A lot of arguments over God aren't really over God

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

They are, instead, over people's concepts of God. As mankind has evolved, his/her concept of what God is has changed as well. The book "A History of God" explains this well, as does this Sufi story:

The prophet Abraham grew up among idol worshipers. He sought to find God. He looked at the brightest stars and said, "You are my Lord." Then the full moon came out. It was far bigger and brighter than any of the stars. Abraham looked at the moon and said, "You are my Lord." Then the sun came up, and the moon and stars disappeared. Abraham said, "You7 are the greatest. You are my Lord." Then night came, and the sun disappeared.

Abraham said, "My Lord is the One who changes things and who brings them back. My Lord is the One who is behind all changes."

[Ringo84]

1. EXACTLY

That's probably why Democrats are accused of being immoral and "non-believers in God" - the right-wingers despise the fact that Democrats have a different concept of God than they do.

They think of God as a strict disciplinarian who kicks your ass for the slightest wrongdoing. Those towards the left tend to think of God as more of a father figure.
Ringo

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Hi Ringo!

Welcome to DU :hi: and thanks for your post!

Even amongst DUers there are arguments about the nature of God. Personally, I believe that everything is God, and this is revealed through cutting edge science, which says, among other things, that everything is interconnected. So no father figure or mother figure for me-something far far different. But of course this concept also puts the fundy's head spinning.

[Ringo84]

5. To ayeshahaqqiqa

Hi! Thanks!

I think that DU is a pretty safe environment to question the nature of God. You likely won't find religious fanatics who think that you *Must* follow their view of God or burn in hell.

As for fundies' heads spinning: that probably doesn't take much. Forcing them to think brings them out of their black-and-white comfort zone and pisses them off.
Ringo

[TallahasseeGrannie]

16. I mostly agree with your view

but sometimes fall into the patriarchal model simply because it is familiar and also I had a great father.

But if you asked me to give my opinion as to what it's all about, within my finite ability to describe it, I'd choose words very similar to yours.

T-Grannie

[unblock]

3. haha! those on the right think of god as a father figure, too!

they just have a different idea of what a father figure is ;)

[msongs]

4. good thing those "idol worshippers" version of god is bogus, eh?

after all, people who claim their god is the only god are always right and will murder millions of people to prove it.


Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. Oh, I don't know

Here's another Sufi story:

In India, long ago, a Sufi master had hundreds of students; he'd become sort of like a rock star is today, with many groupies. One day he told his assembled students, "I think that today I will go to the temple and worship Ram." Shocked, his numerous students stumbled away in anger, save one. The master realized this one fellow was still following him as he went up the steps of the temple and prostrated himself before the statue of Ram. He looked at the student and said, "Why have you stayed when all the others left?"

"Because, master, you have told me that God is in everything; so surely God is in this idol as well as everywhere else."

The master smiled and bowed to this student, who later was himself a great teacher in my Order.

[bloom]

7. I think for some people

it is a matter of being against authoritarianism of any kind. Or even of consensus thought - if that means other people having an influence on them.

I think we're all connected whether we like it or not. That there is nobody who is completely off thinking his/her own thing - though some people are less connected than others.

[riderinthestorm]

8. There is no God, says this atheist

So I have no argument over what God's form is or is not. Atheists don't "argue" about God's qualities - they are not a source of the dissention you premise.

Your OP is the crux of the matter: "My Lord is the One who changes things and who brings them back. My Lord is the One who is behind all changes."

There is no Lord.

The marginalizing of atheists in humanities' historic debates continues.....

[bloom]

9. I don't atheists are being marginalized by that unless they want to be

Some people need to learn to talk in symbols/metaphors or just figure it's their own problem - not someone else's.


Is it that some atheists are too literal to even consider the concept of symbolism? It seems possible to me. Just like some religious people are so literal that they think the Bible has to be 100% literally true (even though that is impossible).

[riderinthestorm]

10. Why do you think the OP is referring to God with symbols and metaphors?

She made a pretty straightforward post in my opinion. That the disagreements are over peoples' "concept of God".

And she illustrated that with an example of different ways God can be viewed.

Beyond that there wasn't any allusion to "no God" in the OP as I read it. No flames, I would really like to know where you are seeing a symbol or metaphor for "no God" in the OP?

[bloom]

11. I figured that I would take her at her word.

"A lot of arguments over God aren't really over God

They are, instead, over people's concepts of God. As mankind has evolved, his/her concept of what God is has changed as well."
----

I think that there are people whose concept of God doesn't include an actual God - but another way to symbolize a concept.

Like people who say "God" is consciousness. In many of the churches I have attended - I think a lot of people thought of the whole "God" thing as just symbolic - not that there was actually a "God".

And today - a lot of people don't even like the concept of "God" as a man at all (esp. women) and all that that implies - so even the symbol of "God" has changed to something more universal and less anthropomorphic.


I was reading this by Einstein this evening - because the subject of Einstein came up in GD -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=1387

I like this part:

How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to
another if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no
theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science
to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.


