It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Definition on God

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
How did the definition to God come to be the definition to God?

Anyone know any history behind this?

Thanks in advance.

The biblical God and the dictionary's God do differ. Correct? Do any of you believe in one over the other? The biblical God vs the dictionary's God.




posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by WarJohn
 


I think Wikipedia has the most honest answer to your question.


There is no clear consensus on the nature of God.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Great question. I bring up this point often. IMO, the term God is a hijack. I think it originally was meant to describe God in the Hindu sense, or quantum physics sense, the energy and constant creation that flows through everything. Then that dude YHWH showed up and said he was god, and the definition became confused.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
God was invented by man, made in man's image. So, since we've never seen God, each individual has their own idea of what God is, or if they believe in something called God or not.

So, IMO, there are millions of definitions of God.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by binkbonk
 


I love this quote from the Rig Vedas, questioning the creation and asking who is the creator. It clearly states that the "gods" arrived after creation, and even they don't know who or what GOD is.

Who done it?


Rig Veda 10:129. It ponders the mystery of origins and offers more questions than answers.


Who really knows, and who can swear,
How creation came, when or where!
Even gods came after creation’s day,
Who really knows, who can truly say
When and how did creation start?
Did He do it? Or did He not?
Only He, up there, knows, maybe;
Or perhaps, not even He.3


Our definitions of "god" comes from those who came after creation, declaring themselves gods, but clearly aren't the "Creator."



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by WarJohn
 


Well, the dictionaries change constantly, that's why we have lexicons.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Whoever holds the most power, controls what's familiar. And from that, we take our modern world.

Does this make sense?



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by WarJohn
 


To paraphrase Lao Tzu, the God that can be defined is not the true God.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueMule
reply to post by WarJohn
 


To paraphrase Lao Tzu, the God that can be defined is not the true God.


Yes, it was precisely that way until The Christ was sacrificed at the intersection of the heavens and the earth, and did so willingly with his witnesses and with their eyes wide open.
I bet they didn't feel a thing.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   
God in the original concept is millions of years old and is the attempt to explain where the universe and life came from. Later versions for god was that of the idea that some intelligence existed that controlled nature's forces.

Then even more recent times, only thousands of years past, the Yahweh theme came on Earth's scene in ancient Sumeria as the gods of Anu, who were behind the Adam and Eve story in the area of Eridu and Ur.

Most all of the human ideas on gods are fake, except perhaps the one on the Universe Intelligent Design stemming from millions of years past. The real God concept has no image, only that of a grand mystery.

This God speaks to humans via those following the artifacts of the natural forces of the creation of the universe.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by WarJohn
 

The biblical God vs the dictionary's God.

That is why we have Jesus, to define God.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Personally, I find it unfair to use one faith's idea of "divinity" to define all ideas of what "God" is...after all, Christianity did NOT invent the concept of godliness.

So for Christianity to own the monopoly on what a god should be defined as, is like saying that Toshiba or Apple should hold a monopoly on defining the computer, or any of its respective parts.
edit on 12-9-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Personally, I find it unfair to use one faith's idea of "divinity" to define all ideas of what "God" is...after all, Christianity did NOT invent the concept of godliness.

So for Christianity to own the monopoly on what a god should be defined as, is like saying that Microsoft should hold a monopoly on defining the computer, or any of its respective parts.
edit on 12-9-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


It was always a progression, hence the many splits in the jewish and christian communities.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

Personally, I find it unfair to use one faith's idea of "divinity" . . .

Personally, I think it is the only sane way to arrive at a solution to the problem of who or what God is, by studying Jesus.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Just like the only real way to arrive at any conclusion about Buddhism is to study the Dalai Lama? That's ridiculous. As though there's only one person who can show or live the essence of a faith or philosophy.

You can think what you want, but that's very unfair to anyone who is trying. It says they'll never succeed. Besides, we've had the idea of Jesus for many thousands of years (though not necessarily by that name) and we STILL don't have a clear idea of what "God" is.

See, to understand "God" is like looking at the sun. You can't look at it directly without hurting your eyes, so you must view it through a pond, observing its reflection. How clearly you see "God" depends on how clean the pond is and how many sparkly flashy distractions you've thrown in the water. Many have scummy ponds, and many more have ponds full of gold coins. And when they look at the scummy pond, they see the results of their negligence, and they aim that disgust inward or outward. Or they see the gold coins and wish they could fish out the money somehow.

All of worship is based on some form of self-despair or self-service. Only with a clean pond, one that doesn't focus on the self in any way or form, and instead focuses on seeing the sun as clearly as possible, will you have any true understanding of what "God" really is.

Most of you will argue with this. That's fine. You will learn when you are ready.
edit on 12-9-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


It seems that you define God as something to own, or as an achievement.
God is something or someone who is a person, an individual, with thoughts and feelings of His own, and is not something to be owned or achieved through self effort.
edit on 12-9-2012 by jmdewey60 because: add Bible quote: "For the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God." Romans 8:19



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by WarJohn
 


I can clear this up for ya in no time.

God is someone that looks and thinks like us. No wait! I mean, god is pure energy, and so bright that no man can look upon him. No wait! God is consciousness floating in the nothingness, while at the same time the nothingness is god. No wait! God is everything and everywhere.

Clear enough now?



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 




It seems that you define God as something to own, or as an achievement.


My pond is crystal clear, but very, very deep. There is no scum, and thus nothing to achieve. There is no gold coin, and thus nothing to own. There is only very deep water to see into, and see further and further. Will I ever reach the bottom? I don't know. But I know that what I see is only tainted by the fish and whatever leaves happen to drift across.

I don't pretend to know divinity perfectly. But I don't make the mistakes Christians do, because I have seen where they lead.


God is something or someone who is a person, an individual, with thoughts and feelings of His own, and is not something to be owned or achieved through self effort.


A person? An individual? That's where you made your first mistake - giving Source human characteristics. Of course, with a human mind, it's not surprising that you are so restricted in your ideas. You are very finite, so how can you understand something so infinite?



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Article 9042, Page 133, Section C, Subsection 14, footnote iii. Final answer.

If you can find wherever that little paper trail leads, then you deserve to know the nature of "God".

edit on 12-9-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 

God is someone that looks and thinks like us.

God would not think like us because we are humans who have thoughts affected by being processed through a material brain. God can think in a totally spiritual way unaffected by physical wants and desires.
Now God can look like us because it is a sort of illusion surrounding a spiritual being who is the temporary carrier of the God consciousness as an emissary on a specific task or purpose.




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join