God can be defined as tangible and intangible, qualitative and quantitative. Proving the intangible aspect of god however is very difficult. The reason for this is because of the fact that its definition is relative to the individual’s perception and experience. If this is the case, which it more likely than not is, how can any two individuals from the same faith group claim that they hold one definition of god? After all, religion is the instrument which helps those who follow faith to create the definition of god. Otherwise, what point is there in believing in a particular faith – the point is that you accept the interpretation and principles of that faith. I repeat that the ironic element is that individuals from the same faith group will have totally different definitions of God, as each individual will interpret according to their own values, similar, to some extent, to a judge in the appellate courts.

Ultimately, it surely must be the case, that every human being on this planet has his or her own unique definition of god based on, or relative to, his or her experiences and perception.

Yes, and therein lies the woes of organized religions, perhaps?

If people within the same Faith can't agree, multiply that friction by all the other Faiths and sadly woe does arise.

I find this very interesting.

I've been to at least 14 different congregations that share my faith. Ive enjoyed over 1,000 sermons in 22+ years given by what has to be over 500 different men. I've been to larger gatherings held over 3 and 4 days with dozens of speakers conducting parts of the program over the several days.

I've yet to hear two disagree on something.


I feel pity for those of you who don't know what it's like to travel across the country on vacation or business, arrive at the house or worship having never stepped into that particular building before and be as welcome as family. To listen to the discourse and have the Bible truths brought out that reinforce your understanding of God, in full agreement with what you've learned over the past two decades. To have little children get excited about learning truths you haven't though about in years. And better yet to have them bring to your attention something you don't recall ever noticing before. All learning and progressing together in unity. A unity only possible by true Christians. (1 Cor 1:2) For Christ set for us Only One model to follow. (1 Peter 2:21, 1 John 2:5,6)

This post has been edited by CrazyDwarf: Dec 23 2007, 04:30 AM

Don't you think that Chirstianity and Jesus are two separate things and perhaps the latter was exploited for the purposes of the former (a system of control for those who in history could not read)? If I ask two Christians to read the bible to me, they will speak the same words. I'm quite certain that if I ask them to interpret each sentence in their own words, they will describe it differently and perhaps in some cases infer something totally different.

Therein lies the problem. The Bible really is very straight forward. Yes there is symbolism, because the Bible though written by man, inspired by God. Images created in the Bible were written for the time that these men and women lived. The times were pre-technical but the correlations can still be drawn to relate to us today. This scientific world wants to disassemble everything and examine every letter instead of taking the massage as a whole.

I am a Lutheran and this denomination was formed by Martin Luther who was a Catholic Monk, without going in to a long dissertation on the man and his works, the best thing he did was to have the Bible printed into German so the comman man could have a copy and read it, to decide for themselves what the Written word said, instead of being told by the priests in latin what was there.

If one is intelligent and honest enough to distinguish between right and wrong and to adopt values that are appropriate for the well-being of humanity, what purpose does religion serve? It appears that those who are unable to develop their own philosophy for the benefit of man-kind as well as the earth and its contents, need to borrow a packaged philosophy.

What experience has told me is to never trust those who preach or talk of goodness, but to respect those who actually do good. This therefore rules out the 'majority' of religious people. There are very few religious people who are exceptional, however their exceptional qualities I believe are not attributable to religion but to their personal experiences.

Religion, like football, is a devicive concept. The majority of people are religious, yet the majority of human-kind are corrupt.

I agree with much of your statement, My Invisible Thoughts, but for myself I've found the majority of people (religious or otherwise) are good people doing their very best, while only a small minority are "corrupt". Gentle smile.

You know, Mara, that's a good observation.

As you point out, it pertains to those who profess non-belief, too.

You refer to the word 'non-belief' - Do you think that belivers are only those who belong to a particular organised faith group or do you think it extends to those who do not swear allegeance to a particular organised faith group?

Also, I don't think the there is a simple demarcation between believers and non-believers as you are refering to believing in God, and God is subject to interpretation.

No, one does not necessarily have to belong to one of those groups to still profess a belief in God.

I think we have all known very religious---in the very best sense---people who identify themselves with one particular sect and its dogma, and we have also known those who have no religious "affiliation" and prefer to be a church of one.
I think we have all known, as well, people who profess a religion, and who are about as religious as a stone, whether they identify themselves with a dogma or not.
Z

And finally there are those who profess no religion or knowledge of any God or gods, and yet are more zealous promoters of this faith then any preacher who has ever walked the face of this earth.

Sorry, I should have perhaps made myself clearer. When I used the word 'non-believer', I intended it to mean 'those who do not belief in a Higher Being (God)' that is normally associated with most organized religions.

And re: "who profess no religion or knowledge of any God or gods, and yet are more zealous promoters of this faith ... meaning the 'faith' of there being no God, I wonder?

I can only speak for myself and while I have faith in most of my fellow humans and confidence in the trustworthiness of most, I don't think of my being an atheist as a 'Faith'.

Do agree that there may be some who are "zealous promoters" of what may be interpreted as being 'against Faith' - but I've honestly never ever met a non-believer who deliberately set out to take someone's Faith from them.

The conflict seems to arise when those without Faith are considered 'worse' or lesser people by some with Faith. And often religion becomes such a huge conflict when freedom for others - others of other religions or those like myself who have none - are judged on that alone, rather than as individual people?

You know what confuses me is the term 'Higher Being' - what is meant by this, it's too simple an explanation and open to mis-interpretation. Any religious folks care to define accurately for me what exactly this means and confirm whether the definition you provide is subjective or does it accord with everymember of that faith?

This post has been edited by My Invisible Thoughts: Dec 26 2007, 05:03 PM

If one were to adequately define God, then that would be to tantamount to describing a complete theology.
Z