Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How do you personally define the word "God"?

Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 9:34:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I see people debating about the existence of God, yet nobody seems to disclose how they personally define the word "God". The definition makes all the difference as to how it applies to certain topics.

How do you personally define the word "God"?
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 9:36:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 9:34:41 PM, Tiel wrote:
I see people debating about the existence of God, yet nobody seems to disclose how they personally define the word "God". The definition makes all the difference as to how it applies to certain topics.

How do you personally define the word "God"?

imaginary waste of time.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 9:41:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is why when it comes to the debate of whether or not "God" exists or not, the only intelligent position is the "Ignostic" position.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 10:02:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
My personal definition of God: The One in All and the All in One. The eternal everything. Actuality.

I do not believe "God" is a specific entity. Though I do believe there was an original consciousness, the first soul, which split and self replicated into other souls like biological cells do. This would be the closest thing in my reality to other people's version of an entity called "God".
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 10:07:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What is belief but mere imagination if it hath no evidence on which to stand? You cannot believe or acquire a definition of that which is transcendental, and any attempt at such is sheer imagination and non sense.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 10:17:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 10:07:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
What is belief but mere imagination if it hath no evidence on which to stand? You cannot believe or acquire a definition of that which is transcendental, and any attempt at such is sheer imagination and non sense.

No, my belief is based on evidence. Evidence is anything that supports a claim. My evidence comes from my own rational thoughts an logical conclusions, combined with any supporting evidence that I feel is worthy towards my beliefs. To think that the only valid evidence is that which can be scientifically measured by an instrumental tool is limited at best, ignorant at worst. There are many things that can't be measured with current instrumental tools, this means very little or nothing. Especially when one cannot not confidently say that one knows how to measure or understand all things correctly. If you do not know how to measure or understand a thing, the thing cannot be truly understood or measured. To be open to different possibilities is wise, to be closed to different possibilities is ignorant.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
natis
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 10:23:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 10:07:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
What is belief but mere imagination if it hath no evidence on which to stand? You cannot believe or acquire a definition of that which is transcendental, and any attempt at such is sheer imagination and non sense.

Really? sad. sad. Please debate and not state something that is wrong cause you can define something that has no evidence. One its called a black hole . we only suspect and try and understand what is happening and we have no evidence on what it is so there you have no argument. And sheer imagination brought forth facts such as electricity and gravity.
p.o.y.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 10:40:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 10:23:56 PM, natis wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:07:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
What is belief but mere imagination if it hath no evidence on which to stand? You cannot believe or acquire a definition of that which is transcendental, and any attempt at such is sheer imagination and non sense.

Really? sad. sad. Please debate and not state something that is wrong cause you can define something that has no evidence. One its called a black hole . we only suspect and try and understand what is happening and we have no evidence on what it is so there you have no argument. And sheer imagination brought forth facts such as electricity and gravity.

Is this a joke, or are you for real? First of all, black holes have tremendous amounts of evidence supporting their existence that is therefore the only reason why they are accepted in the scientific community. Second of all, my argument is not that you cannot define that which you have not seen, rather it is that you cannot define that which is transcendental, for a definition assumes knowledge. You cannot claim knowledge to that which humans have no knowledge of! To define "God" is to know what he is. That is the fundamental error in both yours and Tiel's line of thinking. It is definition based on assumption! An invalid criterion.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 10:53:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I know what God is.

There is nothing "transcendental" as in beyond the universe. Something can not exist outside of the universe. The universe by definition is all of existence. If something is outside of existence, it DOESN'T EXIST.

God is. God is actuality. God is existence. The very concept of an invisible sky daddy is patently retarded. The people who believe that to be God are fools of the highest caliber.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 11:06:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 10:40:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:23:56 PM, natis wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:07:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
What is belief but mere imagination if it hath no evidence on which to stand? You cannot believe or acquire a definition of that which is transcendental, and any attempt at such is sheer imagination and non sense.

Really? sad. sad. Please debate and not state something that is wrong cause you can define something that has no evidence. One its called a black hole . we only suspect and try and understand what is happening and we have no evidence on what it is so there you have no argument. And sheer imagination brought forth facts such as electricity and gravity.

Is this a joke, or are you for real? First of all, black holes have tremendous amounts of evidence supporting their existence that is therefore the only reason why they are accepted in the scientific community. Second of all, my argument is not that you cannot define that which you have not seen, rather it is that you cannot define that which is transcendental, for a definition assumes knowledge. You cannot claim knowledge to that which humans have no knowledge of! To define "God" is to know what he is. That is the fundamental error in both yours and Tiel's line of thinking. It is definition based on assumption! An invalid criterion.

