolved that way, whether or not there is a God?

I don't believe that God is anything like an old man in the sky as described by holy books. I think those writers were trying to describe their concept of what God was like, in their own way.

I don't believe that God is male or female, but neither.

As for 'life after death'... I don't believe our existence totally finishes at death, but obviously I can't say what I think it will be like... all I can say is that it will probably be completely like nothing we could possibly imagine. I don't see it as a comforting thought; rather, if I was an atheist, all well and good, I would love to just concentrate on having fun in this life, quite the contrary from wanting to use this opportunity to do good, I would most certainly take a more selfish line! But the belief that our actions have consequences that are in some way eternal, rather than for this life only, entails a lot of responsibility, which sometimes I would much prefer to escape...

 

[Mars Man]

That we today can attach and overlay concepts on top of what had come down to us, in aggregate, is a given, but then, actually, we need not use the word 'god' any longer--for the ignorance of past views yet emanates too strongly from it.

The point here is that the English word "God" (especially...also god in some usages) has come down to us with a very attached referent.

In Webster's New World, Second College Edition, we find the following under the entry god:

Any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature; deity, esp. a male deity.

-[God] in monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe regarded as eternal, infinite, all-powerful, and all-knowing; ​

In The Oxford English Dictionary, Vol IV, we find in the entry God, the following:

I. In the original pre-Christian sense, and uses thence derived. 1. A superhuman person (regarded as masculine; see Goddess) who is worshipped as having power over nature and the fortunes of mankind; a deity.

Even when applied to the objects of polytheistic worship the word has often a colouring derived from Christian associations. As the use of God as a proper name has throughout the literary period of English been the predominant one, it is natural that the original heathen sense should be sometimes apprehended as a transferred use of the; 'a god', in this view, is a supposed being put in the place of God, or an imperfect conception of God in some of His attributes or relations.

II. In the specific Christian and monotheistic sense. The one object of supreme adoration; the Creator and Ruler of the universe. (Now always with initial capital.)​

This highlights the problem of imagery and sense with the English word "God." For that reason, when the proper noun as applied by the Abrahamic belief-systems is not intended to be referred to nor associated with (as those three systems model the different shades of their separate data bases) the word would best be avoided. This is the argument I stand by.

"what do you mean by 'god'?"

The OP title, as colored and nuanced by this quote (which comes up twice in the OP) must be looked at more carefully here for this thread.

This is not a matter of saying 'x is god,' but rather one of saying, 'god is x. (and there is a difference) This is true in that, for example, if to the question 'what do you mean by [the word] god?' we were to answer, 'I mean energy.,' we would be left with the summary that 'energy is god'--which we know is not true, because energy is, without any doubt, energy. The referent for the word 'energy' is fixed in our language already.

If a person were to say, instead, that 'god is energy,' then we could summarize with 'god consists of/is made up of energy,' which would not be denying already concluded English definitions. However, even, by simply using the English word 'god' (not even "God") we can run into problems because the imagery and descriptive clauses which had been used to support and conceptualize that term from way back when, firstly leave us with the Christian concept of the deity, as defined in those two dictionaries.

If we were to substitute the word 'god' (or "God") with the word 'ultimate', then we could make some assertions along the line that we have been doing. Energy is the ultimate. The universe is the ultimate. Such statements leave out the usual religio-historical baggage that most always accompanies the word 'god.'

The follow up portion, about why then, if we chose to keep the word god, we would come to the conclusion that their is no agreement on a single god-model, in the next post

 

[Skullcrushergurl]

Ugh. Never mix science and spirituality. You get thread topics like this one.
GOD has no definiton.
People type his name in lower case like he's just a thing or put a star in place of a letter. Idiots. We have to answer to someone and God is that person.
Christians have been made to believe that God is male. I don't have too much of an opinion there. But I do believe in God. I wish humans would stop making everything complicated. Either you believe in God or you don't but don't EVER try to mix God with science.
If you don't believe in God, at least have respect for "the creator" whom is known as God. You may have you different beliefs about him/her/it but at least respect the person that created you!

 

[Haruspex]

We simplify the term because we're humans, our comprehension lacks, for example, you wouldn't call him a person otherwise, as surely if he exists he isn't a person, but an entity of a sort.

 

[Mars Man]

Skullcrushergurl chan, allow me, please, the opportunity to sit down with you and spend a few posts encouraging introspective meditation, and discussing a few matters of 'cultural linguistics'--of sorts.

