Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

How To Define A Non-Christian "god"


Orbit

Recommended Posts

It seems that ex-Christians still talk about "God", but in a way that doesn't refer to the God of the Bible. This is something that I struggle with, and am interested in the perspectives of others. 

 

What do we mean by a non-Christian God concept? A higher power? Serotonin and endorphins in our own brains? What does it mean to say "God is the universe" or "God is nature"? What precisely are we talking about?

 

The second question becomes "Why do we need a god?". Why do we find this concept useful? What is keeping us from being non-spiritual atheists? What precisely is it that we need?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  1) A non-christian God can be a copious amount of things. God can be all around us. We can be God. God can be happiness. Perhaps representing a symbol? By saying God is the universe or God is nature is like saying that God is everything; God is all around us. 

  2) We need a God to make ourselves feel secure about ourselves; to make us feel safe; to comfort us. Most people, ever since they were born, are molded into having the Religious perspective on everything, take that all away and you see thousands of different religions, each stating their own God. People find it useful to have this for when they have come across a burden in which they need help on. I am unsure what you mean by non-spiritual atheism. What we need is to stop looking at a higher power to help us get through our times, we should be our own Gods (Not like worshiping ourselves...) and fight our own problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The God concept that I find appealing is the God of total, non-judgmental love experienced by those who have had near-death experiences (NDEs). I think NDEs are indeed glimpses of a reality beyond our own, and that most likely this God does exist. That said, I am not religious and I don't pray. I just find the NDE phenomenon fascinating. Hope that helps. Glory! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The God concept that I find appealing is the God of total, non-judgmental love experienced by those who have had near-death experiences (NDEs). I think NDEs are indeed glimpses of a reality beyond our own, and that most likely this God does exist. That said, I am not religious and I don't pray. I just find the NDE phenomenon fascinating. Hope that helps. Glory! smile.png

 

You might find Dr. Rick Strassman's book "DMT: The Spirit Molecule" interesting. The video is on Netflix. He basically produced NDE-type experiences in lab subjects, chemically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The God concept that I find appealing is the God of total, non-judgmental love experienced by those who have had near-death experiences (NDEs). I think NDEs are indeed glimpses of a reality beyond our own, and that most likely this God does exist. That said, I am not religious and I don't pray. I just find the NDE phenomenon fascinating. Hope that helps. Glory! smile.png

 

You might find Dr. Rick Strassman's book "DMT: The Spirit Molecule" interesting. The video is on Netflix. He basically produced NDE-type experiences in lab subjects, chemically.

 

 

Thanks, I will check it out! I know that certain aspects of the NDE can be produced by stimulating certain areas of the brain, but I still think NDEs are real and do point to a reality beyond our own... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with defining the non-Christian concept of god is that it depends on which non-Christian you are talking to.

 

I don't know what "god is the universe/nature" means either - it may be that some who use those phrases have no clear idea.  Probably some concept of immanent deity, I suppose.

 

To be honest, if you want to pursue this, you need to read up on a couple of non-Christian religions.  Just be aware there's no general template, and anything from a moral abstraction through an impersonal life-force to a personality of some sort may be in view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it bothers me on the conceptual level--why use the word "God", which is a Judeo-Christian one? Why stick to the concept of omnipotence and omnisentience? Can't we think of something unrelated? It's like we are still trapped by the most basic premise of Xtianity--the all-powerful. Is the "universe"all powerful? Frankly, it's not coherent enough to be so...stars are born and they die...what do we actually mean? Are we imputing agency to "the universe"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it bothers me on the conceptual level--why use the word "God", which is a Judeo-Christian one? Why stick to the concept of omnipotence and omnisentience? Can't we think of something unrelated? It's like we are still trapped by the most basic premise of Xtianity--the all-powerful. Is the "universe"all powerful? Frankly, it's not coherent enough to be so...stars are born and they die...what do we actually mean? Are we imputing agency to "the universe"?

We use the word "god", I suppose, because it's entered the language as a tag that most will comprehend in general terms, even if most have never thought about what it means.  What else will be used?  Theos?  Deity?  Wouldn't bother me either way, but I would get some strange looks in general conversation were the subject to arise.

 

Neither am I so sure that all who believe in a "god" are stuck on omnipotence and omnisentience.  Ancient mythologies are at best ambivalent about such concepts.  I can't speak for, e.g, Hindu thought, but my understanding of their stories suggests it would not necessarily require such ideas to be accepted.  Nor do I consider myself trapped by Christian premises, though I stand to be corrected.  I doubt if any of my Christian contacts would recognise my idea of "god" or "the gods" as anything other than heresy.

 

I can't tell you what a person who regards the universe as "god" thinks in terms of its' nature.  I'm just not sure that there is a single identifiable thread.

 

Just a thought - are you imputing to non-Christian thought ideas with which you are familiar through Christianity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Just a thought - are you imputing to non-Christian thought ideas with which you are familiar through Christianity?"

 

This is actually what I'm asking about the use of "God" as a concept--is it inescapably xtian? Why do we think there has to be a unifying force? Why not chaos? Buddhism does very well without a god, for example.  Just thinking out loud, I suppose...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Just a thought - are you imputing to non-Christian thought ideas with which you are familiar through Christianity?"

 

This is actually what I'm asking about the use of "God" as a concept--is it inescapably xtian? Why do we think there has to be a unifying force? Why not chaos? Buddhism does very well without a god, for example.  Just thinking out loud, I suppose...

Right, I think I see where you are coming from.

 

In one sense, I think your question answers itself.  "We" (i.e. those from the culture that, however inappropriately, is usually referred to as "Western") tend to think in terms of of a "unifying force" because that's the cultural background that informs the way we think.  However,  I do not consider that the concept of deity needs to be that way.

 

To look at some alternatives:

  1. Hinduism, if I understand it correctly, (which, quite possibly, I don't) sees a sort of hierarchy, with Brahman as a unifying spirit or force.  However, even he is not alone, being part of a sort of triumvirate with Vishnu and Shiva (effectively unifying their opposing influences), and himself appearing from a pre-existing mystic egg and therefore, presumably, not "eternal".  Other deities such as Rama, Ganesh etc are not in themselves absolute, and seem to owe their existence to Brahman.  Being limited in this way, presumably it is logical to regard their powers as limited also, though I don't know if a Hindu would accept that thought process.
  2. Buddhism has never struck me as being quite so atheistic as is often claimed.  To my mind, it seems rather to pass over the concept of the "ultimate being" (presumably accepting that it does not know what cannot be known).  Nevertheless, it accepts a spiritual reality, and it strikes me as a very fine line between a deity on the one hand and a Buddha or Boddhisattva.  I understand that Mahayana Buddhism has a type of pantheon constructed from such beings - but they remain essentially spirits that are on the same path to Nirvana as anyone else.
  3. Within Paganism, if you consider the Norse mythology (and I accept that there are those on this website better qualified than I to give an opinion on this) it seems difficult to accept the idea of an absolute deity alongside the concept of Ragnarok - the doom of the gods, who are largely destined to be destroyed in a particularly bleak and unavoidable fate stronger than they.
  4. It's also worth remembering that pagan mythology often has a concept of the "younger gods" displacing the "older gods" - Aesir and Vanir (Norse pantheon); Titans and Olympians (Greek pantheon).  This is somewhat difficult to square with "absolutism".  Some old Greek creation myths actually see the primal creative forces as being concepts such as "Darkness" and "Chaos".

I would conclude from this that there are plenty of alternative approaches to the "monotheistic monolith" that is the Abrahamic concept of "god", and these ideas can also be mixed and matched according to what makes sense to the individual (for instance, I have some sympathy with the idea of a hierarchy from the unknown and unknowable absolute through personalities identified as "the gods", but it would take some doing to link that with Hellenic pagan mythology, and I'm certainly not going to advance that as the only way of looking at it).

 

In summary, no, the idea of "god" is not necessarily as per the Christian concept.  But, due to our own cultural backgrounds, it can take some doing to wrap one's brain around the other ways of seeing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, “God” is whatever concept the person I’m talking to (Christian or not) holds. It’s their hypothesis, so I don’t feel a need to define it. On the contrary, it they’re going to talk to me about a god, it’s their job to define it.

 

I do not find the term “God” useful with regard to my current world view. If I’m talking about the universe, I just say “universe.” If I’m talking about that inner voice, I just say “that inner voice.” If I’m talking about the first cause, I just say “hell if I know.” If I’m talking about a higher power, I specify exactly which higher power I’m talking about, be it the police, the social contract, the laws of nature, whatever. You get the picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, “God” is whatever concept the person I’m talking to (Christian or not) holds. It’s their hypothesis, so I don’t feel a need to define it. On the contrary, it they’re going to talk to me about a god, it’s their job to define it.

 

I do not find the term “God” useful with regard to my current world view. If I’m talking about the universe, I just say “universe.” If I’m talking about that inner voice, I just say “that inner voice.” If I’m talking about the first cause, I just say “hell if I know.” If I’m talking about a higher power, I specify exactly which higher power I’m talking about, be it the police, the social contract, the laws of nature, whatever. You get the picture.

Makes perfect sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Just a thought - are you imputing to non-Christian thought ideas with which you are familiar through Christianity?"

 

This is actually what I'm asking about the use of "God" as a concept--is it inescapably xtian? Why do we think there has to be a unifying force? Why not chaos? Buddhism does very well without a god, for example.  Just thinking out loud, I suppose...

 

There are several non-Christian religious families with a unifying god concept. In the Abrahamic group, there are post-exilic Judaism and Islam. Among non-Abrahamists, there are Deism, panentheism, and some forms of pantheism. Christianity itself shows clear signs of having borrowed its God-Satan dualism from Zoroastrianism, although I don't know enough about that faith to know how well Ahura Mazda corresponds to the Christian god concept. I also believe that some Hindus view their multiplicity of gods as various facets of a single entity, though again, I know very little about Hinduism.

 

I do believe there is a cosmos, or “unifying force,” to the universe—which is the very reason we are able to make sense of the universe. Science could not work otherwise. I just don’t call it God. All chaos is derived from cosmos, which is why we can have a science of chaos, and why five-day weather forecasts are wrong only half the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.