Australian Politics Forum - The meaning of God

Amadd

Gold Member

Offline

Mo

Posts: 6217

The meaning of God
Jul 17^th, 2011 at 1:18am

Of all of the meanings that I've heard and not heard from those who consider themselves to know or not know the meaning of God, I've come up with a flippant idea with the help of some drugs.

My idea is that the "laws of the day (early Christian days)" reflected a sort of a pinnacle of balance between outward rule and total disorder.

Even (and maybe most especially), an athiest would not argue with many of the rules of morality contained within the bible.
Most, if not all, conjecture between athiests and theists pale in comparison to the real outward laws of which we live by.

In the context or "fair and reasonable" laws, most athiests would embrace the idea that Christians had the laws pretty much right at some stage of their entity.
Athiests obviously won't have a bar of believing in some "supernatural controller", but I think they will entertain the idea that the will of "God" exists within every being, and should be treated as such.

If we are allowed to vote democratically, then that's great. We aren't given that option IMO.i

Back to top

IP Logged

Lisa Jones Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 39047 Sydney Gender:	Re: The meaning of God Reply #1 - Jul 17^th, 2011 at 11:11am An interesting topic for this sub forum.
Back to top	If I let myself be bought then I am no longer free. HYPATIA - Greek philosopher, mathematician and astronomer (370 - 415) IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: The meaning of God Reply #2 - Jul 17^th, 2011 at 6:14pm God is a verb, not a noun. Atheists who oppose god as a thing are as far up the garden path as are the religious who worship a that is a 'thing'.
Back to top	IP Logged

NorthOfNorth Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 17258 Gender:	Re: The meaning of God Reply #3 - Jul 17^th, 2011 at 11:11pm Soren wrote on Jul 17^th, 2011 at 6:14pm: God is a verb, not a noun. I god You god he/she gods we god you god they god
Back to top	Conviction is the art of being certain IP Logged

Amadd Gold Member Offline Mo Posts: 6217	Re: The meaning of God Reply #4 - Jul 18^th, 2011 at 6:50am Does God god?
Back to top	IP Logged

NorthOfNorth Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 17258 Gender:	Re: The meaning of God Reply #5 - Jul 18^th, 2011 at 7:25am Amadd wrote on Jul 18^th, 2011 at 6:50am: Does God god? Aye, he does indeed (apparently).... God gods all week and three times on a Sunday.
Back to top	Conviction is the art of being certain IP Logged

Yadda Gold Member Offline Posts: 21722 A cat with a view	Re: The meaning of God Reply #6 - Jul 18^th, 2011 at 9:40am Yadda's post is removed because it is preaching and no debating or discussing. Refer to complaints thread to see the original post and my comments.
Back to top	« Last Edit: Jul 24^th, 2011 at 11:41am by Sappho » "....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31 IP Logged

Amadd

Gold Member

Offline

Mo

Posts: 6217

Re: The meaning of God
Reply #7 - Jul 19^th, 2011 at 7:15am

Quote:

Jeremiah 9:23
Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches:
24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD.

The wiseth man who writeth the above said text surely shalt have been be so very wiseth and so very gloriouseth in order to be able to heareth and interpret what us mereth mortals cannot...eth.

Wow! How could one even grace a commoner's pavement with one's smelly feet whilst being so unbelievably awestruck with ones self?

Back to top

IP Logged

Sappho

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1406
Gender: female

Re: The meaning of God
Reply #8 - Jul 24^th, 2011 at 12:05pm

Amadd wrote on Jul 17^th, 2011 at 1:18am:

My idea is that the "laws of the day (early Christian days)" reflected a sort of a pinnacle of balance between outward rule and total disorder.

Could you explain what you mean? For example, Christians can't create images in heaven or earth for the purposes of worship. How does that reflect a balance between outward rule and total disorder?

Quote:

Even (and maybe most especially), an athiest would not argue with many of the rules of morality contained within the bible.
Most, if not all, conjecture between athiests and theists pale in comparison to the real outward laws of which we live by.

