What is 'god' or 'gods'?

[Tonus]

I cannot recall that I ever had a complete picture of what god was. I understood that he was a person, with a body and a mind and thoughts and feelings and motivations of his own. Very human, in that respect. But I doubt that I could have explained what he was made of, and probably would have gone with something like "spirit" that would have required a definition all its own. I don't recall any Christian that I knew that would have felt any differently. If you believe god exists and is out there, defining him aside from his attributes/motivations/desires doesn't seem terribly important.

[Walking Void]

Something something unusable "power". Something something trivial "knowledge".

[arvind13]

What the title says. It always troubled me that there are people 'attempting' to prove god(s) without even defining the thing. I have seen enough of theistic rethoric here, all to prove that they argue for a god that is quite relative to their own subjective view. All this claiming an objective morality.

So yeah, !define god and I relax watching the religionists kill eachother over it

Hey that's a very good question. It's a good entry point into examining religion. Who/what is God?

[Dionysius]

What the title says. It always troubled me that there are people 'attempting' to prove god(s) without even defining the thing. I have seen enough of theistic rethoric here, all to prove that they argue for a god that is quite relative to their own subjective view. All this claiming an objective morality.

So yeah, !define god and I relax watching the religionists kill eachother over it

According to the text, 'gods' would indicate self-aware humanity. An individual who is able to manipulate his environment favorably. In the New Testament, it would seem, in some instances, to indicate the ability to perform miracles or the potential for supra-human ability. i.e. telepathy, telekinesis (which the text alleges Jesus had). In the OT pyrokinesis and some degree of cross species telepathy. That's my take on it anyways.

[arvind13]

According to Christianity (that is where the word God comes from btw), God is an agent whose intentions brought forth and governs the cosmos (everything there is, was, and to be).

The notion of 'gods' derived from the root word God is an oxymoron. If God is the agent whose intentions govern everything, how can there be multiples of such an entity?

The word 'gods' only makes sense within the framework of Christian theology (Islam and Judaism too). The biblical story states that at one time God (the true God, the biblical God) implanted the 'true' religion in the hearts of mankind but over centuries, this 'true' religion got corrupted by the Devil and his minions into many false religions with many false 'gods'.

This is where 'gods' comes from. Outside of the framework of Christian/Islamic/Jewish theology , the word 'gods' doesn't make any sense.

[pocaracas]

You shall have no other gods before me is one of the Ten Commandments found in the Hebrew Bible (לא יהיה־לך אלהים אחרים על־פני Exodus 20:3 = Deuteronomy 5:7).[1]

This commandment establishes the exclusive nature of the relationship between the nation of Israel and its national god, Yahweh the god of Israel,[2] a covenant initiated by Yahweh after delivering the Israelites from slavery through the plagues of Egypt and the Exodus.[3]

Gods is a word your own god used, moron.

[genkaus]

According to Christianity (that is where the word God comes from btw), God is an agent whose intentions brought forth and governs the cosmos (everything there is, was, and to be).

The notion of 'gods' derived from the root word God is an oxymoron. If God is the agent whose intentions govern everything, how can there be multiples of such an entity?

The word 'gods' only makes sense within the framework of Christian theology (Islam and Judaism too). The biblical story states that at one time God (the true God, the biblical God) implanted the 'true' religion in the hearts of mankind but over centuries, this 'true' religion got corrupted by the Devil and his minions into many false religions with many false 'gods'.

This is where 'gods' comes from. Outside of the framework of Christian/Islamic/Jewish theology , the word 'gods' doesn't make any sense.

Zip up. Your ignorance is showing.

The English word God continues the Old English God (guþ, gudis in Gothic, gud in modern Scandinavian, God in Dutch, and Gott in modern German), which is thought to derive from Proto-Germanic *ǥuđán.

The Proto-Germanic meaning of *ǥuđán and its etymology is uncertain. It is generally agreed that it derives from a Proto-Indo-European neuter passive perfect participle *ǵʰu-tó-m. This form within (late) Proto-Indo-European itself was possibly ambiguous, and thought to derive from a root *ǵʰeu̯- "to pour, libate" (Sanskrit huta, see hotṛ), or from a root *ǵʰau̯- (*ǵʰeu̯h2-) "to call, to invoke" (Sanskrit hūta). Sanskrit hutá = "having been sacrificed", from the verb root hu = "sacrifice", but a slight shift in translation gives the meaning "one to whom sacrifices are made." Other school of thought believes that the word comes from Sanskrit “gau” meaning cow considered sacred. Refer Hathor in Egyptian mythology.

