I totally disagree. There is no god in anyone. A god is an idea of a being with supernatural power. To believe in such a thing is illogical. To try and redefine "god" is what theist do. They use revisionist history, pseudo-science and redefinition to justify things that are completely and utterly wrong. When one redefines something as you have done they have obscured reality. I will not accept your redefinition of what a god is because it lends itself to redefining everything for the purpose of having us accept that there is a god. Once you accept any portion of an idea that there is a god, you have destroyed the basic logic of nature. It means that you misinterpret everything and use a god filter for everything. That is basically what theist do. They give their god undo credit for everything. "I have a content soul, therefore I have god in me." " A tornado just missed me, god spared me."
So I ask you, just because "god is so many things to people" can you actually produce this god, not just merely redefine what a god is?

You choose to determine your own god differently than anyone else making the same choice. As such, the god in your head is different than the god in any other person's head, and so on. There are as many gods as there are people claiming a belief in such a deity because no revelation has ever occurred exposing and defining the notion of a singular entity. This, my friend, means that there isn't one god but a plethora of pluralism at work that in and of itself is paganism at best. You are a pagan worshiping a god wholly known only unto you. Your notion of that singular god is without an indistinguishable carbon-copy in another person's head.

Without revelation, which the bible is not, no god can exist, much less be understood. On the matter of the Jesus character and his secular creation by the early architects of christianity -

_________________

"Building upon the [Jesus] myth created by Ignatius, and to make a flesh-and-blood, historical Jesus real to believers and thereby make the docetic heresy untenable, additional myths surrounding the life of Jesus had to be and were liberally borrowed by the gospel writers from the pagan religions that surrounded them, probably because of the appeal these myths clearly had had for the followers of the pagan religions. Everywhere were to be found religions that had as major features one or more of the myths that eventually came to be associated with Jesus. Virtually every story surrounding Jesus, whether it be the virgin birth (borrowed from the myth of the birth of Tammuz, a pagan god from northern Israel who was supposed to have been born of the virgin Myrrha), the miracle stories found in the Bacchus and Isis cults, the betrayal and crucifixion, were part of one or more of the pagan religions of the time. The liberal plagiarizing of these stories from the mystery religions was one of the many embarrassing facts pointed out by Celsus.

Some of the myths were even the result of simple misinterpretations by gospel writers who writing from the Diaspora and who had never even been to Palestine - Nazareth, for example, was not a place name, but simply a corruption of the name "Notzri," with the name not meaning "of the town of Nazareth," but "of the Notzrim," the social reform groups known by scholars today as the Jesus Movements. Nazareth, as a place name, did not even come into existence until Emperor Constantine's mother, searching for the holy sites in Palestine in the fourth century on which to build preservatory basilicas, simply invented the name for a pre-existing village for which only very flimsy evidence tied it to the site of the youth of [the mythical] Jesus. Among the religions of the day incorporating a crucifixion myth, for example, were the mystery religions of Attis, Adonis, Dionysus, and several others. Dionisus, for example, was depicted as being given a crown of ivy, dressed in a purple robe, and was given gall to drink before his crucifixion. The depiction on a Greek vase from the 5th century B.C.E. even shows a communion being prepared. The fact that these stories are today almost exclusively associated with the myth of Jesus of Nazareth, show how both myth and history is often outright expropriated - and even rewritten - by the victors, in their own way." - Scott Bidstrup

_________________________

The above excerpt describes how known myths were plagiarized/expropriated to create a real-life Jesus from thin air as a measure to counter the then-current docetic story of a Jesus (that existed only in spirit) from further spreading.

More importantly on the idea of a god, it was created by a secular personage in the form of Emperor Constantine. It can be clearly understood from this excerpt, taken from the historical records of the period, that if the head politician of the time can create a Jesus, he can also create the original god if he so chose to. This is evident insofar as this particular emperor dictated to the architects of christianity that the Father and Jesus were of the same subtance. If he can do that, he has created the father as well.

_____________________________

"The Council of Nicea And The Emperor Dictating Doctrine 325 C.E.

Rather than risk Imperial disfavor and banishment from the Empire and almost certain death, the bishops met at Nicea, a small town in Turkey where the emperor owned a lake house on June 19th, 325 C.E. They squabbled and squabbled some more, and were able to come to almost no agreement among themselves. The most important of these controversies is called the "Arian Controversy," by historians, after Arius the Preacher, a bishop who was preaching that Jesus had been real enough, but not divine - rather, merely a great preacher and prophet. The other side of the controversy held that Jesus was the physical incarnation of God himself. This was a dispute over the doctrinal outcome resulting from the suppression of the Docetic Heresy, which gave rise to the physical Jesus myth itself. Basically, the Arian Controversy was a whole series of questions over the relationship of Jesus to God the Father. Now that we have a physical Jesus, was Jesus God? Or was he the son of God? Was he divine? Or was he merely a divine prophet? Did he die and was he resurrected, or was he taken up into heaven? Finally, in exasperation, the emperor himself intervened, and imposed some compromises by direct imperial edict. The principal compromise was simple: Jesus and God the father were of "the same substance" - whatever that meant, but the dear emperor didn't exactly delve into what that actually entailed. But the bishops had little choice but go along with that concept, even if the details were murky to nonexistent. The principal issue being settled, as well as several others, by imperial edict, the bishops went on to hammer out a statement of a few common doctrines (mostly with regard to the date for Easter celebrations, the creation and the nature of the universe, and the first version of the Apostolic Creed), declared themselves in agreement on it - that agreement is now known as the Nicene Creed - and departed totally unconverted to each other's views. So there you have it. Some of the most important of Catholic, even pan-Christian doctrines were the result of the edict of a politician, whose conversion and commitment to Christian ideology itself was highly questionable at best.

Argument and dissension continued for the next six decades with various factions finding themselves in and then out of Imperial favor at various times, in various places and for various reasons, almost all of them political. Athanasius, for example, the actual author of the Nicene Creed, found himself exiled and 'rehabilitated' on no fewer than six separate occasions. It was eventually imperial politics and the wealth of the Roman bishopric, which it shared with the smaller congregations along with instructions for its use, more than theology, that finally governed the form that Christian doctrine and its interpretation would take, as various bishops found themselves in and out of imperial favor at various times. By 430, the council of Nicea, having been frequently reconvened, had become an ongoing affair, designed to stamp out various "heresies" (in particular, Gnosticism as a movement in competition with the Roman church) and create a formal, universal, i.e. catholic church organization, organized in a manner similar to the political structure of the Roman Empire itself.

The Council of Nicea became, in essence, the enforcer of the official, politically correct doctrine, and in essence, the forerunner of the Inquisition. This, along with the influence of the emperor himself, is why the Catholic Church today resembles in its government the government of the Roman Empire of the period. The headquarters of the church was eventually established at Rome, and the head of the church became known as the Pope. New basilicas dotted the landscape, all built with the blessing of the Emperor, and all aligned to the new, imperially blessed, church headquarters in Rome (indeed, the very word "basilica" itself originally meant a building that was the local Roman courthouse and hall of justice). Constantine sent his mother off to Palestine to build basilicas over the sacred sites of the church's early history, and "find" and return with faith-promoting "relics" which of course, local entrepreneurs were happy to produce. The newly established headquarters in Rome set about persecuting the Gnostics (crucifying many of them and sending many others to the lions), and suppressing the Marionite, Arian and other heresies.

In order to popularize the church with the masses, the doctrinal emphasis was changed significantly even when the ideology didn't. These changes were reflected in the art of the Christian church. When early, pre-Constantine Roman Christians met secretly in Rome, the art they produced reflected the pastoral nature of Jesus' teachings - scenes of Jesus feeding the multitudes, blessing the children, and healing the sick were the themes in the art of that period. After the conversion of Constantine, the character of the art suddenly and dramatically changed to reflect the change in doctrinal emphasis. Gone are the sweet, pastoral scenes of a meek Jesus patiently ministering to his humble followers. Instead, images of the crucifixion and the scourging of Jesus in the court of Pilate become common. This was to help the suffering masses identify with Jesus who was said to have suffered on their behalf. The church had became a political instrument -- be patient with your suffering under Roman rule, the masses were told, and a better life for you is prepared for you if you believe in Jesus the Savior. The emporer may not provide good living in this life, but Jesus would in the next. In other words, shut up and suffer quietly.

It is at this time that the Chi Rho and the symbol of the fish, representing the miraculous nature of Jesus' message (at least as formulated by the gospel writers), is replaced by the cross, at the time a symbol of death and suffering, as the almost universal emblem of Christianity. The political message of the new symbol couldn't have been clearer at the time - join up and Jesus will relieve your suffering in the next world even if the Emperor doesn't do so in this. Fail to join, and you're on your own - and the consequences could be dire. For obvious reasons, the new religion spread quickly in far-off corners of the empire that had barely heard of it before." - Scott Bidstrup

__________________________

Per your claimed notion of a god I say to you ignorance is bliss and I wish I had a fraction of the measure of it you display in your post. I'd probably be just as blissfully unaware.

Omar,

A lot of religious people avoid this (and similar) views of God because such a god is of no use to them. Such a god cannot answer your prayers, protect you, give you eternal life, or do all the other things that gods ultimately were expected to do. My only objection is that we have a confusion of words here. Surely there are better words to describe these ideas and feelings. "God" comes with a lot of baggage.

Omar arain : "The god in me is who i strive to be. Who i was meant to be."

This involves predestination does it not ? If you do not believe in a universal deity then "who" meant you to be anything?