Does God need redefining?

originally posted by: RodNasty
There are thousands of religion. I suggest that you not speak for any but your own. that right there. Here is where you and I differ. I wish to know everything I can about every religion, our origin.

Our origin.

How can I speak for my own religion and no others when only one truth exists? wouldn't the best way to this truth be through study of all points of view/religions?

Truth is a belief. There are many beliefs. On what basis do you make the claim of fact that only one truth exists?

Wishing to know about other religions is fine. In my opinion, filtering the beliefs of other religions through yours and then assuming that their myths meant that which your religion teaches is not fine. It's like looking through binoculars pointing in one direction and claiming that everyone who is looking through binoculars pointed in other directions is seeing exactly the same thing you're seeing.

a reply to: MX61000

Can you elaborate? Are you saying that the Muslim God, is on Earth? Or, simply an image? I'm confused.

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.

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.

originally posted by: borntowatch
I dont think the Creator God needs redefining, I think God needs to be understood.

I read posts by Christians and non Christians alike and a lot of what is said and believed is not accurate.

God at his very core is both love and justice, justice in such a way as any sleight against the law needs to be rectified, love in the way that He will show mercy to anyone who asks and repents (repentance means stopping the rebellion against the law).

Redefining the God is reworking the teaching.

What you are saying is "Your God doesnt work for me so change it". Well you dont have to worship my God.
Its not compulsory

Then your idea that your science is bigger than my God who created your science, you have a Dawkins sized chip on your shoulder

Then the root of your argument is you have a petri dish of something and that makes you a God. A farmer has a garden, is he a God, a zoo keeper has a zoo, a god?

Your idea of God is very small

A glaring absence in your post is testable evidence proving your claim that your God exists. Replace the word God with Hobbit and you'll see what I mean.

originally posted by: NthOther
God needs to be undefined. It is our very habit of defining God (and everything else) that gives rise to religious strife and psychotic zealotry.

God is everything. God is nothing. Definitions are meaningless. Language is a spiritual obstacle.

There is a lot of wisdom in your post. Alas, monotheists are literalists and will not understand it. Therefore, I challenge them to prove their literal claims knowing full well they can not do so. I wish they would learn something about their inability to prove their literal claims that would lead them to understand your post. Alas, that is wishful thinking. Their idea of God is someone with a big hammer who believes exactly that which they believe and will sooner or later use that hammer on anyone who disagrees with them.

a reply to: Tangerine

i'm talking about the word "god", not a person by the name of "god".

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Tangerine

i'm talking about the word "god", not a person by the name of "god".

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you referring to God (capital "G") or gods (small "g")? How would you go about redefining a word without redefining that which the word means? Are you talking about changing the definition of the word? Can you just tell us how you would redefine the word?

a reply to: Tangerine

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you referring to God (capital "G") or gods (small "g")?

i am referring to the word "god", not the entities we want to apply it to.

How would you go about redefining a word without redefining that which the word means?

we dont know what a god is, so lets start with that.

Can you just tell us how you would redefine the word?

no, because i dont presume to know what a god is. i only know what you guys THINK a god is or should be. the word god historically seems to apply to any being in possession of superhuman power and talent. theres so many different definitions and cultures that overlap in the history of the word "god" and i feel that we cant just assume when theres so many elements to the story.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Tangerine

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you referring to God (capital "G") or gods (small "g")?

i am referring to the word "god", not the entities we want to apply it to.

How would you go about redefining a word without redefining that which the word means?

we dont know what a god is, so lets start with that.

Can you just tell us how you would redefine the word?

no, because i dont presume to know what a god is. i only know what you guys THINK a god is or should be. the word god historically seems to apply to any being in possession of superhuman power and talent. theres so many different definitions and cultures that overlap in the history of the word "god" and i feel that we cant just assume when theres so many elements to the story.

