Defining Deity for debate and discussion.

[Finder]

I notice in many of the posts and threads, particularly the longer ones, there seems to be several different definitions of deity. It makes it hard to keep up sometimes and at times impossible to debate in a consistent manner.

A few posters are discussing the Christian deity(ies)or those of the big 3 while others are discussing the deity of Deism and still others are discussing their own unique supernatural concepts. The only thing they have in common is that they disagree with atheism.

When the bible or creation or intelligent design vs evolution is brought up or challenged, some seem to switch to the Deist deity invoking the big bang or chaos to order...yada yada that in itself is contradictory to the deity of the bible.

Of course most atheists/agnostics have no problem with Deism since it does not hold any extreme beliefs that can be made into law or that invoke any absolutist standards for society. The only belief of deists is that all mankind was created equal. They approach life through reason and logic rather than doctrine and dogma.

Many deists follow a particular philosophy rather than the theology of a religion but still identify as Christians or Jews or Muslims mostly out of cultural or familial tradition. Most of the larger sects of the big 3 have become big tents and have loosened their criteria in respects to enforcing doctrine. By far they are in the majority in the US as far as polling figures.

Fundamentalists(literalists who adhere to official doctrine and theology)are a small percentage but unfortunately large enough to be used by those who prey on their bigotry and/or ignorance to profit. Other Fundamentalist groups do not interact with society or engage in any debate--Amish for example.

There is also a group that can best be described as supernaturalists...Those believing in spirits or ghosts, multiple deities, astrology, angels, demons and such or at least one. Sometimes they identify with a religion, all religions or no religion. They usual describe themselves as spiritual rather than religious.

[The Blue Flower]

1. Deity transcends definition

Maybe we can agree that we're talking about something that can't be limited by definitions, but is an object of faith.

[charles22]

2. What would that mean?

We can't talk about what we are talking about?

[patrice]

5. It means that words only point at reality. They are not reality itself.

We can talk about god; we just need to understand what talking really is and not mistake words for something they are not.

[charles22]

7. Isn't that true about a lot of things; the nature of language.

If we talk, we should agree on common use of words, otherwise words become arbitrary. If "god" only means something to you that can't be put into words, why engage language in the first place?
Otherwise, it is mysticism--the idea that God/Reality can never be referred to and belongs soley to individual experience or feeling.

[Goblinmonger]

12. That's right, buster!

No meta-communication here. That would be just absurd. Absurd, I tell you.

[Finder]

3. If not defined there would only be one deity or religion...n/t

[patrice]

4. I think you're right. You have to begin by recognizing what language is.

What it can and can't do. It's limitations. And the definition of definition.

Fighting over words that are only approximations at best doesn't seem very worthwhile.

That's why actions/behavior is more important than anything else. Perhaps these discussions should be be about verbs primarily, less passive voice.

[bloom]

6. It's even more complicated than that

Some definitions of God/dess are not considered to be God/dess at all - and is considered by many/some to be atheism (some versions of Pantheism).

And I think that there are a lot of people who talk about a God/dess who don't think that a "God/dess" exists at all (esp. Pagans).

I think it's best to just think of God/dess as a really open-ended concept on a continuum from non-existence to the idea that there is an anthropomorphic being that that pulls our strings as if we are puppets. At best there could be a scale with 0 being non-existence and 10 being "an anthropomorphic being that that pulls our strings as if we are puppets" - with all sorts of ideas in between.

[redphish]

8. I use the word god in conversations about religion

simply as a frame of reference to let others know that I am referring to whatever force is behind what we are experiencing that we call life. As a deist a believe that this force exists but cannot be directly experienced by myself.

[ironbark]

9. God says She is….

“Immeasurably exalted above the comprehension or description of aught else except Herself”

(My wife says the same thing….and seems nearer and powerful enough to enforce the understanding;-)

“Would that mean We can't talk about what we are talking about”?

No…..it just means that for discussing God (as with love) words will prove-
“Too oft but vague shadows of meanings”.

[Random_Australian]

10. I win.

"yada yada that in itself is contradictory to the deity of the bible"

Watch this - I invoke an infinite diety who does not obey the axioms.

One of the axioms is non-contradiction.

Therefore the same God can be the two different things.

To make it more clear, is She has two characteristics - the first is A and the second is ' at no point or in any way, shape or form does this entity possess A' She can do that, so there is no contradiction.

No contradiction, no premise.

:rofl::rofl:

Ok, seriously now, if you want a diety, just say diety means the conjugate of the natural world, and then let each person use deity as they will, but let them explain their version. It is the information that we refer to that is important, so effective communication would best be served with a more malleable concept.

As in, someone who believes in an interentionist diety should not be excluded from using deity.

Define, by it's definition, draws lines around a concept. That ought to be avoided except on the most basic level to allow people to use and convey very diverse things without being stymied by nomenclature.

My $0.05

[Boojatta]

11. In the theology of criminals, are police demons?

There is also a group that can best be described as supernaturalists...Those believing in spirits or ghosts, multiple deities, astrology, angels, demons and such or at least one. Sometimes they identify with a religion, all religions or no religion. They usual describe themselves as spiritual rather than religious.

The New Testament claims that angels and demons are real.

Here's something from a Catholic Encyclopaedia:

There is, of course, a true doctrine about demons or evil spirits, namely, that portion of Catholic theology which treats of the creation and fall of the rebel angels, and of the various ways in which these fallen spirits are permitted to tempt and afflict the children of men.

Source:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04713a.htm

[Finder]

13. All theists would be supernaturalists...

but not all supernaturalists would be theists....