Ouroboros Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Han, this thread has gotten way off track of its original purpose. I'm calling it a miscarraige. Feel free to lock it any time you choose. Nah, I'm not going to lock it, just trying to get some of the participants get a grip of what they're saying. The question and the answer just doesn't match. It's like asking a Christian What is 1+1 and the Christian answer Strawberry shake with a cherry on top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Sorry, Scott, but being a Xian DOES mean you should let people walk all over you. Jesus said so. And how do you know what your god can and cannot do? You are not a god, nor are you equal to your god, to know what it can or cannot do. I know that He can do ANYTHING He sees fit. And no, I don't have to let people walk all over me. And he has a really big penis, I'll bet. And he can beat up my god, right? Don't explain to me my idea. I think I know what I think better than you. WE are full of SIN and God is HOLY. The reason for the suffering is because of US! You don't sound like a Xian to me, all of a sudden. You sound more like a guy who needs to take his Lithium. Really what is a Christian supposed to sound like? You expect me to keep my temper what I'm being cussed out all over the place? And why don't you say the word Christian? Is the Name Christ scary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Don't explain to me my idea. I think I know what I think better than you. WE are full of SIN and God is HOLY. The reason for the suffering is because of US! Eeh... You still didn't read the TITLE OF THE TOPIC! Do you know what the word "TITLE" means? And "OF"? And "THE"? And "TOPIC"? The TITLE OF THE TOPIC is "WHAT IS GOD". And you answered "SIN". So either "God is sin" is the answer to the question, OR you misunderstood the Topic. What is it? With that said, get back to the topic!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Scott, we really should try and get back on topic as the moderator has kindly asked. Here I'll try... I think that God is an anthropomorphic view of causality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 I think that God is an anthropomorphic view of causality. Am I correct to say that it's kind of the same as the Naturalistic view then? It's somewhat like God is a label for all there is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Please bear with me Hans. I'm relatively new around here and I've not yet expored the whole quotation option yet. I suppose that claiming that God is an anthropomorphic view of causality would be consistent with a Naturalistic view. I suppose that it is also somewhat pantheistic in nature, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roman Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 As a former RC, I can agree that "god" is All That There Is. This is dogma of the RC church, but it has a very deep meaning that is not clearly understood, especially for Xians (more clearly understood by Buddhists, I think). For most, the common attribute of "god" is Mystery. There is nothing more common (in the RC Church, anyway), than its own adherents not understanding what the church actually stands for and attempts to teach. Even priests teach wrong things, sometimes. In fact, priests and nuns are responsible for much misunderstanding of the RCC. I disagree that "god" is the highest ideal. To go into that requires a discussion of the original Abrahamic God and how he changed and how the Trinity developed. Jesus became the Ideal, with God the Father becoming the Creator & Judge, and the Holy Spirit taking the role of Lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Legion, I'm okay with that. I kind of see it this way: All that exists, energy, matter, cosmos, humans, life, quarks, whatever... all just is, and one could call that "God" if one wants. (This I'd label Naturalism) But if one would say that this same "God" (everything that exists) also is sentient, that is unknown IMO. (And I'd label this Pantheism) (just my thoughts) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuaiDan Posted August 31, 2006 Author Share Posted August 31, 2006 It might be interesting to note that, by accident, this thread was posted twice originally. They have since run off in completely different directions. The link to the other thread is here. other thread Anyway, let me summarily dismiss Scott: Scott, your christ had to come back to earth to save our asses, which mean god didn't get it right the first time. Which means your god is flawed. A perfect creator can not make an imperfect creation. My god, on the other hand, creates nothing. It is only the highest ideal, the highest perfection. My god beats your god :: I disagree that "god" is the highest ideal. To go into that requires a discussion of the original Abrahamic God and how he changed and how the Trinity developed. Jesus became the Ideal, with God the Father becoming the Creator & Judge, and the Holy Spirit taking the role of Lawyer. Roman, I'm not talking about bible god here... Let's take for granted that religions are just mythologies. Without dismissing the idea of god existing, let's try to define god outside of the context of religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuaiDan Posted August 31, 2006 Author Share Posted August 31, 2006 I like Roman's idea, but i would add by stating that anthropomorphizing god (deity) would fall close to my definition of religion. Let us use this definition to seperate the notion of god from deity. We anthropomorphize christmas spirit through santa clause, we anthropomorphize easter and an animal through the easter bunny. We anthropomorphize causality through deity. Therefore, causality is god. Questions that arise in my mind from this assertion: does god exist outside of timespace? does god exist only as a function of conciousness? Does god as causality indicate it("God" as deity should be "he", "god" as concept should be "it") is the creator? Is creativity an anthropomorphological characteristic? If god is everything which is, and god is the highest ideal, then that would necessitate that the universe is perfect. and everything under the sun is in tune.... Pink Floyd More profound than anything in the bible, that's for sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Omniscient Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 Is this thread still alive ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saxyroze Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 I know that He can do ANYTHING He sees fit. And no, I don't have to let people walk all over me. Not really. The god of the Christians is benevolent, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. So, god is benevolent, meaning he cannot do or be evil. But he’s also omnipotent which means he can do anything, including evil. How can he be capable of doing evil yet, at the same time, not be able to do evil because of divine benevolence? If you say he has the capacity to be evil but chooses not to be, then he isn’t really benevolent. He would then just be omnipotent with restraint. To be divinely benevolent, god would have to be utterly free of evil and would not have the ability to do evil. If he’s restricted in any way, then he can’t be omnipotent. So what is he, all-loving but not all-powerful or all-powerful but not all-loving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garrisonjj Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Ah, so you think that believing in some sort of higher power is always tied up with religion. Do you? Hmm. I'm not sure. I could say that I think belief in a higher power of whatever sort is usually tied up with religion, but I'm not familiar with every possible higher power belief there is out there, so I'd hesitate to say that it always is. It seems to me that belief in a higher power of any kind is an externalization of something that's really internal, regardless of whether or not there's a religion connected to it. But I could also be full of crap, who knows. Well, I have gone full circle as apostate. I am into self-worship. Correct! You can worship yourself and still care for others and live by the golden rule. Who nees to worship and beg (pray) to some fuckinimaginary being! The closest thing to god is a good hard orgasm! Iv've tried it the other way, ereligion is a waste of time,effort and money. Be your own god! you'll get more of a response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts