Define God

[DBT]

Every believer appears to have their own version of 'God.'

Much the same as everyone expresses love differently. God is love.

Which version of God is Love?

 

[steve_bank]

Democrats want to destroy.

Let's see, Medicare Social Security, Medicaid. Food programs. Student loans so everybody has an opportunity

All the bane of conservatives, with exceptions..

Conservatives tout Christian values, I just don't see those alleged values.

 

[steve_bank]

Was the bible god of the Jews 'love'? I do not think so. It was a vengeful god not to be crossed. That was the obvious point of a tribal god, promoting social order through fear.

Look at the lyrics of the Battle Hymn Of The Republic.

If we are made on god's image does god have a penis?

Maybe god is trans.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Every believer appears to have their own version of 'God.'

Much the same as everyone expresses love differently. God is love.

Which version of God is Love?

The one where he could be a bag of Hershey's kisses. Yummmmm.

 

[DBT]

Epicurus and his riddle don't appear to get on too well with the God of Love.

 

[DLH]

Epicurus and his riddle don't appear to get on too well with the God of Love.

The Epicurean paradox is, well, kind of sophomoric, though, isn't it? Put simply Jehovah God can take away evil, as demonstrated by Christ being without sin. He states fairly clearly what that sin is, what the solution is, and his plans for dealing with it at the proper time. Evil is man's choice and is tolerated by Jehovah temporally.

 

[DLH]

Which version of God is Love?

That's a good question. From the Biblical perspective it is applied to the faithful. It isn't unconditional. God hates the wicked. In the Bible there are several words for love and hate. An unrighteous hatred is the wishing for harm to anyone or anything. It consumes. I don't hate anyone or anything in that sense. There is also a righteous hatred which doesn't involve the unrighteous, of course, and means you simply don't want to have anything to do with someone or something. I pretty much hate everyone and everything in that sense.

 

[DLH]

Einstein said God doesn't roll dice with the universe. God loves dice! God invented dice!!

The phrase "roll the dice" has two meanings: literally, it refers to rolling dice in a game of chance, and figuratively, it means taking a risk or chance on a fortunate outcome. (Source)

I don't know about God having invented dice. I don't know if they were used prior to Jehovah's application of the Uma and Thurman . . . . hold on, that doesn't seem right. Sorry, I meant Urim and Thummim.

Ephesians 4:14 uses the Greek term for cunning, deceiving, trickery:

κυβείᾳ (kybeia)
Noun - Dative Feminine Singular
Strong's 2940: (lit: playing with dice, gaming, hence) trickery, sleight. From kubos; gambling, i.e. artifice or fraud.

Anyway, all of that aside, Einstein was right about God not rolling dice with the universe.

There is a difference between casting lots, which is like drawing straws, and divination, or Cleromancy and Astragalomancy.

 

[DLH]

I repeat. There have been a lot of double posts lately. Maybe it has something to do with deja vu?

More like a glitch in the Matrix.

But seriously, God HAS to be the funniest being in the universe. Who could be funnier than God? If, if, if, if God had a show in Vegas, he'd, he'd, he'd be funnier than Joey Bishop, or Morton Downey Junior....I mean c'mon...

We're not amused. Okay, maybe a little.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Einstein said God doesn't roll dice with the universe. God loves dice! God invented dice!!

Anyway, all of that aside, Einstein was right about God not rolling dice with the universe.

presumably you can elaborate on this assertion in its appropriate context, yes?

 

[pood]

Einstein said God doesn't roll dice with the universe. God loves dice! God invented dice!!

Anyway, all of that aside, Einstein was right about God not rolling dice with the universe.

presumably you can elaborate on this assertion in its appropriate context, yes?

Einstein was not speaking of a literal god and, based on the extensive evidence we have, he was wrong about the dice-rolling business.

 

[DLH]

I define GOD as the greatest whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.

God would be the total sum of everything that exists. That includes the universe, universes, multi universes, etc. God is that which is the total sum of everything that exists, anywhere. And God is funny. God is the funniest being in the wholetal total universal cosmospherical hootinanny.

