Who?What Is God?

[Belinda]

Do please tell me, Mike. Are you an anthropologist in real life?

No --- my academic background was in the hard sciences (but like I said, interest in other things). When I got my BA, wasn't sure whether I wanted to go on with Physics or move to Philosophy. Since I had gone to school with NDF money, I decided to teach high school a while (what NDF was created for) and spent a decade teaching math and all sciences << besides the moral obligation, each year teaching forgave some of the loan, and when I began that, the Vietnam War still on and my draft board not taking 2As >>

Most of my working career designing/coding software (senior systems analyst and senior business analyst). Retired quite a while now. I'm over 80.

About the trance stuff -- yes of course the Yoruba rite folks are entering trance to contact the Orishas. You'd have to talk to one of THEM to decide if they believed aspects of some ONE or separate deities. Ghost Dance originally was to contact ancestors and the spirit of Buffalo -- but in this case we were just having demonstrated (by experience) that the particular combination of motions WOULD be disorienting/trance inducing relatively quickly-- sort of a hands on "see - this would do that". Most of us know that extended dancing, especially to exhaustion, can be trance inducing

Comparative religion doesn't mean looking ONLY at "one big god monotheism".
[/quote]

Thanks Mike. I'd be ashamed to confess how disconnected and unplanned was my own career.
The dance I did at university was not exhausting and was led by a tutor who I surmise acted as hypnotist although the whole proceeding was referred to 'Natural Dance'.
As to comparative religion, the anthropological perspective, and even better anthropological training, is the best for the study of comparative religion. As I am sure you will agree, so too is knowledge of history. With anthropology(or nowadays sociology) we have contemporary study of man, and with the study of man's past we have the longitudinal study of man.

God concepts are part of human nature.

[Age]

Who? What Is God?

God is whatever you make him/her/it to be...

-Imp

Well 'this' is obviously False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

[Belinda]

Who? What Is God?

God is whatever you make him/her/it to be...

-Imp

Well 'this' is obviously False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

Your cue, Age. Impenitent has made a claim; now you should reciprocate by a positive counter claim or a positive agreement, your choice.

Conversations online are like real life conversations.

[Age]

As I approach the twilight of my life (I am 80) and the day comes ever closer when I will meet my Maker: I find myself contemplating the concept of God. And that is what God is: a concept, an idea, a universal being who is everywhere at the same time. And it is that very abstractness that makes it hard to comprehend who God is.

Ordinary mortals have a difficult time grasping the reality of a formless, invisible, omnipresent and omnipotent divine being. They need symbols – idols, icons, crucifixes - that they can see and touch and worship. Indeed, the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans needed symbols to explain the mysteries of nature and the intricacies of the human psyche that they could not comprehend. And so, they invented gods like Osiris and Apollo and Athena; giving each one an attribute that would rationalize their ignorance and let them off the hook, so to speak. The subsequent world religions amalgamated the pagan gods into one Supreme Being whom they named God, or Allah or Jehovah.

In the immediate aftermath of Jesus’s departure from the earth, his apostles and disciples carried on his message and teachings; and essentially stuck to the script. However, as the early Christian church grew in size and influence, they believed that they need not restrict themselves to being the stewards of Christ; they could obtain real power by posing as the sole interpreters of Christ’s message. Jesus had to portrayed as the Son of God, so perfect that he could not possibly be just human. This despite the fact – according to some Biblical scholars – that Jesus himself did not claim divinity during His sojourn on earth. To start with, they handpicked four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John which served their purpose. They also ignored – and virtually banished – some other contemporary gospels that did not conform to the message they wished to convey. To consolidate and perpetuate their power, the clergy proclaimed themselves as God’s representatives on earth – a view that prevails even today, particularly among Catholics; although much less so than in the Middle Ages, when the threat of religious sanctions like excommunication was so terrifying that the general populace was completely cowed down. To be sure, the recent revelations about pedophile priests have shown that if these worthies were indeed God’s representatives on earth, then God has chosen very poorly.

