What Is God

[teddyaware]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You answered “what is a president” but that’s not the question I asked. 

Look it up. In the dictionary the defined word is president, not a president.

 

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Look it up. In the dictionary the defined word is president, not a president.

 

Yes, but the question that is answered with the definition of the word president is 'what is a' not 'what is.'  

For example, I googled "what is president" and the the answer was Donald Trump.   I got no definitions of what a president is from google, just a name. That's because google autocorrected my question to "who is President" because "what is president" didn't make any sense to it.  "What is president" isn't a question that google could answer so it gave me answer to a different question thinking my original question had been a typo.

Kind of like how you couldn't answer "What is president" so instead you gave me the answer to "What is a president".  

It's the same with asking "What is God".  The question doesn't work as it's written, not in the English language and with the rules of grammar, so instead people answer different questions that make more sense to them, like what is a God, or who is God, or what are God's attributes, etc.  None of those are what was actually asked but what was actually asked was grammatically confusing and unclear so people do the best they can and answer something else.

 

[bluebell]

53 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Your response equated to "I do'n't know.  I have no idea what God is.  I don't understand that question.  Could you please rephrase your question?"

No, my response did not equate to the bolded part at all.  It did equate to the underlined part.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I thought the same sort of thing at first. But then I remembered God is Love.

So, if God = Love, then the question becomes "What is Love?" which, as we all know, is trivially easy to answer:

Baby, don't hurt me...Don't hurt me...No more... 

 

I think that you've hit the nail on the head.  The only way to answer the question as it is written is with the abstract greek concept of God being a feeling as it's stated in the NT.  It's not very accurate on it's own, and doesn't agree with LDS theology, but God is love does actually answer the question as it is written.

[Ahab]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think that you've hit the nail on the head.  The only way to answer the question as it is written is with the abstract greek concept of God being a feeling as it's stated in the NT.  It's not very accurate on it's own, and doesn't agree with LDS theology, but God is love does actually answer the question as it is written.

No that is not correct at all.  There are many ways to answer the question as written and several people have shown that in this thread as they have responded to that question.

God is a kind of being

God is the kind of being who loves more than any other kind of being is capable of.

God as a kind of being is also capable of evil acts, as Lucifer and those who follow him have shown.

God as Love is simply one manifestation of God and there are many other manifestations God is capable of.

People who don't know what God is are apparently in need of some education.

[The Nehor]

I have always liked this guy’s frustrated response to the question:

 

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I have always liked this guy’s frustrated response to the question:

 He seemed to be frustrated when giving both answers.  But I get it, and agree.  God is the the Light and the Truth.  Intelligence.  What we often refer to as his glory.  And yet he is still so much more than only that.

[2BizE]

As Mormons, are we monotheistic or polytheistic?

We believe is god the father.

We believe in god the Son.

We believe in God the Holy Ghost.

We believe in a God called Satan, who apparently God the father isn’t even powerful enough to keep in check.

I guess I answered my own question.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Ahab said:

......................................

I will blame the public school systems, since that's how most people get edumicated. And television. And the word on the street, yo. 

America deserves better and I am going to help give it to them.

Good luck.  You'll need it.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, 2BizE said:

As Mormons, are we monotheistic or polytheistic?

We believe is god the father.

We believe in god the Son.

We believe in God the Holy Ghost.

We believe in a God called Satan, who apparently God the father isn’t even powerful enough to keep in check.

I guess I answered my own question.

What makes you think God cannot keep Satan in check? Also, was that capitalization scheme intentional? Pretty sure Satan is the one that should get the little g.

[stemelbow]

God is whatever you want him to be.  He's nothing more or less than whatever you can possibly imagine him.  God lives in the individual believers mind and is limited to whatever that believer thinks he is.  That means not only is God strong, but he's weak not only is he smart but he's dumb.  Not only is he nice, but he's a petty little jerk.  All we can imagine are descriptions of him, because as it turns out believers have used their imagination to make God into everything we've thought or said.  

[stemelbow]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

What makes you think God cannot keep Satan in check? Also, was that capitalization scheme intentional? Pretty sure Satan is the one that should get the little g.

Can you define what keeping Satan in check means?  Does it mean God can stop Satan from tricking us?  He can only trick us a little, because God sits and watches and when Satan goes too far, he decided, "well let's put a stop to this before too many of these foolish little critters get too far down that bad road."  Does it mean God can snap Satan out of existence?  Does it mean God can check him on a basketball court?  Satan can't get his usual 50 if God's guarding him?  "I'm going to shut you down.  You can get your points when I ain't playing.  I ain't sitting this one out though."  

[Sunslight]

53 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

God is whatever you want him to be.  He's nothing more or less than whatever you can possibly imagine him.  God lives in the individual believers mind and is limited to whatever that believer thinks he is.  That means not only is God strong, but he's weak not only is he smart but he's dumb.  Not only is he nice, but he's a petty little jerk.  All we can imagine are descriptions of him, because as it turns out believers have used their imagination to make God into everything we've thought or said.  