As an informed theist whatever you say is God is God, as in your God. Your personal definition and whether or not you adhere to it. So, as a concept - namely, the God concept, your definition as such is personal. However, there is there is the distinction between that and what normally is considered as "God." Whether that God is contextually Jehovah, Jesus, Brahma, Izanagi, etc.

 

[Politesse]

Which version of God is Love?

That's a good question. From the Biblical perspective it is applied to the faithful. It isn't unconditional. God hates the wicked. In the Bible there are several words for love and hate. An unrighteous hatred is the wishing for harm to anyone or anything. It consumes. I don't hate anyone or anything in that sense. There is also a righteous hatred which doesn't involve the unrighteous, of course, and means you simply don't want to have anything to do with someone or something. I pretty much hate everyone and everything in that sense.

You're going far beyond the text. There are no asterisks there in John; the author of that book firmly believes that God is love, full stop. They do not agree with the portrayal of God in, say, Joshua, because they were a different writer with a different point of view. Any attempt to synthesize the books of "the Bible" are post facto justifications for anthologizing them and euhemerizing their authors in the first place.

 

[TomC]

Einstein was not speaking of a literal god and, based on the extensive evidence we have, he was wrong about the dice-rolling business.

I may be misremembering, but I recall Einstein agreeing that he was wrong about whatever he was referring to when he said that.
Tom

 

[pood]

Einstein was not speaking of a literal god and, based on the extensive evidence we have, he was wrong about the dice-rolling business.

I may be misremembering, but I recall Einstein agreeing that he was wrong about whatever he was referring to when he said that.
Tom

I don’t think he ever did.

 

[DLH]

presumably you can elaborate on this assertion in its appropriate context, yes?

I thought I did so fairly well here, keeping in mind that the so-called skeptical don't often have the thoughtfulness and patience you and @Politesse seem to possess. God doesn't roll the dice in the literal or figurative sense of risking or divination. Now, think about that. The divine does not use divination in the traditional sense.

 

[Shadowy Man]

presumably you can elaborate on this assertion in its appropriate context, yes?

I thought I did so fairly well here,

No. Not at all. Do you know what Einstein was referring to as "playing dice"? That's what I meant by "appropriate context".

You are making a positive claim that "Einstein was right", so I'm simply asking you to back that claim up. What was he right about and why do you assert he was right about it?

If you cannot support the assertion, then you can simply retract it as it may have little to nothing to do with the current conversation and was a simple misstep on your part to insert it that can be forgiven.

 

[pood]

presumably you can elaborate on this assertion in its appropriate context, yes?

I thought I did so fairly well here, keeping in mind that the so-called skeptical don't often have the thoughtfulness and patience you and @Politesse seem to possess. God doesn't roll the dice in the literal or figurative sense of risking or divination. Now, think about that. The divine does not use divination in the traditional sense.

As Shadowy Man points out, this has nothing to do with what Einstein was talking about.

 

[DLH]

Einstein was not speaking of a literal god and, based on the extensive evidence we have, he was wrong about the dice-rolling business.

I really didn't give much attention to what Einstein meant, I gave the various ways in which the use of dice throwing can be taken and a simple theological look at ways in which those could interpreted.

No. Not at all. Do you know what Einstein was referring to as "playing dice"? That's what I meant by "appropriate context".

I'm not really that concerned with what he meant. If it were relevant I would have considered it, but it was given in a sort of tongue in cheek way.

You are making a positive claim that "Einstein was right", so I'm simply asking you to back that claim up. What was he right about and why do you assert he was right about it?

Like I said. I explained that. What he meant wasn't given in the post with the quote, so I didn't consider it.

If you cannot support the assertion, then you can simply retract it as it may have little to nothing to do with the current conversation and was a simple misstep on your part to insert it that can be forgiven.

Bullshit.

 

[DLH]

You're going far beyond the text. There are no asterisks there in John; the author of that book firmly believes that God is love, full stop.

Full stop?

They do not agree with the portrayal of God in, say, Joshua, because they were a different writer with a different point of view.

Who said they did?

Any attempt to synthesize the books of "the Bible" are post facto justifications for anthologizing them and euhemerizing their authors in the first place.

Show me where "the Bible" doesn't agree with the concepts I've presented. Love, hate, God is love.