What do Christians mean by ''God''?

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

I used to go to a Catholic school and I wondered why other students were able to have a connection to ''God'', whereas I didn't feel anything. Looking back I think it was partly because I had no idea of what they meant when they talked about God - to be honest, I still don't. It makes debating with Christians very difficult because they can simply change their definition of God whenever it suits them, and say ''Oh no, we didn't mean that''.

So what do Christians consider God to be? Seeing as they base their entire lives around it, they must have some idea of what they're talking about. Surely they can't say claim that He is the reason for living and then not have any clue who He is; I have a friend who claims to be able to communicate with Him (why is god always male? :huh:) and I find that pretty odd. Is it a God with human qualities? Is it a concept? Is it an unknowable force that resides in another dimension that lies beyond human grasp?

What do they mean?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't think you're going to get a straight answer out of any Christians - if God is defined, then one can determine whether such a being thus defined actually exists or not. Since they know they have no evidence, Christians are usually careful to keep God's properties sufficiently vague so as to be difficult to pin down in such a manner.

[9]

Haha, yeah, good luck with this. If you asked a religious Jew, he/she would probably tell you that God is "all" and also is "nothing". "He is that He is" would be a likely response. Convenient, right?
Of course, I realize you were not asking for Judaism's conception of God, but I highly suspect that Christians will provide a similar answer, so..
/in before the Christians!

[mikelepore]

The ancient concepts of Prime Mover and First Cause are still used frequently by Christians. Among educated Christians, God has some similarity to the Greek concept of cosmos, the rational order of the universe, the laws of nature. The source of moral laws - Christians often argue that there would be no basis for anything being good or evil if God didn't decree it to be one or the other. God is a meticulous accountant who pays attention to how many times everyone has done something evil, like pronouncing a curse word, because each one of these actions causes God to feel pain. A being that it would be pleasant to be "close" to in the afterlife, so that heaven is defined as "closeness to God" and hell is "distance from God." A power who intervenes regularly in the world with miracles, so that people pray for ordinary things like safety during a travel, or to help an athlete win a competition.

My parents raised me as a Catholic. Catholicism has some unique characteristics among Christians demoninations. One of them is the somberness of religion, for example, a bewilderment at why the Baptists think hand-clapping music is sacred, when clearly it's classical organ music that sacred. Another thing about Catholics is the absense of the ability to be "saved" permanently -- you could be the holiest person in the world, but if just once you look at Playboy, and then you die before you had a chance to get to confession, you're going to hell. Evangelicalism is different in that you get to be "born again" and then you can tell all your friends that you are "saved", so your eternal salvation will have much less dependence on what was the very last thing that you did just before your heart stopped.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

I don't think you're going to get a straight answer out of any Christians - if God is defined, then one can determine whether such a being thus defined actually exists or not. Since they know they have no evidence, Christians are usually careful to keep God's properties sufficiently vague so as to be difficult to pin down in such a manner.

Exactly what I was thinking.


If you asked a religious Jew, he/she would probably tell you that God is "all" and also is "nothing". "He is that He is" would be a likely response.

That's the type of response I find frustrating because it doesn't give enough substance or clarity on which to base a debate.


The source of moral laws - Christians often argue that there would be no basis for anything being good or evil if God didn't decree it to be one or the other.


This is another issue I have with the Christian faith. The fact that it doesn't allow for any moral uncertainty or 'grey areas', it just separates everything into categories of good and evil. My psychologist friend would probably call it 'polarization' or 'black and white thinking'.

How can someone declare their ''love'' for something when they can't clearly define what the object of their love actually is? This is puzzling me because I've heard so many Christians talk about God in this way.

And why is it that Christians give God the human characteristic of ''goodness''? God is supposed to be something good, but how would anyone know whether God was benevolent or not? For a start, you're giving a human characteristic to something you describe as un-human and the concept of what's 'good' and 'bad' has been created by humans according to the society in which they live. God can't be good because goodness is a human invention.

