For Christians, define god

[Rhea]

Let us not pretend, shall we, that “Christians” do not all claim each other when they need an argument from popularity to support their theology, and then rapidly disavow each other when the harm done by “Christianity” and “Christians” comes to light.

As George Carlin notes, “Jews don't recognize Jesus as the son of God, Protestants don't recognize the Pope, and Baptists don't recognize each other in the liquor store.”

Such wisdom ! I love hearing about those "philosophies" that people like quoting from, on the forums. Makes a good erm... argument.

Carlin is indeed possessed of much wisdom.

But you haven’t.

What is it? How can you tell?
How can you recognize it?
How can you tell it’s not something else disguised as a god?
How do you tell the difference between it and other gods?

I have never had personal experiences like some of the other Christians, as my belief, gradually came about. I just read the bible also listening to those who scrutinize and study it plus other various things.

So this seems to define god as “that which is described in the Christian Bible,” which helps some, but suffers from the fact that that book is not coherent or consistent. Take a Million Christians who read it and believe in it, and they can’t agree on an understanding. Indeed, they have killed each other over that.

Imo its 'consistent' ,

Well, except, as noted, it’s not consistent enough for Christians to agree on what it means. So there’s that.

imo it 'makes more sense' the more I read it. I trust the theology (Christ and those early followers of Christ). I would not of believed in GOD or the OT, if there wasn't a "New Testament", which may surprise you.

Why yes it does surprise me. If the god in the book is consistent, why does it matter which chapter you read?

Simply put: I believe in GOD because of JESUS and what HE says of GOD and the scriptures! (one of many reasons why HE came to make people like me, come to believe in GOD ).

Well, not “He,” exactly, since you say you have no direct experience. You mean the people, who talked to the people, who saw Jesus and heard what he said, now second hand, and wrote it down 50-80 years after Jesus died. THAT came to make you believe. But as interesting as that is, it has nothing to do with how you define your god. At all.

GOD is said to be a SPIRIT (because it says so) and thats how I define HIM. Whats a spirit? I have no idea what it consists of.

Santa Claus is said to be a spirit. The spirit of Christmas. Is that your god, then?
That’s fine if that’s your definition, but I hope you’re aware that it includes ALL spirits or ANY spirits.

Yep... tis faith. Faith in GOD because of JESUS, those who existed before me, and the gospel.

But the question is WHAT is god, not how did you arrive at faith.

And so thats my answer. Is this an acceptable answer to you?

Well, if your intent was to convey that you believe in the godship of anything called a spirit, then, sure. I guess.

It’s confusing because I don’t think that’s what you belive in, at least I didn’t going in to this, but you’re being pretty clear, so, I guess. You worship as a god, anything that is called a “spirit,” (and you got this idea from reading a book.)

 

[Rhea]

what about same sex marriage

Religion and the church and same-sex marriage in the church is bound to cause controversy, don't you think? I doubt there'd be as much protest if same-sex marriage was held in a town hall.

WHAT!?

You doubt there’d be much protest? Have you been living in a cave?!

THis is huge! People have been killed over this? I’m astonished that anyone could not know this. Are you 12? I don’t say that mockingly, I mean it really, how could anyone NOT know how serious this is?


All of the protested marriages were done in town halls or willing churches. Not one church EVER was asked to perform a wedding against their will. All the kids torn from their homosexual parents were all of town hall marriages. Holy shit, how do you not know this?

Anti-abortionists? Not really xians?

Depends if whether you see it as saving a human life or not.

No, it depends on whether you want to force women to donate organs and blood against their will, unlike what is prohibited to be forced on any other person. Until you’re willing to obey a law that says if I need your kidney I can have it wiithout your permission, then you have no right to force a woman to donate against her will.

How about 'teach the controversy' efforts to force creationism into public school science classes? Fake believers?

Whats wrong with a little religious education, (R.E). I didn't know of anyone that converted learning about it when I was at school (we were busy flicking pellets with rubber bands in class).

?? You don’t understand keeping religious education in churches/temples/mosques either? You do not understaand the oppression of this at all? Who gets to decide which flavor? Do you get to beat the ones who won’t conform? Some churches teach that. Woot.

Or just a general legislation to allow discrimination for any 'sincerely held religious belief'? Are the really Christains, or just claiming to be?

Well it does depend if it really is "discrimination". I know there are different types of issues.

I’m not sure that you really do.
Wow. That post was eye-opening.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Jesus said HE didn't come to abolish the law ,in which I believe it means , that it was for those who would "still" continue with the Ten commandments e.g. the Jews.

613 commandments in the OT.

The gentiles who probably wouldn't keep to the 10 Commandments,

613.

were given the two greatest commandements :

dude, WAY off track. The subject us where Christains or people who think they are Christains tho Learner quibbkes legislate that people of different faiths, or no faith, have to live as the Christains think God wants us to live, thus justifying our asking those maybe-christains tovdrfine this god they want to legislate.
Do you think laws forcing businesses to close because of your sabbath are not such examples?

Religion and the church and same-sex marriage in the church is bound to cause controversy, don't you think?

i wasn't asking about controversy.
But you are verifying that this is a church-based movement, aren't you

I doubt there'd be as much protest if same-sex marriage was held in a town hall.

The laws were not about SSM celebrated in a church, the laws forbade any SSM at all.
And the question was about whether the people wanting to outlaw it on the basis of scripture were Xians in your eyes

Anti-abortionists? Not really xians?

Depends if whether you see it as saving a human life or not.

Well, let me restate it, do you think the Christains who quote bible verses when they demand the overturning of Roe Vs. Wade are Christains, since you seem to want to claim that REAL Christains don't force their religion on anyone.

I am not saying that there are no non- christain reasons to oppose abortion, just asking if you think those motivated expressly by their religious views, and seeking to force others to live by those views, are real christains.

How about 'teach the controversy' efforts to force creationism into public school science classes? Fake believers?

Whats wrong with a little religious education, (R.E).

weaseling. Would a Real Christain try to force anyone to treat their religious views as real?

Or just a general legislation to allow discrimination for any 'sincerely held religious belief'? Are the really Christains, or just claiming to be?

Well it does depend if it really is "discrimination".

Jesus fuck, do you just not understand the question? Or are you trying that hard to avoid answering it?

 

[Learner]

Carlin is indeed possessed of much wisdom.

So this seems to define god as “that which is described in the Christian Bible,” which helps some, but suffers from the fact that that book is not coherent or consistent. Take a Million Christians who read it and believe in it, and they can’t agree on an understanding. Indeed, they have killed each other over that.

Well, except, as noted, it’s not consistent enough for Christians to agree on what it means. So there’s that.

The understanding among all Christians is : He is a loving GOD , unless there is such a Christian that believes the opposite. Humans are humans and politics and personal agendas is among all the good things that civil people try to make the best for,.. even in battles.

Why yes it does surprise me. If the god in the book is consistent, why does it matter which chapter you read?

Well I was only speaking of myself. I used to say the same thing to Christians about the violence and destruction in the OT , ( I wasn't a Christian then) now I see it differently of course.

Well, not “He,” exactly, since you say you have no direct experience. You mean the people, who talked to the people, who saw Jesus and heard what he said, now second hand, and wrote it down 50-80 years after Jesus died. THAT came to make you believe. But as interesting as that is, it has nothing to do with how you define your god. At all.

I'm just one of those who became Christian without needing any direct experience.

Yes I do mean all those people in the book, and besides... people still remember what they did 30 odd years ago, so what is so contradictory ... 33 AD to 50 AD? And ... I doubt anyone would go around writing a book, let alone admit it to the romans soldiers, that they were buddies of Jesus, especially just after Jesus was crucified.

Santa Claus is said to be a spirit. The spirit of Christmas. Is that your god, then?
That’s fine if that’s your definition, but I hope you’re aware that it includes ALL spirits or ANY spirits.

I go by the Gospel , unfortunately Santa's dnesn't seem to be in there, unless he is one of those gods known by another name ..or perhaps not. I did hint in a post previously, if you wanted the answers from the POV of the theology - being that I'm a theist.

Well, if your intent was to convey that you believe in the godship of anything called a spirit, then, sure. I guess.

It’s confusing because I don’t think that’s what you belive in, at least I didn’t going in to this, but you’re being pretty clear, so, I guess. You worship as a god, anything that is called a “spirit,” (and you got this idea from reading a book.)

Yes more or less,I got it from a big book , made of many books .

 

[Learner]

(my eyes are burning , its 4.34 am. Will continue later , its my day off )

 

[Rhea]

I feel like maybe you really do not understand the question,

Can you DEFINE your god?

