PDA

View Full Version : Uh oh, the God word!




rayzer
08-20-2009, 07:48 PM
... continued from: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=206241

Debating the meaning of the word God is another fine example of an exercise in utter futility. However, I do think it is an appropriate word to use in the discussion of our personal sovereignty. That is because to me, the word God represents all those things we just know that we know, but we can't necessarily explain why we know it. On a micro-level, it is the purest representation of the source of natural law as it applies to our daily lives. While on the macro level, it encompasses the entirety of the universe.

Since we all inherently understand natural law, it seems quite useful to have a word like God in our vocabulary. It allows us to constantly remind ourselves that while selfishness is paramount to our own sovereignty, our entire being and all the power that we give ourselves, is only a mere speck, of a tiny fragment, of a minute piece, of an infinitesimally small part, of a microscopic crumb of the universe. To me, the word “God” wraps all these mind-numbing concepts into one nice little 3 letter package, and saves us all from a tedious diatribe; the likes of which I am currently embarking.

Unfortunately, however, some seem to enjoy this wearisome debate. This is my assumption because they have gone to such great lengths to apply very specific, real-world attributes to this concept of God. Which is odd, because the only thing that makes the word a meaningful and unique meme, is the mere fact that is fails to have any definable, real-world attributes; thus the futile exercise to which I have eluded. But worse yet, are those folks, who have become so violently opposed to certain definitions of God, and the forceful actions of those who attempt to apply them, that they, themselves, have created their own, strange anti-God version of the universe. They, similarly, have gone to great lengths to develop a detailed story around this anti-God concept, and generally have the same forceful attitude about those details. Many are so wrapped up in this, that they tend to become confused and afraid at even the mere mention of the word God. Yawn.

God is a word. It means something to people. Really, need we say more?

Warrior_of_Freedom
08-20-2009, 08:19 PM
Meh I'm sick of God being in discussions, I asked a christian before to give me the slightest bit of proof anything he said was true. He replied, "The proof is all around us" :rolleyes:

expendibleater
08-20-2009, 09:07 PM
I have faith in God but no connection to any religion.

Liberty Star
08-20-2009, 09:19 PM
G-word is one of my fav words.

That said, I don't understand God's plans and policies sometimes though. Take for example election of Brack Hussein Obama. I can understand the need God may have had for punishing pro-violence evangelicals or church goers who may have used God's name in vain but what about the rest of the millions of innocent people who are getting collective punishment unfairly? Isn't God all about fairness and justice?

Some of God's policies are certainly beyond human comprehension.

Bman
08-20-2009, 09:28 PM
Amen, God is unique to everyone, and I think you summed it up well.

The two extremes will be...

Those who tell you what god is, and those who tell you what god is not. It's really insulting.

inibo
08-20-2009, 10:34 PM
Those who tell you what god is, and those who tell you what god is not. It's really insulting.
You can only say what God is not. Any description or definition is a limitation and separation. God is neither limited nor separated. See? You can only say what God is not.

Bman
08-21-2009, 01:25 AM
You can only say what God is not. Any description or definition is a limitation and separation. God is neither limited nor separated. See? You can only say what God is not.

I get the point, just your scenario depends upon being a response.

Warrior_of_Freedom
08-21-2009, 07:02 AM
It's amazing how you guys will build cases up and present evidence found against the government, but there's not one single bit of evidence of a supreme being that supposedly made the earth 6000 years ago, yet ya still believe it. It's kind of like the people who still think WTC7 collapsed because of a fire.

ClayTrainor
08-21-2009, 09:19 AM
I'm gonna let Carl Sagan speak for me:

"if God wanted to send us a message, and ancient writings were the only way he could think of doing it, he could have done a better job." - Carl Sagan

"God for you is where you sweep away all the mysteries of the world, all the challenges to our intelligence. You simply turn your mind off and say God did it." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan


It's amazing how you guys will build cases up and present evidence found against the government, but there's not one single bit of evidence of a supreme being that supposedly made the earth 6000 years ago, yet ya still believe it. .

I think dependency on God philosophy, is a cover up for fear and confusion of reality. For example, Egyptians used to believe a God carried the sun across the sky every day, and it wasn't until centuries later that we discovered the theory of gravity.

Christians used to believe the earth was created 6000 years ago, until we discovered carbon dating, radiometric dating, fossils, evidence of geological shifts, billions of years worth of light in the universe, etc. It's absolutely childish and stupid for anyone to believe this earth is 6000 years old, and man co-existed with the TREX.

elielevin
08-27-2009, 10:23 AM
I once had a friend who asked me if Jews believe in G-d.
Believe in G-d? We invented G-d.

I think that Carl Sagan has a point about the God of the Gaps in human knowledge. It appears that G-d tends to be used as a metaphor for all those things humans don't understand or cannot explain in words, but that we know "intuitively." Perhaps G-d is a handy verbal shortcut to describe all of those knowings and wonderings.

I know that there is a Christian orthodoxy about G-d that is controlled (?) by various creeds.
And in US culture, when someone uses Rayzer's
"one nice little 3 letter package" -- all of those images and ideas about the word also come to the minds of those brought up in Christian culture.

For others, raised or acculturated to less definitive ideas about the G-entity, no such images arise. So, unless our terms are defined, we may be talking about entirely different ideas.

Rayzer did define his use of the G-word thus:


Since we all inherently understand natural law, it seems quite useful to have a word like God in our vocabulary. It allows us to constantly remind ourselves that while selfishness is paramount to our own sovereignty, our entire being and all the power that we give ourselves, is only a mere speck, of a tiny fragment, of a minute piece, of an infinitesimally small part, of a microscopic crumb of the universe.

Personally, I like the above 'definition'. But then the G-word does not evoke for me all of those impressive words words that begin with "omni-"--such as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent-- that undoubtedly come to many minds when confronted with the G-word.

Perhaps those of us with a shall we say, slightly heretical bent need to come up with a different term for G-d.