God

[hive_king]

What is God? How would you define him?

[Dr. Mobius]

[Jebus]

Kinda like me, but not as kewl.

[Hegemon]

Kinda like me, but not as kewl.

and I would imagine not as lacking in omnipotence....

[lyons24000]

God is a spirit. (John 4:24)
God is love. (1 John 4:16)
God is the creator of all things. (Revelation 4:11)
God is merciful. (Exodus 34:6)

And since God is a spirit, he can not be described physically.

[eriador]

What is God? How would you define him?

What do you mean by God, because I can't answer until I know what you're thinking of?

[Hegemon]

What is God? How would you define him?

What do you mean by God, because I can't answer until I know what you're thinking of?

If he states what he is thinking of, then he is defining it. He is asking you to define it.

Incidentally, I do find it amusing that he seems to presuppose that God is a "him".

[suminonA]

Incidentally, I do find it amusing that he seems to presuppose that God is a "him".

My thoughts exactly. Although it might be from a different perspective ... I mean, me being an atheist and all

A.

[eriador]

God has many meanings to me. Which one are you looking for?

Never mind.

I don't think God, as a deity can not be defined, just as one can not define something that does not exist.

I would define God, as a philosophical concept, as a form of mind control. Anything more specific would be inaccurate.

[Soara]

I believe God is nature, science, and love. I'm such a hippy.

[Rei]

God is omnipresent in space.
God is omnipresent in time.
God holds the world in His hands.
God is light.

God is love.
God is good.
God is our Father.
He begat His Son who is our king and our brother.

God is.

[Boothby]

God is omnipresent in space.
God is omnipresent in time.
God holds the world in His hands.
God is light.

God is love.
God is good.
God is our Father.
He begat His Son who is our king and our brother.

God is.

Rei--I'm not sure what you mean by any of that.

Previously, He has been defined as providing the form for human beings: Our hands are like His hands, our face like His face, our bodies like His body. How big does He have to be that He can "hold the world in His hands?" Also, since He has a defined form, for Him to exist all throughout space implies that we should be physically bumping into him at every turn.

And, if He is light, is he all wavelenths of light, or just the visible wavelengths?

Or are you using all those statements as analogies for something else, which brings me back to my first question: What do you mean by any of that?

[eriador]

The problem is that defining God too well would open gaping holes which would allow doubters to tear any beleiver apart. It's best to keep it vague and get rid of people who ask questions. Keeps the mind control working well.

[Eaquae Legit]

The problem is that defining God too well would open gaping holes which would allow doubters to tear any beleiver apart. It's best to keep it vague and get rid of people who ask questions. Keeps the mind control working well.

This is EL-with-her-mod-hat speaking. Watch your language. This is a forum where we pay special attention to speaking respectfully of the people we disagree with and the beliefs we disagree with. So unless you want to be called a hell-bound athiest, calling religious people brainwashed is not acceptable.

[Eaquae Legit]

God is that which accepts no predication.
God is the monad begetting monad, reflecting his own brightness into himself.
God is the beginning without beginning, end without end.
God is the creator of the universe.
God exists in kairos, not kronos. God exists in the eternal moment. Gos is not bound by time or space.
God is the sacrificial lamb, slain once for all.
In the eucharist, God makes himself present in the material world.
God is neither male nor female, containing all aspects of both.
God is three persons existing in one hypostatic union.
God is caritas.

Hive King, I wish I could answer your question thoroughly, but I can't. I've offered a few of the ways my mind thinks of God, but there's no way I could write them all down. And even if I could, I still couldn't explain God.

[mr_thebrain]

if the shoe fits....

hey, i AM hell bound, even if i'm not exactly an athiest. I've often wondered about the brainwashing of children in regard to faith.

how can it be called anything else when parents and grandparents push so hard to have their children have the same faith as them. and the church tends to push it really hard as well.

of course the argument would then be something along the lines of:

"if the church and family brainwashes children into the faith, then our educational system brainwashes as well... pretty soon kids will start believing in SCIENCE!"

Then of course my argument would have to be:

"except that the educational system encourages children to think for themselves..."

as you can see it's very back and forth.

[Eaquae Legit]

That, mr_thebrain, is a topic for another thread, and if you can think of a way to have it without calling the religious members here brainwashed, I invite you to start it. If you can't do it according to the rules of this forum, it's not welcome.

