God vs. customized God

[Quiddity]

How does one even know that God has standards and laws?

Because we do, and it's the only way we can imagine Him in relation to our needs and nature.

It's no more delusional then thinking He doesn't have standards.

 

[doppelganger]

Because we do, and it's the only way we can imagine Him in relation to our needs and nature.

It's no more delusional then thinking He doesn't have standards.

That of course is a straw man, as I didn't say "He" didn't have standards. Though I would agree, any claims that what I imagine about "God" somehow relate to something outside my imagination are equally delusional, whether phrased in terms of a positive assertion or a negative one.

Simply put, your argument doesn't get close to answering the question other than "because we do" which sure sounds like you're talking about something in your imagination.

Regardless, it's still a "Customized God" you're talking about, because whatever I decide those standards and laws consist of are so simply by virtue of my asserting that I know they are so. Thus, the standards are "whatever I decide they are," i.e. "customized."

 

[Quiddity]

That of course is a straw man, as I didn't say "He" didn't have standards.

It would be. But as I missed that, it's merely a mistake on my part.

Though I would agree, any claims that what I imagine about "God" somehow relate to something outside my imagination are equally delusional, whether phrased in terms of a positive assertion or a negative one.

And round and round we go. I've been pondering how to even discuss this.

Simply put, your argument doesn't get close to answering the question other than "because we do" which sure sounds like you're talking about something in your imagination.

Of course.

Regardless, it's still a "Customized God" you're talking about, because whatever I decide those standards and laws consist of are so simply by virtue of my asserting that I know they are so. Thus, the standards are "whatever I decide they are," i.e. "customized."

Well, as I believe there is a real world out there outside of our delusions and imagination, one can [and do] be certain of things. As I'm certain the cosmos function a certain way, one merely need find the right glasses to see it through.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Because we do, and it's the only way we can imagine Him in relation to our needs and nature.

It's no more delusional then thinking He doesn't have standards.

No, it isn't. But what may well be delusional is the belief that the fruits of our imagination represent truth while the efforts of others represent mere facsimiles/customizations.

 

[PureX]

Back before few months, someone in the forum told me that he will accept the Abrahamic God to be his God if he could let him do that and that, and if this God would do and don't specific things, so i'm wondering now, if you are willing to believe in a specific God, then why to try to enforce your own desire and needs toward the one you want to believe in as a condition in order to believe in him.

It seems to me that what this person was telling you was that he/she wants "God" (the idea of God that they choose to accept and live with) to fulfill some specific functions for them. And this is quite normal and reasonable, I think. In fact, we ALL choose our God, gods, or lack of them because doing so fulfulls some need or function within us.

Perhaps the reason you're having difficulty understanding and appreciating this position is because you don't fully accept that your IDEA OF GOD is not actually God. And neither is anyone else's. Once we understand that the idea of God that we hold in our minds is not actually God, we can then begin to understand and appreciate the value of "picking and choosing" and why it's healthy to do so.

 

[Quiddity]

No, it isn't. But what may well be delusional is the belief that the fruits of our imagination represent truth while the efforts of others represent in mere facsimiles/customizations.

Then you'll have to direct that to someone who holds to such delusions.

Personally, I think both are.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, as I believe there is a real world out there outside of our delusions and imagination, one can [and do] be certain of things.

How is this not a non sequitur? That "there is a real world out there outside of our delusions and imagination" is no guarantor of certainty.

 

[Quiddity]

How is this not a non sequitur? That "here is a real world out there outside of our delusions and imagination" is no quarantor of certainty.

Why not?

Probabilities?

Verifying with others experience, etc.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, as I believe there is a real world out there outside of our delusions and imagination, one can [and do] be certain of things.

That "there is a real world out there outside of our delusions and imagination" is no guarantor of certainty.

Why not?

You're kidding.

 

[Quiddity]

You're kidding.

I see what you are saying now...

 

[TashaN]

I used to notice much the same thing when studying comparative religion in college, Truth. At the time, I thought it was a bad thing for reasons I won't get into. While I'm not sure about that anymore -- it could be quite a good thing, in many respects -- I do think you're right to say that many people more or less pick and choose the God they want, regardless of what their tradition says God is like.

BTW, I think the folks in this thread who believe you are trying to impose your view of God on others are jumping to conclusions about your intent here. So far as I can see, you're merely raising this issue of folks picking and choosing the God they want, regardless of what their tradition says God is like.

That's what i'm talking about. People start believing in a god then they say hmmm, our God shouldn't do that or that, he should let me do the following:

1- ...
2- ...
3- ....

The he should act in this way ( ..... ).

Who is the god in this case, you or Him? :faint:

 

[TashaN]

"His" own "standards and laws"?