Sorry for my rambling - I'm sort of thinking out loud. :blushing:

[danyboy27]

i think its safe to assume that most christian think of god has an omnipotent being without real material form, he have a plan for all of us, etc etc.

personally i think the definition of the imaginary friend dosnt really change much about the real issue: its an imaginary friend.

[Rosa Provokateur]

It's a difficult question to answer because each person's view of Him is different. I view God as a source of wisdom, the last and best place to go when in need of help, the Creator and Designer of existence, and a source of conviction that fuels me to push for a beter world.

[Muzk]

*vomits*

...

Every christian I've met saw god as something different - this just shows that noone really cares about the bible or any rules anymore

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, as we can see from this thread, they mean absolutely nothing at all:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/history-christianity-t115173/index3.html

[ChrisK]

When I was a Christian I believed God was an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving being.

Then I realized that those three can't work together.

[Rosa Provokateur]

*vomits*

...

Every christian I've met saw god as something different - this just shows that noone really cares about the bible or any rules anymore

It's a sad fact, these days people either ignore the Bible or take every word of it fanatically literal. I dream of the day we can learn to read it in the context of the times, places, and languages it was written in.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's a sad fact, these days people either ignore the Bible or take every word of it fanatically literal. I dream of the day we can learn to read it in the context of the times, places, and languages it was written in.

And on that day, Christianity will be dead.

[Rosa Provokateur]

And on that day, Christianity will be dead.

As it should be, Christianity gets in the way of people following God.

[Manifesto]

What is with everybody calling God a guy?

[ChrisK]

What is with everybody calling God a guy?

Because a woman wouldn't have screwed up this badly.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

As it should be, Christianity gets in the way of people following God.

And how do you know that? Do you claim to know the mind of God?

[Manifesto]

Because a woman wouldn't have screwed up this badly.
I think its just dumb to associate God with genders. That doesn't make any sense! What is God going to have genitalia or something?

[ChrisK]

I think its just dumb to associate God with genders. That doesn't make any sense! What is God going to have genitalia or something?

And I was cracking a joke.

[Manifesto]

And I was cracking a joke.
I know I was just saying how it doesn't make sense and your post was the only one that had more than the word "he" in it.

[9]

I think its just dumb to associate God with genders.

You may want to take this up with.........
the bible.

[Manifesto]

You may want to take this up with.........
the bible.
Yeah I know it says "he" multiple times.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

As it should be, Christianity gets in the way of people following God.

I do see your point. There's definitely a lack of depth (and logic) in most modern forms of Christianity. Specifically, I'm thinking of the evangelicals who sing ''I need u Jesus, uuu rock...''. Religion is never going to be trendy, please stop trying to make it seem edgy and new. :closedeyes:

And I have no idea why God is always 'Him'. The word 'it' would be better.

[Robert]

Mark Twain was mostly right when he wrote (I paraphrase) that "the folly of religion that one is born into, one will die into."

But that is only a basis for rejecting religion, not God. There are far too many prominent, coherent, and powerful minds in history who accepted God, some after much thought and internal debate, for me to reject Him (okay, "HER", are you happy?) simply because I personally can't define it any better than what mikelpore anticipates above: 1) primordial cause and
2) source of moral law.

Jesus of Nazareth, Augustine, Aquinas, Martin Luther, Gandhi and Martin Luther King, just as examples, all thought about God nearly to the exclusion of everything else. All were deeply intelligent and spoke with more power and insight than anything I see authored or cited around here (no offense, as some of the presumably atheist writers here are terrific, especially Braun and *Red* Alert [what's with those asterisks?]).

Moreover, at least three of them used God as justifying, indeed requiring, their support for the same social causes supported by Revleft. I realize that that doesn't prove anything, but this alignment between them and you, or what you claim to be, leads me to wonder again: were they all madmen? I personally just can't get there, though this seems the only conclusion any bona fide atheist can reach. I think that one of the two (you or they) is simply mistaken, though no human has the faculties to prove it to either side's satisfaction.

