Asklemmy

43989 readers

1356 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

150

Do you believe in God? (self.asklemmy)

submitted 1 year ago by alrighthosanna to c/[email protected]

351 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Badass_panda 1 points 1 year ago

It isn't wrong by any means, it just muddies the water of what is being discussed.

The "nature of God" was never clear water to begin with. It certainly muddies it versus the traditional Christian definition, but that is one paradigm out of literally thousands.

God is pretty much universally known to refer to a being.

Not really, unless by "being" you mean "thing that exists."

Using it to refer to a non-being, to me, seems to be a purposeful attempt to not have to accept the challenges to the concept but continue on with what you believed anyway.

It's a redefinition of the concept. Spinoza's approach takes the elements of the nature of God that are agreed to by Christians and Jews, and demonstrates their incompatibility with "bearded dude in the sky"; that's the point of the language, and I like it.