This gave rise in my mind to Spiritus asking Lib. to channel spirits, a totally bizarre picture from any point of view! 
I have trouble saying that Snark NEEDS a God who made him feel like crap because he was sexually attracted to men. Some people’s Gods are very mean to them, or allow them to indulge their hateful nature; they sure seem like they’d be happier and better people with a different one. Are you saying that these people need these Gods in the same way that an abused wife needs an abusing husband to reinforce her feelings of failure?
Gaudere said:
Luckily, however, she still believes in Me.
First of all I’d like to comment on this statement:
RTFirefly said:
First of all, thank you for your sentiment, but I have to agree with the others. I have no problem with anyone responding. I am really just trying to get a feel for where everyone is coming from. (And yes, David and Guadere and all the C&L gang, I would have considered this post incomplete if I didn’t here from you :)).
I do have a challenge for the athiests out there. I am going to assume that your belief isn’t “absolute”. In other words, you don’t believe in God now but you are open to the possibility that He might exist and you just don’t know it yet (I am gathering this from several comments I’ve read, but please correct me if I’m wrong). IF that is, indeed, the case, here’s my challenge:
If God exists and you just haven’t found out about it yet, what kind of being do you think He might be? What kind of personality might He have, if in fact it turns out He does exist?
Derleth said:
Both. And according to the designation given, this bboard is both for debates and so-called “witnessing”. So yes, I am one who doesn’t like to keep a good thing to myself. I would love it if I could convince someone of the good thing that I discovered 26 years ago. And yes, that is partly my goal. But at the same time I tried to frame it at least partly in the form of debate just to stay true to that aspect of this board.
I am really grateful for everyone who has responded so far, even those whom I disagree with. I just really wanted to have an idea of where people were coming from. Keep 'em coming!
I would like to comment on a few of the responses so far, just to encourage you to consider some things …
lucie said:
Ah, but have you considered that everyone is not God’s child? Remember, God wants to adopt us. We aren’t automatically His children.
The two main differences between this adoption agency and every other one is:
- The Adoptor wants to take every person who wants to be
adopted. - The Adoptee has to choose to be adopted.
When we become God’s child, believe me, things change. God doesn’t let you get away with anything!! Believe me, I know it! Any time I try to, God’s loving discipline is right there!
friedo said:
Where are you getting this from, out of curiosity? I’ve never heard of God doing any of this to me or any of my Christian friends, or any Christian period. He has always disciplined me very gently yet firmly.
jumullaney:
I really liked your answer! I thought your description of Jesus was really funny. I agree He had a fabulous sense of humor.
Spiritus Mundi said:
A natural father can be an absentee father. Here’s something to think about: I may have strayed from God many times, but He has never left me. As they say, if I feel distant from God, guess who moved?
Beeruser said:
Later, Satan said:
Beeruser, what a sad first sentence. If you’re serious and not joking, I can tell you with certainty that God was wrenching in agony just as much as you were when those things were happening. He wanted, and still wants, to be your comfort in times of need.
As for whoever we create or want him to be … here’s something to chew on. If He really exists, what if we “create” or “want” Him to be something He’s not?
pldennison said:
and DavidB said:
LOL I loved both of these. David I knew you’d have something witty to say!
I do have this question for both of you, in parallel with my challenge earlier: do you both believe this absolutely? Do you think there’s no chance you’ll ever find out God is, in fact, real? If so, why? (NOTE: David I think you addressed this partly in C&L but my brain is fuzzy so I’d love to hear it again).
Hamadryad said:
I agree. I think it makes Him sad more than anything. After all, He made it for the whole purpose of us enjoying it! It’s like He built us the world’s greatest playground and we don’t even notice it!
Yesterday Man:
You felt God was cruel with a warped sense of humor. May I inquire why?
andros said:
All I can tell you is I’ve experienced His personality. Sometimes He’s funny, sometimes He’s sad, sometimes He’s firm, sometimes He’s urgent about something.
God has chosen to reveal Himself to us. I would agree that if it weren’t for that, there would be no way we could comprehend anything about Him. But in His mercy, He gives us glimpses of understanding. I’m sorry you seem to feel that you can’t know God in that way andros.
Derleth said:
I think this is what many many people believe about God. He’s a mystical, powerful force, way out there, too far away for humans to comprehend or be close to.
