plaetton:
Point of correction sir.
If you neither believe in the existence of the Toothfairy nor Santa Claus, then you can only write or express opinion about the IDEAS or beliefs being peddled about Santa Clause and the Toothfairy.
I don`t see how you can offer a definitive analysis of something whose existence is unproven

That is exactly what we want to know.
Want contributors to write these opinions, beliefs and/or perceptions peddled about God and the variants of gods plus comparing and contrasting God with the variants gods.
Example:
God is this and that
god1 is that and this
god2 is that, that and that

God is this that and that but god1 and god2 aren't this that and that etcetera

Something like that and/or in the line of that, instead of this grandstanding

plaetton:
If you keep trying to get a comparison of Capital letter god and small letter god, you are taking them from the realm of being mere Mental Projections, and projecting them as actual things that can be objectively observed, classified and analyzed ,.which they are not.

You've made it known you're agnostic to whatever God and god(s) means and/or represents. That's fine.

budaatum:
Point of correction
The fact that one does not believe in a thing does not limit one from expressing an opinion about that thing, provided one knows about the thing.
It does not even have to exist before you can have an opinion about the thing.

Thanks ojaare.
I intimated a similar sentiment earlier too

Bud, is the site down?
I lost connection 10 mins or so ago
and haven't since been able to successfully load the Web page

plaetton:


Pls understand my point.
He is using the wrong phrases. That's what I am trying to point out to him.

If you don`t believe in the existence of something, you cannot write definitively about that thing.
However, you are very free to write about the prevailing Ideas or the prevailing Notions of that thing as it effects the society, humanity, or how such Ideas or Notions have evolved over the eons of human History .

I agree. Even the question itself was wrong, according to some.

So say your bit, or not, and be done.
Some will learn from it.

MuttleyLaff:
Thanks ojaare.
I intimated a similar sentiment earlier too

Bud, is the site down?
I lost connection 10 mins or so ago
and haven't since been able to successfully load the Web page

I lost connection too. Got an unusual timeout! It will be back soon.

butterflyl1on:


God differs from god.

And that is your view. Thank you.

budaatum:
I lost connection too. Got an unusual timeout! It will be back soon.

Kk.
When I had same timeout on a different mobile figured maybe they are having a downtime for maintenance or something
Thanks.

jerflakes:

I agree. How dare anyone ask you to explain! Thanks for being the first to respond.

There's no objectivity on this issue so I'll highlight popular belief and drop my opinion.

God is largely believed to be a supreme being and an intelligent creator of the universe.
Also, gods are believed to be other lesser beings that are perhaps created by but subordinate to God, yet worshipped wrongly as God by some people.
Depending on which religion one practices, names have been to God and gods.

I think these ideas are largely promoted by contrasting religious beliefs.

While the existence of God(s) in the religious sense is yet to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt, I, as a religious skeptic still am not enthusiastic about sticking to a particular belief system.

However, If such exists, I may choose to call the first ever creative force God, and subsequent creative forces gods. Yet I still ask: aren't the subsequent forces part of the original?

budaatum:

I agree. How dare anyone ask you to explain! Thanks for being the first to respond.

How dare anyone asked him to explain? Oh, i thought we were suppose to have a discussion(?). Sorry, i misunderstood.

Emmanystone:

How dare anyone asked him to explain? Oh, i thought we were suppose to have a discussion(?). Sorry, i misunderstood.

Explain, I guess. And indeed, discuss. But not justify, I meant.

budaatum:
What do you mean by "why is your position that there aren't any....."

The question is "What is god?
There is no reason why plaetton must justify his or her position! Unless he or she wants to.

To start with, I am not comfortable sitting on your one-legged "What is god?" question
The ground is uneven, and in the absence of a plain level field, the three-legged stool was brought up
One leg is "What is God?"
Second leg is "What is god(s)?"
Third leg is "What is compare and contrast God with god(s)?"

