I concur, because God is very much like the sun …
You’re still not taking my point. The narrow way of which you speak is for the ladies with the lamps, yes? Some run out of oil and have to go get more; and that sorrow is a sorrow of evolutive reality. The creationist dogma has run out of oil; but the literalist’s perspective can burn bight if one takes up the question of consciousness.
Probably not; that’s what i meant. Personal affirmation for me comes from that flash of understanding; the joy of its fruits. For most, i think, it comes from positive peer feedback.
I agree; i believe myown case to be an exception
Again, i agree. The way i read it, conspiracy is evil; agencies having offspring together. My perspective does not suggest status quo; it does suggest an open honest sharing of information. Godhead, as it presents, could be called Christ/Krishna; and you would be constraining yourself to the path of the greek/hebrew perspective, a sort of Oedipus-Andros/Christ kind of thing with some Odysseus thrown in. Athena leaves you when you talk about consciousness.
Hello F(r)iends,
I don’t think you quite grasp the fact that we are discussing theoretically about a god that is above the bible. Perhaps, as in MAYBE, this god would not care about rules but would rather focus on his creation. If this type of god existed, the bible would not need to be modified because the bible would only apply to one type of person (like you) that can only accept a god that is all encompassing and fully structured and inflexible. There would only be perceived contradictions but because this god would be beyond human standards, it wouldn’t matter.
Wouldn’t it be better if this god existed? Maybe.
The answer is irrelevant.
Imagine that the world came under one banner and we chose to use the American flag as the colors of the new world nation. The whole world is now America. So, to a degree it incorporates America, but it is not America any longer–it has gone beyond United States of America it has become the United Countries of America. This “maybe type god” is beyond your god while still incorporating similar terminology and similar images, stories, ideals, etc. Do you understand? Can you explore this idea without feeling that your religion is being accosted?
-Thirst
I can quite easily grasp your theoretical concept of a God who is above the bible. It’s all very nice and wonderful to behold. The problem with it, is that it creates more problems than it solves, problems that you would like to sweep under the carpet. It is an excercise in deconstruction that leaves you with nothing unless you create something else to fill it’s place.
One issue we have been discussing is whether your “maybe God” would or could lie to us. But there are so many other issues with your approach that maybe it would be easier to see if I asked you some questions about your “maybe” God.
- Is your “maybe God” actually one God or many Gods?
- Is your “maybe God” a God of love or not?
- Does your “maybe God” want to interact with the human race at all?
- Does your “maybe God” have any rules that he would like us to follow?
- Will your “maybe God” punish us for not following his rules?
You can ignore these questions by saying that “everything is possible”, but in truth this means little more than “I have no idea”. As soon as you begin to answer some of these questions you will see that your “maybe God” is a construct that will either “fit” or clash with a previously established religion. And you will have achieved nothing more than to create another idol.
No it is not. You started a discussion talking about the son of God, clearly alluding to Christ of the bible. The fact that you have no biblical support for your posiiton is therefore somewhat relevant.
Ok, I’m imagining the United Countries of America. A man is caught stealing an apple. The majority demands his hand be cut off immediately, while others claim the constitution grants him a fair trial. What to do? Simple, we can either change the constitution and cut his hand off, or give him a fair trial based on the constitution. But your theology would have us do nothing at all, since everyone is right about everything and no one can say anything for sure. What I’m saying is that your idea of God is actually no idea at all. When you make God everything, he becomes nothing.
Understanding is not the issue. I just think your construct of God is a dumb idea that I’ve heard many times before.
Ned,
Let me point out the exact description:
(for there is no other name under “heaven”)
This clearly states their are other names, just not “Under heaven”. This means in that realm or demention there is no other name…But you humans do not live in that demention do you? No, you live here in this one this of the physical where there are many names and ways to acheive this.
Also let me point out “given to men” Or “man/Humans” as is the correct translation.
This means their are others under heaven, just not given to man.
Do you ever wonder Ned why your God is so lacking in his trust in you Humans?
That he would give all but you, his suposed prized creation whom he loves more than all else, this knowledge.
You are a slave. And your god is not God.
The way you get a being with free will to do what you want is not to force them but instead to make them “want” to do it for whatever reason, be it love, fear, exceptance, rejection by the rest of their species…Etc. This is what the god you worship does. It is not God. Only your master and only because your faith is blind and so you fail to see the illusion.
Ned,
How about:
6: I am that I am, all and nothing, everyone and noone, The alfa and the omega, the begining and the end.