Something for you to consider … would it not be astonishing if a God that was that powerful chose of His own free will to lower Himself to become like His own creation? Guess what? He did. He chose to become man and live with us for 33 years, over 2000 years ago. If God were merely an uncaring, unfeeling force, He would never have taken this step.
Alessan said:
Ah, but I submit He’s willing to walk with us until the day He makes everything turn out all right. I truly believe God doesn’t want anyone to have to experience loneliness in this world.
RTFirefly:
I agree about Jesus’ compassion. It was a huge part of who He was.
Occam:
Ah, I won’t quote you but basically you are saying that you think God is somewhat arrogant because of his omnipotence. Generally I get the feeling you think He abuses His power, but why shouldn’t He? (Correct me if I’m wrong).
Something to chew on: sure He’s omnipotent. Does that not make it all the more amazing that He chooses to love us and want to relate to us? He is the good and benevolent king we always wish for but never find.
SPOOFe said:
Thank you for your comment! Here’s something to think about: what if we find that we don’t have the power to grow spiritually on our own? Also … I agree God values our free will highly. Therefore I don’t think He forces anything on us. But would it not make sense for Him to “woo” us as it were? Nudge us in the right direction? But it would definately be a “still small voice”. In other words, you’d have to make a choice to be listening for it.
DavidB: actually, you’d be surprised at the number of people who believe in God but think He’s cruel and cold, and therefore don’t want anything to do with Him. I’m aware that you aren’t in that category, but there are people out there like that.
Gaudere said:
YUP :D. Glad ya made it :).
Later you said:
Why do you think He’s so highly improbable?
You also said:
The word cheerfully here is dramatically out of context. Guadere, God specifically says in the Bible He doesn’t want anyone to go to hell, ever! Gaudere, I can guarantee this: God would never be cheerful about you going to hell. I can literally feel myself getting emotional over this as I type this. God in me is getting emotional. He would do everything imaginable to try to get you to choose Him so you wouldn’t have to go. He wants you Guadere.
I’ve known people who died that didn’t know God, and it hurts in the pit of your stomach like nothing you’ve ever known. God feels thousands of times more pain over it each time someone goes to hell instead of receiving His love.
As for animals: no big comment, only I agree that they don’t have Spirits. Souls they have. That’s my understanding anyway.
Polycarp said:
Love those three! Especially I’m glad someone brought up irony. That could be a whole thread in and of itself. There is tons of fascinating irony in the Bible.
Finally, blessedwolf!
I won’t attempt to quote your whole post, although it was very impressive with the width and bredth (sp?) of what you covered. Your summation statement seems to be:
Well, why don’t you tell us what you really feel!
Besides the fact that some of the facts in your account are incorrect, you seem to be giving at least measured respect for the Bible.
If that’s true, and if God is like you say He is, how can you account for many other times in the Bible when God showed incredible compassion and mercy? If you believe in the God you just quoted, you can’t just quote the verses that support your view. You have to take the whole ball of wax. How do you account for the seeming difference?
Okay, that’s enough for now. Have fun everyone ;).
FoG said:
I think Gaudere kind of covered this already. This question is similar to asking: What kind of personality do you think little green fairies might have?
Since I don’t believe a god exists, how on Earth could I begin to speculate about the personality of one? If the god were as you describe him, he would have a very different personality than the god that Polycarp describes, or Libertarian, or Satan, or… There is just no way to answer that question.
No. I lack a belief in God. That does not mean I believe, absolutely, that there is no God.
Well, you know, if you really think that God is limited and all… I suppose that He might not be able to be something.
I guess it just boils down to the fact that I can’t see God being limited to what you (or anyone else) thinks He is about.
That is what you’re doing, you know. Limiting God.
But I’m sure reaonably He’ll forgive you…
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, three weeks, one day, 23 hours, 41 minutes and 52 seconds.
4559 cigarettes not smoked, saving $569.93.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 1 day, 19 hours, 55 minutes.
Gaudere: There are many things I do not understand about people. I do not understand why people would kill other people in the name of their God(s). I do not understand why people would want their God to be vindictive, but you know, whether you take some of the asshole Gods of various faiths right to the God of the Torah, we had people worshipping an entity which was not a “God of love” for the most part.
I am under the impression, and frankly, backing it up would be a novel that I am not nearly prepared to write (and only barely prepared to read) but our Gods change and our perceptions of our Gods change fairly often, usually around changes in us.
