Personal Definition of God

[willybilly30]

Cool ill look into that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If so you should look into something like the ancient Chinese religions (I think some Native American and Indian, like maybe Tantric, have this idea too).

 

I suspect Taoism is where Lucas got the idea from. It's got a similar concept.

107286[/snapback]

[Ouroboros]

Oh, and SSel, I forgot about the parallel universes discussion we had, look into a recent interview in Discover with Nima Arkani-Hamed, physicist at Harvard University.

 

This is the guy: http://www.physics.harvard.edu/people/facp...kani-hamed.html

 

And this is part of the article:

DIALOGUE

 

ANYONE SEE ANOTHER UNIVERSE?

 

NIMA ARKANI-HAMED, a physicist at Harvard University, thinks the existence of other universes might explain the weakness of gravity and the nature of the “antigravity” force pushing our universe apart.

 

What is the connection between the accelerating expansion of the universe and the existence of other universes?

 

A: The observation of the accelerating universe has crystallized a crisis. It’s yet another parameter in our fundamental theory that appears to be finely tuned to just the right value. If it were a little bigger, the universe would be empty. But if the multiverse picture is correct, and there are all these different universes, then the value of the cosmological constant could just randomly vary from one universe to the next. We should not be surprised to find one universe with a cosmological constant that is not lethal to our existence.

 

I'm not putting the whole article here, not to violate copyright laws more than I have.

[Ssel]

Interesting. So what you need is a clear definition of what God's characteristics are and you will be able to prove he exists based on those characteristics?

...

I think our misunderstanding grows out from this. Most of my arguments to the non-existence of God is based on specific definitions of God. And you're correct that if a God does indeed exist, he is likely to have some kind of characteristics. The problem I see we're having is that you can only prove God if and only if I can give you an example of how/what God must be. Is that correct?

 

..EXACTLY and also, no one can say that He does NOT exist until such characteristics are defined. Everyone who argues the existence or non-existence of God already has some image in their mind. The trouble is getting them to say what that image IS so that it can be discussed.

So let's say the characteristics of God is that he is omniscient and he has free will.

 

Does he exist?

Well, I was about to answer this one quickly until you threw in the "He has free will"

I need clarification as to what YOU mean when you say those words. This is an issue because what is "free" depends on your perspective and those thoughts get tricky.

 

But, in part, yes "omniscience" is provable and consistent with traditional science.

And interestingly, perhaps even far more so, it is provable within science, although for some reason they didn't seem to ever go there, that there can be ONLY ONE thing which truly exists and can be truly omniscient. (Einstien would not argue)

But this is a long discussion because we have to go into what constitues awareness and intellegence, and the properties of subnuclear particles and fields.

[Ouroboros]

Well, I was about to answer this one quickly until you threw in the "He has free will"

I need clarification as to what YOU mean when you say those words.  This is an issue because what is "free" depends on your perspective and those thoughts get tricky.

 

But, in part, yes "omniscience" is provable and consistent with traditional science.

And interestingly, perhaps even far more so, it is provable within science, although for some reason they didn't seem to ever go there, that there can be ONLY ONE thing which truly exists and can be truly omniscient. (Einstien would not argue)

But this is a long discussion because we have to go into what constitues awareness and intellegence, and the properties of subnuclear particles and fields.

107627[/snapback]

I guess that would have to be in another topic. And I think I know where you're going with the omniscience. Is your argument perhaps related to quantum mechanics and entanglement? (I'm not planning on taking this sidetrack any deeper; yes, no or maybe will be sufficient.)

[Ouroboros]

..EXACTLY  and also, no one can say that He does NOT exist until such characteristics are defined.  Everyone who argues the existence or non-existence of God already has some image in their mind.  The trouble is getting them to say what that image IS so that it can be discussed.

107627[/snapback]

My problem is that I don't have a definition of God anymore. To me this alleged God is a blob of goo, without character or properties. He might exist in the void in one of my black cigar boxes that I saved. I even can imagine God being a huge machine of low intelligence , that just without regards of right/wrong or future, creates new universes every such-and-such time.

