what do you mean when you say "God"?

[Zophius]

This is a question for theists, atheists, and everyone in between. I ask because so many debates about God seem to assume everyone knows what God is or is supposed to be, without "his" even needing to be defined. (I've just found this site, so I'm not so much talking about discussions here as in general.)

For example, I tend to see the idea of a personal God as a guide to one's practice and a gateway to the "god beyond God", not a necessarily literal being but an impersonal principle akin to the Tao - and that even that God may be a transitional idea that may ultimately dissolve itself when one reaches a certain level of consciousness and harmony with the universe. (I don't know for sure, because I haven't reached it yet!) I don't have any problem in saying I "believe" in "God", but I doubt this is anything like what, say, either an evangelical Christian or an anti-theist like Sam Harris mean when they talk about the same things.

I'm not looking to open up a debate on the merits of transtheism per se. My point is that I often (even usually) have difficulty finding a foothold in debates about God. Even skeptics seem to assume that the God at issue must be something very like the personal God of the Abrahamic tradition, and tend to focus all their attention on obsessions coming of that tradition - for example, debates over this being's existence or nonexistence, which are usually framed in language and concentrate on intellectual problems I don't feel have much relevance to me.

So in a sense I am asking who has ownership of the word God.

When you say God does or doesn't exist, or God "wants" this or that, what do you mean by God? When you talk about God, do you assume that your arguments apply equally to any and all uses of the word "God"? And are there others of you who feel locked out of certain discussions because others make such assumptions? Is there a way to open up the usual language of God-talk - which, to me, feels rather closed and stifling?

 

[Dunemeister]

This is an excellent question. When I say the word "God" with a capital "G", I mean the triune God of Christian tradition, which I take to be fully continuous with the God of the Jews (although of course I'd expect them to demur). But despite the objections or complications involved, that's the God I mean. This God is intimately involved in the world but is ontologically distinct from it. He created all things and will one day set the world to rights through Jesus, who will act as judge at the appointed time. Thus this God is historical in that He acts within and even steers history, and eschatological, in that the world so governed is heading somewhere definite (our ability to discern its direction or not notwithstanding).

 

[sandandfoam]

God is my attempt to conceptualise the infinite wonder in which I find myself.

 

[BucephalusBB]

When I use "God", I mean creator or controller.
When someone else uses "God", it can be creator/controller, but also spirit, force, supernatural etc..
I refuse to see "God" as substitute for a normal word, like nature or love or whatever. When someone uses that substitute, I always ask if they mean more than just nature.

 

[Zophius]

When I use "God", I mean creator or controller.
When someone else uses "God", it can be creator/controller, but also spirit, force, supernatural etc..
I refuse to see "God" as substitute for a normal word, like nature or love or whatever. When someone uses that substitute, I always ask if they mean more than just nature.

BB, I have trouble with your distinction between the natural and the supernatural, which is another one of those assumed concepts that bind the idea of God to the mainstream Judeo-Christian tradition.

But I agree, I don't see "God" as a substitute for a normal word like love or nature. That is why I use it, because it alone is broad enough to encompass all of the meanings I'm trying to convey.

 

[Magic Man]

This is a question for theists, atheists, and everyone in between. I ask because so many debates about God seem to assume everyone knows what God is or is supposed to be, without "his" even needing to be defined. (I've just found this site, so I'm not so much talking about discussions here as in general.)

For example, I tend to see the idea of a personal God as a guide to one's practice and a gateway to the "god beyond God", not a necessarily literal being but an impersonal principle akin to the Tao - and that even that God may be a transitional idea that may ultimately dissolve itself when one reaches a certain level of consciousness and harmony with the universe. (I don't know for sure, because I haven't reached it yet!) I don't have any problem in saying I "believe" in "God", but I doubt this is anything like what, say, either an evangelical Christian or an anti-theist like Sam Harris mean when they talk about the same things.

I'm not looking to open up a debate on the merits of transtheism per se. My point is that I often (even usually) have difficulty finding a foothold in debates about God. Even skeptics seem to assume that the God at issue must be something very like the personal God of the Abrahamic tradition, and tend to focus all their attention on obsessions coming of that tradition - for example, debates over this being's existence or nonexistence, which are usually framed in language and concentrate on intellectual problems I don't feel have much relevance to me.

So in a sense I am asking who has ownership of the word God.

When you say God does or doesn't exist, or God "wants" this or that, what do you mean by God? When you talk about God, do you assume that your arguments apply equally to any and all uses of the word "God"? And are there others of you who feel locked out of certain discussions because others make such assumptions? Is there a way to open up the usual language of God-talk - which, to me, feels rather closed and stifling?

I think I'm really going to enjoy your participation here. When I say God, it depends on who I'm talking to, and what the subject is. It has such a range of meaning that, you're right, it does make debates hard. Depending on who you're talking to, you can open up the usual language in God-talk. I think you will find that the case in many discussions around here.

No one has ownership of the word, or we all have ownership of it, depending on how you want to look at it. I think the important thing to keep in mind is who you're talking to, and in each case try to imagine what the other person means by the word.

Personally, I don't have much use for it. I agree with a lot of ideas that some people might consider "God", including ideas you have presented here. However, I don't feel "God" is an accurate word for any of it. Some people do, and I respect that.

 

[BucephalusBB]

BB, I have trouble with your distinction between the natural and the supernatural, which is another one of those assumed concepts that bind the idea of God to the mainstream Judeo-Christian tradition.

Finding the difference between natural and supernatural isn't easy and changing constantly. Things that were considered supernaturally are nowadays easilly explained and new concept and ideas arrive every day. Don't you just love that!

 

[Charity]

When I say God , I believe Him to be the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. His attributes include being Holy, ever knowing, wisdom and love. He has revealed himself through the world and through His son Jesus Christ. The Bible reveals the nature of God and it is through it that we develop a relationship of faith with God.

 

[Storm]

When I say God, I mean the entity whose body is the cosmos.

Mball is right, nobody has ownership of the word.

 

[ChristineES]

I personally see God as the creator of the universe. But I think there are as many ideas of God as there are people.

 

[Zophius]

Personally, I don't have much use for it. I agree with a lot of ideas that some people might consider "God", including ideas you have presented here. However, I don't feel "God" is an accurate word for any of it. Some people do, and I respect that.

Point taken. I can understand why you are uncomfortable with the word "God"; it does carry a ton of undesirable baggage. But all of the other likely terms I can think of - Brahman, Tao, Nirvana, even the Deus - carry plenty of their own baggage, cultural, metaphysical, and otherwise. I also think that certain words and myths are so deeply embedded in Western culture that they are never likely to go away. A successful attempt to transform spiritual consciousness in Western society - which I think needs to take place - will not be one that simply tosses away the old words and myths, but transforms their meaning and makes them new.

The meaning of words depends on their use, not a fixed relationship between word and object (I'm taking this from Wittgenstein, or at least my understanding of Wittgenstein). The meaning of a word, even a word like God, can be utterly transformed by being put to new uses. So I'm not too anxious about whether my use of the word God is "accurate" or not. In fact, I think that kind of concern may be part of the prison I want to escape.

I think I'm really going to enjoy your participation here.

Thanks for the encouragement, Mball! I already feel at home.

 

[Magic Man]

Point taken. I can understand why you are uncomfortable with the word "God"; it does carry a ton of undesirable baggage. But all of the other likely terms I can think of - Brahman, Tao, Nirvana, even the Deus - carry plenty of their own baggage, cultural, metaphysical, and otherwise. I also think that certain words and myths are so deeply embedded in Western culture that they are never likely to go away. A successful attempt to transform spiritual consciousness in Western society - which I think needs to take place - will not be one that simply tosses away the old words and myths, but transforms their meaning and makes them new.

The meaning of words depends on their use, not a fixed relationship between word and object (I'm taking this from Wittgenstein, or at least my understanding of Wittgenstein). The meaning of a word, even a word like God, can be utterly transformed by being put to new uses. So I'm not too anxious about whether my use of the word God is "accurate" or not. In fact, I think that kind of concern may be part of the prison I want to escape.

Agreed. It would be nice to think we could just start over, but that's obviously not going to happen. The problem I see right now is that most people aren't up for the depth of conversation it takes to discuss these matters. That's not necessarily a bad thing. It just doesn't help with matters like transforming terms like "God" into more workable, generally intelligible symbols.

 

[Draka]

When I use the word "god" I don't capitalize it. I mainly use it in quotes as well as I am usually referring to someone else's concept or idea of what their deity is. If I use it without quotes I am usually referring to any god. As in gods and goddesses. Be they minor Pagan deities or in reference to deities of even orthodox religions.

In referring my own beliefs I tend to use other words such as Source and Divine. I will also use Lady and Lord. I guess I tend to do this as so many do seem to have a pre-conceived notion of what the word god entails. Some seem to think they have a monopoly on the word and automatically assume that when you use it it means a certain thing. I want to be very clear what I'm talking about so I tend to avoid it when referencing my beliefs as so not to confuse anyone.

 

[Storm]

I should mention that "God" is just a shorthand for me; it's not actually my preferred term. But (almost) nobody knows what "roth" means, and this spares the uninterested lengthy lectures on my theology.

 

[cardero]

what do you mean when you say "God"?
Simply, the first entity to exist.

 

[sandandfoam]

what do you mean when you say "God"?
Simply, the first entity to exist.

How evolved are you feeling today -Maybe I'm a swing closer than you

 

[Zophius]

The problem I see right now is that most people aren't up for the depth of conversation it takes to discuss these matters. That's not necessarily a bad thing. It just doesn't help with matters like transforming terms like "God" into more workable, generally intelligible symbols.

Yes, it's frustrating. But it can't hurt to keep trying, right?

Sometimes I do say "the divine" - but in my experience people just translate that as God, and then we are right back where we started...

 

[sandandfoam]

I read this last night
"'The world' is man's experience as it appears to, and is moulded by his ego. It is that less abundant life, which is lived according to the dictates of the insulated self. It is nature denatured by the distorting spectacles of our appetites and our revulsions. It is the finite divorced from the Eternal. It is multiplicity in isolation from it's non-dual Ground. It is time apprehended as one damned thing after another. It is a system of verbal categories taking the place of the fathomlessly beautiful and mysterious particulars which constitute reality. It is a notion labelled 'God.' It is the universe equated with the words of our utilitarian vocabulary."- Huxley

 

[Willamena]

Agreed. It would be nice to think we could just start over, but that's obviously not going to happen.

It already is. It never stopped happening.

 

[Magic Man]

It already is. It never stopped happening.

Not in the way I meant, though.