So ... where can I get a beer?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

1) primordial cause

Rendered irrelevant through simple parsimony.


2) source of moral law.

There are far superior moral systems than that derived from the "Word of God".


Jesus of Nazareth, Augustine, Aquinas, Martin Luther, Gandhi and Martin Luther King, just as examples, all thought about God nearly to the exclusion of everything else. All were deeply intelligent and spoke with more power and insight than anything I see authored or cited around here (no offense, as some of the presumably atheist writers here are terrific, especially Braun and *Red* Alert [what's with those asterisks?]).

Moreover, at least three of them used God as justifying, indeed requiring, their support for the same social causes supported by Revleft. I realize that that doesn't prove anything, but this alignment between them and you, or what you claim to be, leads me to wonder again: were they all madmen?

No, just mistaken.


I personally just can't get there, though this seems the only conclusion any bona fide atheist can reach. I think that one of the two (you or they) is simply mistaken, though no human has the faculties to prove it to either side's satisfaction.

If that were the case, nobody would ever change their religion (or lack thereof).

[Robert]

There are far superior moral systems than that derived from the "Word of God".Far more satisfying, perhaps. "Superior"? Hard to prove, especially if they all boil down to "love thy neighbor," which is what true communists believe, I think. In which case ... they're all the same. Is there a particular superior moral system that is affirmatively atheist?

I can't think of any particular absurdity in Christianity, btw, and I admit there are a few, that undercut its moral message. The Sermon on the Mount did not speak to virgin births, immaculate conceptions (not the same thing), resurrections, or miracles.


If that were the case, nobody would ever change their religion (or lack thereof). Well, I invoked Mark Twain at the beginning of my last post for that very proposition. I left a loophole for those relatively few people reared Christian who become Buddhist and vice versa, but by and large I do maintain that that is "the case." At least that is my observation.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Far more satisfying, perhaps. "Superior"? Hard to prove, especially if they all boil down to "love thy neighbor," which is what true communists believe, I think. In which case ... they're all the same. Is there a particular superior moral system that is affirmatively atheist?

Try Secular Humanism. The superior thing about it is that it doesn't put some unproven "god" at the forefront of everything, and emphasises doing good for it's own sake rather than for some post-death reward or punishment.


I can't think of any particular absurdity in Christianity, btw, and I admit there are a few, that undercut its moral message. The Sermon on the Mount did not speak to virgin births, immaculate conceptions (not the same thing), resurrections, or miracles.

If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out? Taken on a purely literal level, I don't see what's to be gained by self-mutilation, which is generally considered pathological these days. As for any allegorical meaning... subjective interpretation is hardly a rock-solid basis for morality, is it? Just look at all the various sects of Christianity and their views with regards to OT law. A lot of them love to harp on about homosexuality being a sin, but they seem to place no emphasis on the other stuff like not wearing mixed fabrics or eating shellfish. This picking and choosing of which Bible verses to adhere to and which to ignore is especially amusing in light of Christian accusations of atheists lacking any moral foundation.


Well, I invoked Mark Twain at the beginning of my last post for that very proposition. I left a loophole for those relatively few people reared Christian who become Buddhist and vice versa, but by and large I do maintain that that is "the case." At least that is my observation.

Well, it certainly isn't easy to overcome childhood indoctrination and a lifetime of accultration into what is still, regrettably, a mostly Christian society. This is especially true of the US where atheists are commonly depicted as immoral monsters.

[ChrisK]

I know I was just saying how it doesn't make sense and your post was the only one that had more than the word "he" in it.

Okay, got it. Well I agree with you, God definately wouldn't have a human gender.

[Zolken]

For the most part God is merely an exaggerated sense of self projected onto an imagined external entity.

[Robert]

For the most part God is merely an exaggerated sense of self projected onto an imagined external entity.

For the "most" part?

Okay. Now what?

