Christians, some concensus please.

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Ok, if all goes well then this will lead on to another thread in the future; I've not seen this topic posted, but think the question merits asking.

Christians of ATS, please between you come to a concensus definition of "God".

My disclaimer is that I'm an Atheist that would genuinely like to debate the existance of god and would like to dedicate a thread to this, however - I feel it would only be fair to give those wishing to take the "Pro" side of the argument time to debate it out amongst themselves, so Atheists, Agnostics etc, this thread would not be helped by your input, that can be reserved for later.




posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by jokei
 

The Creator.
That which is not the Universe, but the originator of the Universe.
("God and the Universe are the same thing" is a different religion)



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Cool, thanks for your reply and your time.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   
How about this. What do you know about the creation of this Universe? Were you taught about it, and did you read about it? Why do you trust what you've been told and what you've read?

I think the question is more about you as opposed to the existence of God or not. You should ask yourself, "Of all the things I've learned, who was my teacher? Did I learn from man, or did I learn from my own conscience?"



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
You cannot debate the existence of god, because "god" can take any form of anyone’s imagination. God to someone might be the universe, god to another might be a guy with a white beard in the sky, and for another you might think you are god, the earth might be god. So you cannot debate the existence of god. You will not win. To debate the existence of the Christian god though, that would be a good debate!



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Visitor2012
 

No, the OP question was "defining God", Justifying belief was for a later thread. I'm willing to do that when the time comes.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
God the CREATOR OF ALL, is the creator of all within this universe and outside of it is his home (our true home) for he created the HEAVENS AND EARTH AFTER IS ALPHA.

[edit on 4/27/10 by Ophiuchus 13]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by Visitor2012
 

No, the OP question was "defining God", Justifying belief was for a later thread. I'm willing to do that when the time comes.



Ok, fair enough. God created the thing or God you believe created the universe.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Visitor2012
 


Hey, if that's addressed at me, then I have - I think if you re-read the OP it's quite clear what I've asked.

reply to post by Maddogkull
 


Again, see the OP - the idea of this thread is to try to get a general consensus, from Christians about what they believe God to be.

* * *

Seriously, thanks to everyone for contributing so far, I'd love it for this thread to continue to be respectful and interesting.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
God is the Creator and Sustainer of all that exist. He is all knowing, all powerful, and by definition good. There is nothing that God cannot do, BUT there are things that God would not do according to His own defined character.
He is one God, in three persons. Each person of the trinity by definition is God, yet only together are they God. They are in essence everything that it means to be God, but in person they are distinct. They are in perfect accord with one another, yet play distinct roles in the Grand Narrative of the mysteries of God. God is a community of One.
God is immaterial yet through Himself created all material things. He is Life and the giver thereof. He is pure actuality. He IS. Just as He said "I AM." He is the ultimate authority on all things, because He made all things. He was before all things and will remain with all things Forever.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by trueperspective
 


OFF TOPIC -NICE AVATAR!
2ND

[edit on 4/27/10 by Ophiuchus 13]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jokei
reply to post by Visitor2012
 


Hey, if that's addressed at me, then I have - I think if you re-read the OP it's quite clear what I've asked.

reply to post by Maddogkull
 


Again, see the OP - the idea of this thread is to try to get a general consensus, from Christians about what they believe God to be.

* * *

Seriously, thanks to everyone for contributing so far, I'd love it for this thread to continue to be respectful and interesting.


It wasn't addressed to you, it is addressed to anyone who is beginning to re-think their existence. It wasn't for you to personally take offense. Relax.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Visitor2012
 


good question and reply, reality is only to who mean true positive plus, it sounds silly but that is the truth of life freedom that is gonna be more and more and no god can stop that
originally void then freedom then positive truth of that, how freedom is the reality of positive existing and void is the source of positive concept, and then is there absolutely prooving itself as a plus add free outsider, then truth only confirm that fact more and more, perfect equality between existance and nothing, is always the source of more as positive being the truth
the common between nothing and existance is positive, and both as concepts are , existence as abstraction is objective reality and nothing as concretisation is infinite freedom life
and those absolutely are never only the frictions is absolutely positive truth,
objective reality is then freedom conception
and nothing is existence certainty fact