Another tactic the Church employed to consolidate their power was GUILT. I have often wondered why – despite the many wonderful teachings and miraculous events of Jesus’ life – the most potent and prevalent symbol of Christ is the method of his execution. It is almost as if Christians need to be constantly reminded that their Lord and Saviour died for their sins – and therefore they owe Him, big time. Indeed, the concept of Original Sin has been a powerful weapon in the armoury of the Church, almost since its inception. We are all sinners – and who alone can absolve us of our sins? You got it.

I would like to make it clear that I am using Christianly only as an example. Right from the time of the ancient Egyptians, religion – or gods, as they called them – have been suborned by self-styled priests. Priests (or novices) train in seminaries or madrassas or whatever, where they are taught by other priests. And those priests are trained by…you get the picture. I am still trying to figure out where God enters into this equation. Do we really need interpreters or intermediaries to understand the Bible, or the Koran, or the Torah, or the Avesta? Isn’t the word of the God clear enough? And which version of God is being addressed by the ubiquitous rituals and ceremonies – of which we are so enamoured? Let’s face it. Most of us have performed pujas or masses and so on (which themselves are manmade) in expectation of a quid pro quo – a promotion or a cure or whatever. Very few of us offer prayers merely for the exaltation of communicating with our Maker.

Which brings me back to my original question: who is God. Is He some benevolent, merciful, all-seeing entity who exudes only goodness and light? Is He an all powerful being who controls every aspect of our existence? If He is indeed all powerful and good, why does he permit atrocities like wars and the Holocaust; and permit one group of humans to inflict unbearable pain and suffering on another group of humans. Does Satan really exist, or is he an excuse we made up for evil behaviour? It’s the devil who is making me do terrible things – not really my responsibility. And what happens when we shuffle off this mortal coil? Do God and Satan compete for our souls? Or did God grant us free will so that we alone are responsible for our actions, both good and bad. Like Yul Brynner famously declared in The King and I; is a puzzlement.

Since you seem to be asking other people the answer to those questions, you could ask the priests ; telling people about God is what priests are for.

you are joking, here, right?

Could you name one "priest" who could tell you who and what God is, exactly?

If yes, then who is that "priest", exactly?

'Trying to' say and claim, 'telling people about God is what "priests" are for', is like 'trying to' say and claim, 'telling people about the big bang is what "scientists" are for'. "scientists" like other religious people like "priests" can only tell you what they have been told and belief is true. 'Those types of people' can not actually tell you people about what 'God' nor the 'big bang' are, nor where they came from, exactly?

For the obvious fact that religious people like "scientists" and "priests", in the days when this is being written, have just not yet come-to-know.

[Belinda]

As I approach the twilight of my life (I am 80) and the day comes ever closer when I will meet my Maker: I find myself contemplating the concept of God. And that is what God is: a concept, an idea, a universal being who is everywhere at the same time. And it is that very abstractness that makes it hard to comprehend who God is.

Ordinary mortals have a difficult time grasping the reality of a formless, invisible, omnipresent and omnipotent divine being. They need symbols – idols, icons, crucifixes - that they can see and touch and worship. Indeed, the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans needed symbols to explain the mysteries of nature and the intricacies of the human psyche that they could not comprehend. And so, they invented gods like Osiris and Apollo and Athena; giving each one an attribute that would rationalize their ignorance and let them off the hook, so to speak. The subsequent world religions amalgamated the pagan gods into one Supreme Being whom they named God, or Allah or Jehovah.

In the immediate aftermath of Jesus’s departure from the earth, his apostles and disciples carried on his message and teachings; and essentially stuck to the script. However, as the early Christian church grew in size and influence, they believed that they need not restrict themselves to being the stewards of Christ; they could obtain real power by posing as the sole interpreters of Christ’s message. Jesus had to portrayed as the Son of God, so perfect that he could not possibly be just human. This despite the fact – according to some Biblical scholars – that Jesus himself did not claim divinity during His sojourn on earth. To start with, they handpicked four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John which served their purpose. They also ignored – and virtually banished – some other contemporary gospels that did not conform to the message they wished to convey. To consolidate and perpetuate their power, the clergy proclaimed themselves as God’s representatives on earth – a view that prevails even today, particularly among Catholics; although much less so than in the Middle Ages, when the threat of religious sanctions like excommunication was so terrifying that the general populace was completely cowed down. To be sure, the recent revelations about pedophile priests have shown that if these worthies were indeed God’s representatives on earth, then God has chosen very poorly.