Can you explain what or who it is, what makes it different from Santa claus or a termite or a cloud. Obviously at this point you can’t proselytize your god because you don’t really have any idea what he is, except a character in a book. So maybe you’re leaving the proselytizing to others.

Although, come to think of it, they all seem to proselytize the book, not the god really anyway, don’t they? I hadn’t really thought about that before, but now that I ponder it, they seem to.

It’s just so unexpected. I did not really think the answer to this question would be, “I dunno, really, just ‘god,’ you know, like ‘spirit’, like it says in the book.”

I thought it was more sophisticated than that.
And I figured it was more important than that, too. Not being able to distinguish between your god and anyone else’s seems more careless than I expected.

But all right.
“just ‘god,’ you know, like ‘spirit’, like it says in the book.”


What does your god do, then?

 

[Rhea]

The understanding among all Christians is : He is a loving GOD , unless there is such a Christian that believes the opposite.

Well, there are a lot of Christians who believe in the flood and their god killing all of the humans (inclusing all of the fetuses in the wombs) plus all of the kittens and puppies, all the infants, all the toddlers... all the everything except a pair. That’s not terribly loving. Or that thing with Lot’s wife, job or the little kids killed by Elijah. So yes, there are Christians who believe your god is a vengeful beast that is not even “pro-life”. They believe the flood story as written. Every pregnant woman murdered by drowning. (Christians love this god - oh, come let us adore him!)

Well I was only speaking of myself.

I was only speaking about you also. You said the god was consistent and you said the new testament was a game changer and the OT wasn’t. I’m saying if the god is consistent, it shouldn’t matter which book you read - it would be consistent.

Well, not “He,” exactly, since you say you have no direct experience. You mean the people, who talked to the people, who saw Jesus and heard what he said, now second hand, and wrote it down 50-80 years after Jesus died. THAT came to make you believe. But as interesting as that is, it has nothing to do with how you define your god. At all.

I'm just one of those who became Christian without needing any direct experience.

Yes I do mean all those people in the book, and besides... people still remember what they did 30 odd years ago, so what is so contradictory ... 33 AD to 50 AD? And ... I doubt anyone would go around writing a book, let alone admit it to the romans soldiers, that they were buddies of Jesus, especially just after Jesus was crucified.

Dear Learner, the gospels were not written in 50AD.
You know that, right?

Santa Claus is said to be a spirit. The spirit of Christmas. Is that your god, then?
That’s fine if that’s your definition, but I hope you’re aware that it includes ALL spirits or ANY spirits.

I go by the Gospel , unfortunately Santa's dnesn't seem to be in there, unless he is one of those gods known by another name ..or perhaps not. I did hint in a post previously, if you wanted the answers from the POV of the theology - being that I'm a theist.

I asked for a definition of your god. You defined it as “Spirit.” Santa is a “spirit.”
You may want to adjust your definition to exclude Santa.

Well, if your intent was to convey that you believe in the godship of anything called a spirit, then, sure. I guess.

It’s confusing because I don’t think that’s what you belive in, at least I didn’t going in to this, but you’re being pretty clear, so, I guess. You worship as a god, anything that is called a “spirit,” (and you got this idea from reading a book.)

Yes more or less,I got it from a big book , made of many books .

And you’re not able to find in there anywhere a definition for your god? What it is, how it works, what it does, where it is, how you can tell it apart from Thor and Santa and aged single malt whiskey?

I think to ask, “how are you sure you are worshipping the thing that is actually your god?” And then I wonder if the answer is that you worship the book and figure that covers it?

 

[Speakpigeon]

What is god? female, male, or otrher?
Where did god come from, did he, she, or it always exist?
When god created the universe, out of what did he, she, or it make it from?
When god creates something are there rules or laws similar to science?
Does god have thoughts? From the bible god can certainly be angry and feel love.
Is god a being with inner workings, is there an energy source?

What a laugh, Steve.
EB

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

GOD is said to be a SPIRIT (because it says so) and that's how I define HIM. Whats a spirit? I have no idea what it consists of.

Yep... tis faith. Faith in GOD because of JESUS, those who existed before me, and the gospel.

And so that's my answer. Is this an acceptable answer to you?

It doesn't add any new knowledge to the conversation but it is obviously an acceptable answer.

This holy spirit used to be called a holy ghost, I don't know if you believe in ghosts so that would be interesting. I know some people who think ghosts are not real but that gods are. It seems that when a ghost is given religious superpowers it now becomes real enough for some people, though I don't see how it's not still just a ghost.

