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.

 

How do you define 'God'?

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Phoenix267
I'm an atheist and I don't believe in a deity. To me the concept of "God" could mean anything to the believer. Limited only by the imagination.


Agree. Funny how believers will say that god is indescribable and undefinable, any yet they follow a thing that they can't even put into words and can't possible know.


I know my Father well, though I might abstain from defining one that is so well beyond reproach. I can only describe God in my own limited terms, which is far short of suitable.




posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Risingfall
 


I define god as a fairy tale for those afraid of the dark.



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 



"Creation" in the theological sense, is used to translate the Hebrew "BARA", in the Genesis phrase "God made the heavens and the earth".
"Create" in the more metaphorical sense, describing what humans can do, is a later, more modern usage.



cre·ate
verb krē-ˈāt, ˈkrē-ˌ
cre·at·edcre·at·ing

1 : to bring into existence
2 a : to invest with a new form, office, or rank
b : to produce or bring about by a course of action or behavior


My point here is that "God", because of his imagined rank, is exempt from the laws of the language we use to define him. If at any point the line between humanity and divinity becomes blurred, language is adjusted to resurrect that line in its full clarity. As you can see from this line of discussion, new meanings are created for words in order to say, "Oh, well, that's different," even if the definition still qualifies. Why? Because we don't want to accept that we are godly. Even worse than failing a god, would be failing ourselves, realizing that we had the power and didn't use it. At least we have plausible deniability in refusing to acknowledge our own godliness.
edit on 10-8-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by onthedownlow

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Phoenix267
I'm an atheist and I don't believe in a deity. To me the concept of "God" could mean anything to the believer. Limited only by the imagination.


Agree. Funny how believers will say that god is indescribable and undefinable, any yet they follow a thing that they can't even put into words and can't possible know.


I know my Father well, though I might abstain from defining one that is so well beyond reproach. I can only describe God in my own limited terms, which is far short of suitable.


You can only take the word 'god' and make it fit into your world and your needs, with your limited mind hampered by your own human limitations. So yes, you know the Father you created for yourself very well.
edit on 8/10/2013 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   
To be honest the term "God" is too masculine. The term originally denoted a feminine diety. Even more shocking is that the word "man" was originally feminine in meaning. These are some of the secrets of freemasonry.They belive in a Creatrix. The freemasons basically are keepers of ancient beliefs. This harkens back to a time when society was Matriarchal. Serious quesiton for all reading this: could the maker of all things be Female instead? Some may scoff , but many ancient cultures spoke of a female creator of the universe(s). Suppression of the female has been the agenda of the church and state. The balance has been to masculine for too long. The resurgence of the Divine Feminine is already taking place.



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Oannes
 


Yin and yang. Male and female. Black and white. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Duality is a natural part of life, and neither gender expression should be repressed. Let both god and goddess be expressed in all their glory, for they are each as beautiful as the sun and the moon.



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Let's say it in God's own words as told to Moses when Moses asked, "Who should I say sent me to them?" and God replied, "I AM that I AM has sent you."

What does this mean? It means He who exists. He is beyond the universe and all that is in it. Everything exists because He exists. He is the source and center of all that has been made that was made. He was in the beginning and before the beginning.

He is, the great "I AM."



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 


That doesn't tell me anything except that you have a very simple imagination.



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 07:49 PM
link   

[I]Originally posted by onthedownlow[/I]



I know my Father well, though I might abstain from defining one that is so well beyond reproach. I can only describe God in my own limited terms, which is far short of suitable.



Originally posted by jiggerj

You can only take the word 'god' and make it fit into your world and your needs, with your limited mind hampered by your own human limitations. So yes, you know the Father you created for yourself very well.
edit on 8/10/2013 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)


So the egg came first? I did not create my father, nor did I frame him in a manner suitable to the conditions of my existence. God seldom fits my needs as I deem necessary, and my limited mind (not my words) is rarely hampered by my human limitations, although it sounds as if yours might be.



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by onthedownlow
 





and my limited mind (not my words) is rarely hampered by my human limitations, although it sounds as if yours might be.


Don't take that personally. It was not an insult, but a statement on the limitations of all human minds. The human brain simply isn't capable of defining a god. Try to imagine an ant defining a human.



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   
If there was a god, it'd be whatever it is. You wouldn't be able to assign a definition to it. If you think you can choose a definition for god, then you've already dismissed it as a myth. No one thinks that they can change the definition of a dog, but for some reason they think that they can change the definition of god to fit the need that their god serves. Pretty obvious that no one that defines their own personal god actually believes that such a thing exists. If they did believe in it, they'd know better than to think that they can.



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
If there was a god, it'd be whatever it is. You wouldn't be able to assign a definition to it. If you think you can choose a definition for god, then you've already dismissed it as a myth. No one thinks that they can change the definition of a dog, but for some reason they think that they can change the definition of god to fit the need that their god serves. Pretty obvious that no one that defines their own personal god actually believes that such a thing exists. If they did believe in it, they'd know better than to think that they can.


Yet, humans can ascertain objectives and motives, we do it each day. In fact, very few of us share an identical definition on everything, but through our own comprehension and vantage point we still come up with very similar definitions for most things. Labeling things is our very nature, so to suggest that the application of labels is just a convenient disguise for nonbelievers is laughable.

By the way, do you mind sharing your definition for a dog (not Merriam Webster's)?

Edit: Maybe ascertain is to strong a word, but perception is in the eye of the beholder, and we are quite confident in our feelings
edit on 10-8-2013 by onthedownlow because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   
The word "god" itself is wrong.Its a illusory word.God in human perspective is refer to higher being.There is no such thing as higher or lower.Duality is illusory.Its created by religion and fear.They need to felt safe and rely on higher being they created called god. "Oh,we safe now because there is more higher being than us.Just pray to it" . Thats like god praying to god. All are equal. All are "god". All of us came from the same source.One source.One truth.One love. Simple and pure truth. We just need to realize it.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Everything that I am not, and all that requires me to exist.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by GregJ
 



Duality is illusory


Only in the sense that the two sides of the penny are, in fact, one penny. That doesn't change the fact that it still has two different sides.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 





Only in the sense that the two sides of the penny are, in fact, one penny. That doesn't change the fact that it still has two different sides.


Have you ever had a coin land on its edge? If a coin doesn't land on one of its too sides, what next? Is it suspended in some type of alternate universe?



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by GregJ
 



Duality is illusory


Only in the sense that the two sides of the penny are, in fact, one penny. That doesn't change the fact that it still has two different sides.

The seer and the seen - is really one.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 





The seer and the seen - is really one.


I find that when trying to argue a point, it is better to offer sound arguments than to convince by simply telling people what to think. Many people here are anti-authority, and sometimes being an authority rubs people the wrong way.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Short and Sweet... you are god, I am god, we all are god.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by NiNjABackflip
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 





The seer and the seen - is really one.


I find that when trying to argue a point, it is better to offer sound arguments than to convince by simply telling people what to think. Many people here are anti-authority, and sometimes being an authority rubs people the wrong way.


I keep trying to tell him that. It doesn't help that he can never really explain how he arrived at his conclusions.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join