Notion of God outdated?

[Kutte]

It is not necessary to believe in God to be a good person.
In a way, the traditional notion of God is outdated.
One can be spiritual but not religious.
It is not necessary to go to church and give money – for many,
nature can be a church.
Some of the best people in history did not believe in God,
while some of the worst deeds were done in His name.
Pope Francis

What do you think?

 

[bcbsr]

It is not necessary to believe in God to be a good person.
In a way, the traditional notion of God is outdated.
One can be spiritual but not religious.
It is not necessary to go to church and give money – for many,
nature can be a church.
Some of the best people in history did not believe in God,
while some of the worst deeds were done in His name.
Pope Francis

What do you think?

Concerning your utilitarian philosophy, I would think that most believe in God not because it's useful but because it's right. There are many things that you may not find useful. Does that mean they don't exist?

 

[archer75]

He said "traditional notion". The subject of the thread just says "notion", which is not the same.

 

[dayhiker]

It is not necessary to believe in God to be a good person.
In a way, the traditional notion of God is outdated.
One can be spiritual but not religious.
It is not necessary to go to church and give money – for many,
nature can be a church.
Some of the best people in history did not believe in God,
while some of the worst deeds were done in His name.
Pope Francis

What do you think?

Is God outdated? Is your mom outdated or your father outdated?

I don't see why God outdated. I have a better relationship with God no than I did when I was a teen. God has keep up with who I am so I don't see why I'd push him out like an old rug that was warn out!

 

[nChrist]

To the OP:

There is nothing outdated about God, and there is no path to real goodness without God.

 

[Greg J.]

This original post contains a quote that was attributed to Pope Francis, but was debunked as being from him, according to some web sites.

It is not necessary to believe in God to be a good person.

If the pope had said this, he would have been doing so from a non-theological point of view, but from an earthly point of view. The pope does not need to always have his theological hat on, although people presume he does. Solomon in the book of Ecclesiastes does this, too. More context would need to be given to understand his point, and even then he's only human. That's why the Vatican often offers further "explanation" of popes' words.

In a way, the traditional notion of God is outdated.

The traditional notion that God causes famine, tragedy, genocide, and is the reason for pain is definitely outdated. The statement has no substantive meaning without some definition of what he would have meant by "traditional notion."

One can be spiritual but not religious.

By the definitions in use today, this is true.

It is not necessary to go to church and give money – for many,
nature can be a church.

This one is almost funny. It's near impossible for a pope to say this, but young and old people (like popes) do get confused at times. Only Jesus never screwed up.

Some of the best people in history did not believe in God,
while some of the worst deeds were done in His name.

The first part is another Ecclesiastes-like statement. Totally OK in some contexts as part of making a larger point, particularly if delivered to people that didn't believe in God. The second part depends on how one understands "name." Scripturally it is a reference to the whole person, including his character and past deeds. With the Scriptural definition it is not possible for such things to happen. With a more contemporary definition of "name," it was, is, and will continue to be true.

I wonder why I feel like it was a waste of time to write this post.

 

[Kutte]

This original post contains a quote that was attributed to Pope Francis, but was debunked as being from him, according to some web sites.

If the pope had said this, he would have been doing so from a non-theological point of view, but from an earthly point of view. The pope does not need to always have his theological hat on, although people presume he does. Solomon in the book of Ecclesiastes does this, too. More context would need to be given to understand his point, and even then he's only human. That's why the Vatican often offers further "explanation" of popes' words.

The traditional notion that God causes famine, tragedy, genocide, and is the reason for pain is definitely outdated. The statement has no substantive meaning without some definition of what he would have meant by "traditional notion."

By the definitions in use today, this is true.



This one is almost funny. It's near impossible for a pope to say this, but young and old people (like popes) do get confused at times. Only Jesus never screwed up.

The first part is another Ecclesiastes-like statement. Totally OK in some contexts as part of making a larger point, particularly if delivered to people that didn't believe in God. The second part depends on how one understands "name." Scripturally it is a reference to the whole person, including his character and past deeds. With the Scriptural definition it is not possible for such things to happen. With a more contemporary definition of "name," it was, is, and will continue to be true.

I wonder why I feel like it was a waste of time to write this post.

Hi Greg,
I don't agree. It was not a waste of time to write this post. You did pretty well.
I think what Pope Francis meant when speaking of a 'traditional Notion' he tried to convey the message that our imagines of God are outdated.
I would say that God is neither a HE or a SHE but an IT, a superior spiritual entity.
God bless

 

[Greg J.]

Well, God who knows everything, considered it most accurate and beneficial for us to refer to himself as male and appeared as Jesus (male). The idea that he is neither male nor female is valuable to examine, because being male or female has a spiritual side that has nothing to do with a person's genes. However, no matter what mere human logic comes up with, in the end I have to go along with God's view being the best and most right view.

 

[Kutte]

Well, God who knows everything, considered it most accurate and beneficial for us to refer to himself as male and appeared as Jesus (male). The idea that he is neither male nor female is valuable to examine, because being male or female has a spiritual side that has nothing to do with a person's genes. However, no matter what mere human logic comes up with, in the end I have to go along with God's view being the best and most right view.

Hi Greg,
when categorizing God as a male then this would require a female companion. Otherwise a gender attribution becomes pretty much meaningless. I agree that we have a spiritual side, regardless of male or female, which puts us above our genes just as God too is residing outside of gender qualities.
My best

 

[Greg J.]