I think if you were able to chart changes in spirituality, this chart would become quite cluttered with a myriad of changes, new ideas, new ways to worship old Gods, new Gods - right as we see changes in us - technological, societal, and what-not.
As such, it does not surprise me that some people choose a God of wrath, while others choose a benevolent, peaceful God. It also does not surprise me that around times of great change, people tend to grasp to more fundamental religious needs. (Read a great book “The Battle For God” by Karen Armstrong for more on this).
As I said, people are choosing (more accurately, they are accepting) what they NEED, not what they want.
I hate to delve into Libertarian territory (nothing against you, friend, and in fact it could be a back-handed compliment) by saying something fairly controversial and not being able to back it up with anything but a “this is how I feel,” and maybe someone will come along and word it better - maybe drag up some anecdotal evidence to back my ideas up a bit - but ultimately, this is how I feel.
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, three weeks, one day, 23 hours, 55 minutes and 51 seconds.
4559 cigarettes not smoked, saving $569.98.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 1 day, 19 hours, 55 minutes.
RTFirefly:
Not to beat a dead horse, but I have a counter analogy to your baseball analogy. Let’s say someone asked, “what is Batman’s personality?” Now, no one believes batman is a real person, but there are plenty of comics movies and TV shows you could use to generate an argument. Similarly, even if you don’t believe in God, there are plenty of sources to use to make arguments. There are numerous sacred books, and there is also the basic theistic concept: an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, possibly benevolent being which created and maintains the universe.
I find it interesting that no two people here have the same idea of God. I would suspect that something that really existed would manifest itself in such a way that people could come to a greater consensus as to what its attributes are.
FoG…
I agree. I especially agree the “we don’t have the power to grow spiritually on our own” part. I would imagine that God has given us the ability to deal with our own secular lives (i.e.- we can make medicine to heal our injuries, we can avoid smashing into the telephone pole, etc.) and keeps his involvement in such issues to a minimum (which is why there’s all the "Why does God let bad things happen to good people? questions). Just by his nature as a spiritual being, he’d want to concern himself with the spiritual aspects of human development over secular development (since humans are weakest at spirituality, in general). While, in theory, it may be possible to grow spiritually without involvement from up above, it’d be so difficult to do so while existing in the physical realm without divine intervention.
In short… if you wanna be spiritual, you need some spiritual help. If you don’t… well… watch Fox or something.
stuffinb
No, I didn’t take it as an insult, but merely as a misunderstanding.
Evil is coldness of the heart.
Poly
That might take some practice, but I will make the attempt.
Gaudere
Animals are part of the amoral fabric of nature. How a man treats animals is part of what speaks to his own morality. But the moral play is for man only.
In a moral reference frame of evil, the Spirit chooses to harm herself, and longs to drag herself through the mud.
Spiritus
The Spirit exists in an eternal reference frame. From His viewpoint, He “sees” all of space and time at once, similar to the way you see both the inside and outside of a circle, while Mr. Flatlander sees (and can see) only one or the other.
The universe (that is, that which eminated from the Big Bang) did not displace the Spirit. Time, as an event coordinate, is relevant only within natural reference frames. For the Spirit, creating a universe is trivial.
Therefore, He does not “change” in the sense that He is bound to an irreversibly progressive coordinate set. I hesitate to say this for fear of it being overly analyzed, but somewhat like Q, the Spirit may establish for Himself any arbitrary reference frame, as His reference frame is absolute.
Satan
This is exactly right. The very purpose of our journey here is to become Him. Or not. As we please.
What I have done, finally, based in large part on my sojourn here at Straight Dope, is realize that my whole world-view is faith-based. My source of reality (my metaphysic, the Spirit), my source of knowledge (my epistemology, reason), and my source of morality (my ethic, noncoercion) — all these are faith-based. I have also realized that my reference frame is irrevocably separate from yours or anyone else’s by virtue of our separate consciousnesses. That makes you a part of my play, and me a part of yours. We all are One spiritually. The atoms serve to give us separate frames of reference.
For something so subjective as your moral journey, you need no more backup than your own conviction.
The Spirit does not change.
The Spirit makes choices.
These two statements are contradictory.
FoG
I think davidB answered your hypothetical quite nicely. In my wildest imagination I cannot conceive of a consistent entitiy to whom all of the attributes of God and the characteristic “personality” apply.
