God

[eriador]

Uhh... Thanks for the reference Rei, but it's a tad long for my taste. I would love to read it all, but I don't have the time. Do you have any specific sections you would like me to read, 'cause I blanched at the table of contents alone, which is considerably shorter than the entire thing. I doubt that this guy was that specific, so if you could refer me to a few sections, I'd appreciate that.

[Eaquae Legit]

*sigh* I do not understand, eriador, why you persist in accusing me of saying things I did not say. I'm beginning to wonder about your reading comprehension. You know NOTHING about my opinion on this subject. Zero. Nada. I expressed a hypothetical comparison. Go and read my last post if you don't think the comparison is apt. Hypothetical.

Question 2 of the Summa is a good place to start (there are three articles). Of course, the Summa, by its nature, is a whole, and you won't get a full picture by reading such a small part.

A favourite text discussing God is the Liber viginti quattuor philosophorum, which offers 24 definitions of God and three commentaries of each. You might find a copy in a library somewhere. Unfortunately, I do not have my translations on hand (it's in Latin). I have a real soft spot for it, myself.

Cicero's De natura deorum is another one I like (non-Christian, but interesting). I'm pretty sure it's not online, but more readily available in a library and available in English.

For a Catholic perspective, we can turn again to the handy-dandy Catechism. Section 2, Chapters 1-3 discuss all three persons of the Trinity in detail.

The Sentences by Peter Lombard are also pretty detailed.

Basically, pick a philosopher from the middle ages. Go read some of it. If your brain doesn't explode, you will see how detailed things could get. This topic has been the source of thousands of books of philosophy, multiple wars, schisms, persecutions, and thundering theological debates. What, you think we have so many religions and denominations today just for the heck of it? No, each group has a very specific concept of God or gods, and that is what makes each different from the other.

Heck, the reason we have a Roman Catholic / Greek Orthodox division stems in no small part from a single technicality, a single word in the Nicene Creed.

It boggles my mind that anyone - athiest, theist, or potato - could ever think that there are no "specific" definitions of God, and never have been. Out of curiosity, if you have studied extensively, what the heck did you study? I find it almost impossible to comprehend how one could study extensively enough to "know" the answer to such a big question, and yet miss seemingly every single major writer on the topic. Not to mention displaying evident ignorance of any anthropological investigation into the origin of religion. If you can englighten me, I'd be very glad indeed, because I am baffled.

****

Anthropological approaches to religion reflect a more general tension within anthropology: the discipline defines itself as a science in that all anthropologists base their interpretations and explanations on empirical evidence (and many anthropologists are concerned with developing universal models of human behavior), and the discipline also defines itself in terms of the seriousness with which it takes local beliefs and practices (see cultural relativism), and its commitment to understanding different cultures in their own terms through participant observation. Thus, although many Westerners (including anthropologists) have rejected “religion” out of hand as being unscientific, virtually all anthropologists assume that there must be good reasons for the endurance and importance of religion and, by implication, assume that religious beliefs and practices are in some sense “reasonable.” In order to determine the reasons for the importance of religion, however, anthropologists generally move beyond the literal claims of any religion to look at its metaphorical meaning or latent social functions.

One major problem in the anthropology of religion is the definition of religion itself. At one time anthropologists believed that certain religious practices and beliefs were more or less universal to all cultures at some point in their development, such as a belief in spirits or ghosts, the use of magic as a means of controlling the supernatural, the use of divination as a means of discovering occult knowledge, and the performance of rituals such as prayer and sacrifice as a means of influencing the outcome of various events through a supernatural agency, sometimes taking the form of shamanism or ancestor worship. According to Clifford Geertz, religion is a system of symbols, beliefs, and patterns of behaviors by which humans control that which is beyond their control. Today, anthropologists debate, and many reject, the cross-cultural validity of these categories (often viewing them as examples of European primitivism). Anthropologists have considered various criteria for defining religion – such as a belief in the supernatural or the reliance on ritual – but few claim that these criteria are universally valid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion

Religions in Practice (by John R. Bowen) is an excellent book on the anthropology of religion, and if I had it here, I would summarise some of it. Alas, it is at my parents' house.

Among all the assorted theories, I think the only one that could be described as a theory of "mind control" is Marx. There's at least a half-dozen more that are more charitable. If I get some time, I might invest the effort in presentng more material here, but for now I suggest some independent investigation.

[Caspian]

This quest for a "definition" of God reminds me of the beginning of Dickens' novel Hard Times.

Sissy, a young girl who has been raised in a circus, whose father is an equestrian performer, who has raised, fed, cared for, and ridden horses for her entire life is asked for "the definition of a horse". She is unable to provide it.

A young boy named Bitzer pipes up. "Quadruped. Graminivorous. Forty teeth, namely twenty-four grinders, four eye-teeth, and twelve incisive. Sheds coat in the spring; in marshy countries, sheds hoofs too. Hoofs hard, but requiring to be shot with iron. Age known by marks in mouth."

The teacher concludes by telling Sissy that now she "know what a horse is."

The definition of God is important, and as EL pointed out, the historical church has produced many definitions, from the simple to the maddeningly specific. But no definition, no matter how specific, will ever be God. The difference between even the best definition of God and the actual God is the same as the difference between even the best map of Asia and Asia itself. And the ability to produce one does not necessarily mean access to the other.

It is possible to know God without being able to define God, just as it is possible to know a horse without being able to define a horse. And no definition, (either of God OR of a horse) no matter how complex or specific, will ever be complete.

That isn't to say that we shouldn't try to define God. But it means that the relative accuracy or inaccuracy of those definitions make no negative comment on either God or on those who believe in him.

[eriador]

This topic has been the source of thousands of books of philosophy, multiple wars, schisms, persecutions, and thundering theological debates. What, you think we have so many religions and denominations today just for the heck of it? No, each group has a very specific concept of God or gods, and that is what makes each different from the other.

Heck, the reason we have a Roman Catholic / Greek Orthodox division stems in no small part from a single technicality, a single word in the Nicene Creed.

My point exactly. If you define God, people will stop agreeing with you, and your power over them goes *poof*. As I said before, defining God too much destroys the effectiveness of the mind control [my personal view, not meant to imply that anybody reading this is having their mind controlled].

It boggles my mind that anyone - athiest, theist, or potato - could ever think that there are no "specific" definitions of God, and never have been.

Umm. When did I say that nobody had ever defined God? I said:

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.

See my comment above.

Out of curiosity, if you have studied extensively, what the heck did you study? I find it almost impossible to comprehend how one could study extensively enough to "know" the answer to such a big question, and yet miss seemingly every single major writer on the topic.

Did I say that I had "studied extensively"? It seemed that when I asked you what to read, I was expressing my interest in an area that I had not studied extensively.

Not to mention displaying evident ignorance of any anthropological investigation into the origin of religion. If you can englighten me, I'd be very glad indeed, because I am baffled.

I'm somewhat aware of the anthropology of religion, but not very experienced with it. I might ask, where did I "display evident ignorance"? 'Cause I don't see where I did. Once again, I'm interested, but not experienced, and so was hoping that you would be willing to share some of your experience with me, instead of attacking my competence.

Religions in Practice (by John R. Bowen) is an excellent book on the anthropology of religion, and if I had it here, I would summarise some of it. Alas, it is at my parents' house.

Thanks. I'll look it up.

Among all the assorted theories, I think the only one that could be described as a theory of "mind control" is Marx.

Just 'cause he's the only one, doesn't mean that he, (or anyone who agrees with him, such as me) is wrong.

There's at least a half-dozen more that are more charitable. If I get some time, I might invest the effort in presentng more material here, but for now I suggest some independent investigation.

I will be sure to do independent investigation, when I can find the time. So it might be a bit.[/i]

[Jayelle]

Did you even read Caspian's post?

Do you have any idea how often Christians debate and question their faith?

[eriador]

Disclaimer: The following represents my opinion and is meant as a response to questions directed to me. Any comments seen as rude and/or sarcastic were not intended that way, but rather as an earnest response to questions. I acknowledge that my beleifs are highly incompatible with many religions, but I am not expressing them to convince anybody that their beliefs are wrong or convince anybody that mine are correct, but rather to help people understand what I hold to be true and why.

Again, any offensive content is not meant to be offensive, but rather reflects a misunderstanding of your beliefs. If you take offense, please explain why, and I will attempt to prevent it from happening again. I am happy to learn and will consider anything you say with an open mind.

Yes and yes.

However, I think that it's ridiculous to believe in something that cannot be defined if a much simpler and much more logical solution exists.

I also don't think that if people think that they are "debating and questioning their faith," they can't be controlled. The entire concept of organized religion implies / lends itself to the idea of mind control. If it only takes simple logic to conlude that there is no God, then why else do people think the way they do? As mr_thebrain said:

how can it be called anything else [but brainwashing] 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.

[Jayelle]

Telling someone their religious beleifs are a product of "Mind Control" is offensive. You are insulting every single person on this board who is religious. You are telling us that we have no mind of our own. That is offensive.

Adding a disclaimer onto your posts doesn't change their offensiveness.

I've repeatedly PM'ed you and told you to read the rules. Obey them or feel free to leave.

Consider this your first warning.

[eriador]

Disclaimer: The following represents my opinion and is meant as a response to questions and comments directed to me. Any comments seen as rude and/or sarcastic were not intended that way, but rather as an earnest response to others' posts. I acknowledge that my beleifs are highly incompatible with many religions, but I am not expressing them to convince anybody that their beliefs are wrong or convince anybody that mine are correct, but rather to help people understand what I hold to be true and why.

Again, any offensive content is not meant to be offensive, but rather reflects a misunderstanding of your beliefs. If you take offense, please explain why, and I will attempt to prevent it from happening again. I am happy to learn and will consider anything you say with an open mind.

Jayelle, once is not repeatedly. However, that one PM was quite clear. You did clearly include the rules of the forum:

This is a place for:

*Learning and Discussing about the nature of beliefs that people may hold as dear and True
*Learning and Discussing WHY individuals hold those beliefs as such
*Discussing those beliefs and clearing up misconceptions for greater mutual understanding

This is not a place for:

* Bashing, Ridiculing, or degradation of anyone's system of beliefs
* Presenting links to websites that bash, ridicule, or degrade anyone's system of beliefs
* Blatant Proselyting to Your Way Of Thinking

I think that my posts in this thread have fallen under the first three. Yes, my attempts to make myself clear may have been offensive, and for that I am sorry. However, just because it's offensive, shouldn't mean that I can't participate in the discussion to the same degree as somebody else (unless i'm missing something).

I don't think that anything fell under any of the last three. I wasn't trying to say that your beleifs are any "worse" just because the beliefs that you hold are used to control people. I have repeatedly said that not everybody is brainwashed into beleiving what they do. I have not said that any relgious beliefs are the result of mind control. I was saying that religion (and the concept of God) are used that way. If you don't think that your beliefs are the result of brain control, you could be right. Once again, not everybody's beliefs are the result of brainwashing.

If you had read the disclaimer, I was not trying to be offensive. I am open to changing my posts to reflect my understanding of what is and is not offensive. However, I have a certain right to express my beliefs. Censoring me would only go against the spirit of the rules. Kick me out if you will, but that would be an abuse of power (if you ask me).