Sam Harris

God

One that is worshiped, idealized.

An image of a supernatural being; an idol.

A material object that is worshipped as a god.

Applied figuratively to one who wields great or despotic power.

The principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

The perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.

A person or thing deified and honored as the chief good; an object of supreme regard.

A man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people; "he was a god among men"

The Supreme Being; the eternal and infinite Spirit, the Creator, and the Sovereign of the universe; Jehovah.

Any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the Earth or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force.

A being conceived of as possessing supernatural power, and to be propitiated by sacrifice, worship, etc.; a divinity; a deity; an object of worship; an idol.

A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity or patriarchal deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

God's were originally conceived of as entities which took the guise of an animal or which expressed themselves as natural phenomena. God's were entities which were thought to control some incremental part of nature or reality.

Eventually as humans realized that all of nature was interconnected these beliefs were transformed into a belief of God taking the form of pregnant women, a Mother Goddess, who embodied the creation of life and who brought prosperity upon a culture. The theory of God as a Mother came about when the hunters and gathers settled down to become farmers and shepherds.

Later, as humans filled and overburdened the ecological niche they had originally settled in, these theory's of the nature of God were transformed into one in which the template for the conceptual image of God was based on the alpha male, the head of the tribe. This conceptual image of God is clearly intended for a warlike people who will be blessed by God when they are driven by the reining patriarch to gain control of an adjacent ecological niche which will allow the further expansion of the tribe.

As God is not easily described it is easy to understand that a conceptual image of God by necessity would take the form of familiar objects that already exerted an influence over the coarse of human existence. Throughout the evolution of the human conceptual image of God humans projected onto God and image of power they understood in their conceptual image of reality.

The Old Testament story of the Creation clearly states that man was created in the image of God but the God of the Old Testament is clearly modeled on the patriarch of a tribe. God has the same emotions as a mortal man in the Old Testament and is judgemental as the patriarch of a tribe would be by necessity. Perhaps that Old Testament story should be rewritten to say "In the beginning, man not understanding the Earth or the nature of God created the concept of God in man's image."

The Hebrew word jehovah, the only other word generally employed to denote the supreme being, is uniformly printed in small capitals. The existence of God is taken for granted in the Bible. There is nowhere any argument to prove it.

He who disbelieves this truth is spoken of as one devoid of understanding (Ps. 14:1).

The arguments generally adduced by theologians in proof of the being of God are:

The a priori argument, which is the testimony afforded by reason.

The a posteriori argument, by which we proceed logically
from the facts of experience to causes.

These arguments are:

The cosmological, by which it is proved that there must be a First Cause of all objects, for every effect must have a cause.

The teleological, or the argument from design. We see everywhere the operations of an Intelligent Cause in nature.

The moral argument, called also the anthropological argument, based on the moral consciousness and the history of mankind, which exhibits a moral order and purpose which can only be explained on the supposition of the existence of God. Conscience and human history testify that "verily there is a God that judgeth on the Earth."

God acts solely by the laws of nature.

God's attributes are spoken of by some as absolute.

No thoughts on the way the term God is bandied about?

As an English professor, I must remind you to always cite your sources, Lawrence

As you are well aware you can believe or disbelieve anything that you read. The purpose of this definition and extension is to cause thought.

You are already trapped in what is acceptable to writers and more importantly their publishers. If it does not follow the rules set by publishers, who are not in the business for altruistic purposes, or the writers, who would like to see their copy write not infringed upon, then how could you ever expect people to change there belief systems. To change their belief would be to not follow the rules of their religion.

I searched the internet for definitions of God. The evolution in the concept of God is readily apparent if you have read enough and studied religion and it is mine. This definition and extension was written by me from my heart.

I actually use the word “God” alot, when something good or bad happens.

its a nice word…  a quick short fast syllable that expresses either good or bad reactions to things out of my control.

and unlike some of our other expression for when bad shit happens, it doesnt seem to offend anyone to say OH MY GOD!!

I just dont think their is anyone actually listening = p

my problem with the term “god” is in the two general meanings that seem to be understood by “believers” vs “others”:  the “believers” seem to think that science “proves” the existence of god in the “big bang”