 

[Politesse]

If God exists, I don't think he can be defined. How could the source of all things be confined to a physical prison like the rest of us? The Tao which can be named is not the eternal Tao, it is said. And isn't this true of anything eternal? If it has boundaries, then it has an end.

 

[skepticalbip]

If God exists, I don't think he can be defined. How could the source of all things be confined to a physical prison like the rest of us? The Tao which can be named is not the eternal Tao, it is said. And isn't this true of anything eternal? If it has boundaries, then it has an end.

Something does not have to have a physical form to be defined. Surely you would agree that concepts like 'love' and 'hate' can be defined and the differences between them clearly delineated even though neither has a physical form.

If someone's concept of god is 'the source of all things' then a quantum fluctuation in some hyperspace that created our bubble of spacetime universe would fit the bill nicely.

 

[Angry Floof]

If God exists, I don't think he can be defined. How could the source of all things be confined to a physical prison like the rest of us? The Tao which can be named is not the eternal Tao, it is said. And isn't this true of anything eternal? If it has boundaries, then it has an end.

If you don't experience anything related to what you call God, then nothing you say about the topic matters. If you do experience something related to what you call God, that can be described and talked about in terms of human experience.

You're the same type of organism as the rest of us, same type of body and brain and senses. So what in those shared human terms can you call God? If nothing, then you might as well worship invisible space baboons or fairies or nothingness.

On the other hand, social influences, conditioning, human biases, ideological identity, etc., are things we can experience and know something about and talk about and describe. And all the God concepts exist within that realm regardless of religious insistence that God is something that conveniently can't be experienced by human beings.

 

[Politesse]

If God exists, I don't think he can be defined. How could the source of all things be confined to a physical prison like the rest of us? The Tao which can be named is not the eternal Tao, it is said. And isn't this true of anything eternal? If it has boundaries, then it has an end.

Something does not have to have a physical form to be defined. Surely you would agree that concepts like 'love' and 'hate' can be defined and the differences between them clearly delineated even though neither has a physical form.

Of course they can, but you'd see the same results as with "god" -- wildly different definitions depending on who you ask due to different personal experiences, cultural assumptions, and psychological needs and desires.

 

[Politesse]

If God exists, I don't think he can be defined. How could the source of all things be confined to a physical prison like the rest of us? The Tao which can be named is not the eternal Tao, it is said. And isn't this true of anything eternal? If it has boundaries, then it has an end.

If you don't experience anything related to what you call God, then nothing you say about the topic matters. If you do experience something related to what you call God, that can be described and talked about in terms of human experience.

You're the same type of organism as the rest of us, same type of body and brain and senses. So what in those shared human terms can you call God? If nothing, then you might as well worship invisible space baboons or fairies or nothingness.

On the other hand, social influences, conditioning, human biases, ideological identity, etc., are things we can experience and know something about and talk about and describe. And all the God concepts exist within that realm regardless of religious insistence that God is something that conveniently can't be experienced by human beings.

The testimony of the senses is hardly reliable beyond doubt. But if it were, then there are certainly those who would testify to having met god, or gods. Shall we restrict his/her description to those testimonies?

 

[Angry Floof]

If God exists, I don't think he can be defined. How could the source of all things be confined to a physical prison like the rest of us? The Tao which can be named is not the eternal Tao, it is said. And isn't this true of anything eternal? If it has boundaries, then it has an end.

If you don't experience anything related to what you call God, then nothing you say about the topic matters. If you do experience something related to what you call God, that can be described and talked about in terms of human experience.

You're the same type of organism as the rest of us, same type of body and brain and senses. So what in those shared human terms can you call God? If nothing, then you might as well worship invisible space baboons or fairies or nothingness.

On the other hand, social influences, conditioning, human biases, ideological identity, etc., are things we can experience and know something about and talk about and describe. And all the God concepts exist within that realm regardless of religious insistence that God is something that conveniently can't be experienced by human beings.

The testimony of the senses is hardly reliable. But if it were, then there are certainly those who would testify to having met god, or gods. Shall we restrict his/her description to those testimonies?

No, we just reject claims that are conveniently without substance. Literally any concept can be held in a human mind as a real thing regardless of what it is or how unsubstantiated.

If you believe in a God that can't be talked about or described, then what prompts you to join these conversations?

Most believers in God at least claim some kind of experience. If you don't experience God, then what's the point of claiming belief?

