How come the gods we have to believe in, are the plain negation of god?

[bulge]

The gods of torah, bible and coran are the plain negation of god. There is no stronger negation of god possible. God can not be something that revealed itself to a few people or to some fellow and asks all the other ones to "believe" (whatever that means). You couldn't negate god more clearly and more plainly than those 3 so called "religions". If god is god, there cann't be any "believe". "Believe" is the very contrary of god. Show me how big your "believe" is= Show me how big your penis is. How come we have to believe in something asking how big our penis is? There is NO difference WHATSOEVER between the strenght of "faith" (whatever that means) and penis size.

 

[turtle]

God, if one exists, is whatever God is.

If it does exist, the question is whether we understand and define it correctly.

Where is the rule carved upon the universe which says that anything, including any potential God, has to be good.

We use a definition which says "all-powerful, all-knowing, everywhere".

Where is the "good" in that?

That God would be good (for and to us) is a hope, not an essential.

You are correct, bulge, if what you are trying to say is that the most popular current "Gods" do not make good sense.

-D

 

[Brijan]

God can not be something that revealed itself to a few people or to some fellow and asks all the other ones to "believe" (whatever that means).

Why not?
You assume:
a) Said "few people" aren't lying, or making an error
b) "All the other ones" require "proof" from God in order to believe

If god is god, there cann't be any "believe".

Again, why not?
Isn't believe just another word for prediction? A prediction that one cannot currently test, thusly making the prediction perpetual?

"Believe" is the very contrary of god. Show me how big your "believe" is= Show me how big your penis is. How come we have to believe in something asking how big our penis is? There is NO difference WHATSOEVER between the strenght of "faith" (whatever that means) and penis size.

I have no idea what you are trying to communicate here.

 

[Txgoodoldboy]

There is a concept called, "The Knowing". It's that feeling in your heart, when you know something is right, or correct, or has meaning for you. That is why, I like to find out, what different beliefs or religions have to say. When I come across something that seems right for me, I apply it to my situation. If it doesn't feel right, or true to me, I ignore it.

If religion or beliefs don't feel right, then ignore them.

If God is God, our believing won't create God. And not believing in God, won't destroy Him.

Religion can be upsetting, because of the rules. I think the main or central "rule" for all religions is to love one another. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. If nothing else, respecting each other, you will create some good karma. Either way, rule or not, that is common (good) sense.

Maybe, I missed your point, then ignore what I said. Or try it again.

 

[Andreus]

the most imprtant thing i can point out here seems to be that bulges post seems to be a theory that tries to convince that god does not exist.

I have no need to convince others that it's important to share my belief in god or even in my version of god.

I am comtent with it.

that is an internal feeling that you can't share with words, but always hope that others have the benefit of experiencing, knowing that it is an entirely personal and internal process.

you cant give god or spirituality to someone. that relationship is always there. The resistance to taht reality though is always easy to observe.

hope that made sense and didnt offend anyone

i dont begrudge anyone any belief they have

i just hope they find peace in it

 

[Kurn]

Huh?

He means that they are both pointless.

 

[bulge]

Why not?
You assume:
a) Said "few people" aren't lying, or making an error
b) "All the other ones" require "proof" from God in order to believe

Again, why not?
Isn't believe just another word for prediction? A prediction that one cannot currently test, thusly making the prediction perpetual?

I have no idea what you are trying to communicate here.

Why not? For the simple reason he can NOT be god in that case. That is mathematical. It is simply plainly impossible. God does not discriminate, otherwise he is NOT god.

 

[Kulindahr]

Why not? For the simple reason he can NOT be god in that case. That is mathematical. It is simply plainly impossible. God does not discriminate, otherwise he is NOT god.

And where did you get your degree in mathematics?

It seems you're operating with a pre-conceived notion of what God is or isn't, and marashalling arguments in order to "support" your notions. Here's a more sensible approach:

1. Either God is, or is not. If the latter, we're done; if the former, then:

2. Either God communicated with His critters (us), or He didn't. If the latter, we're done; if the former, then:

3. Either God made that communication widely available, or He didn't. If the latter, we're screwed; if the former, then:

4. Look to the major religions; they're the candidates. That leaves us with just a handful. Test them for internal consistency, historical "fit", reasonableness, and mystery -- any revelation of a real creator-God will have mystery.

So by basic good sense, your definition fails: any God who is God and communicates to His critters will be found (most likely) by examining one (or more!) of the major religions.
If He discriminates -- tough.
If it violates your notion of mathematics -- tough.

It may just be that the world is not what you believe it to be -- and that it should be is not surprising, in fact we should expect that part of God's revelation will explain some things about the world that aren't obvious. I know for certain that whatever mathematics you're thinking of is either fallacious in application or irrelevant, because I have a brother who was brilliant enough in math to have walked out on the accelerated doctoral program at Cal Berkeley because, essentially, it bored him -- and He says that the God of the Bible can be modeled mathematically quite easily.
So, where was your degree from, again?

