Which version of god is closest to the real thing?

I can only use my limited personal experience for this so i'm hoping someone else can fill in the gaps.

In my life, I've been aware of 3 clear versions of the same god.

To keep things clear we'll call the 3 versions, the USA version, the Australian version and the UK version of god.

Each of these 3 versions seemingly have very different views on right and wrong and very different views on how to worship them.

There are lots of other versions of god but these 3 are the ones i've had experience of.

So, whose version of god is closest to the real thing?

 

All gods are imaginary. There is no celestial deity in this solar system.

 

Care to elaborate?

 

If this "god" you refer to is factual, then having three different ways required to proclaim it indicates a schism in its mind and a falseness to its being. Therefore it cannot be true.

 

The Buddhist version is the closest.

*HINT* there is no Buddhist version.

 

There's no way to know. If God wanted uniformity across each individual relationship with us, He would have made Himself more clear. As it is, we can (must) assume that a relationship with God is subjective, subject to personal interpretation and life experience. He made us individuals, each with our own perspective, our own reason and our own Will for a purpose, after all.

If you're looking for a constant across each belief system, It seems clear that we are meant to love each other, and love God. You really can't go wrong with those

 

What a joke.
"Real Thing" - for a figment of the imagination???
This is like a question, "How big is the tooth fairy?"

 

I suppose that's the point the OP is making - so many different versions, they can't all be true.

 

Yes, we all know some folks don't believe. Inserting yourself into a discussion by saying 'this discussion is pointless' is just as pointless.

Has anyone in a religious debate ever said 'oh ya, ur right, nevermind' when you chime with that?

 

Which makes NONE of them true to the rational mind.

 

True. Just think of all the gods which have ever been worshipped, and most have been abandoned long since. Eventually they'll all be gone.

 

Well let's see, there's the "USA version", the "Australian version" and the "UK version". It seems to me you left out the "Liechtenstein version", the "Kenyan version", the "Nepalese version" and the "Grey version" (the ET kind), among about a near infinite other "versions" if you include every intelligent species in the Universe. I'm good with the "Bob version", the fairy tale kind made for the thoroughly indoctrinated.

 

The OP question is biased because it focuses solely on the biblical God = Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews and the God of the armies. Other religions have their own teams of Gods. Notice that he didn't include the possibility of them existing.

 

which god is right? why, the one you choose to believe in of course. Being an atheist, I think no version of god is the right one.

 

The God of Spinoza and Einstein, the god of pantheism most closely fits its definition and is based on a real, substantive thing. Although we can't observe it in its entirety because we are a subset of that god, we can observe part of it.

 

God is whatever it means to you. No matter the religion, to cram it into a country or book is a simplicity of the very concept.

 

Then it means nothing.

 

Certainly.

As i said, I'm only using version i have some experience of.

 

Athiest? Then your God may be nature.

 

Dear @see you next tuesday
You are like asking is black and white photography more realistic
or color oil paint? Is Indian music more "universal", America rock music, or European classical piano?

When it comes to religion and politics, the question is whether the people USING that system INCLUDE all others, or start excluding and limiting the people the rules apply to. So it depends on the USAGE, not the system being used.

As for me, I use these systems the most:
* Buddhism or secular nontheistic terms, natural laws of science,
when addressing secular gentiles who follow natural laws/nontheistic approaches.
* Constitutional and natural laws on democracy to address relations, conflict resolution,
and democratic process for redressing grievances, for establishing truth justice and peace by principles
(where Constitutional laws serve as an "umbrella" under which all other religious or political beliefs should be equally included, respected and represented)
* Christian scriptures and teachings for addressing fellow believers under church authority, especially
spiritual healing and recovery by forgiveness therapy, which then reflects and demonstrates the meaning, message and process symbolized in the Bible

Whatever "God" represents to different people and lineages, this points to the same universal/collective/absolute "source"
of all life, laws, truth, love, energy, forces of nature, in all creation/the universe.

