Why call "God" God...?

[I AM]

So if I were to take this, ". . . why discuss something you know you can't understand or comprehend? Why not just let is be?" and also tack on a "why discuss something you don't even believe in?", would the answer still be, "I'm playing devil's advocate here"?

Yep.

And nineweotihweoti whatever the fuck.....you're an idiot. go back to school and learn the basics of the English language and grammar.

This is half the reason I don't come in here, cause people argue on some biblical shit rather than thinking logically.

All words are labels. Every fucking word. WORD is a label. Ya fucking tard.

I can't talk to people who don't understand basic concepts. No wonder I tend to not talk to religious people

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Yep.

And nineweotihweoti whatever the fuck.....you're an idiot. go back to school and learn the basics of the English language and grammar.

This is half the reason I don't come in here, cause people argue on some biblical shit rather than thinking logically.

All words are labels. Every fucking word. WORD is a label. Ya fucking tard.

I can't talk to people who don't understand basic concepts. No wonder I tend to not talk to religious people

Then why are you using them at all? If words are labels and labels are bad, then stop talking. And are you incapable of holding a discussion without deviating into personal attacks? I don't know where you got this "argue on some biblical shit" nonsense. I haven't said anything remotely biblical. Nothing I've said even counts as "religious."

 

[askG]

i thought heresy was god

 

[AKAZIE]

Gold Oil Drugs


enough said.

 

[I AM]

Then why are you using them at all? If words are labels and labels are bad, then stop talking. And are you incapable of holding a discussion without deviating into personal attacks? I don't know where you got this "argue on some biblical shit" nonsense. I haven't said anything remotely biblical. Nothing I've said even counts as "religious."

Well, I beg to differe on you not saying anything that counts as religious but that's fine.

And yes, I can. You obviously haven't seen me personally attack anyone. Or you wouldn't have said that. lol.

And, you finally got to the point I was thinking too.

If ALL words are labels, why the fuck do we talk about anything? To communicate ideas and thoughts and feelings. BUT....that's also MANIPULATION at the same time.

most of the time when you're speaking, you're (anyone, not just you) manipulating at some level.

By the way, I already mentioned why talk about stuff....in one of my earlier posts. I guess you missed that since I didn't direct it specifically to you.

I'd like to have a legitimate, civil, conversation about this to be honest. But at the same time, I'm not going to back down on something I think I am right about unless you come at me with a logical argument and explain it articulately.

 

[ThaG]

 

[I AM]

God's name isn't "God." And your name meaning, "little king" doesn't make you a little king. That is just some etymological consideration. The being we refer to as "God" is what we mean by "God." It isn't just some arbitrary label that God's mother calls Him. Do you understand the difference?

Prove the bold part And I'll never talk again.

I know the meaning of my name doesn't make me that.

But when I look up "God" in the dictionary and it says "All things making up the universe"....That's a meaning. Just like my name. That doesn't mean God makes up everything in the universe. That's just an opinion. Much like the meaning of names.

I've actually posted about this before, but names, in all reality, I think are stupid. But it would be too hard for moronic humans to differentiate between people without labeling them. Much like the different God's that different religions believe in.

If I may ask, what IS the Christian God's name? God right? Ok...

So you got islam, christianity, judaism and catholicism....all reletively similar minus a few key part....but their "God" is all pretty much "God."

Allah, means GOD. Unless I'm trippin, correct me if I am wrong.

But Buddhism and Hinduism dont' call their "god" God. They have actual names.

I just find it interesting that's all.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Well, I beg to differe on you not saying anything that counts as religious but that's fine.

If you beg to differ, then show it.

And yes, I can. You obviously haven't seen me personally attack anyone. Or you wouldn't have said that. lol.

Calling someone an idiot or a "tard." Do you feel this helps your argument?

And, you finally got to the point I was thinking too.

If ALL words are labels, why the fuck do we talk about anything? To communicate ideas and thoughts and feelings. BUT....that's also MANIPULATION at the same time.

If this is your point, then why didn't you make that the topic of your thread? In any case, although language is limited, I don't see the value in negating it altogether. And to use words to try and explain why we shouldn't use words is self-defeating.

most of the time when you're speaking, you're (anyone, not just you) manipulating at some level.

That's fine. This has no practical application, especially on a message board.