Oh that?
I didnt mean anything by it. Thats just my curious side geting the better of me
I took on board his position that there aren't any difference between god, with capital first letter g and lowercase first letter g
but became interested to know why he said there arent any difference between god, with capital first letter g and lowercase first letter g

budaatum:
Gods are human constructs (entities, ideas) that people use to explain existence to themselves and others.

I make no distinction between small letter 'g' god and capital letter 'g' god, except that some, if not most, people elevate their god above everyone else's god and like to refer to it as a capital letter 'g' god.

I have posted a list of different gods here

You're right, because we live in a world of fantasy and reality, we have gods, that are human constructs,
Meanwhile other gods, are just as like, all God is about,
only that, these other gods, due to their essence(s), have their authority limited to each own's sphere of influence

Inanimate or not alive objects, deified and lying around at a shrine somwhere, obviously are in that list of yours
but doesnt the stomach or belly, the typical wacky-and-die glutton has deified make your list?
What of the beer, spirits, rum, alcohol etcetera, deified by drunks or alcoholics?
What of money deified by chrematistics?

In quest for their posts to make front page, throngs call out to the god of Nairaland
and/or try to invoke his angels, regularly sending prayer wishes to the heaven of Nairaland for all sort of favours?

You see, my friend, of all three, which will you accept as, the Good, the bad and the ugly

MuttleyLaff:
To start with, I am not comfortable sitting on your one-legged "What is god?" question
The ground is uneven, and in the absence of a plain level field, the three-legged stool was brought up
One leg is "What is God?"
Second leg is "What is god(s)?"
Third leg is "What is compare and contrast God with god(s)?"

My stool is not for you to sit on! And claiming my stool does not have a proper numbers of legs is disingenuous. The question was not asking what others think god is, but what is god according to oneself. And that is what each person is required to give, stable stool to sit on or not!

For a person who sees all gods as one and the same sort of thing, the assumed difference between god, gods and God does not exist. This was plaetton's second point which he called a "mental projection". It is an assumed difference. To a non-worshipper, god is the singular of gods, and God is just god with a capital letter 'g', used only to begin a sentence.

In reality, we do know that a believer would not refer to their god with a small letter 'g'. But that is their stool, for them to describe. As Emmanystone pointed out, God is merely a title, like "Chief, Mr, King, Sir, and not the name of anyone's particular god. The capital form is the norm only when referring to a particular chief, mr, king or sir, which I am not doing. The proper names for the gods I gave as my example are all properly capitalised.

MuttleyLaff:
You're right, because we live in a world of fantasy and reality, we have gods, that are human constructs,
Meanwhile other gods, are just as like, all God is about,
only that, these other gods, due to their essence(s), have their authority limited to each own's sphere of influence

Inanimate or not alive objects, deified and lying around at a shrine somwhere, obviously are in that list of yours
but doesnt the stomach or belly, the typical wacky-and-die glutton has deified make your list?
What of the beer, spirits, rum, alcohol etcetera, deified by drunks or alcoholics?
What of money deified by chrematistics?

In quest for their posts to make front page, throngs call out to the god of Nairaland
and/or try to invoke his angels, regularly sending prayer wishes to the heaven of Nairaland for all sort of favours?

You see, my friend, of all three, which will you accept as, the Good, the bad and the ugly

I am not aware that anyone limits their god's influence to any particular sphere. In fact most people's god is the great big god with an unlimited sphere of influence, including creating the entire universe. I don't think one's god can get a greater sphere of influence than that though, I am sure many will claim their god's influence far exceeds even that limitation.

It is my opinion that the "stomach or belly, and typical wacky-and-die glutton" has not deified "beer, spirits, rum, alcohol etcetera" in the same sense as that which people refer to as god is deified. I believe that the claim for deification made of these things is made by others, in a rather derogatory manner. No alcoholic I know would call a bottle of rum, god.

