• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God Is a Problem

SalixIncendium

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि
Staff member
Premium Member
No, not the being, deity, concept, or whatever you call God, but the name itself, especially in interfaith discourse or when speaking to the non-religious.

I've seen "God" (note the capitalization rendering the word a proper noun) used to describe everything from a personal deity, to a creator, to an underlying substratum for reality, to existence itself, and many things between. Yet people use the word even when their religion or culture has another name for it.

An example off the top of my head is Ramakrishna apparently referring to Nirguna Brahman as "God" in The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna. Of course, what he means is understood by Vedantins and probably most Hindus, but the meaning of the term is likely lost on people outside of this subset.

What does "God" refer to in your religion or culture?

Do you agree that use of the term is problematic outside of your own religion or culture? If not, how do you reconcile the differences? If so, what do you think can be done to communicate what is being referred to in interfaith dialogue or conversations with the non-religious?
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
For a considerable time now I have realized that the use of the word "god" here in Brazil is just way too expansive and brings with it conotations that emphasize Christianity-like conceptions and expectations to a very excessive degree.

It has been a pet peeve of mine for years. Devas and Kami are called gods. Buddhism is called a non-religion because it does not conform. And so on.
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
For a considerable time now I have realized that the use of the word "god" here in Brazil is just way too expansive and brings with it conotations that emphasize Christianity-like conceptions and expectations to a very excessive degree.

It has been a pet peeve of mine for years. Devas and Kami are called gods. Buddhism is called a non-religion because it does not conform. And so on.
I didn't know that, and I thought it was because people mistakenly defined religion as a set of beliefs.
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Is religion not a set of beliefs?
In my understanding religion was originally an English term which referred to the regularity with which one attended mass. Since then the West has broadened the term to reflect all ways of life which other people do instead of that but also including it. Its a vague term 'Religion', but no it isn't a set of beliefs. Beliefs are themselves practices. The usefulness of the term 'Religion' is that it allows us to discuss groups of people by the way we perceive them: such as by their funny hats, where they meet, what they do and also by what they say they believe. If I call someone a Buddhist I don't have to know what a Buddhist really is. Its just a useful term. I say their religion is Buddhism, and that is enough for the term to be useful. In order to call them Buddhist all I need to know is that something about them: such as that they live in a monastery and wear orange or that they are a member of a group of Buddhists or that they meditate on Buddhist texts. I don't have to know what they believe or how they cook their food though these things can be very important in their religion.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
In my understanding religion was originally an English term which referred to the regularity with which one attended mass. Since then the West has broadened the term to reflect all ways of life which other people do instead of that but also including it. Its a vague term 'Religion', but no it isn't a set of beliefs. Beliefs are themselves practices. The usefulness of the term 'Religion' is that it allows us to discuss groups of people by the way we perceive them: such as by their funny hats, where they meet, what they do and also by what they say they believe. If I call someone a Buddhist I don't have to know what a Buddhist really is. Its just a useful term. I say their religion is Buddhism, and that is enough for the term to be useful. In order to call them Buddhist all I need to know is that something about them: such as that they live in a monastery and wear orange or that they are a member of a group of Buddhists or that they meditate on Buddhist texts. I don't have to know what they believe or how they cook their food though these things can be very important in their religion.
"Religion" is indeed a difficult term to define.

It is arguably used improperly more often than not, and more useful for its abuse than for its proper use.

Myself, I favor pointing out that it barely has any meaning on its own and that many of its most common uses are directly at odds with each other. It is a very contextual word that almost demands circular usage.
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
"Religion" is indeed a difficult term to define.

It is arguably used improperly more often than not, and more useful for its abuse than for its proper use.

Myself, I favor pointing out that it barely has any meaning on its own and that many of its most common uses are directly at odds with each other. It is a very contextual word that almost demands circular usage.
It certainly is confusing. I recall forty years ago my family not knowing much about Buddhism, and my mom said (in an automobile) once that she thought statues of Buddha were idols. My father slightly bemused contradicted this, but it was over my head. They talked, and I half listened. In that early beginning I came to think that Buddha was an idol that was worshiped by rubbing its tummy, but I wasn't sure.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
For a considerable time now I have realized that the use of the word "god" here in Brazil is just way too expansive and brings with it conotations that emphasize Christianity-like conceptions and expectations to a very excessive degree.

Intriguing. I would say the word "god" here in Brazil is used in pretty much the same way as in the USA.

It has been a pet peeve of mine for years. Devas and Kami are called gods.

Isn't that also the case in the US?

Buddhism is called a non-religion because it does not conform. And so on.

Most people know (nearly) nothing about Buddhism here in Brazil. It is often called a religion though.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Intriguing. I would say the word "god" here in Brazil is used in pretty much the same way as in the USA.



Isn't that also the case in the US?



Most people know (nearly) nothing about Buddhism here in Brazil. It is often called a religion though.
Yes, the USA have much the same problem regarding the word god.

You will notice that the OP asks for local perspectives. I wasn't implying that there are huge differences.

They are somewhat better aware that there is a world around them than us Brazilians, but that does not factor too much in this matter.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
I only ever use the word "God" (proper case) standalone like that to reference the god of the Abrahamic religions. All other gods I will reference by their actual names, in lower case, or with additional qualifiers to make it clear I am not talking about classical monotheism.
 
Top