By the way, I already mentioned why talk about stuff....in one of my earlier posts. I guess you missed that since I didn't direct it specifically to you.

Maybe I did. I have actually been responding in regard to your initial post, which I safely assume to be the topic of this thread you created.

I'd like to have a legitimate, civil, conversation about this to be honest. But at the same time, I'm not going to back down on something I think I am right about unless you come at me with a logical argument and explain it articulately.

I've actually made and implied logical arguments. You act as if I've just been saying, "you're wrong!" this whole time, which is confusing to me. I think we'd do better in this conversation if we were to address what the other is saying, specifically. So far you seem to be glossing over what I write and then implying that I haven't said anything. This is very counter-productive.

 

[HERESY]

.

How does your picture relate to the topic?

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Prove the bold part And I'll never talk again.

I know the meaning of my name doesn't make me that.

But when I look up "God" in the dictionary and it says "All things making up the universe"....That's a meaning. Just like my name. That doesn't mean God makes up everything in the universe. That's just an opinion. Much like the meaning of names.

For one, "All things making up the universe" is not the standard definition of "God." This is some pantheist/monist concept. I agree that, in terms of pantheism, "God" is merely an arbitrary label, similar to how our names are for us. But you didn't clarify that this is what you meant by "God" in your initial post. When someone starts talking about God, it is commonly assumed they mean the standard definition - a supreme being in distinction of the universe - unless otherwise clarified. To go further and conclude that what we call "God" is actually just the universe in its entirety is to invariably negate the original concept we had that we were calling "God." Id est, pantheism is non-theism plus arbitrary "God" label.

Secondly, however God is defined (in a pantheistic or traditional theistic manner) if the being to which you refer does not meet the qualifications of that definition, then it isn't God. Plain and simple. "God" is not equivalent to your name. A better analogy would be to compare "God" to you being "human." No matter how many times you change your name, you are human. Those letters, h-u-m-a-n, do not refer to an arbitrary label that your parents or anyone else decided to call you. The same goes for the letter combination, G-o-d. If someone asks you if you believe in God, do you answer in regard to whether or not you know someone named "God"? If you do, then you don't understand the question.

I've actually posted about this before, but names, in all reality, I think are stupid. But it would be too hard for moronic humans to differentiate between people without labeling them. Much like the different God's that different religions believe in.

The difference is that the so-called different Gods each have a different name. They are not all named "God" in the same way that we are not all named "human." We are classified as "human" because that word has a specific meaning and is not just some whimsical label. I ate a banana this morning. I didn't eat a pear that I simply called "banana." I ate an actual banana. I'll assume you know what I am talking about.

If I may ask, what IS the Christian God's name? God right? Ok...

No. "God" is a generic term referring to the supreme being.

So you got islam, christianity, judaism and catholicism....all reletively similar minus a few key part....but their "God" is all pretty much "God."

Yes. They are all referring to the supreme being, or God.

Allah, means GOD. Unless I'm trippin, correct me if I am wrong.

You are correct. Allah = God in the same way manzana = apple. If you have a fruit that is oblong, yellow and has a thick peel, this doesn't merely fall short of "apple" but we call it that anyway. It isn't an apple, at all.

But Buddhism and Hinduism dont' call their "god" God. They have actual names.

I just find it interesting that's all.

There are generic terms for God in Hinduism. Brahman is one, although it refers to a more impersonal conception of the Supreme Absolute Truth. Whereas Parabrahman and Bhagavan refer to God, personally.

 

[I AM]

For one, "All things making up the universe" is not the standard definition of "God." This is some pantheist/monist concept. I agree that, in terms of pantheism, "God" is merely an arbitrary label, similar to how our names are for us. But you didn't clarify that this is what you meant by "God" in your initial post. When someone starts talking about God, it is commonly assumed they mean the standard definition - a supreme being in distinction of the universe - unless otherwise clarified. To go further and conclude that what we call "God" is actually just the universe in its entirety is to invariably negate the original concept we had that we were calling "God." Id est, pantheism is non-theism plus arbitrary "God" label.

