A practical definition for "God"

[robvalue]

It's fine Lek, don't worry I wasn't sure if you saw my post. I hope everything is OK with you.

Never any rush, if and when you reply that's cool. I understand I have way more time on my hands than most people.

[houseofcantor]

Practical definition of God: Viral meme.

Holy Spirit is a more interesting and disturbing creature.

I DID have what you might call a very visceral, very unsettling, very specific supernatural experience.

Another prophet? You missed the third option, the one that gets my vote - god telling you that you don't need god, especially in that form.

[Lek]

Lek: not sure if you missed my post earlier, or didn't want to reply to my points.

Either way, it's not in the least surprising that the NT lines up with the OT. The authors of the NT had the OT right in front of them. All they had to do is make up stuff that lines up with it. Anyone could do that. There's clear evidence of them trying a little too hard to do this in places, and due to them not understanding the language properly, they produced ridiculous scenes like Jesus riding on two asses at once. Matthew misunderstood the original, which only actually meant one ass.

It's like they had the answers at the back of the textbook and were just copying them. Is that really impressive? Are you impressed when one Harry Potter book lines up with the previous one?

Actually, Jesus doesn't line up at all with the OT. If he's meant to be God (originally he wasn't, that was a later addition) then he is also the psychopathic murderer we read about in the OT, which Christians try so hard to push to the background.

First of all, Rob, Jesus being God was not a later edition. The following reference extracts the numerous verses supporting his deity.

https://carm.org/bible-verses-show-jesus-divine

Secondly, if a horse owner brought his two horses home and told his wife that he "rode the horses home", she wouldn't think he rode both horses at once. Or Jesus could have ridden both horses at different times. The colt may not have been ready to carry a rider for the entire distance.

Yes. The writers of the bible could have created fulfillment of prophesies based on their knowledge of earlier books, but why would they? All fulfillment of prophesies is not contained in the new testament, but most is found in the old testament. Those old testament writers couldn't have been tying to support a Jesus myth? None of the authors got rich or powerful, but some were persecuted. What would they have to gain? I really only see it as your opinion.

[Lek]

Lek, you "quoted" me into a reply, yet you left no actual reply.

So I know you saw my post...are you looking for the thread in which I left a description of my
"spiritual experience"?

If Yes,  here it is, copied & pasted from the other thread:

I've found myself in very similar situations and I too have angered by the seeming lack of a response from God. God has never once spoken a word of English to me. Although I've never doubted the existence of God, I often have doubts about the reliability of the bible. One day I finally came to the conclusion that I couldn't fully accept the bible and christianity, and came to the conclusion that I was simply a general theist. This came after months of searching and praying to God for guidance. At this point I still prayed to God for guidance. I heard no words from God that night and had no visions or dreams, but I awoke a christian. I still experience doubts all the time about the reliability of the bible, but I joyfully remain a christian.

I'm not passing any judgement on your sincerity or the reality of your dream. In my mind I feel that your dream came from your frustration with trying to hold on to christianity. I'm not saying that you were not really willing to follow Christ, but is it possible were you really trying to have him confirm that he was what you wanted him to be? Or were you ready to follow him no matter what the answer would be? If he would have spoken to you and said that he is real and that he wanted you give up your life at home and travel to Sri Lanka and be a missionary for him there, would you have accepted him? I wrestle with the same questions but, and I have said this before in the forum, my test to myself as to whether or not I believe is "if someone held a gun to head and told to me to deny Jesus or die, would I deny him?" Well, I've never been in that situation, but my honest answer to myself is that I would not deny Jesus.

Another thing I believe is that Satan fights for souls. Often, at the point when some christian is about to achieve something great for God, they are attacked by similar type dreams and so on. Anyway you definitely have gone through the experiences you say you have. But none of us are complete. We're all a work-in-progress for our entire lives.

[robvalue]

The Old Testament is a story. When one part of a story builds up to another part of a story, it's called storytelling. It's really not very surprising, it happens in most stories.

As for why people might make things up:

To start a cult
To get respect and power
To write a story
As a joke
They were deluded
They were forced to write it
... and so on.

There's plenty of perfectly normal reasons for people to make things up. People do it all the time. Every one of those reasons is infinitely more plausible than a bunch of magic stuff actually happened. You would defer to one of those reasons for any story every written other than the bible, I would expect.

I know you're not interested in any of that so I'll leave it there.

[timrees]

Agree completely, Rob. the word god is a word without definition and a word without definition has no meaning. A word without meaning is worthless, nay, dangerous, because it only serves to confuse. You can talk to ten different people and they will each have a different definition of the word god, therefore the word should be banned because if I'm talking to someone who defines god as universal consciousness and another who defines the word as an omnipotent being we will only ever makes fools out of each other because we are talking about very different things. The biggest problem with the word god is, were I talking about the perfect mathematical balance of the universe and the person I am talking to pops up with the word "god", the conversation is immediately dragged down to the mire of religious doctrine that is nothing more than ignorance and discussing ignorance is only ever going to result in... well, more ignorance...  

[Kingpin]

Agree completely, Rob. the word god is a word without definition and a word without definition has no meaning. A word without meaning is worthless, nay, dangerous, because it only serves to confuse. You can talk to ten different people and they will each have a different definition of the word god, therefore the word should be banned because if I'm talking to someone who defines god as universal consciousness and another who defines the word as an omnipotent being we will only ever makes fools out of each other because we are talking about very different things. The biggest problem with the word god is, were I talking about the perfect mathematical balance of the universe and the person I am talking to pops up with the word "god", the conversation is immediately dragged down to the mire of religious doctrine that is nothing more than ignorance and discussing ignorance is only ever going to result in... well, more ignorance...  

I've never truly been convinced by this argument.  I take a different look at it.  Let's say we are talking about me.  Now ask my wife, each of my kids, my parents, my co-workers, my friends, to describe me.  Do you think they will all come to the same description?  Perhaps in some areas (physique for example), but isn't it more plausible that their descriptions would be completely subjective to the level of experience and interaction with me?  But because of those numerous descriptors, do you then say you cannot have any meaningful discussion about me, because which one are we talking about?  Kingpin the father, Kingpin the coworker, Kingpin the son, Kingpin the friend?  Just my thoughts.

[robvalue]

I think they could agree to an extremely accurate degree that you are a man, with two legs, two arms, two eyes, between 5 and 7 feet tall, with a maximum run speed between 3 and 10 miles an hour. And you're made out of flesh. Plenty of other things I'm sure. Would anyone dispute these?

People can't agree the first thing about God. Not even what he's made of. Nothing.

[Kingpin]

I think they could agree to an extremely accurate degree that you are a man, with two legs, two arms, two eyes, between 5 and 7 feet tall, with a maximum run speed between 3 and 10 miles an hour. And you're made out of flesh. Plenty of other things I'm sure. Would anyone dispute these?

People can't agree the first thing about God. Not even what he's made of. Nothing.

I understand that.  My point was like of an agreement because of something that is speculation does not mean we cannot have meaningful discussion.  I use your proclivity toward solipsism as an example.  We can speculate on what it might be and if its possible, not agreeing fully, but still have meaningful discussion about the outworkings.  

So I don't think there is anything wrong in your discussions when you ask for a definition or agreement on "God" because it would depend solely on the context of the discussion.  Are we discussing origin, morality, etc.  I was just pointing out that meaningful discussion can still ensue without an objective definition

[robvalue]

Sure, if neither parties are too bothered about what "God" actually is, then you can discuss the general concept of God

I see no point even beginning a discussion without being clear what I'm talking about with someone. But that's just me God could be literally anything to any particular person. An apple. I need to know if we're talking about an apple.