What is the root of “personality”, anywat. 
They are contradictory in one metaphysic, but not in another. I remind you of Father’s point in “Begging the Question”, that that which we postulate in one context can be true, even when we postulate the opposite in some other context.
Where time is one of a set of event coordinates, they contradict. Where time and space are eternal (that is, where they are nonentities), they do not.
When did man gain his Spirit, then? Were the one-celled ancestors to humans possessed of Spirits? If apes are Spiritless, did our common ancestor have one baby that had a Spirit (man’s ancestor) and one that did not (the ape’s ancestor). But at that time the proto-human would probably still breed with the proto-ape, and likely did. Do you think they gradually gained Spirit, or they were given in all at once? If it was gradually given, would us and the chimpanzees would have a common slightly spirit-filled ancestor, but only the human descendents would have spirit?
Fog:
Except, say, unambigiously show His existence to the same standard of proof I use to determine if anything other thing exists. As I said before, making believing in the actual existence of something to be a moral choice is silly (unless the thing you are believing in the existence of is some sort of a moral code, perhaps; but you don’t need God for that). If God really wanted to be loved honestly, I would think He would choose to clearly exist–if He is worthy of love, people could freely choose to love Him…nothing would be forced. Hell, people could still choose to not believe He existed if they really wanted, just as they choose to believe in crystal healing and suchlike. Nor should he sentence people to the Hell He created if they do not love Him; that’s hardly allowing a free choice to love Him. But we went over this before.
FoG:
Let’s put it this way–ANYTHING can happen, but at the present moment and absent more convincing evidence or experience, I am as certain that God does not exist as you, Poly, Lib, et al. are that he does.
Yours? Or some other? Without further parameters, the question is meaningless. He might be exactly as Lib describes him, or he might be like Ted Bundy. We could speculate endlessly on the personalities of things that don’t exist.
Well, if he is, or if some god does, I suppose I’ll find out when I die, at the very latest. In the interest of full-disclosure, you should know that I have been exactly where you are now. I am a (for lack of a better word) “lapsed” Episcopalian (Hi, Poly!), and a former born-again Christian. All experienced within the confines of my late-teen and adult life, by my choice. I decided it (at least the god part of it) was all bunk. Playing in the band was pretty cool, but the music was lame.
bGaudere**
I thought we went over this before. My answer then was (and still is) that I cannot give you a date. In broad terms, it was when we evolved the capability to apprehend Him. Hopefully, it was an unrecorded event. (You know, the whole free-will thing, chasing wild geese, straining gnats, and all that…)
FoG said:
I already know what your answer is going to be, but how do YOU know they didn’t know God? Doesn’t only God know that?
I asked it before, but you never answered. So I asked again. Why do you think animals don’t have Spirit? So you are saying that when the first human was able to apprehend God, God then give him Spirit?
Again, folk, I must suggest that you are sharing an assumption that deserves questioning. To be fair, it’s one of the classic assumptions of Christianity, and has Biblical support (“For it is given to all men to die once, and after that the Judgment.”) But it does deserve to be questioned.
In one of Gaudere’s great hypothetical situations, she once proposed two men, one of whom was a great sinner who repented on his deathbed, the other a true saint in the strict Christian sense – firm believer, given to doing good – who died a horrible death that led him to cry out against God, renouncing anyone who would put him through that much torture, and then died. On the classic formula, the first guy gets Heaven for Eternity, the second Hell. And it doesn’t take much questioning of Christian dogma to see that is totally unjust from any reasonable human point of view, let alone the perfect justice and mercy (avoiding all debates about what that might entail) that are ascribed to God. Or how about the guy who has been patiently led to Christ, and is killed by a freak accident seconds before he accepts Him as Savior? Oops?
In other words, you both (Gaudere playing devil’s advocate vis-a-vis the traditional Christian worldview) are making the assumption that death can trump God. I don’t think so. Even working from Scripture, which I think will please FriendofGod, we have the assertion that (God’s) love is stronger than death. And “after” in the other quote need not mean “immediately after.”
While I’m not so hot for reincarnation as is Dal Timgar, nor am I thrilled about the idea of Purgatory, I think that God will use every means he can to enable people to come freely to him. And, Gaudere, although you have questioned this before and probably will again, I think that unambiguous demonstration of His majesty and Godhood would effectively force one to take it into account – and therefore vitiate the free will He seems to cherish. Granted one might hypothetically reject such an obvious God, in practice virtually nobody would be so foolish as to do so. I doubt that anyone regularly contemplates exercising his free will to decide whether or not to jump off ten-story buildings, despite his obvious ability to do so if he so chooses. Such an off-the-wall hypothesis begins to resemble trying to work out the physical laws of Bizarro World or a magic-filled Middle-Earth using strict physics. (“Well, when the thought-waves of the adept manipulates the photons from the distant viewing area in the focal point of the palantir, the following happens…”)
So my point is that the structure you two are debating is based on the idea that the Christian God judges you at death, a possible but unnecessary assumption. And the implication of much of the eschatological stuff in the New Testament would imply that judgment comes at the end of time, when Christ separates the sheep and the goats, the Devil is cast into a pit of fire, and all that other good-and-gory stuff.
What are the implications if I am right?
Poly
Neither do I. (Aside: why do they perceive that you and I worship two different Gods?)
Gaudere
I believe I did answer that question in one of the Atheist Religion threads, or some thread related to them. However, since you are so convinced of your memory, I will defer to it.
See below.
Yes. Clearly, a fully developed amygdala and limbic system is necessary for the apprehension of God.
Well, does He wish to be loved freely by all who would love Him or not? Unambigiously existing would be a big step in that direction. We believe gravity exists; we do not love it because it is not sentient and it does not love us. I believe Hitler existed; I do not love him. I believe the universe is an awesome, amazing, beautiful thing, but the fact that it is and that it clearly (to me) exists does not make me love it; although I do, in the way that I love flowers, trees, stars and other nonhuman things. I believe my mother exists; I love her because she is lovable, but if I have any free will at all I was not forced to do so simply because she is a good person. (Note: some people do think we do not choose who to love or not love. I think the initial impulses are often not of our choosing, but can be restrained or encouraged as we will. For example, simply because you are attracted to and compatible with an unavailiable person does not mean you cannot restrain and redirect the budding love into more appropriate channels.)
Why do you think being uncertain of something’s very existence makes a love truer or freer? Would I love my mother more freely if she went away and only communicated through “feelings”, so I had to make a leap of faith to believe she was still alive at all? Gravity obviously does not take away free will; many people do choose to jump off tall buildings. Sometimes they don’t even pack parachutes. Nor does the existence of China, my mother, the government, etc. take away our free will; the fact that there is a great deal of evidence that they exist does not make me feel one way or the other about them. If God demonstrating Himself to your satisfaction does not force you to love Him, why would His demonstrating Himself to everyone’s (or nearly everyone; there are those who might disbelieve in gravity if they wished) satisfaction force them to love Him?
One can be absolutely certain of God’s existence without losing the ability to refuse to love Him; you can’t force love from outside circumstances, although you can encourage or discourage it–we do that with each other every day. Even a God who would torture you forever if you did not love Him could not force love by that alone; He could force obsession and utter subjection, but not honest, free love. I cannot see how clearly existing would make us love God; some might say He still has to provide an acceptable explanation for the Holocaust and child abuse, for instance. We are perfectly free to say, “You say you’re good, but look at X, Y and Z; you may have created the universe, and thanks for that, but I don’t think you did as good a job as you could have. Explain why you allowed this.” Just as we would ask anyone who has a lot of power but did some things we didn’t agree with. (And He better not just give us the same line he gave Job, either!) Faith and love are earned; if God clearly exists, and explains His reasoning for some of the nastier things to come from a person who says He is wholly good (or even just points to whatever the heck Holy Book he actually did have a hand in) we can make our own call as to whether He is worthy of love and worship and trust. Freely, without first having to wonder if He exists at all.
[Awaiting lightning bolt… ]
Lib:
I think it was the What happens when it’s all over? thread. However, maybe it was in the Newlywed Gane thread. 
If they are destroyed or altered, what happens to the Spirit?
Aside: I generally refer to people’s God’s as being different for each person because I have never met any two people whose perception of God meshed so perfectly that there were no differences (aside from Orthodox Jews), so I cannot speak about one person’s perception of God and make sense to a person with a different perception. If you like, think of referring to your God and Poly’s God as if I am referring to Jesus and God; same thing, different aspects perceived.