What God is NOT

[itachi4real]

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.

Yes thank you....mf's ob here think they're above others which pisses me the f*** off

 

[Khallil]

there is one sentence needed to know what god is not

Everything you can come up with your mind, anything you can think about... is not god!

 

[itachi4real]

Ohhhhh my god....i didnt read at first but just read it and i love this f*** thread. I wush i can save this sucker

 

[Avani]

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.

That's not surprising.

Hinduism can be easy and difficult at the same time. It is a complex tradition that includes numerous interrelated religious doctrines and practices that have some common characteristics but which lack any unified system of beliefs and practices.

On top of it, for almost 1000 years of continuous foreign rule and wars there was no atmosphere for proper compilation or even saving the original documents. First thing invaders often did was to burn down the universities and libraries.

And then there was a lot of synthesis during 16 Century onwards but at that time religious leaders took a simplistic approach of simple devotion and social harmony. Survival of the culture was more important. It was not till the last century revivalists started to dug stuff up. But it needs much work.

 

[Cosman]

there is one sentence needed to know what god is not

Everything you can come up with your mind, anything you can think about is not god!

Pretty much sums up everything god related... And this list.

That's not surprising.

Hinduism can be easy and difficult at the same time. It is a complex tradition that includes numerous interrelated religious doctrines and practices that have some common characteristics but which lack any unified system of beliefs and practices.

On top of it, for almost 1000 years of continuous foreign rule and wars there was no atmosphere for proper compilation or even saving the original documents. First thing invaders often did was to burn down the universities and libraries.

And then there was a lot of synthesis during 16 Century onwards but at that time religious leaders took a simplistic approach of simple devotion and social harmony. Survival of the culture was more important. It was not till the last century revivalists started to dug stuff up. But it needs much work.

@ the bold, that means a whole chunk of knowledge we may never see. Disgusting.

Pre and post era of enlightenment was something vastly different for non-Euro countries and considering the many advancement world-wide it's perfectly understandable that they would keep the culture alive.

 

[Disquiet]

Ohhhhh my god....i didnt read at first but just read it and i love this f*** thread. I wush i can save this sucker

You can bookmark it.

 

[Kishi Uzumaki]

According Buddhism there is no deity for creation but never have mentioned there is no gods .

 

[itachi4real]

You can bookmark it.

Truuuuuuuuuuu

 

[Dreckerplayer]

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



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.

Honestly, I would take responsibility for the miscommunication...

but your distasteful attitude set me off, therefore I will not give you that satisfaction. Not the way you are now.

 

[Cosman]

Honestly, I would take responsibility for the miscommunication...

but your distasteful attitude set me off, therefore I will not give you that satisfaction. Not the way you are now.

Hate to play the "you started it card"... but you really did start it. I followed the same line of thinking everyone else did and you told me to "get off your thread". A thread which as you agreed should have been communicated properly.

You can't enter with hostility and expect coherency and kindness in return.

 

[Dreckerplayer]

Pretty much sums up everything god related... And this list.



@ the bold, that means a whole chunk of knowledge we may never see. Disgusting.

Pre and post era of enlightenment was something vastly different for non-Euro countries and considering the many advancement world-wide it's perfectly understandable that they would keep the culture alive.

The list was to contrary the bibles interpretation of God. Yes, what he said was true...still, the list contraries the bible's view on god.

If ya read it, you'd realize it. You've read nothing. You came here with the intentions of heightening your own ego.

 

[itachi4real]

The list was to contrary the bibles interpretation of God. Yes, what he said was true...still, the list contraries the bible's view on god.

If ya read it, you'd realize it. You've read nothing. You came here with the intentions of heightening your own ego.

LmaoooooXD

 

[Cosman]

The list was to contrary the bibles interpretation of God. Yes, what he said was true...still, the list contraries the bible's view on god.

If ya read it, you'd realize it. You've read nothing. You came here with the intentions of heightening your own ego.

I read every word and the fact that I, Ira, and many others have vastly differing opinions more than prove that the subject matter is either not proper or there is no understanding on your part.

It is a list of what God is not. I literally wrote two essays describing why that mentality needs further explanation and you've ignore both. I can't entertain this anymore than this to be honest. A few lines of what one person views God is not is not something of any real value to be honest.

Again, I wrote two perfectly well-written responses dissecting the subject matter, one on page 1 and the other on page 2. I continued further and you've ignored both. Respond to them and fully read my responses because it seems you're not quite comprehending my stance here.

The list was to contrary the bibles interpretation of God.

Phenomenal. And I've already gone into a long diatribe of why the word "God" being used here has specific connotations that do not pertain to the bible alone nor do they attribute themselves to one fundamental viewpoint. Feel free to argue those.

edit: But hey if I can simplify this for you, I will

My first response

Spoiler

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.

My second response

Spoiler

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.

I can't make this easier for you.

 

[Avani]

Pretty much sums up everything god related... And this list.



@ the bold, that means a whole chunk of knowledge we may never see. Disgusting.

Pre and post era of enlightenment was something vastly different for non-Euro countries and considering the many advancement world-wide it's perfectly understandable that they would keep the culture alive.

Yep.

The Persian historian Minhaj-i-Siraj, in his chronicle the Tabaqat-I-Nasiri, reported that when Nalanda was ransacked the burning of the library continued for several months and "smoke from the burning manuscripts hung for days like a dark pall over the low hills".

 

[Cosman]

Yep.

The Persian historian Minhaj-i-Siraj, in his chronicle the Tabaqat-I-Nasiri, reported that when Nalanda was ransacked the burning of the library continued for several months and "smoke from the burning manuscripts hung for days like a dark pall over the low hills".

Religious texts included? Didn't know this at all to be honest.

 

[itachi4real]

I read every word and the fact that I, Ira, and many others have vastly differing opinions more than prove that the subject matter is either not proper or there is no understanding on your part.

It is a list of what God is not. I literally wrote two essays describing why that mentality needs further explanation and you've ignore both. I can't entertain this anymore than this to be honest. A few lines of what one person views God is not is not something of any real value to be honest.

Again, I wrote two perfectly well-written responses dissecting the subject matter, one on page 1 and the other on page 2. I continued further and you've ignored both. Respond to them and fully read my responses because it seems you're not quite comprehending my stance here.



Phenomenal. And I've already gone into a long diatribe of why the word "God" being used here has specific connotations that do not pertain to the bible alone nor do they attribute themselves to one fundamental viewpoint. Feel free to argue those.

edit: But hey if I can simplify this for you, I will

My first response

Spoiler

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.

correct me if ime wrong...but i think hes saying u came into the thread close minded...meaning u came with ur views and were not open to what he was saying. U came with the mindset of " i dont care what u say i am right no matter what

 

[Avani]

Honestly, I would take responsibility for the miscommunication...

but your distasteful attitude set me off, therefore I will not give you that satisfaction. Not the way you are now.

Don't take it the wrong way but you posted a list for fun but didn't get the result you were hoping for. But that's not enough reason to be angry for this long and continuing animosity. Let's move on.

 

[Cosman]

correct me if ime wrong...but i think hes saying u came into the thread close minded...meaning u came with ur views and were not open to what he was saying. U came with the mindset of " i dont care what u say i am right no matter what

He didn't say anything. That is my point. His argument came 2 pages later. His original post was simply a list of things God is not, and quite simply that is too vague a thread to warrant any kind of response. Even then the actual topic is rather contradictory which I've expressed in my responses.

I never insulted him nor his ideas. I literally posted a morgan freeman picture and the dude wigged out. "You didn't read, get off". As if the list was somehow deep enough to warrant a discussion in itself.

And on Ira's note. Let's drop this. Hindu and Buddhist discussions are more fun anyways. Taoism is where it's at, though :snick:

 

[itachi4real]

He didn't say anything. That is my point. His argument came 2 pages later. His original post was simply a list of things God is not, and quite simply that is too vague a thread to warrant any kind of response. Even then the actual topic is rather contradictory which I've expressed in my responses.

I never insulted him nor his ideas. I literally posted a morgan freeman picture and the dude wigged out. "You didn't read, get off". As if the list was somehow deep enough to warrant a discussion in itself.

And on Ira's note. Let's drop this. Hindu and Buddhist discussions are more fun anyways. Taoism is where it's at, though :snick:

Soooo what are those beliefs u were talking about

 

[Avani]

Religious texts included? Didn't know this at all to be honest.

Taxila was done in by Hephthalites aka Huns. Nalanda by Turks. Both were center of Buddhist studies along with other religious or regular studies. Some stuff was saved only because it was moved to Tibet.

Budhism got wiped out almost completely from India because it's tradition mostly depended on those universities and monasteries. Hinduism survived because it was not organized and there was no central authority but individual scholars spread around the whole country.

Just Google any time.