Then your "God" is also a "Customized God." There's not a collection of "standards and laws" that isn't created by people and imagined to be the standards and laws of "God." Every follower of a religion imagines that his/her "standards and laws" passed down in their tradition are the official "standards and laws of God." So you're right back at my definitions no matter how you slice it.

Your claim is based on the assumption that we *as muslims* for instance are imagining things.

It's much eaiser to put it in this way.

I'm a muslim, and i know that my God have certain laws and we have to follow it, and we find that in the Quran. Therefore, if i want to be a muslim, so i should follow what the Quran says, instead of saying my God should behave in this way or that way, or saying God should allow me to do some stuff which he prohibited in the Quran for instance. At the end of the day, i'll find myself complaining about God because he didn't allow me to do certain things or fulfill my desire for instance, if i rejected his laws.

Like that, you are trying to make your own god instead of following the one you chose to adhere to.

If you want to believe in a "god" then you should accept everything s/he says and you don't have to teach your "god" what s/he do and what s/he shouldn't. Don't you agree with me?

That's the different between the God you chose to worship, and the customized god you are looking for.

How does one even know that God has standards and laws?

For me, i know his laws based on the Quran and the teaching of his Prophet, whom he sent for us. Therefore, if i followed these teachings so i'm worshipping my God, but if i refused that and starting demanding what God should do and shouldn't, then i'll start customizing my own personal god.

 

[cardero]

I always found that it was more enlightening to have GOD express who He is to me in my life rather than rely on a publication or heresay. I could read 32 different books about GOD and still not know who this entity is or what He wants or why. I could read 32 two books about John Lennon and I am sure that each author would have a different (possibly conflicting) perspective of John Lennon and an agenda for writing about his life.

 

[TashaN]

We exist in a customized reality. What we perceive are symbolic representations created by our brain in order to understand the world without. What's actually out there probably doesn't exist in the way we perceive it to.

True, but its all about a commitment to what we perceive to be true and our acceptance for it, which will drive us into worshipping a god, but if we chose to set a certain of standards of our own, then we will probably find ourselves creating a god, instead of worshipping the one who created us "in the case of those who believe that their is the creator". If someone chose to believe in a god, then he should be abide with it, but if s/he doesn't, then he is creating his own god based on his own standard, but not based on the standards set by God.

I don't say that customizing a god for yourself is wrong, because you might another god which will satisfy you, but the least thing one can do is to accept the source they believe in as its whether we like what s/he says or not, because we can't be wiser than God, isn't it?

We need a customized God to go along with out customized reality. Whatever symbols we use to describe God are there to help us find meaning in It. God is a spectrum created by passing through the prism of our minds.

Thats only in the mind of philosophers who try to imagine what God might look like. I'm not talking about an imaginary and hypothetical god but a real one whom we chose to accept, not the one whom we created through our mind.

 

[TashaN]

Firstly, I want to say that I didn't say any of what I said because you are a muslim. My response would be the same no matter who asked this question, no matter what their faith.

I'm not here to debate the overall generalization concept of orthodox religions' "god". I'm saying that, no matter what faith you are, no matter what the "general concept" may be, everyone has their own internalized view of "god". You can take two Christians side by side (or Muslims or Jews for that matter) and get two different ideas of what "god" may think over a particular issue. Doesn't mean either one of them is right or wrong, but just that, in the grand scheme of understanding, that there are things we cannot possibly know, so we are left to our own devices to try to reason them out. Some people visualize what "god" may look like, some don't think he looks like anything and has no form. Some try to attach human feelings to him because it is what we relate to. How can these things be applied to something so far beyond human? Because we try to identify with deity in whatever way we can. Since every person on this planet is different, then it stands to reason that each person identifies "god" differently. Each person in an orthodox faith takes the "generalized concept" and tweaks it in their own mind so that they can more understand and feel closer to "god".

People can say that they don't do this and that they just adhere to what is said in scripture, but that is impossible. As I already explained, the reading of words draws a picture in our mind. Since everyone's mind is different, then different pictures are drawn. Even if the differences are slight, they are there. So, in effect, a religion may have a general concept of what or who "god" is, but the adherents to that religion expand on what "god" is in their heads.

I can describe what my desk looks like as detailed as I can, but the picture that you perceive of it in your mind may slightly differ from how it really looks, and how everyone else pictures it. The lines of the wood grain, the tone of the wood, the feel under your hand, the strength of the wood, how the doors hang, how the drawer sticks a bit when you first pull it out. I can describe my desk and everyone has a general idea of what the desk is, but when you get into the details that the mind tries to figure out, as our minds naturally do, then differences pop up.

This is all I've been trying to say throughout this.

Ok, i got now what you are trying to say.

