What is God?

[Zzyzx]

.
Many people here and elsewhere speak as though they know a lot about God (or God of the Bible or God of Abraham) one of the thosands proposed).

However, when asked, they do NOT seem to know anything beyond

1. Vague generalities (a spirit, up in the sky, 'father', etc)
2. What God can do (all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipresent, etc)
3. What God supposedly did (created)
4. What God supposedly said (to someone?)
5. What God supposedly wants (obedience, worship)
6. What ancients wrote about their impressions of God

None of the above identifies what God IS.

In a current thread HogHead wisely observed:

If we don't know what God is, can't give God an affirmative content, then the concept of God is meaningless and should be dropped.

Ignosticism says much the same thing -- "we cannot intelligently discuss the topic of God until someone defines and describes what we are to discuss".

So, what IS the God of which you speak?

[MuffMaYne]

[Replying to post 170 by Tired of the Nonsense]

What, in your mind, is God's plan and where is it stated in the Bible?

And yes I understand you may or may not believe, but still, what would you say it is and where do you get that info from?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 170 by Tired of the Nonsense]

What, in your mind, is God's plan and where is it stated in the Bible?

And yes I understand you may or may not believe, but still, what would you say it is and where do you get that info from?

The author of the Book of Revelation seems to know God's plan very well. At least God's end game. Prior to that, at least according to Christians, it was God's plan to redeem humankind from the sin they were designed especially to commit by coming to earth as His own son, to eventually be scourged and beaten and to die in pain and agony because the great sins of humankind required that holy blood had be shed for the purposes of cleansing them. Why? Since God is omnipotent, why the symbolic shedding of holy blood was required is a very good question. That part of the plan is not provided. But I have already provided YOU with the passages that indicate that everything has already been written down in God's book. So clearly the God of the Bible has a plan. It's just that it never ACTUALLY seems to reach fruition. Maybe God's plan is to wait until the world runs out of gullible people. We may still have a long time to wait yet.

[William]

[Replying to post 158 by Tired of the Nonsense]

The Bible also tells us that it is the Word of God.

Citations please.

Probably the most often quoted passage concerning this claim is 2Tim. 3:16

[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Yes, but it doesn't say that the bible is 'the word of GOD'-please read my reply in full as I said this already.

[William]

.

Nowhere in the above is there any mention that the Bible is 'the word of GOD'.

It simply says that the God said something, and that the words were pased on. It could be argued that those words are 'the word of GOD' but not everything in the Bible is GOD speaking.

Are we playing word games looking for the exact phrase 'word of god' in the Bible.

I don't think we are. I think such a thing would be supported clearly. It is not the case. The bible does not say that it is the word of GOD.
Scripture mentions the biblical GOD speaking, and it mentions individuals speaking on the GODs behalf, and it mentions people claiming that what they say can be thought of as the word of GOD and even when it mentions that all scripture can be considered inspirational/inspired by the writers connection with GOD, it never categorically states anywhere, that the BIBLE is the word of GOD.

That doesn't surprise me of course, as GODs words cannot be contained in any book, and it is most likely something which was injected into Christendom as it became apparent that it was growing into a major powerhouse for political agendas.

The peasantry might well argue with the word of human beings, but - argue with the word of GOD and risk hell?

According to the bible itself, Jesus is titled "The Word of GOD" and Jesus is not the Bible.

So nope - we are not playing with words. Those who wrote parts of the bible were the ones playing with words.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Yes, but it doesn't say that the bible is 'the word of GOD'-please read my reply in full as I said this already.

John.1
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

[14] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

So Jesus himself was the word of God, according to the NT. 2Tim. specifically indicates that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God." But if you are arguing that the Bible is NOT actually the word of any God, I am not going to disagree with you.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 166 by Tired of the Nonsense]

The Bible presents an anthropomorphic image of God, true. But much detail is left out. It doesn't tell why God created the world, what was God's motive. We get but snap shots of God which often conflict. In many passages, God is presented as immutable, whereas many others present God as changing. In passages, such as we find in Isaiah, God stands aloof, at a distance from the world, way up at the top of the sky. In other passages, such as Jer. 23:23-24, God is presented as omnipresent.
Most of the biblical predication of God is relative predication. It's hard to be a kind without subjects, a creator without a creation, a father without children, a lover without an object to love. And that implies God needs the world to be fully God. But the Bible never comes out and says that. The Bible attributes many body parts to God, and that strongly implies the biblical writers understood God as having a physical dimension, a body, but the Bible never really describes that. The taboo against making idols does not mean God is immaterial. If, for example the universe is the body of god, then we can see but limited parts of God, and so any image we would make would be far less than the real thing. However, the Bible does not make that point clear.

However, my point, in my previous post, is that the classical or traditional description or picture we have of God as he is in his own nature came largely from Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture, and in many ways contradicts Scripture.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 174 by William]

That is a good point. In the Bible, the title of "Word of God" applies only to Christ. People often confuse "Word" here with spoken words. But Logos means far more than mere words. It means Reason, Logic. So I am inclined to think that calling the Bible the Word of God is bibleolatry at its worst, trying to make the Bible into a paper pope and put it in the place of God.

[William]

[Replying to post 175 by Tired of the Nonsense]

In simple terms, as far as the story goes, no words on paper all bound in a book can be regarded as 'The Word of GOD'.

The story refers to Jesus as being 'The Word of GOD'. Words attributed to the GOD are, as pointed out, referring to what either GODs voice has been heard to say (like in the garden and in other parts of the bible) and those such as Moses saying that they were passing on messages (given in private by the GOD or inspired) and the messages were thus treated as words of the GOD.

Rule of Thumb
If any words of Jesus contradict the others, then the others are not 'the word of GOD'.

This was a very specific aspect of Jesus' message. GODs words were often twisted to suit political agenda, added to/said to have been from GOD but were not, etc.

Both OT and NT have this thread running through them. The Father GOD does not like his words being taken out of context, etc.

Jesus makes a point of saying that a big part of the reason he was necessary was because of this type of human manipulation, for human purposes.

It is the work of the Filthy Little Liar. 'Get thee behind me' is a phrase used in recognition of this being done. He told his disciples that he would have to be killed and then raised from the dead, and Peter objected that this should not happen.

Perter was arguing with The Word of GOD.

Too be sure, it was a simple rebuke as the Disciples were ignorant of the specifics of the plan and unable to comprehend the larger picture. But even that it was a rebuke, it was for a serious infraction and Jesus recognized the signature of the Filthy Little Liar therein.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 175 by Tired of the Nonsense]

In simple terms, as far as the story goes, no words on paper all bound in a book can be regarded as 'The Word of GOD'.

The story refers to Jesus as being 'The Word of GOD'. Words attributed to the GOD are, as pointed out, referring to what either GODs voice has been heard to say (like in the garden and in other parts of the bible) and those such as Moses saying that they were passing on messages (given in private by the GOD or inspired) and the messages were thus treated as words of the GOD.

Rule of Thumb
If any words of Jesus contradict the others, then the others are not 'the word of GOD'.

This was a very specific aspect of Jesus' message. GODs words were often twisted to suit political agenda, added to/said to have been from GOD but were not, etc.

Both OT and NT have this thread running through them. The Father GOD does not like his words being taken out of context, etc.

Jesus makes a point of saying that a big part of the reason he was necessary was because of this type of human manipulation, for human purposes.

It is the work of the Filthy Little Liar. 'Get thee behind me' is a phrase used in recognition of this being done. He told his disciples that he would have to be killed and then raised from the dead, and Peter objected that this should not happen.

Perter was arguing with The Word of GOD.

Too be sure, it was a simple rebuke as the Disciples were ignorant of the specifics of the plan and unable to comprehend the larger picture. But even that it was a rebuke, it was for a serious infraction and Jesus recognized the signature of the Filthy Little Liar therein.

It is the work of the Filthy Little Liar. 'Get thee behind me' is a phrase used in recognition of this being done. He told his disciples that he would have to be killed and then raised from the dead, and Peter objected that this should not happen.

So it is your position that the Bible is the "work of the filthy little liar," or at best, heavily tainted by by the "filthy little liar?"

Mark.8
[33] But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

I notice that the story of "get thee behind me Satan," is in fact found in the book that you are claiming is the "work of the filthy little liar." If you do not trust the Bible, then what exactly do you base what you think you believe on, and why do you think you believe it? Are you claiming a direct personal line to God? Because if so, you are hardly the first to make that claim.

You may well have made the answer to this question clear in other threads, and I have simply missed it.

[William]

[Replying to post 179 by Tired of the Nonsense]

I am unsure as to how you could read what I said to mean what you are saying it means.

Please read carefully what I posted and comment on that, rather than on something that was never said or even implied.