I meant that I also have a problem with acting like love is a thing and not an attribute; I agree with you.
Ah, that’s all good them. I misread it as being the second statement of mine that you had a problem with. :smack:
How many different gods have we got so far?
- The god of your favorite religious text, exactly as written.
- The god of half of your religious text, exactly as written.
- The god of your favorite religious text, with the icky parts taken out.
- The god of all the religious texts which really all say the same basic thing(if you squint your eyes really tight and look at it from an angle.)
- The feel good god with fairies and guardian angels and doggy heaven and I think I’m gonna frow up now.
- The god that used to be called “the universe” by everyone until someone used a spiritual Dymo Label Maker to rename it.
- The god that is an emotion(love, hate, indifference etc.)-kinda silly until you realize that we recently declared war on an emotion(terror).
And others?
Liberal, this is a great thread. I tried to start this topic on other message boards before.
Based on that small experience, my generalization, just from that, was that atheists generally have a more narrow definition of God. It’s generally something like, I don’t believe in anything that I’ve seen so far. Or they describe the omni God.
People who do believe in God but are not Christians are willing to go a little further in their definition, I think, and try to describe something ineffable.
I haven’t really gotten too much response from Christians because they usually just refer to Bible verses, and don’t try to articulate it further than that.
There were more definitions than that, i’m sure, though those make up a considerable amount.
Heffalump, i’m afraid I don’t see what you mean by atheists having a narrower definition of gods. Whether or not that’s true, I would have said your two examples - “I don’t believe in any gods i’ve heard of” and “I don’t believe in any gods with only these characteristics” are a narrower definition of a god than going into more characteristics or a specific god. Am I misunderstanding?
Something that makes a difference in the universe; i.e., it has a tangible effect on something that otherwise would not occur within the set of “natural laws”.
I provided ‘the generic god that has sentience and ultimate power but no other specified attributes’. The generic definition, as it were.
You must not know many Catholics. We usually try to stay away from that Book as much as we can, hahahaha.
- The all-powerful and intelligent generic god.
Check.
- The primal force god.
Haha, I think I agree with you here. To this modern world, a God of infinite, unconditional love, IS crazy. Look at all the fucked up shit in this world. How could any sane God still love us at all, let alone unconditionally? The love of my Christian God (not that my definition changes reality, now THAT’S insanity) is one who loves all things because we are His children, made in HIs image. We cant earn this Love, and we cant un-earn it. God will always love us, and wants us to join him in Heaven. This is still being argued, but I personally believe God does not send anyone to Hell. We go there on our own by rejecting his Love.
Another central tenet of Catholicism is mystery, which also seems insane to this modern age. Awe, wonder, a healthy respect for things that we cant and may never understand…“God works in mysterious ways,” “Can you tame the mighty Behemoth” etc etc etc. This is paramount to Catholics.
We are all attempting to box God into something we can understand, which IMO is impossible. It’s not wrong to attempt so, but insisting to think of God in purely human terms is a dangerous proposition.
The god that is an action and a metaphysical state of being.
One sentence clarification, please?
That god is the activity of putting a week-old turnip into a basket being carried by a horse.
Too vague and obscure to be of use, and once the turnip falls out of the basket your god is dead.
I said earlier “God is Love,” but since that made people think I was talking about “the God of the warm fuzzies,” I decided to post the same meaning in more precise language. I believe love, (agape), is an action and also a state of being, but not an emotion FOR THIS DEFINITION.
Which makes his love rather worthless. It doesn’t reflect on us after all.
- The god that is the act of love(agape).
Yes, it is worthless if we think about love, any kind of love, the way this world does, as something that we earn or disearn, give or take as a commodity; however, if we humble ourselves and accept the gift God gives us, if we accept and move with God’s love, we become more like God and thus holier and more fulfilled people.
I’m asking this sincerely and without snark, are you well versed in Christian theology and terminology, because the way I am phrasing my replies to somebody who isn’t will seem very strange and even stupid.
Ah, but that definition sounds more like “Love is God,” than “God is Love”
God is infinite, unconditional, omnipresent agape. If I perform an act of agape, that is godly but not God.
I’m being very unclear and for that I apologize.