Edit: To rephrase. Calling people brainwashed is not okay. Calling them hell-bound is also not okay.

[Dr. Mobius]

There will be no cleaning minds around here. We like them dirty.

[suminonA]

There will be no cleaning minds around here. We like them dirty.

Really? And who is to judge what a "dirty mind" means?

A.

[zeroguy]

Edit: To rephrase. Calling people brainwashed is not okay. Calling them hell-bound is also not okay.

But, you know, calling them insane girls who think cats are as smart as people, and who's ideas don't matter; we're cool with that.

(Where the hell is that thumbsup smilie when I need it....)

[eriador]

I would define God, as a philosophical concept, as a form of mind control. Anything more specific would be inaccurate.

I was making a reference to this. -^

I wasn't calling religious people brainwashed, I was saying that by defining God, the concept of God is easily destroyed. I was referring to God as mind control in reference to my previous comments.


BTW, You might not have directly said I was going to hell, but it sounded a lot like it, even if you had your mod-hat on. I don't appreciate that.

[Eaquae Legit]

Ah, then the rules are starting to make more sense, eriador. That's why we keep things polite around here. You said God is a form of mind-control. Your statement necessitates minds that are controlled, i.e., religious people. If you don't like being called names, even by implication, you should think more about how your words will be read. (Just in case people take that as me saying it's okay to insult someone back, it's not.) And that's me with my mod hat on again.

Without my mod hat, your comments about vague discriptions really amused me. If you had any idea how specific definitions of God have gotten and still are, you would not make such an ignorant statement. If you'd like I could refer you to some great reading material. (However, there's so much of it that not all of it is in English or even in print, so that might cause problems.)



Zero, I don't mod everything. I have a life outside of pweb. That's why there's a team of us. I note the things I catch, and the ones I don't catch I just hope someone else does.

[Dr. Mobius]

(Where the hell is that thumbsup smilie when I need it....)

This guy?

He's right here with the rest of them.

[eriador]

Saying that I "wouldn't want to be called a hell-bound atheist" is just as hurtful...

But yes, I understand where you're coming from. However, if one doesn't think that they been brainwashed, then they shouldn't be offended by me saying something about brainwashing. The only people who would take offense are people who suspect mind control actually is what's going on with them or somebody they know.

Yes, people might take offense whey I say it, but it's my opinion, and I have a right to voice it (in a respectful way, which, IMHO, I did).

[Eaquae Legit]

But yes, I understand where you're coming from. However, if one doesn't think that they <are hellbound>, then they shouldn't be offended by me saying something about <damnation>. The only people who would take offense are people who suspect <damnation> actually is what's going on with them or somebody they know.

Now, if reading your own words doesn't sort things out, I'm going to say things outright.

End of argument, calling people brainwashed is unacceptable. There are ways to make a point like that without insulting people. Just like there are ways for Christians to discuss Christianity without going all Fred Phelps. Learn to speak in those ways, or you will recieve a warning. It's not that hard, most of the atheists on the board seem to manage. This is not subject to negotiation.

(And for the record, I did not call you, or anyone, hell-bound. I did not imply that you were. You have zero experience with my views on the matter. They might surprise you.)

[mr_thebrain]

sounds like you assume he doesn't know much because he's just an athiest.

anyway. i don't think it was a warning type of offense. but hey. you're the mod.

[Eaquae Legit]

Brain, I would have been happy to let it go with the one post. I have not warned anyone yet and I hope not to.

What I think he does or does not know is my opinion as a private member, not as a mod. If I think he doesn't know much, that is based on statements he has made in this forum, both in terms of history and methodology. That is my opinion as an academic, and not a personal attack. I have not and will not attack eriador personally, nor will I condemn him for his beliefs. Frankly, I don't much care what he believes, as long as he can express it politely.

Furthermore, my censure (not to be confused with censorship, which is entirely different) has nothing to do with eriador's knowledge. It is entirely to do with the rules of this forum, which are very clear on insults towards people with differring opinions.

[mr_thebrain]

didn't seem like an insult though.

[Young Val]

i'm not a church-goer and haven't been since childhood. technically i'm Catholic, meaning that i was raised by two parents of the Catholic faith (one is still semi-practicing, one has long since become an atheist), and that i was baptised and made my first communion. i was never confirmed, however, and attended several non-catholic churches in late elementary school, and since have stopped going to a church of any kind altogether.

i don't DISbelieve in god. but i also don't believe in "God" in a traditional judeo-christian sense.

if i were to define god, i suppose i would say that god is the instinct and the desire to lead a good life. to get a bit more whimsical (and yet this is very true for me) i would say that i see god as a combination of my father, santa claus, and the big bad wolf.

[AnthonyByakko]

God? The Great Rainbow Serpent.

[eriador]

For the record, I did not call you, or anyone, <brainwashed>. I did not intend imply that you were.

I said that I thought that the idea God was a form of mind control. That wasn't meant to say that anybody was brainwashed, though I understand why people might have taken offense at it. However, I can't think of a way of expressing this (controvesial, I will admit) view without somebody taking offense. I was trying not to offend and I did my best to keep it from being too inflamatory.

So unless you want to be called a hell-bound athiest, calling religious people brainwashed is not acceptable.

To me it sounds like you are calling me a hell-bound atheist. I didn't take offense at that comment, but I thought that it was pretty hypocritical to say something like that right after telling me off for the same thing (essentially).

I agree, I don't have any experience with your views on damnation. However, you seemed to be saying that I was damned, but in a way that gave you "plausible deniability." You may not have directly called me hell-bound, but you came a lot closer than I did to calling you brainwashed.

If you had any idea how specific definitions of God have gotten and still are, you would not make such an ignorant statement. If you'd like I could refer you to some great reading material. (However, there's so much of it that not all of it is in English or even in print, so that might cause problems.)

Sure, could you? I'd love to sink my teeth into something. One note though, I have very little time, so shorter would be better...[/i]

[Rei]

Okay, eriador. Pray, for everyone's sanity, pay attention.

First, in defence of EL's analogy. It was an analogy and nothing more. You calling her brainwashed would be like her calling you hell-bound (note the subjunctive). She did not say you are hell-bound.

You did, by implication, call everyone who believes in God, or indeed any gods or goddesses, brainwashed. How, you ask?

The problem is that defining God too well would open gaping holes which would allow doubters to tear any beleiver apart. It's best to keep it vague and get rid of people who ask questions. Keeps the mind control working well.

This post of yours states that God is a form of mind control. This is why it is important to keep definitions of Him vague, you said. That way it "keeps the mind control working well." This necessitates that someone's mind is being controled. And, as the mind-control is the idea of God, the minds being controlled are those that believe in God. So anyone who believes in God is a victim of mind control. Basically, anyone who believes in God, a god, or a goddess is brainwashed. Savvy?

Oh, as for a specific definition of God, this is an example. And here is a better copy of it.

[eriador]

I was responding to the question:

What is God? How would you define him?

I responded:

I would define God, as a philosophical concept, as a form of mind control. Anything more specific would be inaccurate.

It was my answer, and I have a right to express it. As I have said before:

I can't think of a way of expressing this (controvesial, I will admit) view without somebody taking offense. I was trying not to offend and I did my best to keep it from being too inflamatory.

I see why people might have been offended, but I was answering the question/i]. EL's comment was not at all in reference to the question. As I have said before:

To me it sounds like you are calling me a hell-bound atheist. I didn't take offense at that comment, but I thought that it was pretty hypocritical to say something like that right after telling me off for the same thing (essentially).

I read it as her calling me damned, albeit in a roundabout way. Yes, she didn't directly say that I was hell-bound, but I felt like it was a sneaky way of saying so, without actually saying so. I don't want to keep repeating myself? What else do I have to say to make my feelings clear?

[Boothby]

Rei,

Assuming, for the moment that there is no God, what else would God be, then? Because if there is no actual God (the Atheist's POV), what is religion, why was it created, and why has it continued? Why was the concept of God created by men?

[Rei]

Assuming there is no God, I would have to say that the concept of God was developed to explain what people could not explain. This world exists. Why? Perhaps the Tanakh is just a very old novel. And it has continued because someone at some point mistook it for a holy book and the sheer inertia of it can not be stopped. Either way, it does not have to be a mind-control thing and I think you would have a harder time proving that every religion ever created that contains some element of a god was really created as a mind-control tool. Even from the Atheistic perspective I think we can agree that there are better explainations for religions and gods.