• 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!

Try, if you think its possible.

bobhikes

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
chinu said:
Mistake!
Click to expand...

The definition for any word starts with the word- not a mistake but how's this

A mythos created by humans to defer the unknown\unprovable. Can any body tell me Who or What this defines? Any one that is honest will be able to define it, because other than their beliefs all others are myths and all other's haves something that defer's the problems of the unknown or unprovable to something\someone.
 
A Vestigial Mote

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
chinu said:
Mistake!
Click to expand...
No... not a mistake in the least. When defining a word, don't you first need to introduce the word itself? How else can you go about it?

Using the phrase "God is..." at the start of a sentence containing the defining criteria is no different than a dictionary definition starting out like:

God - [insert definition here]

If what you're calling out in post #2 is a "mistake," then what your OP is really asking is that someone, somehow relay the meaning of a word, WITHOUT EVER EVEN TELLING PEOPLE WHAT THE WORD IS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Which is ridiculous.
 
C

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
chinu said:
Define "God" WITHOUT using the word "God"

Try, if you think its possible :)
Click to expand...

"The reason there is something, rather than nothing."

It's not much of an answer. But humans don't know much about God. We often make up things, fictional descriptions of God, for our own purposes. We attribute all sorts of human characteristics to God. Like caring about us, or sending vague messages through prophets.

But science is the real study of God. The rigorous study of Creation will tell us more about God than humans making claims based on messages indistinguishable from self-serving delusions can possibly tell us.
Tom
 
C

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
bobhikes said:
God - a mythos created by humankind to defer the unknown\unprovable.
Click to expand...

chinu said:
Mistake!
Click to expand...
No it's not.
That's the usual definition of God. In other words, it's the subjective truth of most people. It may not be objectively true, but humans aren't very good at objective truth. That's why the scientific method is so annoyingly rigorous. Because science is about objective truth and religion is about subjective beliefs.
Tom
 
Heyo

Heyo

Veteran Member
SalixIncendium said:
I've always believed...

...that there's a definition for God.​
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say I believed it, but I didn't think about it. So many people used the word as if they knew what they were talking about.
It took some time to realize they were mistaken.

There is no definition to which a majority of believers could agree upon.
 
sun rise

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Take your pick:
  • @Fool has one definition I have as well: Love
  • Kabir said "He is the breath inside the breath"
  • "That" (with a finger pointing upwards).
  • Rumi said "I looked into my own heart. In that place I saw him."
  • The shema says "One"
  • That which prompts you to ask the OP question.
 
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
chinu said:
Define "God" WITHOUT using the word "God"

Try, if you think its possible :)
Click to expand...
So, I pulled out my favourite book (well, one of them) called, "A Brief History of Thought," by Luc Ferry, and here it says, of the Stoic Epictetus,
"...He is saying that we must distrust all attachments that make us forget what the Buddhists call 'impermanence': the fact that nothing is stable in this world, that everything passes and changes, and that not to understand this is to create for oneself a hopelessness about what is past and a hope of what is yet to come. We must learn to content ourselves with the present, to love the present to the point of desiring nothing else and of regretting nothing whatsoever. Reason, which is our guide and which invites us to live in accordance with the harmony of the cosmos, must therefore be purified of that which weighs it down and falsifies it, whenever it strays into the unreal dimension of time past and time future.
"But once the truth of this is grasped we are still far from putting it into practice. Which is why Marcus Aurelius invites his disciples to embody it practically: 'So, if you separate, as I say, from this governing self [i.e. the mind] what is attached to it by passions, and what of time is left to run or has already flown, and make yourself like the sphere of Empedocles, 'rounded, rejoicing in the solitude which is about it,'* and practice only to live the life you are living, that is the present, then it will be in your power at least to live out the time that is left until you die, untroubled and dispensing kindness, and reconciled with your own good daemon. (Meditations, XII, 3).' "

*comparisons to Dogen's The One Bright Pearl

God is what remains having reconciled yourself with "your own good daemon."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top