Your wanting of an exact definition of God is what leads you to misconception and destitude. You believe in limits, yet your Suposed God is limitless acording to your own BIBLE. Which is it Ned? Why does the answer from another Being have to be incorect and why do you “have” to be correct? Have you ever thought that maybe you are both right or for that matter that all of you are?
As I have stated before, your human lack of creative thought, imagination, or understanding amazes me.
The answer is right there in the very book you quote. Its contradiction of everything it’s complete chaos and lack of order tell you those things mentioned in #6 over and over and over continueous in the form of a story or history. Yet you are so blinded by the fact that words must mean somthing that you can not see past them. That Book is to tell you “what” God is, Nothing else. But then like I also said, the result caused by this comming from an all knowing being to an undevoleved species in an attempt to comunicate is hardly supriseing.
In the metaphysical words mean nothing.
Why then would the knowledge of a metaphysical being in words mean anything. It took a whole book to describe that one sentance.
That is the profoundness of knowlege and understanding you are missing and which as you are, will never be able to attain.
Hello F(r)iends,
- One… maybe. I don’t think it matters as long as they are one in goal.
- What would you prefer, a god of love or not? I think I would prefer one of love.
- Maybe. But I would think not, especially if free will is mankind’s gift from god.
- Maybe there are a few rules that are of the utmost importance. Maybe its the rules that people can agree on: don’t steal, don’t commit murder, don’t rape. Maybe some rules, like say a rule preventing you from eating pork, apply to a specific type (like those that were created with a weak stomach).
- Possibly (maybe). I don’t know. Maybe god would judge on a case by case basis–which I think would be good.
The bible claims you should take the message and make disciples of all nations. But it always gives those other nations the free will to reject god. Thus, maybe those that reject god can take another path that may still lead back to god… like Buddha or something or even atheism.
Not if this god was above the bible (remember, we are talking theory not biblical fact).
Wrong. California has laws that are different from New York. Someone steals in apple in California the state law applies and not the government law. There are some laws that are Federal and some that are local. The same would apply to this “maybe type god”. Some laws apply only to the “Christians” some only to the “Muslims” and some only to the “heathens”. Just like there are laws that apply in Amsterdam that don’t apply in the U.S. Each country can maintain its local laws as long as they don’t violate the international laws (the laws of god).
-Thirst
Then I guess I’ve lost track of what your point was. I have too many conversations going at the same time, sorry!
I’m not sure why you bring up creationism here. I don’t believe it has “run out of oil”.
Please provide a bible verse that states that God is limitless. The bible is God’s revelation about himself, therefore God is limited in the sense that he cannot be other than what he himself has revealed to us. For example, he says that he is both holy and good. Therefore, he cannot be the antithesis of those traits.
And as I have stated before, your creative theology is overrated.
God has chosen to speak to us in “words”. His son is an expression of his “word”. This creation was “spoken” into being. Words are very important to God. We see this clearly in the OT. He tells the Israelites (in words) not to worship false Gods. When they start to worship false Gods, he rebukes them and kills them. Words therefore do have a precise definition for God and are thus meaningful. Just like the rest of the bible.
So basically your God has no definition at all except that he would probably agree with your way of looking at the world? Am I supposed to take this option as a serious alternative to the Christian God?
True.
This possibility is addressed and rejected in the bible. The truth of God is available to all as seen in creation.
Romans 1
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
The clear implication of this passage is that those who do not acknowledge the Christian God will face God’s wrath. There are many other statements that make Christianity an exclusive path, rejecting the possibility that those who do not worship this particular God will be “lost”.
I guess my point is that if you set your God above the bible, but strangely also want to incorrporate the Christian God and bible into your new consruct (your reference to God’s son being one example), then you have to actually know what the bible says, and deal with the fact that this book clearly teaches against your worldview.
Ok fine. But then what actually are the FEDERAL laws that govern all? Seems to me that the only ones you can have are ones that do not violate any of the state laws. And do you care that a man is mutilated for a crime in one state, but given a warning in another?
This is the same issue as your failure to definitively answer any of my questions about your “maybe God”. As soon as you reach a definitive answer (or decide on a federal law) you will have conflict between your “superior-above the bible” view, and those who are actually following the bible (or state law). It seems the only safe ground for you is to not define your God (or not make any federal laws). But that’s just another way of saying, “I don’t know anything about my God”.
No worries.
Creationism has been an aspect of the traditional garb of the ladies, as i see it; a recognizable color in their lamps. Some ladies have had the sense to change thier garment, a bit.
