God and Humans
In July of 2010 I posted God and Humans as a blog on MySpace. I then posted a lure to the blog in 19 different MySpace groups to see what kind of discussion its ideas might generate. The lure read:
"Can you think of a definition of God upon which scientists and Southern Baptists would agree? Upon which atheists and fundamentalist Muslims would agree? Upon which Hindus and Jews and Evangelicals and Satanists and Pagans and Voodoo priests would agree? What do you think that definition is? Well, it's not what you think. It's short enough to put in a forum but I could find no forum which included Pagans, Witches, and Mormons and Catholics and Wiccans and Astral Travelers and Buddhists and followers of Condomble and Presbyterians. And I want to know if these groups will agree with me the way I think they will. I just posted it as a blog called "God and Humans." You can read it from my MySpace profile or or click here.
I spent the next two weeks fielding questions and challenges for several hours every day. As I did so I tried to both answer the challenges and keep the discussions alive. Some of the discussion proved extremely stimulating and helped clarify the limits to which the ideas in Gods and Humans can be applied. It also helped flesh out some ideas peripheral to its central point. Because of this and the interest the essay has continued to attract, I am giving those original discussions a more permanent form here.
God and Humans is a self-contained piece. It does not need these discussions to be understood. But these discussions will interest many who have read it. I have included the exchanges that broaden the general feeling of the essay or demonstrate the various reactions of people from different traditions. The responses range from the very simple but eloquent counter-definition of god as "Love," to more heatedly disputed theological points, to more outlandish but respectably thorough theories involving DNA.
It is now July 2013 and the essay has been viewed more than 20,000 times. I am using this landmark as a pretext to post these threads. Each of them is interesting for its own reasons, but the five at the top of the list I consider particularly illuminating.
If you are one of the original participants in these discussions and want me to use your real name or preferred pseudonym instead of the fictitious one I have created to protect your privacy, just message me and I will do so happily.
I have corrected no texts. The conversations appear here with their original disregard for formality. Finally I have an excuse to include some deliciously reckless grammar on this website!