All Perceptions of God.

The topic of God is probably the most debated issue in history. People have killed for their views, some have died for their views, and others have forced their views upon people of other faiths. One thing I want to get straight is I am not a member of an organized religion. I am not here to preach to you “The Word of God (in a specific religious connotation ),” I am here to ask what you think of God in your personal views. I want to know if you believe in him or not. What is God (if you can classify it)? How do you view religion in context with God, if you can or choose to do so? I want you to tell me what ever you want to say on the subject of God.



Uh, if you want people to respond to your post, I think you should narrow it down a little bit. Most people cannot summarize their beliefs about God in a paragraph or two. Luckily I can do it in one word. God? No. But others have not acheived this state of lucidity. :slight_smile:

God? Yes.


Do I believe in God? Are we talking about the Judeo/Christian/Moslem God? Then, no, I do not. I don’t believe in a “Heavenly Father” - for one thing, I think Divinity is too large to be limited to any gender.

Do I believe there are Divine Forces working in our lives? Maybe. I’m not entirely certain about this one; in the words of Oliver Wendell Jones (of Bloom County fame) I find the Universe “…too orderly to be a big accident.” But I don’t believe that Divine Presence gives a rats ass about its creations, either. Something got the universe started, but we’re on our own from there.

As to religion, for the most part I find almost every organized and human based religion to be pointless and frustrating in its endeavours to control a part of the population - that part of the population that believes in its charismatic leaders. I don’t believe in “One True Way.” I believe in asking the little questions and letting the big ones take care of themselves.

Basically, I believe religion has nothing to do with “God in Heaven” and everything to do with promoting some person or group as “God on Earth.”

Sorry, Poly. I can only adjust my thinking so far.


Well, I would take the axiom that people have free will, and therefore they have what is traditionally called a “soul” which can alter reality on a limited quantuum mechanical level.

Christianity postulates that by living a certain spiritual way called “faith”, one can apparently alter reality, although such a power seems to emanate from some other source, they call “God.” (People of other backgrounds may refer to what is essentially the same being by another name of course.) However, the results of such an experiment are somewhare subjective and may need to be experienced personally by each individual.

Most Christians believe that people are born into a world which by its nature makes knowing “God” difficult (the Doctrine of Original Sin) and, I would postulate, generally makes people unwilling to perform a geniune inquery into the spiritual realm.

What did I do? :confused:

theological axiom number ONE.

GOD cannot be stupid, if any.
if God can’t come up with a better way of running the metaphysical universe than an eternal suffering in Hell routine, then God MUST be stupid.

this violates axiom #1, therefore there is either no God or no Hell.

the only question is, does God believe in theological axiom number one?

Dal Timgar

Supreme Being-no
Other being-possibly, I’m still meditating on this

People who don’t believe in this God merely because of the choice of pronouns used to refer to him? It’s one of my pet peeves.

The Catholics on the subject:

BTW, dal, I don’t think your logic holds up very well –

People are the most intelligent animal, therefore they cannot be stupid.

If People can’t come up with a better way of running society than putting other people in prison, then people must be stupid.

This violates axiom #1, therefore there either are no people or no prisons.

The only question is: do people believe they aren’t stupid?

I can’t think of any reason why the most intelligent animal can’t also be stupid. Suppose I have a room full of people ranging in size from 6 foot 5inches to 8 foot 6 inches. Can you say that the shortest one cannot be tall?

:rolleyes: Yeah – tourbot. It makes almost as much sense as saying God cannot be stupid, doesn’t it?

Oh, okay, Joel, sorry to step on a pet peeve. That is not the exclusive reason I don’t believe in the J/I/C God - but we were asked to limit the length of our responses. :wink:

There were other reasons given in that post, you know. I believe that the J/I/C God is an invention created by folks trying to keep “their” tribes together, and unpoisoned by the “false” :rolleyes: gods of the tribes around them. Of course, this is generally what I believe of any documented Divinity.

Fair enough?


Overarching “rightness”-possibility in world, possibility of it all making sense? Way to be, for us to be, that isn’t fucked up like things are? If there’s not then there ought to be. Heck, if there’s not then I ought not to be.

I know of “rightness” beyond what I can put into words, but…a place/way/modality where the kind feelings inside people are safe for them to feel. Where the good feelings towards life and each other aren’t impractical to acknowledge and act on. Rightness in the sense of good. Definitely not in the sense of ‘passing scrutiny’.

Sentient? Uh…maybe the more meaningful question underlying that one is “Can I get in touch with that overarching-rightness thingie, and does it lead to answers that could result in living in that world”? We think ‘sentient’; we think ‘personal’. Maybe that’s an oversimplification, but there’s something meaningful in these criteria even if not only I but my species has trouble putting it in words.

Entity? Uh…I think not. Being an entity myself, I understand the limitations of individuation. We think ‘entity’ because we were already thinking ‘sentient’ and ‘getting in touch with’ and in our experience that with which one can communicate is necessarily an ‘entity’. But it’s actually very limiting, almost like asking if God has feet, or a vagina or a penis, or for that matter an anal sphincter. Yes, there could be ‘entity’ without body, but still…Entities are other, in the same sense that you are other than me; and they are temporal, they experience time, thinking thoughts on Tuesday and reaching conclusions on Wednesday that weren’t in their head on Monday.

Actually, what fits is the more eastern sense that we (all of us, and also the blades of grass, the sparrows, and the stars and the mountains) are included within whatever the divine is. That ties in nicely with the ‘getting in touch with’ factor and helps untie it from the awkwardness of ‘entity’ questions while doing a neat little inversion on the whole question of ‘sentience’. I happen to be sentient (I heard that! I am too!) and if I am something included within that which is divine, sentience is subsumed within that which is divine.

It also suddenly becomes apparent that such a theological world-view is not so incompatible with atheological ones, aside from possible differences on the huge overarching question of whether or not there is a meaning to what we feel. Unless one is going to dismiss every atheist as a nonthinking individual, one has to accept that the atheistic comprehension of the world is sufficiently accurate to be compelling, in other words it needs the same respect as the views of people who identify as having spiritual beliefs.


God is a ‘Big Invisible Friend’ concept in the minds of people who (a) were infected with the religion virus at an early age by people interfering with them, or (b) allowed themselves to become infected later by not taking mental precautions and not practising safe reasoning.

God has no attributes whatsoever which can be detected or verified by any independent and impartial observer subject to peer review. As such, either God does not exist or is indistinguishable from things that do not exist. In either case, to ‘worship’ him is asinine.

Umm, no.

dal_timgar offered “God cannot be stupid” as an axiom. To be an eqivalent statement, you would have to make “People cannot be stupid” an axiom, which both flies in the face of the the evidence and would obviate the need for this website. Instead, you offered “People cannot be stupid” as the conclusion of a partial syllogism. However, a syllogism requires two statements and a conclusion, whereas you have one statement and a conclusion. You would have to add another statement. The best I can come up with right now would be “Some animals are not stupid”. Which still isn’t perfect, and still doesn’t make “People cannot be stupid” an equivalent axiom.

This is a huge oversimplification, but if I had to put my idea of God into a tidy little definition, it would be the originating, binding and driving force behind the universe. No gender, no identifiable form, no remotely human characteristics whatsoever. Concepts of intervention or favor don’t even come into play, so neither does worship. However, as we’re all part of the universe and its mechanisms, a healthy awareness and respect for the idea of God sure doesn’t hurt, although there is no kind of favor to be gained by it. It’s really an issue of personal development, the value of which is a whole different debate. In general, I think there’s some unfathomable order to everything and God is simply a good term to describe what’s at the center of it all.

As for the inevitable companion question of the existence of an afterlife, really, who the hell knows? I can imagine there being such a thing, but not in any heaven or hell sense. I’d think it would have more to do with some sort of progression of one’s…well…consciousness, for lack of a better word (were it not for the baggage attached, soul would be a nice, vague term to use). Sort of an evolutionary leap, if you will. But again, who the hell knows?

God: loving, omniscient or reasonable facsimile, omnipotent except as He limits Himself. Deeply interested in you, and eager to set up a personal relationship with you. Has high expectations of you, but will work with your limitations. Operated through Jesus of Nazareth and the Paraclete. However, any resemblance between Him and the Jonathan-Edwards wrathful and petty-bureaucrat deity you will sometimes see referred to is purely coincidental.

Dogsbody, I don’t have a problem with your having trouble relating to a one-sex god, or accepting a person as god. What you might need to think about is that He used Father (Abba, actually more closely translated as “Daddy”) as His preferred metaphor for Himself in a paternalistic, patriarchal society. He’s more than that, obviously, just as He’s more than a person as we know and use the term. But not less. :slight_smile:

Hey, Joel, we finally agreed on something. Expect the Second Coming at any time! :smiley:

I dunno, Poly, I think a cosmic Sugar “Daddy” is a little more than I can handle at the moment… :wink:

Besides, both you and Joel latched on to probably the least important part of what I was trying to say. Sheesh. I guess I didn’t make myself very clear, but then…I don’t know how to make it clearer, except to say that no form of Christianity (or Divinity, really) has ever spoken to where I was/am spiritually. Fair enough?

Besides, Poly, geez. You just finished convincing me that not all fundamentalists are running around rabid and foaming at the mouth hollering about “them damn unwed mothers and homersexuals ruining this country!” I mean - whaddya want from me? Total conversion in six weeks? :wink:

Unlikely. :smiley: