God Is Not A Christian

[Neo Deist]

God is not a Christian.
God is not Jewish.
God is not Islamic.
God is not a Hindu.

God, as the supreme being, monotheistic deity, or creator of the universe, is not a member of any man made, earth bound religion. No single religion/denomination can lay claim that God belongs to them, and them alone. If anything, the exact nature of God is unknown. You can quote whatever holy book that you want, it does not prove anything.

It is important to separate the human conceptions of God from what we can actually observe...which will be difficult, since God does not make personal appearances and has yet to be captured on camera/video. To that end, we have to study nature and the cosmos in order to see God's creation at work and evolving (incidentally that is the core of deism).

God can't be bound in any human system of belief. Nor can God be restricted to one culture or geographic location. The exact details about God are unknown, and will remain so until said deity decides to make a personal appearance at a press conference, and goes through a Q&A session.

 

[psychoslice]

I agree, and its only our human nature to bring god down to our level, such as making him into our own image.

 

[Nietzsche]

You probably could've stopped at "not" if I'm honest.

 

[Quintessence]

God is not a Christian.
God is not Jewish.
God is not Islamic.
God is not a Hindu.

God, as the supreme being, monotheistic deity, or creator of the universe, is not a member of any man made, earth bound religion. No single religion/denomination can lay claim that God belongs to them, and them alone. If anything, the exact nature of God is unknown. You can quote whatever holy book that you want, it does not prove anything.

I have to ask the question: how do you know what this god is a "member" of? Why couldn't this god be a "member" of all of these? Or one of these? Or a few of these? (though it would be logical contradiction for this god to be a member of Hinduism considering it isn't exactly monotheistic...)

Also seems to me that plenty of religions claim that the one-god belongs to them. If that's the story their mythos tells, I'm cool leaving them to it, personally. Doesn't seem to be my place to tell them that their gods aren't theirs. Pardon... that their god isn't their god. It certainly isn't my god, so they can keep it. As for that god's nature being unknown... I mean... isn't the exact nature of everything unknown? Humans are limited like that. But we tell stories... put stock in the ones we like or were taught by culture. Stories are fun. The folks who put stock in particular sets of stories in these things called "holy books" - it sure serves as proof to them. I'm cool with that too.

It is important to separate the human conceptions of God from what we can actually observe...which will be difficult, since God does not make personal appearances and has yet to be captured on camera/video. To that end, we have to study nature and the cosmos in order to see God's creation at work and evolving (incidentally that is the core of deism).

I'm not quite clear on what you mean by "human conceptions of God" and "what we can actually observe." Aren't those the same thing, since all observations are... well... human observations that then become human conceptions once the sensory data is interpreted by our minds? Maybe you mean to get at the maps-and-territory analogy I throw out on a regular basis, but I'm not quite sure from the wording here.

God can't be bound in any human system of belief. Nor can God be restricted to one culture or geographic location. The exact details about God are unknown, and will remain so until said deity decides to make a personal appearance at a press conference, and goes through a Q&A session.

Differences of opinions amongst the monotheists aside, herein lies one of the important distinctions between monotheisms and non-monotheisms. In non-monotheisms, gods are frequently connected to particular geographic areas. It's an interesting difference of perspective, I think.

 

[George-ananda]

God is not a Christian.
God is not Jewish.
God is not Islamic.
God is not a Hindu.

I think a better way of looking at it is that God is in all four of them but not one exclusively. I see God as the core of us all and He is with anyone who strives for brotherly love and compassion.

 

[George-ananda]

It is important to separate the human conceptions of God from what we can actually observe...which will be difficult, since God does not make personal appearances and has yet to be captured on camera/video.

I do not know anyone that thinks God is a physical being to photograph.

To that end, we have to study nature and the cosmos in order to see God's creation at work and evolving (incidentally that is the core of deism).

Some of us see God as the core (atma/spirit) in all of us and those who are more in-tune with their core (more advanced souls) can teach us about the divine nature.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

God is not a Christian.
God is not Jewish.
God is not Islamic.
God is not a Hindu.

God, as the supreme being, monotheistic deity, or creator of the universe, is not a member of any man made, earth bound religion. No single religion/denomination can lay claim that God belongs to them, and them alone. If anything, the exact nature of God is unknown. You can quote whatever holy book that you want, it does not prove anything.

It is important to separate the human conceptions of God from what we can actually observe...which will be difficult, since God does not make personal appearances and has yet to be captured on camera/video. To that end, we have to study nature and the cosmos in order to see God's creation at work and evolving (incidentally that is the core of deism).

God can't be bound in any human system of belief. Nor can God be restricted to one culture or geographic location. The exact details about God are unknown, and will remain so until said deity decides to make a personal appearance at a press conference, and goes through a Q&A session.

God wouldn't exist without human concepts, ideas, testimonies, et cetera of him. For god to exist, we need to. If there were no people, how would nature define itself and know it has a creator? That, and if you and many people feel that the creator was there, well, before nature, then that is again a human idea. Are there any ideas or arguments that are alien to us as human beings to prove that god is, well a creator? Even the word creator is saying something about human's view of needing an origin and purpose in life.

God is Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Pagan, and so forth.

Outside of our respective spiritual and/or moral points of view, does life in and of itself mean anything and tell us anything about a creator? If so, which religion has the claims to this foreign knowledge?

It's an interesting thing to study. I don't know what that field would be but hopefully, if I took it up, it won't be bias.

 

[Thief]

God is not a Christian.
God is not Jewish.
God is not Islamic.
God is not a Hindu.

God, as the supreme being, monotheistic deity, or creator of the universe, is not a member of any man made, earth bound religion. No single religion/denomination can lay claim that God belongs to them, and them alone. If anything, the exact nature of God is unknown. You can quote whatever holy book that you want, it does not prove anything.

It is important to separate the human conceptions of God from what we can actually observe...which will be difficult, since God does not make personal appearances and has yet to be captured on camera/video. To that end, we have to study nature and the cosmos in order to see God's creation at work and evolving (incidentally that is the core of deism).

God can't be bound in any human system of belief. Nor can God be restricted to one culture or geographic location. The exact details about God are unknown, and will remain so until said deity decides to make a personal appearance at a press conference, and goes through a Q&A session.

perhaps He will make an appearance in the hour of your last breath.
I think God and heaven have an interest is what stands from the dust

if not....the devil might do so

 

[Deidre]

You probably could've stopped at "not" if I'm honest.

lol

 

[Watchmen]

God is not a Christian.
God is not Jewish.
God is not Islamic.
God is not a Hindu.

God, as the supreme being, monotheistic deity, or creator of the universe, is not a member of any man made, earth bound religion. No single religion/denomination can lay claim that God belongs to them, and them alone. If anything, the exact nature of God is unknown. You can quote whatever holy book that you want, it does not prove anything.

It is important to separate the human conceptions of God from what we can actually observe...which will be difficult, since God does not make personal appearances and has yet to be captured on camera/video. To that end, we have to study nature and the cosmos in order to see God's creation at work and evolving (incidentally that is the core of deism).

God can't be bound in any human system of belief. Nor can God be restricted to one culture or geographic location. The exact details about God are unknown, and will remain so until said deity decides to make a personal appearance at a press conference, and goes through a Q&A session.

And you haven't proved anything. What if God did have a particular "religion" that he organized and ran through Man? Why must the details of God be "unknown"? What if God did reveal his nature and plans to Man? Many religions claim this. Just because you deny those doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

 

[Neo Deist]

God wouldn't exist without human concepts, ideas, testimonies, et cetera of him.

Sure God would. It just wouldn't have all the pretty artwork dedicated to It.

For god to exist, we need to. If there were no people, how would nature define itself and know it has a creator?

Why does nature need to define itself and know it has a creator? Asteroids, carbon, nuclear fusion and rocks couldn't care less.

That, and if you and many people feel that the creator was there, well, before nature, then that is again a human idea.

And if the idea came from the race known as Centaurans on the planet Centauri (completely made up), then it would be a Centauran idea in their language. That does not matter.

Are there any ideas or arguments that are alien to us as human beings to prove that god is, well a creator? Even the word creator is saying something about human's view of needing an origin and purpose in life.

Language is but one way that we communicate.

God is Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Pagan, and so forth.

Our various concepts of God are those things, but not the actual being Itself.

Outside of our respective spiritual and/or moral points of view, does life in and of itself mean anything and tell us anything about a creator? If so, which religion has the claims to this foreign knowledge?

It's an interesting thing to study. I don't know what that field would be but hopefully, if I took it up, it won't be bias.

Nah. No religion can lay claim to said knowledge, especially any religion that predates telescopes and microscopes.

 

[Neo Deist]

And you haven't proved anything. What if God did have a particular "religion" that he organized and ran through Man? Why must the details of God be "unknown"? What if God did reveal his nature and plans to Man? Many religions claim this. Just because you deny those doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

What does God look like?
What name does God go by in Its native tongue?
How old is God?
Does God have a gender?
Is God corporeal or incorporeal?
Why is it that all major religions concerning God tend to be thousands of years old, and God has not made an appearance (physical or mental) since then?

 

[Quagmire]

Maybe God's an atheist.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Sure God would. It just wouldn't have all the pretty artwork dedicated to It.



Why does nature need to define itself and know it has a creator? Asteroids, carbon, nuclear fusion and rocks couldn't care less.



And if the idea came from the race known as Centaurans on the planet Centauri (completely made up), then it would be a Centauran idea in their language. That does not matter.



Language is but one way that we communicate.



Our various concepts of God are those things, but not the actual being Itself.



Nah. No religion can lay claim to said knowledge, especially any religion that predates telescopes and microscopes.

I find it puzzling that "god has no definition" whether said as a mystery, representative of an unknown god, force, whatever, the key note "we know there is a god but we don't know anything literally about him other than what we contribute to his nature."

Plus, where did you get the idea there was a god? If I didn't live in a Christian society, god wouldn't pop up in my brain at all. It's not in my hardwired of my brain.

Then, if god is unknownable, how do you know it, he, or she is a being? We, as humans, make things like ourselves as best we can. We associate with nouns (people/places/things) as PPT of worship rather than adjectives of worship. Well, Christians say god is love but then underneath, god is still a being, and then is represented physically by Christ.

Every single thing everyone has said about god in RF and what I know has a human attribute and the connection to that attribute is always psychological (having to do with the mind and how it interprets life).

God is life. We don't know much about life but at least it is 100 percent proven true. We are living it. There are interpretations of how life should be lived but the earth is the earth no matter what part of the world I live in. Climates change and so forth. God isn't a being. He's every flowing. Not static. Not something that creates but is the creation itself.

And he's not a he. Another language barrier that points to human's making god in thier image. (Just my humble opinion. I have yet to talk with anyone on RF that will go into the psyche of god-belief deeply-a believer at that).

 

[Neo Deist]

God is life. We don't know much about life but at least it is 100 percent proven true. We are living it. There are interpretations of how life should be lived but the earth is the earth no matter what part of the world I live in. Climates change and so forth. God isn't a being. He's every flowing. Not static. Not something that creates but is the creation itself.

Careful...you are rapidly approaching pandeism. Welcome to the fold!

 

[Neo Deist]

I have to ask the question: how do you know what this god is a "member" of? Why couldn't this god be a "member" of all of these? Or one of these? Or a few of these? (though it would be logical contradiction for this god to be a member of Hinduism considering it isn't exactly monotheistic...)

Because I said so. Haven't you figured out by now this is all part of my conquest for global domination?!

Also seems to me that plenty of religions claim that the one-god belongs to them.

And many have gone to war in the name of God...often times against believers in the same God. Oh the irony!

If that's the story their mythos tells, I'm cool leaving them to it, personally. Doesn't seem to be my place to tell them that their gods aren't theirs. Pardon... that their god isn't their god. It certainly isn't my god, so they can keep it.

As for that god's nature being unknown... I mean... isn't the exact nature of

everything unknown? Humans are limited like that. But we tell stories... put stock in the ones we like or were taught by culture. Stories are fun. The folks who put stock in particular sets of stories in these things called "holy books" - it sure serves as proof to them. I'm cool with that too.

Stories are fun. Bards made a living off of them back in the day. But when people/cultures/governments start killing over the stories...Houston, we have a problem.

I'm not quite clear on what you mean by "human conceptions of God" and "what we can actually observe." Aren't those the same thing, since all observations are... well... human observations that then become human conceptions once the sensory data is interpreted by our minds? Maybe you mean to get at the maps-and-territory analogy I throw out on a regular basis, but I'm not quite sure from the wording here.

Conceptions would be the BS that we, as humans, make up about various deities, and all the dogma/rituals that come with it. The observations would be what we actually can see or experience. While they share a link, there is a clear difference.

Differences of opinions amongst the monotheists aside, herein lies one of the important distinctions between monotheisms and non-monotheisms. In non-monotheisms, gods are frequently connected to particular geographic areas. It's an interesting difference of perspective, I think.

Yes, primitive people from different regions on earth made up stories about deities. Most likely they did not have a clue what was going on, so they defaulted to the supernatural. The sun is a god. The moon is a goddess. Animals are deified. Comets and eclipses are omens from the god(s).

 

[Neo Deist]

Maybe God's an atheist.

That may be true. The supreme being does not believe in a higher supreme being.

 

[Watchmen]

What does God look like?
What name does God go by in Its native tongue?
How old is God?
Does God have a gender?
Is God corporeal or incorporeal?
Why is it that all major religions concerning God tend to be thousands of years old, and God has not made an appearance (physical or mental) since then?

Some religions have a name for God.

Most religions I'm familiar with would say God is eternal.

Some religions assign God a gender.

Some religions believe God corporeal. Others do not.

Some religions teach God has appeared.

Your making assumptions based on your own belief system.

 

[Glaurung]

God, as the supreme being, monotheistic deity, or creator of the universe, is not a member of any man made, earth bound religion. No single religion/denomination can lay claim that God belongs to them, and them alone. If anything, the exact nature of God is unknown.

They can and do, justified or not.

You can quote whatever holy book that you want, it does not prove anything.

I agree, but neither have you proven anything, you have yet to make an actual argument. If you're just stating your beliefs on the question then that's fine, but then there's nothing more to be discussed. No one can "prove" you wrong here.

And further, how do you know God doesn't make personal appearances? Many saints are claimed to have experienced just that very thing. But of course, that possibility is to be immediately dismissed.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It is important to separate the human conceptions of God from what we can actually observe...which will be difficult, since God does not make personal appearances and has yet to be captured on camera/video. To that end, we have to study nature and the cosmos in order to see God's creation at work and evolving (incidentally that is the core of deism).

I think you are putting the cart before the horse. How about just studying nature and the cosmos to understand it?