where it is perfect equality there is then positive reality freedom objectively as absolutely and the concept of reality is absolute present

now the result info is truth that order all facts perfection of void

but since it is only the friction that make positive truth, so the blocks of two before truth are still there on each position away
then because of the positive same thre is frictions again because positive same become more positive more present then more positive then more lighter then more moving then more numbers i guess but lets continue

so since more positive the positive same then the blocks that are reality is nothing and void is freedom, are starting to react as present so more frictions what is that ?
truth is the answer to their questions relating positive to what happen of none, and calling it hey there is a positive truth startting making philosophy, joking, about that but in futur perspective reality very nice philosophy when all is possible and empty to do

so aware whatever was aware frictions more lets finish it , one truth more then as the result confiming hey it is positive truth i confirm

so those frictions are the ways to absolute truth, which mean prooving the equality of what in any conceptions terms could be equal

how freedom is really existence
and how nothing is infinite life

and then how freedom is life and how nothing is reality

but the two concept blocks are same repetitions i guess they are the most extremes prooving absolute reality of positive truth

that they become alive, gods the infinite life subjects, and absolute objective reality existence reference is positive freedom energy

so in ways repetitions always as rotations making a cercle inside true, of extreme concepts, reality and infinite
infinite as the positive concept to nonexistence
and freedom as the positive concept to objective real

positive truth becomes more alive as the source of abstract realisations that surely allow the whole to become positive but not itself but from outside as from truth realisations on positive confirmations how it is absolute life

so there where we got those wills from that mean always to take from outside, even to steal or kill in meaning its right that way and not taking really
when the truth is meaning that positive is the only right living and existing of course fact objectively

what does it mean, it mean the sense that each energy must be itself positive life source of itself reality right, it means that what you can do is all what is, because anything else is equal
so anything you can do is the sense of existing positive you that by existing truly could become true positive living since moved objectively alone to associate itself positively as free from whatever there or statically thought was

you are the moment you do as only that, you are the boogie dancer and god must dance and show us his but, it is not for ladies it is for everyone and anyone who mean existing, otherwise out and go to hell god included

of course we can joke about god, superpower symbol living upthere with such despise to those bodies desperate moves, meaning to educate them and show animals the light, what light electrical charges as heavens who cares animals, after such long ride, im not sure how it can be eternal

sorry to have so much to say since meaning relating all in original way, but truth mean also a lot of different things that i can understand and see while i dont love truth anymore from long time before, since it never objectively look to me moving for any right monstruously ignored and with such insolence repeated more
what positive truth? but the problem is that truth is meant to be alive down not who say, since what say is always above what it says and has no reality with it being alive
but the fact of no life reality is not the major point of truth there, because life could be done only by truth if it was a truth point
but i think true point is that wrong concept of saying anything being totally out of positive concept same

you can be with objective same, by looking at it exclusively while moving without looking, you can be with subjective same being looking to you moving while not looking to you reacting

but when you are looking to another objective and looking to what you think to say no same absolutely ever

so positive mean same as base but become also meaning life as most end

it is what i said when you are alone more lighter as clearly detached from being of else , so more really absolutely source of same self

but then absolutely which mean not including anyother move, gods do that but chaotically in lies
and using absolute life business times as truth sources for, and deform everything especially souls business that are matters projects of fake selves meaning gods creatiosn without ever doing any right

so like you said, it is u as positive sense movements that is all your sane reality and realisations rights, god is never the same with us on the contrary he always mean superiority in all terms when equality is all there is

only being the same is the right thing, you see how it is simple and noone has to do anything, except those gods to stop sitting on their but doing nothing but pleasures of pretenses being infinite almighty from truth business creations
truth dont justify them being positive existing at all
truth is not to be done it is to be true then alone absolutely positive add to waht is always true equal

so the fact of being a body is superior to the fact of being absolutely free, if gods werent the insisting evil life source of bodies it would be clear