For one, it is important to focus on what the essence of the word science is; what it signifies at heart. The term 'science' draws out the fundimental essence of 'knowing'--for which reason we have branches such as pure science, natural science, and so on. Whatever it is that we may claim to 'know,' we can say is 'science.' And, for that very reason, Skullcrushergurl, we are quite right in testing any and all claims to 'know.'

GOD has no definiton.

May I ask just why you say that? Could I please patiently suggest that you explain your thought fully? Would you please allow me to urge you to reason through on what the meaning of the sentence would ultimately be?

Could I please ask you to take a little time, run through all the details, and then make an outlined thesis on how a person is supposed to have respect for something that they do not believe to be true?

I would also wish to encourage deeper thought over just how we could make the claim that a single person created me--for example. I am pretty certain that since the homo sapien is not asexual--like the sand lizard in the Southwest United States desert, that just reproduces out of its own DNA--we need two people to create us.

* * * * * * * *

We already have evidence here of the matter which I am putting forth. Here and now, today, we have recieved an idea/concept/teaching which is very much rooted in the Judeo-Christian past. Regardless of all the New Age, politically correct attitudes adopted by the Christian-based religionists of the past 100 or so years, a full and exhaustive study will quite easily reveal the essential roots of definition and referent discription of what has come to be "God" in our English language.

To escape from that entrapment, we need to set aside the usage of that word--for as I have said before, and will persistently argue--it is too heavily burned by old thinking which has not stood the test of time.

What ever happened to Valhalla, (sp?) or Thor, or Baal? As you would have guessed, such imagery simply does not come to mind in the brains of most English speakers when there is any association activity upon hearing the word "God", or god, is there?

 

[Mycernius]

GOD has no definiton.

The ever favourite refuge of the theist. I always come up against this. It is like a refusal to discuss God or gods.

I don't have too much of an opinion there. But I do believe in God.

Which one? There are plenty to choose from.

Either you believe in God or you don't but don't EVER try to mix God with science.

Why not? YE creationists and ID believers do this all the time. Yet when sensible science comes along to disprove all thier "facts" they come out with God and science must be seperate. They try the one rule for us and one rule for you a lot and get all sulky when we don't play by their rules.

If you don't believe in God, at least have respect for "the creator" whom is known as God. You may have you different beliefs about him/her/it but at least respect the person that created you!

I do respect my creators. They are called my mother and father, not some sky spirit.

 

[Pachipro]

It is said that God created us in His image. Now why would God be a human looking individual when there is probably much life out there in this vast universe of ours that may look similar to us, but not completely? Is it not man himself that gave God that image? And is that other life in the universe made in His image also? Then God would have to be a chameleon. That's very arrogant of the human race if you ask me.

God, to me, is an onipotent being who does not possess a human looking body, but is instead a spirit, a light, or conciousness if you will. To say we understand what and who God is and what He (why a He? why not an it or a She?) may look like and then to proclaim that He looks like us is the epitomy of arrogance. Especially when we have not even ventured to the nearest planet yet or even come close to understanding even 1/100 of 1% of this universe. Also, it is said that no man has ever seen the face of God so why give him human characteristics which are fallible to begin with?

There is absolutely no proof that God dictated the Bible to mere man and why do we insist on giving "Him" human features and personality and characteristics? We are told that "He" is a vengeful, jealous God and demands that we bow down before him and worship Him or suffer His wrath as a consequence. Then we are told that we have free will, given to us by God to do as we please! Sounds contradictory to me. If that be the case then God is no different from us mere mortal human beings and He suffers from the same shortcomings such as jealousy and pride. Sorry, but I cannot swallow that. If that be the case, then that is no God of mine, nor do I want Him to be.

God, as has been falsly taught to us through the ages through the writings of man only, is NOT the true God in my opinion, nor is any other God of any other religion as they all seem to have human characteristics which I refuse to believe. A true God would be above that.

In my mind, the true God, or spirit, or Great Conciousness, or whatever is a very loving God who loves us unconditionally regardless of whether we accept him or not and "He" does not judge us nor will he make us suffer for our actions.

We do have free will and if we fail to follow the right path we must come back to this life again to right our ways for if there really was a God similar to what we have been taught, in human form, He would stop all the wars and killing and corruption and different religions, and let us know that there is only one God and one way, but that is not His job. His job is to stay out of the way and let us find our own way to Him by doing what is right and not following the false teachings of man and the "fallen angels".

We are here on this strange planet of dark and light, good and bad, positive and negative, etc., for one reason and one reason only and that is to learn right from wrong as the earth itself if basically a bad place inhabited and run by "the fallen angels", if you will, who may never leave this planet. Do we succumb to the "dark side" and get stuck coming back forever and ever or do we eventually learn and rise above to another, higher plane of existance?

