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

Definition of god...

Written by: wikipedia

---

God is the term used to denote the Supreme Being ascribed by monotheistic religions to be the creator, ruler and/or the sum total of, existence. Conceptions of God vary widely, despite the common use of the same term for them all.

---

Or according to Dictionary.com

Written by: Dictionary.com

---

God
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

An image of a supernatural being; an idol.

One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.

A very handsome man.

A powerful ruler or despot.

---

"God" is a term that is used by many to decribe something totally different. Just as "love" I consider the word "god" to be as one of the least defined.

What's your conception/ understanding of "the supreme being"?

Tell me/us... To you: is it a "very handsome, perfect man, ruling the universe"? Or is it more the "universal life force" - as in my personal understanding - that is in all beings and objects that exist/ don't exist... ???

*runs and hides*

FANTASTIC

FANTASTIC picture!
you know, the church near us won't let us help out at their homeless persons shelter because we're not church goers!

Well Tom, to me, God is Ultimate Love. It is an intelligent, creative energy which is ultimate love.
If you've ever read Conversations With God...that's my kinda God

well he is a monster, but cooler than the cookie monster

he can fly, even through bad turbulence

and he is made of spagetti

they call him: the Flying Spagetti Monster

Alanis Morisette

I thought it was really funny....Alanis Morisette as god in dogma.....I mean I always figured god was a woman but Alanis Morisette? GEEZ

For any system that believes in a God that is good but denies the fall (the world was first created perfect but man made it corrupt), it is very difficult to answer the question "Why would a good God have made a world in which bad things are required to happen?"

Of course, this question can dismissed by claiming that good and evil are merely human preferences with no basis in an external "morality." Thus, to complain about "suffering" being "bad" is like claiming that the gravity is "bad." Thus the question would really be "why does God do things that I don't like" to which one might reply "because God only does things that he likes, and you don't have the same likes/dislikes as God."

I don't agree with it, but it's an interesting theory.

Patriarch's idea on the fall intrigues me.

God creates Exhibit 1. This is called Earth. Why did an omnipotent and benevolent God create a place so full of suffering in the first place??

Versus (apparantly):

God creates Exhibit 1. This is called Earth. He then creates Exhibit 2. These are called Humans. Why did an omnipotent and benevolent God create such a flawed creature in the first place??

What's the difference? God still screwed things up pretty badly. I mean, if he created a flawed earth, then he screwed up. If he created a flawed species, then that's just as bad. I want to know how blaming humans themselves is possible, because if God created us and the world we live in, then it's HIS fault it's so screwed over.

maybe we aren't really as flawed as we think, i mean how long has humanity survived for? we seem to be doing pretty well me thinks.

Is it possible for a creature to be created perfect, but with the ability to disobey God? Satan would be a good example of this.

Should the ability to disobey really be considered a flaw, or is freedom actually an essential part of being fully human?

Why didn't God create complicated puppets, that would be incapable of disobeying him? I've heard a few theories.

There are some that think God wanted people to love and obey him freely. Thus, he had to give them an option.

Another theory is based on the fact that God has characteristics besides creativity and perfection. He also has the characteristic of justice. When a thief is caught by the police and sent to jail, most of us would not consider the punishment to be an "evil" act on the part of the judge. In a similar but perfect way, the punishment that someone who disobeys God will experience will exactly fit their crimes, and they will glorify God for his justice.

In a similar way, God has the attributes of mercy, love, and self sacrifice. Since God allowed man the ability to become a sinner, God now has the opportunity to demonstrate mercy by forgiving man, love by accepting man even though he is a sinner, and self sacrifice by taking all the punishment that man deserves upon Himself. The ability to do wrong, therefore, is another way for us to glorify God (which was why He made us).

Of course, these lines of reasoning are based on an assumption of free will before the fall. There are plenty of people out there (including Christians) who think there is no such thing as free will. If that is true, then we actually ARE automatons who have no choice in the matter. Thus, the fact that there is suffering is not a “flaw,” everything is going exactly to plan. We have the illusion of “liking” or “disliking” certain things, but these emotions are just a demonstration of God’s creative ability. Pain is not a flaw… it’s a feature.

Thus, we have no real “right” to complain about the way things are any more than characters in a novel can complain about what the author has written. When we do complain, we only complain because God has made us do so.

If you believe that there is no free will, there’s no problem at all. If you believe in free will, the only question is whether free will is actually a defect.

If you decide to declare free will to be a defect, this is in effect a pronouncement of judgment on God’s design, which implies that you are more knowledgeable than Him as to how things “ought to be.” Essentially, the claim would be that “I am flawed, but I am also superior at knowing how to create things than God is.” This would mean that God was able to create something better than Himself, but to prove this claim you would actually have to be able to create something that is also a better creator than yourself, that will not have free will. This is a difficult task, since if it does not have free will it can only do what you make it do, and it will be hard to actually assign credit to the creation.

If free will is not a defect, then God did not make a mistake, and there is again no problem.

does having a child that grows to be a better person than you count?

surprise! I was believing that one of the first things would be the comment that god has no gender... well, you proved me wrong... or stop! no! actually worms don't have a gender, right?

But any than that I do not get the meaning of the picture... ??? but as I'd have to look for Sym hiding out somewhere in a far away place to get a comment - maybe in the meantime and his absence someone who understood it may explain it to me?

why haven't I threaded in "Chat"?

In response to patriarch and sethis (all IMO's):

1st of all: I find it a little strange that you involve us into your debate (carried on from other threads) without giving an explanation according to the title of this thread. Every other is. How can I argue with you (if I'd want this) if I dunno whether you refer to a can with worms or the flying spaghetti monster, Alannis Morisette, or the green buck?

Patriarch: The conception of the "fall" could have been created in order to explain why god makes mankind suffer. Hebrews have the general conception of an angry, retaliate god, much more than Christians and much like Muslims. If you compare old and new testament you will certainly understand the difference. You may also take into account, that the Bible is a compilation of many books, that the old testament was initially written in order to display the history of the hebrews and was compiled between 800-1400.

Maybe it also holds a psychological momentum: If men are humble because they are in debt, they more likely will comply to what is asked from them.

So your answer is offering ONE possible approach to the reasoning of pain and suffering.

If good and bad are merely human preferences with no basis in an external "morality" then the entire conception of "sin" might just be manmade, by limited understanding of existence, much like the conception of "Satan" and "Hell".

Your examples all have as a foundation that one must accept the conception of "god" and that we are created by "him". As I said, I find no information that offers me your perception.

Do you want to tell me, that god's just a lab-assistant/ researcher on a higher dimension, that he's something like the programmer in "13th floor" or like the figure in "Matrix", or is it a different concept that you hold?

Sethis (same information missing): I referred you to "Bruce Almighty" before, I guess this should explain something? "One has to use some dark colours in order to make the light stand out"... maybe sometimes suffering is needed to bring out the best in people? And maybe it's just a matter of perception about the world and mankind "being so flawed and full of suffering and stupidity". If I look around I see a world of abundance and joy - just experiencing some hickups in distributing the pleasure, I can see very intelligent beings who seek and find their niche and quickly adapt to a changing environment - and if there is anything not going according to will, then willpower should be exercised and clarity established. Look at the difference of suffering between you and a 2 year old child... how do you deal with pain and how does the child? What do you experience as painful and what the child?

More questions:

- Is "good and bad" a valid concept, or is it based on personal opinion and experience?
- Is some rain necessary in order to appreciate sunshine?
- Is it necessary to believe in a higher force in order to survive/ get/ be happy?
- Is belief/ religion just a psychological trick to control each other or is it the very own mind that tries to put pieces/ evidence together and complete the missing links by it's own imagination?
- Why do have different cultures a different concept of what, or who "god" is?
- Would it be logical to assume, that "there is one force governing the universe"?
- Is "god" the (only) neverchanging element in the universe?
- Is it the desire of men, to create something that prevails? Or the desire of women to lean on something?
- IF there is a superior/ perfect being - why would it have to generate/ create anything in the first place? IF the higher being is to be considered perfect, then is there need for reflection in the first place? Why would it demand "worship" and "obedience"?

God doesnt want us to worship Her/Him. We're here, IMO, to experience. Think about it, if you're God, all you've got is you. "BORING!" so you split yourself up into little bits and have all the experience from that. IMO we are "God". God is energy/love/everything. The good and the bad. The up and the down. EVERYTHING. We're just here to BE, not to DO. We can't lose in life. That's what is so great about it.

that sounds a bit like "meet joe black" where death wants to experience life. I love that concept. Joe, I like the way you see it.