For Christians, define god

[Rhea]

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.

You think definitions are confined to a physical prison?
Why?

And why won't you even try answering the easy-peasy direct questions that help get toward a definition that can be usefully used to have a conversation about this thing you call "god"

I'm flummoxed about why you people won't even TRY to converse in a common language. Are you all scared that trying to describe your god will result in your loss of faith in it? Is that the problem?


Or do you really honestly not know how to DEFINE things?

How do you tell the difference between summer and winter?
How do you tell the difference between happy and sad?
How do you tell the difference between Yahweh and Satan???

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

I have no animus toward concepts of god either and I don't see any here that does. The problem is the inability or refusal of those holding their concept to describe it so there can even be any reasonable discussion about it. Can someone actually have a belief in a god and not know what they believe in? Are they incapable of describing what they 'know' and believe in?

 

[Angry Floof]

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.

In other words, you have nothing to contribute to the conversation except vague and slippery apologetics.

 

[abaddon]

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.

The sentence about animals meant nothing but that humans are more the same than different. If something exists (like the physiological responses that result in love or hate), it is what it is regardless how people think about it. But no matter. If "lots of people have lots of conceptions" is all that you want to get across, that's fine. That's apparently all that anyone has regarding any variety of God.

 

[Politesse]

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

In other words, you have nothing to contribute to the conversation except vague and slippery apologetics.

That does not distinguish me from any of the other participants, from what I can see.

 

[Politesse]

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.

The sentence about animals meant nothing but that humans are more the same than different. If something exists (like the physiological responses that result in love or hate), it is what it is regardless how people think about it. But no matter. If "lots of people have lots of conceptions" is all that you want to get across, that's fine. That's apparently all that anyone has regarding any variety of God.

I think that is entirely true, especially with "apparent" as the hedge word. God is not the equivalent of, say, a teapot (with or without spaghetti inside), but more like love or hate, a very broad concept into which a great many stories might legitimate be written. An archetype with considerable potential. He or she has always been thus, and I think any definition would have to acknowledge this. If you start talking about the length of his beard or how many pearls are embedded into his favorite wine goblet, you are both obviously transcending what a human being could possibly know, and probably taking sides in some silly doctrinal dispute. Like children arguing over whether or not they felt loved by their earthly mother, such disagreements are likely beyond any rational conclusion. Indeed, my sister and I probably do disagree on exactly that question. Can a scientist come along, take some oxytocin measurements, or document the average number of hugs per hour, and resolve to the contentment of all parties that my mother loved us both equally within a reasonable margin of error?

I don't think it is a bad idea to talk about God in terms of how people do directly encounter it, but you have to be prepared for the reality of multiple perspectives in that case as well - even someone who is very committed to an predominately experiential approach to theology, say, a Christian Pentecostal, would probably admit readily to the fact that people's experiences of God are not identical. They would be more likely than myself to insist that there are commonalities underlying those experiences, but they would not deny that one's personal experience of God is exactly that -- personal.

 

[skepticalbip]

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

In other words, you have nothing to contribute to the conversation except vague and slippery apologetics.

That does not distinguish me from any of the other participants, from what I can see.

That doesn't seem to be a fair evaluation. What I see is people pleading with theists to explain what they mean by the word 'god'. No reasonable discussion of such a topic can exist until all involved know what the hell the topic is. I am actually curious about what someone means when asked if I believe in god... I may believe their concept of god if their concept is in line with my worldview but I just use other terms than the word god, maybe I use the 'laws of physics' to describe the particular concept they call god.

 

[Politesse]

That does not distinguish me from any of the other participants, from what I can see.

That doesn't seem to be a fair evaluation. What I see is people pleading with theists to explain what they mean by the word 'god'. No reasonable discussion of such a topic can exist until all involved know what the hell the topic is. I am actually curious about what someone means when asked if I believe in god... I may believe their concept of god if their concept is in line with my worldview but I just use other terms that the word god, maybe I use the 'laws of physics' to describe what they call god.

