• 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!

A good heated discussion

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Well, my definition of God is not what abrahamics use. Its a commom refered to def. which I dont care for and no one understands me if I dont use it.

I

I used He in response to you. I used he because you might not have caught the idea if I called him "it" or even "Jerry, Bob or Thomas". I use He Because you and other in this discussion refer to him as he. I can call it a "she" if you want, or even "My big toe". What we call him (it, she, Bob, Jerry, Jane, my big toe) does not change what what it is. Your third question is excellent and the answer is yes. Simply yes.

Third question: He can become something he is not made up of? Who is He in this statement if not everything? What makes God, God to you if he is not anything: He is everything. By my saying he is not anything, I mean anything in particular. How can you be everything but also be one thing? This is confusing if you don't open our mind to the possibility of it. He is not anything in particular, he is everything in particular. (Except man made things such as a cellphone)


God to me is life.
God is everything.
God is the moon in the sky that guides me
God is the sun that gives me life
God is the water where I was born
God is the earth where I will return
God is my ancestors watching over me
God is thr spirit living in me
God is my mother who took care of me
God is every person in life
God is all living
God is all naturally made
God is my speech; thr poetry I write

God to me is everything.

This is not just a poem. Everything here is true. This is how I define God.
-
God is not made up of love. God is lovem
God is not an personification of love
God is not above me
God is not beyond me
God is not below me

God is in your words
So whatever negative words I hear bothers me
Sometimes it confuses me
Because nothing negative is the true nature of God (described above)

God is cause and affect
God is our wisdom

God does not become human
God is in humans

This is God.

--

It is not metaphysical language. No "alpha and omega", no puzzled concepts in spiritual jargon. God is not written in a book. God is common sense. He is easy to undersand ifnwe dont debate about who he ism

We have questions about how others describe God. We ponder. We try to look out of our perspective into anothers.

That is God. Telling me to open my mind is not the voice of God. I find language like thst highly negative. I know God does not express himself that way.

Godnis not even a he to where I should refer to him as.

If you have read all of this, thank you.

I am just confused and curious of how you use adj as if it were a noun.
 

Thuli

Member
Well, my definition of God is not what abrahamics use. Its a commom refered to def. which I dont care for and no one understands me if I dont use it.




God to me is life.
God is everything.
God is the moon in the sky that guides me
God is the sun that gives me life
God is the water where I was born
God is the earth where I will return
God is my ancestors watching over me
God is thr spirit living in me
God is my mother who took care of me
God is every person in life
God is all living
God is all naturally made
God is my speech; thr poetry I write

God to me is everything.

This is not just a poem. Everything here is true. This is how I define God.
-
God is not made up of love. God is lovem
God is not an personification of love
God is not above me
God is not beyond me
God is not below me

God is in your words
So whatever negative words I hear bothers me
Sometimes it confuses me
Because nothing negative is the true nature of God (described above)

God is cause and affect
God is our wisdom

God does not become human
God is in humans

This is God.

--

It is not metaphysical language. No "alpha and omega", no puzzled concepts in spiritual jargon. God is not written in a book. God is common sense. He is easy to undersand ifnwe dont debate about who he ism

We have questions about how others describe God. We ponder. We try to look out of our perspective into anothers.

That is God. Telling me to open my mind is not the voice of God. I find language like thst highly negative. I know God does not express himself that way.

Godnis not even a he to where I should refer to him as.

If you have read all of this, thank you.

I am just confused and curious of how you use adj as if it were a noun.
I'm glad you understand. But why is he not the alpha and omega? Is he not big enough?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I'm glad you understand. But why is he not the alpha and omega? Is he not big enough?

I dont see him as a him/her/it to make God someone (for lack of words) that is above or below me.

There is no heirarchy when you participate not serve in life. No one is your master or God (as commonly def.).

Thats why I like holistic living. It, how I practice, exudes the he versus her. In Buddhism, which I agree, the master bows to the student and student to master. I live with the elderly. I bow to asian decent elders they bow to me.

Its a participation in God not an alpha a omega which denotes some'' above oneself.

I find that servitude unhealthy in my spiritual walk. Im always perplex how one can see themselves as lower compared to the God they worship or revere
 
Last edited:

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Yet you constantly quote the bible and you believe in the theology of Jesus Christ. What are you? Love is relative, religious or no.
Not religious to me means I do not submit to man-made rules about God. Belief wise I consider myself religious more than average. Which means I believe very strongly in obeying God for righteousness' sake. God is a spirit. You say your religion is spiritualism. That can mean very good or very bad depending on the person's pov. Personally, I do not care what you call yourself.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Like God is the action between people? Example, I share the love of God to others...(taking out the crooked part), the love I give (say I hug) is God loving the person I hug not me?
Crooked as in loving a despot. You know? Love makes happy and comfortable, safe and sound. Why do some people want their evil associates be happy, comfortable, safe and sound? In this world love goes crooked, not that there is such a thing as crooked love. Love is love. Rich people are loved more than poor people. Agreeable people are loved more than those who disagree. Powerful people are loved more than innocent children are loved. That is crooked love.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Crooked as in loving a despot. You know? Love makes happy and comfortable, safe and sound. Why do some people want their evil associates be happy, comfortable, safe and sound? In this world love goes crooked, not that there is such a thing as crooked love. Love is love. Rich people are loved more than poor people. Agreeable people are loved more than those who disagree. Powerful people are loved more than innocent children are loved. That is crooked love.