In a science fiction sort of view you would be correct. God isn't science fiction in real life. It's true that we can imagine him to be whatever we want him to be or not be in our own minds, but we aren't composing fictional novels here.

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

In a science fiction sort of view you would be correct. God isn't science fiction in real life. It's true that we can imagine him to be whatever we want him to be or not be in our own minds, but we aren't composing fictional novels here.

How can God be something other than human have conceived of him?  If he is more than that, then we can't describe it and he can't reveal himself.  If he's less than that, then he's part of what we imagine.  But in the sum, he's non-existent.  He only appears in people's minds.  Even people who claim he appeared to them (like Joseph Smith) represent a dream or vision where he appeared magically, and disappeared magically.  

[Sunslight]

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

How can God be something other than human have conceived of him?  If he is more than that, then we can't describe it and he can't reveal himself.  If he's less than that, then he's part of what we imagine.  But in the sum, he's non-existent.  He only appears in people's minds.  Even people who claim he appeared to them (like Joseph Smith) represent a dream or vision where he appeared magically, and disappeared magically.  

And yet people have seen God and described him. Just because you personally haven't seen God in the flesh doesn't mean he can't exist. 

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

And yet people have seen God and described him. Just because you personally haven't seen God in the flesh doesn't mean he can't exist. 

True.  He could be hiding out there somewhere, I suppose.  But it's also true just because someone says they've seen him, it certainly doesn't mean he's definitely out there.  It could just be their dream or vision.  

[Ahab]

12 hours ago, 2BizE said:

As Mormons, are we monotheistic or polytheistic?

Your answer will depend on who you ask.  Our belief is that there is only one kind of being that is God and that kind of being, which is our kind of being, exists as multiple persons.  Parents reproducing themselves with no beginning or end of parents and children.

Ask someone else and they could possibly tell you something else because not everyone agrees with us and we allow everyone to think what they want.

12 hours ago, 2BizE said:

We believe is god the father.

We believe in god the Son.

We believe in God the Holy Ghost.

We believe in a God called Satan, who apparently God the father isn’t even powerful enough to keep in check.

I guess I answered my own question.

All of those persons are the same God, though, the same kind of being which we refer to as God.  And again, remember, not everyone agrees with that and we are okay with allowing people, even people who are God, to believe whatever they want to believe.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

How can God be something other than human have conceived of him?

Hence the Nicene Creed and the traditional Christian view that the nature of God is a mystery to us, that we cannot truly conceive of Him, that we can only use analogies or the Via Negativa (say what He isn't).

The idea that the nature of God is a mystery is sometimes pilloried around here, but this is exactly why I think the mystery is important. He is bigger than my mind and what I can conceive of Him. "He" and "Father" and "Son" and on and on are just analogies for us to use. Perhaps the best analogies, but analogies nonetheless.

[teddyaware]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes, but the question that is answered with the definition of the word president is 'what is a' not 'what is.'  

For example, I googled "what is president" and the the answer was Donald Trump.   I got no definitions of what a president is from google, just a name. That's because google autocorrected my question to "who is President" because "what is president" didn't make any sense to it.  "What is president" isn't a question that google could answer so it gave me answer to a different question thinking my original question had been a typo.

Kind of like how you couldn't answer "What is president" so instead you gave me the answer to "What is a president".  

It's the same with asking "What is God".  The question doesn't work as it's written, not in the English language and with the rules of grammar, so instead people answer different questions that make more sense to them, like what is a God, or who is God, or what are God's attributes, etc.  None of those are what was actually asked but what was actually asked was grammatically confusing and unclear so people do the best they can and answer something else.

 

Incorrect. The implied question answered in the dictionary under the word president isn’t, ‘what is a president?,’ it’s actually ‘what does the word president mean?’ 

[mfbukowski]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes, but the question that is answered with the definition of the word president is 'what is a' not 'what is.'  

For example, I googled "what is president" and the the answer was Donald Trump.   I got no definitions of what a president is from google, just a name. That's because google autocorrected my question to "who is President" because "what is president" didn't make any sense to it.  "What is president" isn't a question that google could answer so it gave me answer to a different question thinking my original question had been a typo.

Kind of like how you couldn't answer "What is president" so instead you gave me the answer to "What is a president".  

It's the same with asking "What is God".  The question doesn't work as it's written, not in the English language and with the rules of grammar, so instead people answer different questions that make more sense to them, like what is a God, or who is God, or what are God's attributes, etc.  None of those are what was actually asked but what was actually asked was grammatically confusing and unclear so people do the best they can and answer something else.