So you're really proposing that people stop using the word "God". Not a bad idea. If this isn't what you mean, it's your fault for not being clear. Your clarification wasn't.

a reply to: Tangerine

So you're really proposing that people stop using the word "God". Not a bad idea. If this isn't what you mean, it's your fault for not being clear. Your clarification wasn't.

that's not what i said. and your attitude needs fixing.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Tangerine

So you're really proposing that people stop using the word "God". Not a bad idea. If this isn't what you mean, it's your fault for not being clear. Your clarification wasn't.

that's not what i said. and your attitude needs fixing.

That's why I asked for clarification. It was not forthcoming. You still have not clarified. Having no hope that you will do so, I will move on.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Tangerine

So you're really proposing that people stop using the word "God". Not a bad idea. If this isn't what you mean, it's your fault for not being clear. Your clarification wasn't.

that's not what i said. and your attitude needs fixing.

That's why I asked for clarification. It was not forthcoming. You still have not clarified. Having no hope that you will do so, I will move on.

you have reading comprehension problems, and that's not my problem. i'm done communicating with you.

The definition of God does need to be redefined, but there are too many people in belief of contemporary definitions, or should i say; ancient definitions. Blind faith is a societal problem more specifically the belief that what happens to you is out of your hands. Humanity is still in it's infancy. i would be willing to bet that there are far more advanced species and civilizations who are far beyond anything we can imagine who still have not learned or achieved the ultimate truth. So to say that we have any clue, let alone know anything in terms of the absolute is pretty ignorant. No matter how advanced we might think we are this period of our history will be looked back upon, if our species are to survive, as a period of warring factions intent on ideological domination. The inevitable outcome to this is that in the long term, an exponential amount of years, if we do survive we will develop a collective mindset that is inherently beneficial to not just us, but the universe at large. We destroy our own world with pollution, progressive methods to doing things are suppressed, and advancements are made all with one thing in mind: profit. This type of ideology will be looked back upon as laughable by humans even 1000 years from now. The seeds of this are already sprouting.

originally posted by: kicked
The definition of God does need to be redefined, but there are too many people in belief of contemporary definitions, or should i say; ancient definitions. Blind faith is a societal problem more specifically the belief that what happens to you is out of your hands. Humanity is still in it's infancy. i would be willing to bet that there are far more advanced species and civilizations who are far beyond anything we can imagine who still have not learned or achieved the ultimate truth. So to say that we have any clue, let alone know anything in terms of the absolute is pretty ignorant. No matter how advanced we might think we are this period of our history will be looked back upon, if our species are to survive, as a period of warring factions intent on ideological domination. The inevitable outcome to this is that in the long term, an exponential amount of years, if we do survive we will develop a collective mindset that is inherently beneficial to not just us, but the universe at large. We destroy our own world with pollution, progressive methods to doing things are suppressed, and advancements are made all with one thing in mind: profit. This type of ideology will be looked back upon as laughable by humans even 1000 years from now. The seeds of this are already sprouting.

I agree with much that you say, but how can you redefine something without defining it in a different way ? How can you define it in a different way if it is an unknown or may not exist at all?

a reply to: Tangerine

the problem is that people feel a need for a definition. what needs to be accepted is that we don't have any means to derive a definition. the quest should be for a definition, not to go about our existence in the context of something already laid out. Challenge everything, explore, be inherently open minded, accept being wrong. How can one learn anything if they're always right? or if they are so close minded to believe something spiritual needs to be defined? or that there even is a definition for God. To progress is to evolve, in beliefs, in ideas, in theories. Progression means that definitions are constantly changing.

My belief is that we can have some sort of collective doctrine that involves faith in one another, a search for wellness not only of the individual but for ones peers. A doctrine that allows one to release their ego with faith towards the collective. I truly do not have the answer, but it's the basic premise of cooperative dynamics vs competitive dynamics.

Basically at this point, i believe a definition is impossible. I'm also willing to accept that everything i believe is wrong, but that type of enlightenment isn't going to come from any contemporary religion.

originally posted by: kicked
a reply to: Tangerine

the problem is that people feel a need for a definition. what needs to be accepted is that we don't have any means to derive a definition. the quest should be for a definition, not to go about our existence in the context of something already laid out. Challenge everything, explore, be inherently open minded, accept being wrong. How can one learn anything if they're always right? or if they are so close minded to believe something spiritual needs to be defined? or that there even is a definition for God. To progress is to evolve, in beliefs, in ideas, in theories. Progression means that definitions are constantly changing.