On the other hand, God belief makes a lot of sense in terms of human minds and social behavior.

 

[skepticalbip]

If God exists, I don't think he can be defined. How could the source of all things be confined to a physical prison like the rest of us? The Tao which can be named is not the eternal Tao, it is said. And isn't this true of anything eternal? If it has boundaries, then it has an end.

Something does not have to have a physical form to be defined. Surely you would agree that concepts like 'love' and 'hate' can be defined and the differences between them clearly delineated even though neither has a physical form.

Of course they can, but you'd see the same results as with "god" -- wildly different definitions depending on who you ask due to different personal experiences, cultural assumptions, and psychological needs and desires.

Exactly, and that is what we see. This would seem to imply that god is only a mental concept, not an actual 'force'. Wouldn't you think maybe that if there were some 'force', external to the human mind, in the universe that has the attributes many claim have an effect on us then everyone would come to very similar understandings of that 'force'? We all certainly describe things like gravity in very similar ways.

 

[abaddon]

If God exists, I don't think he can be defined. How could the source of all things be confined to a physical prison like the rest of us? The Tao which can be named is not the eternal Tao, it is said. And isn't this true of anything eternal? If it has boundaries, then it has an end.

What's being asked is some defining traits, not to throw a net onto the creature and drag the whole thing itself into a room.

Remember Rhea's help with "how to define something". It included this:

"A definition does not need to contain every piece of information known about a subject. Rather, it should contain information about the word and what the word refers to, and enough explanation to allow a user to distinguish that word from most other words." (emphases mine).

Even if the whole "thing" or process doesn't have boundaries and an end, the conception about it does. The point of defining is to clarify the conception "to distinguish that word from most other words".

The point is getting a distinction between whatever this "eternal God" is to most Christian minds, and other Gods.

 

[abaddon]

Of course they can, but you'd see the same results as with "god" -- wildly different definitions depending on who you ask due to different personal experiences, cultural assumptions, and psychological needs and desires.

"Love" and "hate" have "wildly different definitions depending on who you ask"? No, that's false. They'll take on different descriptions in different contexts but they're the same basic thing in physiologically similar animals. They're both pretty easily defined for being ubiquitous experiences. The Christian God isn't, and that is a problem for believing he's real. It's the vagueness and lack of universality that is the problem.

In fact "eternal" and "without boundaries" would be a partial definition. But follow that through and see where it goes... This is the point of asking for a definition. Get those ideas out there and see how well they work in the light of day.

 

[Politesse]

The testimony of the senses is hardly reliable. But if it were, then there are certainly those who would testify to having met god, or gods. Shall we restrict his/her description to those testimonies?

No, we just reject claims that are conveniently without substance. Literally any concept can be held in a human mind as a real thing regardless of what it is or how unsubstantiated.

If you believe in a God that can't be talked about or described, then what prompts you to join these conversations?

Most believers in God at least claim some kind of experience. If you don't experience God, then what's the point of claiming belief?

I don't. Agnostic here. But I have no particular animus toward concepts of god, nor see any reason for such.

 

[Politesse]

Of course they can, but you'd see the same results as with "god" -- wildly different definitions depending on who you ask due to different personal experiences, cultural assumptions, and psychological needs and desires.

"Love" and "hate" have "wildly different definitions depending on who you ask"? No, that's false. They'll take on different descriptions in different contexts but they're the same basic thing in physiologically similar animals. They're both pretty easily defined for being ubiquitous experiences. The Christian God isn't, and that is a problem for believing he's real. It's the vagueness and lack of universality that is the problem.

In fact "eternal" and "without boundaries" would be a partial definition. But follow that through and see where it goes... This is the point of asking for a definition. Get those ideas out there and see how well they work in the light of day.

I would love to see your argument for other animals having any concept of love and hate. Humans don't even agree on this; different languages and cultures categorize and bound love in a lot of different ways. Most people here, I imagine, know that there was no Greek word equivalent to the English "love", for instance, defining four different emotions across the same cognitive territory. Even if we insist we are only talking about Christians here, that fact profoundly influenced interpretations of God during the Reformation Era in particular as the complex arguments made in the New Testament were lost beneath the comparative vagueness of German and English emotional discourse. So humans are not in agreement with one another, to say nothing of what an eagle or salamander might think of the issue. I've never seen much evidence for specifically Christian eagles and salamanders in any case.