I would. I don't get marriage for example. I don't see why it is important to spend all of your life with only one person whilst desiring of other people. I can see that it was when men ruled the world and women were property... but now???? We are not naturally monogamous, so why pretend at it through the religous institution of marriage? I appreciate that there are exceptions, but they are not the rule, and the rule is clearly identified by the 20 somethings and 30 somethings who make it there business to partner hop.

Quote:

In the context or "fair and reasonable" laws, most athiests would embrace the idea that Christians had the laws pretty much right at some stage of their entity.

Sometimes stealing is necessary for survival such as was the case during the convict days which saw the UK cleansing their population of petty crims who stole bread to eat and sending them on their way to the land of Oz.

"Let he who is without sin, caste the first stone" Hmmm.... how many Christian Judges are there?

Back to top

"Love is a cunning weaver of fantasies and fables."

IP Logged

Amadd

Gold Member

Offline

Mo

Posts: 6217

Re: The meaning of God
Reply #9 - Jul 25^th, 2011 at 10:59am

Quote:

Amadd wrote on Jul 17th, 2011, 1:18am:
My idea is that the "laws of the day (early Christian days)" reflected a sort of a pinnacle of balance between outward rule and total disorder.

Quote:

Could you explain what you mean? For example, Christians can't create images in heaven or earth for the purposes of worship. How does that reflect a balance between outward rule and total disorder?

Well, the law of the day (as told by Christian God) may have been seen to be restrictive, but in reality, people pretty much still did what they liked.
People weren't very trackable in those days, so there was still plenty of room to move and plenty of time to reflect upon moral writings (or repent to the words of the accepted Christian God if you like).

Fast forward to today's societies (especially western) and we see that once "advisory" suggestions are now punishable laws. There's no escaping them, your every move is now tracked.
Of course with a higher population, it seems obvious that more restrictions are necessary. But that's not what God said.

God gave us the rules to live by and trusted that we'd listen to these words and try our best to live by them. This being the basis of our legal system (most especially the ten commandments).

So what I am saying is that what was then a "realistic expectation" for a general balance between outward rule and disorder, has now been morphed into an "unrealistic expectation" which has become humanly impossible to follow without feeling restricted in everyday life, or without feeling that personal freedom has been sacrificed for something else that God didn't tell us about, or what the wise people of the day didn't want us to expect from ourselves.

In other words, I think that the bible is (and a lot of other religious texts are) a very good reference point to personal freedom.
Whether or not I think them to be the word of God/s or the word of wise people doesn't really matter.

Back to top

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21722
A cat with a view

Re: The meaning of God
Reply #10 - Jul 25^th, 2011 at 12:21pm

Amadd wrote on Jul 25^th, 2011 at 10:59am:

God gave us the rules to live by and trusted that we'd listen to these words and try our best to live by them. This being the basis of our legal system (most especially the ten commandments).

So what I am saying is that what was then a "realistic expectation" for a general balance between outward rule and disorder, has now been morphed into an "unrealistic expectation" which has become humanly impossible to follow without feeling restricted in everyday life, or without feeling that personal freedom has been sacrificed for something else that God didn't tell us about, or what the wise people of the day didn't want us to expect from ourselves.

In other words, I think that the bible is (and a lot of other religious texts are) a very good reference point to personal freedom.
Whether or not I think them to be the word of God/s or the word of wise people doesn't really matter.

A system of laws [like those laws, that some of us suppose God gave to men, i.e. the ten commandments], will only have a beneficial affect upon a group of people, when that group of people all broadly agree, that they can all see some merit, in following such laws.

Ideally, such laws would have the effect, imo, of protecting the interests of every individual, within that group / society.

Whereas, if we ourselves [for example] would expect everyone else to obey a set of rules [laws], but decided that whenever no one saw us, we could break those laws, then there would be little beneficial effect for anyone, imo.

We need to be conscientious, in trying to do what we know is right [i.e. 'lawful'].

i.e.
Laws for the good of [for the protection of] the individual, only 'work' if all [or virtually all!] members of a group or society are willing to conscientiously obey those laws.

Dictionary;

conscientious = =
1 wishing to do what is right.
2 relating to a person’s conscience.