I don’t agree with this - I think the “big bang” that supposedly created our 20-50 billion light-year universe was simply one burp by a primordial energy/matter source - I further believe that that same primordial source has and continues to burp out universes, ours being just one of them - the “big bang”, therefore, is just one of those burps - further, I think there are many other primordial energy/matter sources, each having their own compositions of super-elementary particles and “strings”, etc., that burp other universes all the time - the concept of a “god” that has any influence over peoples lives really becomes far-fetched in my mind when I consider this possible concept of our super-universe

of course, forces do seem to exist that “control” various aspects of our lives (shown dramatically in natural disasters), so we need to continue to learn and expand the sciences to more fully understand existence itself, not read a “bible”

so when I hear the word “god” used, especially as in such expressions as “god bless you”, I think of the ignorance behind the use of that expression - it is as if “god” really cares or “wants” to “bless” anything

it reminds me of kenneth copeland, who overuses the term “annointing” for just about anything that may be influenced by “god” - copeland preaches how wealth is encouraged by god and is proven by the scriptures - what a nut-case! - that’s why I am particularly offended by the expression “in god we trust” or when bush says “god bless america” - it is based on ignorance - if bush promoted education in the sciences and promoted nuclear power and mass transportation, I would certainly not mind him using that expression at all, since it would imply a universal energy-force rather than a judgmental entity - but since he promotes the RR, I am quite offended

[quote author=“fjlomnix”]my problem with the term “god” is in the two general meanings that seem to be understood by “believers” vs “others”:  the “believers” seem to think that science “proves” the existence of god in the “big bang”

I don’t agree with this - I think the “big bang” that supposedly created our 20-50 billion light-year universe was simply one burp by a primordial energy/matter source - I further believe that that same primordial source has and continues to burp out universes, ours being just one of them - the “big bang”, therefore, is just one of those burps - further, I think there are many other primordial energy/matter sources, each having their own compositions of super-elementary particles and “strings”, etc., that burp other universes all the time - the concept of a “god” that has any influence over peoples lives really becomes far-fetched in my mind when I consider this possible concept of our super-universe

of course, forces do seem to exist that “control” various aspects of our lives (shown dramatically in natural disasters), so we need to continue to learn and expand the sciences to more fully understand existence itself, not read a “bible”

so when I hear the word “god” used, especially as in such expressions as “god bless you”, I think of the ignorance behind the use of that expression - it is as if “god” really cares or “wants” to “bless” anything

it reminds me of kenneth copeland, who overuses the term “annointing” for just about anything that may be influenced by “god” - copeland preaches how wealth is encouraged by god and is proven by the scriptures - what a nut-case! - that’s why I am particularly offended by the expression “in god we trust” or when bush says “god bless america” - it is based on ignorance - if bush promoted education in the sciences and promoted nuclear power and mass transportation, I would certainly not mind him using that expression at all, since it would imply a universal energy-force rather than a judgmental entity - but since he promotes the RR, I am quite offended

Obviously the word God is overused. As well you can see that there are many definitions of the term. President Bush bandies the word God about simply because it is an effective way to say to a core group of constituents that they belong to the same tribe.

There is no question to the fact that individuals and coherent groups define God differently.

I see this problem as one in which the basic fight is all about defining God’s traits. I see a possible solution to this by finding common ground in the definition of God that most of humanity can actually agree upon.

In the Old Testament the priests of God were also the keepers of knowledge and social laws were mixed in with religious viewpoints. The law of the Hebrews was inclusive to the point of being analogous to the code of law of the federal government. The priests knew when was the best time to plant and the best time to harvest through past experience.

This is analogous to experience learned through experiments in the scientific method.

Where the law of the Hebrews breaks down is in the fact that social and cultural laws are always directed at an existing social or cultural problem and these must change over time. This is what makes anyone who accepts sacred religious texts as actual facts as opposed to metaphor fundamentalists.

Even the term fundamentalist is a misnomer because if they were truly fundamentalists they would go to the fundamental underpinnings of their religion as opposed to accepting myths as actual reality.

Lawrence,

If the foregoing actually were your own thoughts, then I apologize.  Yes, I am trained to give credit where it is due, so please forgive my knee-jerk reaction to something that seemed out of character with your other posts.  That must have sounded very condescending, and I apologize.

Language is a bit of a hobby of mine, and I have often found myself intrigued by the dynamism of words.  Words bend and morph so readily, I do not see how the doctrine of inerrancy has ever been tenable.

In the case of competing defintions used to apply to the same supposed object, I have always considered it curious when evangelicals of various stripes refer to an “agreement on the most basic theological issues,” as if they occurred in a vacuum. They act as if the disagreements on other theological issues have no effect on the meaning of the core doctrines all supposedly share. A good example is to contrast the Calvinist, Arminian, and Universalist views of for whom the atonement of Christ is intended.

All three views reference the same text, and all appeal to God as Omni-Benevolent. It should be evident that the range of meaning for this term “benevolent” is quite different for each of the three interpretations. Accordingly, their understanding of this God is quite different.

It will not do to say that they all hold to a “core” doctrine, those necessary for belief and thus acceptance by the deity, and that these “minor” differences are insubstantial. Each denomination, in its effort to cultivate the flocks in a new or more effective way, is worshiping, in effect, a different God, a God devised by their own minds as they interact to different ends with the same finite text.