 

I admire your patience 

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think that you've hit the nail on the head.  The only way to answer the question as it is written is with the abstract greek concept of God being a feeling as it's stated in the NT.  It's not very accurate on it's own, and doesn't agree with LDS theology, but God is love does actually answer the question as it is written.

In a sense, though it does fit LDS theology perfectly.

Remember we have this association we call "The Godhead" consisting of three persons unified by purpose, and as a family and families are unified by  .........  LOVE!

So instead of referring to "Gods" we often use the singular "God" to refer to all three as one Godhead.

Just another thing being left out of this discussion about physical bodies- no one seems to even want to speak about 3 persons and 2 bodies - one is incidentally not embodied at all, making all those comments irrelevant to the singular "God" in supposedly answering the question "What is God"

If I were to attempt to answer that odd question I would be talking about the Godhead which is really three persons unified by LOVE

Therefore referring to the unity of three persons, it really makes sense to say that "God IS love"  "Unity" is kind of just another word for "love"

Love is what unifies the Godhead and makes it all happen.  IN that sense God IS love and purpose.  And purpose gives us meaning in our lives and love- wow- what that gives us!!

Edited February 7, 2020 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

53 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Incorrect. The implied question answered in the dictionary under the word president isn’t, ‘what is a president?,’ it’s actually ‘what does the word president mean?’ 

But I didn't ask "What does the word president mean?" so if that's the question you answered, it's the wrong one.

[mfbukowski]

52 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

"He" and "Father" and "Son" and on and on are just analogies for us to use.

In language every word spoken is an analogy/symbol

When we speak of "chairs", the big solid things you sit on- actual chairs- do not pop out of your mouth.

So analogies can be very convenient.  It would be uncomfortable for a chair to pop out of my mouth.

On the other hand, what if that happened when you said the word "president"?

Oh my......

We only have 26 squiggles on a page to "represent" all of "reality". 

Unfortunately they do not that great a job at capturing it all

I think of the word "Yosemite" as if it could capture ALL of that......... unspeakable experience.

"God" - three squiggles- does not capture much, you are perfectly right.

Even pretending that word is definable becomes some sort of blasphemy imo. 

But that goes back to my Catholic core perhaps. 

On the other hand the "mystery" explanation is pretty much a cop-out when you are trying to explain what we DO know.

So there we are between the devil and the deep blue sea.   

In that choice, I will go for the "s-e-a" squiggles anytime.     I have had enough of the other guy bugging me all the time.

 

 

[Ahab]

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes, but the question that is answered with the definition of the word president is 'what is a' not 'what is.'  

For example, I googled "what is president" and the the answer was Donald Trump.   I got no definitions of what a president is from google, just a name. That's because google autocorrected my question to "who is President" because "what is president" didn't make any sense to it.  "What is president" isn't a question that google could answer so it gave me answer to a different question thinking my original question had been a typo.

Kind of like how you couldn't answer "What is president" so instead you gave me the answer to "What is a president".  

It's the same with asking "What is God".  The question doesn't work as it's written, not in the English language and with the rules of grammar, so instead people answer different questions that make more sense to them, like what is a God, or who is God, or what are God's attributes, etc.  None of those are what was actually asked but what was actually asked was grammatically confusing and unclear so people do the best they can and answer something else.

 

That's odd.  Maybe your Google isn't working as well as it should.  Slap it around a little and maybe it will work better for you.  I typed in what is God in my Google and got this as the very first hit at the top of the page:

Search Results

Featured snippet from the web

In monotheistic thought, God is conceived of as the supreme being, creator deity, and principal object of faith. God is usually conceived as being omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (all-present) and as having an eternal and necessary existence.

 

 I think that was a snippet from Wikipedia because the next thing under that was the link to Wikipedia, like this:

God - Wikipedia

Under that were some other hits answering the question of what God is.  Not just what "a God" is but what "God" is considered to be by various people.

If your computer keeps malfunctioning on you it might be time for a new one.  Or maybe you just need to update your software.

Good luck to you!  Maybe you'll just have to settle for reading what other people say God is for a while until you can somehow resolve this conflict.  Or maybe you just need to think a little bit more about what God is without trying to put an "a" before God.

 

edited to add:  as an analogy for the word "God" I like to substitute the word "Human".  So in this case the question would be, What is Human? or What does it mean to be Human? 

 

Human can refer to only one human or to all who are human, just as the word God can be used both ways.  It isn't always just referring to only one person.  Sometimes the word is used to refer to all who are that kind of being.

Edited February 7, 2020 by Ahab

[CV75]

On 2/5/2020 at 5:41 PM, Ahab said:

What else should we feel safe in saying about God which would define God universally well for everybody?  When we have any disagreements, and I'm sure we'll  have some if we actually discuss this, let's at least try to stick to basic concepts that apply equally well to all true concepts of God.

I don't think it's about "saying" so much as about "being." We feel safe in "being about God." (Luke 2: 49, and the Lord's numerous invitations to do likewise).