God’s real modern name is Gap. So says religions and science.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

God’s real modern name is Gap. So says religions and science.

Have all free thinkers and the religious settled for a Scientific and divine God of the Gaps?

Religions are now recognizing evolution as part of their God of the Gaps ideologies. Science seems to fail to recognize their own God of the multiverse Gaps, before the Big Bang, where their laws break down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytaf30wuLbQ

Religions are here to stay, however; so is science. Religions will just have to learn to live with this.

Governments and the secular world, which have to act in a non-believer way, --- separate of church and state, --- have also had science cast much doubt about the efficacy and morality of all the Gods.

Thanks to all the Gods for our Socio-democratic secular legal systems which puts all theistic laws to shame.

A human created ideology, secular law, is proving itself to be better overall than what all the Gods offer us. That is why even the religious follow the secular and not the theistic law.

Humankind is the God of the Gap. Humans have filled the Gap, and God is best defined as a human being. Do you agree or as Jesus asked, have ye forgotten that ye are Gods?

We are all driven by our instinct to be the fittest human beings possible. We do so, through laws and rules of conduct which are all man made. God is redundant and remains a drain on the progress of our civilizing ourselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ1PDxeUynA

We all have the same God of the Gaps. So why are we fighting?

Regards
DL

 

[Tom Sawyer]

We're fighting because the god in my gap is real and the illogical aspects of his nature are aspects of his wondrous mystery and the god in your gap is fictional and the illogical aspects of his nature make you a moron for believing in him.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

We're fighting because the god in my gap is real and the illogical aspects of his nature are aspects of his wondrous mystery and the god in your gap is fictional and the illogical aspects of his nature make you a moron for believing in him.

Him??

Who do you think my God is?

Do you even know what a Gnostic Christian calls his God and how he defines that title?

Regards
DL

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It was the impersonal third person "you", not a second person statement directed towards you directly.

But, if you need to explain a joke, it means the joke flopped.

Whoever or whatever your god is, it's stupid and fake. Unless, of course, it has a magic hammer that shoots lightning bolts, in which case your god is awesome.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But, if you need to explain a joke, it means the joke flopped.

Probably an artifact of limited audience feedback. I got it.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

It was the impersonal third person "you", not a second person statement directed towards you directly.

But, if you need to explain a joke, it means the joke flopped.

Whoever or whatever your god is, it's stupid and fake. Unless, of course, it has a magic hammer that shoots lightning bolts, in which case your god is awesome.

I define God as the best rules and laws to live by.

How does that make the best laws and rules stupid and fake when you likely define your image of an ideal in about the same way?

Regards
DL

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It was the impersonal third person "you", not a second person statement directed towards you directly.

But, if you need to explain a joke, it means the joke flopped.

Whoever or whatever your god is, it's stupid and fake. Unless, of course, it has a magic hammer that shoots lightning bolts, in which case your god is awesome.

I define God as the best rules and laws to live by.

How does that make the best laws and rules stupid and fake when you likely define your image of an ideal in about the same way?

Regards
DL

That's like saying that I define God as something I put on my feet when it's snowing outside and point to my boots to prove his existence and am then pretending that I made some kind of deep philosophical and theological statement. If your definition of God defines God into irrelevance, then it's not saying anything.

You're using a word which is laden down with a large amount of pre-existing baggage and having an irrelevant definition of it and then pretending that you're saying something instead of nothing. If you want to talk about the best rules and laws to live by, call them the best rules and laws to live by as opposed to trying to shove that into a word which already means something else.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

It was the impersonal third person "you", not a second person statement directed towards you directly.

But, if you need to explain a joke, it means the joke flopped.

Whoever or whatever your god is, it's stupid and fake. Unless, of course, it has a magic hammer that shoots lightning bolts, in which case your god is awesome.

I define God as the best rules and laws to live by.

How does that make the best laws and rules stupid and fake when you likely define your image of an ideal in about the same way?

Regards
DL

That's like saying that I define God as something I put on my feet when it's snowing outside and point to my boots to prove his existence and am then pretending that I made some kind of deep philosophical and theological statement. If your definition of God defines God into irrelevance, then it's not saying anything.

You're using a word which is laden down with a large amount of pre-existing baggage and having an irrelevant definition of it and then pretending that you're saying something instead of nothing. If you want to talk about the best rules and laws to live by, call them the best rules and laws to live by as opposed to trying to shove that into a word which already means something else.