Actually, you are talking about how God looks like in our mind, and of course some details might be different from one to another. Let's assume that there is god "A" who told you not to cross street "X". Some will say ok and they didn't, and some will do cross the "prohibited" street even though they know about the prohibition, and its all good until now. The problem here is when we try to enforce our own knowledge and expectations on this god, and we say that he doesn't deserve to be god just because he asked us to "do" and "don't" certain things, got what i mean?

Don't you think this is like syaing we know better than God?

 

[TashaN]

Here's the fallacy, at least for Christians: Christianity is not "based on the writings of scripture." The writings arose out of Christianity (to some extent).

What about those who depend on the scriptures?

Fallacy #2: The scriptures are not "clear cut."

How do you know that?

Don't you think this is a generalization?

 

[TashaN]

It seems to me that what this person was telling you was that he/she wants "God" (the idea of God that they choose to accept and live with) to fulfill some specific functions for them. And this is quite normal and reasonable, I think. In fact, we ALL choose our God, gods, or lack of them because doing so fulfulls some need or function within us.

It seems that God for you is just an idea which human beings come up with, but not a separate being. Am i right to assume that?

 

[PureX]

It seems that God for you is just an idea which human beings come up with, but not a separate being. Am i right to assume that?

If God exists as a phenomenon, apart from our idea of it, there's no way for we humans to verify or quantify or characterize that phenomenon. So all we really have is our own idea of "God", and the choice to hold onto that idea, or not to.

That being the case, it is logical and reasonable for us to make that choice based on how it effects us and the way we live our lives. If believing in God "X" is having a positive effect on us and the way we live, then it is reasonable for us to continue to hold onto that concept of God. if it is not, then it's reasonable to reject it. And in fact, this is the way almost all of us choose the concept of God that we hold, whether we can admit to this or not. Pretending that one "knows" that their concept of God is God does not mean that they actually know this is so, as they claim, nor does it mean that they haven't "picked and chosen" their concept of God just as everyone else has. They've simply added a dishonest pretense to their concept of God that causes them to make such ego-centric claims.

 

[doppelganger]

Your claim is based on the assumption that we *as muslims* for instance are imagining things.

Yes. But it's not limited to Muslims. Though we are confusing things, as the whole point of this thread was for it not to be about the God of Islam. I think people were even admonished for trying to read it that way. So what gives?

I'm a muslim, and i know that my God have certain laws and we have to follow it, and we find that in the Quran. Therefore, if i want to be a muslim, so i should follow what the Quran says, instead of saying my God should behave in this way or that way, or saying God should allow me to do some stuff which he prohibited in the Quran for instance. At the end of the day, i'll find myself complaining about God because he didn't allow me to do certain things or fulfill my desire for instance, if i rejected his laws.

Of course, you understand that there'd be no Islam without people feeling unsatisfied that their current religion wasn't working? What you are saying is that the only valid religious approach is to choose a pre-fabricated religion and stick to it. Why? No good reason other than resist the urge to claim that there are things wrong with the religion. First, it's still a "customized God" no matter how you choose it, because it is still a product of your imagination. That your imagination was inspired by something someone else wrote or said, doesn't change the essential nature of what is going on. Second, why shouldn't you decide what you do and don't agree with? That's how slavery, wars of religion, degradation of women, racism and all sorts of other injustices get perpetuated.

Like that, you are trying to make your own god instead of following the one you chose to adhere to.

Either way you are making the "God" you are choosing.

For me, i know his laws based on the Quran and the teaching of his Prophet, whom he sent for us. Therefore, if i followed these teachings so i'm worshipping my God, but if i refused that and starting demanding what God should do and shouldn't, then i'll start customizing my own personal god.

There's nothing wrong with that. Those laws are the "laws" simply because of a state of your mind. They are human creations, interpreted and applied by humans. If they are wrong, they should be changed. Period.

 

[TashaN]

If God exists as a phenomenon, apart from our idea of it, there's no way for we humans to verify or quantify or characterize that phenomenon.

Unless God himself, the one who created us and know all about our ideas, make it so simple for us to comprehend and verify his existance.

So all we really have is our own idea of "God", and the choice to hold onto that idea, or not to.

That's a very bold statement which you can't prove because its based on a plain assumption in your part.

Pretending that one "knows" that their concept of God is God does not mean that they actually know this is so, as they claim, nor does it mean that they haven't "picked and chosen" their concept of God just as everyone else has. They've simply added a dishonest pretense to their concept of God that causes them to make such ego-centric claims.

All what you have been saying so far is based on your assumptions and believeing only in what you know assuming that others have got nothing but dishonest pretense which is absurd and unrealstic. Just because you can't prove what you believe in, that doesnt mean you can label others as being "pretending" or "dishonest".