Secondly, however God is defined (in a pantheistic or traditional theistic manner) if the being to which you refer does not meet the qualifications of that definition, then it isn't God. Plain and simple. "God" is not equivalent to your name. A better analogy would be to compare "God" to you being "human." No matter how many times you change your name, you are human. Those letters, h-u-m-a-n, do not refer to an arbitrary label that your parents or anyone else decided to call you. The same goes for the letter combination, G-o-d. If someone asks you if you believe in God, do you answer in regard to whether or not you know someone named "God"? If you do, then you don't understand the question.




The difference is that the so-called different Gods each have a different name. They are not all named "God" in the same way that we are not all named "human." We are classified as "human" because that word has a specific meaning and is not just some whimsical label. I ate a banana this morning. I didn't eat a pear that I simply called "banana." I ate an actual banana. I'll assume you know what I am talking about.




No. "God" is a generic term referring to the supreme being.




Yes. They are all referring to the supreme being, or God.




You are correct. Allah = God in the same way manzana = apple. If you have a fruit that is oblong, yellow and has a thick peel, this doesn't merely fall short of "apple." It isn't an apple, at all.




There are generic terms for God in Hinduism. Brahman is one, although it refers to a more impersonal conception of the Supreme Absolute Truth. Whereas Parabrahman and Bhagavan refer to God, personally.

I'm at work, so that's why I don't get hella detailed like I use to and I got 5 things I'm thinking about tryina get this topic outta my head.

I don't stick to one topic, I evolve with the conversation.

You make good points, I'll try to respond more when I'm not busy. Which won't be until Monday cause I don't got the net at home right now!

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

I look forward to it. Have a good weekend.

 

[I AM]

For one, "All things making up the universe" is not the standard definition of "God." This is some pantheist/monist concept. I agree that, in terms of pantheism, "God" is merely an arbitrary label, similar to how our names are for us. But you didn't clarify that this is what you meant by "God" in your initial post. When someone starts talking about God, it is commonly assumed they mean the standard definition - a supreme being in distinction of the universe - unless otherwise clarified. To go further and conclude that what we call "God" is actually just the universe in its entirety is to invariably negate the original concept we had that we were calling "God." Id est, pantheism is non-theism plus arbitrary "God" label.[/quote[

Well, in the Bible God (from what I know, which isn't a lot) is described as the "brightest light" one can see. Or some mess like that. That, is essentially energy in it's purest form. That's science, energy is everywhere and never dies.

I just think it's interesting to see different view points and to try to understand someone else's way of thinking.

Secondly, however God is defined (in a pantheistic or traditional theistic manner) if the being to which you refer does not meet the qualifications of that definition, then it isn't God. Plain and simple. "God" is not equivalent to your name. A better analogy would be to compare "God" to you being "human." No matter how many times you change your name, you are human. Those letters, h-u-m-a-n, do not refer to an arbitrary label that your parents or anyone else decided to call you. The same goes for the letter combination, G-o-d. If someone asks you if you believe in God, do you answer in regard to whether or not you know someone named "God"? If you do, then you don't understand the question.

Good point. Although, "GOD" is just a label where as "supreme being" would be more equal to human in my opinion. But we could discuss that forever, lol.

The difference is that the so-called different Gods each have a different name. They are not all named "God" in the same way that we are not all named "human." We are classified as "human" because that word has a specific meaning and is not just some whimsical label. I ate a banana this morning. I didn't eat a pear that I simply called "banana." I ate an actual banana. I'll assume you know what I am talking about.

Christian and Catholic gods are named what then? God right? Jesus doesn't count. Let's not get into that side Yeah, I know what you're saying.

No. "God" is a generic term referring to the supreme being.

To which individual person or religion? I know you're speaking from your point of view, so one could argue that not everyone thinks that.

Yes. They are all referring to the supreme being, or God.

If I throw in the Pagan religion, they worshiped the sun as "God" but it wasn't a surpreme being as far as I understand.

You are correct. Allah = God in the same way manzana = apple. If you have a fruit that is oblong, yellow and has a thick peel, this doesn't merely fall short of "apple" but we call it that anyway. It isn't an apple, at all.

lol....what do I say to that?

There are generic terms for God in Hinduism. Brahman is one, although it refers to a more impersonal conception of the Supreme Absolute Truth. Whereas Parabrahman and Bhagavan refer to God, personally.

Buddhism then? They don't believe in God like Christians do. It's not about one supreme entity controlling everything, but that's just from my limited knowledge on religion.


So yeha, I got bored and said fuck doin work so I could reply.

Have a good weekend pimp!

 

[HERESY]

^^ This might help you a bit:

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=220

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Well, in the Bible God (from what I know, which isn't a lot) is described as the "brightest light" one can see. Or some mess like that. That, is essentially energy in it's purest form. That's science, energy is everywhere and never dies.

I just think it's interesting to see different view points and to try to understand someone else's way of thinking.

I do not think that "brightest light" is a complete definition of God, as per the Bible. In any case, to draw from this that "God" simply means energy is a bit of a leap. The relationship between God and energy is a very deep topic and pretty much defines our various brands of theism; e.g. monotheism, deism, pantheism, panentheism, pandeism, panendeism, etc. In Sanskrit terms, it boils down to variations of dvaita (dualism) and advaita (nondualism) philosophies. In general, advaitists believe that God has no separate existence from energy. They are often called Mayavadi because they believe that God as a distinct entity is a product of Maya - the illusory nature of the material world. Dvaitists, on the other hand, maintain that God is eternally distinct from energy. There is a sort of hybrid form of these philosophies that has taken various names in history. Most recently, it was referred to as achintya bhedabheda tattva, which means, "inconceivably one and different, simultaneously." That is to say, God is one with His energies and yet distinct from them at the same time. An analogy is sometimes used with the sun. The sun globe is distinct from the rays of sunshine, yet they are all the sun. It is not possible to separate the two. Still, when the sun is shining into your room, it is not that the sun globe itself is in your room. If that were the case, then your room would be finished - burnt up.

Good point. Although, "GOD" is just a label where as "supreme being" would be more equal to human in my opinion. But we could discuss that forever, lol.

There are probably some theists who regard "God" as if it were a name. I would say that these people are using the word incorrectly. I have never seen or heard of any Divine revelation where God tells anyone that His name is "God." God saying, "I am God" is construed as saying, "I am the supreme being."

Christian and Catholic gods are named what then? God right? Jesus doesn't count. Let's not get into that side Yeah, I know what you're saying.

I'd suggest asking a Protestant or Catholic Christian. Perhaps they'd say Jehovah or Yahweh, but perhaps there are problems with those answers. I don't really get into that seeing that I don't follow those particular traditions.

To which individual person or religion? I know you're speaking from your point of view, so one could argue that not everyone thinks that.

As I said, I have never seen or heard of alleged Divine revelation where God says, "My name is God."

If I throw in the Pagan religion, they worshiped the sun as "God" but it wasn't a surpreme being as far as I understand.

I would argue that the sun worship we typically interpret in the history of these "Pagan" religions is either directly representative of the worship of the supreme being (where the sun is seen as representing God) or it is merely ritual that has, over time, lost its original value in relation to the supreme being. I base this view on my understanding of Gayatri mantra and the prehistoric Vedic influences in the world, especially in those places where sun worship was prominent.

lol....what do I say to that?

I think we just have different experiences with how people use the word "God." I'll admit that there is often a lot of ambiguity around the term. Debates on the matter often boil down to defining what we mean by "God."

Buddhism then? They don't believe in God like Christians do. It's not about one supreme entity controlling everything, but that's just from my limited knowledge on religion.

It depends on the school of Buddhism. The Theravada school is atheistic whereas the Mahayana school is theistic and devotional. Different people interpret the Buddha's teachings and purpose in different ways. For instance, Hindus often regard him as an avatar of God (Vishnu). Their teaching is that the Buddha tricked the atheists by appealing to their atheism and then getting them to follow him. In other words, atheists following God. Needless to say, Buddhists (especially Theravadin) reject this idea. Here is an article on the historicity of Buddhism that I have found rather enlightening: http://www.salagram.net/BhaktiAnandaGoswami-Buddha.html

So yeha, I got bored and said fuck doin work so I could reply.

Have a good weekend pimp!

Thanks.

 

[ThaG]

How does your picture relate to the topic?

show me why it doesn't

 

[HERESY]

show me why it doesn't

I shouldn't have to show you what you're oblivious to. However, the thread title and first post in this thread are great places to start.

 

[I AM]

I think we just have different experiences with how people use the word "God." I'll admit that there is often a lot of ambiguity around the term. Debates on the matter often boil down to defining what we mean by "God."