To object that all hold to the “core” doctrines, is irrelevant. It is the context that these doctrines are understood in that make a difference in the future relationship and actions resulting from this understanding of the deity that determine what the faith in actuality is comprised of. In other words, a doctrine does not a Christian make, or, as James said, “faith without works is dead” (or is it as Paul says: it “it is by grace you have been saved…not by works, so that no one can boast”)

As an analogy, consider three competing suitors referring to a woman they love and wish to marry, clamoring for her attention, all agreeing that, yes, she wears a rainment like the sun; has pearly, moon colored slippers and a crown of stars (basic theological issues/core doctrines). However, one suitor regales us with tales of her as a wheelchair bound invalid, yet another suitor insists this beautiful bride-to-be is a dancer at the 6th Avenue strip club, while the third paints a picture of a middle-class soccer mom. All agree on certain facts, to be sure: she is a woman, she wears a bright sundress and crown of stars; nevertheless, at least two suitors, if not all, have a grossly inaccurate conception of her.

In short, they don’t know her. Likewise, the competing denominations do not know the God of whom they speak. Who has it right?

The text supports all three de-finitions.

[quote author=“child”]Lawrence,

In short, they don’t know her. Likewise, the competing denominations do not know the God of whom they speak. Who has it right?

I would have to say that no one has it right because, as Baruch Spinoza put it, we have inadquate understanding. Our minds really do not have the ability to actually conceptualize a God that could have created the universe. And yet most religions have a creation story. “It is, so it must have been created.”

The common theistic rejoinder concerns the difference between sufficient knowledge vs. complete knowledge.

[quote author=“lawrence”]
In the Old Testament the priests of God were also the keepers of knowledge and social laws were mixed in with religious viewpoints. The law of the Hebrews was inclusive to the point of being analogous to the code of law of the federal government. The priests knew when was the best time to plant and the best time to harvest through past experience.

This is analogous to experience learned through experiments in the scientific method.

Where the law of the Hebrews breaks down is in the fact that social and cultural laws are always directed at an existing social or cultural problem and these must change over time. This is what makes anyone who accepts sacred religious texts as actual facts as opposed to metaphor fundamentalists.

Even the term fundamentalist is a misnomer because if they were truly fundamentalists they would go to the fundamental underpinnings of their religion as opposed to accepting myths as actual reality.

actually, jesus was very upset with the pharisees who studied the torah, mizrah, talmud, etc. (see Mark chapter 7 if you have a bible) - particularly, jesus accepted the unfortunate who were turned away from the jewish temple - that is one major reason for the initial expansion of the “christian” philosophy: to accept those “unclean” who could not enter the temple where the market appeared to thrive

any lesson here? - here it is: the torah/mizrah/talmud contained requirements of intollerance, based partly on medical experiences (i.e., “unclean” lepers) or beliefs (“unclean” prostitutes) or a combination of both (probably the prostitutes) - jesus showed that this was not necessary for a fully functioning society

[quote author=“fjlomnix”][quote author=“lawrence”]
In the Old Testament the priests of God were also the keepers of knowledge and social laws were mixed in with religious viewpoints. The law of the Hebrews was inclusive to the point of being analogous to the code of law of the federal government. The priests knew when was the best time to plant and the best time to harvest through past experience.

This is analogous to experience learned through experiments in the scientific method.

Where the law of the Hebrews breaks down is in the fact that social and cultural laws are always directed at an existing social or cultural problem and these must change over time. This is what makes anyone who accepts sacred religious texts as actual facts as opposed to metaphor fundamentalists.

Even the term fundamentalist is a misnomer because if they were truly fundamentalists they would go to the fundamental underpinnings of their religion as opposed to accepting myths as actual reality.

actually, jesus was very upset with the pharisees who studied the torah, mizrah, talmud, etc. (see Mark chapter 7 if you have a bible) - particularly, jesus accepted the unfortunate who were turned away from the jewish temple - that is one major reason for the initial expansion of the “christian” philosophy: to accept those “unclean” who could not enter the temple where the market appeared to thrive

any lesson here? - here it is: the torah/mizrah/talmud contained requirements of intollerance, based partly on medical experiences (i.e., “unclean” lepers) or beliefs (“unclean” prostitutes) or a combination of both (probably the prostitutes) - jesus showed that this was not necessary for a fully functioning society

It is likely Jesus traveled to India when he ‘wandered in the desert’‘.

His concept of ‘Love they neighbor as one love’s oneself’ would never have appeared in Hebrew religious philosophy(an eye for an eye). He must have come into contact with Buddhist at some point. The amazing thing about his life is that he felt it was necessary to teach his people, the Jews, that they had turned their backs on God as he understood God to be.