Define God

[Jayhawker Soule]

Where does it say that they appeared to be vagrants?

Many passages were left out of the Bible for the common people, and many of these were passed on through oral tradition and later written in the two talmuds. Not everything that happened was thought necessary to be included in the Bible.

Please answer the question.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Please answer the question.

In the Babylonian Talmud. I am not a Talmudic scholar. Two angels were loitering around fountain square waiting for Lot to pick then up. For providing lodging for vagrants was Lot's only virtue. He was nothing but a greedy businessman, but he had saving grace. I can't cite where this is in the Talmud. Sorry

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In the Babylonian Talmud. I am not a Talmudic scholar. ... I can't cite where this is in the Talmud. Sorry

I'm not in the least surprised.

 

[Brian Schuh]

I'm not in the least surprised.

Read the Sefer Hayashar which is considered accurate material left out of Genesis, compiled during the 2nd Temple era. Notice chapters 18 and 19. Christians call it the Book of Jasher. Jesus probably was aware of this book. It was compiled from even older material (Joshua 10:13, 2 Samuel 1:18.)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Read the Sefer Hayashar ...

Which one?

... which is considered accurate material left out of Genesis,

Evidence?

compiled during the 2nd Temple era.

Evidence?

Jesus probably was aware of this book.

Evidence?

A few moments ago (Post #142) you were telling us that your source was the Bavli. You're very creative.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Which one?


Evidence?


Evidence?


Evidence?

A few moments ago (Post #142) you were telling us that your source was the Bavli. You're very creative.

Even if I could cite the source in the Talmud, I still would not. It isn't given for Gentiles, many of them heathen, to tread on with filthy paws. Everyone knows that everything Gentiles steal from Jews, the Bible included, gets desecrated. The book of Jasher is in public domain and on internet. And yes, as history it is evidence.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Even if I could cite the source in the Talmud, I still would not. It isn't given for Gentiles, many of them heathen, to tread on with filthy paws. Everyone knows that everything Gentiles steal from Jews, the Bible included, gets desecrated.

What arrogant, bigoted drivel!

Judaism has certainly been plagued by those who would appropriate our text - from those preaching replacement theology to intellectual frauds masquerading as friends.

The book of Jasher is in public domain and on internet. And yes, as history it is evidence.

Reference?

Let me help. From Wikipedia:

The Book of Jasher (also, Jashar) or the Book of the Upright or the Book of the Just Man (... transliteration: sēfer hayyāšār) is an unknown book mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. The translation "Book of the Just Man" is the traditional Greek and Latin translation, while the transliterated form "Jasher" is found in the King James Bible, 1611.

< -- snip -- >

See also

• Book of Jasher (Pseudo-Jasher) - an 18th-century literary forgery which purports to be an English translation of the lost Book of Jasher.
• Sefer haYashar (midrash) - a Hebrew midrash, also known as The Book of Jasher, named after the lost Book of Jasher.

 

[Brian Schuh]

What arrogant, bigoted drivel!

Judaism has certainly been plagued by those who would appropriate our text - from those preaching replacement theology to intellectual frauds masquerading as friends.


Reference?

Let me help. From Wikipedia:

​

I am well aware there are a lot of Jewish books called book of upright. If you are truly Jewish, you would be aware that extra biblical doesn't mean anything. I use cookbooks and manuals for electronics, have constitutional documents and even novels. The Bible is not the only relevant book in the world, about anything including religion. If you are s Jew, you would know Jews kept historical records that didn't get included in Bible.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I am well aware there are a lot of Jewish books called book of upright. If you are truly Jewish, you would be aware that extra biblical doesn't mean anything. I use cookbooks and manuals for electronics, have constitutional documents and even novels. The Bible is not the only relevant book in the world, about anything including religion. If you are s Jew, you would know Jews kept historical records that didn't get included in Bible.

I know more than enough to recognize drivel dished out in a pathetic effort to avoid the question.

 

[Brian Schuh]

I know more than enough to recognize drivel dished out in a pathetic effort to avoid the question.

What is the question? I didn't know you had a well formulated question that deserves an answer.

 

[Peter Stone]

His spirals can be seen in everything even his algorithm can be counted in all his spirals like a finger swirling in the water.

 

[wicketkeeper]

Maybe 'god' is a state of no-thought ?
Or maybe, the death of the many conditioned (small) 'I' ?
I am of the thought that

 

[jeager106]

I know more than enough to recognize drivel dished out in a pathetic effort to avoid the question.

 

[HeatherAnn]

Its more like defining a person. What does she look like? What is her character? What makes up who she is?

How would that be confinement?

Yes. Defining God is like defining what is true. It's not that you can just state one thing and it will give a precise and comprehensive answer.
However, it is even more ridiculous to say, "I have not idea what all objective truth entails, so I will not try considering any truth."

 

[HeatherAnn]

Errr. "faith" is a thing, a noun word. So god is, in fact, a thing. No thanks necessary for my help.

Although faith could be considered a noun, I'd say it's a verb: "faith without works is dead."
I live by faith... I have faith that I will continue to breath and my body processes will continue to function, and I have faith that when I take a step, it will propel me forward.
I have faith that when I type something, it will be posted so that you could see it and that you might understand my intent.

 

[HeatherAnn]

God is a comforting projection that many human animals find compelling due to their limited ideas of self and being.

So, are you suggesting that the more you learn about God, the less you know about yourself and existence?
How do you define God?
Are you unknowingly accepting the most ridiculous definition (ie tyrannical grandpa in the sky) just so you can more easily refute it?

 

[HeatherAnn]

Monotheistic beliefs emerged out of monocultural civilizations. Prior to sedentary monoculture, most humans were animists who believed that the world is made of a variety of personalities, all with their own distinct types of agency and experience. With monoculture, the "sameness" or "oneness" of repeated success becomes the goal, and anything that deviates from the normative is deemed threatening. God is therefore the abstract ideal that comes from our obsession with repeated success, a sameness which we try in vain to impose on the world, destroying the emergent complexity of nature in our attempts to manipulate it into the "ideal."

I see value in both.
I like the idea of Greek & Hindu & other gods (& Catholic saints etc.) as personifications of certain spiritual categories.
Yet, I also like the idea of a highest God (which Greeks also had) - or highest GOoD that unifies it all.

Or...

God is the complex web in which all earthly beings are immersed and connected to in our exchange of things such as air, water, sunlight energy. We comprise part of this god, and so this means that our cancerous attempts at monoculture are an insult to the emergent interactions that have created our vibrant and distinct experiences. God's health (and ours) requires us to stop seeing the abstract ideal as primary, and to acknowledge our embodiment in this reciprocal world.

Do you mean mindfulness in each evolving moment?
It seems that you see monotheistic ideas of God as foreign to mindfulness - and maybe in the superficial sense.
Yet, maybe even believing in ONE higher GOoD, is the lense needed to live mindfully.

 

[HeatherAnn]

God's name, represented thousands of times in the Hebrew scriptures as הוה, when transliterated means "he who causes to become".

He who causes to become.
I AM THAT I AM.
Maybe it's both consciousness based on action.

That name is essentially a promise that the commission he gave Adam and Eve continues, despite their sin.

Personally, I believe that Adam and Eve are not literal beings, but symbolic of all humanity - male and female.

And I define sin as incorrect thought and resulting e-motion & action.
Therefore, often the way people think of sin is sin itself - incorrect thought - which causes problems in how they think, speak, act & even how their bodies function metaphysically.

 

[Demonslayer]

And I define sin as incorrect thought

What defines "correct?"

 

[HeatherAnn]

In a couple of ways.

First, a God is anything or anyone that's been deified. That is to say, when a person or group, with serious conviction, say that a thing or person is a God, or whatever word is conceptually equivalent in their given language (assuming one exists, of course), then that thing or person is a God for those people. In this sense, "God" is a title (akin to terms like "King" or "janitor"), and the status of Godhood is subjective, sourced in external application, and independent of any intrinsic qualities. Emperor Akihiko, for example, is a God by virtue of Shinto, but he has no superhuman/supernatural qualities. The same was true of the Pharaohs, and of Caesar.

Second, a God is a term that illustrates the relationship between worshiper and worshiped. For example, to me, Earth is a Goddess, but that does not necessarily mean that I believe She has a conscious mind or self-awareness (independent of us, that is), or even necessarily "life" in a scientific sense. When it comes to Earth's intrinsic qualities, I do not, and will never, go against what the scientific consensuses are about Her. But while She is not a Goddess for everyone, She is a Goddess for me, because that's how I relate to Her, regardless of whether She is scientifically "alive" or not.

I relate in many ways to your perspective, except I do believe in both a subjective god as well as an objective God (love based on truth).
Maybe another way to phrase it would be:
God is that which I think (or another thinks) is GOoD.
And God is also the ultimate GOoD, whether anybody realizes it or not.