I didn't wanna highlight all of it. But from my understanding, "God" can only be energy. Because that's the only thing that is within everything in the universe. Energy never dies, it's recycled so to speak. Along with humans, when we die, the energy in our bodies doesn't die, from my understanding it just recycles back into the universe within other energy.

As for what I did quote, I agree. We could argue all day, and debate all day, but until we define the word, label or whatever, "God" we can't have an even playing field. But at least we know where the other is coming from, and that's half the issue, understanding someone else's point of view.

I figured I'd get one educated and/or civil person reply to me. You happen to be that person, so I appreciate it.

I'll look into the link.

As far as Pagans, I think they were more inteligent and connected to the Earth than modern religious people. I just feel that those who are connected to the Earth and planet (almost in a hippy sense but not quite) are more in tune with the universe and any so called "God" if it does or doesn't exist.

But that's based on my experience with religious people, and 95% of the ones I've met are fake as fuck.

What religoin do you practice? Or do you practice?

I have no label for my beliefs, I'm sure someone else has thought of them, but it's a mix of a bunch of ideas or labels. Most people think you can only have one, but that's cause they are closed minded and don't understand the universe is infinite, just like stupid humans.

 

[Merciedez]

i'm a god your a god, everyone is a god...

we make, create, destroy, recycle, re-calibrate objects to assist in what we need or don't want...the level of where one-thing is the ultimate creators, is really simplifying our existence...and reducing ourselves to mere pawns.

and with all the egos out on the universe...i'd like to think we respect each other creative side, and hope we don't destroy each in the process.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

I didn't wanna highlight all of it. But from my understanding, "God" can only be energy. Because that's the only thing that is within everything in the universe. Energy never dies, it's recycled so to speak. Along with humans, when we die, the energy in our bodies doesn't die, from my understanding it just recycles back into the universe within other energy.

I would say that what you're talking about is pantheism. I consider pantheism to be as much a form of theism as atheism is a form of theism. The reason is that pantheism is nothing more than calling the universe "god" or redefining "god" as what we call the universe. What a pantheist is essentially saying is that the greatest entity in existence is the universe. This is what atheists say, as well.

As for what I did quote, I agree. We could argue all day, and debate all day, but until we define the word, label or whatever, "God" we can't have an even playing field. But at least we know where the other is coming from, and that's half the issue, understanding someone else's point of view.

Yeah.

I figured I'd get one educated and/or civil person reply to me. You happen to be that person, so I appreciate it.

These sort of topics are the most important, in my opinion.

I'll look into the link.

As far as Pagans, I think they were more inteligent and connected to the Earth than modern religious people. I just feel that those who are connected to the Earth and planet (almost in a hippy sense but not quite) are more in tune with the universe and any so called "God" if it does or doesn't exist.

I prefer religion that is in tune with the earth as an extension of God. But yeah, I agree that many who you're calling "modern religious people" view and treat the earth and other creatures as if they are something to be dominated and enjoyed. The theistic majority have a bad wrap for being ignorantly anthropocentric. Their idea is that God has provided everything for humans to exploit. This is a common but not necessary idea in modern theism. Actually, what all these theists fail to understand is that by trying to be controllers and enjoyers of this material nature, they are simply keeping themselves in illusion. In this way, their professed theism is merely a device they use to make themselves feel better or to justify their passionate, materialistic endeavors.

But that's based on my experience with religious people, and 95% of the ones I've met are fake as fuck.

Some may be fake and some may just be attached to the ritual of religion without really understanding the purport. One who mechanically goes through the motions but lacks realization may not be fake (i.e. he may be genuine in his pursuit), but he is certainly missing the value that religion promotes.

What religoin do you practice? Or do you practice?

I follow Gaudiya Vaisnavism. This is better known as "Hare Krishna." I've been studying this since late '02. In fact, I was introduced to it by someone who used to frequent this message board.

I have no label for my beliefs, I'm sure someone else has thought of them, but it's a mix of a bunch of ideas or labels. Most people think you can only have one, but that's cause they are closed minded and don't understand the universe is infinite, just like stupid humans.

I don't think it is necessarily a problem to have a name for your ideas or beliefs. For example, my deciding to be a "Gaudiya Vaisnava" does not limit my thinking or make me closed minded at all. I can still entertain all ideas and consider what sort of world view each requires to make sense.