True that the word God is full of garbage, but that does not have anything to do with what I put.

Are you denying that your ideal ideology, God to believers, would be one where you have inserted the best rules and laws to live by that you have found?

Regards
DL

 

[Tom Sawyer]

True that the word God is full of garbage, but that does not have anything to do with what I put.

Are you denying that your ideal ideology, God to believers, would be one where you have inserted the best rules and laws to live by that you have found?

Regards
DL

That sounds fine. My issue is with calling that "God" as opposed to "ideal ideology". It serves no purpose beyond deliberately introducing confusion and obfuscating the point being made. If you need to constantly stop in the middle of what you're saying and re-explain to each and every person you're talking to that you're driving mitigated horseshoes of the bananas*, you're not doing a good job of arguing your position.

* By "driving", I mean "using". By "mitigated", I mean "non-standard". By "horseshoes", I mean "definitions". By "bananas", I mean "words". It was your responsibility to understand how I was using them and to not assume I meant them the way everybody else means them.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

True that the word God is full of garbage, but that does not have anything to do with what I put.

Are you denying that your ideal ideology, God to believers, would be one where you have inserted the best rules and laws to live by that you have found?

Regards
DL

That sounds fine. My issue is with calling that "God" as opposed to "ideal ideology". It serves no purpose beyond deliberately introducing confusion and obfuscating the point being made. If you need to constantly stop in the middle of what you're saying and re-explain to each and every person you're talking to that you're driving mitigated horseshoes of the bananas*, you're not doing a good job of arguing your position.

* By "driving", I mean "using". By "mitigated", I mean "non-standard". By "horseshoes", I mean "definitions". By "bananas", I mean "words". It was your responsibility to understand how I was using them and to not assume I meant them the way everybody else means them.

It is not my fault that you are stuck on language and labels and will not accept a synonym for God.

God is a label or title that describes nothing.

Regards
DL

 

[Keith&Co.]

It is not my fault that you are stuck on language and labels and will not accept a synonym for God.

He's not 'stuck on labels,' he's pointing out the difficulties in communication if you're just going to substitute words randomly for fengle the pershtack. It gabbel vent BOTH of you to wisznart en flambé.

An disability in fropping your ideas to another is not something to g'fibble about.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

It is not my fault that you are stuck on language and labels and will not accept a synonym for God.

He's not 'stuck on labels,' he's pointing out the difficulties in communication if you're just going to substitute words randomly for fengle the pershtack. It gabbel vent BOTH of you to wisznart en flambé.

An disability in fropping your ideas to another is not something to g'fibble about.

It is not my fault if he is in the wrong timeline as far as defining the word God and forgetting that even the old Emperors used that title.

http://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

Regards
DL

 

[Tom Sawyer]

True that the word God is full of garbage, but that does not have anything to do with what I put.

Are you denying that your ideal ideology, God to believers, would be one where you have inserted the best rules and laws to live by that you have found?

Regards
DL

That sounds fine. My issue is with calling that "God" as opposed to "ideal ideology". It serves no purpose beyond deliberately introducing confusion and obfuscating the point being made. If you need to constantly stop in the middle of what you're saying and re-explain to each and every person you're talking to that you're driving mitigated horseshoes of the bananas*, you're not doing a good job of arguing your position.

* By "driving", I mean "using". By "mitigated", I mean "non-standard". By "horseshoes", I mean "definitions". By "bananas", I mean "words". It was your responsibility to understand how I was using them and to not assume I meant them the way everybody else means them.

It is not my fault that you are stuck on language and labels and will not accept a synonym for God.

God is a label or title that describes nothing.

Regards
DL

Agreed, but only in the way that Superman is a label or title that describes nothing. It doesn't change the fact that there is a commonly known fictional character called Superman and when I use the word Superman in a conversation, people would be correct in assuming that I'm referencing that character instead of a rock in my backyard. Any miscommunication in the conversation would be my fault because I decided to refer to a rock as Superman and not provide any context relating to that fact.

Even if I did provide that context, they would be correct in ignoring whatever I'm saying and just trying to get an answer as to why I would be referring to a rock as Superman instead of just calling it a rock because it's kind of silly to refer to a rock as Superman.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It is not my fault that you are stuck on language and labels and will not accept a synonym for God.

He's not 'stuck on labels,' he's pointing out the difficulties in communication if you're just going to substitute words randomly for fengle the pershtack. It gabbel vent BOTH of you to wisznart en flambé.