 

Hard to define such a God. Does God the Blob of Goo exist? Hmmm...

[Amethyst]

Hard to define such a God. Does God the Blob of Goo exist? Hmmm...

 

That certainly explains some things about the refrigerator at work! There's gotta be intellligent life in there, with the old stuff people have left.

[mwc]

So, is that what we should do?  Find the concept that appeals to us the most and believe that?

 

I'd say that until a god (gods, if there are any or whatever) makes itself known to us absolutely and unambiguously this is exactly what we should do. It seems it's the only thing we can do. If god is undefined then any belief system must also remain undefined.

 

mwc

[Ssel]

DIALOGUE

 

ANYONE SEE ANOTHER UNIVERSE?

 

Oh dear,…

IF you REALLY, REALLY want to know,

I can explain the reality of every “miracle” mentioned in the scriptures. I can explain exactly how gravity is formed to the degree that you could actually prove it on your PC, as well as magnetism. I can explain the logical and rational view of “parallel universes”. But before ANY of that took place, I’m afraid that I would have to discuss the current state of society and why there is SO much confusion in the air about SO many things. But none of this really belongs in this thread.

 

I spent about 18 years in a “think tank” closed off from the world and when I got out, I discovered that the world had become a serious, serious mess. I was very disappointed. But it had its reasons and purposes.

 

My problem is that I don't have a definition of God anymore.

 

The beginning of wisdom is that moment when you realize that none of your prior thoughts have basis. But keep to being very, very accurate even though it seems that nothing can be known, and you will pass that stage of void and begin to see what apsolutely MUST be correct and eventually a great mountain of truth which so very few ever get to see.

 

and as far as entanglement...well...not exactly

[Fweethawt]

Does God the Blob of Goo exist? Hmmm...

I say, he does.

 

After all, he was pretty pissed at Onan for dropping him on the ground.

 

[Ssel]

So, is that what we should do?  Find the concept that appeals to us the most and believe that?

 

I'd say that until a god (gods, if there are any or whatever) makes itself known to us absolutely and unambiguously this is exactly what we should do. It seems it's the only thing we can do. If god is undefined then any belief system must also remain undefined.

 

mwc

107652[/snapback]

the English word "god" came from the word/sound "ghe" meaning "spirit" and the word/sound "odd" meaning unique and standing out from the rest.

"spirit" refers to those unseen inner affects or energy. It is often imagined as a ghostly body with fun magical special affects. But it really only meant "that stuff that makes things move".

a "god", therefore refers to those affects which uniquely cause and/or control a particular happening.

ex: the "god of war" refers to those many unseen things which come together to cause and/or control the outcome of war"

ex: the god of "love" ...the same except the cause and controller of love

 

"the God" (cap G) refers to the highest possible spirit thingy that creates and controls ALL things.

 

This is merely a discussion of the English words. It is not attempting to define anyone's personal God. But merely what "a god" means in English.

[Fweethawt]

the English word "god" came from the ......

I remember reading something at one point that stated the word "God" was an actual name of one of the deities that originated over in Germany somewhere.

 

I don't remember reading anything that said that word had its origins in the English language.

[Ssel]

So, is that what we should do?  Find the concept that appeals to us the most and believe that?

What one "should do" is to figure out what concept is worthy of being accepted as the most significant and obeying that concept. It is a question of living and survival. Obey a foolish concept, and foolish things end up happening. Obey a strategically clever concept, and in the end, you fare better. The trick is trying to figure out which of ALL of those preachers (including those who speak for science today) are actually trying to give you good advice and know what they are talking about. The immediate temptation would be the scientist, but take care, even science is becoming no more than a new religion.

Science teachers in high schools today teach that hot water in your fridge will freeze faster than cold water. How many things in science have you actually SEEN yourself? It is to the point where people believe it if it has the words "science has proven" in front of it. Yet much of these things are there merely for influence (statistics skewed so as to create a better reaction from the public).

[Cerise]

Who gets to decide what is most significant?