It's like it's about "God" - but it's not about believing in a "God" - it's just the idea.

[Goblinmonger]

18. I don't think being an atheist

makes one unable to understand symbolism. What about not believing in a god would make the concept of symbolism incomprehensible? I'm an atheist and a literature teacher. No problems with symbols here.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

22. I agree

however, I think that sometimes atheists, like believers, get "stuck" on one concept of God and don't see that another may have a totally different concept of God. Some atheists I have chatted with here see God as some "old man in the sky", a seperate and sometimes diabolical puppetmeister who demands fidelity or else-and when I explain my concept is nothing close to this, I hear nothing else from them. I am always puzzled as to why they don't want to continue the discussion using a different God concept.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

19. I do know that we vary hugely in the way

we use myth and symbol in our lives, not just culturally, but individually.

I have actually had long conversations with agnostics who are surprised to discover that my beliefs are very close to their own.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

17. Could you elaborate on your last sentence?

Ya lost me!

[Silent3]

12. What it's really all about, when you get to the bottom of it...

...is paper vs. plastic.

[The Magistrate]

13. That, Though, Ma'am

Presupposes the thing exists seperate from people's conceptions of it.

That people fight over their conceptions of diety is certainly true, and it is equally true those conceptions have changed over time, as well as been different in different places.

But there is no reason whatever to suppose any particular one of these various conceptions is superior to any of the others, certainly not as an accurate description of the thing envisioned, nor even as an accurate description of a thing that has actual existance apart from human conceptions.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. Oh, I agree that no concept is superior to another

My contention in the OP was that often in this forum people get hung up in their own particular concepts of God and don't see that there can be another.

As for things being apart from concepts-Murshid Samuel L. Lewis was once asked what his concepts of sprituality were. "Concepts of sprituality have nothing to do with spirituality," he replied. "Sprituality is experience."

[The Magistrate]

15. Mr. Lewis Is Quite Correct, Ma'am

It is an experience quite seperate from any conceptual framework, that requires no conceptual framework be adhered to, and for which explaination is neither necessary nor possible.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

20. You said it way better than I

I tend to believe that the reality of the situation is so much more and possibly so much less, therefore, than any human can imagine that all descriptions are human constructs and therefore faulty. None are superior because none are adequate.

I've chosen to stick with the version I learned first because I enjoy it, it satisfies me culturally, and I like the framework it provides me. But I'm not under any illusions that it is complete or the only one. But it works for me now, in this life. And I'd rather go with what I have than search for something that will be just as inadequate.

Gosh, I hope no Mormon missionaries read this or they will think I am ripe for conversion and show up at my door.

[Ron Green]

21. The many names of God

I'm glad you posted this, because it's good for us to discuss the idea that "God," whatever that means, has been with us since the beginning and has shaped all of human existence. Those who call themselves atheists also have a name for God, which is "there is no God." I imagine most atheists would say, "No, that's not right. I am not naming God, I am stating there is no such entity." I would suggest though, that they really have no choice but to participate in the "concept" process. They're at one end of the spectrum: total denial. The other end of the spectrum would be total personification, defining God as a powerful Superman sort of being. I believe the truth, as in most everything, is found in the middle, which is where most of the reasonable, sober and mature people of my acquaintance seem to work on the irrefutable fact that there is much beyond our human understanding.

To say simply that all the centuries of worship, experience, scholarship and study surrounding "God" are nothing but people being fooled and oppressed is foolish in itself. My concept may be different from another's (it's certainly different from my own atheism of many years ago), but I believe the OP has identified the real source of much of the disagreement around here.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

23. Thank you for this post

It has given me food for thought as far as our spectrum of human understanding. I think that when one has a spiritual experience, it is impossible to explain using words. As the mystic Joe Miller once said, "It can't be bought, it can't be taught, but it can be caught."

[The Magistrate]

24. Nowhere Near Good Enough, Sir

The same reasoning would suggest that a person avowing the deepest conceivable belief in a diety was in fact asserting no such thing as a diety existed, and was at heart a committed atheist. That would never do.

It is much more adviseable to take people at their given word, and refrain from spinning gossamer webs of word and rickety special pleadings to claim they mean something very different from what they say, and that indeed, they have no choice but to agree with you and your view of things.

To claim there is much beyond human understanding at present is certainly true, but to state this does not demonstrate the truth of any particular explaination offered for what is not understood. That there are things not understood is very far from proof any diety exists, nor is it even suggestive that a diety exists. That which is not understood is not understood; by definition no satisfactory explaination of it can be offered, else it would cease to not be understood, and become merely further elements of mundane and comprehended existence.

[Ron Green]

28. I'm not offering to demonstrate the truth of any particular explanation,

nor am I asserting "proof" of God's existence. What is obvious throughout history is that belief in a deity, at once changeable over time and cultures and yet eternally the same, has been, along with governments and commerce, an institution that has shaped human history. Just as there are different political and economic systems, some progressive and some enslaving, there are different spiritual systems. We are all free to deny the existence of a "Higher Power," or a Unity, as I prefer to see it. I'm simply agreeing with the OP that the different interpretations of the ultimate, yet unprovable, truths are tripping up people who might otherwise find better understanding of each other.

[The Magistrate]

29. So Long, Sir

As you do not attempt to claim, as you did above, that concluding no "higher power" or "Unity" exists is essentially the same as believing it does, we have no quarrel.

[Goblinmonger]

26. Though many

would argue that the "many faces of god" actually are a pretty good indication that there is no god and that the concept of a god is just something that humans come up with in order to satisfy our curiosity. It is just easier to say that "god did it" than to have work through the science that was unavailable at the time.

Your entire first paragraph approaches the world from the stand point that the exitence of some sort of god is a 100% given. This is evidenced by your word choice of "denial" as to the position of atheists. In other words, we all know that there IS a god and the atheists know this, they just choose to deny what they know. I would argue that is not my position. And probably not the position of pretty much all of the atheists on DU.

I'm going to go now and try find something to fill that god-shaped hole in my heart

[Ron Green]

27. I don't know about "faces," but as far as "names" goes,

this indicates to me that people have various understandings of life's great mysteries, as well as participation in their own various cultures. My use of quotation marks around the word "God" in the paragraph to which you refer does not support you in saying that my approach is from a "100% given" standpoint. We DON'T all know that there is a god, but we DO know that there is a concept of "God," in many variations, that has been with us the whole time. My point is that to dismiss not only this concept, but all that has been supported by it, as well as to claim "fairy tale," is an extreme position.

[Evoman]

30. God can have many faces

And I don't believe in any of them. There is no god.

Here is an analogy. Four kids are reading a comic book. Jimmy thinks superman is the fastest. Tommy thinks The Flash is faster. Billy thinks Quicksilver could beat them all. They start arguing and fighting--almost coming to blows--about who is really the fastest. They turn to Larry and ask him....what do you believe Larry? Larry looks at them, grabs the comic book, throws it in the garbage and says, "You guys are fighting over something that doesn't exist. I'm gonna go read something else"

Superman doesn't exist. Don't get me wrong...he's a great guy, and if you want to believe that he is the fastest, all the power to you. But I don't believe in him all the same.

[Ron Green]

31. Kids care about who is the fastest, or who could beat up the others.

I think that as we grow in knowledge and wisdom we think more about what we share and how we can take care of each other. A "Superman" image of God is still popular among children, and among people who haven't thought very much about things. I believe the OP is referring to these kinds of images, and to how different they are from one culture to another. However, as has been pointed out, some basic ideas are shared by most of the spiritual traditions, and this sharing is a starting point for greater understanding among people around the world.

How do we relate to other peoples? Coca-cola wants to do it through multinational corporations. Some want to do it through the U.N. I believe we have to use ALL the institutions: commercial, governmental and spiritual.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

32. Let me try and understand you

You say you don't believe in any of the "faces" of God-I assume by that you mean concepts of God. Yet the concept of God you use as an example is one that seperates God from the kids. The one who throws the comic book in the trash says that these superheros don't really exist-and he, again, is coming from the concept that the superheros in the comic book are seperate and different from him and the other kids.

This concept of God as being seperate from individuals, perhaps endowed with superpowers, is a commen God concept, I agree. But it is not the only concept of God a person can have.

Here is my concept of God. I would be interested in your analogy that refutes it-and this isn't flamebait. You most certainly have the right to say it is bunk, and I will not dissuade you. It's just that when I explain my concept of God I've never had an atheist come back with a refutation of my concept, and I'm curious as to what that refutation may be.

God is everything. God is every particle, atom, subatomic particle, every particle that hasn't been discovered yet. God is the laws of science and physics that have so far been discovered, and also those laws waiting to be discovered. God is action and inaction; God is the void and that which fills the void, all at once, as light is both a particle and a wave. God itself is continually evolving, changing, growing, creating-out of God. God can never be totally known; perhaps God can be experienced-in the splitting of a cell, a breath, the movement of planets.

This is my concept of God at this moment; it may, and probably will, change, as I have more experience. I sincerely wish to hear your comments about this concept of God.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

25. Or concepts of the lack of a god.

Which I guess is the same. If you don't believe in any god-figure, then you have an opinion about the concept of "God," which would be that there is no concept.

:shrug:

Good post, though. :thumbsup:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

33. Yes!

And I respect those who have no concept of God. However, often here we find that people who say they have no concept of God take on a particular concept (usually one involving some seperate being with superpowers) to argue about God or the existance thereof. One of the things I was trying to point out in my OP was that not everyone who believes in God shares that particular concept-and that those who believe in God often find their concepts of God changing and evolving as they live their life. So when an atheist wishes to argue with a believer, that is all well and good-but the concept of God being discussed should also be made clear, because concepts are not the same and do change.