Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Sometime's I fail to realize others in that their belief's may differ from mine. You see my friend, from my experience's in life I have come to determine these are not just "my opinions", but are a truth that cannot be grasped by most and it is only courtesy that I iterate them to be "my belief's".

I was where you are once, but have traveled a little farther down the road, as you will too.

Please forgive my assertiveness when it appears. I, more than most, realize such revelations that have occurred in my life will occur in others when they are ready for it. I just try very hard to help them understand the faith that is needed for such a revelation to occur.

Illuminate me please how is your god different to the accepted god of the bible?

So you are not defending god your reinventing him..is that true?

William,

I've read this, and the previous posts a couple of times. Being a on-the-sidelines fan of different flavors of theism I enjoy reading such interchanges (it imbues just a *wee* bit more understanding of how the theistic mind operates).

But I gotta tell you; this statement is quite amazing. I'd like to be the first to congratulate you on having the truth. Would you mind gracing us with what that is please? I understand you think this something others can't grasp, but I'd really like to hear it.

This is not a sarcastic jab; it's an honest request.

Thanks

And this is the humblest post in this thread, because at least it's honest in its frankness.

As for those claiming spiritual enlightment, consider for a moment what you say of yourselves. You tout humility, but the first word out of your mouths concerning your spiritualality is "I". "I searched..." "I accepted..." "I surrendered..." "I gave myself..." and then God revealed himself to you. As if your own will has any control over the divine! You're no closer to understanding God than the fellow who keeps saying "We are all God" or "We are all a part of God". This one cannot accept that there is anything in the universe that is greater than he is, so he puts himself on the same level as God.

Christ understood far more of God than all of you combined, and all he ever said was that God was his father. To be subject to, under the protection of, and accountable to. Not to be in command of or equal to. It was enough for Christ to call God father, but not enough for you? What gall! Do the world a favor and keep your spiritual revelations to yourselves; at least that way only you are deluded by your own ego.

xris said:



First off, let me say that there are many different conceptions of God besides that which is portrayed in the Bible.

Second, let me say that even if one accepts the Bible as 'truth', there are still hundred of different interpretations of God and God's directives. For example, the Wesleyans disagree with the Episcopalians; the Epicopalians disagree with the Charismatics; the Charismatics disagree with the Nazarenes; the Nazarenes disagree with the Evangelicals; the Evangelicals disagree with the Presbyterians, the Presbyterians disagree with the Catholics, etc, etc.

Personally, I believe God loves ALL humans, reguardless of politics, social order, sexual orientation, age, race, religion / philosophy, geopolitical origin,
gender, and history.

I believe that God loves everyone and, moreover, accepts everyone.

I believe that God is capable of providing subtle guidance in every situation.

I do not accept that any one religion holds the exclusive rights to the nature or concept of God.

I know that the conversation has moved on a bit, but I wanted to look back and comment on this post:

I find several things about what you are indicating interesting, xris:

• The Defence of God - I believe that God does not actually need defending, even from his devout followers. This is not because he is benevolent or omnipotent, but rather because humans have free will. If God truly did create us, then he purposefully gave us the will to choose what we want to; to believe what we want to, even in terms of faith.
  
• The Invention of God - Was God invented? It is true, to an extent, that religion was invented, but not faith. And God himself, well, if he does exist, then he would exist whether or not people believed in him; whether or not people even knew about him. In others words, if people hadn't 'invented' him, he would still exist.
  
• The Reinvention of God - If you class the role of God in modern religion as the 'invention' of him, then a 'reinvention' isn't exactly a bad thing. As other have already mentioned, the God that people often refer to through religion, is most likely nothing like the real God. However, in these circumstances, a reinvention is classed as looking at God as different to what is described in religion. In my opinion, this isn't a bad thing, as nearly everybody has their own view on what God really is; what God means to them, if anything at all.
  

Now, once again I'm speaking from the point of view of somebody who has taken a step back from religion, in an attempt to see it as a whole.
God, as far as I can tell, isn't actually in religion. If you think about it, having a faith is fine, but not all religions can be right, if any at all. What are the chances of getting a religion that has every concept perfect?

I can see we disagree in a fundamental point then, because I believe that if there is a god we are one with him, and that people who had revelations created their own god because they asked and their inner, "godly self" responded. But like I said everone has a diferent idea of god, so there is no really point in discussing this

please stop waffling and describe him? please..

manored said:



I think you're right: we simply have a different interpretation of the nature of God. And I also agree that there's no sense in arguing over it. I respect your interpretation.

xris said:



LOL - "Waffling"??

To answer your question, I have no idea what God is. If I absolutely had to give a definition based on my extremely limited understanding, I would define God in this way:

A noncorporeal entity, perhaps composed on energy, that existed simeltaneously with humanity and seeks to promote altruism and mutual cooperation between humans through subjective teachings of love, humility, patience, and acceptance, though in a non-direct manner such as influencing thought patterns among individuals within the bounds of free thought.

Note: I am not claiming that this is an absolute definition by any stretch of the imagination. It is only my subjective interpretation at this time.

Does that help?

No it does not help..not at all..its the same god but modified so the questions can be avoided..I can ask a question and you can say im not sure but i just know he is wonderful.. Ill ask one question why did he create us? was it for his benefit or ours?

His. if we didn't exist then we didnt benefit.

No it does not help..not at all..its the same god but modified so the questions can be avoided..I can ask a question and you can say im not sure but i just know he is wonderful.. Ill ask one question why did he create us? was it for his benefit or ours?

Its not arguing its questioning a statement of fact by asking for details of thes gods that inhabit this forum...I know what the accepted gods do and say but these reinvented gods are so flippant so undescribed..

God made us for his benefit i assume is the answer..it requires another question.. why did he make us for his benefit?

xris said:



Eh? -- I have no what you're talking about here. Could you please elaborate?

xris said:



Personally, I do not agree that God made us for it's benefit. I don't know that I even believe that God created us to begin with...