What makes a god a god?
Oh, my guide.
When I was a lot younger I remember two people of the Jewish faith talk about their deity. I remember that they explicitly said that they never refer to their deity as "god," and that when their people first reunited in contact with their creator, YHWH, long after the banishment from garden that their people specifically asked him what his name was and after going back and forth in an explanation their deity left them with the words "I am that I am."
Recently I have noticed that far too many people use the word "god" to described someone that they are not able to describe. I do not believe that the word god has a true meaning and that it is truly a word that does not belong in the English lexicon, such as other words.
I for one do believe in a higher power and a source of creation, but I do not think it is permissible in an evolving lexicon such as the English vocabulary to use a simple three letter word to describe the identity of someone so grand and responsible for so much.
Does the word "god" have meaning to anyone else?
Where did the word originate from, and when?Ahh come on..
Dont you think you getting bogged down in unnecessary semantic?
In the languages that use more letters, does it add validity to the concept?
In communication with you, should one always say "higher power and a source of creation"
in order for you to understand the concept?
I for one would say God and leave you to understand/misunderstand- your prerogative.You pose an interesting vantage, and I would like to add my answers to your questions.
I do believe that the semantics that I am attempting to use are for a more effective form of articulating what or who it is that we are referring to when the g word pops up. Is 'god' his name or is he someone else? Someone with a more acrticulated depiction with more features than can be described in three letters. When somone tells me that they believe in god, I often wonder who they are referring to. Jupiter? Saturn? Ouranos? Sophia? The Holy Spirit? Is their higher power someone I know or can know? Does this not depend upon how adequetly my friend articulates his version of such a force?
When people are referring to their "higher power and a source of creation" my mind's eye will envision what I have assertained through my own studies, but I must bare in mind that what they are implying may have an entirely different point of view, which causes more questions to understand what they are speaking of.
...Although I could very easily stop at the phrase "higher power" and carry on in a relationship with them. But what if I want to better my understanding such a friend? Is "God" the name of my friend's master, or is the higher power of my friend someone else? I feel that this g word was initially used in by some who were still figuring it out when they first began calculating such a creative force. And inorder to save initial time, they used the word that closely reflects the need for some higher guide, almost to the same sense as when people use words such as uhm, uh, thing, and other such babel words that do not contain actual meaning. They probably felt the need to do so because they are still processing what they are thinking while they are saying it, rather than attempting to articulate the string of thoughts prior to speaking them. I feel that when we find ourself slip in saying some phrase as cliche as "oh my god" we are really asking for guidance, whether it be for help or acceptance, etcetera.
The usuage of words such as god and thing scare me only in the sense that if I am attempting to relate or identify with someone else, that when we begin using such words it creates a lot of confusion regardless of being aware of such confusion in the present moment. How do I know that my friend's version of god is not someone who enjoys sacrifice, while my version of a creator is someone entirely different? What if the idea of the higher power, who is commonly seen as someone who sees the true power of words in ways that some such as myself may not, is as powerful as the words used to describe such a member of creation? Would this not mean that the creator of such followers would evolve through the very articulation of what his, or her, people describe such a force as?
I enjoy listening to people articulate such thoughts with me and in groups because it feels as if we are travelling in an evolutionary sense and maturing as people.1. Good question, and a very normal, or common concern among freethinkers.
2. Maybe so. I do not know the etymology of the word. The Sioux used Wankan-tanka, but they were all on the same page as to who they were referring to.
3. Maybe you can make up a new word that sticks. Until then, I guess you will have to ask for clarification each time God is used in conversation.
4. Not necessarily. Our ideas about God do not change reality, Scientology notwithstanding.
5. I do to. in the Bible, it says that "He" has a name that only "He" knows. That is what I want to call him by.It depends largely on the type of conversations you are interested in having.
Since most have a general common understanding of God, and general this will normally not be debated .
It's only when God is discussed on a level as in this forum, we have to deal with the minute definitions of who God is /isn't. It is natural for humans to enquire so as to clarify their mind concept of this character which is referred to as God.
it is clear in my mind, your mind and almost everyone else's mind that the letters G o d is not an accurate description of whom we refer to when we say God, but nevertheless it serves to communicate accurately the concept we are trying to deliver.
Why it works? Because it is commonly accepted for the english language.
I am certain that if you were to speak to someone who worships an idol as their God, they would communicate to you that the idol is not the most accurate representation of their mind concept of God, but it serves to communicate accurately for those who are convinced by it.
In contentious situations nothing is said or understood correctly. The contention thrives because there are both willing and unwilling misunderstandings, but that the nature of communication usingg written ans spoken language. No single word can accurately describe the thought, the fact that it is a word already means that there is the potential for misunderstandings,
And as we try to clarifies the thought by using more words, we merely add to the confusion and we lose our way. So we can easily begin to define and redefine the G and O and D before we realise that we have strayed from the simplicity of the first thought which we use the word God to represent..
What is god?
A word with so many meaning, each subjective, it really is a meaningless word.No God is God, not a word written with pen and ink.....can you differentiate between the two concepts?
So it's a concept? Good.
And repeating a meaningless word will not make it meaningful. Abracadabra is abracadabra, so?Yes, "g/God" by definition and general expression is a concept or "formed entity" which resides above or below the folds of human thinking and location. The word "god" is pagan in origin, used to define anything beyond immediate human interaction. Thus religions came, evoking came, etc.
As for the OP, yes, Hebrews cannot, nor will title or name what has formed and is the form of all things. They understand it is irrelevant //irrational to do this. It is "silly" to them. They do not need to title or belittle what formed them and is that form called human, nor explain what the Ineffable Everything looks like, how it speaks or moves, because they can see it everywhere, in everything -even in themselves.
A quote:
The stars speak to each other. They themselves are that Ineffable; the energy from them, called light is that Ineffable and the words they speak, their every vibration is also that Ineffable. What else can be said. Go, warm ourselves in His presence, bask in that Ineffable and enjoy the song He sings...
JamesA concept is formless, an idea, conceived by humans.
A 'form'( or)ed 'entity' has a shape, an object. An object can reside above or below of only another object, not thoughts.
An anything beyond human interaction, why? a deep sea/ forest dwelling animal might be the answer.What shape is nebula, inert gas, a thought or a butterfly? Although shapeless, geometrically, all have form. Thoughts are objects, possibly the most fluid of all objects, passing in/out of "time" and "space" on multiple frequencies, defying gravity, "reality", geometric, etc. Sentient has form, is an object, all objects actually. A single view of the "subatomic" proves it without question.
Yes, actually planets, stars, comets, the elements at one point, deep sea creatures, volcano dwellers {demons, gods of fire}, etc were all considered by humans at some point to be gods, or the result of gods. Especially aliens and scientifically accepted alien species who, in many locations and intervals, had visited, populated or warred with and on humanities behalf, as the stories go.
James.Can you see or draw a nebulae, gas or butterfly? Then it has a shape, that is it has 2/3 dimensions(I can provide you internet link to any of its pictures). I didn't mean it has a defined shape like a circle or square, any shape will do.
What is the shape of thought? How neuronal communications through chemicals can have any shape?
How can a view of subatomic particle proves the shape of thought, which happens at molecular and cellular level?
Yes, god is what we meant it to be, varying as people's fear changed over time. The meaning was assigned by each according to his capacity and fear, a word whose meaning that changes with person and Hence when an idea is to be conveyed precisely becomes a meaningless word.What is the shape of thought?
How neuronal communications through chemicals can have any shape?
How can a view of subatomic particle proves the shape of thought, which happens at molecular and cellular level?
Geometrically, it is considered formless, until the object {memorial image} is recalled, giving that thought -that object- shape and dimension. Nothing short of amazing, really.
Neuronal is sub-chemical which have form, mass, weight, speed yet can dissolve -like other sub-atomic and ultra-sub into nothing then reform at whichever instance it 'desires'.
Molecular and cellular are the stuff of sub-atomic, the result of those building blocks, which are formless until...occurs.
Every light frequency, sequence has form, shape, design, parameters, etc.
This is one of the fundamentals of Quantum Physics.
James.An object ought to have shape whether we recall it or not. An object's existence is irrespective of what we might imagine or think, even in spite of us. It is our thoughts that are formless, mere neuronal communications.
I cannot make out what you are trying to say. Neurons are made of molecules. The neurotransmitters are big molecules like acetylcholine, dopamine etc. Sub atomic has nothing to do with thoughts. And it is light that got shape, not frequency.
Umm, what are chemicals made of -molecules.
What are molecules made of -atoms.
What are the atoms that make up molecules, chemicals, tissue, etc made of: sub and ultra subatomic units.