 

[turtle]

3. Either God made that communication widely available, or He didn't. If the latter, we're screwed; if the former, then:

The communication is universally available.

It comes through the world, not into it from outside.

We have the tools we need, sight and sense, mind and heart, and even a strong, nearly universal instinct toward religiosity.

We may know God as we know our world.

We may trust God as we trust ourselves.

-D

 

[Kulindahr]

The communication is universally available.

It comes through the world, not into it from outside.

We have the tools we need, sight and sense, mind and heart, and even a strong, nearly universal instinct toward religiosity.

We may know God as we know our world.

We may trust God as we trust ourselves.

-D

If someone lived near you, but came and went according to a schedule you couldn't fathom, and never, ever talked to you or spoke to you, would you call that "communication"? Because that's the sort of god you're suggesting.
It's a very convenient sort of god, because it's all pure subjectivity on your part; you can interpret his actions any way you like, and there's no basis on which anyone can disagree.
If that's the say the Creator communicates, I'd say the one thing we can obviously conclude about him is that he doesn't really give a crap about us in the least. Such a candidate is disqualified as being unworthy of even getting upset at, let alone trying to learn from, follow, or worship. If I had to put a label on him, I'd term this the "couch potato god".

Boooorrrr-rrrring!

 

[Kulindahr]

I have been a "christian" all my life, but my revelation of God's 'contact' with man didn't come until after I sat down and re-read the New Testement critically after entering college. I did not have a 'born again' experience. I had the experience of the stark realization that these men were not crack-pots, were not writing history or a defense, but were writing about events they knew to be unquestionably true.

Oh, I know, lots of people...David Koresh, Joe Smith, etc..., thought they were writing about the truth, but only the New Testement blinded me BY it's absolute truth, not simply the "revelation" of one man, which all the others inevitably are..

I quickly realized how intellectually dishonest agnosticism and new age spiritualism is. No going back for me...

Very, very much "yes".
While in college I regularly got accused by the self-appointed enlightened of "leaning" on God as a "crutch", of being a Christian because it was "comfortable". I always asked them if they'd ever played sports, and if they kept going to practice because the coach made them "comfortable". Of course they looked at me like I was crazy; we both knew that a good practice could make a fellow quite miserable indeed. Then I'd thell them that I didn't know what sort of thing they were thinking of when they thought of Christianity, but that if it was something that made people "comfortable", it wasn't the real thing. But as I went back to prqctice because the experience was "real" and it deepened my life on some level, so I went back to God and Christ -- not uncomplaining about the "practice" and its discomfort, even, but knowing that living in reality was worth it.

BTW -- if you haven't read it, find a book called "Ring of Truth", by J.B. Phillips; you'll enjoy it.

 

[iman]

Myth requires belief, and if one believes the myth it is real. On the other hand, all the wishing in the world won't change your penis size - unfortunately.

 

[turtle]

If someone lived near you, but came and went according to a schedule you couldn't fathom, and never, ever talked to you or spoke to you, would you call that "communication"? Because that's the sort of god you're suggesting.

That is your picture, not mine.

God does not live near me, It lives in me and through me and all around me. I eat and drink and breathe God every moment of every day. True, though, that we can only fathom parts of It All.

Do you want some Super Boss-Man, standing outside of creation and acting on it? I'm sorry, you will have to make that up for yourself, or borrow one someone has already invented.

It's a very convenient sort of god, because it's all pure subjectivity on your part; you can interpret his actions any way you like, and there's no basis on which anyone can disagree.

To me your God seems much more subjective, being a creature constructed out of theories, whereas mine is something we all know is very real, but just don't all agree should be thought of as God.

If that's the way the Creator communicates, I'd say the one thing we can obviously conclude about him is that he doesn't really give a crap about us in the least.

Do you care about your hair? How can you not care about yourself? Of course the Universe cares, but if you want some kind of "Nanny-God", to intervene on your behalf and take care of you, I am sorry, no such person actually exists. God is too big to care about us and for us more than generally, he has equipped us, instead, to care for each other.

Such a candidate is disqualified as being unworthy of even getting upset at, let alone trying to learn from, follow, or worship. If I had to put a label on him, I'd term this the "couch potato god".

Boooorrrr-rrrring!

I learn from my God, have been doing so since the day I was born.

I cannot help, sometimes, falling into a worshipful state when I contemplate the splendor, beauty, complexity, vibrancy, etc. of my God. It is superfluous, though, and if it serves any purpose it is to reward me for such contemplation and to fix the object of that worship firmly at the center of my conscience. It is of no use to God at all.

Reality is so much more interesting to me than conjecture or imagination. You may well prefer to imagine something other than what may actually be found, but that will not do for me. Regardless of what I do find, whether I think it particularly comforting or not, whether I like it or not, I would always prefer to deal with things as they actually are. In fact, I am quite pleased by what I find, and take much comfort in understanding my purposes in life.

I understand that I have a God-Mechanism inside me specifically because there is a Being, of which I am a part, Which wants parts like me to have such a mechanism inside. It seems quite clear to me why, I am to use it for Good.I find God's trust to be profound, and am moved to live up to it.