MuttleyLaff:
Kk.
When I had same timeout on a different mobile figured maybe they are having a downtime for maintenance or something
Thanks.

We are back on.

God, goddess, devils,demons...are human construct employed to explain laws and principles..
I use the capital G, to define the universal law(or consciousness) ...and the small g, for the different principles that I can experience within this universal consciousness..

Examples of these includes death,thunder and lightening, destruction, love, sex, etc..

This principles are experienced or are like subset of the universal set...they all proceed from the universal source..knowledge of these principles is what is vital to my survival on this space ship called earth..

Emmanystone:

How dare anyone asked him to explain? Oh, i thought we were suppose to have a discussion(?). Sorry, i misunderstood.

Please, question if you may! But note that no one is under obligation.......



On reflection, I am consider myself out of order for suggesting otherwise.

budaatum:
We are back on.

Yeah, just woken up and so it seems
Apparently they were down because they had a power outage
Havent they got UPS? Tut tut tut
Layout has changed after coming back though

budaatum:
My stool is not for you to sit on!

You must be having a laugh

Emmanystone said:
"your question is flawed from all fronts and advised that you try again."
I concur with Emmanystone's statement that your question is flawed because it is unbalanced and on uneven grounds.

Recall I earlier said:
"What is God?" is an incomplete and isolated enquiry
The stool presented by OP ought have at least three legs
and not this a one-legged stool, that's doomed to topple whoever sits on it

Yeah, who wants to sit on a crooked and one legged stool

budaatum:
And claiming my stool does not have a proper numbers of legs is disingenuous

If any, is being disingenuous, it's you with you with your hand caught in the cookie jar and biscuit crumbs on your mouth
You asked an uneven question, knowing fully well that out there, for some, God and god(s) are quite distinct from each other

budaatum:
The question was not asking what others think god is, but what is god according to oneself.
And that is what each person is required to give, stable stool to sit on or not!

Have you a problem with being fair?
Your question, in the circumstance it is asked, reeks of favoritism, self-interest or bias
It is a one-sided question, not taking into account what others think god and God is,
and not taking into account what is god and God according to oneself plus to others

budaatum:
For a person who sees all gods as one and the same sort of thing, the assumed difference between god, gods and God does not exist.
This was plaetton's second point which he called a "mental projection". It is an assumed difference.
To a non-worshipper, god is the singular of gods, and God is just god with a capital letter 'g', used only to begin a sentence.

You've just proven my point about having uneven grounds
and you putting out a question without minding others' distinction of God and god(s), is you presenting a one-legged stool and blatantly asking for all to just as it is, sit on it

budaatum:
In reality, we do know that a believer would not refer to their god with a small letter 'g'.
But that is their stool, for them to describe.

That is why the subject of discussion requires a 3-legged stool of understanding,
which are:
1) "What is God",
2) "what is god(s)"
and 3) "compare & contrast God and god(s)"

On uneven grounds, a three legged stool will always be stable
a four legged stool wont, because it will always wobble
The three legged stool has considered that a believer would not refer to their god with a small letter 'g'

budaatum:
As Emmanystone pointed out, God is merely a title, like "Chief, Mr, King, Sir, and not the name of anyone's particular god.
The capital form is the norm only when referring to a particular chief, mr, king or sir, which I am not doing

God, is not a name or a title
God, is not God's name, as Ogun, is the name of Yoruba's the god of war and iron
nor as Sango and Amadioha, are the names of gods of lightning and thunder.