Depending on which possibility is preferred, the pre-Christian meaning of the Germanic term may either have been (in the "pouring" case) "libation" or "that which is libated upon, idol" — or, as Watkins[1] opines in the light of Greek χυτη γαια "poured earth" meaning "tumulus", "the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound" — or (in the "invoke" case) "invocation, prayer" (compare the meanings of Sanskrit brahman) or "that which is invoked".

This is where the word "God" really comes from. And clearly, it does not mean "an agent whose intentions brought forth and govern the cosmos". In fact, the real origin of the word seems to come from an Indian framework and its original meaning would be "that to which a libation is made" (referring to Hindu practice of pouring ghee or milk over the idols) or "that to which a sacrifice is made" or "that which is invoked" (through prayers and such).

Your notion that the word "god" originated within Abrahamic theology and that it doesn't make sense in any other framework not only shows a stunning lack of knowledge regarding the evolution of language, but also a surprising amount of callousness with regards to doing the bare minimum research.

[Bipolar Bob]

According to certain theologians...God is not a being. God is beyond existence and essence, god is existence and being itself, therefore to say that god is a being and existent is to deny god. Because if god is a being and existent then god cannot be the source or ground of all being or existence.

[arvind13]

According to Christianity (that is where the word God comes from btw), God is an agent whose intentions brought forth and governs the cosmos (everything there is, was, and to be).

The notion of 'gods' derived from the root word God is an oxymoron. If God is the agent whose intentions govern everything, how can there be multiples of such an entity?

The word 'gods' only makes sense within the framework of Christian theology (Islam and Judaism too). The biblical story states that at one time God (the true God, the biblical God) implanted the 'true' religion in the hearts of mankind but over centuries, this 'true' religion got corrupted by the Devil and his minions into many false religions with many false 'gods'.

This is where 'gods' comes from. Outside of the framework of Christian/Islamic/Jewish theology , the word 'gods' doesn't make any sense.

Zip up. Your ignorance is showing.

The English word God continues the Old English God (guþ, gudis in Gothic, gud in modern Scandinavian, God in Dutch, and Gott in modern German), which is thought to derive from Proto-Germanic *ǥuđán.

The Proto-Germanic meaning of *ǥuđán and its etymology is uncertain. It is generally agreed that it derives from a Proto-Indo-European neuter passive perfect participle *ǵʰu-tó-m. This form within (late) Proto-Indo-European itself was possibly ambiguous, and thought to derive from a root *ǵʰeu̯- "to pour, libate" (Sanskrit huta, see hotṛ), or from a root *ǵʰau̯- (*ǵʰeu̯h2-) "to call, to invoke" (Sanskrit hūta). Sanskrit hutá = "having been sacrificed", from the verb root hu = "sacrifice", but a slight shift in translation gives the meaning "one to whom sacrifices are made." Other school of thought believes that the word comes from Sanskrit “gau” meaning cow considered sacred. Refer Hathor in Egyptian mythology.

Depending on which possibility is preferred, the pre-Christian meaning of the Germanic term may either have been (in the "pouring" case) "libation" or "that which is libated upon, idol" — or, as Watkins[1] opines in the light of Greek χυτη γαια "poured earth" meaning "tumulus", "the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound" — or (in the "invoke" case) "invocation, prayer" (compare the meanings of Sanskrit brahman) or "that which is invoked".

This is where the word "God" really comes from. And clearly, it does not mean "an agent whose intentions brought forth and govern the cosmos". In fact, the real origin of the word seems to come from an Indian framework and its original meaning would be "that to which a libation is made" (referring to Hindu practice of pouring ghee or milk over the idols) or "that to which a sacrifice is made" or "that which is invoked" (through prayers and such).

Your notion that the word "god" originated within Abrahamic theology and that it doesn't make sense in any other framework not only shows a stunning lack of knowledge regarding the evolution of language, but also a surprising amount of callousness with regards to doing the bare minimum research.

I'm talking about the usage of the word in modern english. And ofcourse, I'm not just talking about just a word and its etymology, but the concept entailed by that word. And that is what it means.

And the concept of "God" and "gods" as used in western culture today is entirely Christian in origin and has nothing to do with pagan Germania or India

[genkaus]

I'm talking about the usage of the word in modern english. And ofcourse, I'm not just talking about just a word and its etymology, but the concept entailed by that word. And that is what it means.

And the concept of "God" and "gods" as used in western culture today is entirely Christian in origin and has nothing to do with pagan Germania or India

Did you even read your own reply before posting it? You can't even keep your back-pedaling straight for three sentences.

If you are talking about the origin of the concept and the word "god", then you are talking about its etymology - which, as it has been demonstrated - is not Christian in nature.

If you are talking specifically about its usage in modern English, then consult a dictionary. You'll find that your notion that the concept is sensible only within Christian theology is ridiculous. Either way, you are wrong.