Of course, I had found the blessing on doing good long before I understood what it was and where it came from, so that was never really in question for me.

 

[bulge]

And where did you get your degree in mathematics?

It seems you're operating with a pre-conceived notion of what God is or isn't, and marashalling arguments in order to "support" your notions. Here's a more sensible approach:

1. Either God is, or is not. If the latter, we're done; if the former, then:

2. Either God communicated with His critters (us), or He didn't. If the latter, we're done; if the former, then:

3. Either God made that communication widely available, or He didn't. If the latter, we're screwed; if the former, then:

4. Look to the major religions; they're the candidates. That leaves us with just a handful. Test them for internal consistency, historical "fit", reasonableness, and mystery -- any revelation of a real creator-God will have mystery.

So by basic good sense, your definition fails: any God who is God and communicates to His critters will be found (most likely) by examining one (or more!) of the major religions.
If He discriminates -- tough.
If it violates your notion of mathematics -- tough.

It may just be that the world is not what you believe it to be -- and that it should be is not surprising, in fact we should expect that part of God's revelation will explain some things about the world that aren't obvious. I know for certain that whatever mathematics you're thinking of is either fallacious in application or irrelevant, because I have a brother who was brilliant enough in math to have walked out on the accelerated doctoral program at Cal Berkeley because, essentially, it bored him -- and He says that the God of the Bible can be modeled mathematically quite easily.
So, where was your degree from, again?

Plainly wrong. God's revelation is a plain contradiction. If god needs to reveal himself, he cann't be god. God doesn't need any revelation if he is really god. He is god or he is not. God doesn't need some radar signs. A god using radar signs to "reveal" himself, is the most ridiculous thing I ever heart. S.O.S. S.O.S, here I am.

 

[chrisglass]

Plainly wrong. God's revelation is a plain contradiction. If god needs to reveal himself, he cann't be god. God doesn't need any revelation if he is really god. He is god or he is not. God doesn't need some radar signs. A god using radar signs to "reveal" himself, is the most ridiculous thing I ever heart. S.O.S. S.O.S, here I am.

God does not NEED to reveal himself (herself/itself?) - but there are many who would say that God CHOSE to - for the guidance of humanity.

 

[bulge]

God does not NEED to reveal himself (herself/itself?) - but there are many who would say that God CHOSE to - for the guidance of humanity.

Imagine god "revealing" himself through some radar signs. That is plainly insulting for god and for manhood. Telling manhood god gives only radar signs!!!!!!!! I can hardly imagine something as insulting for god and for manhood.

 

[Andreus]

I dont believe that god is an exterior force...a universal generator and we have the plug wanderign earth to find the socket to get the juice from.

I believe that god is a force within all of us and as such, the comunication is there whether we choose to acnowedge it or not.

It is a matter of following the inner voice, or perhaps taking refuge in the interior castles of the soul, to borrow from teresa of avilla

This idea that you have to find god and find the correct copy of him, her, or it, seems rather unelightened, because it assumes that we are not part of the divine plan and we exist ouside of all other things in existance.

that just makes no sense to me.

 

[Kulindahr]

Plainly wrong. God's revelation is a plain contradiction. If god needs to reveal himself, he cann't be god. God doesn't need any revelation if he is really god. He is god or he is not. God doesn't need some radar signs. A god using radar signs to "reveal" himself, is the most ridiculous thing I ever heart. S.O.S. S.O.S, here I am.

That's a truly bizarre post, dude.

You offer nothing but strange pronouncements: no logic, no reasoning, nothing at all. You insist there's a mathematical contradiction, but when I point out to you that there is no such thing, you merely shift ground.
Where are you getting your postulates? You seem to be spinning this all out of thin air. I mean, "radar signs"? Where'd that come from?

 

[bulge]

That's a truly bizarre post, dude.

You offer nothing but strange pronouncements: no logic, no reasoning, nothing at all. You insist there's a mathematical contradiction, but when I point out to you that there is no such thing, you merely shift ground.
Where are you getting your postulates? You seem to be spinning this all out of thin air. I mean, "radar signs"? Where'd that come from?

What i write is not bizarre at all. What is a real quirck, is a god needing "revelation". What an extremely extremely extremely bizarre thing !!!! You cann't imagine a god needing "revelation". God is or is not. He is obvious or he isn't. God does not ask any belief. Another quirck: a god asking you to "believe". You cann't imagine that. That's extreme quirck.

Where is religion getting what it postulates? Religion is a typical example of spinning on thin air. If it wasn't utterly immoral, it wouldn't be a problem. But as it is utterly immoral, it is a problem.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think you have no clue what the concept of divinity truly is, especially as it is in the Bible.
Given the sort of world we are in, God has to be hidden, and thus needs to reveal Himself carefully.
"Belief" = trust. Of course God would want us to trust Him -- the other choice is that we should be robots.

And that last is just off-the-wall. Religion is "immoral"?

What world do you live in????