What God is NOT

[itachi4real]

So you believe Christianity is the first religion to believe in God?

Nooo im saying this is when these bulls*** lies came about....like jesus walking on water(a damn human)

 

[hixa kuogame]

Legit these are the only responses to this thread :snick:

No clue what OP was shooting for, but it's safe to say the mark was missed.

Idk man
If the thread didn't pertain to you or you were inept to post what was ask, then maybe you shouldn't have posted at all

 

[Cosman]

Nooo im saying this is when these bulls*** lies came about....like jesus walking on water(a damn human)

To be fair, humanity has used God or forms of gods to prove things long before Christianity came about.

Idk man
If the thread didn't pertain to you or you were inept to post what was ask, then maybe you shouldn't have posted at all

The thread didn't really pertain to anything at all, really. Just a long list. If there are no discussion points, the better question is why was the thread posted at all. The OP came in with a retarded sense of hostility. Like his thread was worthy of something more than a Morgan Freeman jpg.

The entire point of a thread is to start a discussion, and if the OP refuses to offer me one, I am more than free to take what I want from the subject matter and open a discussion.

My post was actually laughably on topic. That god can be anything and everything a human justifies as righteous.

I think Decker should feel honored he even got that much. Nigga got a rep and a thanks for nothing in particular and still complained.

 

[Cruciatus]

I....enjoyed this. Lol

 

[sagemode07]

Nooo im saying this is when these bulls*** lies came about....like jesus walking on water(a damn human)

-_-. I can't even dignify this logic with a proper response.

 

[Avani]

Reminds me of Neti Neti ( not this Not this ) in Hinduism. Approach to "brahamna" via negativa.

 

[Dreckerplayer]

Exactly bruh...this religion so called was used to control people...churches are nothing but corporations. Just think about it people only just started believing in god just over 2000 years ago meaning it was made up. The bible is nothing but a damn law book....i could get deep as hell into this s***

Read the entire thing. It's actually going against religions interpretation of what 'God' is.

That's the issue with that cookie monster face guy. He doesn't read.

 

[itachi4real]

Read the entire thing. It's actually going against religions interpretation of what 'God' is.

That's the issue with that cookie monster face guy. He doesn't read.

Ohhhhh alright

 

[hixa kuogame]

Waiii... I'm confused
Ha

 

[Cosman]

Reminds me of Neti Neti ( not this Not this ) in Hinduism. Approach to "brahamna" via negativa.

That theology is actually pretty expansive.

Read the entire thing. It's actually going against religions interpretation of what 'God' is.

That's the issue with that cookie monster face guy. He doesn't read.

I think the issue is you don't comprehend. God is a structure. As much and you and Rachel would like to perceive it as an open debate, you are talking about deity in specific, not the raw definition of the term God. The connotation of the word is every bit as intertwined with theism and linguistics as anything else, and sadly it has a very concrete definition.

God is a Supreme Being that has always expressed sapience within world religions. There are a few sects and religious routes that have provided a slightly more lose interpretation of God, but in modern day He is described as firstly a HIM. God is a concept (whether you choose to believe this or not) that is solely attributed to a system of faith and sadly when a concept is purely expressed in faith, faith makes the rules.

God is described as a watcher and a creator and he does (in all testaments post christ) watch over us humans. Our dear Rachel is expressing that God is not God. That God is something that she has the authority to discern, which quite frankly is false.

Now expressing and debating what deism is, and what the rejection of those beliefs are (atheism) would be a more potent course of discussion. Rachel is describing God. She using a very specific word that has a very specific definition and she is off the mark.

 

[Disquiet]

I can agree on a lot of things.

But this one right here killed me. ( ._.)

33. God is never described adequately by words

I can indirectly describe something by saying what it isn't. I can describe a man to you by saying he isn't black, his hair isn't short at all (hint) and isn't black or brown, his eyes isn't brown, he's not muscular or overweight. Slowly, but eventually, I can describe the nature of a being/entity by saying what it isn't.

 

[Corgi]

He is also not real.
#GreekMythology

 

[Dreckerplayer]

To be fair, humanity has used God or forms of gods to prove things long before Christianity came about.



The thread didn't really pertain to anything at all, really. Just a long list. If there are no discussion points, the better question is why was the thread posted at all. The OP came in with a retarded sense of hostility. Like his thread was worthy of something more than a Morgan Freeman jpg.

The entire point of a thread is to start a discussion, and if the OP refuses to offer me one, I am more than free to take what I want from the subject matter and open a discussion.

My post was actually laughably on topic. That god can be anything and everything a human justifies as righteous.

I think Decker should feel honored he even got that much. Nigga got a rep and a thanks for nothing in particular and still complained.

Hold up,

You need to learn some respect.

My username isn't Decker, and my name is certainly not 'nigga'.

Take your pretentious, arrogant attitude somewhere else.

Thread states what he is 'not', not what he 'is'. See, you didn't read. LEARN TO READ.

But thanks, you gave your opinion ' it's laughable'. Glad it humored you, now leave the thread before you start a flameware with your disrespectful demeanor. I'm not 'hostile', I'm intense.

 

[itachi4real]

-_-. I can't even dignify this logic with a proper response.

What? Just give me a legit reason as to why god is real

 

[Klad]

What is going on here ?

 

[Avani]

That theology is actually pretty expansive.

Yep.

God is beyond the read of mind, intellect and logic.

The following was extracted from Avadhuta Gita 1.25 on Wikisource:

"
By such sentences as "That thou art," our own Self is affirmed. Of that which is untrue and composed of the five elements - the Sruti (scripture) says, "Not this, not this."

In Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, Yajnavalkya is questioned by his students to describe God. He states "The Divine is not this and it is not that" (neti, neti).

Thus, the Divine is not real as we are real, nor is it unreal. The divine is not living in the sense humans live, nor is it dead. The Divine is not compassionate as we use the term, nor is it uncompassionate. And so on. We can never truly define God in words. All we can say, in effect, is that "It isn't this, but also, it isn't that either". In the end, the student must transcend words to understand the nature of the Divine.

In this sense, neti-neti is not a denial. Rather, it is an assertion that whatever the Divine may be, when we attempt to capture it in human words, we must inevitably fall short, because we are limited in understanding, and words are limited in ability to express the transcendent. The original texts shed light on the practice of neti neti as a tool to Self-realisation, aka Brahman."

Pretty old. ^^

What is going on here ?

People spamming and flaming yearning for infractions. Just another day at NB.

 

[Cosman]

Yep.

God is beyond the read of mind, intellect and logic.

The following was extracted from Avadhuta Gita 1.25 on Wikisource:

"
By such sentences as "That thou art," our own Self is affirmed. Of that which is untrue and composed of the five elements - the Sruti (scripture) says, "Not this, not this."

In Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, Yajnavalkya is questioned by his students to describe God. He states "The Divine is not this and it is not that" (neti, neti).

Thus, the Divine is not real as we are real, nor is it unreal. The divine is not living in the sense humans live, nor is it dead. The Divine is not compassionate as we use the term, nor is it uncompassionate. And so on. We can never truly define God in words. All we can say, in effect, is that "It isn't this, but also, it isn't that either". In the end, the student must transcend words to understand the nature of the Divine.

In this sense, neti-neti is not a denial. Rather, it is an assertion that whatever the Divine may be, when we attempt to capture it in human words, we must inevitably fall short, because we are limited in understanding, and words are limited in ability to express the transcendent. The original texts shed light on the practice of neti neti as a tool to Self-realisation, aka Brahman."

Pretty old. ^^

I always wondered whether theology like this could align with casual agnostic views. My world religions professor was never open to discussing Neti Neti with us (nor any Hindu or Buddhist theologies).

Hold up,

You need to learn some respect.

My username isn't Decker, and my name is certainly not 'nigga'.

Take your pretentious, arrogant attitude somewhere else.

Thread states what he is 'not', not what he 'is'. See, you didn't read. LEARN TO READ.

But thanks, you gave your opinion ' it's laughable'. Glad it humored you, now leave the thread before you start a flameware with your disrespectful demeanor. I'm not 'hostile', I'm intense.

I retract the coarse jab at the end. It was unrefined and I apologize. However, i have thus far written you two very thorough response. One on this page and one on the other. I am quite comfortable conversing with you on these points, but make no mistake: Your original post leaves much to be desired.

Read the posts you actually received beyond mine and Ira's, and you will see that the issue with communication falls on you. You can't post a list and expect people to dive into coherent discussions on a public forum.

We are not mind readers, and discerning the very complex nature of religious views can be tedious if you do no open the discussion with your own opinion and interpretation. You need to add that if you want the discourse to be strong.

The only responses you got were "I am god" and sadly those answers fall very well with your list.

edit: I'll give you a more concrete example. Your interpretation is that God is defined as something quite opposite to that of religious views. That God is not the evil thing religion has turned him into. That he can be defined and at the same not defined. Saying god is not this and not that is actually defining it as well. Eliminating options is a form of structure and that is part of definition.

The Neti-Neti view is that God is not really definable. You got two varying and abstract theologies and have yet to provide any real form of discussion.

 

[Dreckerplayer]

I'm not into religion at all.and many of you who've known me from 2012 know that I detest religion.

I posted this because it goes against the bibles interpretation of what god 'is' by stating what god is 'not'.

I believe that the real god could never be defined by anyone. Hell, I don't even think there's any point in using the word 'God'. Really I wanted an opinion on the blog. Although, we have a few people on this thread who have ego problems, and think they're above everyone else.

 

[Avani]

I always wondered whether theology like this could align with casual agnostic views. My world religions professor was never open to discussing Neti Neti with us (nor any Hindu or Buddhist theologies).

He was probably avoiding a headache. Hindu philosophies are a subject on it's own. There are so many views and different approaches to the topic by different scholars that it goes on and on endlessly.

Buddhism is mostly agnostic. Buddha refused to discuss god. Hinduism has all kinds of schools including agnostic and atheist.

 

[Cosman]

I'm not into religion at all.and many of you who've known me from 2012 know that I detest religion.

I posted this because it goes against the bibles interpretation of what god 'is' by stating what god is 'not'.

I believe that the real god could never be defined by anyone. Hell, I don't even think there's any point in using the word 'God'. Really I wanted an opinion on the subject. Although, we have a few people on this thread who have ego problems, and think they're above everyone else.

edit: You know what? Not even worth it. I'll just step aside on this one.

He was probably avoiding a headache. Hindu philosophies are a subject on it's own. There are so many views and different approaches to the topic by different scholars that it goes on and on endlessly.

The issue is I still struggle to find competent sources on Hindu theolgy and philosophy. Hinduism is a slightly easier one given the many people that practice it, but the ancient philosophies are out of my reach.