Does God need redefining?

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Indeed. It is right infront of them. Literally.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: DISRAELI

The proper Biblical answer to the question "Why do you believe your God made the universe?" is not really "Becasue that's the only way to account for the universe." The truly Biblical answer is "Because he says he did, and I believe him."

This is why the definition of god oight to be rrevaluated.

I'm not sure I understand your response. In what way should the definition be re-evaluated? God (capital "G) refers to the alleged Judeo-Christian/Muslim deity who allegedly created everything. If they simply stopping claiming that God exists as fact and, instead, acknowledge that his existence is simply a belief (and act accordingly), the problem would be solved. Of course, that isn't going to happen.

The Muslim god really isn't the same as the Judeo-Christian. Not even from a simple academic comparison. Not even taking sides here just saying.

Bull#........ God is just like Santa clause he exists within the belief (however Nieve and Ludacris) of him. Wake up people ... Or should I say "sheeple"!! God is an excuse for the feeble minded to full in the blanks because they have lost their ability to use reason and actual intellect. Religion is a closed minded captor of the human spirit and due to it's many different concepts it's causing wars and the destruction of what was at one time ( before the mind# started) an intelligent race.

a reply to: greblok

How dare you call my belief in Santa into question. This means war.

originally posted by: greblok
Bull#........ God is just like Santa clause he exists within the belief (however Nieve and Ludacris) of him. Wake up people ... Or should I say "sheeple"!! God is an excuse for the feeble minded to full in the blanks because they have lost their ability to use reason and actual intellect. Religion is a closed minded captor of the human spirit and due to it's many different concepts it's causing wars and the destruction of what was at one time ( before the mind# started) an intelligent race.

At one time? How about the span of all of human history. God, gods, is nothing new.

Gods deities and icons have for centuries been established in many beliefs. Yet those ,such as the buddhist , and many others openly convey the attribution to the"metaphoric" and or "fabled" existence of said icons

God doesn't need redefining....

God needs refinancing....

a reply to: Logarock

Spirituality is an essence and has in itself it's own existence along with the ability to project it's energies to the ones capable of the connection to it . And are not blinded by ages of rewritten and misinterpreted guidelines depicted in the fables of christianity.

originally posted by: greblok
a reply to: Logarock

Spirituality is an essence and has in itself it's own existence along with the ability to project it's energies to the ones capable of the connection to it . And are not blinded by ages of rewritten and misinterpreted guidelines depicted in the fables of christianity.

Well see I am not even talking about christianity. I am talking about religion going back to the Sumerian area, Egypt, the Greeks, Romans ect.

But really I can see what your after buy that quick knee jerk.

a reply to: Logarock

I did.t mean to offend anti.e if I have I apologize. It's just that it seems religion has stripped society of the skills and spiritual awareness needed to be wholly connected to their inner being. (humanity)

It pains me to see the ramped "stupidity" going on in this country due to the lack of ability to recognize reality for what it is.

And thank you for the understanding. I did get a bit sideways there....lol

a reply to: feygan
If universes are simply duplications of one, with ever so slight differences or amounts of known or unknown elements or material, and we see the fingerprints of something that is not chance in their overall design such as phi or other visible, repeatable mathematical proportions, then I must say my God is Phi, and the mind if you will, that first thought it, then put it into what seems perpetual ever expanding motion, that is the God of All Things to me.

Let me see if I can put it simpler, a creator uses tools and material things that are available to fashion his works, however, a true God uses absolutely nothing and can bring into existence anything imaginable or unimaginable, but again he cannot create material from thin air, I think lesser Gods create, I tend to think that the God of humanity was a creator , however, there has to be an absolute God that was responsible for Phi and all that we see, including everything on scale with Antares and Betelgeuse, where if beings lived there and were scaled to their planet, I dare to think that we would be invisible to them.

Do you believe in one God or many? and if only one, how would you account for religious texts using Gods in plural so many times? and if so, were those other Gods created from something or did they spontaneously come into existence, if you use Satan and God in the context of Christianity, Satan, an Angel, does appear to have powers very close to yet below God in the Hierarchy.

I don't think that God would need redefining, but what needs to be made clear is that if you do believe in one God, be prepared to understand that there are many, and there are hierarchies of Gods and angels, so when someone says the most high, they are speaking of God that is not only a Creator, but a God that used a thought, then a word when there was zero, nothing, then there was light and what we call the material world, then came man who was created from the material, fused with soul and spirit.

a reply to: phinubian

I don't understand why so many people insist on one ultimate god rather than a group of gods representing various elements, like a government of gods. One god for engineering, another for music, this one for agriculture and that one for climate...

a reply to: TzarChasm

Exactly, because, why would any God be jealous? playing devil's advocate

originally posted by: phinubian
a reply to: TzarChasm

Exactly, because, why would any God be jealous? playing devil's advocate

"Thou shall have no other gods before me." This demand makes me curious, like he is implying that its in our power to appoint gods. He is telling us not to, which says we can. Otherwise, he never would have said anything. Just think about that. Religion as a democracy.

People use the word "God" as an explanation when there is no explanation.

In its purest sense, "God" equals "I don't know."

Any further attempt to define it immediately leads to completely unworkable paradoxes. A creator that had no creator. A single consciousness that is also all consciousnesses. Love but also its opposite, death. The omnipresent thing that is also a separate thing. The thing that is everything and encompasses everything but still has a need to move things and change things and create.

So when people don't have an answer for something, they say it's "God." "I don't know."

originally posted by: Blue Shift
People use the word "God" as an explanation when there is no explanation.

In its purest sense, "God" equals "I don't know."

Any further attempt to define it immediately leads to completely unworkable paradoxes. A creator that had no creator. A single consciousness that is also all consciousnesses. Love but also its opposite, death. The omnipresent thing that is also a separate thing. The thing that is everything and encompasses everything but still has a need to move things and change things and create.

So when people don't have an answer for something, they say it's "God." "I don't know."

That is a cute sentiment, but I think that most people that use the word 'God' in a spiritual context are pretty sure they know all the answers.

Double post

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite

originally posted by: Blue Shift
People use the word "God" as an explanation when there is no explanation.

In its purest sense, "God" equals "I don't know."

Any further attempt to define it immediately leads to completely unworkable paradoxes. A creator that had no creator. A single consciousness that is also all consciousnesses. Love but also its opposite, death. The omnipresent thing that is also a separate thing. The thing that is everything and encompasses everything but still has a need to move things and change things and create.

So when people don't have an answer for something, they say it's "God." "I don't know."

That is a cute sentiment, but I think that most people that use the word 'God' in a spiritual context are pretty sure they know all the answers.

They may think they do, but the fact is, no one does.

a reply to: TzarChasm

You're damn right they don't!

originally posted by: greblok
Gods deities and icons have for centuries been established in many beliefs. Yet those ,such as the buddhist , and many others openly convey the attribution to the"metaphoric" and or "fabled" existence of said icons

Please elaborate. We have a Cambodian style Buddhist facility down the road here. That place has so many concrete/plaster whatever, statues and knickknacks that the place looks like a eastern religious icon yard sale.