All of God's Word is written for humans to understand. God chose to compare himself to a male human and not a female human. If you look at God's attributes, you may find that most of them are closer to what we think of as feminine than not. God is who he is. Our understanding of him, the words we use to describe him, and even our understanding of the words he uses to describe himself is what needs a lot of work. Even so, being human, we are going to remain partially blind to the truth until we see him face-to-face, which is one facet of why I choose to just go with how God referred to himself as the best way to understand his nature.

 

[Kutte]

All of God's Word is written for humans to understand. God chose to compare himself to a male human and not a female human. If you look at God's attributes, you may find that most of them are closer to what we think of as feminine than not. God is who he is. Our understanding of him, the words we use to describe him, and even our understanding of the words he uses to describe himself is what needs a lot of work. Even so, being human, we are going to remain partially blind to the truth until we see him face-to-face, which is one facet of why I choose to just go with how God referred to himself as the best way to understand his nature.

Hi Greg,

I understand what you are saying. References to God as an entity of male gender in scriptures have, in my opinion, a lot to do with human history which shows the male as a figure of authority in everyday life. The difference in rolls between people of male and female gender in many Christian countries is waning. It still is, however, very much present in Islamic countries.
My best

 

[retlaw]

It is not necessary to believe in God to be a good person.
In a way, the traditional notion of God is outdated.

It depends on what your notion of "good" is. Most people consider themselves good if they are better than Hitler, so if you've murdered fewer than 6 million innocent people you consider yourself good because of the grading scale. The bible says God's standard is beyond our ability.

I believe that many people got the idea that intelligence=atheisim from TV. Star Trek for instance, they feared being viewed as Gods by less advanced species that they encountered. The Bible said that great intelligence "could" be a barrier to knowing God but only because God confounds the wise (1 Cor 1:27). Solomon on the other hand according to the bible was more wise than anyone.

Unless of course you think the Bible is a made up story in which case you're just going to have to wait till you die to learn the answer.

 

[Sammy-San]

Hi Greg,
when categorizing God as a male then this would require a female companion. Otherwise a gender attribution becomes pretty much meaningless. I agree that we have a spiritual side, regardless of male or female, which puts us above our genes just as God too is residing outside of gender qualities.
My best

I've read online that gender is merely an earthsuit issue. Do you agree?

 

[Greg J.]

Human males and females have different spiritual qualities. Being born again in Christ doesn't change that, so what is already true in heaven will remain true when our bodies die.

 

[Sammy-San]

Human males and females have different spiritual qualities. Being born again in Christ doesn't change that, so what is already true in heaven will remain true when our bodies die.

What do you mean by different spiritual qualities?

 

[Greg J.]

Well, this is way off topic. You can start a new thread to investigate this issue further if you want to continue.

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. (1 Timothy 2:12-13, 1984 NIV)

Paul's argument can only be valid if Adam and Eve had different natures. Paul connects Adam and Eve's nature to the nature of the men and women at the time. Adam and Eve were archetypes for the nature of their male and female descendants.

... Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. (bold mine, Genesis 3:16b-17, 1984 NIV)

The curses Adam and Eve brought on themselves affected them differently. Eve's nature became one that somehow desired man (rather than God). Adam' sin was much different than Eve's. Adam's intentional sin was an unforgivable evil. The ground (the earth, and all he owned) was cursed because of his sin. Eve's unintentional sin was the result of being deceived and was hypothetically a forgivable evil (under the Mosaic Law which is a reflection of God's nature).

 

[Kutte]

It depends on what your notion of "good" is. Most people consider themselves good if they are better than Hitler, so if you've murdered fewer than 6 million innocent people you consider yourself good because of the grading scale. The bible says God's standard is beyond our ability.

I believe that many people got the idea that intelligence=atheisim from TV. Star Trek for instance, they feared being viewed as Gods by less advanced species that they encountered. The Bible said that great intelligence "could" be a barrier to knowing God but only because God confounds the wise (1 Cor 1:27). Solomon on the other hand according to the bible was more wise than anyone.

Unless of course you think the Bible is a made up story in which case you're just going to have to wait till you die to learn the answer.

Hi retlaw,

when Pope Francis said, "it is not necessary to believe in God to be a good person", he certainly did not refer to people who murdered less than what Hitler and Stalin accomplished. He merely indicated that atheists too feel committed to do good deeds towards less fortunate individuals.

I agree that less educated people may look at newcomers who demonstrate a higher degree of knowledge and creative knowhow as 'gods'. It happened in the Americas when Columbus and his men were met by 'Indians' who were very much impressed by those white men arriving in large sail boats. They thought that they were gods.

My best

 

[thesunisout]

It is not necessary to believe in God to be a good person.
In a way, the traditional notion of God is outdated.
One can be spiritual but not religious.
It is not necessary to go to church and give money – for many,
nature can be a church.
Some of the best people in history did not believe in God,
while some of the worst deeds were done in His name.
Pope Francis

What do you think?

Before we are saved we are enemies of God, and serving the devil. I wouldn't call that good.

 

[Kutte]

Before we are saved we are enemies of God, and serving the devil. I wouldn't call that good.

Hi thesunisout,

I can't agree to your assumption. Most people are not enemies of God, regardless of what you consider to be 'saved'.
God bless

 

[thesunisout]

Hi thesunisout,

I can't agree to your assumption. Most people are not enemies of God, regardless of what you consider to be 'saved'.
God bless

What do you think the Son of God was doing there on that cross?