Define the God you believe in, if you do believe in one (or more) -

[Hollie]

Why not believe in all the gods and then just sort them into a hierarchy, thus making an ordered list of how the gods can meet your expectations?

Can anyone tell you what to believe? If the answer is no, then you have your answer. People are not all that different. Each has his or her own beliefs. Sometimes we are fortunate enough to run into those who share our own belief. We cannot tell one another what to believe; we can ask people to share what they do believe and how they came to that belief.

Proselytizing religions do exactly that; tell others what to believe. Religions impose penalties on those who don’t accept the tenets of the belief system.

No religion claims itself secondary in comparison to its competition. That would dismantle the authority of every religion ("Well, we're sort of right," said the Dalai Lama, "But you know, maybe those Christians are really right." Uh, not likely.) I’ve found it rare that believers will acknowledge an important component of religious faith: that the faith exaggerates the psychological concept of in-group/out-group bias.

If you are a Christian as opposed to a Moslem, your very self-identification tells me that you are announcing Christianity to be right, and Islam to be wrong-- unless you are purposely following a doctrine you believe is wrong (I suppose some people might do that, but whatever for?).

 

[Meriweather]

Proselytizing religions do exactly that; tell others what to believe. Religions impose penalties on those who don’t accept the tenets of the belief system.

Benjamin Franklin reminds us: He who is convinced against his will, holds the same opinion still. No one can be converted against their will. Proselytizers go out in search of those who think as they do-- and convince them to join their group.

 

[MarathonMike]

I've thought about this a lot. I believe there was the Original God (the O.G. lol) who created the original Universe. But that wasn't enough to entertain him. He was lonely. So he created group of Gods similar to himself, his God Friends for lack of a better term. This was far more fun and entertaining and together they created multiple universes, multiple life forms and countless other things we don't even know about. They never intervene, they allow their creations to run their course while they observe and create new forms of entertainment.

So why can’t man shake this pesky fairness thing?

Why does man prefer right over wrong?

I don't see the connection to God and man's tendency toward fairness and right over wrong. And depending on the situation, fairness and right vs wrong can be fluid especially when survival is part of the equation. For example if your family is starving in a 3rd world country is it wrong to steal food from another family?

Yes. But it is also wrong for the other family to let the other family starve.

The connection is self evident. In fact every quarrel that has ever existed proves that man knows right from wrong and that when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept he rationalizes that he didn’t violate it.

This behavior is universal. We didn’t put it in us and we can’t get rid of it.

That behavior is not present in those with sociopathic minds. There are people who actually find entertainment in the suffering of others. It is possible that the innate sense of fairness is due to the higher ability to reason rather than a quality infused by God.

Agreed.

That was going to be my next point.

But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t infused by God so to speak as God is intelligence among other things.

I suppose that could be true. So the generic "design" includes a dose of fairness in everyone but it isn't always expressed due to brain abnormalities. So there really are no bad people just bad brains!

 

[ding]

So why can’t man shake this pesky fairness thing?

Why does man prefer right over wrong?

I don't see the connection to God and man's tendency toward fairness and right over wrong. And depending on the situation, fairness and right vs wrong can be fluid especially when survival is part of the equation. For example if your family is starving in a 3rd world country is it wrong to steal food from another family?

Yes. But it is also wrong for the other family to let the other family starve.

The connection is self evident. In fact every quarrel that has ever existed proves that man knows right from wrong and that when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept he rationalizes that he didn’t violate it.

This behavior is universal. We didn’t put it in us and we can’t get rid of it.

That behavior is not present in those with sociopathic minds. There are people who actually find entertainment in the suffering of others. It is possible that the innate sense of fairness is due to the higher ability to reason rather than a quality infused by God.

Agreed.

That was going to be my next point.

But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t infused by God so to speak as God is intelligence among other things.

I suppose that could be true. So the generic "design" includes a dose of fairness in everyone but it isn't always expressed due to brain abnormalities. So there really are no bad people just bad brains!

More or less.

It’s a human construct but logic dictates that it can’t be anything man wants it to be so it is effectively independent of man. As it is dependent upon logic and intelligence.

 

[Meriweather]

No religion claims itself secondary in comparison to its competition. That would dismantle the authority of every religion ("Well, we're sort of right," said the Dalai Lama, "But you know, maybe those Christians are really right." Uh, not likely.) I’ve found it rare that believers will acknowledge an important component of religious faith: that the faith exaggerates the psychological concept of in-group/out-group bias.

The Catholic Church comes close. The Catechism of the Catholic Church notes that it only has the authority to assure people that those who follow the way of Christ will attain life eternal. It notes that God also has an everlasting covenant with the Jews; that while the Church does not have the authority to assure other non-Christians that the way they are following does lead to eternal life, simply because the Church was not given authority to make this declaration. Those who are not Christian or do not live under the everlasting covenant of the Jews are left in the care and love of a merciful God.

 

[Meriweather]

If you are a Christian as opposed to a Moslem, your very self-identification tells me that you are announcing Christianity to be right, and Islam to be wrong-- unless you are purposely following a doctrine you believe is wrong (I suppose some people might do that, but whatever for?).

