My Take on God

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Evangelism
  3. » My Take on God

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sat 21 Nov, 2009 03:17 am
Greetings to all...

I believe in what I call "God", but my view does not correspond to any particular religion, nor am I a member of any religion.

First off, I use the word "God" for ease in communications, but the word, in itself, is a bit misleading. I don't conceptualize God as being male or female, nor having any physical traits in common with humanity.

Physically, I believe God is a non-corporeal energy entity exists in our present reality in a quantum state. It would be safe to say that I think God or God's mind is 'everywhere' in our physical universe; omnipresent.

Emotionally, I believe God is benevolent and altruistic toward Humanity. I do not believe God is angry, vengeful, stern, or resentful. I believe that God genuinely cares about Humanity and wants to to be happy.

I believe God has a "hands-off" approach to humanity, similar to Deism, though not the same thing. I believe that this is our world to do with as we will. I don't think that God favors any nation, race, people, or religion, nor that God is going to physically intervene to stop things from happening.

I believe God may (key word) nudge things a tiny little bit from time to time, but I think for the most part God allows humanity's world to exist on it's own.

Many theists say, "Everything happens for a reason" with the implication that all events happen because God either wills them to occur or personally sanctions their occurance. -- Not only do I disagree, but I also find this sort of fatalism disturbing and, if I may be so bold, quite mindless. Most people who espouse this belief have rarely thought it all the way through. It's sort of a mantra that people repeat without actually thinking about.

I believe that God manifests in different ways and often speaks through different people. While I definitely do not thing that all religions are the same or have the same basic goals, I do think that God has spoken through many different religious and philosophical persons throughout the history of the world. I believe that God can speak through anybody, actually, including atheists.

Going back to the "hands-off" thing, I think that God has this policy in order to allow Humanity to have free will. I'm sure we could have a whole discussion about that.

I believe that God plays the role of a spiritual teacher who can help us if we choose to ask for that help. I believe anybody can ask God for help, but there are two caviats: 1) The request must be genuine and humble, 2) One must be willing to do the work involved. Moreover, asking God for "help" is just that - help, not fixing all your problems, making you rich or powerful or popular, or making something you want happen.

I believe requests for God's help and guidance must be generally selfless in nature, except in the case of requests for personal spiritual strength.

Things I have no idea about:

1) If God created existence, the world, humanity, etc.
(Nor do I care. I exist; how I came to exist is irrelevent to me.)

2) If there is some sort of "afterlife".
(Nor do I care. I exist now and am concerned with this reality.)

Since I have come to have a relationship with God, my life has changed dramatically for the better. However, it's also gotten more difficult too because now I choose to consider what God would have me do in situation instead of just doing whatever I want to do. Still, I find it very gratifying. God has helped me and continues to help me in every aspect of my life.

This is my extended take on what God is.

I'm open to all feedback and question, however, let me stress that I am not here to try to "convert" anybody; my beliefs are my own.

--IntoTheLight--
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sat 21 Nov, 2009 03:53 am
@IntoTheLight,
Pretty hard to take exception to your approach.

You might consider, with regards to your Q1, that if there is a God, and God DID NOT create existence, then what was God doing while all of that was going on? That if God is not the origin of being, then from whence does being come?
 
IntoTheLight
 
Reply Sat 21 Nov, 2009 04:12 am
@jeeprs,
Thanks for your reply.

jeeprs;104813 wrote:
Pretty hard to take exception to your approach.


I'm sure someone will, however... LOL

Quote:

You might consider, with regards to your Q1, that if there is a God, and God DID NOT create existence, then what was God doing while all of that was going on?


Beats me. It could be that the universe and God came into being seperately and even at different times.

Quote:

That if God is not the origin of being, then from whence does being come?


Personally, that sort of speculation doesn't interest me. I honestly don't care how or why reality/existence originated, and since it's pretty much unknowable, I don't find any point in having intellectual fisticuffs with people about it. It's like the 'chicken and the egg' thing. It just doesn't interest me.

--IntoTheLight--
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sat 21 Nov, 2009 04:24 am
@IntoTheLight,
Yes but if you look into it, I am sure you will find there is a relationship. It is not really speculative. Anyway, far be it from me to force the point. Let it come to you.

---------- Post added 11-21-2009 at 10:24 PM ----------

Mind you, thinking about this, how are you, or we, for that matter, to know whether what you are calling God exists or not, or is actually God, or not? Is it not at least possible that it is a projection of some kind?
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 21 Nov, 2009 06:44 am
@jeeprs,
A designer god, a pick a mix collection that in reality like all gods has anomalies. He does not intervene but on occasions he does ,he lets us get on with our lives but interferes. He helps the middle classes with silly requests but ignores the starving child , just because it did not know how to make a request,oh my oh my.
 
IntoTheLight
 
Reply Sat 21 Nov, 2009 06:57 am
@xris,
xris;104837 wrote:
A designer god,


Why not a designer god?

I always find it interesting that many people identify as 'philosophers' still seem to hold a rigid conformity to the notion that conceptualizations of God must adhere to previous conceptions introduced by religions.

Quote:

a pick a mix collection that in reality like all gods has anomalies. He does not intervene but on occasions he does ,he lets us get on with our lives but interferes. He helps the middle classes with silly requests but ignores the starving child , just because it did not know how to make a request,oh my oh my.


That is a very poor characterization of what I actually said.

But since you seem to disagree, what is your take on the nature of God?

--IntoTheLight--
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 21 Nov, 2009 07:41 am
@IntoTheLight,
IntoTheLight;104840 wrote:
Why not a designer god?

I always find it interesting that many people identify as 'philosophers' still seem to hold a rigid conformity to the notion that conceptualizations of God must adhere to previous conceptions introduced by religions.



That is a very poor characterization of what I actually said.

But since you seem to disagree, what is your take on the nature of God?

--IntoTheLight--
I dont propose to describe god but if i did i would be not so bold as to make a claim and then not defend my description. Its the pick and mix, hoping that the awkward bits have been removed that concerns me.

You made the claim, it helps you constantly ,why you and how does it help you?
 
KaseiJin
 
Reply Sat 21 Nov, 2009 07:43 am
@IntoTheLight,
While I am not convinced that you have considered xris' post quite as fully as cause could be said of the ends of that post, I'll let that work itself out.

Firstly, I will take to issue, again, the very word "God." Here, you are giving us a word that is synonymous with the word Jehovah (putting it most concisely, and in a slightly different from usual approach). I think it'd further your presentation much more to use the simple, common noun, 'god,' rather than the (actually) proper noun (a name) "God." (because then you'll be stuck to the Old Testament god-model)

Then, my take on god (not YHWH):

[indent]Everything that has happened in the history of this known universe, to the extent that we know of it with fair security (so leaving some things, such as before, or at, expansion time 1 second; exactly what lineage of animal both we and that which went towards the primate, was; and so on, aside) is god in action. There is not a thing which has has no mark made on it (a figure of speech, here) by god, and in that sense does not know of god (not saying all things 'know' in the anthropomorphic sense), although god knows not of all that does know of it.

Volition and concern, in the broadest terms of these, are within god, yet are most evidently the least of the essence of god. While evaluation is also most evidently one aspect of god, not all that is god evaluates, nor does all that is god admit to awareness or knowledge (in an anthropomorphic sense) of the means, purpose/reason of the evaluating process.

Most thinkably, god is, but that is all that can be said about god other than our present knowledge of god-workings, god-states, and so on--although we can always muse further. It is most clear, that god is not found in any concretely way as described of by the anthropocentric, anthropomorphic models of human creations, although, most ironically, all such endeavors are god-workings.

This forum is a god-workings result, as are the eyes in my head sockets. . . which have grown tired now, looking at all these god-workings on this page. . . going from my brain, all the way through half of my spinal column before rushing out through my arms, into my several fingers, into the keys, through the lines of translation and on the screen, then feeding back into my eyes again. Yes . . . god workings are in mysterious and wondrous ways !:a-ok:[/indent]
 
IntoTheLight
 
Reply Sat 21 Nov, 2009 09:07 am
@xris,
xris;104844 wrote:
I dont propose to describe god


Brave of you. I see you take after King Leonides.

Quote:

but if i did i would be not so bold as to make a claim and then not defend my description.


There's nothing to defend. I made a statement of personal belief. I can explain it if someone has a question, but I'm not trying to convince anybody to accept my views.

Quote:

Its the pick and mix, hoping that the awkward bits have been removed that concerns me.


LOL!!! In other words, your standard attacks won't work and you're frustrated about it. How sad for you.

Quote:

Bou made the claim, it helps you constantly ,why you and how does it help you?


It gives me courage to face things that I am powerless over; it helps me to act in a way that is more altruistic than I would normally be inclined to be; it helps me accept life as it happens rather than fixating on the future or my own selfishness; it helps me stay present; it helps me live a healthier life and much more.

--IntoTheLight--

---------- Post added 11-21-2009 at 07:17 AM ----------

KaseiJin;104846 wrote:

Firstly, I will take to issue, again, the very word "God." Here, you are giving us a word that is synonymous with the word Jehovah (putting it most concisely, and in a slightly different from usual approach). I think it'd further your presentation much more to use the simple, common noun, 'god,' rather than the (actually) proper noun (a name) "God." (because then you'll be stuck to the Old Testament god-model)


As I said, I use the word "God" for ease in communication. Saying, "Non-Corporeal Sentient Energy-based Entity in Quantum State" is quite a mouthful and more likely would draw looks of concern that I was crazy.

In regards to you "God" = "Jehovah" thing, I don't think that holds much weight because many Sikhs, Muslims, Rastafarians, Zoroastrians, Agnostics, Atheists, Hari-Krsnas, and many other religions use the word "God" to express their conceptualization of their deity.

However, if you say "God" most people, everywhere understand what you're talking about.

Quote:

Then, my take on god (not YHWH):
[INDENT]Everything that has happened in the history of this known universe, to the extent that we know of it with fair security (so leaving some things, such as before, or at, expansion time 1 second; exactly what lineage of animal both we and that which went towards the primate, was; and so on, aside) is god in action. There is not a thing which has has no mark made on it (a figure of speech, here) by god, and in that sense does not know of god (not saying all things 'know' in the anthropomorphic sense), although god knows not of all that does know of it.

Volition and concern, in the broadest terms of these, are within god, yet are most evidently the least of the essence of god. While evaluation is also most evidently one aspect of god, not all that is god evaluates, nor does all that is god admit to awareness or knowledge (in an anthropomorphic sense) of the means, purpose/reason of the evaluating process.

Most thinkably, god is, but that is all that can be said about god other than our present knowledge of god-workings, god-states, and so on--although we can always muse further. It is most clear, that god is not found in any concretely way as described of by the anthropocentric, anthropomorphic models of human creations, although, most ironically, all such endeavors are god-workings.

This forum is a god-workings result, as are the eyes in my head sockets. . . which have grown tired now, looking at all these god-workings on this page. . . going from my brain, all the way through half of my spinal column before rushing out through my arms, into my several fingers, into the keys, through the lines of translation and on the screen, then feeding back into my eyes again. Yes . . . god workings are in mysterious and wondrous ways !:a-ok:[/INDENT]


Very, very interesting. Thank you for sharing that.

--IntoTheLight--
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 21 Nov, 2009 09:46 am
@IntoTheLight,
I see there is much rhetoric and very little substance. How have you managed to convince yourself of his existence? does he have an awareness of his creation, this vague idea of a god?

You attracted your views for inspection but don't appear to want them examined. I can assure you its nothing personal, my investigation. My views are equally interrogated.
 
Caroline
 
Reply Sat 21 Nov, 2009 09:50 am
@xris,
xris;104837 wrote:
A designer god, a pick a mix collection that in reality like all gods has anomalies. He does not intervene but on occasions he does ,he lets us get on with our lives but interferes. He helps the middle classes with silly requests but ignores the starving child , just because it did not know how to make a request,oh my oh my.
Starving children are a direct result from mans actions such as greed.
Thanks.
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 21 Nov, 2009 12:39 pm
@Caroline,
Caroline;104874 wrote:
Starving children are a direct result from mans actions such as greed.
Thanks.
Thats a good position to take if your an atheist, we are responsible but if your a theist the buck stops at the top,Caroline...wot are you is more important, atheist or believer? dont sit on the fence please..
 
Caroline
 
Reply Sat 21 Nov, 2009 12:46 pm
@IntoTheLight,
Well I don't believe in God in the biblical sense. As I said before I don't know if God exists, what I do know is that evil is caused by man.
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 21 Nov, 2009 01:23 pm
@Caroline,
Caroline;104931 wrote:
Well I don't believe in God in the biblical sense. As I said before I don't know if God exists, what I do know is that evil is caused by man.
You cant do that caroline..make your mind up ..you change your view on the accepted notion, then you find a different perspective. I dont care if you believe or not just decide if your taking the view of a believer or not. If your god had intentions to create, he is no different than any other god, he needs to be examined for his motives. Your not an agnostic your view of god is just a bit vague.
 
Caroline
 
Reply Sat 21 Nov, 2009 01:35 pm
@IntoTheLight,
I told you I don't know what God is xris, but I don't believe in the God portrayed in the bible, in the good against evil. What makes you think I'm not agnostic? I don't sit on the fence how can I when I don't know what God is or if God exists.
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 21 Nov, 2009 01:45 pm
@Caroline,
Caroline;104943 wrote:
I told you I don't know what God is xris, but I don't believe in the God portrayed in the bible, in the good against evil. What makes you think I'm not agnostic? I don't sit on the fence how can I when I don't know what God is or if God exists.
You make the point that man is responsible for evil not god. If you assume god exists then he is the man. He created everything and knew prior to our existance what creation would mean. He knew we are imperfect and would by our free will commit evil and terrible things. Do you understand the difference? If like me you assume there is no valid god then god did not create us or the evil we created.

1 god created us, with free will, therefor created the evil man does....

2 there is no god so man is responsible for all the evil that he creates.

3 no god, then no free will, no one is responsible its just the nature of things.

So which one do you wish to hang your hat on?
 
Caroline
 
Reply Sat 21 Nov, 2009 01:47 pm
@IntoTheLight,
I told you I don't know if God exists. I still say man is responsible for his own actions good or bad.


And if he did exist one would hope that man would choose to be good after all it's obvious it's his choice.

I'm more interested in prevention rather than a cure or devine intervention of all mans evils. I'm a realist not an idealist.
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 21 Nov, 2009 01:59 pm
@Caroline,
Caroline;104946 wrote:
I told you I don't know if God exists. I still say man is responsible for his own actions good or bad.

---------- Post added 11-21-2009 at 03:48 PM ----------

And if he did exist one would hope that man would choose to be good after all it's obvious it's his choice.

---------- Post added 11-21-2009 at 03:54 PM ----------

I'm more interested in prevention rather than a cure or devine intervention of all mans evils.
Sorry Caroline if you cant commit yourself to a reasoned response then we have to end this. We are not here to solve man stupidity but to understand the logic of a faith in god.
 
KaseiJin
 
Reply Sat 21 Nov, 2009 06:44 pm
@IntoTheLight,
IntoTheLight;104865 wrote:
I
As I said, I use the word "God" for ease in communication. Saying, "Non-Corporeal Sentient Energy-based Entity in Quantum State" is quite a mouthful and more likely would draw looks of concern that I was crazy.

In regards to you "God" = "Jehovah" thing, I don't think that holds much weight because many Sikhs, Muslims, Rastafarians, Zoroastrians, Agnostics, Atheists, Hari-Krsnas, and many other religions use the word "God" to express their conceptualization of their deity.


To clarify, it appears that you have missed the heart of the issue. It is not to make a claim about some external thing, but simply the language that I am pointing to. In the English language, the capitalize form of the common noun, god, is "God." The reason for the capital is to replace the word "YHWH" (as Jewish superstition eventually had begun to more strongly call for in the later first or early second century CE.). We will notice that onlyone has used "G-d" for the same reason . . . superstition on top of superstition. So, when we use the form "God" instead of "god," we are specifically talking about the deity of the Old Testament, namely and exactly, YHWH.

What has happened, is that the masses, if I may here (and not to belittle, or cast a negative tone towards) have not payed close attention to their English, and the notion has become very lost in the minds of the general public. The deity of the OT had only one name, that name was YHWH; and that's, that.

This is the point I am making. I hope this will be a bit clearer now. It might also be important to keep in mind, that we are speaking English here. In Japan for example, the word 'kami' translates the English 'god,' and the Chinese Character is the same, of course, in Chinese. When the word is translated into English, of course, we have to play by syntactic rules (contextual determination) and translate it properly. In the Japanese language OT, we find the word kami where in the Hebrew text we find YHWH. The JKV, for example, will give us 'Lord God,' or 'God' in those places, but where the word is used towards humans, the KJV, gives us 'gods'. The words other languages use for what translates into the English 'god,' will depend on context, but in precise English usage, should not receive the capital, except for the personal name, such as Shiva, Yebisu, etc. (the Arabic allah, is actually a common noun just as the English 'god.')
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sat 21 Nov, 2009 10:31 pm
@IntoTheLight,
IntoTheLight;104807 wrote:
I believe in what I call "God", but my view does not correspond to any particular religion, nor am I a member of any religion.


And here, I think, lies the issue. Because what you call 'God' may or may not correspond to another's use of the term. So it is possible for you, as author of your own particular definition, to use the term in the way that suits you. Of course this means that nobody can really take exception with your definition insofar as you are able to interpret it or reveal further details of it, according to your own lights.

You have already said that your use of the term God does not account for the 'origin of being' or 'the hereafter'. So that rules out a fairly large percentage of discussion of the traditional topics associated with God. You kind of dismiss those areas with a 'well that is all speculative'. It may not be speculative to me. I might have had a vision of a deceased relative which I think makes it considerably less speculative. (I am presuming you are young:-)


So what, after all, is the point of your belief? Is it likely to benefit, or make any difference, to others? Are you trying to start a religious movement or a school of philosophy?

I suppose, having stated this challenge, I should say something about my own approach to the matter.

I too am religious, or at least spiritually inclined. Like many, Christian by birth, but my adopted practise is Buddhist. (I don't see a lot of conflict between the two, but suspect many Christians would.)

I do sometimes get into discussion about God - but with some reticence. I try and be mindful of what an orthodox person would or wouldn't say in an argument. I guess I try and represent what I consider an orthodox position on God - I know enough about it to do that in most debates.

I am rather more confident discussing aspects of Buddhist philosophy and how they might be applied to philosophical issues of various kinds. I have studied comparitive religion and am a member of the school which thinks most of the religions have some important truth.

So anyway - that is my reaction to 'your take' or version of the God. It seems quite positive, optimistic, upbeat, and not objectionable at all, but perhaps very much your own.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Evangelism
  3. » My Take on God
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/19/2019 at 01:29:57