Sub atomic has EVERYTHING to do with thoughts. They are the collective things humans define as matter.
Light is both form and frequency. The form in a thought is the object viewed. The condition {perspective of view} is the frequency.
So, how many frequencies and "slides" of form make up a single view of an apple, then an apple being bitten; then an apple oxidizing and changing shape, form until the apple is gone?
James.You are in effect saying that the building and the cement and clay that makes the building are the same! Is the electron in a computer and the analysis the computer does, the same?
Again I didn't get you. Light is a structure, but the color of the object and the shape of the object you see is based on the sensors that is stimulated by the light. The object exist regardless of what you see. its shape is also NOT dependent on what you see The color is merely a subjective phenomenon, based on the frequency of the wave that is reflected.. In fact, sometimes humans see objects which are not there. The difference between objective and subjective.Yes, actually. How do you suppose it is possible for the computer and the computation to exist and be cohesive?
Objects not there? How is that possible? Is there optical outside the human view port and memorial thought processes? Still, you did not answer my question. How many probabilities exist for that apple, as it [trans]forms in size, color, weight, scent, hydration, even as the air around it changes hue, density, mass, weight, position, etc. The consumed portion changes, the breakaway pieces and juices -the sounds, etc. These are all properties and frequencies of light. How can that be? These are resulting from those sub-atomic instances and the ultra-sub of that also.
James.Only computer can exist, not computation. Computation is what the computer does.
It is called hallucination. We see, what the brain think it saw, may not be the object that was there. That is why we call our sensations subjective not objective.
The apple remains the apple all the while, doesn't it? When you bite part of it, it remain a bitten apple, everything else remains the same. When the apple is rotten, it becomes a rotten apple. The light is only the color and hue. Just because it changed color will not make it not an apple.
Does any of the changes you mentioned affect the sub-atomic? No, the changes are only molecular or even structural.Only computer can exist, not computation. Computation is what the computer does.
----as said, the computation is cohesive. It was the computation hat made the computer what is ti. What is the computer A computation system made up of many parts.
It is called hallucination. We see, what the brain think it saw, may not be the object that was there. That is why we call our sensations subjective not objective.
----that hallucination is still an object -regardless of its tangibility. It exists. It is a thought. It has form.
The apple remains the apple all the while, doesn't it? When you bite part of it, it remain a bitten apple, everything else remains the same. When the apple is rotten, it becomes a rotten apple. The light is only the color and hue. Just because it changed color will not make it not an apple.
----That has nothing to do with my question, at all. I did not suggest the apple not be an apple, even if altered. What I said was that apple has many, many probabilities as an object, having form and frequency and then further objects, forms, by interaction with it. Even that bite of apple being chewed and ingested or the juice dribbling down the chin or spray caused by the biting of it. The scent, the sound -these are all objects of light.
In essence, you are eating light in every bite
Does any of the changes you mentioned affect the sub-atomic? No, the changes are only molecular or even structural.
---Ugh. Molecular and Structural {cellular} all come from subatomic. Without the six [known] flavors of quark, no proton would exist, as we know them to. E V E R Y T H I N G comes from, is sustained by and exists because of its genetic make up. That make up are the subatomic units, the building blocks of atoms. Why are you not getting that?
JamesI completely lost you..
A computer is an instrument to do computation. Computer is a noun and computation is a verb. Even if you break down the computer fully you will not find any computations but only instruments that become on and off depending on the electricity passing through it.
Hallucination by definition is a perception without stimulus. i do not understand what you mean by "exist". If thought has a form one should be able to illustrate it with a picture, can you?
These are not light, light is what is reflected or emanated from the apple, apple is a fruit and it exist whether we throw light on it or not, whether anyone see it or not.
Unfortunately I can't, I can only eat an apple, or what is light?
Nobody knows what is inside an atom. Maximum we can say is, there is proton, electron and neutron, rest are all conjectures. Regardless, whatever you do, the atomic structure of an atom does not change. The atomic structure of an apple remains the same before it was an apple, when it became an apple, after it ceased to be an apple, only the molecular structure changed. So if atoms didn't change, why bother about sub atomic, which has no reason to change at all?
Are you suggesting that soundwaves, such as those projected by vocalization, change lightwaves, such as the electrical patterns in someone's brain?
Yes, I am suggesting this. Both are elements of the same.