What I announce is my own belief in Christianity. My beliefs do not negate the beliefs of others, just as their beliefs do not negate mine.

 

[Hollie]

Proselytizing religions do exactly that; tell others what to believe. Religions impose penalties on those who don’t accept the tenets of the belief system.

Benjamin Franklin reminds us: He who is convinced against his will, holds the same opinion still. No one can be converted against their will. Proselytizers go out in search of those who think as they do-- and convince them to join their group.

Conversion to a religion is relatively rare. Overwhelming, people are born into a religion and it becomes the goal of the religion to coerce belief. Promises of heaven and threats of burning flesh in hell are a tool to coerce children.

 

[Hollie]

If you are a Christian as opposed to a Moslem, your very self-identification tells me that you are announcing Christianity to be right, and Islam to be wrong-- unless you are purposely following a doctrine you believe is wrong (I suppose some people might do that, but whatever for?).

What I announce is my own belief in Christianity. My beliefs do not negate the beliefs of others, just as their beliefs do not negate mine.

Your co-religionists announce their beliefs as being required in the public schools and in public (State) places. My belief is that the Constitution protects me from your co-religionists imposing their beliefs on me.

 

[Meriweather]

Overwhelming, people are born into a religion and it becomes the goal of the religion to coerce belief. Promises of heaven and threats of burning flesh in hell are a tool to coerce children.

Again, not in the Catholic faith, where hell is taught as simple separation from God--and based on one's desire for such separation. Are you aware that 'eternal life' infuses two teachings? The way of Christ is the life that is eternal, and that eternal reaches into our lives here on earth. This 'eternal' life extends into our own eternity, which is the better known definition of eternal life.

In living eternal life today, through Christ we were given the expectation (what is sometimes referred to as 'promise') of life eternal.

 

[Meriweather]

Your co-religionists announce their beliefs as being required in the public schools and in public (State) places. My belief is that the Constitution protects me from your co-religionists imposing their beliefs on me.

Congress shall make no law regarding religion, which by definition should mean that our public squares and public schools should be exhibiting all beliefs--not no beliefs.

 

[Hollie]

No religion claims itself secondary in comparison to its competition. That would dismantle the authority of every religion ("Well, we're sort of right," said the Dalai Lama, "But you know, maybe those Christians are really right." Uh, not likely.) I’ve found it rare that believers will acknowledge an important component of religious faith: that the faith exaggerates the psychological concept of in-group/out-group bias.

The Catholic Church comes close. The Catechism of the Catholic Church notes that it only has the authority to assure people that those who follow the way of Christ will attain life eternal. It notes that God also has an everlasting covenant with the Jews; that while the Church does not have the authority to assure other non-Christians that the way they are following does lead to eternal life, simply because the Church was not given authority to make this declaration. Those who are not Christian or do not live under the everlasting covenant of the Jews are left in the care and love of a merciful God.

The bibles delineate gods other than ones of love and mercy. Have you read the bibles?

According to the bible, god wiped most of humanity because they were disobedient and and left only Noah and his family (and apparently more animals than the Titanic could have carried). He promised never to destroy the world again by water, so next time (the Armageddon) he plans to use fire. God slaughters thousands and thousands by what the bible says, and he plans to slaughter billions more. Never has their been so evil a villain in all literature than Yahweh-- he kills relentlessly (Read the book of Joshua and try to imagine all those "rotten apple" kids and women-- all except those virgins, who were allowed to be taken away and raped by god's soldiers, the Hebrews)

I'd be hesitant to prop up the Catholic Church as a model. You can be a good person without giving two hoots about Jesus, as billions of non-Christians prove every day. Christians think this world was nothing but barbarians before Jesus-- when in actuality true barbarism sprung up rampantly after Jesus and his devoted fanatics started hacking at anyone who slightly disagreed with them (even the atrocities of the old testament as recounted above pale in comparison to the holocausts, pogrom, wars and genocides that the teachings of Jesus has inspired). You think the Greeks burned old women because they were witches? The greatest library of all time-- the Library at Alexandria --was created by the Greek Ionians-- men who believed in Zeus. It took a Christian mob to destroy their works and literally set us back 2,000 years.

 

[Hollie]

Your co-religionists announce their beliefs as being required in the public schools and in public (State) places. My belief is that the Constitution protects me from your co-religionists imposing their beliefs on me.

Congress shall make no law regarding religion, which by definition should mean that our public squares and public schools should be exhibiting all beliefs--not no beliefs.

Not at all. You need to understand the context of the constitution and what the courts have repeatedly upheld regarding religious indoctrination.

In the case of the U.S. Constitution, for example, freedom of religion is default freedom from religion, else there is a legal precedence to force you to adhere to the "majority religion" (i.e., Christians are free from believing in competitive religions. Let me repeat that: free from believing in or be forced to comply with practices of competitive religions.

 

[Hollie]

Proselytizing religions do exactly that; tell others what to believe. Religions impose penalties on those who don’t accept the tenets of the belief system.

Benjamin Franklin reminds us: He who is convinced against his will, holds the same opinion still. No one can be converted against their will. Proselytizers go out in search of those who think as they do-- and convince them to join their group.

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
- Benjamin Franklin, in a letter to Richard Price. October 9, 1790.

 

[diver52]

Your co-religionists announce their beliefs as being required in the public schools and in public (State) places. My belief is that the Constitution protects me from your co-religionists imposing their beliefs on me.

Congress shall make no law regarding religion, which by definition should mean that our public squares and public schools should be exhibiting all beliefs--not no beliefs.

Not at all. You need to understand the context of the constitution and what the courts have repeatedly upheld regarding religious indoctrination.

In the case of the U.S. Constitution, for example, freedom of religion is default freedom from religion, else there is a legal precedence to force you to adhere to the "majority religion" (i.e., Christians are free from believing in competitive religions. Let me repeat that: free from believing in or be forced to comply with practices of competitive religions.

Neither one of you are actually quoting the amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" It doesn't say no law regarding religion or freedom from religion. It says the government can't establish a religion nor prohibit people from exercising their religion.

 

[Meriweather]

The bibles delineate gods other than ones of love and mercy. Have you read the bibles?

According to the bible, god wiped most of humanity because they were disobedient and and left only Noah and his family (and apparently more animals than the Titanic could have carried). He promised never to destroy the world again by water, so next time (the Armageddon) he plans to use fire. God slaughters thousands and thousands by what the bible says, and he plans to slaughter billions more. Never has their been so evil a villain in all literature than Yahweh-- he kills relentlessly (Read the book of Joshua and try to imagine all those "rotten apple" kids and women-- all except those virgins, who were allowed to be taken away and raped by god's soldiers, the Hebrews)

I'd be hesitant to prop up the Catholic Church as a model. You can be a good person without giving two hoots about Jesus, as billions of non-Christians prove every day. Christians think this world was nothing but barbarians before Jesus-- when in actuality true barbarism sprung up rampantly after Jesus and his devoted fanatics started hacking at anyone who slightly disagreed with them (even the atrocities of the old testament as recounted above pale in comparison to the holocausts, pogrom, wars and genocides that the teachings of Jesus has inspired). You think the Greeks burned old women because they were witches? The greatest library of all time-- the Library at Alexandria --was created by the Greek Ionians-- men who believed in Zeus. It took a Christian mob to destroy their works and literally set us back 2,000 years.

Are we transitioning to a new discussion? I agree with Jewish scholars and rabbis that the Tanach is best studied, not simply read. We tend to read through the lens of modern western culture, which is not the best avenue for understanding ancient literature and storytelling.

Mankind, throughout all ages, cultures, and beliefs has generated great cruelties. Most who study such things agree it was the ancient Greeks who had the cruelest torture device of all--the Brazen Bull. Yet it was also the Greeks who also gave us our own foundation for Democracy. We are equally cruel in our own age, although the pain we inflict usually doesn't continue to the extent it occurred in ancient civilizations. That we know of.

 

[Meriweather]

Not at all. You need to understand the context of the constitution and what the courts have repeatedly upheld regarding religious indoctrination.

In the case of the U.S. Constitution, for example, freedom of religion is default freedom from religion, else there is a legal precedence to force you to adhere to the "majority religion" (i.e., Christians are free from believing in competitive religions. Let me repeat that: free from believing in or be forced to comply with practices of competitive religions.

A public religious practice or exhibition does not equate to forced compliance by all.

 

[Meriweather]

It says the government can't establish a religion nor prohibit people from exercising their religion.

Precisely. Thank you.

 

[Hollie]

Not at all. You need to understand the context of the constitution and what the courts have repeatedly upheld regarding religious indoctrination.

In the case of the U.S. Constitution, for example, freedom of religion is default freedom from religion, else there is a legal precedence to force you to adhere to the "majority religion" (i.e., Christians are free from believing in competitive religions. Let me repeat that: free from believing in or be forced to comply with practices of competitive religions.

A public religious practice or exhibition does not equate to forced compliance by all.

It certainly does when religious doctrine is attempted to be made a part of the public school curriculum.

 

[Weatherman2020]

This is just a repository for anyone who feels they've got an adequate definition of the "God" they believe in, for future reference.

Personally, I hold no belief in anything I'd personally categorize as a God...therefore, I am without definition...however, I'm interested in the Category of discussion and I'd love to see what your concept of your deity might be -

Feel free to drop your definition here!~​

The anti God posts in response to the OP pretty well describe the hate and vile nature that they process. So God is the opposite of them.

 

[Hollie]

It says the government can't establish a religion nor prohibit people from exercising their religion.

Precisely. Thank you.

Not exactly.



The bottom line is very common-sense related: if the government is free to exalt any one religion over another, then what do you do if someday that religion is not the one you believe in? What is the only way to ensure this does not happen? the only way I can see it is if the government is silent about all religious issues. That doesn't make the individuals in government atheists or irreligious -- they can believe whatever they wish. What it means is they are prevented from forcing their beliefs on me or you.

What is ultimately being derived here is that once you are not allowed to interfere in favor of one religion, you must again be neutral across the board because any favoritism to one religion must by definition be done so at the expense of another religion, or no religion.