[Robert]

This picking and choosing of which Bible verses to adhere to and which to ignore is especially amusing in light of Christian accusations of atheists lacking any moral foundation.On the cafeterianism afoot today, no argument. It's a real problem. I can only say that, yes, some of it clearly is metaphor (when Jesus is said to have said "Ye are the salt of the earth," do you think he was referring to Sodium Chloride?) As for the virgin birth, no Catholic thinks that this is metaphor. Frankly, I don't believe it, but I can't recall where even Jesus made that particular claim.

Now, atheists "lacking moral foundation" is hardly the same as "lacking morality," in case you believe we make that charge. But it's not exactly an "accusation." It's more a recognition or acknolwedgment. The atheist's source of moral law ("for its own sake") is at least as amorphous as the Christian's. And for whatever reason it is unsatisfying to many, including me.

I can no more fairly demand that you identify the source of your morality if "you just sense it" than you can demand I describe god to your satisfaction. That's what I meant earlier by "to the other's satisfaction."

Of course, in 20 years our roles may be reversed. That should be an interesting conversation.:lol:

[Rosa Provokateur]

What is with everybody calling God a guy?

I think it makes God more accessible to people; "He" and "She" are terms that make God more personal, I think "He" only came into dominant use because organized religion has always been largely made up of male-leadership.

I mean, imagine calling God "It". God might not be human but there's an aspect that just demands some kind of personification.

[Rosa Provokateur]

And how do you know that? Do you claim to know the mind of God?

I know it because it's been historically proven.

Example: People signed up to fight the Crusades because the Pope said Jerusalem needed to be taken back from the "infidel" occupation of the Muslims. This involved killing and the Church supported it. Had people been trying to follow Jesus instead of Christianity, they would've remembered Matthew 5:44-48.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I know it because it's been historically proven.

Example: People signed up to fight the Crusades because the Pope said Jerusalem needed to be taken back from the "infidel" occupation of the Muslims. This involved killing and the Church supported it. Had people been trying to follow Jesus instead of Christianity, they would've remembered Matthew 5:44-48.

What about Matthew 10:34? "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

Even old JC himself seemed to recognise that his teachings would bring war and strife.

You see, that's the problem with the Bible, and hence Jesus' teachings - it can be interpreted to suit anyone, pacifist to warmonger, left to right. It's heavily subjective and therefore, fucking useless except as a bunch of pretty words and myths. We should be treating the Bible on the same level as the Iliad, not as some kind of moral guide.

[Rosa Provokateur]

What about Matthew 10:34? "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

Even old JC himself seemed to recognise that his teachings would bring war and strife.

You see, that's the problem with the Bible, and hence Jesus' teachings - it can be interpreted to suit anyone, pacifist to warmonger, left to right. It's heavily subjective and therefore, fucking useless except as a bunch of pretty words and myths. We should be treating the Bible on the same level as the Iliad, not as some kind of moral guide.

Look at the context, he mentions acknowledging him in front of others and people who are close to you becoming your enemies. At that time you either had legalistic Judaism or Roman paganism so whether you were Jew or Gentile, it was a guarantee that Jesus' teachings were going to go against how other people looked at God.

Rather than re-affirm the old way of doing things or go into harmony with them, Jesus was saying that this was going to be radically different and that you risk losing relationships over it. Rather than be another movement peaceful towards the status-quo, Jesus was setting up the model for a society running contrary to things as they were then and are now.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Look at the context, he mentions acknowledging him in front of others and people who are close to you becoming your enemies. At that time you either had legalistic Judaism or Roman paganism so whether you were Jew or Gentile, it was a guarantee that Jesus' teachings were going to go against how other people looked at God.

Rather than re-affirm the old way of doing things or go into harmony with them, Jesus was saying that this was going to be radically different and that you risk losing relationships over it. Rather than be another movement peaceful towards the status-quo, Jesus was setting up the model for a society running contrary to things as they were then and are now.

And this little bit of history is relevant to today's problems how?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

ChristopherKoch:


Okay, got it. Well I agree with you, God definately wouldn't have a human gender.

The situation is in fact far worse than this; believers can tell us absolutely nothing about the nature of 'god', except they use other terms they cannot explain.

This means that 'god' is no different from 'nothing at all'.

[Robert]

This means that 'god' is no different from 'nothing at all'. I don't know that that follows. 100,000 years ago man couldn't detect viruses, electrons or magnetism either. Presumably he didn't even hypothesize their existence. Maybe we, as tiny plankton crawling around on a speck of dust, just aren't constituted to describe what we accept (not exactly the same as "believe") to be out there (or in here?) in some ... I started to say "form," but I dasn't.

Rosa, if this isn't too personal, could you share some of your thoughts concerning the faith of those Jesuits who, I think you mentioned in one of those dialectics threads, trained you in logic or perhaps philosophy? I hope you had a chance to debate these weighty issues with them and found their answers more intriguing than what we can offer here.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Robert:


I don't know that that follows. 100,000 years ago man couldn't detect viruses, electrons or magnetism either. Presumably he didn't even hypothesize their existence. Maybe we, as tiny plankton crawling around on a speck of dust, just aren't constituted to describe what we accept (not exactly the same as "believe") to be out there (or in here?) in some ... I started to say "form," but I dasn't.

Are you suggesting that if we had more powerful telescopes and/or microscopes, we could see 'god'-- or maybe detect 'him' with some sort of blood test, or magnetometer?

If not, what has this go to do with whether "god" is a meanigless term or not?


Rosa, if this isn't too personal, could you share some of your thoughts concerning the faith of those Jesuits who, I think you mentioned in one of those dialectics threads, trained you in logic or perhaps philosophy? I hope you had a chance to debate these weighty issues with them and found their answers more intriguing than what we can offer here.

They were Thomists, not Jesuits, and I was taught logic by one of the leading logicians on the planet, who was also a Thomist. He had a formidable intellect, and could wipe the floor with most non-Catholics.

I never got around to debating this with him, since the points I raise here did not occur to me until well after I left university.

[Robert]

Are you suggesting that if we had more powerful telescopes and/or microscopes, we could see 'god'-- or maybe detect 'him' with some sort of blood test, or magnetometer?Don't say "him." It's sexist. Kidding.

What I am suggesting is that there are realities of matter and energy and maybe even other "stuff" of the universe that our senses can't presently or will ever be able to detect, with or without a telescope. I doubt that roaches can describe viruses, Penal Codes, or jealousy.

Your point, I think, was that since believers cannot provide a "description" of god, then it follows that god is no different from nothing at all. This is what I question. I mean, it doesn't seem possible that there is a primordial cause which is neither matter nor energy (from my seat, it has to be neither) and therefore unsusceptible to measurement or description? Especially by an Earth-bound mammal?

Before you pounce, let me acknowledge that there is no "reason" to assume that, since one cannot prove that there is no god, then it follows that there must be or even probably is one. I get that.

For me, the concept of a universe without some primordial cause (by which I do not at all claim must be the God of Abraham) is marginally more absurd than the concept of a universe without one. I'll deny a primordial cause when I am satisfied that there isn't one.

One other thing: do you imagine your Thomists would be so formidable in the area of logic but would fall apart in the area of theology?

In the meantime, why not join me in a few bars of O Salutaris?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What I am suggesting is that there are realities of matter and energy and maybe even other "stuff" of the universe that our senses can't presently or will ever be able to detect, with or without a telescope. I doubt that roaches can describe viruses, Penal Codes, or jealousy.

If such things are beyond human experience, even vicariously, why even bother with them?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Robert:


Don't say "him." It's sexist. Kidding.

That's why I used 'him' not him.


What I am suggesting is that there are realities of matter and energy and maybe even other "stuff" of the universe that our senses can't presently or will ever be able to detect, with or without a telescope. I doubt that roaches can describe viruses, Penal Codes, or jealousy.

But, we can form some conception of the things you mention; we can form no conception of 'god'.

And, notice, I am not claiming we can't experience 'god', but that we can form no idea at all what anyone could possibly mean when they use this empty word -- and neither can they.

And I am not using "idea" as a synonym for "mental image".

What I mean is that for all the sense it makes, we might as well be using the word "schmod".


Your point, I think, was that since believers cannot provide a "description" of god, then it follows that god is no different from nothing at all. This is what I question. I mean, it doesn't seem possible that there is a primordial cause which is neither matter nor energy (from my seat, it has to be neither) and therefore unsusceptible to measurement or description? Especially by an Earth-bound mammal?

No, my challenge is far more radical: that is, that we have no idea what that description would be about; so a description of 'god' would be no use at all, since it would have to use the empty word "god", making that description itself about something we can form no conception of. And, neither can believers.

So, as far as we are concerned, "god" is no different from "nothing at all" -- except, it is far worse, since, in many contexts, we can understand the phrase "nothing at all".


I mean, it doesn't seem possible that there is a primordial cause which is neither matter nor energy (from my seat, it has to be neither) and therefore unsusceptible to measurement or description? Especially by an Earth-bound mammal?

There may be, there may not. That's up to the scientists to decide -- and they might never be able to answer this.

But, this cannot be 'god' since that word is empty.

So, if you were to say "God is/might be this cause" you would be uttering a meaningless sentence, since it contains at least one empty term, namely "god".


Before you pounce, let me acknowledge that there is no "reason" to assume that, since one cannot prove that there is no god, then it follows that there must be or even probably is one. I get that.

Again, my challenge is even more radical than this, for even if an atheist were to say "I can prove god does not exist", he/she would be uttering a meaningless sentence, since it too would contain an empty word, "god".


For me, the concept of a universe without some primordial cause (by which I do not at all claim must be the God of Abraham) is marginally more absurd than the concept of a universe without one. I'll deny a primordial cause when I am satisfied that there isn't one.

Then, you are using "god" as a solution to a scientific, not a religious problem, and you are doing it on the cheap -- for there might not be such a 'cause', and the universe might be 'absurd', as you put it.

But, even then, since you can tell us nothing about this 'object' (you cannot even tell us whether it is an object of not) -- it is for you no different from "nothing at all".

Anyway, why should the universe make sense just to satisfy you?


One other thing: do you imagine your Thomists would be so formidable in the area of logic but would fall apart in the area of theology?

My old professor was formidable in both areas; Thomists in general are, too. They are by far and away the most formidable Christian thinkers, at least, of which I am aware.


In the meantime, why not join me in a few bars of O Salutaris?

I'd rather go on a bar crawl singing "O please, give me a break...!"

[Robert]

Thomists in general are, too. They are by far and away the most formidable Christian thinkers, at least, of which I am aware.

After moi, you mean. :lol:

Hey, I'd like to read some of their stuff, if they write. Or the stuff they read. Other than the Bible and all my posts on Revleft. Can you cite me to some?

[9]

we might as well be using the word "schmod".

:)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Robert:


Hey, I'd like to read some of their stuff, if they write. Or the stuff they read. Other than the Bible and all my posts on Revleft. Can you cite me to some?

Well, if you'd have asked me this many years ago, I could have reeled a load off to you, but I am not so well up on this these days -- thankfully.

Let's see: 'God and the Soul' by Peter Geach, 'Providence' and 'Miracles' by the same author.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Geach

'He Who Is' by E L Mascall...

http://www.questia.com/library/book/he-who-is-a-study-in-traditional-theism-by-e-l-b-d-mascall.jsp

'The Openness of Being' by Mascall:

http://www.giffordlectures.org/Author.asp?AuthorID=122

His other work can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lionel_Mascall

More here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomism

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14698b.htm

[Robert]

Thank you!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sorry, Prof Geach's book is not 'Miracles', but 'Virtues'.

[JimFar]

To add to Rosa's list of books on Thomism, there is also Jacques Maritain's book, An Introduction to Philosophy,which can be previewed on Google, at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=PzUnH4Z0APsC&lpg=PP1&client=firefox-a&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q=&f=false