Sound is only one part of light. When something is made audible, immediately the eyes, ears, brain, body, blood stream, tissue, muscles -everything in the human body changes frequency -which means the object, the thought, changes. The pattern is an object or "string of objects" in the brain which changes infinitely per instance and records that instance to be used again.
James.
Interesting. If we are to assume that god is the power of capacity and fear, would it be okay to see such a being as a circuit board with enough capacitive energy to inflict fear upon an electrician or electronics technician because of its capacity to kill someone when charged?
Is your god meant to be feared or loved?
What if we desire guidance from a higher someone who we do not feel the need to run from everytime he stops by to check on us? What if we need the guidance of someone we run to and embrace everytime he checks up on homebase, rather than someone we fear will only have us plant our faces into the ground before his self assumed divinity?
How do I know that your god is not my devil?
These questions are completely hypothetical in the sense of me using the word "you" as I do not believe you serve such a devil or god because I have not yet entirely grasped your version of what such a being is.
So you struggle to differentiate with that one too?hmmm
many children i know don't, and they do not even know how to spell the word.
Are there other?
what about "Jomine"? you must have that one covered...othewise HmmmmFrom meaningless words to meaningless sentences.
Vague and nebulous talk is good, it can mask ignorance and feign knowledge.Let us not fill in the void of our understanding with accusations. Let us refrain from accusations and speak with what we have learned so far in regards to the subject. In this case the subject is "what makes a god."
It takes a forum to make a God/gods. They don't exist in real life.
G-d(the proper way for Jews to spell it), has as many meanings as a person wishes.
G-d has as many meaning as there are people, and that 3 letter word is used often to justify destroying others who do not believe in a particular G-d
Personally, to me it minimizes the power of IT, and brings it into the human ego.
I seem to resonate better with the Native American's term for G-d, Great Spirit.Well, spirituality is a fact, and man is spiritual. But the God/gods these crackheads blather here 24*7, is a different stuff. This God/god is the creation of internet forums.
ahh, i wondered if you were refering to the slash thing. Absolutely agree with that Chip
- Show us your evidence, if it is a fact.
Search Google scholar, I found millions of papers
Bring up Google Scholar and type "Spirituality evidence" and start reading yourself. It may take some time considering there are well over a million papers to read. Hopefully, you might even learn something.
What conclusion did you come to after reading the millions of papers you are referring to?
While I understand the phrase you used, to the extent of my knowledge assertained in reading over the history of the spiritual insights of the American Indians. I agree to some extent with the meaning behind it, but I do not agree with their choice of the word "great," because I feel that the effect of such a word has the potential to be misused or misinterperated. What does it really mean to be great? Is greatness truly not more than a calculation based upon relativity? While a range of mountains on one side of this planet may prove to be larger when compared to another range of mountains elsewhere, there are plenty of other mountains on other planets throughout the Final Frontier. Thus whatever mountain is "great" on this planet may not be any greater than a mountain on another planet.
With that being said, what if such a Spirit was not the all encompassing and grand unifying one that we once thought he or she was at the time of Contact? What if someday we, as species, encounter and make contact with an even more grand intelligence than the one referred to in older scriptures and tales?
I rest with the term Holy Spirit because it helps me envision a spirit that helps unlock the spirits and psyche of those whom call out to it for relief. More to the point, I feel that Holy Spirit is a word that cannot ever become archaic, obsololete, or abused- and I especially mean that it cannot be abused because it is a type of term that is so transparent in usage to the very spirit or spirits that choice to speak of such a phrase. Meaning that it is a word whose evolution and usage are blatantly obvious in the correlation of the one who attempts to use it.
The usage of the word spirit will reflect the container/vessel, such a man or woman, when in the process invocation."Great Spirit" is an English translation, like "Earth Doctor" (Maricopa word for God), or even "medicine man" (shaman). The Native Americans will say "strong", or "good medicine" according to English translation. Medicine, doctor, great are insufficient translations for the true word in the original language. They are referring to the creator, provider and all encompassing spirit of life when they say Great Spirit or Jehovah Jireh. "Medicine" is spiritual power.
The answer you seek is beyond words. Be encouraged, "Seek and you shall find." Remember, the last shall be first, so it is wise to humble yourself before others and be eager to serve.I enjoyed reading your responses. Another reason I have started this thread, that is perhaps unstoppable, is because I wish to see and provide structure to such a concept as all concepts and subjects may be powerful beyond words, however that does not keep us from putting words to them. If we are going to mature as a species with our understandings of such concepts or subjects as the one, how are we to do so if everyone simply uses a three letter word, that is so inadequete?