being a body is being actively positive real, knowing for real how positive is the only existing truth, the logics of same in values realities is very clear living and making the whole reality more the living true because it is true the living become the reality but freely sense, as it is truth and not possession or will so it is anywhere the living truth not the same one that was somewhere true too, that is why each present reality is different each second life is different one positive true, the concept of positive always is the reference and the living is not of truth then always, it is free topsecrect even to him kind of whart always was, but then out of realities all and in realities only as true positive alive

anyone value as real is beyond absolute value one, this conspiracy from gods to state that you have a jesus having gods nature is all a lie, and that humans are in levels that the majority levels are under the worth of a thing, that they love things for never having the absolute nature of things even , it is all a lie, anything has an absolute nature origin we are all the same, what is different is what i said the fact that existence truth is o



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by imans
 


is only positive facts, but the facts that gods are negative livings is the exclusive source of negative subject of those bodies means,

gods are never real that is why they are negative, they should admit that any objective real move any move actually even through what they say doing it, the fact that there is an objective move mean that move superior to waht they are, they dont move to profit from that position

and a lot of people understood how to become like them by choosing to be away of positive truth so they can benefit of god positions ways

god dont want to admit anything so never real just to keep the privilege of pretending being infinite life that reality to make truth alive need

he is free of course and we cant call him he since we are talking to walls that hate us, but i cant stand those speechs about so many things such as opposites being source of life and superiority being freedom that invent what is right
no superiority is reality that dont invent anything and proove positive truth existing and meaning living from its life
and the source is always and forever positive same facts of void lifes alone that happen without noone doing anything or care for anyone moves

sorry i wish that anything i say would just inspire a light thought as being nothing that matter and nothing else



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by jokei
 

The Creator.
That which is not the Universe, but the originator of the Universe.


I'd like to expand the original definition
(very cautiously, because Philosophy isn't really my field)

Let's make it a really trinitarian one;

God is a Creator
God is one who Communicates
God is one who becomes Incarnate

God is a Creator

I see this view as distinct from both Monism and Dualism.

As I understand the difference;
Monism resolves everything to one point of origin.
Dualism resolves everything to two points of origin, distinct and independent.

Creation theory falls short of being genuine Monism, because the created universe is understood as distinct from God.

Creation theory falls short of being genuine Dualism, because the created universe is understood as dependent upon God.

My private theory is that Creation teaching ought to be called "One-and-a-half-ism", but I don't suppose it will catch on.

As far as I can see, this involves the traditional teaching of "ex nihilo" ("out of nothing") Creation.

Because if God is "creating" using pre-existing raw material, then the material is not genuinely dependent upon him- this has become Dualism.

Or if God is producing the material of the universe "out of himself", then the material is not genuinely distinct- this has become Monism.

"Ex nihilo" is the only logical alternative, which is presumably why the teaching was developed in the first place.

God is one who Communicates

This assumption is built into Biblical religion.

In the first place, the Bible is believed to contain examples of communication (as reported, for example, by the prophets).

Furthermore, the Bible is believed to reflect a policy of communication.
It is said that God is using the Bible to "reveal himself", and so Biblical religion used to be described as "revealed religion".

The belief that "God is one who Communicates" links back with the belief that "God is one who Creates".

In the first place, some of the content of the communication points to God as Creator.

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."

But I think the very act of communication also points to God as a Creator.

Any act of communication necessarily implies a distinction between the communicator and the other party.
I've already said the Biblical understanding of Creation involves a distinction between God and the universe.

An act of communication implies the existence of a "will" in the communicator, or at least some sort of analogy of one.
But the same could be said, surely, of an act of "Creation".

Finally, a God who creates a universe thereby sets up a relationship between himself and the universe.
The effect of communication is to set up a relationship between himself and individuals (or even a group of individuals) within the same universe.

I assume that a purely monistic deity would not be communicating with, or setting up a relationship with, parts of itself.

My point is that
The idea of the God who Creates
and the idea of the God who Communicates
are very akin to one another.

The kind of God who would Create would also be the kind of God who could Communicate.

God is one who becomes Incarnate

I could hardly, really, leave this out of a definition of the Christian God.

The understanding is that the Incarnation is a more direct presence of God within the created universe.