[Ssel]

Who gets to decide what is most significant?

107668[/snapback]

 

Well, that's the beauty of it, YOU do for yourself

but then, if you screw up, then you have no one to blame but yourself

[Ouroboros]

the English word "god" came from the ......

I remember reading something at one point that stated the word "God" was an actual name of one of the deities that originated over in Germany somewhere.

 

I don't remember reading anything that said that word had its origins in the English language.

107664[/snapback]

I thought it was Indo-European, from Gheu, to call, to invoke, and guth, voice, and Ghu-to, the invoked one.

 

http://w3.lincolnu.edu/~focal/backinst/focal055.htm

[Ssel]

I don't remember reading anything that said that word had its origins in the English language.

 

 

 

I didn't mean to say that it originated from old English, I meant the English word had those concept roots. I would have to guess about which Europian nation had founded those sounds. Perhaps Gaelic

 

also consider the following "motion"(spirit) words;

 

go - ghe-o

ghost - ghe-host, spirit host

gossimer - a shimmering moving transparent viel

goat - "go-at" describing the constant eating behavior charateristic of the animal

gospel - the spirit spell

gossip - the traveling words

godiva - the spirit of the divine(perfect)

[Fweethawt]

gospel - the spirit spell

I have to admit, I found this little tidbit to be somewhat enlightening.

[mwc]

the English word "god" came from the word/sound "ghe" meaning "spirit" and the word/sound "odd" meaning unique and standing out from the rest.

"spirit" refers to those unseen inner affects or energy.  It is often imagined as a ghostly body with fun magical special affects.  But it really only meant "that stuff that makes things move".

a "god", therefore refers to those affects which uniquely cause and/or control a particular happening.

ex: the "god of war" refers to those many unseen things which come together to cause and/or control the outcome of war"

ex: the god of "love" ...the same except the cause and controller of love

I'm not going to fact check you on this so I'll just take you on your word (I've heard other explanations but I didn't really fixate on the etymology but more on the abstract).

 

"the God" (cap G) refers to the highest possible spirit thingy that creates and controls ALL things.

I use the upper and lower case to signify the difference between, as you say the true god and the "others." However, since I do not know God I normally do not use that form. If at some point I do find God then I will make the change permanent (unless God wishes to be called something else I suppose). Also, in my mind, God is used to define the god of the Bible and since I do not believe that is anything more than a myth he now gets written (when I remember) as "god" since he is neither real nor a true god.

 

Also, your "the God" example shows a bias towards the singular. This is quite an assumption on your part. Of course, based on your messages, it would appear that you believe that you hold the "secret" of God. You seem to be hinting that you know the definition of God and are just sort of playing around with all of us to see if we'll guess. You know my definition and that is that God is basically undefined (although I like to imagine that God has certain traits and sometimes I refer to those even though they cannot be attributed with any certainty). I cannot assume to know characteristics of something that I have no knowledge of. Was it you that used the "Ghod" example? If so, then God is the same. I've no knowledge of a "Ghod" and I've no knowledge of a "God" so both remain undefined.

 

Since you seem to possess knowledge of God it would seem the most logical place to start is with your very own definition so that we can all examine it and see if this God of yours is the same God that we've imagined or experienced. If we all agree a cat is a cat based on specific details (and I'm not even sure this is entirely possible for all people to agree on) then we should all be able to see, upon examination, that your definition of God is the definition of God.

 

This is merely a discussion of the English words.  It is not attempting to define anyone's personal God.  But merely what "a god" means in English.

I understand and appreciate the lesson. However, it does indicate that you are trying, in some way, to force an issue. Your point seems to be to very specifically define every aspect of God. Upon doing so God will have a firm, universal, meaning and therefore anything that meets this definition, by default, must be God. The problem is that I can define God all day long as what I think God should be. I could actually meet that thing some day and say 'this is truly God as it meets the definition.' Unfortunately this is not assured. My concept of God may not be God at all and until I can actually meet that thing which is God I can never been 100% certain of my definition (ie. I would need to rule out all other possibilities to ensure that I've actually found God...once again assuming that God is a singular entity).

 

Another way of looking at this is that the universe may be teaming with life (another unknown just as God is but more plausable in my opinion). What if one of these aliens fit the definition of God? Are they then God? By definition they would be but only because we defined first. If we had waited until we'd actually met the aliens to define them then there's a chance they would not be defined as God but something else. From what I see it's putting the cart before the horse. I think that God works along the lines of "We'll all know it when we see it" and at that point we can just slap the God label on that thing and be done.

 

mwc

[mwc]

I see god as the creator of all things

The universe is were all things come from

Therefore, the universe is the creator

Im not sure how to prove its god or define god

Ill meditate on that question and get back to you on it.

Sounds like you've just expanded on all the Mother Earth type beliefs. Mother Universe? (Nah, it just doesn't have the same "ring" to it.)

 

mwc

[willybilly30]

I like the mother earth idea.

I think ancient people did not know anything outside earth because the use terms like father sun and mother earth. What does that make the universe grandpa and grandma?

What if we find another planet with life is that our cousin

As always my answers lead to more questions for me

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

quote=mwc,Nov 16 2005, 01:53 AM]

I see god as the creator of all things

The universe is were all things come from

Therefore, the universe is the creator

Im not sure how to prove its god or define god

Ill meditate on that question and get back to you on it.

Sounds like you've just expanded on all the Mother Earth type beliefs. Mother Universe? (Nah, it just doesn't have the same "ring" to it.)

 

mwc

107723[/snapback]

[SkepticOfBible]

Hello Pritishd:

Are you a literalist as well as Daniel? To be clear - It is possible to be a Christian and NOT read the Bible literally.

107253[/snapback]

 

No, I am actually a skeptic regarding the position that you are trying to assert.

It is however interesting that you become a literalist when you come across a verse which seems positive and then accuse others of the same when they put forward which contradict your position.

 

As mentioned in my first post - playing "I know the Bible better than you" will get no one anywhere. But, since you seem to want to play dueling Bible verses, you may want to look up a book written by Philip Gulley and James Mulholland. The title is If Grace Is True: Why God Will Save Every Person .

 

For the purposes of this discussion let me quote part of the book:

 

QUOTE

I believe our experiences with God can be trusted. This doesn't mean the Bible should be ignored. Thomas Talbott, in his book The Inescapable Love of God, that the New Testament is universalist. Though I find many of his interpretations of Scripture enlightening, I remain unconvinced. I believe the early church was as liable to diminish the grace of God as the church today.

 

The Scriptures listed below are not intended to be proof that the Bible, Jesus, or Paul believed all would be saved. I don't know. I do know there are biblical themes, stories, and verses that imply the salvation of all. These Scriptures have been ignored or discounted by most of Christianity. Commentaries insist they can't mean what they say.

 

Since I don't believe the Bible inerrant, I have no need either to harmonize every voice or to explain away every inconsistency. I am willing and able to say of many verses, "I don't believe that to be true." But I'm also excited the Bible isn't unanimous about the destiny of humanity. There are minority voices. Though some of them represent a Christocentric view, they all call into question the damnation of God's children.

 

I encourage those of you convinced the Bible is the inerrant word of God to examine and study these verses. You may remain unconvinced, but you can't ignore what you claim is without error. For those less committed to bilbical authority, I hope these verses allow you to reclaim a book full of truth.

 

Here is a contradiction in the above passage

 

Since I don't believe the Bible inerrant vs I hope these verses allow you to reclaim a book full of truth.

 

How can a book which is errant be full of truth. Just how are you determining what part of the bible is telling the truth? Let me guess...... pretty much whatever suits your pet doctrine

 

You don't consider the bible to be inerrant, but you certainly think that you are inerrant about your position.

 

And going deeper into the book the author sites his share of Bible verses that confirm his position (and mine).