+++

Matthew 15:8
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21722
A cat with a view

Re: The meaning of God
Reply #11 - Jul 25^th, 2011 at 12:35pm

Yadda wrote on Jul 25^th, 2011 at 12:21pm:

Ideally, such laws would have the effect, imo, of protecting the interests of every individual, within that group / society.

I can imagine that some may argue, that societal laws should protect the majority, and NOT specifically, the individual.

I disagree, strongly!!

If the detail of the law protects the rights of every individual, THEN AUTOMATICALLY, the interests of every person [of the majority], are also protected.

Whereas, lawmakers who make laws for the benefit of 'the majority' will invariably tend to trample upon the interests and rights of some individuals,

"in the interests of the majority."

IMO, the purpose of our laws should be, to protect the individual, every individual, rather than our laws being 'devoted' to protecting 'society'.

I am a student of the Bible.

How i view O.T. laws, is that those laws teach man how to approach righteousness.

I firmly believe that.

And imo, those O.T. laws do teach man ethical behaviour.

And, [i believe that] that was their intended purpose.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 25^th, 2011 at 12:51pm by Yadda »

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Baronvonrort

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18418
Gender: male

Re: The meaning of God
Reply #12 - Jul 25^th, 2011 at 12:54pm

Amadd wrote on Jul 17^th, 2011 at 1:18am:

Even (and maybe most especially), an athiest would not argue with many of the rules of morality contained within the bible.

In the context or "fair and reasonable" laws, most athiests would embrace the idea that Christians had the laws pretty much right at some stage of their entity.

What about the morality in Leviticus?

Killing heretics was a part of christian morality once upon a time are you suggesting the christians were right to do this?

What about Galileo was locking him up for contradicting the bible an act of christian morality?

Atheist morality is superior to religious morality that calls for stoning to death for adultery!

Back to top

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21722
A cat with a view

Re: The meaning of God
Reply #13 - Jul 25^th, 2011 at 1:35pm

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 25^th, 2011 at 12:54pm:

What about the morality in Leviticus?

Killing heretics was a part of christian morality once upon a time are you suggesting the christians were right to do this?

What about Galileo was locking him up for contradicting the bible an act of christian morality?

Atheist morality is superior to religious morality that calls for stoning to death for adultery!

My response to that argument, is that 'killing heretics as a part of Christian morality', is that yes,
1/ it happened, and yes,
2/ it was done by men claiming to be Christians.

They were men using religion as a 'vehicle', to rule over and oppress other men.

But, such actions [oppression] could never be scripturally justified, to be legitimate Christian doctrine.

"The Problem of Evil"

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1304541795/93#93
Quote:

Further, regards organised religion;

If you believe that the Book of Revelation, is the "The Revelation of Jesus Christ," then in that book....

Jesus said...
"...thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate."
Revelation 2:6
Revelation 2:15

Nicolaitans???

What does that word, Nicolaitans, refer to ?

'Nicolaitan', refers to those who [Nico] 'rule over' or 'conquer', and [the laity] 'the people'.

Jesus in Revelation, and, in the Gospels, said that he hated those hypocrites, who use the authority of 'religion' [turning religion into a 'beastly', false, worldly 'spirituality'], so as to rule over men.

Almost every religion of man does this.

Some religions [more than others] going to extreme lengths, to exert their authority over their adherents/devotees.

Regards those harsh OT laws, those OT laws [and their punishments] applied to a covenant people.

A people who themselves, entered into a covenant with their God.

"...And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him.
And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do...."
Exodus 19:5-8

explored further here....

"more muslim daily madness"

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1238715411/458#458

"The Problem of Evil"

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1304541795/89#89

"The Problem of Evil"

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1304541795/108#108

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: The meaning of God Reply #14 - Jul 26^th, 2011 at 8:58am NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 17^th, 2011 at 11:11pm: Soren wrote on Jul 17^th, 2011 at 6:14pm: God is a verb, not a noun. I god You god he/she gods we god you god they god You have to göd him, don't you? I think I understand what Soren is getting at though.
Back to top	« Last Edit: Jul 26^th, 2011 at 9:45am by muso » 1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged