I was reading an article about a study on nonbelieving pastors, and was somewhat intrigued by a rather tricky way of defining the word "god". Here's a short quote from one pastor.
“...I still think the word has some value in some contexts. So I think the word God can be used very expressively in some of my more meditative modes. I’ve thought of God as a kind of poetry that’s written by human beings. As a way of dealing with the fact that we’re finite; we’re vulnerable.”
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfa … Clergy.pdf
What do you think about using the word "god" to refer to something which one personally doesn't view as the traditional god, or as a higher consciousness at all? Is it a fair compromise?
How do you personally define the term "god"?
I'm not going to argue about it, just interested in hearing peoples' views.
A term used to add unnecessary complexity to simple ideas.
i still say "God" even though i don't believe in the Christian one. i do believe in a divine omnipotent spiritual presence (entity) and when speaking of it, say "God".
You're right..God is a term used by man to describe the indescribable.
Me too:) I dont know if I just believe in the presence , but I can feel it too
when talking to him when I was little I told him , look , I dont really know what your name is , so I'm just going to call you God cause that is what I was taught, I dont get into the whole religious scene , I mean gee if there is one thing religons can agree on is that there is a God or Spriitual presence , they just like to argue who that presence is ,
The word "God" to me is a synonym. Just as we call our earthly parents by different names such as Mom, Mommy, Mother, etc; so do we call our heavenly father by different names. To me, he is God. To others, he is Jehovah. And so on....
The word God means Supreme father of all human beings for all castes and religions. He is only one. He is living very far from sun and star. He is incorporeal.
Good Morning everyone.. Gotta go to work in a few .
But had to have my forum fix.
This is a good question that every believer and non believer should contemplate before settling for a simple answer. This requires some thought. I'm starting by borrowing bible concepts.
When asked who he was, he answered "I Am"
He is in everything. He is everywhere. We can not see him yet he sees us and feels us. This is when we feel him.
He is not just some Santa Clause type fellow that sits over there watching us saying NO NO NO. He is IN everything that we do.
He IS ..you ..and ..ME . He is US but we are not HIM.
Now I'm gettig confused.
I think that the short answer would have to simply be;
He IS what we are.. and "everything" that we are not.
Would I be correct in saying that you view God as an intelligent, sentient or conscious life force?
I think that there is a higher inteligent life source/form that interveins for our human race. I don't know, something like a baby in the womb having its mom as its higher power,
Being conciousely aware of it's little universe.
Not knowing its place in the outside universe out side of where it is. The baby does not know if it will be born into an existence of Love or dispaire. Unless it is connected in some way to its mothers consciousness.
Something kinda like this if that makes any scence???
Yes I understand what you're saying, Jerami, and thank you for being willing to share your perspective on it.
God=All that is, was, or will be.logic and reasoning.not an old man sitting on a throne.
A sentient being?
Again, not arguing, just seeking to understand.
Again: all that is, was or will be..Logic and Reasoning.
If Intelligence, logic and reasoning feels? OK then.
Definitely perceives things..Nature perceives, Plants perceives etc.
And yes..the UNKNOWABLE..cannot be perceived by the flesh
This should say..the unknowable ...that can't be perceived by the flesh..
Don't want anyone to think I was saying Christ was God in the flesh.
OK then. Interesting perspective. Thanks for being willing to share your views on this.
Your latest edit "..the UNKNOWABLE..in the flesh" indicates something I just wish to clarify. I had thought you were describing a creative, intelligent life force, but the last line you added indicates something more. Not only a sentient being, but a corporeal one as well.
Not arguing, just seeking to understand what you're saying.
Did you not notice how your response belies itself?
And how did I contradict?
We are the ID..EGO..and SUPER EGO..are we not?
We have powers of reasoning right?
There isn't anything logical or reasonable about gods. We don't all have the power of logic and reasoning, many never developed the ability due to their religious indoctrination.
You never understand what I'm saying or trying to get across..which shows that yes, obviously you are lacking in reasoning ability..
Then, it is the communicator who failed to get their point across.
No not hardly..if one person can understand the meaning, it's not the communicator..see again not using logic.
No Deborah, I'm sorry but it is often difficult to make out your meanings.
It just doesn't always make sense, even when it should.
But thanks for being willing to share your perspective with me on this. I know your instinct for me must be one of mistrust, given our past encounters, and maybe that's why you speak so vaguely and unclearly, as a way to avoid being pinned down by people you feel would argue your viewpoint.
But really, in this thread I don't personally want to argue about it. I just wondered how many different definitions might come up, and among them how many would resemble that of the anonymous pastor I quoted.
I know people define god in many, many different ways. I was unused to the term being used in the way the pastor did, wherein god is the term used to indicate a search for the unknowable. In his quote, god isn't the unknowable, god is the search for the unknowable.
I agree not everyone does..but most have the ability..
Forgive me Deborah for asking more questions of you. Do you define god as a being people might have a personal relationship with in any way? Is there a "salvation" involved? Is the intelligent, creative, sentient and corporeal being you've described concerned with our lives, and with "righteousness" and "sin"?
You included the word unknowable in your last reply, but I want to be sure I understand correctly, if you feel like clarifying on these points.
It sounds like your non-believing pastors are sort of saying what Pessoa said, which was, roughly: "God exists. It's the adjectives that follow complicating and causing problems."
Standing alone like that, that works. It offends no one. Everyone has an understanding of God. Soon as you add anything, you'll start getting arguments. Whether as a fictitious idea, as just accepting it as a word used to describe the indescribable, a concept to embody the homeostatic whole of the universe,or as something more precise that defines it/Him/Her/Them very specifically and with a name and a complete mythology and set of rules. Just God works for all people. Add ONE adjective, even just an article, and you start the fight.
I never really got transcendentalism, but I gotta admit they make lovely, thought-provoking poetry.
Well, what I felt the pastor I quoted was saying was that god (the traditional) is a man-made concept, but that he personally has learned to use that concept as a focus in his own quest for personal meaning.
I don't think I mentioned that these pastors or preachers or ministers or priests were all part of a study of anonymous nonbelieving pastors who still pretend to believe their religion. They were all cases of people who studied too much, and so naturally lost their former beliefs.
What you suggest is interesting, but perhaps impossible given human nature. In effect though I think you're right, and that is what the pastor was saying, more or less. That "god" is the unknown, and perhaps the unknowable.
Considering the circumstances of these cases though, I have to wonder if the redefined god concept in this pastor's case isn't perhaps more a way of personally rationalizing or excusing his continued practice of his religion.
I read once that Mother Teresa stopped believing near or a bit before the halfway point of her life. It seems like as she grew older she may have come to a new understanding of her beliefs, but I don't want to pipe in what that was specifically because my memory might be all wet. Suffice to say, her original deep love for Jesus Christ, the one that drove her to want to be "married" to Him, was not the understanding she had when she died. The middle part of her life was sustained by doing the work of God while bearing the staggering disappointment of discovering her religion was a lie. At least that's what I got from it.
And you would be correct Shadesbreath.
She did stop writing and all religious work, when she herself realized that there was no god via the lies of her own religion.
I don't think that she lost faith in her God; cause he was in her heart. I think she lost faith in her "Religion"
I know nothing of the facts on this, but I think you're probably right. People seem all too adept at being able to hold onto their god even after losing their religion.
The pastors in this study really didn't though, even though some found new ways to define the word.
I have no knowledge of this either but I Think that the majority of preachers, pastore, etc are similar as most were 1500 years ago. It was a Job that family connections were able to supply for them. Too often it is just a Job that if they take it "The Lord" will provide.
shame on me for saying that ... slap,, slap..
Don't get me wrong. sometimes they realy feel that it is real. And if they realy feel it, they know. And it is.
You know Shades, I think you're the only person who addressed that part of my question, which was -I think- the more interesting aspect of it.
I have never really looked at mother Teresa. That is very interesting, I'm gonna have to check that out.
You have to feel sorry for these people. I mean you don't have to, but I kinda do. You devote your whole life to something, the things you taught your children, the people you associate with, everything about your life could be built around this one single false concept. And then you realize it isn't true.
Some of the pastors in the study were trying to get out, trying to find a new career, realizing at the same time that doing so would cost them everything they know, their friends, even in most cases their spouses and families.
Some of them figure it's just too late. They have no plans to leave their profession, churches, congregations, they just pretend, and fully intend to go on pretending.
It isn't really surprising to me, because I've known pastors before who admitted to me that they didn't believe. They tried to justify themselves though, and maybe I was too young then to understand.
In looking at this study though, I kinda started thinking, why not? It's all a game anyway. People want to feel good, they don't really care about truth or facts and they have little to no appreciation for real honesty. They pay the man, he puts on a good show for them, they leave happy.
The pastors aren't really happy, though. Some of them are truly miserable in their loneliness. Most of their spouses don't even have a clue, and the pastors feel it necessary to keep up the charade at all times.
God means:.... pain, suffering, ignorance, starvation, squalor, murder, anger, ethnic cleansing, war, death, rage, jealousy, hate, superstition, frustration, bigotry.........and possibly the destruction of most life on this planet!
Christians believe in salvation not all who believe God IS...believes in salvation..
I sense selective reasoning. Still any concept of God is nonsensical no matter how much one tries to qualify it.
Selective?..please explain your insult..thanks
My explanation is that you used reason to point out the glitch in my assertion about salvation, but you refuse to use reason to see the glitches in your beliefs. Selective reasoning.
What is your definition of Salvation?
And people call me vague..