 

In another thread on this forum someone noted that the bible is actually miracle in the sense that it is so flexible that anybody can take certain verses and create their theology out of it. I am pretty sure this book would actually illustrate this fact

 

In my study of the bible, I have discovered the following

1) The NT at many times contradict the OT

2)That if you consider the OT seriously Jesus fails to qualify as the Messiah, let alone be considered the god of the OT

3)The NT also contradicts itselfs at many times.

4)The NT pulls OT verses out of context and twist them around to support their theology. The book of hebrews and acts is a good example of that. (Hebrews, Act)

5)The NT potrays the Jews as a group of people who are legalistic and just don't want to believe in christ. They are potrayed as a race of people who want to hinder god's work with their "old fashioned laws" which was given by a man called Moses.

6)The OT is actually a pretty solid and self sutaining theology. You do not need the NT to understand the OT. Whether this theology is good or bad you have to decide for yourself.

 

If there is one common theme that is actually consistant across the bible it is actually the theme of elitism. In the OT god's chosen people, the Jews, are the elite. in the NT christians are the new elite.

 

Hebrew Scripture

 

.........

 

Jeremiah 31:33-34 - "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the Lord. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God and they will be my people. NO longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the Lord. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

 

Hosea 11:9 - I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I turn and devastate Ephraim. For I am God, and not man - the Holy One among you. I will not come in wrath.

 

....

 

 

Christian Scripture

......

John 10:16 - I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

 

John 12:32 - When I am lifted up, I will draw all men to myself.

 

John 12:47 - I did not come to judge the world, but to save it.

 

Acts 3:21 - He [Christ] must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.

 

Acts 10:34 - I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism, but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.

 

Romans 5:18 - Just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life to all men.

 

Romans 8:38-39 - I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything in all of creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

Ephesians 1:9-10 - He made know to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment - to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.

 

Colossians 1:19-20 - For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood shed on the cross.

 

Titus 2:11 - For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.

 

Revelation 21:25 - On no day will its [heaven's] gates be shut, for there will be no night there.

 

Like the author of If Grace is True, I feel no need to harmonize the conflicts of the Bible. I feel no need to defend a flawed theology.

 

So why do you believe in a flawed theology? and why do you want Daniel and us to believe in a flawed theology?

And once again you ignored verses blow away your pet doctrine of "unversal salvation". They may be certain scriptures that vaguely support your fluffy notion of universal salvation but there are others which don't. You also quote scriptures outside context just like the writers of the OT. for example

 

Hosea 11:9 - I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I turn and devastate Ephraim. For I am God, and not man - the Holy One among you. I will not come in wrath.

 

What does this gotta with the concept of universal salvation? I mean the verse is specifically talking Isreal and other nation, and how god is lamenting that they have turned wicked, and god will not show his wrath in that instance

 

Secondly if you read John 3:36 it clearly states God's wrath will be on one who doesn't believe in the son of god?

 

There are many examples in the old testament where God has killed people in his wrath, and sometimes for inane reasons such practicing as contraception or saving holy items from falling from the ground.

 

Jeremiah 31:33-34 - "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the Lord. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God and they will be my people. NO longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the Lord. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

 

This is best example from the OT which proves that NT is false. If the new covenant has come to pass there will be no longer will people need to be taught by others(like you and Daniel) about God, for each person will know God personally and directly without the need for any intermediary(like Jesus). Obviously this event hasn't happened.

 

Also if you look at the other verses in that part it also talks about God reaffirming the OT laws by writing it in their hearts, yet NT quite balantly contradicts that by saying that you are not under the law.

 

Jer 31:27-36 also undermines Jesus greatly because it says that each man will die for their own sins. Their is no requirement for a saviour who has die for your sins. Ezek 18:20-28 also confirms that.

 

I mean come on, how tightly are we to close our eyes and pretend that there are no contradicting scriptures.

 

The bible is nothing more than a book written by people who thought that they were inspired by god. Why should I be interested with such a shaky premise?

Christians love to say that "Christianity is God made and others religion are man made". When you study the history of the Canon of the bible, it literally canonballs this fluffy notion.

