You have to assume for the most part that it isn't. Not in the way many think it is anyway. Besides, you don't need a word to represent God. The spirit is all you need and that you feel inside don't you?
I get that. Don't you think that people will feel able to relate to you simply by who you are and what you say without having to find a way of describing yourself?
That's one place I have a particularly hard time with definitions. Whenever I try to define myself as one, the next moment it isn't what I define myself as any more and I can't use it how I want to. Maybe you could say I've given up labeling myself but I just say it's too ineffable to be defined.
I cherry pick religions for ideas I like and my beliefs are constantly evolving. I have no problem with using established religious ideologies as a foundation. There are some ideas that are valuable whether they are completely fictional or not. Also you never know. An Abrahamic could actually be accurate is some ways. You can't really rule anything out so any established or non-established belief is good place to start. If I could describe my current/favored theist belief it wouldn't really fit under any popular western religion. It is as follows: The world is a reflection of your true self and life itself is gradual judgement. Every individual soul is capable of improving the world by improving the source of this reflection, him or herself. How to decide improvement is found through observation of patterns in personal life. God is everything you see, hear, touch, smell, and taste. I call it "mirrorism".
I wouldn't say I'm convinced and yes, you could put my views on speculation as "entertaining" these ideas, though that might be a semantic stretch depending on what you mean. I don't necessarily think all of my religious views are speculatory, but at the same time, large premises have to be in order for my views to remain with the realm of reason, so it just depends on which specific aspects you're referring to. I mean, I give theism the benefit of the doubt and believe that it's getting at something real, that there is indeed a god/divine entity of some sort, but at the same time there is no proof or even solid definitions for any of the terms, so of course I'm not fully convinced of anything. I think we might actually have similar stances overall.
This describing thing reminds me of the difference between the spirit and the letter. The letter is about the mind, the idea, and holding an idea can easily get in the way of the thing itself. The spirit on the other hand is within. It requires no definition to be, so there's nothing being placed in the way of feeling it. Unless you spend too much time trying to define it that is.
Yessir. I don't see why our creator would smite us for finding happiness if it didn't infringe on other's lives. I do feel God in many ways though.
Personally? yes. But I'm talking about for social networking possibilities. I feel a spiritual journey should always be personal but it can be fun to bounce ideas and hang with people who have a similar yet non-mainstream theist belief. Not to form a cult like belief system but simply to have a staging ground for new ideas and spiritual/philosophical exploration. This thread is nice but it would be nice to do that in the real world, maybe even do so while having a smoke session. Call me greedy.
I'll say the proof is in the pudding. The proof is there, all around, undefined. Of course, the proof isn't "out there" in the way we generally understand the concept, so its hard to prove it to anyone who doesn't experience it for themselves.
Using words like 'creator' and 'smite' feel very biblical to me. They form part of a belief system that you have accepted as being how you like to see it. Good to know.
I've never been good at describing things anyway. Sometimes it will come out better than I could have imagined it, some sort of synergy or something going on. Most of the time it comes out confused and unrepresentative of what I felt when I wrote it and especially what I feel now.
Yeah think many popular religions allegedly started with someone with unique and rare spiritual insight. So even main religious branches originally started with very personal spiritual journeys and thoughts. How they became popularized is a tricky thing. I choose to believe divine intervention was involved and that these religious concepts don't fall into our lives simply because of human planning and social engineering.
Yeah, I agree at the root of religions lies a very deeply personal, spiritual journey, but the message relayed has been misconstrued and bastardized to the point that people wouldn't believe the truth about them if they heard it. As for the cause of their success, I don't know. Though, I image that it is a result of corruption and the ability to control humans through belief, but again necessarily cause by I can't say.
I see God everywhere 24/7 since I believe the entire universe (including people) is simply an extension of God.