No? Since we have already agreed on "God or not God" (settled that, I thought) it seemed appropriate to find out if we only agree on the existance of a word, or maybe something more solid.

Sorry, I should have made clear what I meant. It's been my downfall here to say what makes good sense to me in a confusing manner, (See, I confused even that.)

Believing in God is natural for me too. But the nature of God is not that clear. What is God like? That is the question.

When I was younger, I would say that I believe something because I wanted it to be true. I remember announcing to the world that I am an atheist. I had it all worked out in high school—humans are apes. Life is only an electrochemical reaction. Mind is only a set of conditioned reflexes. And most people aren’t as rational as me. Considering how much my beliefs have changed, it’s not hard to imagine more change. It’s interesting listening to yours and Alchemy’s uncertainties about morality and the nature of God.

Given all the religions in the world’s history, and all the art, and possibly all the love (though love seems lacking compared to the other two), it seems empirically evident that we are built (created perhaps) with strong propensities for believing in God, creating art, and loving. And we seem to like mixing the three - “God is love,” for example, and the artistically fabricated parables of Jesus. Yes, I think it’s a good observation that the three are probably wrapped up together, or maybe they are three approaches to the same reality.

I feel that by loving, I know an aspect of God. But that’s an unprovable feeling. I also feel that when, on rare occasion, I create art, that too is an extension of God.

My God, I’ve left a lot of logical holes in this statement. Lambaste me!

And to pimple too. Take out that warning, please. It's unfounded.

Yeah, I changed s5&6. See edit.

The last stanza is diatribe, for sure. I could do without it, but it makes me feel better, kinda like poking pins in an effigy doll.

It cracked me up too when I heard a guy say it in this very context. Guess you've never been lynched, vigilante style.

I am one who says that God seems to exist beyond all that. I cannot imagine god coming into existance within an already established framework of walls or rules or logic. Such a god would be like a satrap in ancient Persia, over whom another king rules, the King of kings. It's probably the source of the Biblical image "King of kings."

Then who built the walls? If you say God did, I say, "That's His choice."

Yes, but that's His choice.

Yes. To say otherwise is to build walls around God, or try to.

I’m fine with you being the only follower of your beliefs, and with me being the only follower of mine. It’s kind of silly to say somebody else is, or should be, the follower of my beliefs. The trouble with my beliefs is that they can change and make the old ones look silly to me sometimes.

It’s heartening to hear you say, “God is beyond even the laws of nature and our own comprehension.” In saying that, you have removed Him from the walls of rules and logic and allowed Him to be God. (Perhaps He thanks you for your generosity.) I’m often called a heretic for doing the same thing.

The strange thing about people who say that a good god would not allow suffering is that they usually also say, “the human race is, on the whole, intelligent and capable of solving its problems.” They take credit for the good and blame God for the bad, or they say there is no god because of the bad. Amanda is saying that God controls both good and bad. I say that God has left Himself many holes in the apparent order of nature through which to act, and act unreceptively, if He wants to. Like you say, its something I feel, beyond proof. I fully agree that my ignorance is beyond beyond.

Smartass!

Go girl! You amaze me sometimes!