Another tactic the Church employed to consolidate their power was GUILT. I have often wondered why – despite the many wonderful teachings and miraculous events of Jesus’ life – the most potent and prevalent symbol of Christ is the method of his execution. It is almost as if Christians need to be constantly reminded that their Lord and Saviour died for their sins – and therefore they owe Him, big time. Indeed, the concept of Original Sin has been a powerful weapon in the armoury of the Church, almost since its inception. We are all sinners – and who alone can absolve us of our sins? You got it.

I would like to make it clear that I am using Christianly only as an example. Right from the time of the ancient Egyptians, religion – or gods, as they called them – have been suborned by self-styled priests. Priests (or novices) train in seminaries or madrassas or whatever, where they are taught by other priests. And those priests are trained by…you get the picture. I am still trying to figure out where God enters into this equation. Do we really need interpreters or intermediaries to understand the Bible, or the Koran, or the Torah, or the Avesta? Isn’t the word of the God clear enough? And which version of God is being addressed by the ubiquitous rituals and ceremonies – of which we are so enamoured? Let’s face it. Most of us have performed pujas or masses and so on (which themselves are manmade) in expectation of a quid pro quo – a promotion or a cure or whatever. Very few of us offer prayers merely for the exaltation of communicating with our Maker.

Which brings me back to my original question: who is God. Is He some benevolent, merciful, all-seeing entity who exudes only goodness and light? Is He an all powerful being who controls every aspect of our existence? If He is indeed all powerful and good, why does he permit atrocities like wars and the Holocaust; and permit one group of humans to inflict unbearable pain and suffering on another group of humans. Does Satan really exist, or is he an excuse we made up for evil behaviour? It’s the devil who is making me do terrible things – not really my responsibility. And what happens when we shuffle off this mortal coil? Do God and Satan compete for our souls? Or did God grant us free will so that we alone are responsible for our actions, both good and bad. Like Yul Brynner famously declared in The King and I; is a puzzlement.

Since you seem to be asking other people the answer to those questions, you could ask the priests ; telling people about God is what priests are for.

you are joking, here, right?

Could you name one "priest" who could tell you who and what God is, exactly?

If yes, then who is that "priest", exactly?

'Trying to' say and claim, 'telling people about God is what "priests" are for', is like 'trying to' say and claim, 'telling people about the big bang is what "scientists" are for'. "scientists" like other religious people like "priests" can only tell you what they have been told and belief is true. 'Those types of people' can not actually tell you people about what 'God' nor the 'big bang' are, nor where they came from, exactly?

For the obvious fact that religious people like "scientists" and "priests", in the days when this is being written, have just not yet come-to-know.

A real reply from you at last, Age

Priests do actually specialise in talk of God. However my main intention was to try and spur him to think for himself.

[Age]

Who? What Is God?

God is whatever you make him/her/it to be...

-Imp

Well 'this' is obviously False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

Your cue, Age. Impenitent has made a claim; now you should reciprocate by a positive counter claim or a positive agreement, your choice.

Why do you believe that you are one to tell others how they 'should' behave or react?

Conversations online are like real life conversations.

Yes, you people, like "yourself", online or in, laughingly, so-called 'real life' conversations, do not back up and support your claims and do not just answer clarifying questions when they are posed, and asked, to you.

Now, the 'very reason' why I speak and write 'the way' I do, here, once again, is to show and prove just how little interest and curiosity you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, had left.

For if any one said to me, or wrote, some thing like, 'Well 'this' is obviously False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect, then one of the first things I would say and do is just ask, ' 'What', exactly, is, supposedly obviously, False Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect? ' and/or, ' So, 'what then' is actually True, Right, Accurate, and Correct, here? '

Now, you claim that 'I' 'should' do some thing, could it be 'the case' that 'you' 'should' be more open and curious, here, instead?

[Age]

Since you seem to be asking other people the answer to those questions, you could ask the priests ; telling people about God is what priests are for.

you are joking, here, right?

Could you name one "priest" who could tell you who and what God is, exactly?

If yes, then who is that "priest", exactly?

'Trying to' say and claim, 'telling people about God is what "priests" are for', is like 'trying to' say and claim, 'telling people about the big bang is what "scientists" are for'. "scientists" like other religious people like "priests" can only tell you what they have been told and belief is true. 'Those types of people' can not actually tell you people about what 'God' nor the 'big bang' are, nor where they came from, exactly?

For the obvious fact that religious people like "scientists" and "priests", in the days when this is being written, have just not yet come-to-know.

A real reply from you at last, Age

So, are you 'trying to' claim, and/or allege, that every other reply, from me, was not real, false, and/or just a figment of someone's imagination?

If no, then what do you mean by, 'A real reply'?

Priests do actually specialise in talk of God.

LOL What a Truly humorous and absurd thing to 'try to' claim, here.

Once more, Could you name just one "priest" who could tell you who and what God is, exactly?

If no, then, actually, your claim that "priests" do actually specialize in talk of God is just pure nonsensical.

Unless, of course, what you mean by, 'specialize', is a person who can not back up and support their views nor beliefs at all.

What "priest" knows how God came to be?

By the way "Belinda" although "priests" can not tell people about God, exactly, 'I' can. And, 'I' can do so factually and irrefutably so.

However my main intention was to try and spur him to think for himself.

Who cares?

you, again, made claims, which you can not back up and support in any way at all. Let alone factually, and irrefutably so, like 'I' can, here.

So many posters came into this forum and never once considered to obtain and gain the 'actual proof', for their claims, before they went ahead and made most of 'their claims'.

[Fairy]

”So many posters came into this forum and never once considered to obtain and gain the 'actual proof', for their claims, before they went ahead and made 'their claims'.”


Response: No claim, no blame.

Proofs require a prover. A prover can neither be proven or unproven.

Is the bolded statement above a claim?

[Fairy]

Who? What is God?

Who will answer?
What will answer?

[Age]

”So many posters came into this forum and never once considered to obtain and gain the 'actual proof', for their claims, before they went ahead and made 'their claims'.”


Response: No claim, no blame.
Proofs require a prover. A prover can neither be proven or unproven.

Once more 'we' have, here, an example of a poster making another claim, without ever even just considering to obtain the actual proof, for 'the claim', before 'the claim' is presented, here.

Is the bolded statement above a claim?

Of course it is.

you appear like "belinda" now, that is, not knowing how to recognize 'a claim' when one is being presented.

[Age]

Who? What is God?

Who will answer?

God, and people. Both being invisible to human eyes.

What will answer?

God, and people, through visible human bodies.

[Impenitent]

Who? What Is God?

God is whatever you make him/her/it to be...

-Imp

Well 'this' is obviously False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

take a second step

-Imp

[Fairy]

”So many posters came into this forum and never once considered to obtain and gain the 'actual proof', for their claims, before they went ahead and made 'their claims'.”


Response: No claim, no blame.
Proofs require a prover. A prover can neither be proven or unproven.

Once more 'we' have, here, an example of a poster making another claim, without ever even just considering to obtain the actual proof, for 'the claim', before 'the claim' is presented, here.

Is the bolded statement above a claim?

Of course it is.

you appear like "belinda" now, that is, not knowing how to recognize 'a claim' when one is being presented.

Was it your claim?

[Age]

Who? What Is God?

God is whatever you make him/her/it to be...

-Imp

Well 'this' is obviously False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

take a second step

-Imp

Again, 'this one' writes some thing, which to be able to know what it is in relation to, exactly, would take a clarifying question, and some openness and honestly. So, what do you mean by, 'take a second step', exactly?'

[Fairy]

Who? What is God?

Who will answer?

God, and people. Both being invisible to human eyes.

What will answer?

God, and people, through visible human bodies.

So why ask if the answer is already known?