Theism vs. God

[Danmark]

I contend that the idea of God is actually diminished or cheapened by the various attempts to construct a God of orthodox theism.

Before continuing I should at least attempt a definition of terms. I suggest that a theistic God is a personal, living God, a God with a personality who directly interacts with the minds/personalities of humans. Altho' a "creator God" is often linked to a God of theism the point of this subtopic is to distinguish a creator God from a personal God or a God with a personality.

Though this is meant primarily as a debate, I propose that discussion is not off limits; including a discussion or debate that challenges the way I have attempted to define the difference between "God" and a "Theistic God."

[bluethread]

This real God would be beyond description, beyond definition. This is not satisfactory to most humans, who want a God they can commune with, a God much like themselves.

Even many atheists take that position. Bibliophobes often require theists to defend a deity with human characteristics. Human characteristic may be used to explain Adonai's actions to men, but that does not mean that those characteristics need to be immutable. They may be just circumstantial and/or explanatory.

[Divine Insight]

Though this is meant primarily as a debate, I propose that discussion is not off limits; including a discussion or debate that challenges the way I have attempted to define the difference between "God" and a "Theistic God."

A few things came to my mind on this topic.

To begin with the term "theism" is often ill-defined and people tend to have a different idea of what it means. For example, some people use the term to be exclusive to the Abrahamic God. In other words, they would claim that the God of Eastern mysticism is not a "theistic" God.

I'm certainly open to that restriction of of the word "theism". However, if we look at the work in terms of etymology "theo" simply means "God". So based on the etymology of the work any religion that claims to have a concept of a "God" would then be a valid theism.

However, I do believe that most people use the term "theism" to refer to the Abrahamic or Biblical God.

If we allow for that restriction, then theism would naturally require that God is a personified egotistical being. Who not only thinks for himself but communicates and directs the actions of men.

The Biblical God (i.e. the Theistic God, if we allow that meaning of theism) is necessarily a sentience personified deity not unlike the Greek God Zeus.

The theistic God of the Bible gave Moses the Ten Commandments. The whole way through the Torah (or first 5 books of the Old Testament) the authors are claiming to speak for God almost as if they are God talking.

This God is described as looking down on the events and actions of men and actually thinking about what he's going to do. The Bible holds God responsible for purposefully causing the Great Flood, and even repenting that he had ever created mankind.

God appears to men in several different forms throughout the Bible. As a burning bush to Moses, and as a talking cloud to the disciples of Jesus. In instructs men to kill others and even to commit mass genocide.

Jesus himself supposedly resurrects from the dead and appears to his disciples as the personified resurrected Son of God.

Jesus appears to Saul on the road to Damascus as a personified deity.

If theism = the God of the Bible, then there's no choice in the matter. God necessarily has to be a personified egotistical person. He claims to be jealous of other Gods. He clearly has a Son named Jesus or can take that form himself whilst still speaking from clouds and praying to himself.

The God of the Bible is like the three faces of Eve, only much worse.

He's definitely a personified Zeus-like Godhead who has an ego, and even has emotions of his own. He becomes angry and wrathful. He's clearly jealous. He repents about his own previous choices. He does this several times in the Bible.

The Biblical God (i.e. the Theistic God) is definitely a personified egotistical character.

And of course this all holds true for Allah as well. It's basically the same God myth with some disagreement over who Jesus was.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 12 by Divine Insight]

I agree with this. The Greek and Roman gods, the Norse gods, and the god of Abraham are all man like gods, tho perhaps supermanlike is more accurate. All of these gods are personifications of men.

There may be one exception, but it did not last long. I've referred to it many times. That is the moment when Abraham asks his god for his name. It strikes me as unusual and profound that he gets the answer which in effect says, 'I am beyond naming; I am that I am.' Of course this is so foreign to the understanding of most humans, they immediately did their best to misunderstand, culminating in the Jehovah Witnesses who have turned meaning on its head, making a cult out of the name itself. This strikes me as a form of verbal idolatry. The Jews were hardly better, calling the name the 'tetragrammaton' and prohibiting it's mention as if the power were in the name. Whether he is Lord, or Adonai, or Elohim, or Father, these are all inaccurate defacements, debasements of that which is beyond naming, beyond capturing in a mere human construct.

[Zzyzx]

.

This real God would be beyond description, beyond definition. This is not satisfactory to most humans, who want a God they can commune with, a God much like themselves.

Even many atheists take that position. Bibliophobes often require theists to defend a deity with human characteristics. Human characteristic may be used to explain Adonai's actions to men, but that does not mean that those characteristics need to be immutable.

An explanation using fictional associations or examples may be appropriate in some instances PROVIDED that the literal / actual / true information is available to anyone interested. That which can be described only fictionally (or by unverifiable testimonials) should not be presented as truth.

They may be just circumstantial and/or explanatory.

Or they may be fiction, fantasy, imagination. By what means can anyone distinguish which is which if verification is not available or possible?

[Elijah John]

This real God would be beyond description, beyond definition. This is not satisfactory to most humans, who want a God they can commune with, a God much like themselves.

Even many atheists take that position. Bibliophobes often require theists to defend a deity with human characteristics. Human characteristic may be used to explain Adonai's actions to men, but that does not mean that those characteristics need to be immutable. They may be just circumstantial and/or explanatory.

Quoting Bluethread, but mostly addressing Danmark with this post. Just because the Living God may be beyond description, does not mean it is not useful for humankind to TRY to describe and understand Him. Also, if God is real, He could well reveal aspects of Himself to enable humans to relate to Him..that does not make it a total, complete or comprehesive revelation, and most thoughtful Theists understand the limitations.

That complete understanding and encounter is reserved for Heaven, many Theists believe, in the Beatific vision. As Paul says," we see through the glass dimly, but then, face to face"...or words to that effect.

So yeah, just because humans use limited language and descriptions, does not mean we do not REALIZE these are imperfect means, and it does not mean we do not realize that God is beyond all of our attempts to relate to and understand Him.

You may have noticed I employ gender specific language in discussing God, but that does not mean I do not realize that God is BEYOND gender, I do. And I understand that God certainly transcends the Bible AND the Quran.

To butcher Shakespeare..."there is more under Heaven and Earth than what is dreamt of in your philosophy..." or something like that.

[Zzyzx]

.

Just because the Living God may be beyond description, does not mean it is not useful for humankind to TRY to describe and understand Him.

Where do we start? With what we think up or what we "feel"? What others think up or feel and perhaps write? Since no one knows, isn't it a bit like the blind leading the blind trying to describe and understand something that is invisible and undetectable -- and for which we have no clue that did not originate with humans?

Is there anything outside human minds or imagination that can be used as a starting point to understand or describe God?

[Danmark]

.

Just because the Living God may be beyond description, does not mean it is not useful for humankind to TRY to describe and understand Him.

Where do we start? With what we think up or what we "feel"? What others think up or feel and perhaps write? Since no one knows, isn't it a bit like the blind leading the blind trying to describe and understand something that is invisible and undetectable -- and for which we have no clue that did not originate with humans?

Is there anything outside human minds or imagination that can be used as a starting point to understand or describe God?

One of the reasons I started this subtopic was to acknowledge we do not know everything and that just because we do not understand something, that even if we cannot measure or explain it, does not mean it does not exist.

Naturalists, non theists are rightfully cautious about putting labels on what we do not know or cannot explain. We are, and should be highly resistant to using the label 'god' to explain the unknown. But we should remain humble and filled with wonder about the unknown.

I'm thinking in print now, I don't have this thought out, but do we really have to insist on putting a label on everything? I would rather let some things be nameless in preference to giving them the wrong name, or a misleading name. This is the problem with words and other symbols. The symbol is always a mere approximation for what it tries to describe. The symbols mislead us into thinking we have captured some exact truth when in fact we have only found some rough approximation we agree upon.

I hope others can finish these thoughts for me and explain what, if anything, this has to do with the concept of a real god. Some theologian, maybe Hans Küng said something about faith being the suspension of belief. I like the phrase. I think that being open to truth gets one closer to it than allowing some approximation to crystalize into an idol.

[ttruscott]

...

But it also seems to me to be error to conclude existence is the result of some anthropomorphic consciousness that is reduced to and defined by human standards and descriptions. One of the themes of this sub topic is the suggestion that the very attempt to define and describe God is to diminish the concept, to reduce God to the role of a superhuman.

I've sort of taken it for granted that we are not so much trying to define and describe God as we are trying to understand HIS self descriptions in HIS self revelation.

Does that change anything? Does not HIS self revelation give the search for its meaning some legitimacy?

Peace, Ted.

[Danmark]

...

But it also seems to me to be error to conclude existence is the result of some anthropomorphic consciousness that is reduced to and defined by human standards and descriptions. One of the themes of this sub topic is the suggestion that the very attempt to define and describe God is to diminish the concept, to reduce God to the role of a superhuman.

I've sort of taken it for granted that we are not so much trying to define and describe God as we are trying to understand HIS self descriptions in HIS self revelation.

Does that change anything? Does not HIS self revelation give the search for its meaning some legitimacy?

Well, that IS the question. Is it God revealing himself in the Bible? Or is man trying to describe God. I think the evidence is clear it is a work of man alone.
Others, and you, disagree. To me it seems that a force or being, or 'very ground of being' or whatever that could create or 'be' the universe, would be very, very different from this anthropomorphic image of god that i think was painted by men. 'He' just sounds so very human to me, with very human emotions. He gets jealous. He seems to lose his temper. He gets angry, then softens a little. He loves, but he loves some more than others. Everywhere I look in the bible, except the 'I AM' passage, I see the hand of man fashioning God in man's image.

[Divine Insight]

I'm thinking in print now, I don't have this thought out, but do we really have to insist on putting a label on everything? I would rather let some things be nameless in preference to giving them the wrong name, or a misleading name. This is the problem with words and other symbols. The symbol is always a mere approximation for what it tries to describe. The symbols mislead us into thinking we have captured some exact truth when in fact we have only found some rough approximation we agree upon.

I took the liberty of staring a new thread in Definitions and Explanations in response to your thoughts quoted above.

On the concept and semantics of "God"