• 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

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
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?
The Hebrew god's name is Yahweh/Jehovah. God is a noun, not a name. Abrahamics use God has Yahweh's name but that is not correct. I know why they do this, thinking there is only one god.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
A god refers to a being worthy of worship. Worship is relatively the highest type of valuing/respecting we have. Valuing/respecting augments to the level of where we see greatness, believers can reach that. Believers however cannot reach the status of exalted, except the chosen from God, mainly the sent ones from God. The exalted cannot reach the status of the Creator and he is far above them.

To classify the exalted ones no matter how greater they are as gods is wrong because God is much more exalted and should have classification for himself.

The exalted ones being far above normal people, we should not think we can reach the mountains in height and acknowledge their superiority.

However, if you don't believe in God or exalted ones, it doesn't mean you don't have gods. If you value pleasures and whims to highest degree (in that case you don't believe in spirituality), those are your gods.

Atheists have made the definition very complicated, because in essence, it refers to what we value most, and they value something the most, be in themselves or their peers or their leaders or their desires or their pleasures, etc.. That would be their gods.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Money is one of the greatest inventions
of humankind. It's like oil to a machine,
ie, without it, motion grinds to a halt.

BTW, beware what televangelists
will do to get money


It’s your nation’s one true God, is it not? From Trump to televangelists, from Warhol to Walmart, you all believe in the almighty buck, right?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I'm counter-sue.

That 1 foot radius has been around a long time,
& traveled coast to coast. You God is a violent
POS who loves genocide, murder, & smiting.
:) Most people won’t be within the 1 ft radius. :)

You say “God is violent” and yet you don’t demonstrate love. Reminds me of a scripture… “In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
In a debate at another site some years ago I wrote this:

God is a word many define
as a creature made of straw
or perhaps as reverse canine
who from clouds gives down law.

So many claim "God is mine"
or create theological slaw,
I would like to draw a line
and on bad definitions gnaw.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
:) Most people won’t be within the 1 ft radius. :)

You say “God is violent” and yet you don’t demonstrate love.
Certainly not to you.
Reminds me of a scripture… “In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."
Yes, it must comfort you to read a passage that
says you have The Truth, & others are blind.
Yet you don't see the light regarding Palestinians.
You defend war crimes, genocide, destruction,
& hatred of people for who they are.
Your God is a wicked delusion.
Your cult is the mind killer.
 

Dao Hao Now

Active 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.
ORIGIN OF RELIGION
First recorded in 1150–1200; Middle English religioun, from Old French religion or directly from Latin religiōn- (stem of religiō “conscientiousness, piety,” equivalent to relig(āre) “to tie, fasten” (re-re- + ligāre “to bind, tie”; cf. ligament) + -iōn- -ion; cf. rely

All languages evolve and many words in the english language have morphed from one meaning to also include another.
This is driven by common usage and understanding.

Religiously is still used in the sense of scrupulous or conscientious regularity or diligence.

The common dictionary definition of religion is generally something like:
  1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
  2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
I’ve never seen a definition that requires anybody using the word religion to have a comprehensive understanding of any particular designated religions rites, rituals, customs, or beliefs.
So as you said:
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
In other words a recognition that a particular set of people share the same set of beliefs (more or less) that is the cause for their participation in those rites, rituals, and customs that is perpetuated by that set of beliefs.
All of which boils down to a “set of beliefs”.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Hey @Kenny....
Let's see how your God inspires its believers.
It strikes me as more dangerous than ridiculous
that Donald Trump is exemplar for today's Christian.
Oh, & let's not forget that Christians on the other
side of the aisle believe in a God who wages
genocide against Palestinians, & believes in
apartheid, torture, bigotry, & thievery.
 
Last edited:

Vinayaka

devotee
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?
Yes, I see it as very problematic, especially in interfaith. I think we can thank some translators for the mess. The version of 'God' I adhere to simply would not do much of the stuff attributed to the 'God' of other faiths.

In the first 4 pages of this forum right now, it is used exactly 10 times, none of which I can relate to.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Certainly not to you.

Yes, it must comfort you to read a passage that
says you have The Truth, & others are blind.
Yet you don't see the light regarding Palestinians.
You defend war crimes, genocide, destruction,
& hatred of people for who they are.
Your God is a wicked delusion.
Your cult is the mind killer.
As I said, it appears you are blinded and certainly don’t understand the Gospel that Christians proclaim. There are spirits (as per my signature) but, at this point, you don’t believe there are.
 
Top