I wouldn't bring me into this. You have the fundamental error of arrogantly assuming that you all things. I am basing my knowledge off of real evidence, though any evidence is only as valid as an individual's acceptance of it. I ave plenty of knowledge of my definition of the word GOD. For everything in existence that I have ever perceived is proof of my definition. My definition of God equals everything, actuality. Therefor you may not agree with my personal definition of God, but the fact that there is such a thing as EVERYTHING and ACTUALITY cannot be denied, nor refuted.

Your line of thinking is far more in error than mine, I assume nothing. You misrepresent my position. There is no HE or SHE in my definition of God. If you would quit accusing and actually read my post, you would have known this simple fact. Don't try to belittle my intelligence ike, you have not shown me any wisdom that is worthy of earning my respect. Instead, you have shown me ignorance towards my personal definition of the word "God" and then misrepresented my position.

You are in error, not me. My personal definition of the word "God" assumes nothing. I have simply defined everything in actuality with the word "God".
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 1:45:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 9:34:41 PM, Tiel wrote:
I see people debating about the existence of God, yet nobody seems to disclose how they personally define the word "God". The definition makes all the difference as to how it applies to certain topics.

How do you personally define the word "God"?

I have a thread running on this exact same topic!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 5:26:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 9:34:41 PM, Tiel wrote:
I see people debating about the existence of God, yet nobody seems to disclose how they personally define the word "God". The definition makes all the difference as to how it applies to certain topics.

How do you personally define the word "God"?

Jesus Christ nailed to a cross, naked, bloody and bruised with a crown of thorns on His head, being given vinegar to drink for His thirst..

THAT is the absolute BEST picture you are ever going to get of God.
The Cross.. the Cross.
hotdog
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 6:40:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/8/2011 5:26:28 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:34:41 PM, Tiel wrote:
I see people debating about the existence of God, yet nobody seems to disclose how they personally define the word "God". The definition makes all the difference as to how it applies to certain topics.

How do you personally define the word "God"?

Jesus Christ nailed to a cross, naked, bloody and bruised with a crown of thorns on His head, being given vinegar to drink for His thirst..

THAT is the absolute BEST picture you are ever going to get of God.

That is so weird - it's a really disconcerting idea. Why would God need to do something like that?
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 9:25:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I asked an agnostic atheist the same question a few days back, and he replied that he had no idea how to define God. Though throughout the discussion, he seemed to focus on the omnipresent, all powerful God.

I don't know, I have this real different idea of God. He is the sum of positive energy within me, all powerful? Yes, it is- but the thing is, I give him that power, because when I cease to believe in him, the 'force' disappears. I believe in him, and he grants my wishes, but then at the end, sometimes I feel it's all me, and sometimes not. But since this arrangement works, that's all that matters.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 12:02:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/8/2011 6:40:37 AM, hotdog wrote:
At 9/8/2011 5:26:28 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:34:41 PM, Tiel wrote:
I see people debating about the existence of God, yet nobody seems to disclose how they personally define the word "God". The definition makes all the difference as to how it applies to certain topics.

How do you personally define the word "God"?

Jesus Christ nailed to a cross, naked, bloody and bruised with a crown of thorns on His head, being given vinegar to drink for His thirst..

THAT is the absolute BEST picture you are ever going to get of God.

That is so weird - it's a really disconcerting idea. Why would God need to do something like that?

It's never explained.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 1:45:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/8/2011 9:25:09 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
I asked an agnostic atheist the same question a few days back, and he replied that he had no idea how to define God. Though throughout the discussion, he seemed to focus on the omnipresent, all powerful God.

I don't know, I have this real different idea of God. He is the sum of positive energy within me, all powerful? Yes, it is- but the thing is, I give him that power, because when I cease to believe in him, the 'force' disappears. I believe in him, and he grants my wishes, but then at the end, sometimes I feel it's all me, and sometimes not. But since this arrangement works, that's all that matters.

I would really like to thank you for giving your personal definition of the word "God". You are one of the only people who did so, and it is the purpose of forum. I find your perspective quite interesting. I am glad that you have found a system that works for you, there is a lot to negative and positive energy. Envisioning all the positive energy as an entity called God is very respectable in my opinion. Though positive energy never disappears. If you choose positive energy and focus on that, your God will always be with you.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 1:56:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"You cannot define that which you have not seen." -- 000ike

You can't be serious. GTFO. You're telling me we can't define unicorns and fairies? It's very easy to do, watch.

