Big Think

dennis ilic on February 20, 2008, 3:47 PM

Are you saying: God is an incorrect interpertation based on humanity’s limited capacity to understand history?
Is that your definition?
Would you like to enter it in the 100 words or less thread?

dennis ilic on February 20, 2008, 3:52 PM

Sorry, you must have been adding your entry, while I was making the last comment. Glad to see you participated. This is not for ego, hoping to find similarities, patterns, and beauty. Hoping this will be a gathering thread, not a seperating one. Anyway, thank you very much for your input.
Love and Peace.

Douglas Whitmore on February 20, 2008, 5:15 PM

Now, even more than before, I am wondering why those who choose to contribute are being “herded” to do so only as you ask. i.e. 100 words or less, thread vs. offering an idea, etc. Why the limitations and need to “correct” when “your” guidelines are not followed to the “T”?

dennis ilic on February 20, 2008, 7:37 PM

There is only one limit. 100 words.
Without limits things tend to go on forever.
If you allow people to break the rule, what is the reason for having a rule?
To set a limit.
To have structure.

Douglas Whitmore on February 20, 2008, 9:09 PM

rules and structure benefit from being flexible to evolve, not by creating constraint.

dennis ilic on February 20, 2008, 10:25 PM

Patience.

dennis ilic on February 22, 2008, 11:25 PM

Thank you for your definition contribution to “What is your definition of God? 100 words or less”. Am I to unerstand, that your (g)God should not be defined. The defining of God leads to the envitable misinterpertation of God. Which leads to conflict and seperation. It’s better to be a humble servant of God, than to try to define it.

If I have misunderstood something please correct me and please vote for the other definitions. Thank you.
Love and Peace.

Douglas Whitmore on February 25, 2008, 1:42 AM

Q: Am I to understand, that your God should not be defined?
Answer: The concept of God can not be completely defined. Humans do not have the capability to do so and we are prideful in thinking we can.

S: The defining of God leads to the inevitable misinterpretation of God. This leads to conflict and separation.
Answer: This is true.

S: It’s better to be a humble servant of God, than to try to define it.
Answer: I will never suggest nor speak “to being a humble servant” I speak to humans realizing that their pridefulness, in anything, narrows their “vision,” perception.
Humbleness simply means realizing and accepting ones limitations.

dennis ilic on February 25, 2008, 3:31 PM

Whitman Moore, once again thanks for your contribution to the idea. Thank you for your clarifications as well.
But I beg to differ on the definiton of God, many people defined as you did: undefinable.

Ron Alexander on June 28, 2008, 5:18 AM

I like Native American definitions: “Great Mystery” or “Great Spirit” However my favorite is simply LOVE.

Nathan Asher on July 15, 2008, 5:46 AM

The word god has been ruined by religion. God is best seen as a verb. The process of life. Not an intelligent being.

Nathan Asher on July 15, 2008, 5:46 AM

The word god has been ruined by religion. God is best seen as a verb. The process of life. Not an intelligent being.

Jamaal Lowe on July 17, 2008, 4:10 AM

What has been the main reason that cultures or peoples have chosen to follow certain religious beliefs and devote themselves in service to a god, or gods, all throughout history? The reason is to ensure survival. Agricultural societies devoted themselves to pleasing storm gods, who could ensure bountiful crops from year-to-year; highly political societies chose to revere war gods who could ensure their victory in battle and the survival of soldiers who could live to tell the tale. One of the primary tenents of established science is something called the Scientific Method; in short summary it basically states that if an effect or process is capable of being measured, consistently, and the effect is capable of being produced again, within the same circumstances, then it must be true. Agricultural societies continued to revere their chosen storm god, as long as this god continued to provide plentiful rains for their crops; if the rains ceased, and the peoples could not appease their god or gods through their actions to invoke the entity to bring rains again—-they found another storm god. Dietal assimilation, promotion and evolution has been observed throughout a number of civilizations, recent and ancient; the question in terms of Christianity from a scientific standpoint then becomes…has the Christian God changed? Has the Christian God been able to manifest measurable effects in civilizations, consistently? Does the Christian God ensure the survival of those people who chose to believe in and serve it? The question of personal well-being is one mainly to be answered and experienced by those who follow the Christian God, but the tasks of measuring the consistency of the Christian God in civilizations, and it’s ability to ensure the survival of those who chose to appease and serve it, can be observed and measured by everyone. So…how is a god known, observed, understood to be a god? Via the people.

David Gileo on July 18, 2008, 12:48 AM

What makes my heart beat?

Mike Robb on August 1, 2008, 12:02 AM

me

Mike Robb on August 1, 2008, 12:05 AM

God cannot be understood