God, what's the nature of... ?

The Hebrews (and other cultures) have indeed been called to abandon their pantheon of gods in order to worship the Creator. The Bible confirms that there are many other "gods"... spiritual beings that were created by God, then chose to rebel against Him. The most famous of these would be Satan. The Hebrews (and other cultures) have struggled with idolotry throughout history. God has called all of us to worship the Creator rather than creation, however.

Jeff(fake) is both correct and incorrect regarding the tetragrammaton. It is indeed meant to have no vowels, but this is because the Hebrew alphabet does not contain any vowels at all. None of their written words have vowels. The "vowel markings" that are inserted between the letters in modern Hebrew are a recent invention. Ancient Hebrew did not use such markings.

God created other Gods? I thought he created Angels, which then rebelled when led by Satan?

Last I checked, Angels were not deities, but then, if they aren't, then why doesn't God just wipe them out? If they *are* then why isn't it equally valid to worship them instead of God? They must surely be equal in power...

The word "god" can be used to refer to something powerful other than the true Creator. In John 10 the messiah uses it to refer to men, and in other places it is used to refer to angels (and other false gods).

You are correct about the angels (at least in english.) However, these fallen angels have been worshiped by humans, and when that happens it is correct to call them "gods." One can make a god of anything by worshiping it... money, yourself, or a fallen angel. "Angels" are not truly divine. They were created by God like you and me, and they are not equal to God in their power. It is wrong to worship them.

Why is it wrong? Good and evil are properly understood as obedience and disobedience to God. Thus, since God has said to worship only Him and not things that He has created, it is "wrong" to worship angels (whether fallen or not).

(btw, If anyone wants to get technical about it... I am in fact aware of what the word angel really means. I'm just using it as a generic word since that is the way most people use it).

Simply a term/name for a "greater being", a belief with no physical form.

Written Hebrew had no vowels, but the words were still prounced using vowels if you get me?

So, the word Rabbits would have been prounounced rabbits, but spelt, rbbts. So, written YHVH (Yud Hay Vav Hay) is correct, but if it were spoken, there would be vowel sounds. But its never spoken, so its not a problem...

Just so you know, there are supposedly two kinds of Angels (malakh). Those created by G-d do not have free will as they are always in His divine presence, and those who were humans who ascended to become Angels, who still have the human capacity of free will, and can choose and can be punished (Elijah, Matat).

OK - so I understand that the Hebrews fell from all other gods in the time they have been in Egypt... Lou: There is a theory (I stated it somewhere earlier) that Hebrews in fact have been ONE tribe OF/ IN Egypt, who were falling from the polytheistic to the monotheistic belief and therefore they "left" the ancient Egypt. That Mose in fact was a Pharao who led the people of Israel out of the duality, out of the polytheism and therefore (ideologically) out of Egypt... how does that sound to you?

I mean not many would disagree that todays "Palestinians" and Israelis share common heritage (are cousins so to speak) which makes the entire conflict so absurd...

Back to topic. Also in Christianity some worship rather to Mary than to Jesus, as he is "too perfect"... whatever that means. In this we have to differ between the creatures and people who are also created by "the one" (force)... In Hinduism every god is an emanation of the creator, if you worship Hanuman you will also get to the creator through him, as well as if you worship Shiva... God incarnates to earth (some believe) to teach and to help mankind to evolve. IMO this is a projection upon exceptional people with great skills and this can be observed throughout all the cultures.

But to understand the true nature of god (after Hebrew) you have to go through all stages, as shown in the tree of life... To experience all qualities that he/ it consists of...

As we had this in another thread: if we limit the nature of god to something that suits our projection (the ultimate good, the perfect...) are we not falling in the trap of duality? Therefore blindfolded to understand the true nature of god?

Yeh I saw that theory. Perhaps its true, but there isn't too much evidence to support it, and when you look into it a whole lot doesn't make sense..

Anywho, work now!

*necrobump*

just stumbled across this one

Is god willing to prevent evil but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent

Is he able but not willing?
Then he is malevolent

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him god

-Epicurus

maybe "he" has no understanding of what it is that 'you' call evil ?

in which case "he" is ignorant,
Then he is not omnicogniscent,

i heard he was dead....


/shrug

well I do not know what "god" means to you... I can only go for what "he" means to me. and in this realm "good/evil" are simply limited angles of perception in time and space.

for me it's not about ignorance as much as it is about encompassing all that life holds and having the patience to wait for the final chapter.

the above interviews do reflect quite a lot of what I came to - after a life-long struggle with conditioned definitions and thus confusion over what that term actually means (to me). neither Christianity nor Buddhism came up with sufficient answers, except for

"don't rely on hearsay..."

I think there's an argument to be made that if you're not talking about an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly benevolent (and metaphysically necessary and personal, I would argue) being, then whatever you're talking about isn't God.

How many of "God's" supposed properties can you tweak before you're talking about something else entirely? Surely if I said that "to me, God was an American president assassinated by John Wilkes Booth and not, as many people conceive, a supreme being at all" you would think there was something wrong with what I'm saying.

But whatevs. I personally think the entire complex of theological questions is tiresome and some of the least important questions one can ask (certainly less important than "did I remember to brush my teeth this morning").

I find it interesting that there is a fair amount of discussion on this topic that covers the 'christian' concept of God.

Intersting because I love it when people who dont believe in God, try to define Him; and tell me what He is or isnt. but if your not a religious person, where do you get the knowledge to define God from?

Surely if you dont believe in God; then you have no basis to describe His personality types....

(not a dig at anyone, or any particular post - just a universal and generalised thought)

As for my definition of God. read the bible

Or Aslan from the lion the witch and the wardrobe, that comes close

I think the references to the Christian God come mostly from the fact that it is one of the more popular cults with the largest and most organised churches. Also if your arguing religion it's easier to say god than name one in particular as it works as both a concept and gets automatically associated with the christian jehova or Jewish yahweh -

To be fair it doesn't really matter which godling is being discussed they all have equal merit (Zero IMO), either gods can or can't exist and specifying can become complicated and I suppose people are still a bit touchy about blasting religions they aren't too knowledgable on - christianity is fairly well documented in the western world so everyone can join the discussion - whereas other religions may not be fully understood by everyone.

I just view religions as slightly larger cults as I haven't really seen a good distinction between the 2 apart from Cults are supposed to have charasmatic leaders which is something the pope has never struck me as, both have fanatics, both believe in some unprovable faith structure designed to lead you to spread their beliefs for some moral reward, I just think Cults have more fun... until the inevitable gun battle and burning down of the compound.

It's why I find people laughing at scientology so funny it has exactly the same plausibility as catholiscism except it's clandestine and secretive about it's beliefs rather than trying to ram it down everyones throat - they just seem a little more selective about the people who join.

^^^Your right. I also have many bones to pick with religion. The trouble is when "you" define your version of God from the christian God for simplicity reasons, familiarity reasons etc; you are misrepresenting the Christian God.

After seening many discusssions on this topic I would say that most westerners do not have a good understanding of the christian God, they have assumptions based on a lot of misinformation.


Epicurus had a warped sense of who God is. By using this as an example of who God is is you are misrepresenting who God is; not only that you are now furthering the spread of misinformation.

and I know I am being picky, I could easily argue against what I just wrote myself - I just wanted to highlight a point of view that people might not actually be thinking about in discussions about God. When most people talk about God, they have a barrow to push, and the talk more revolves around their own agenda; not the actual topic at hand. Therefore the definition of God gets formed around peoples gripes.

Also, using the correct interpretation of the word 'cult' and its origins - Christianity is not a cult. Catholicism, Anglican, baptist etc. are all technically denominations. Scientology, Mormonism, and things like the solar temple are Cults.

the only thing i really have to say is perfect and he created us in his image why are we not pefect so what does that make him?

if he is perfect*

if he is perfect

Midkiff, dont fall into the logic trap. You have defined a "logic" problem and seek for the answer outside of the constraints of that way of thinking.

An example of what I am talking about is:

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

this is an old logic problem that has no adequate logical answer, just like the one you posted. Yet because there is no logic answer doesnt mean that therefore there is no chickens or eggs. WHich is essentially the type of answer you are trying to place on your perfect God question.

The egg, the chicken is subject to evolution, the chicken we know today was born of another slightly different creature (very slight), which would've come from an egg, from a slightly different creature and so on...


on the God thing, [i can't believe this statement]

as an atheist the best summary of the existence of God i have heard is from southpark

"Maybe beliveing in God makes him exist"

everyone has some concept of God, if your thoughts have some form of existence then so must God

Thats not a 'logic' answer

it is a practical answer from a Darwinist evolutionary viewpoint. which further proves my point. Dont try to use logic word arguments to prove a point. The real life answer is not to be found in the same context

Logic is only useful when you lack a realistic practical answer.

For me God exists only in the mind of believers

there is no evidence to prove an existence, therefore there is no existance

Prove you love your mum.

Prove fire isn't alive.

Prove that a supreme being isn't real...

well, technically in logic you cant prove a double negative, so its impossible to prove there is no God using logic.

So Pommy bubbles, getting back to the topic, if you dont believe in a God, how can you have a definition of Him?

Woodland apple that's a terrible argument,

If you don't believe in a god you can have exactly the same definition of him as someone who does believe - because it is a definition not an experience. A definition is a formal passage describing the meaing of a term, in this case that term is "god"

A non-believer can use the same definition but cannot share the same experience OR they can share the same experience but nominate it to a different cause based upon either reason or belief. The essence of the difference is these 2 terms, Faith is essentially a belief without proof (by definition) If proof existed it wouldn't be faith - essentially religion boils down to putting your trust in faith, a cleverly designed paradigm designed to put value to blind obedience. It's no different to the story of the emperors new clothes, the emperor is the "faithful" the weavers are the "clergy" the courtiers are the "congregation" and the "naive" child raises the cry of the atheist. The Emporer is at first dubious then convinced, with that belief reinforced by everyone else saying how fine the clothing is, the more people who agree the stronger the reinforcement until the child is stoned for heresy.

Refuge crew - you can prove you love your mum, you can have a polygraph or a brain scan (using a control to show association)these are accepted systems for testing truth (as believed by the person being tested)
Fire isn't alive - it's a physical process throughly documented as a simple chemical reaction between individual atoms and molecules which obey the laws of brownian motion if it IS alive it has no feelings or sentience as it doesn't have the chemistry associated with either

I would be very interested in putting the pope and a number of religious and non religious people (of different faiths) on a polygraph including questions on the existance of god, if only to see how faith can effect the outcome and how responses will vary to people with the same evidence on a question regarding their belief. Would you have a clear split, would everyone have an inconclusive result... *is off to look to see if it's been done* I know polygraphs are controversial but with a large enough group testing it may yeild interesting results.

Mynci, we are after (At least what I interpreted from the topic) is what God means to us - which is experience far more than clinical. all Im saying is that how can God be cruel, imperfect or for that matter kind and perfect etc - if you dont beleive in Him? Surly you would think He is nothing; as you believe He doesnt exist. I thought we werent after dictionary definitions, but what God means to us. If you dont believe God exists how can you give Him attributes?

That may be what faith means to you, but I can assure you that it is not what most people who actually have faith see it. And I would also add that faith is different from religion.



I would disagree with this hugely. our experiences are what defines things for us.

A man who climbs a mountain will see it differently than a man who drives up it. Their definition of that mountain will be different.

A climber will look at a knot in a far different way than a sailor - despite the knot actually being the same. A dictionary might give us a definition, but experience puts it into context, and it is what we relate to far more than the dictionary definition.