Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
AAhh the little kid angle. I thought about it for 30 seconds in the third grade. The problem is that is mostly man made and/or they have the traits of god wrong. It doesn't prove anything either way as far as yes or no. So who do I believe? the boogie monster or the good guy?
There is truth in the surface of this statement. Where the delusion exists however, is in the idea that G()D is an external being who sits back and does next to nothing.
The truth is G()D is an internal being who sits back and does next to nothing.
But no necessarily just 'doing nothing'...perhaps sleeping, or engaged in other activity - unable to do everything all by itself but doing what it can.
Where the delusion exists however, is in the idea that G()D is an external being who sits back and does next to nothing. The truth is G()D is an internal being who sits back and does next to nothing.
But no necessarily just 'doing nothing'...perhaps sleeping, or engaged in other activity - unable to do everything all by itself but doing what it can.
Either sort of do-nothing being has rendered itself irrelevant. And a being who has the potential to do something and can't or won't is either irrelevant by reason of impotence or immoral or some combination of the two.
Then there's the whole question of whether a limited god ... and limited by mere humans at that ... even deserves the label "god". I suppose it's not as bad as calling god something we have perfectly serviceable terms for already, such as "existence" or "reality" or "the universe" or "consciousness". But it's a close second in my book.
After all, humans are unable to do everything but do what they can ... how is a god who is in the same boat even separate from us? What you are describing is a reflection of our collective human will as mediated by our collective human limitations, basically.
Indeed, if the stories about what 'G()D' is are human invention, then being 'a close second' to those stories pretty much means we are it.
So we choose what kind of destiny we want and whether we help our neighbors or make and sell more weapons to protect ourselves from them.
That's fine. But why label it god? How is that adding to our understanding? Why not simply say that there's this thing called the human condition that we all share, we do our best to find meaning and reduce suffering within that, and this humanistic enterprise is worthy and meaning-making for most of us most of the time.
Why do people consider the Biblical God above criticism?
1. because they're told to
2. it's so much easier than thinking
For a large portion of humanity, engaging the brain to actively think rather than passively receive infotainment, is an exercise as welcome as hour in the dentist's chair.
For a large portion of humanity, engaging the brain to actively think rather than passively receive infotainment, is an exercise as welcome as hour in the dentist's chair.
That's fine. But why label it god? How is that adding to our understanding? Why not simply say that there's this thing called the human condition that we all share, we do our best to find meaning and reduce suffering within that, and this humanistic enterprise is worthy and meaning-making for most of us most of the time.
It was labeled 'G()D' a long time before you and I came on the scene. I am simply identifying the most likely explanation for why 'G()D' became a part of the psyche of human consciousness and the simply answer is that it has always been that way. Consciousness is 'what G()D is', and humans were able to define that as part of the journey or experience of Life on Earth.
Also because social systems mainly centered upon religious practice, the concept of G()D became bent and owned. So I like that I can call it G()D and not mean what religion means. The idea of G()D is a lot more ancient than religion.
G()D is the most all encompassing word which can be used for it and 'humanistic enterprise' of itself is an expression which can cover such things as criminal activity and other social stresses, so is not entirely that different that it will have any different affect on the mind of the individual.
Also, I am not above wanting to show religious people that I am not anti theist and am able to use the word G()D to describe the reality of human existence in relation to 'wholesome attitude within which expressed outwardly produces a positive outcome for society' whilst at the same time saying 'enough of the demonizing the "G()D of this world."'
Kind of like cleaning the crap off the idea to reveal the beauty of it.
So it is just a label. i 'spell' it [G()D] so as not to confuse it too much with 'God' or 'G-d'...because those are only aspects of it, which religion has attempted to bend to its own image and thus own and control - not what it is in totality. I see those old ideas as reletive to their age (when they were conceived and made popular) and that just as we are evolving as a species, so too is 'G()D' because it is us and we are it.
Shirina, the Christian posters on here would have felt very at home adoring Hitler back in the day. With their mindset we come to these ideas.
The Fuhrer can do no wrong as you know even when he is gassing the Jewish people. He is the Fuhrer and hence can do no wrong. Why...because he is the Fuhrer. That's the circular logic Christians use in justifying stupid, ridiculous and immoral Bible verses about their God...it's all about context you know. The Fuhrer must have a contextual reason for gassing the Jews. The Jewish holocaust was an obscene, evil atrocity committed by an evil individual. Reminds me of the Biblical God. Vizio, I'm sure will come back and say that Bible God is not Hitler because Hitler is not the creator of the universe which he apparently think gives God the ability to commit any atrocious act. So sad to have this thinking. So glad I am not Christian.
Great post. You sum up the authoritarian mentality that is widespread in conservative Christianity. It is borderline fascistic indeed.
It was labeled 'G()D' a long time before you and I came on the scene. I am simply identifying the most likely explanation for why 'G()D' became a part of the psyche of human consciousness and the simply answer is that it has always been that way.
I can relate to that because it resonates with the consultant's dictum concocted by Gerald Weinberg ... "things are the way they are because they got that way".
Thanks for the detailed explanation of your reasoning. I still feel that people with preconceived notions of god, even if they mentally assent to your reasoning, still often can't resist applying anything you say about god to their own god-concepts. And the idiosyncratic spelling IMO doesn't clarify anything and most people would simply project onto it that you so revere the name of god that you durst not spell it out -- again in part because it fits with their god concepts as a sort of exaggeration on what they already believe.
However, in a perfect world, I agree that we could talk about transcendence and The Divine aspects of life and admire their beauty and enjoy the archetypes for what they are. Alas I feel that common theism has largely ruined that for us. The well is polluted, so to speak ...
I can relate to that because it resonates with the consultant's dictum concocted by Gerald Weinberg ... "things are the way they are because they got that way".
Thanks for the detailed explanation of your reasoning. I still feel that people with preconceived notions of god, even if they mentally assent to your reasoning, still often can't resist applying anything you say about god to their own god-concepts. And the idiosyncratic spelling IMO doesn't clarify anything and most people would simply project onto it that you so revere the name of god that you durst not spell it out -- again in part because it fits with their god concepts as a sort of exaggeration on what they already believe.
However, in a perfect world, I agree that we could talk about transcendence and The Divine aspects of life and admire their beauty and enjoy the archetypes for what they are. Alas I feel that common theism has largely ruined that for us. The well is polluted, so to speak ...
Well saying 'we are doomed' doesn't really cause any thrilling sensations around about me.
Religion hasn't 'spoiled' the notion of G()D for me. Not even the physical universe has been able to do that.
I don't know if that is because i am just weird or sensible, wishful thinking or a realist. Waking up is hard to do...especially when in doing so, one sees there is work to do.
*shrugs*
*yawns*
*stretches*
*scratches itch...*
Last edited by Rotagivan; 08-03-2015 at 04:50 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do people consider the Biblical God above criticism?
Not even the physical universe has been able to do that.