If this is true, it's the ultimate form of Communication, as the author of Hebrews points out;
"God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets
but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son".

But it's also the ultimate form of "establishing a relationship";

Because the doctrine of the Incarnation is that the Creator and his creation, divinity and humanity, are bound together within the person of the Son.
The bond is understood to be irrevocable.
It's impossible for a relationship to get any closer than that.

Anyone who tries to understand the church's teaching about the Incarnation will discover that it's all about finding the right "balance".

On the one hand, the distinction between the divinity and the humanity must not be exaggerated, to the point that the unity disappears.
O the other hand, the unity between them must not be exaggerated, to the point that the distinction disappears.
The correct position is somewhere halfway between the two extremes.

But this is exactly what I said, at the beginning of this piece, about Creation;
That it occupied a halfway position between Monism and Dualism.

So it seems to me that the "balancing act" which Jehovah's Witnesses love to mock, when it comes in the teaching about the Incarnation, is also inherent in the very doctrine of the Creation itself.

The kind of God who would Create is also the kind of God who could become Incarnate.


I began by naming the Christian God as
The one who Creates
The one who Communicates
The one who becomes Incarnate.

I now suggest that these three ideas are akin to one another.
They belong together, naturally.

Whether you can believe them or not, they all belong to the same kind of God.









[edit on 3-5-2010 by DISRAELI]

[edit on 3-5-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   
DISRAELI, you are quickly becoming one of my favorite posters.


I would build on what was said thus far by advocating my position...

1. God is the highest conceivable being.
2. God is the transcendent origin of the Universe.
3. God is a person.

Of the three, the first is irrefutable, as it is the definition used in the Ontological argument and its various forms. Logically, true forms of Anselm's argument are fairly solid. One can not deny objective existence from a conceptual existence. I think, also, this is important because all individuals can conceive of a highest being, and that being would necessarily contain the attributes that god has generally contained.

The second is more debatable, and in it we again come to trancendental truths that can not be discussed beyond mere language. That is to say, that if the Universe has a starting point, we can not do more than discuss it, since our position is within the Universe. It would be like a second dimensional object trying to conceive of a third dimensional object.

The third is built intrinsically into the second, and I think DISRAELI's usage of communication is key to what it means to be a person. However, Richard Swinburne has pointed out that a person that does not change, think, or act (in a physical sense) is not much of a person at all.

[edit on 3-5-2010 by Regent Leo]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jokei

Christians of ATS, please between you come to a concensus definition of "God".


I am quite certain that millions and millions of Christians (not to mention those of other religions) will never, ever have the same definition or cognition of God as I do.

I am quite certain that it is beyond both my will and my ability to force such a consensus.

I am also quite certian that I would not abandon my own form of faith merely to create some kind of "consensus."

In addition, I am quite certain that my own definitinition of God and form of faith would not necessarily obviate the views of everyone who feels differently, although of course it would run afoul of the belief systems of many people.

Finally, I am fairly certain that I am quite comfortable with all of the above.



Peace on earth and love to all and everyone alike,

Ole' Uncle Thunder



[edit on 5/3/10 by silent thunder]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Why add to what has already been said well, I'm thinking? I've added some stars to the thread



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   
God is "ALL"

That's my answer.

He is not the alpha and omega (beginning and the end) because he had no beginning and will have no end.

He (non-gendered) "was" before the Big Bang.

He is inside of us and outside of us. He is everywhere.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jokei
.

Christians of ATS, please between you come to a concensus definition of "God".

My disclaimer is that I'm an Atheist



I can't debate you even though I'd like to.

I can't debate an atheist for the simple fact that none exist.
Look at the definitions:

An individual who rejects the notion of a supreme being that exists outside of the abilities of modern science to either prove or disprove.
Atheist defined

1.atheistic - rejecting any belief in gods
unbelieving, atheistical
irreligious - hostile or indifferent to religion
2. To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
3. Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).
4. To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.
5. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.

In science you must be able to prove facts or a subject or belief will stay at the hypothesis stage. Your idea that there is no God will not float simply because you have nothing to back up your suppositions. And in this we have to end this thread for there is no debatable material that you can apply.



new topics
 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join