An disability in fropping your ideas to another is not something to g'fibble about.

It is not my fault if he is in the wrong timeline as far as defining the word God and forgetting that even the old Emperors used that title.

http://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

Regards
DL

It's the common usage of a word which is important in communication, not the historical etymology of the word.

If you say that someone is gay, you are saying that he is a homosexual. The fact that a hundred years ago it would mean that he's happy doesn't mean that you're expressing yourself correctly if you now use it that way.

If you call someone Batman, you are making a comic book reference. A hundred years ago, you would have meant that he's the personal servant of a military officer and you're introducing confusion if you use it that way now.

While neither of those old usages is technically wrong, in the same way that your usage of a historical definition of the word God is not technically wrong, you are miscommunicating your point when you use it that way.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

It is not my fault that you are stuck on language and labels and will not accept a synonym for God.

God is a label or title that describes nothing.

Regards
DL

Agreed, but only in the way that Superman is a label or title that describes nothing. It doesn't change the fact that there is a commonly known fictional character called Superman and when I use the word Superman in a conversation, people would be correct in assuming that I'm referencing that character instead of a rock in my backyard. Any miscommunication in the conversation would be my fault because I decided to refer to a rock as Superman and not provide any context relating to that fact.

Even if I did provide that context, they would be correct in ignoring whatever I'm saying and just trying to get an answer as to why I would be referring to a rock as Superman instead of just calling it a rock because it's kind of silly to refer to a rock as Superman.

The word Superman is not a label. It is a know fictional character and the mind forms a mental image of only him when he is mentioned. He is always male for instance.

If the word God comes to mind, it could be one of the thousand Gods on offer which includes the description I use.

Give this link a listen. I like the way he expresses the word God but then unfortunately shows himself to be a lousy idol worshiper himself.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SkZg1ZflpJs[/YOUTUBE]

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

It is not my fault if he is in the wrong timeline as far as defining the word God and forgetting that even the old Emperors used that title.

http://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

Regards
DL

It's the common usage of a word which is important in communication, not the historical etymology of the word.

If you say that someone is gay, you are saying that he is a homosexual. The fact that a hundred years ago it would mean that he's happy doesn't mean that you're expressing yourself correctly if you now use it that way.

If you call someone Batman, you are making a comic book reference. A hundred years ago, you would have meant that he's the personal servant of a military officer and you're introducing confusion if you use it that way now.

While neither of those old usages is technically wrong, in the same way that your usage of a historical definition of the word God is not technically wrong, you are miscommunicating your point when you use it that way.

I have no control of someone's mental picture of God.

The moment someone tell me anything about his God, my first question, if it is not obvious who the God in question is, is which God he is referring to.

If our friend would have asked, instead of telling me who I was talking about, all this confusion would not have come to pass. That is why, if I recall, I asked our friend to name the God he was applying to me and Gnostic Christianity.

Regards
DL

 

[Keith&Co.]

The word Superman is not a label. It is a know fictional character

Wow.
You fail English.

the word is not a fictional character.
The word is the label for the fictional character.

Furthering the point that words have meaning. You should only use them if you know what to do with them.

 

[funinspace]

mental masturbation

supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The word Superman is not a label. It is a know fictional character and the mind forms a mental image of only him when he is mentioned. He is always male for instance.

If the word God comes to mind, it could be one of the thousand Gods on offer which includes the description I use.

No, there are not thousands of Gods. There are thousands of gods. That's a very real and very important difference.

When you use Capital-G God in communications with a Western audience, your audience understands that you are using the proper name of Judeo-Christian deity. It's a reference to a specific character in a specific line of story books the same way that Superman is a reference to a specific character in a specific line of story books.

If you're using the word as a synonym for a deity in general, it's lower-g god, since you're referring to what he is, not who he is. Your definition seems to fall under that. You are talking about the definition of a god, not the definition of God.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I have no control of someone's mental picture of God.

The moment someone tell me anything about his God, my first question, if it is not obvious who the God in question is, is which God he is referring to.

If our friend would have asked, instead of telling me who I was talking about, all this confusion would not have come to pass. That is why, if I recall, I asked our friend to name the God he was applying to me and Gnostic Christianity.

Regards
DL

If someone in Western society asks which god you're referring to and he's doing it in writing and uses a capital G, you know which god he's referring to, since it's the common usage of the name / title of a specific one.

If you want to avoid confusion, don't use a group name as a proper name.