Just what point are you arguing now? I agree with you, I understand that some people's definition of God does not include salvation. So why, then, do I need to explain the definition of salvation? And just what does that last sentence have to do with anything, except to imply that you are an emotional thinker, rather than rational. In other words, you don't have to get snippy.
BTW, If this somehow helps you with the vagueness, then here it is:
Salvation-n ~ Preservation or deliverance from destruction, difficulty, or evil.
Because you wrote this:
"My explanation is that you used reason to point out the glitch in my assertion about salvation, but you refuse to use reason to see the glitches in your beliefs. Selective reasoning."
You mentioned your assertion about salvation as a glitch then you said there were glitches in MY beliefs..I wanted you to explain what assertions you made and what my glitches are.
Why is every question thought of as an argument?
And it was vague for me that's why I asked.
I'm aware that there are some religions that don't see salvation as a tenet of their beliefs. There are some religions that don't even have a devil, etc, but the culture, in which I was reared, salvation is the main aspect of the religion. But, after reading your opposition, I understand that I was looking at it from a micro, and not macro perspective. I concur.
Suffice it to say that the belief in a God makes no sense to me, because there is no real definition of this term then. Your definition does not change my perspective, for it is your opinion, or the opinions of a Dogma. There are just some things we don't know yet, and some things we may never know.
Deborah Sexton wrote:
"God=All that is, was, or will be.logic and reasoning.not an old man sitting on a throne."
Deborah, your definition is kinda tricky, because what you are describing, to me, is The Universe.
Well, then stop worrying about us who do believe in God..
Thanks for commenting..
So your answer to the TITLE question is=Nothing..
Actually, in the thinking you're using yes Qwark thinks is complete nonsense. How if you ask Qwark who is in control of his life? He would say that he is, therefore he is "GOD" of his own life and makes decisions accordingly.
Just my thought about Qwark. It could be completely off base, but I don't think so.
It means nothing to me except in the areas of concern I listed earlier in this forum.
The real and true "me" buried deep inside me and covered hopelessly by my "I"ness.
I like that! Thanks for sharing your perspective.
That almost could line up with the anonymous pastor the study quoted. God is defined as a search, not a higher being.
Non-existent entity whose definition/explanation changes as per religion, theist or any random person.
Thanks Maranda for sharing your viewpoint. It seems from this thread and others that alot of people believe in a god, but not really any specific god. Interesting perspective. Thanks for posting!
Spiritual beliefs are contrary to many structured religious teachings. If you find the word ‘God’ uncomfortable, please substitute this with ‘Life’ or ‘Love’ because truly they are all one and the same.
It can take time to understand what spirituality really is. Certainly our conditioning hasn’t encouraged the understanding of vital truths. And these truths are: we’ve always been creating our own reality. Our salvation has never been ‘something outside of ourselves’ – this responsibility and connection to life comes from within.
Actually, "OH" technically comes first. Then again, when a woman could be saying that and at the same time...c*mming at the same time, which means two things actually "COME" before "GOD".
Well if god is a man and like all men he would cum first!!
Can I say that?
Dude, you guys totally hijacked my thread and turned it into a public orgy.
(When I'm having sex, my man is my god. Oh god yes, oh god, oh yes god, yes, yes, yes, oh god!)
Actually I don't scream god when I'm having sex, but it sounded good.
Carry on, feel free, I think I'm almost done here anyway.
People in AA used GOD as an acronym for "good orderly direction". I like that idea.
Fear: The Buddhist system of religion do not believe in the concept of a personal God. The theory of Buddhism rejects the notion of an abstract principle of God operating in the universe. They rather believe that the concept of God is a response to fear and frustration. According to the Buddhist ideology, when primitive humans found themselves in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals and of natural phenomena like thunder and lightning, they created the idea of Gods to console themselves.
by Cecilia 4 years ago
This is my theory, it inspires hate because none of us really fully understands G-d, and we cling on to that little shred of our actual understanding. When somebody threatens to confuse that understanding we get protective and combative. I will try."GOD" as a word inspires hate because...
by Ron Hooft 8 years ago
Define the word "god".
by andrew savage 6 years ago
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...
by God shet 4 years ago
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music."~ Friedrich NietzscheSuppose you have never seen a tiger cub. You were born and brought up in a city, while spending most of your time in education and in preparation for your future...
by Emile R 5 years ago
I just read a comment in the forum about meeting God. The exact statement was If you believe you've met God (and this is a generic statement) and that God has shown you the true way it's very very difficult to even get most people to show flexibility . This attitude appears to permeate the...
by Jonathan Janco 7 years ago
Someone once said something to the effect of 'Heaven is what you want it to be and Hell is what you make of it', or something like that. I believe we have something of a dual consciousness once we're no longer a physical manifestation. We witness a dark realm where we judge ourselves for what we...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|