That is why we are here and no God will intervene with the learning process we all have to experience. They don't call it "school-house earth" for nothing.

 

[Sarapva]

We are told that "He" is a vengeful, jealous God and demands that we bow down before him and worship Him or suffer His wrath as a consequence. ... If that be the case then God is no different from us mere mortal human beings and He suffers from the same shortcomings such as jealousy and pride.

A true God would be above that.

In my mind, the true God, or spirit, or Great Conciousness, or whatever is a very loving God who loves us unconditionally regardless of whether we accept him or not and "He" does not judge us nor will he make us suffer for our actions.

We do have free will and if we fail to follow the right path we must come back to this life again to right our ways ...

This is exactly my belief! I don't think God (meaning whatever God is) has our human traits of getting angry when someone doesn't do what we want or the way we want. God would be human then. The reason "he" is God is because he's above all that - he loves us and wants us to do well, but we have to follow our right paths. I think the trouble comes when we get off our paths and try to control things ourselves. But then God patiently waits until we find it again. I say "thank God" for God! We don't need more fallible humans getting angry and destroying things.

 

[Elizabeth van Kampen]

I have seen people losing all faith in God because of the most dramtic things happening in their lives. Yet others look for help when there is nothing left in their lives but God.

Nature is my God; the trees, the clouds, the sun, the mountains, the storm, the snow, the lovely flowers. Maybe God is a woman, a mother, who loves us nevertheless all our faults, bad habits, crimes and so on.
I think that most people feel that there is "something" pure, better, more honest, capable of true love, than we are. Or "something"you have to fight for or even have to die for.
Ah well, these are just my ideas and feelings and I don't pretend that I am right.
I am open to all ideas.

 

[Pachipro]

I couldn't agree with you more Elizabeth-chan!

 

[Chi65]

Yes, as from my feelings, whenever I am "on my ways" again, I feel closest to "IT"(can be whatever it likes to be), very well also in reach for everything as much as being in reach myself this way, its a wonderfull "being interwoven" feeling, that always cheers me up.
Thank you, Elisabeth van Kampen, shall we go for a walk then?

 

[Sarapva]

...whenever I am "on my ways" again, I feel closest to "IT"(can be whatever it likes to be), very well also in reach for everything as much as being in reach myself this way, its a wonderfull "being interwoven" feeling, that always cheers me up.

I have this feeling too of being "in the flow" of things sometimes, and I think it means I'm on the right path, or living harmoniously with the "chi".

 

[Chi65]

Whatever that is, chi, since it has so very many meanings (and annoys scientists ;-))

But right, the flow is what I really like, even a storm belongs to it, its natural in my opinion, and refreshing. (I have been clearly in some taifoon's eyes too, with bright sun, amazing!).
But I am a person, that does not mind surprises in general. Insofar a safety net of one system is even a bit frightening. But maybe an artist and synnie is not very much in need for this. Even my now dead granddad was thinking, fixed structures are not good, moving, moving, was what he suggested. He was a forestier and lived within nature, always healthy, and he became very old. . . if thats not a goal...
It does not work the way, I wished, but the general view is always present.
God? We never talk about, until he once was very annoyed, about christian people, who did not move, but wrapped it all, as he said.
And another (as old, he lately died with 97) uncle studied comparative religions and ended up, living with aborigines in Australia and listening to and writing about them. He could not stand childlike fat angels, amongst others here. . .

 

[centrajapan]

The reason why Christianity spread about somewhere around 2000 years ago is politics connected with the Roman Empire. The earth is many millions years old. It existed much before Christianity. The Old Testament is filled with metaphores which have similarities with other old books.

If there is no god, no higher power, than all we have to believe in is us and I don't think many people have enough faith in humanity to feel good about that.

Having god then becomes a pretext or an excuse to do something bad and corrupt ourselves, since I am only a human. If there is no god then it is only up to yourself and you have to start to believe in yourself and try to become pure as in purification or enlightment. I sound like a new age priest.Humans don't have all the answers so they create answers which they convert others with either voluntarily or by force.

Alot of people now are saying the Bible is cosmic metaphores. Stars, sun, planet. It could be that ancient civlisations in Peru or in Egyp studied the suns movement and came with mathematical formulas which calculated an age. An age is a time span over a very long period of time. Who comes up with these kind of theories? Archeologists, historians, scientist, media and education and various other institutions.

No one has proved that there is a god no one has proved that there isn't a god either.