But people CALL the ASPECTS of "God" different things from
Wisdom to Love, Universal Laws or Truth, Nature or Life, Creation or Universe, etc.

ALL these things emanate from the same SOURCE.
So each one is Best suited for DIFFERENT CONTEXTS.

it's not a matter of which one is "better" or "closer" to universal than the others.
It would take including ALL of them to be truly "universal."

The point is to use each application or aspect in proper relative context so it
communicates the concept or principle effectively, and serves that local purpose.

Collectively, by combining all this knowledge and understanding of
the DIFFERENT aspects of LIFE/GOD or the forces of nature/universal laws,
then that is the closest we can get to understanding the whole of God which is infinite and beyond our limited scope as humans.

In general I would say:

* Buddhism and letting go of attached presuppositions and conditions
is the most vital step in understanding God which is always going to be bigger
than the limited perceptions and notions we carry in our heads at any time
We constantly have to 'let go' in order to grow in understanding and receive more input to get the bigger picture

* Constitutional principles and process are the best way I have found
to teach the meaning of "Equal Justice" under law and in relations with others.
To truly learn equal respect for others as oneself, when we understand that if
we want our free will, free choice and rights protected we have to respect the same for
others, that teaches us to resolve conflicts as equals; so this is the best way I know
to really teach the true meaning of Christian faith in Restorative Justice as the meaning of Christ Jesus.
so this teaches reaching agreement on truth or "God's will" in practical terms and relationships,
not just theory but establishing these plans in real life, through personal and political processes.

* Christian methods of spiritual healing are the best way I know
to teach the meaning of the Holy Spirit, what this power of
"forgiveness and grace" means and the impact it has on real life situation.
So to understand "God's grace", Christian healing is the most powerful
witness to how deeply problems are caused, and how dramatically things can be transformed.
Like night and day.

All other religions, ways and variations of these are generally included
under the Constitutional concepts of equal protection of all beliefs
and ways of practice. These are all like "different languages for the laws."
The universal laws can be expressed in terms of religion or scripture,
in terms of science including social sciences and psychology,
in terms of natural laws of govt and civil laws, etc.

These are all relative to people and their relations and circumstances.
So whichever one works most effectively to communicate, establish
common truth or principles, and collaborate between people and groups, that's what matters.

they are tools for connecting in relationships, from the individual level
to the collective level of society and humanity. We just have to use
them consistently, and they all serve an important purpose to the whole.

 

Good response to what was otherwise an ineptly worded OP question.

 

I describe myself as an agnostic atheist with a conflict between pantheism and nihilism.

I hope the universe is meaningful but it probably isn't. I both look forward to and dread that moment when the simulation is unplugged. Perhaps I will disappear at that moment or the universe will. I'm not sure if I will even be able to know the difference.

 

Why is it that some people declare one to be an atheist and then claim to know their god?

By definition, an atheist believes in no god and claims no god. Yet others insist on assigning a god to them.

It is really very simple, Atheists believe in no god. Live with it.

 

If you believe the natural universe is god then you are a pantheist.

 

Dear @Arjay51 How would you define this "god" that Atheists don't believe in. If the rejected "god" is some punitive authoritarian figure, imposing rules which humans are not able to follow perfectly by our flawed fallible nature, well, many Christians and other Deists don't believe in such a "god" either. So it depends how we define God and attributes.

Do you believe that there are Laws of Nature or the Universe that are "self-existent" or constant? Doesn't it take faith to believe these natural laws will continue and not change arbitrarily?

One source someone posted online elsewhere said there were several types of faith: 1. faith in natural laws and events like the sun will come up tomorrow 2. faith in people as in good faith relations 3. faith in beliefs and whether things are true or false

What i find in common is do we believe that truth and good will prevail as the dominant force in life? Do we believe in justice? or do we believe humanity is doomed and our negatives will kill us off before we can achieve the positives we aspire to.

And I find the common OBSTRUCTION to faith is FEAR and UNFORGIVENESS, ill will and "scarcity mentality" that overrides our underlying desire to believe in good and love as conquering evil and fear.