The title of the book that you put forward is quite funny "If Grace is True". He hasn't considered that the concept of grace might be false

 

John 10:16 - I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

 

Christ also makes a distinction between sheeps and goats. Whereby the goats are sent into the fire of doom? and he also gave a good scale to determine who is the sheep and the goats?

 

Matt 25:31-46

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

.....

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.[/I]

 

There you have from the horses mouth.Acording to Jesus some will be tormented forever while others will be rewarded. He also said in another verse that the gates of heaven is too narrow.

 

And many christians would definately ask a valid question, as to whom should they believe, your interpretation of what Jesus Christ wants to say or rather what Jesus actually said ? And for many christians the opinion of christ is more important than the opinion of men, and there is nothing more explicit in the above verse which talks about eternal torture.

 

Off course the above verse also blows away the concept of that of Sola Fide.

 

It is entirely possible for me, as a Christian, to look at certain Bible verses and given interpretations and simply say, "I disagree".

 

In other words the bible becomes whatever the bible wants it to be.

 

In that respect you are no less than Daniel.

 

Christians like you and Dan engage in self-gratification and self-exaltation when they praise and worship their version of "God". Believers set up a system of self exaltation based on themselves and an object of worship. They praise themselves through whatever "God vehicle" they decide to believe in.

 

Within the context of this thread, I am interested in one thing. The one request I made of Daniel and am still seeking a response to follows:

QUOTE

Please respond from your heart. Jesus did not promise His disciples a Bible to be canonized 100s of years after his death - he promised His disciples a Counselor, the Holy Spirit to reside within them. To guide them from within their own soul. So, search your soul Daniel and just answer the question.

 

It is quite interesting that you have to refer to a bible to know about Jesus's promises? If the bible was not there would you have been aware of Jesus promises or could you have created the concept of Universal salvation without the bible?

 

The fact is you need the bible to prove your doctrine.

 

Why do you assume that what is stated about Jesus in the bible is correct?

 

It is also very interesting to see that Jesus also promised that he will send the Holy spirit so that the believers would guide them to the truth, yet that is far from reality. Christians are the very example of that failure, in marketing when claims made about a product fail to match up with the actual performance of that product, it's called false advertising.

 

Instead of asking Daniel to do soul searching, perhaps you should heed your own advice.

 

Here is little request from me, instead of seeing things from a point of view of a believer, how about seeing it from a point of view of skeptic. I highly recommend the following site for you

 

Agnostic Review On Christianity. This site is analysis the common claim of christianity. All the articles are brief and to the point.

 

How can a God that is good send people to hell?....

 

 

 

Here is a question which you haven't answered to your bretherns

 

How can a god that is Just, will not punish people for their crimes?( The crime here is not believing in Christ and the punishment is clearly stated)

 

Here are some of my own questions

 

On what basis are you calling the Christian God good?

 

What was the point of jesus coming to earth and dying on the cross?

 

What's the point of believing in jesus if we are gonna be saved anyways, and what do we get saved from?

[NotBlinded]

Sorry I didn’t mean too

 

Not necessary to apologize, willy. You just need to recognize that when you equate God with everything, the term God becomes meaningless.

I think that is where understanding will happen...maybe. When we try to describe this Being, we are giving it limitations, if it can remain outside of thought, we may be able to glimpse it. Paradox I know... Honestly, I don't know.

[BuddhistCommunist]

Amanda, everytime I read one of your posts I realize how spiritualy enlightened you are. Remember, if your enlightenment every comes even more into to terms with Buddhism, I would be even more willing to call you my spiritual sister.

Bc

[Amethyst]

Christians like you and Dan engage in self-gratification and self-exaltation when they praise and worship their version of "God". Believers set up a system of self exaltation based on themselves and an object of worship. They praise themselves through whatever "God vehicle" they decide to believe in.

 

Good point. Christianity is really a cult of self-worship, not Jesus worship, because Christians actually worship their own views of what god is like. I didn't fully realize this until I left it, but now that I'm on the outside looking in, I can see it more clearly. No wonder so many Christians are so arrogant.