My belief is that we can have some sort of collective doctrine that involves faith in one another, a search for wellness not only of the individual but for ones peers. A doctrine that allows one to release their ego with faith towards the collective. I truly do not have the answer, but it's the basic premise of cooperative dynamics vs competitive dynamics.

Basically at this point, i believe a definition is impossible. I'm also willing to accept that everything i believe is wrong, but that type of enlightenment isn't going to come from any contemporary religion.

I agree that there is no means to derive a mutually acceptable definition. Perhaps the goal should be for there to be no definition although, in the foreseeable future, that seems unlikely, too. The problem is not personal belief. The problem is religion, especially monotheistic religions.

originally posted by: feygan
My main issue is that yes the core of almost all religions are based on lies and control but that simply does not give folks the right to shout obscenities instead of trying to engage in open debate to politely challenge belief and doctrine.

Who does this?

Yet if someone is telling you their own personal fantasy god is real, that he created everything 6,000 yrs ago, is unable to explain their claims/his word in any logically coherent way, or infers he will send you to hell for eternity because you don't believe, why isn't it acceptable to point out just how unsupported and ridiculous this delusion is?

Couple this with the growing fame of people like Richard Dawkins who seem to have some redwood sized chip on their shoulder and thus feel the need to condescend anyone who thinks differently and atheism is becoming a joke.

Dawkins had the position as Prof. for the understanding of science and was largely involved in keeping the people with views mentioned above, out of science classes. As well as the obvious bigotry religion offers towards various minority groups and the undeniable societal problems that are associated with it. He has no issue with the average mildly delusional religious observer. That he doesn't believe in religion and points out why is not something he should stop doing because you don't agree with his views. He seems to have been quiet for some time now anyway.

Though if you also keep abreast of science you will see a growing number of physicists are pointing towards a multiverse theory rather than the "something from nothing" idea of a big bang. This in no way defeats god and quite the opposite lends support to the possible existence of god, as it gets around the "So where did god come from?" argument many militant atheists like to use, the problem there is you have attacked someone instead of engaging them.

There is not really any "something from nothing" idea of the big bang. It posits that our universe as we observe and understand it, came from a "singularity" that isn't understood. Not the least because our present physics indicates it has "infinite" properties (a singularity is not nothing, in fact it is the very opposite of "nothing", as it contains the entire contents of our universe in a way that isn't understood by anyone). The singularity is another word for ? that might have came from nothing.

Your claim lends no support to a god in any way, nor does it nullify the "where did god come from" that the "militant atheists" and many other reasonable people who are not even atheists as such, like to use... possibly because it is logical and fair to do so. It simply adds another layer of complication, as in...where did those advanced beings come from etc...

I would agree we should try to communicate so we can learn from them however that is different from following doctrine based on a beings level of power, that would be a following of fear and the actions of a sycophant.

I give you, modern religion (ie. Stockholm Syndrome).

Next time you are talking with someone who has a belief in a deity like being and you are about to attack their belief try asking them why.

A one sided way of looking at it, that requires a lot of assumption and doesn't necessarily reflect the reality of such a situation.

Ask them to define what makes their god divine and not simply advanced, one may garner respect and admiration sure but what ever if anything deserves worship?

You might find this has been done, with varying degrees of success (or lack thereof) and that while discussion of our origins can be a fascinating subject, it can be very difficult when it must adhere to what was written in some ancient book.

It's beyond your comprehension. You just wouldn't understand if we told you.

originally posted by: feygan
My main issue is that yes the core of almost all religions are based on lies and control but that simply does not give folks the right to shout obscenities instead of trying to engage in open debate to politely challenge belief and doctrine.

originally posted by: Xterrain
It's beyond your comprehension. You just wouldn't understand if we told you.

QVOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDVM