It seems to me the idea of god that monotheistic religions have is somewhat flawed and I wanted to open a discussion on it. Along with pre-Christian Indo-European religions I believe the idea of Natural Order (or even something like 'Fate') supersedes the idea of a God.
For example, if God made some law or ruling, he will then be obliged to stand by that law and apply it fairly and consistently to all humans. This means that God himself is constrained by certain laws. I dont think even God can overcome Karma. I mean he is just a powerful 'being' right?
The early Indo-Europeans had something akin to Natural Order or Fate that was more powerful than any god. The early concept of God was quite different to what people think of today. Originally I think a god was a type of 'Divine Force' something that poets sang about. This could be the Sky (Zeus Pater), Earth (Prthvi, Gaia) or Thunder ( Thor, Indra) and more abstract concepts such as Mitra and Aryaman and Dionysus.
It seems that as these small Indo-Europeans groups spread out their Gods became more human-like and prominent, while the backdrop of Fate or Natural Order faded out. Hence we have Zeus more a King of Gods than a deification of the Sky.
Sometime in Central Asia, Zoroaster, a priest, reformed his local Indo-European pagan religion and created a Monotheistic faith centred on one Ahura Mazda, "Lord Wisdom". To cut a long story short, I believe this, combined with some rather semitic influencs resulted in the Abrahamic faiths. Due to the pervasiveness of these faiths, there seems to be an assumption on most peoples part that this concept of God is somehow natural. Hence, most people here are either Atheist or Christian. Either belief in God or not.
However, Atheism seems to be a position defined by it's opposition or negation of what seems to be a largely Abrahamic assertion of 'God'. But what is this Abrahamic God exactly, I know what he has apparently done, but what exactly is he? or It? or She? I know they dont have an answer to this. God we are told, is a being who exists and who created the Universe. For me this is too vague an idea to talk about meaningfully, hence I consider the idea of God null and void. Atheism, being in opposition to something undefined, is unecessary.
So from being well-defined actors in early indo-european religious poetry, secondary to the ideas of Truth or Natural Order, these, now abstract and vague divinities have become the centre of many major religions, the definition of truth and independent of any system (Karma, Fate, Cause-Consequence etc).
I think for any discussion or understanding of religion to be worthwhile, we really need to re-visit the idea of 'God', where it came from, and whether it can remain such a central concept.
For example, if God made some law or ruling, he will then be obliged to stand by that law and apply it fairly and consistently to all humans. This means that God himself is constrained by certain laws. I dont think even God can overcome Karma. I mean he is just a powerful 'being' right?
The early Indo-Europeans had something akin to Natural Order or Fate that was more powerful than any god. The early concept of God was quite different to what people think of today. Originally I think a god was a type of 'Divine Force' something that poets sang about. This could be the Sky (Zeus Pater), Earth (Prthvi, Gaia) or Thunder ( Thor, Indra) and more abstract concepts such as Mitra and Aryaman and Dionysus.
It seems that as these small Indo-Europeans groups spread out their Gods became more human-like and prominent, while the backdrop of Fate or Natural Order faded out. Hence we have Zeus more a King of Gods than a deification of the Sky.
Sometime in Central Asia, Zoroaster, a priest, reformed his local Indo-European pagan religion and created a Monotheistic faith centred on one Ahura Mazda, "Lord Wisdom". To cut a long story short, I believe this, combined with some rather semitic influencs resulted in the Abrahamic faiths. Due to the pervasiveness of these faiths, there seems to be an assumption on most peoples part that this concept of God is somehow natural. Hence, most people here are either Atheist or Christian. Either belief in God or not.
However, Atheism seems to be a position defined by it's opposition or negation of what seems to be a largely Abrahamic assertion of 'God'. But what is this Abrahamic God exactly, I know what he has apparently done, but what exactly is he? or It? or She? I know they dont have an answer to this. God we are told, is a being who exists and who created the Universe. For me this is too vague an idea to talk about meaningfully, hence I consider the idea of God null and void. Atheism, being in opposition to something undefined, is unecessary.
So from being well-defined actors in early indo-european religious poetry, secondary to the ideas of Truth or Natural Order, these, now abstract and vague divinities have become the centre of many major religions, the definition of truth and independent of any system (Karma, Fate, Cause-Consequence etc).
I think for any discussion or understanding of religion to be worthwhile, we really need to re-visit the idea of 'God', where it came from, and whether it can remain such a central concept.