Who is God?

[YoursTrue]

No, but is it beyond discovering?

Interestingly, God made Himself known to the Israelites in many cases. Take Solomon, for instance, then when the nation split into two.

 

[DNB]

Well, if you check your thinking neutrally, you will realize that you only think God is Y and that you don't know. But I accept that you claim you know based on how you think. I just do it differently. So we are both subjective and apparently God is objective. That is the point.

But, I have stated that God is spirit - without a classification of gender.
The term 'Father' denotes, amongst the many conducive aspects that I had mentioned earlier, the dominance of His creation - male hierarchy.
So, we refrain from referring to God as 'her' or 'she', for it does not convey superiority nor power.

 

[DNB]

I'm saying that look where you will, you won't find a real god (or God). one with objective existence.

God doesn't even have a description appropriate to a real being. Instead [he]'s described by imaginary qualities ─ omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, perfection, infinite, eternal &c. If [he] were real, to be found in the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses, then of course [he]'d have a real description. But [he] isn't, and the only way [he]'s known to exist is as an idea, a concept, a thing imagined in individual brains ─ a cultural concept.

So you're correct to say I think we adjust our view of God according to our acculturation.

If there were only one God, the result would be that round the world we'd recognize our God in the the versions of the [always one] God of other nations. Instead, we might have, as the Hindus do, many gods, and an entirely different concept of an afterlife, reincarnation in one form or another, or as the Buddhists do, both theistic and atheistic strains woven around the Buddha's moral precepts, and so on through the religions followed in the West, the native religions of everywhere else, and so on.

Yes, you're correct - if God's existence was so axiomatic, all theists around the world would have a unified perception and comprehension of Him. But, for starters, at a minimum, this clearly displays man's spirituality - the fact that all seek the transcendent. So, now, the question lies as to who has the most accurate depiction of God. The answer would be, those who's inductions have the closest correspondence with life, the universe and man.
And, this is the entire point: the most wise and reverent will gain the better understanding - and this is who God seeks.

 

[DNB]

I will simply say that mothers and fathers have different characteristics emotionally. I'm speaking of good mothers and fathers. Not all of us have had that so unless we learn, we may not know.

Yes, tat's true - but which characteristics are the most dominant or practical. That is, which ones portray God in the most accurate manner. I would say the male characteristics.

 

[DNB]

Interestingly, God made Himself known to the Israelites in many cases. Take Solomon, for instance, then when the nation split into two.

Of course, throughout the Bible He has clearly depicted Himself as the equivalent of a male figure, as opposed to female. Even His laws and ordinances were male oriented: only male priests in the temple and as leaders in the church. Only male kings (Athaliah usurped the throne unlawfully). Only male judges (Deborah was a prophetess). Dina, the daughter of Jacob, received no tribe nor land inheritance. According to Paul, women are not allowed to teach in the Church, or have authority over man - as woman was created for man.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, tat's true - but which characteristics are the most dominant or practical. That is, which ones portray God in the most accurate manner. I would say the male characteristics.

Either way, because I don't profess to fully understand it except by way of how the Hebrew denotes the person of God as a male (not as a female), God first created Adam. Then Eve. Mothers and fathers have different characteristics. Some fathers are very loving. Not all are, however. Jesus had a special relationship with his heavenly father, knowing him very well. I strive to have that relationship. Jesus was without sin. (I am not, but I depend upon God for my welfare, innately and physically.) Thanks for your post.
By the way, God chose good parents on earth for Jesus.

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course, throughout the Bible He has clearly depicted Himself as the equivalent of a male figure, as opposed to female. Even His laws and ordinances were male oriented: only male priests in the temple and as leaders in the church. Only male kings (Athaliah usurped the throne unlawfully). Only male judges (Deborah was a prophetess). Dina, the daughter of Jacob, received no tribe nor land inheritance. According to Paul, women are not allowed to teach in the Church, or have authority over man - as woman was created for man.

Yup, and thanks for explaining it. Since I'm a woman, again -- I look forward to perfect freedom that belongs to God. Even though I'm a woman. Since I'm a woman, I'm not sorry that I'm not a man. I hope that makes sense. It makes sense to me.

 

[DNB]

Yup, and thanks for explaining it. Since I'm a woman, again -- I look forward to perfect freedom that belongs to God. Even though I'm a woman. Since I'm a woman, I'm not sorry that I'm not a man. I hope that makes sense. It makes sense to me.

Yes, in heaven, I don't believe that gender will cause any division nor conflict - it will be predominantly insignificant I imagine?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, in heaven, I don't believe that gender will cause any division nor conflict - it will be predominantly insignificant I imagine?

I imagine too. Although I want to live on the earth, that is the desire that God allows me to have. He did, after all, create man and woman to live on the earth. And the Israelites were offered the opportunity to be kings and priests if they kept the Law. Obviously there were problems, as history shows.
In heaven there will be no man and woman gender, that is how I see the Bible to read.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, in heaven, I don't believe that gender will cause any division nor conflict - it will be predominantly insignificant I imagine?

Hopefully we can continue this discussion later. (Getting late where I'm at.) Gnite, nice talking with you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But, I have stated that God is spirit - without a classification of gender.
The term 'Father' denotes, amongst the many conducive aspects that I had mentioned earlier, the dominance of His creation - male hierarchy.
So, we refrain from referring to God as 'her' or 'she', for it does not convey superiority nor power.

Yeah, that you state that doesn't make it a fact. Nor is it a fact, that God is She. We have different faiths. That is all.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't follow your argument. Why would existing independently of you make me cease to be an individual person, a distinct self?

No one is totally objective. But maximizing objectivity is always a good idea if the question is, What's true in the world external to me, reality?

And because humans are social animals, only rarely and abnormally might it be said that an individual "independent of all [other] minds.


It exists independently of you, and because you can inform yourself about the world external to you via your senses, you have a concept of it.

If the external world exists independently of me in the strong sense, then the external world is unknowable. I am in the world as one part of the world and the rest of the world is the other parts. It is epistemology. You can only know something if you have a relationship with it.

"I know something" is a process in 3 parts. You can't reduce that further down, because then you in effect can't know.

 

[blü 2]

If the external world exists independently of me in the strong sense, then the external world is unknowable.

Fine. You go on not knowing that you have the use of a computer, and I'll go on knowing that you do.

I am in the world as one part of the world and the rest of the world is the other parts.

Only seen from the outside. As far as you're concerned, you're IN, and the world external to you is OUT.

As far as an onlooker is concerned, of course, you're part of the world external to the onlooker.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Fine. You go on not knowing that you have the use of a computer, and I'll go on knowing that you do.

Only seen from the outside. As far as you're concerned, you're IN, and the world external to you is OUT.

As far as an onlooker is concerned, of course, you're part of the world external to the onlooker.

Yeah, but that is relative or relational. There is no external world in itself, because you can't see the external world just as you can't see God.
The problem is that the external world as true is only true as a relationship and thus not independent.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, you're correct - if God's existence was so axiomatic, all theists around the world would have a unified perception and comprehension of Him. But, for starters, at a minimum, this clearly displays man's spirituality - the fact that all seek the transcendent. So, now, the question lies as to who has the most accurate depiction of God. The answer would be, those who's inductions have the closest correspondence with life, the universe and man.
And, this is the entire point: the most wise and reverent will gain the better understanding - and this is who God seeks.

Ahm, the better understanding of WHAT, exactly? On 100% of the examinable evidence, God and gods exist ONLY as ideas, concepts, things imagined in individual human brains. God is / gods are found nowhere else, and in no other form ─ of course, humans may draw pictures of gods, and of unicorns, but there are never any photos. I'm very happy to be shown to be wrong on that, but my expectations, after a long time thinking and observing, are extremely small.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ahm, the better understanding of WHAT, exactly? On 100% of the examinable evidence, God and gods exist ONLY as ideas, concepts, things imagined in individual human brains. God is / gods are found nowhere else, and in no other form ─ of course, humans may draw pictures of gods, and of unicorns, but there are never any photos. I'm very happy to be shown to be wrong on that, but my expectations, after a long time thinking and observing, are extremely small.

There is no external world other than if a mind can say that there is an external world.
The word "external" is an internal judgement, an idea, just like God.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So all gods and goddesses, all gods that are animals in form, all deities that are mountains, or caves, or rivers, are just the one god all the time, you say?

If that's what you mean then I think the evidence is against you. To take just one set of possible examples, the Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Oriental native religions, have concepts alien to a single deity, let alone agree on what the single deity is or does or thinks or wants.

You are shifting your argument..
You were referring to Jews and Christians .. and now you want to claim your were referring to non-Abrahamic religion.

 

[blü 2]

There is no external world other than if a mind can say that there is an external world.
The word "external" is an internal judgement, an idea, just like God.

Where did your parents come from? Where do you get your air? Your food? Your drink? Your society? Your computer for use on RF?

Not by imagining them. They're all external to you, that is, they're all real.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Where did your parents come from? Where do you get your air? Your food? Your drink? Your society? Your computer for use on RF?

Not by imagining them. They're all external to you, that is, they're all real.

Yeah, and so it is the belief in God. It is out there in the external world. You experience it in part when you read this forum.
The problem with the world is real is that so is: No, it is not.

We are playing cognition. You can't observe real just as you can't God but both beliefs are real.

 

[blü 2]

You are shifting your argument..
You were referring to Jews and Christians .. and now you want to claim your were referring to non-Abrahamic religion

Yes, of course. We were talking about God, and God is not confined to the Abrahamic religions. Gods and supernatural beings, or at the least supernatural beliefs, have been found in all societies. What they have in common is that they're all different, sometimes in small ways, such as (in the Abrahamics, belief in the Covenant vs Christian discarding of the Covenant), or in medium-sized ways, such as the Christian God becoming triune in the 4th century, or in big ways, such as Hindu polytheism, Shinto supernatural concepts, and of course agnosticism, atheism, and igtheism (my own view).