Unicorn: mythical horse-like creature with one horn on it's head.

Fairy: tiny, magical humanoid with wings
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 2:52:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/8/2011 1:59:11 PM, Kinesis wrote:
The word 'God' is pretty meaningless unless qualified, due to the incredibly wide diversification in its use.

That's the whole purpose of this forum.

What definition of the word "God" do you consider personally qualified?
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 3:21:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/8/2011 2:52:11 PM, Tiel wrote:
That's the whole purpose of this forum.

What definition of the word "God" do you consider personally qualified?

I don't know what you mean. What does "personally qualified" mean?
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 3:27:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/8/2011 3:21:30 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 9/8/2011 2:52:11 PM, Tiel wrote:
That's the whole purpose of this forum.

What definition of the word "God" do you consider personally qualified?

I don't know what you mean. What does "personally qualified" mean?

A definition that you personally think is worthy and accurate of it's claim.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 4:08:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/8/2011 3:27:20 PM, Tiel wrote:
A definition that you personally think is worthy and accurate of it's claim.

Here's where you're making a fundamental mistake. No definition is any more 'worthy' than any other definition. Nor do definitions make claims. Definitions are simply arbitrary meanings ascribed to little squiggles of ink or sounds that humans make. The word God has different definitions. None are correct or incorrect. It's just that some people mean different things when they use the term. When I'm in a conversation with someone, it's helpful to find out what they mean by 'God' and move on from there. I have no dispute with them at the level of definition.
Calvincambridge
Posts: 1,141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 4:14:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
God- YHWH of Judaism, God the father of christanity, Allah of Islam
Trying to figure out women is like trying to solve a Rubik's cube with missing pieces. While blind. And on fire. And being shot.-Agent_Orange
Dude. Shades
That is all.- Thaddeus Rivers
One thing that isn't a joke though is the fact that woman are computers.Some buttons you can press and it'l work fine, but if you push the wrong one you'll get the blue screen of death.
silly, thett. girls are only good for sex. being friends with a female is of no value.-darkkermit
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 4:44:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 10:53:47 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I know what God is.

There is nothing "transcendental" as in beyond the universe. Something can not exist outside of the universe. The universe by definition is all of existence. If something is outside of existence, it DOESN'T EXIST.

God is. God is actuality. God is existence. The very concept of an invisible sky daddy is patently retarded. The people who believe that to be God are fools of the highest caliber.

Cosmic, why do you use the word "God" if it is a synonym for existence. If one uses the word "God" and really means existence then nothing more than confusion can come from it, no?
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 4:51:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/8/2011 4:08:14 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 9/8/2011 3:27:20 PM, Tiel wrote:
A definition that you personally think is worthy and accurate of it's claim.

Here's where you're making a fundamental mistake. No definition is any more 'worthy' than any other definition. Nor do definitions make claims. Definitions are simply arbitrary meanings ascribed to little squiggles of ink or sounds that humans make. The word God has different definitions. None are correct or incorrect. It's just that some people mean different things when they use the term. When I'm in a conversation with someone, it's helpful to find out what they mean by 'God' and move on from there. I have no dispute with them at the level of definition.

That's the whole point of this thread. You are the one misunderstanding and making the mistake.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 4:51:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/8/2011 4:44:24 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:53:47 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I know what God is.

There is nothing "transcendental" as in beyond the universe. Something can not exist outside of the universe. The universe by definition is all of existence. If something is outside of existence, it DOESN'T EXIST.

God is. God is actuality. God is existence. The very concept of an invisible sky daddy is patently retarded. The people who believe that to be God are fools of the highest caliber.

Cosmic, why do you use the word "God" if it is a synonym for existence. If one uses the word "God" and really means existence then nothing more than confusion can come from it, no?

A rudimentary understanding of linguistics will tell you that this is unavoidable.

I am correcting people's misconceptions about the word, because when one is talking about the "One God", this is what is being referred to.

It is better for people to be grounded in reality than to worship their idols of fantasy.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 4:59:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 9:34:41 PM, Tiel wrote:
I see people debating about the existence of God, yet nobody seems to disclose how they personally define the word "God". The definition makes all the difference as to how it applies to certain topics.

How do you personally define the word "God"?

I think this is a really good topic. Obviously, when most people say "God" they mean Yahweh, the ancient semetic war god. Confusingly, people may also be refering to Jesus simultaneously. From what I understand, Allah is another name for Yahweh which I guess makes the mumblings of Muslums easier to understand, i.e., at least we know they are refering to the same monster that Christians refer to.

If it were only so simple though.

Somehow, the word "God" has become detached from Yahweh in our language. This is why someone like Tiel can say something like "God is the ultimate, everything of positivity love and wonderfulness flowing through the universe blah blah blah." He can say this and most people don't even point out how incongruent it is with the actual definition of God.

The word "God" has evolved over time into a semantic trick. It's easier to defend a claim when your words have become nebulized like "God" has.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 5:23:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/8/2011 4:51:23 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 9/8/2011 4:44:24 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:53:47 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I know what God is.

There is nothing "transcendental" as in beyond the universe. Something can not exist outside of the universe. The universe by definition is all of existence. If something is outside of existence, it DOESN'T EXIST.

God is. God is actuality. God is existence. The very concept of an invisible sky daddy is patently retarded. The people who believe that to be God are fools of the highest caliber.

Cosmic, why do you use the word "God" if it is a synonym for existence. If one uses the word "God" and really means existence then nothing more than confusion can come from it, no?

A rudimentary understanding of linguistics will tell you that this is unavoidable.

I am correcting people's misconceptions about the word, because when one is talking about the "One God", this is what is being referred to.
Is that true for all religious people. So when a Christian says "the One God" I shouldn't assume they mean Jesus or Yahweh?

It is better for people to be grounded in reality than to worship their idols of fantasy.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 5:46:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/8/2011 4:59:22 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:34:41 PM, Tiel wrote:
I see people debating about the existence of God, yet nobody seems to disclose how they personally define the word "God". The definition makes all the difference as to how it applies to certain topics.

How do you personally define the word "God"?

I think this is a really good topic. Obviously, when most people say "God" they mean Yahweh, the ancient semetic war god. Confusingly, people may also be refering to Jesus simultaneously. From what I understand, Allah is another name for Yahweh which I guess makes the mumblings of Muslums easier to understand, i.e., at least we know they are refering to the same monster that Christians refer to.

If it were only so simple though.

Somehow, the word "God" has become detached from Yahweh in our language. This is why someone like Tiel can say something like "God is the ultimate, everything of positivity love and wonderfulness flowing through the universe blah blah blah." He can say this and most people don't even point out how incongruent it is with the actual definition of God.

The word "God" has evolved over time into a semantic trick. It's easier to defend a claim when your words have become nebulized like "God" has.

Actually, you are quite wrong. The word "God" has been used to represent the idea of powerful concepts or powerful entities in the english language for a very long time. Even paganism the beings were known as "Gods". The word God was used by the translators to represent certain ideas in ancient texts. Yahweh still means Yahweh. The word "God" has always had many meanings and is still true today. The word "God" in the english language is not meant to represent a specific definition objectively, no more than the word "cat" is meant to describe your specific pet cat at home. The definition is individual. Nothing been twisted or lost.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 7:03:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/8/2011 5:23:13 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/8/2011 4:51:23 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 9/8/2011 4:44:24 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/7/2011 10:53:47 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I know what God is.

There is nothing "transcendental" as in beyond the universe. Something can not exist outside of the universe. The universe by definition is all of existence. If something is outside of existence, it DOESN'T EXIST.

God is. God is actuality. God is existence. The very concept of an invisible sky daddy is patently retarded. The people who believe that to be God are fools of the highest caliber.

Cosmic, why do you use the word "God" if it is a synonym for existence. If one uses the word "God" and really means existence then nothing more than confusion can come from it, no?

A rudimentary understanding of linguistics will tell you that this is unavoidable.

I am correcting people's misconceptions about the word, because when one is talking about the "One God", this is what is being referred to.
Is that true for all religious people. So when a Christian says "the One God" I shouldn't assume they mean Jesus or Yahweh?

Most people don't know what God even means, so I can't answer that.

Some people worship Jesus as idol without really understanding what he represents. That said, Christianity tends to monkey around that with the Trinity. Hinduism does the same thing with its pantheon of many Gods, which are actually the many faces of The One.

Language has evolved a great deal over time, and things that are relatively easy for us to explain today would be very hard to explain at the times. At the same time, words do change, meanings get shifted around.. Entire languages change into other languages through centuries of slang/etc. Compare Modern English to Shakespeare. Compare Shakespeare to Beowulf.

When I study the original languages of these texts, I get a very different impression than what most orthodox theologians get.

That said, I also don't believe that any text is set apart as the special and sacred word of God.


It is better for people to be grounded in reality than to worship their idols of fantasy.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp