How Do You Define a "God"?

[Thief]

Friend Thief,


Oh NO! though you knew by now.
THAT guy is the biggest manager of the universe. He just get things done by all things including humans.
Mum is the word; somebody on his behalf always speaks up; last I heard it was Jesus who stood up and said he is not only appointed but is a blood relative you know.

Personally too figuring out how can mange to get his attention and then get no lay offs!

Love & rgds

Nay...my friend.

All of creation stopped on Day Seven.
God gave Man dominion. (with limits)

Get His attention?.....like Moses did?.....
Climb His mountain.....trespass.....with intention of meeting one's Maker.
With intention of not coming back.
THAT will get His attention.

None of the prophets I know got laid off.
They were simply terminated.
Tough job.

 

[Sir Doom]

Friend Sir Doom,



Children are created by parents??

could you help me understand the word 'creation'?

Love & rgds

Creation is when a thing that did not previously exist now does exist.

 

[Thief]

Creation is when a thing that did not previously exist now does exist.

Not sure about that.
This form I call myself did not always exist.
I am an assembly.

That portions of my being may have been around for awhile....but
this instance of life is unique and my own.

As an assembly....I can be disassembled.

But none of that is creation.
That stopped on Day Seven.

This life is manipulation....by the hand of Man.

 

[Sir Doom]

Not sure about that.
This form I call myself did not always exist.
I am an assembly.

That portions of my being may have been around for awhile....but
this instance of life is unique and my own.

As an assembly....I can be disassembled.

But none of that is creation.
That stopped on Day Seven.

This life is manipulation....by the hand of Man.

I can certainly understand the differentiation you make between the creations of man and those of God. I don't really see it that way, myself. I personally don't think God created something from nothing but rather made something different out of what was. Just as we do, only on a much larger scale and with much more forethought and insight. This may seem to cheapen the idea of God in your eyes, but it empowers it in mine.

 

[Thief]

I can certainly understand the differentiation you make between the creations of man and those of God. I don't really see it that way, myself. I personally don't think God created something from nothing but rather made something different out of what was. Just as we do, only on a much larger scale and with much more forethought and insight. This may seem to cheapen the idea of God in your eyes, but it empowers it in mine.

Only one line missing....which came first?....Spirit? or substance?

 

[zenzero]

Friend Sir Doom,

Creation is when a thing that did not previously exist now does exist.

are you saying a change of form is creation?
From flour to bread meaning bread was not there previously and so it is a creation?
Not convinced, brother!

Love & rgds

 

[Sir Doom]

Only one line missing....which came first?....Spirit? or substance?

Makes no difference to me. I assume they are both infinite, in fact.

Friend Sir Doom,


are you saying a change of form is creation?
From flour to bread meaning bread was not there previously and so it is a creation?
Not convinced, brother!

Love & rgds

Yes, this is exactly what I mean. Where once there was this... now there is that.

The Mona Lisa was created by Leonardo when he put the last brush to canvas and not before. The fact that the very same paint used to create this masterpiece existed in little jars beforehand makes no difference at all. The Mona Lisa did not exist. And now it does. That is creation.

Certainly the idea Thief presented is a more pure form of creation, but that doesn't change my response to the topic in ANY way. So, I'm curious why it is being brought up?

 

[zenzero]

Friend Sir Doom,

Thanks for your response.
But always thought creation was that which comes out of Nothing like magic.
however since am not into creative work like DaVinci nor a copywriter in an Advt. company will take it that what creative people do is creation.
Great!

Love & rgds

 

[zenzero]

Friend Thief,

They were simply terminated.
Tough job.

Terminated??
You mean their EGO got terminated when they met the maker; right?

Love & rgds

 

[HexBomb]

The point of the statement is really to weed out beings that satisfy the previous requirements and yet had nothing to do with life's existence. A being that purposefully created life on Earth carries the responsibility of its existence, and by extension an authority that another similar being would not carry.

It isn't that I would necessarily worship such a being, as they have to pass all four requirements, but a being lacking such responsibility seems like nothing more than opportunism.

I like the comparison to parents that you use, but I think its more like continuing to love and respect one's parents regardless of their plans for you or your relative adherence to those plans. Parents carry the responsibility of the creation of the child. This responsibility (typically) carries the same type of authority that God must have.

Having been adopted, perhaps I have a slightly different perspective on this than others, especially since my birth parents are alcoholic drug addicts who wanted nothing to do with the poor ickle sick child with prenatal alcohol and cocaine exposures. But, being myself, I can't help but come from my experience.

Creation is (sometimes) quite nice. However, it is hardly the be all and end all. In deism, a god creates and goes away, like abandoning a baby on a doorstep. It cedes the responsibility.

If another 'god' or preternatural power or whatever, comes along and actually takes the responsibility over, akin to 'adopting' the creation, and doing all the work, why would it be right or even just logical to not consider it a 'god,' solely because it did not create the life, if it did everything else for it?

To go back to my comparison of parents, if "God" does the creation and "Preternatural Being" (who has all the same qualities/abilities, but did not create) did all the heavy lifting, the caring for, etc and then when the work is done "God" shows up again and wants offerings and sacrifices and worship for doing nothing, why is it more of a god than the "Preternatural Being"?

I feel like this is edging into philosophy a little. I don't know whether to be amused or apologise.

 

[Thief]

Friend Thief,


Terminated??
You mean their EGO got terminated when they met the maker; right?

Love & rgds

Nay...I meant THEY got terminated.

John got his head cut off.
Jesus got nailed.
Moses was not allowed into the promised land (unknown burial)
And Muhammad got poisoned.

So I've heard.

Ego?.....If we expect to meet the prophets and saints and loved ones.....later on....
then all that we are must be retained in thought, feeling and memory.

Otherwise.....oblivion is waiting.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Thief,

Do get you point now.
Guess our backgrounds are different.
Am living in the east and you in the west
Here its all dharma related paths and for you its abrahamic paths.

Prophets there met terrible ends due to non-understanding of their own people as to what they were saying but here the common man understands to a large extent and enlightened one speak of surrendering their ego to merge with God.

Love & rgds

 

[Thief]

Friend Thief,

Do get you point now.
Guess our backgrounds are different.
Am living in the east and you in the west
Here its all dharma related paths and for you its abrahamic paths.

Prophets there met terrible ends due to non-understanding of their own people as to what they were saying but here the common man understands to a large extent and enlightened one speak of surrendering their ego to merge with God.

Love & rgds

Ah!...the drop of rain, to the river, to the ocean.

Ok.

But I'm going to hang on to the notion that we are made as unique persons.
And with a little help from heaven we are to continue beyond the last breath.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Thief,

But I'm going to hang on to the notion that we are made as unique persons.
And with a little help from heaven we are to continue beyond the last breath.

Yup!
but in the east we would differ in our views thus:
We are THAT meaning that everything is God just our EGO/MIND hinders the union and through our own karma/action/efforts we remove the mind/ego to realize who we are that is "THAT thou art!, "I" am THAT, etc. here the 'I' is not that ego/mind but the spirit within which is part of THAT whole.

Thanks friend for your understanding. Speaking the same thing in different ways according to the background. Gestalt!

Love & rgd

 

[Thief]

Friend Thief,


Yup!
but in the east we would differ in our views thus:
We are THAT meaning that everything is God just our EGO/MIND hinders the union and through our own karma/action/efforts we remove the mind/ego to realize who we are that is "THAT thou art!, "I" am THAT, etc. here the 'I' is not that ego/mind but the spirit within which is part of THAT whole.

Thanks friend for your understanding. Speaking the same thing in different ways according to the background. Gestalt!

Love & rgd

Excellent.
I hope to see 'you' later on.

 

[Agnimitra]

And you dare mention cause and effect without giving credit where credit is due.

The universe is the effect.....God is the Cause.
Spirit first.

Thats pretty simplistic wouldn't you say?

There are a lot of logical questions which such a rigorless position will raise. And they cannot be answered by faithful thinking.

 

[Sir Doom]

Having been adopted, perhaps I have a slightly different perspective on this than others, especially since my birth parents are alcoholic drug addicts who wanted nothing to do with the poor ickle sick child with prenatal alcohol and cocaine exposures. But, being myself, I can't help but come from my experience.

I can certainly see your point, and did not mean to marginalize your circumstances or anyone else in similar circumstances.

Creation is (sometimes) quite nice. However, it is hardly the be all and end all. In deism, a god creates and goes away, like abandoning a baby on a doorstep. It cedes the responsibility.

If another 'god' or preternatural power or whatever, comes along and actually takes the responsibility over, akin to 'adopting' the creation, and doing all the work, why would it be right or even just logical to not consider it a 'god,' solely because it did not create the life, if it did everything else for it?

To go back to my comparison of parents, if "God" does the creation and "Preternatural Being" (who has all the same qualities/abilities, but did not create) did all the heavy lifting, the caring for, etc and then when the work is done "God" shows up again and wants offerings and sacrifices and worship for doing nothing, why is it more of a god than the "Preternatural Being"?

I will have to concede your point, here. I would certainly be far more likely to follow the adoptive God in this case. I would have to say, though that 'doing the heavy lifting' is probably enough to say they, 'had some part in the creation of life', which was all I required in the third statement.

It is also important to note that the 4th statement still has to be satisfied in either case. What do this being want now? Even if the being did create life AND nurtured it and cared for it throughout its existence and now expects me lead humanity in some mass-suicide or torture experiment, its going to have a lot of convincing to do regardless.

I feel like this is edging into philosophy a little. I don't know whether to be amused or apologise.

There is no escaping philosophy when discussing religion, imo.

I have to say re-reading my statements that I did put a bit of extra weight on that third requirement that probably doesn't need to be there. Perfectly understandable criticism on your part, and more to the point compelling. I owe myself some rethinking on this topic, for sure.

 

[HexBomb]

I have to say re-reading my statements that I did put a bit of extra weight on that third requirement that probably doesn't need to be there. Perfectly understandable criticism on your part, and more to the point compelling. I owe myself some rethinking on this topic, for sure.

I'm glad that didn't come across as 'Wah, poor me,' or just plain bratty. It was an honest question. I've talked with people in the past who feel that because God (in their view) created us, he therefore has the right to do whatever he wants with us, and we are supposed to worship him because he created us and I just...never found the idea/concept of creation that compelling as a reason or justification to worship, or even that important as a ticking box for a god.

This is why I really like this thread, you can see multiple views, including the idea that god is a first cause, vs a creator, versus a metaphoric white whale. I don't feel closer to an answer, but I feel like I have a better idea of the question, if that makes any sense.

 

[Sir Doom]

I'm glad that didn't come across as 'Wah, poor me,' or just plain bratty. It was an honest question. I've talked with people in the past who feel that because God (in their view) created us, he therefore has the right to do whatever he wants with us, and we are supposed to worship him because he created us and I just...never found the idea/concept of creation that compelling as a reason or justification to worship, or even that important as a ticking box for a god.

Yeah, I don't exactly look at like those folks. Its not that the act of creation gives it a right to tell us what to do (and I think this is exactly where my statement fails) but more that their intention for life upon creation is important to why life is in its current state and why (once this being shows up) we ought to follow it towards whatever ends it has in mind now. There should be a consistency. And I think that would lend some weight to its godhood or lack thereof. In the case of the caretaker God that you described before, we can simply look at its reasons for adopting life in the same light as creation of it. I think it works nearly as well, though I would always wonder what DID actually create life. Hopefully, they'd be forthcoming with that information if they are privy to it!

This is why I really like this thread, you can see multiple views, including the idea that god is a first cause, vs a creator, versus a metaphoric white whale. I don't feel closer to an answer, but I feel like I have a better idea of the question, if that makes any sense.

Yeah, I like these kinds of threads too.

 

[Thief]

Thats pretty simplistic wouldn't you say?

There are a lot of logical questions which such a rigorless position will raise. And they cannot be answered by faithful thinking.

And it needs to be complicated?

Actually...been doing the 'rigor' most of my life.
I'm getting old.

But I'm not tired of it.