Is there really a fine line? There are such folks as pantheists, after all, who in fact would see no division between those things. Other people, not so much.

It may be silly to call one self a theist without knowing exactly what one is signing on to, but calling oneself an atheist without knowing what exactly one is rejecting seems equally silly to me.

I do not have "a belief in god" as such, but I do not find theism unreasonable, and have my own guesses as to the fundamental nature of things, as do we all. What I do not have and would never claim to have is any special knowledge of God; I am baffled as to how one would even build such knowledge.

 

[skepticalbip]

That does not distinguish me from any of the other participants, from what I can see.

That doesn't seem to be a fair evaluation. What I see is people pleading with theists to explain what they mean by the word 'god'. No reasonable discussion of such a topic can exist until all involved know what the hell the topic is. I am actually curious about what someone means when asked if I believe in god... I may believe their concept of god if their concept is in line with my worldview but I just use other terms that the word god, maybe I use the 'laws of physics' to describe what they call god.

Is there really a fine line? There are such folks as pantheists, after all, who in fact would see no division between those things. Other people, not so much.

It may be silly to call one self a theist without knowing exactly what one is signing on to, but calling oneself an atheist without knowing what exactly one is rejecting seems equally silly to me.

I do not have "a belief in god" as such, but I do not find theism unreasonable, and have my own guesses as to the fundamental nature of things, as do we all. What I do not have and would never claim to have is any special knowledge of God; I am baffled as to how one would even build such knowledge.

Maybe I can help resolve your 'bafflement'. Atheist simply means that no supernatural powers have been shown to be evident to persuade one to accept supernatural claims as true. It isn't a matter of rejection but more a matter of not being presented with a reason to believe.

 

[Politesse]

Is there really a fine line? There are such folks as pantheists, after all, who in fact would see no division between those things. Other people, not so much.

It may be silly to call one self a theist without knowing exactly what one is signing on to, but calling oneself an atheist without knowing what exactly one is rejecting seems equally silly to me.

I do not have "a belief in god" as such, but I do not find theism unreasonable, and have my own guesses as to the fundamental nature of things, as do we all. What I do not have and would never claim to have is any special knowledge of God; I am baffled as to how one would even build such knowledge.

Maybe I can help resolve your 'bafflement'. Atheist simply means that no supernatural powers have been shown to be evident to persuade one to accept supernatural claims as true. It isn't a matter of rejection but more a matter of not being presented with a reason to believe.

In which case, I am an atheist simply by dint of my agnosticism, but the term doesn't really mean very much, and most people would be quite confused by my enthusiastic participation in religious life, since the common definition of atheist means something much more forcefully antireligious.

 

[skepticalbip]

Is there really a fine line? There are such folks as pantheists, after all, who in fact would see no division between those things. Other people, not so much.

It may be silly to call one self a theist without knowing exactly what one is signing on to, but calling oneself an atheist without knowing what exactly one is rejecting seems equally silly to me.

I do not have "a belief in god" as such, but I do not find theism unreasonable, and have my own guesses as to the fundamental nature of things, as do we all. What I do not have and would never claim to have is any special knowledge of God; I am baffled as to how one would even build such knowledge.

Maybe I can help resolve your 'bafflement'. Atheist simply means that no supernatural powers have been shown to be evident to persuade one to accept supernatural claims as true. It isn't a matter of rejection but more a matter of not being presented with a reason to believe.

In which case, I am an atheist simply by dint of my agnosticism, but the term doesn't really mean very much, and most people would be quite confused by my enthusiastic participation in religious life, since the common definition of atheist means something much more forcefully antireligious.

Only through misuse. You are thinking 'antitheist' rather than atheist. Maybe that was because theists have for so long painted anyone who did not holehartedly accept their dogma as being against god.

 

[Angry Floof]

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

In other words, you have nothing to contribute to the conversation except vague and slippery apologetics.

That does not distinguish me from any of the other participants, from what I can see.

What mostly distinguishes you here is your vague arguments and weird deflection. What are you defending here? What prompts you to join the conversation and then sort of dance around every response or challenge to your comments? I'm genuinely curious.

 

[Rhea]

I think that is entirely true, especially with "apparent" as the hedge word. God is not the equivalent of, say, a teapot (with or without spaghetti inside), but more like love or hate, a very broad concept into which a great many stories might legitimate be written. An archetype with considerable potential. He or she has always been thus, and I think any definition would have to acknowledge this. If you start talking about the length of his beard or how many pearls are embedded into his favorite wine goblet, you are both obviously transcending what a human being could possibly know, and probably taking sides in some silly doctrinal dispute. Like children arguing over whether or not they felt loved by their earthly mother, such disagreements are likely beyond any rational conclusion. Indeed, my sister and I probably do disagree on exactly that question. Can a scientist come along, take some oxytocin measurements, or document the average number of hugs per hour, and resolve to the contentment of all parties that my mother loved us both equally within a reasonable margin of error?

I don't think it is a bad idea to talk about God in terms of how people do directly encounter it, but you have to be prepared for the reality of multiple perspectives in that case as well - even someone who is very committed to an predominately experiential approach to theology, say, a Christian Pentecostal, would probably admit readily to the fact that people's experiences of God are not identical. They would be more likely than myself to insist that there are commonalities underlying those experiences, but they would not deny that one's personal experience of God is exactly that -- personal.

So what I sense from this and all of your other posts is this:

"We can't count snowflakes, therefore why ask what is the difference between summer and winter?"​

And I say, Thanks, I understand your position now.
Especially since the topic was "For Christians" and you aren't one.

But you've spent your time telling us that Christians don't know their god and don't care to know and can't know...
You've spent your time telling us that all Christians are agnostics.
Which I really don't think they'd agree with.​

At any rate, I think I get your position now: There is no point in talking about gods. They have no meaning.

 

[Rhea]

That does not distinguish me from any of the other participants, from what I can see.

What mostly distinguishes you here is your vague arguments and weird deflection. What are you defending here? What prompts you to join the conversation and then sort of dance around every response or challenge to your comments? I'm genuinely curious.

Putting on my psych hat, I'm guess that as an agnostic, s/he is convinced everyone else is an agnostic, too. And if s/he can't define a god, s/he thinks no one else can, either, and is arguing that; while assuming that s/he is doing good service to what the Christians arguments would be if they were here.

(Politesse, I can't remember if you are male or female or if you care, so my "s/he" is not intended to be an insult, merely an expression of my own lack of knowledge)

 

[abaddon]

What I do not have and would never claim to have is any special knowledge of God; I am baffled as to how one would even build such knowledge.

^^^ That's basically how I viewed the social experiment happening in this thread. Like probably the others too, I would have liked to see if there are any details. From theists.

 

[Angry Floof]

That does not distinguish me from any of the other participants, from what I can see.

What mostly distinguishes you here is your vague arguments and weird deflection. What are you defending here? What prompts you to join the conversation and then sort of dance around every response or challenge to your comments? I'm genuinely curious.

Putting on my psych hat, I'm guess that as an agnostic, s/he is convinced everyone else is an agnostic, too. And if s/he can't define a god, s/he thinks no one else can, either, and is arguing that; while assuming that s/he is doing good service to what the Christians arguments would be if they were here.

(Politesse, I can't remember if you are male or female or if you care, so my "s/he" is not intended to be an insult, merely an expression of my own lack of knowledge)

I suspect there's also an element of attempting to defend an ideological identity, which, of course, is not about belief in God at all.

 

[Politesse]

That does not distinguish me from any of the other participants, from what I can see.

What mostly distinguishes you here is your vague arguments and weird deflection. What are you defending here? What prompts you to join the conversation and then sort of dance around every response or challenge to your comments? I'm genuinely curious.

I am more interested in conversation than apologetic nonsense, which is always exactly the same and very boring.

 

[Angry Floof]

That does not distinguish me from any of the other participants, from what I can see.

What mostly distinguishes you here is your vague arguments and weird deflection. What are you defending here? What prompts you to join the conversation and then sort of dance around every response or challenge to your comments? I'm genuinely curious.

I am more interested in conversation than apologetic nonsense, which is always exactly the same and very boring.

That's nice, but would you mind sliding back over to my question?

 

[Politesse]

I think that is entirely true, especially with "apparent" as the hedge word. God is not the equivalent of, say, a teapot (with or without spaghetti inside), but more like love or hate, a very broad concept into which a great many stories might legitimate be written. An archetype with considerable potential. He or she has always been thus, and I think any definition would have to acknowledge this. If you start talking about the length of his beard or how many pearls are embedded into his favorite wine goblet, you are both obviously transcending what a human being could possibly know, and probably taking sides in some silly doctrinal dispute. Like children arguing over whether or not they felt loved by their earthly mother, such disagreements are likely beyond any rational conclusion. Indeed, my sister and I probably do disagree on exactly that question. Can a scientist come along, take some oxytocin measurements, or document the average number of hugs per hour, and resolve to the contentment of all parties that my mother loved us both equally within a reasonable margin of error?

I don't think it is a bad idea to talk about God in terms of how people do directly encounter it, but you have to be prepared for the reality of multiple perspectives in that case as well - even someone who is very committed to an predominately experiential approach to theology, say, a Christian Pentecostal, would probably admit readily to the fact that people's experiences of God are not identical. They would be more likely than myself to insist that there are commonalities underlying those experiences, but they would not deny that one's personal experience of God is exactly that -- personal.

So what I sense from this and all of your other posts is this:

"We can't count snowflakes, therefore why ask what is the difference between summer and winter?"​

And I say, Thanks, I understand your position now.
Especially since the topic was "For Christians" and you aren't one.

But you've spent your time telling us that Christians don't know their god and don't care to know and can't know...
You've spent your time telling us that all Christians are agnostics.
Which I really don't think they'd agree with.​

At any rate, I think I get your position now: There is no point in talking about gods. They have no meaning.

I am a Christian, actually. But I note that the vast majority of the people posting in this thread are not. Are you mad at all the atheists cluttering up the thread too, or just me?

Your "summary" of my point has little or nothing to do with anything I have written. The vast majority of Christians would agree that God cannot be fully known (which is called apophatism) that element of theology is very ancient and very widespread. It is dogma for Catholics, who represent the numerical majority of Christians worldwide. This is not the same thing as not desiring to know God, however. Do you reject every subject you think you might not master?

- - - Updated - - -

I am more interested in conversation than apologetic nonsense, which is always exactly the same and very boring.

That's nice, but would you mind sliding back over to my question?

What question? I answered it; I thought the conversation was interesting, so I joined it. Not everything is an intrigue or conspiracy.

EDIT: corrected a typo,

 

[Politesse]

That does not distinguish me from any of the other participants, from what I can see.

What mostly distinguishes you here is your vague arguments and weird deflection. What are you defending here? What prompts you to join the conversation and then sort of dance around every response or challenge to your comments? I'm genuinely curious.

Putting on my psych hat, I'm guess that as an agnostic, s/he is convinced everyone else is an agnostic, too. And if s/he can't define a god, s/he thinks no one else can, either, and is arguing that; while assuming that s/he is doing good service to what the Christians arguments would be if they were here.

(Politesse, I can't remember if you are male or female or if you care, so my "s/he" is not intended to be an insult, merely an expression of my own lack of knowledge)

I have no desire to be "like" every other Christian, an impossibility in any case, considering the diversity of the faith. There are plenty of gnostic Christians in the world, though I suspect very few who think of God as epistemologically equivalent to an orbital teapot or flying bowl of spaghetti.

It is interesting that you seem to be saying that "most Christians" can or would want to describe God, yet also have created a thread to mock their inability or unwillingness to do so. Your implied claims in this thread thus seem a bit contradictory.