I say that I believe in a god. Yet my understanding of god is quite
unlike most people’s definition of a god.

I don’t want to go into my life’s story here, but I feel that I need to
share that at one time I was a ‘saved’ Christian. By ‘saved’ I simply
mean that I genuinely and sincerely accepted Jesus as my Lord and
Savior. I did this both in the full ritual of the Church, and with
total genuine and sincere conviction in my heart.

As my life moved forward I came to the realization that this picture of
god was incorrect. This had nothing at all to do with god having failed
me in any way. This wasn’t about god. This was merely about
intellectual inquiry and sincere rational thought. I had no desire to
turn away from god. On the contrary during the whole process I never
felt abandoned by god, nor did I feel that I was abandoning god.

I might add also, that even before I accepted Jesus as my savior I
already knew god in my heart. I had felt god in my heart from an
extremely young age. So in a very real sense I did not find god with
Christianity, and therefore I did not lose god when I finally rejected
that religion.

For me god and religion were never the same thing at all. God is god.
Religion is just mankind’s attempt to describe how he thinks god is.
Since I was raised in a Christian environment, I just assumed that these
people knew what they were talking about. Unfortunately I discovered
that this wasn’t true. I might add also, that the people I knew who
were Christians were not the least bit hypocritical, plastic, or
insincere in their faith, neither were they Bible thumping fanatics.
They were just good honest people believing in what they thought was
right.

So I didn’t reject this religion with any venom at that time. I simply,
and calmly, realize that it can’t possibly be correct. And so I moved
on to find a better description of the god that I already knew lives in
my heart. You see, for me, religion has nothing at all to do with god,
other than being a means of conveying and describing things about god.
I simply came to realization that the things that Christianity were
conveying about god simply can't be true.

After sifting through a large number of other religions I finally
concluded that the closest description I could come up with is Natural
Pantheism, and even then I am only talking about the general idea of it
and not any elaborations that any particular group might attempt to box
it in with.

So with that in mind, when I say that I believe in god I am using the
word ‘god’ as defined by the following definition:

Definition of god:

That all-pervading universal force in and of all things. The universal
Will behind all manifestation, natural laws and phenomena, composed of
Energy, Awareness and Intent. The collective group mind intelligence of
the manifest and unmanifest cosmos, composed of consciousness.

This is not my own definition by the way. I found this definition on
the web. I’ll grant that this is one of the lesser popular definitions
of the word ‘god’, but for me it best describes god as I know god.

So when I say that I believe in ‘god’ I’m not talking about the ancient
superstitious ideas of deities in the sky that can reach into the
universe and do miraculous feats. I’m talking about a life-force that
lives within every one of us (including all living things) and is a
manifestation of the consciousness of the cosmos.

The kind of god that I believe in cannot reach into the universe and
perform miracles. God’s work must be done by man and animal. We are
not separate from god. We are an extension of god. It is impossible
to be separated from god. We are this universe and the universe is god.
There is simply nothing else to be. Nowhere else to go.

This is the god that I know.

I find it funny that some Christians will actually say that this is
somehow a ‘cold’ picture of god. I’ll never understand that mindset,
because this god can never abandon anyone. This god’s love is totally
unconditional. Compare that with a god that can reject people and send
them to eternal damnation and then ask which god is more callous?

You know more about who Yahweh is than you think> Miles

I do see inklings of god shining through in the Bible.

There’s no doubt in my mind that many of the authors of various
statements in the Bible were indeed written by men who have experience
with god in the same way that I experience god.

However, there are also many gross distortions that obviously came from
the imaginations of men too.

In fact, any story or account that depicts god as being an individual
egotistical-like judgmental entity is necessarily incompatible with how
I experience god.

I'm just trying to share how I view god in this thread. I'm not
suggesting that anyone else needs to share my view.

I think it's a pretty darn significant thing that you've
done..."figuring out" that God (the God of the Bible that most
"God-believing" people consider "God") is a "farce."

Don't you think the world deserves to know this "scientific, fact-based,
logical conclusion" you've come to? Have you contacted The Times or
perhaps ABC News with your discovery?

Sarcasm only SOMEWHAT intended....aside from that, I hope you see the
point in my statements.

Thank you for sharing your feelings Sheila.

I would find the sarcasim to the contrary towards you. The so-called
christian right-wing sheds light to the people in double talking mumbo
jumbo. I can see exactly where he is comming from because he uses
freewill to think independently of the catch phrases the christian
ministers put in your head as truth. Ever heard tell a lie long enough
and it becomes truth. Our govt. has proved this to be true. 98% (IMO)
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE TRUTH THEY PERCIEVE CAN ONLY REPEAT WHAT HAS BEEN
REPEATED TO THEM. lies upon lies where does it start. Even our grand
parents would see todays socialized religion as Herecy. Yet popular
belief is scientific conclusion are fact. Yet how many times do they
change what and what not we should eat or what causes cancer. Our media
takes portions of online headlines and beat themselves over the head to
see who can report on it the most. The Imformation age. Hum Bug. The
deception age to bring down the level of thinking of our youth while at
the same time tells us how smart they are. Ask the average HS graduare
to do some simple math in thier head? Yes this may seem off the beaten
path but is it? Is it not the dumbing down of real freewill thinkers
that our christian elite claims they are empowering. yet how many books
do they write that is ( a breakthrough from G-D) and it is BS designed
to take your money. My Hats off to this gentleman to question whether
what he has been told shown as truth really is. john 3:16 a battle cry
yea. yet when you read the whole of the SACRED SCRIPTURES those who
claim liberty are the same ones who put a yoke around your neck
squeezing the life out of you.. We need more people to KNOW AND STUDY
THIER BELIEFS. Not just BELIEVE. there's a decepter for you, Hitler used
his work to kill how many? Miles

Milesoftheusa,

What's up? Why are you so angry? You should calm down and repost,
because I'm not even sure what your point was.

What does it matter to 'God' how man defines the unknowable essence.

We can weave a pattern of words about that Spirit and it is but a
pattern of words.

We can weave a pattern of doctrine within that which is and still have
only a thing of pattern wrapped in our own misunderstanding.

One man can come and say 'this' and another also comes and says 'that'
and neither man know were truth is at.

Not knowing I choose to simply be...

I AM.

Spider my point is nad has been through this thread is NO ONE THINKS
FOR THEMSELVES all they know are little catch phrases and they are kept
in the dark about thr TRUTH of the scriptures. John the baptist was not
exactly calm. I am warning of the wrath to come and you better know that
what you believe is really true.. Miles

To call me "right-wing" is a laughable statement, to say the least.

But my point is, Abra is obviously CONVINCED he KNOWS that the God of
the Bible is false. He makes claims as if to say that he has it all
figured out: that he knows this to be a FACT.

For "XXX number of years, people have believed in God" and all this time
those of us who do have been "duped?"

I say, if you're going to make such strong claims, you should have
evidence to prove that He DOES NOT exist...either that, or state your
opinion, but don't act as though you are stating facts.

Usually, I will say that it's not necessary to post that one is stating
an opinion, because it's obvious by the content that they are.

And in his case, I suppose you could say that is also true.

But *some* people might get the idea, from his words, that what he is
saying is, in fact, true, because he doesn't really claim that what he
is saying is merely a "theory" of his.

Of course, he or anyone else is free to believe what they want to
believe; and, I might add, you have NEVER seen me "shoving religion"
down anyone's throat.

Believe what you will, but don't make suppositions that people who
believe in God are "clueless" and don't have enough "common sense" or
logical reasoning capabilities to have figured out "the truth."

M'kay? Thanks.

Milesoftheusa,

So everyone but you is a complete dunderhead? Oh wait, and Abra, he
thinks too. So it's just you and Abra living in a world of idiots.
Must be lonely for you guys.

What was it Jesus said..."That whosoever is angry with his brother
without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall
say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but
whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

You are a Yahwehist, which means you belong to an organized sect of
legalist Christians. Maybe you should think for yourself and see that
Jesus taught against and not for legalism. Maybe you need to realize
that there is a New Covenant. Maybe you should realize that Jesus and
the people who traveled and lived with him taught that people could work
on Sabbath and eat whatever the hell want want to eat. Get your bible
out and read the parts your pastor has taught you to ignore.

Miles Yahweh only became the name of God in the time of Moses. This led
eventually to His name being used by the eloist which became the
Yahweist and the Jahist which became the Johovist. This also lead to
his name being called God in English and Allah in Arabic. It was caused
by a twofold split in the tribes of Israel over who carried the sceptor
and the lawgiver. Once again mankind confused the nature of god because
of petty squabbles between brothers.

Before that his name was called El-yon and Zaduk (high one) and
interistingly enough ancient Hebrew astronmers also called jupiter
Zaduk. Jupiter (Zeuz), ain't it intersting how they all link to
Genesis.

AB wrote:
"What does it matter to 'God' how man defines the unknowable essence."

I agree with you completely AB. It doesn't matter to god at all.

I've only posted the definition that I posted as an attempt to share how
I view god so that other people might be able to understand better when
I share my views about god.

You see, I don’t think of god as being a separate entity in the sky that
can reach into our lives and change things. I’m merely trying to convey
my own personal view (which is certainly not a solitary view)

Earlier Sheila was suggesting that I should contact that news with my
‘discovery’, but actually pantheism goes back as far as Christianity and
possibly even further.

All of the following people are Pantheists in their view of god.

Albert Einstein
Carl Sagan
Henry David Thoreau
Sitting Bull
Stephan Hawking
David Suzuki
Margaret Atwood

There are many others too of course. But this understanding of god is
hardly unique to me.

Also, most Eastern Mysticism religions are pantheistic in their
foundational view. So we’re talking millions of people who know god in
this way. This is hardly a view that I can lay claim to being the
first to ‘discover’.

This is a very interesting topic. I feel that God cannot be totally
defined. He can only be defined to the extent that he reveals himself
(either through miracles, visions, experiences, books, or words).

I also feel that Christianity is like love: it does not matter how
sincerely you accept it in your heart. All that counts is if you are
unrelentingly committed to maintaining it. Thus, Abra, I would argue
that your sincerely heartfelt commitment to Christ would only have
indicated that you were a Christian if you had maintained it. Since you
did not maintain it, it is not evidence of your ever having been really
a Christian, regardless of your state of mind at the time at which you
felt such commitment.

But that is not a good or a bad thing. As you have said many times, you
are quite happy in your new set of beliefs. So you should not take my
comment that your prior commitment does not serve as current evidence of
Christianity as an offense or anything. It's merely my own assessment.

"That all-pervading universal force in and of all things. The universal
Will behind all manifestation, natural laws and phenomena, composed of
Energy, Awareness and Intent. The collective group mind intelligence of
the manifest and unmanifest cosmos, composed of consciousness."

This is the definition, (not your only one, I note) that you put forward
for God. I understand that the English language itself can't possibly be
rich enough to actually enable a defintion, and so I am not going to
attempt to argue with the words you have written, rather with their
'essence.'

I have to say, first, that this set of beliefs is exactly identical to
the set that Carl Sagan put forward in his book 'Cosmos.' So, it is not
a new concept. In fact, people have held this definition of God
stretching all the way back to the times of Copernicus. People often
make the mistake of believing that in the past there were only
essentially three conceptions of God (Judeo-Christian, Islamic, and
eastern mysticism). This is entirely false. All throughout history there
have been atheists, agnotics, "cosmic-force" believers, and a whole host
of other types of definitions of God.

So, it is unfair to say that those who believe in the God of the Bible
are merely brainwashed by centuries of dogmatic assertions that he is
the only definition of God. People of all ages were free to consider the
alternatives. Due to unfortunate (and sinful) tragedies like the
inquisition and crusades, it has not always been easy to disagree with
Christianity. But people have still always been free to disagree with
it, provided that they were truly willing to put their life on the line
for their beliefs.

The main complaint I have with your belief that God is a passive quality
of the ambient universe is that this directly means that God is
reducible to a finite or infinite number of particles along with their
energy. In principle, what you are saying is that there is no separate
creature (of some kind) that exists apart from me and which made me but
himself did not ever need to be made.

But if that is the case, then I can quickly challenge your claim by
arguing that thoughts themselves are not legitimate unless there exists
some source for their legitimacy. For me, that source is an externally
existing God. Hence, my thoughts then have value (rooted in Him) for
determining truth about reality.

If not such God existed then you are essentially saying that you could
fit all of existence (including God) into a box. It may have to be
infinite dimensional, but it is all still bounded by what we could
conceivably measure in theory. And since we then sit on the inside of
such a box, we cannot possibly determine anything true that is not
subjective about the box in which we live. Thus, you would have no basis
for claiming that your beliefs were right and some other set of beliefs
was not correct.

I believe that human thought is the most obvious instance of a
connection with a being that exists wholly apart from our concept of
reality. And via thought and his interactions with us (miracles) we can
know objective truths about the realm in which we live. If He didn't
exist, all knowledge would be subjective and hence not falsifiable.

I don't believe that your beliefs are self-inconsistent like an atheists
beliefs are. But I still feel that you suffer the problem of being able
to base your claim of ability to detect truth on an objective
foundation.

That's what convinces me that an actual existing being, separate from
created things, must exist that is God. Once I came ot that conclusion,
it was very easy to see that Christianity is the account of such an
existing being that has the most credibility (both in terms of
observation and philosophy), so that is why I believe in Christianity.

great posts elyspears :)

Miles as your thoughts are a part of you so also is god. Not seperate
but greater.

Thought is not seperate or beyond that which is our physical reality.
They are but a part of it that we have not been able to trace and
measure in our infancy of science. We have not yet attained the level
in our science that is necessary to understand and measure the abilities
of thought and will. This time comes but is not yet.

Ely wrote:
“I feel that God cannot be totally defined”

Would you offer that truth up with respect to the Bible that you refuse
to question?

By the way, I wasn’t offering a definition of god, I was offering a
semantic abstract for the word ‘god’ solely for the purpose of helping
people understand where I’m coming from, and I even stated as much.

To jump on it as though it’s some kind of all-encompassing definitive
description is nothing short of absurd. It was never intended as any
such thing.

“A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe
as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of
reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or
later, such a religion will emerge.” – Carl Sagan

I agree with Carl Sagan. It’s just a matter of time before people
eventually come out of the dark ages.

I’m just trying to help push that enlightenment along.

AB

OT:3068

OT:3068 ho*hy= Yehovah (yeh-ho-vaw'); from OT:1961; (the) self-Existent
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with
Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003 Biblesoft, Inc.
and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
OT:1961

OT:1961 hy*h* hayah (haw-yaw); a primitive root [compare OT:1933]; to
exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere
copula or auxiliary):

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with
Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003 Biblesoft, Inc.
and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
OT:1933

OT:1933 aw*h* hava' (haw-vaw'); or havah (haw-vaw'); a primitive root
[compare OT:183, OT:1961] supposed to mean properly, to breathe; to be
(in the sense of existence):

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with
Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003 Biblesoft, Inc.
and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
OT:1933

OT:1933 aw*h* hava' (haw-vaw'); or havah (haw-vaw'); a primitive root
[compare OT:183, OT:1961] supposed to mean properly, to breathe; to be
(in the sense of existence):

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with
Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003 Biblesoft, Inc.
and International Bible Translators, Inc.)


In many bibles you will find that the word LORD in capital letters was
put thier for the Hebrew (or english sounding)letters YHWH hence..
Gen 2:4-7

4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were
created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5
before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of
the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the
earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up
from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
NKJV
Notice capital LORD (YHWH) is not used untill the 2 chapter verse 4 and
says this is the history of the heavens and the earth, all that was
written before. Then in verse 7 man was formed and he breathed (Yah)
(see all quotes from above strongs #'s) That when YHWH comes to be
written the poetic name of YHWH (YAH) is used in conjunction with man
comming to life. So to say YHWH was not know since the beginning of man
siply can not be true.. Miles.

Abra:

(1) I pointed out that your definition was merely a verbal abstraction.
I said that I was not attacking your semantics, rather the essence which
they were attempting to describe.

(2) The idea the people would spontaneously start attributing reality to
a kind and loving God given the he didn't exist is not tenable. You
can't possibly argue that people are so foolish as to see the pain in
the world and then start attributing it to a God who doesn't exist. The
primitive people who "developed" the idea of God would never have
considered him good. This cannot be explain evolutionarily, no matter
how hard you try.

(3) I have said repeatedly that everyone should challenge the Bible and
reason out for themselves whether they agree with it or disagree. I
merely explain my arguments for why I do believe it after critical
analysis.

(4) The Bible (a finite number of particles sitting on my desk) does not
totally define an infinite being such as God. I said that it is
(perhaps) one of the ways in which he reveals parts of his character
(i.e. his definition) to us.

(5) This still does not resolve any of the problems that I pointed out
about the belief that God is merely an ambient force. Rather than
running to attack my beliefs every time your own are attacked, why don't
you ever attempt to defend your own?