The degenerative impact of language takes effect and begins when people begin commonly using the simplist words to describe complex complex concepts that are their to further our understanding.
Example: I personally cannot accept that it is only the word "god" and all the brillant words that some people often think of when they think "god". This brings me back to the question "Is your god, or my friend's god, someone I really know?" How do I know that when someone is saying that they believe in god, that they are not simply describing some Jeffery from down the street in the grand perspective of this universal consciousness or force?
How am I to learn about what your god's favourite number is if I do not know his name, or who or what he is? Or do we already know god's favourite number seeing how his identity is GOD, if god is really GOD at all?
well what I feel is that the power lies in within. One has to believe in himself and this power comes when one start realizing about is one way to do this is "meditation" it will let you to all the answers!!!
TRY IT!!!When you meditate do you meditate on forms and patterns, words, phrases, or other matters and ideas? Or do you clear your mind to find a center?
If you do all or some of these, will you describe your pattern or strategy of meditation?
Before this question can be answered, one must establish that there is a God with some type of evidence. Secondly, the term God is not a group that an entity enters whenever it contains certain qualities, but rather the term God usually denotes a transcendent being, who usually possess some type of providence and love to interact with his creation.
For the sake of the maturation of this forumn and the minds/souls interacting with it, let us entertain that a deity or a bearer of such divinity does exist. If not in the simple dimensions of depth/height, length, and width, let us imagine the nature and personality of such a field, force or spirit whom, or that, is transcendental of all dimensions.
I apologize ahead of time if I did not articulate and craft my question decently enough for other contributers. I am asking this question to improve upon our collective and individual understanding of the One, or the Ones.
I wish to improve our logical understanding of such an abstract nomenclator describing a divine source of all creation. I personally find the three letter word 'god' far too rudimentary and perhaps indecent when describing someone everyone is dieing to know, and whom may have resided over the birth of the first generation of Man, the Adamites, and said "Let us create Man in our likeness."
While some would suggest that such questions are too deep or unanswerable, I have to disagree to the effect that these questions should have answers as sophisicated and well crafted as Man's observations and explainations of the stars. We cannot simply say that a star is a fire in the sky if we are going assume the position of a critical thinker, analysist, or scientist, and expect to become the pioneers of other worlds and star systems. So how are we to travel to higher levels of awareness in our understanding of the one or the ones who are responsible for the inception of Mankind?
The practice to further our knowledge of such a deity, or deities, must begin with finding a more accurate word that better suits such divinity than a three letter word. This is perhaps the foremost reason so many who have truly studied this figure have turned away from using the simplest or most vain word of all language in the usage of such a power.
While it is simple to use the three letter word, it is incomplete and missing so much.
Related Discussions
- 211
Why do Christians get so bent out of shape when you tell them the bible is just
by Ralph Schwartz 7 years ago
Why do Christians get so bent out of shape when you tell them the bible is just a book?Many versions of this text are different, book order different, passages missing, especially ones referring to the so-called resurrection (not found in the older bibles.) The books are clearly written by...
- 24
What Makes You A Real Child Of God.
by Edikan Victor 15 years ago
when problem comes to my life, i always rely on God to solve it. i always give thanks to what God had given for me, no matter its good or bad.Sometimes i complaining about something and blaming to God, soo..I also always ask for the forgiveness of sins from God...maybe those are reasons why i'm a...
- 83
Existence of a higher power(s).
by ragnaworks 15 years ago
Why is the existence/non-existence of a higher power dependent on the validity of any particular religion? Are we as humans really so arrogant, that we think if none of our gods are real, that must mean there is no such thing as a higher power at all anywhere in the universe? Isn't it possible that...
- 77
Islamic war concept
by Eng.M 15 years ago
God says:(Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors (190) And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them...
- 164
Christians - Please explain about the Holy Ghost...
by Irfan 13 years ago
I'm interested to know more about the Holy Ghost ... I have nothing against the Holy Ghost but once i know more i may have extra questions... please try to reply with quality not quantity.thanks.
- 169
Do Atheists Prove there is a God by saying they don't believe in One?
by James Q smith 15 years ago
Just a question, but it would seem if there really were no God, then Atheists couldn't exist. Is Atheism a religion? They definitely seem to be unified by a common belief.