Okay. There is crooked love just as their is pure love, both can be expressed by humans.

My question...love as in "The love I give/verb phrase to another by a hug is the same as God doing the loving in the act/hug I gave that person?

So I did the physical hug. In truth, they didnt get love from me but God (love) did it instead.

More emphasis on love that gives rather than the person giving it?
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Okay. There is crooked love just as their is pure love, both can be expressed by humans.

My question...love as in "The love I give/verb phrase to another by a hug is the same as God doing the loving in the act/hug I gave that person?

So I did the physical hug. In truth, they didnt get love from me but God (love) did it instead.

More emphasis on love that gives rather than the person giving it?
From a human perspective , yes, more on love than the person giving it. From Heaven's perspective the person giving love is at least as important as the love given. God being wise, of course, wants to be greatest because if everyone looked to God who is love, then the world would be right. What is the rule? Whoever wants to be greatest must become least. So God made God least. Who will love the least one? Not many at any rate.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
From a human perspective , yes, more on love than the person giving it. From Heaven's perspective the person giving love is at least as important as the love given. God being wise, of course, wants to be greatest because if everyone looked to God who is love, then the world would be right. What is the rule? Whoever wants to be greatest must become least. So God made God least. Who will love the least one? Not many at any rate.

Now I understand that. Why do you refer to a verb as if it was alive by itself independent of ourselves?

"God (love?) being wise, of course, wants to be greatest because if everyone looked to God who is love, then the world would be right."

I mean, when I give love (not physical) to my wife, in the post above, that love is more than agape and it is a verb, as you say, since in a sense it "does" something for my wife and myself. So in that sense, the love is a verb.

I am happy with that. Until it continues beyond the simplicity of love.

Now, we have love that showers us also has wants and needs. Unlike the showering which is a metaphor, having love want and need in English is not proper.

Thats saying, my hate has wants and needs ro make people unhappy. Does this make sene to you?

Its the same the other way around. Love has wants and needs to make people happy.

Im hung up on attributing actions and desires that are not metaphors to a emotion rather than a person or thing.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Now I understand that. Why do you refer to a verb as if it was alive by itself independent of ourselves?

"God (love?) being wise, of course, wants to be greatest because if everyone looked to God who is love, then the world would be right."

I mean, when I give love (not physical) to my wife, in the post above, that love is more than agape and it is a verb, as you say, since in a sense it "does" something for my wife and myself. So in that sense, the love is a verb.

I am happy with that. Until it continues beyond the simplicity of love.

Now, we have love that showers us also has wants and needs. Unlike the showering which is a metaphor, having love want and need in English is not proper.

Thats saying, my hate has wants and needs ro make people unhappy. Does this make sene to you?

Its the same the other way around. Love has wants and needs to make people happy.

Im hung up on attributing actions and desires that are not metaphors to a emotion rather than a person or thing.
I do not believe love has wants.

Also I'd like to say that I think the hate that people have for others does not "want and need" to make other people unhappy. It DOES make other people unhappy, but that is a an unfortunate effect and not on purpose usually. Hating people is against the law of God imo.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I do not believe love has wants.

Also I'd like to say that I think the hate that people have for others does not "want and need" to make other people unhappy. It DOES make other people unhappy, but that is a an unfortunate effect and not on purpose usually. Hating people is against the law of God imo.

True. Hate doesnt exist on its own. Believers say God exists a part from us (we dont create Him). So I went off the same view.

I dont see how love wants. If God is love and God wants the greatest for His creation, thats the only way I can interpret it if God was separate from us.

If not, love can make people happy by how we show it and that show or action Is God. But I dont get that impression from believers.

See my confusion?
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
True. Hate doesnt exist on its own. Believers say God exists a part from us (we dont create Him). So I went off the same view.

I dont see how love wants. If God is love and God wants the greatest for His creation, thats the only way I can interpret it if God was separate from us.

If not, love can make people happy by how we show it and that show or action Is God. But I dont get that impression from believers.

See my confusion?
"Believers" have come in the image of Israel who rejected The Messiah. That is what I see and that is what I believe was prophesied.
They praised God with their mouths, but their hearts were far removed from God. Same thing today.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
"Believers" have come in the image of Israel who rejected The Messiah. That is what I see and that is what I believe was prophesied.
They praised God with their mouths, but their hearts were far removed from God. Same thing today.

True. You kinda get my confusion in general.

If love is a verb and can give us peace and God is love, then God, who has wants also means love has wants.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I did not say God has wants. I never debate The Nature of God.

When you say "God being wise, of course, wants to be greatest because if everyone looked to God who is love, then the world would be right" I interpreted it as God wants the best for us.

Im not saying it is false or debating with out a out its validity. Im just puzzled since God is love and love wants the greatest...if everyone look to God the world would be right"

That make sense if love can want. If not, and God is love, speaking logically not spiritually, how does that phrase make sense?

Im asking about the phrasing, the content not the context.
 
Top