God is not a title, as Adonai is. Adonai is one of God's titles

Yahweh or YHWH actually isnt God's personal and definitive name
delving into talking about God's name is beyond the scope of this thread and its "What is God" question, so lets leave that bit be

budaatum:
The proper names for the gods I gave as my example are all properly capitalised

So what?
When I take or write about Ogun, the god of war and iron or Sango and Amadioha, the gods of lightning and thunder, I capitalise their names too

budaatum:
I am not aware that anyone limits their god's influence to any particular sphere.
In fact most people's god is the great big god with an unlimited sphere of influence, including creating the entire universe.
I don't think one's god can get a greater sphere of influence than that though,
I am sure many will claim their god's influence far exceeds even that limitation

What I wrote was that we live in a world of fantasy and reality, we have gods, that are human constructs,
Meanwhile other gods, are just as like, all God is about,
only that, these other gods, due to their essence(s), have their authority limited to each of the god(s)'s sphere of influence
God and every god have spheres of power, influence, jurisdiction and authority

budaatum:
It is my opinion that the "stomach or belly, and typical wacky-and-die glutton" has not deified "beer, spirits, rum, alcohol etcetera" in the same sense as that which people refer to as god is deified

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPnMAVZ0wUg
Do you remember watching the above Chris Rock's "Never Scared" standup?
Trust me, when for the sake of sheer having a Krispy Kreme doughnut,
it comes down to being prepared and ready to suck someone's else d`ick, then Krispy Kreme doughnut right at that moment, has just got deified

budaatum:
I believe that the claim for deification made of these things is made by others, in a rather derogatory manner.

No, my paddy mi, you're mistaken to perceive it as derogatory
Calling you a nigger, is derogatory.
but the claim for deification made of these things is not derogatory
It is underogatory, just as the saying: "The fool says in his heart: There is no God", is not derogatory.
The fool noun, in the preceded saying, is talking about lack of good judgement,
that the person has made an unwise decision in regards a non-existence of God
Nothing disrespectful in that, it is just an observational statement

budaatum:
No alcoholic I know would call a bottle of rum, god.

They actually are known to do
They actually are known to have made a god of it
To the extent would do anything it takes, just to have a sip of the bottle of rum
To the extent would do anything it takes, to come under the control and influence of the rum in the bottle
To the extent would do anything it takes, to come under the power of the rum in the bottle

budaatum:


No alcoholic I know would call a bottle of rum, god.

Definition of idolatry
plural idolatries
1
: the worship of a physical object as a god

Alcoholics idolise alcohol or in this case, rum. To them it is a god. They do not have to literally call it a god but their actions towards it makes it a god.

budaatum:


Please, question if you may! But note that no one is under obligation.......



On reflection, I am consider myself out of order for suggesting otherwise.

Meaning we are not having this conversation nau. If i ask a question which you feel are not obligated to answer, what then is the point of me getting into the convo. in the first place?

No shakes anyways. I must not be part of your thread.

budaatum:
Please, question if you may! But note that no one is under obligation.......

On reflection, I am consider myself out of order for suggesting otherwise.

Emmanystone:
Meaning we are not having this conversation nau. If i ask a question which you feel are not obligated to answer, what then is the point of me getting into the convo. in the first place?

No shakes anyways.
I must not be part of your thread.

Bud, how do you mean by the red text?
What does it mean?

God is the totality of the consciousness of the universe...


The letter killeth......yes it does.

sonmvayina:
God is the totality of the consciousness of the universe...

Totally concur and why I liked this part

sonmvayina:
The letter killeth......yes it does.

How do you mean with this?

MuttleyLaff:
Totally concur and why I liked this part

How do you mean with this?

The bible,enuma elish and all the written scripture are just parables, allegorical, esoteric stories....we are expected to read them and learn the spiritual message they contain...

Trying to interpret the content of the stories is a fools route, cos all are stories are not based on actual historical events..

They are spiritual stories.

sonmvayina:
The bible,enuma elish and all the written scripture are just parables, allegorical, esoteric stories....we are expected to read them and learn the spiritual message they contain...

Give me a couple of examples of the spiritual messages they contain that we are expected to learn

MuttleyLaff:
Give me a couple of examples of the spiritual messages they contain that we are expected to learn

The story of Abraham and isaac is basically teaching you that God don't accept human sacrifice, but only animals and other crops,.

The story of job teaches us that the devil is under the control of God and does only what God tells him to do, his duty is to obey the will of God.

The story of jonah teaches that the only sacrifice acceptable to God is Obedience...if you are truly sorry for your sin and you make effort to turn away from it, he forgives you and remembers it no more. No human sacrifice is necessary or required...

The revenge of the Amalikites...is talking about things that are important to us as humans..taking of the virgins(divine wisdom), gold (money) livestock (food) ...you need them even if your enemies has it.

sonmvayina:
Trying to interpret the content of the stories is a fools route, cos all are stories are not based on actual historical events..

They are spiritual stories.

a bit contradictory this is.
How come trying to get an interpretation of the contents are a fools route?
Was there not an Adam?
Wasn't there somewhat historical things and/or events that actually happened that got the world and its inhabitants to where it or they found themselves/itself?

sonmvayina:
The story of Abraham and Isaac is basically teaching you that God don't accept human sacrifice,
but only animals and other crops,.

The story of job teaches us that the devil is under the control of God and does only what God tells him to do, his duty is to obey the will of God.

The story of jonah teaches that the only sacrifice acceptable to God is Obedience...if you are truly sorry for your sin and you make effort to turn away from it, he forgives you and remembers it no more. No human sacrifice is necessary or required...

The revenge of the Amalikites...is talking about things that are important to us as humans..taking of the virgins (divine wisdom), gold (money) livestock (food) ...you need them even if your enemies has it

What about the story of Adam, Eve, the serpent and the outside influence, what completely is that teaching?
What is the significance of the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil?
Seems we are veering off the subject(s) of discussion though

MuttleyLaff:
a bit contradictory this is.
How come trying to get an interpretation of the contents are a fools route?
Was there not an Adam?
Wasn't there somewhat historical things and/or events that actually happened that got the world and its inhabitants to where it or they found themselves/itself?

No, no....there was no. Adam neither was there eve or a talking snake..the genesis account of creation is not the only neither is it the first. The Enuma ELISH is/was the first as far as record goes and shows. It proceeds the genesis accounts by thousands of years..

It details how marduk created the universe from the remains of tiamat...how he created humans by making moulds and calling other spirits to get in the moulds, and him cutting his head and pouring his blood on the moulds so the humans can share in his divinity...

It is from it that Ezra...got the information he used in writing the book of the law( genesis to deutromomy)
It also details how lucifer(inanna) rose herself to the pantheon..how she became marduks enemy...

It is quite interesting if you are spiritually inclined..

There should be a soft version on the Internet..

MuttleyLaff:

You asked an uneven question, knowing fully well that out there, for some, God and god(s) are quite distinct from each other

You've just proven my point about having uneven grounds and you putting out a question without minding others' distinction of God and god(s), is you presenting a one-legged stool and blatantly asking for all to just as it is, sit on it.

The question I posed was "What is God?" And being the cautious one I sometimes am, it was biased, if at all, towards those to whose version of 'g' I used. I could have used a small 'g' after all, as would be my tendency, but I chose a big G.

It was asking for people's views, so how can I not be minding their distinctions, which I am asking for?
The question is straightforward. It is not some test with only one answer, least not as far as I am concerned. It is just to seek peoples opinions and views, after all, we do have Muslims, Christians, Jehovah Witnesses, Catholics, Atheists, Deists, Pagans, Pastafarians and all other sorts on here with diverse opinions and views about gods.

I think you putting legs on the stool introduced bias, and that the question was fair as initially put. People would have legged their stool as they saw fit, but you have introduced a number of legs that may not describe everyone's stool. The question, as initially posed, makes no assumptions and allows the individual to respond as they see fit, putting as many legs on their stool as they understand it to have.

If you consider rum or cream cakes to be god, albeit to some, you are allowed to say so when you respond to the question.