More precisely, in the old testament it says, when you go to foriegn lands you are to live by the anointed of the foreign land; the conquering christians of western europe did the opposite, and we have to deal with that. At the same time, Christ says that He has ‘other’ sheep who will also hear his voice. Surely the two together invite us reasonably to consider a God that transends the Bible.
Further, a creationist commitment, in the face of the facts that present, is an invitation for one to loose one’s mind, to achieve the state of nirvanva if done in faith. Considering our goal, this is not a bad thing if we are honest about it. A literalist, communal consciousness, perspective (where ‘man’ means ‘hand’ rather than ‘human animal’) allows meaningful discussion in sanity prior to the honest blowing out.
Hmmm… I’ve nver thought of it as a ‘blownout’ like blowing out a candle; it’s always been a ‘blown to pieces’ sort of thing. I like the candle thing better.
Hello F(r)iends,
No and no. Maybe you are one of those that is meant to accept only your structured, authorative god. You have free will, and within the concept of this “maybe god” you are free to take any path available to you. Which includes obeying and believing exclusively in your Judeo-Christian god…
Understandable. But it doesn’t matter if the “maybe god” exists. Also, I know the bible well, Ned. You can check out a variety of my threads relating to biblical theology.
That’s a damned good question. I don’t know the answer.
How about this for starters:
Rule 1 - People have free will and may choose to exercise it or not.
Now, why don’t you start helping think of the rules that could potentially exist?
In some states crimes are punishable by death. Other states do not have capital punishment. Why can’t we let the locals deal with it as they see fit? After all, a community should know what is best for them than a distant governmental force? If god exists, then god has given us great tools for which to deal with the consequences of free will—> reason, logic, conscience, thought, et al.
We don’t know much about god…
What little we know, we argue over.
-Thirst
Ned,
Does he not also say for I am a jelouse and angry god? Is jelouseness or anger not considered a “Human” emotion and one Jesus himself rebukes and calls evil?
I do not remember the exact quotes but I believe it was stated when he was giving moses the ten comandment. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Preceded this statement I think.
And if Your bible does not say this Ned and your god is indeed not limitless and canot do everything. Then indeed he is not a GOD.
I can not count how many christians believe that God is supremem all powerful and can do anything. it is one of the core motivators in converting others and the core belief that holds this Faith together. Anything is possible through God (or faith in) I think is the quote they use the most.
You yourself Ned have just Torn apart your own belief with a question you thought to confound me, which is now apparent to everyone. I am guessing you will not see it as before I have stated you are blinded by your own want and need for this faith to be real.
This is an argument you will “not” win with me. Knowledge and experiance are my wepon, Faith and qoutations from a book writen by the hand of man and suposedly influenced by a metaphysical being, is yours.
You must quote words from that book to be correct, I do not. If your book does not say it in your mind it canot be. Whereas I need no book to tell me what is and is not does and does not. No being of supremacy to tell me what is right or wrong,good or evil, holy or unholy. (also “Human” concepts)
But you will keep trying because you are unable and unprepared to exist in a world without such a finite existance.
Can you tell me what passage from the OT are you thinking of?
Remember Jesus was speaking to Jews. The “other sheep” are obviously gentile believers, not gentile unbelievers. The surprise that gentiles would have access to God through the cross is clearly laid out in the book of Acts. Elsewhere in the NT it is clear that gentile unbelievers will be condemned to hell. So, no I do not think your suggestion is a resaonable possibility.
I think we’re at the point where you need to more clearly define your maybe God. Rather than actually being a “God” he just seems to be a negative statement of what you believe God is not.
This is the heart of the matter. Your God is completely undefined which makes it easy for you to imagine that he can incorporate every concept imaginable in other religions. Actually this is not too different from blind faith, belief without any definition. My contention is that you either have no God at all, or you prefer not to define him at all. Either way, it’s not a very developed concept, and I struggle to see how it is of any use to you.
It should be obvious that I wont be of much help to you with your “rules” since I already have a set of well developed “rules” about who God is and how he behaves from the bible.
But if I step outside of that for a moment, I would say the most important “federal issue” to sort out, is whether your “maybe God” is a God who has the power and/or willingness to intervene in human history. If you answer “no”, then your “maybe God” is very distant and may actually be unknowable. If you answer “yes”, then you have a wealth of information to sift through, since you have to determine at what points he has previously intervened, and also at what points he has NOT intervened. Thus the whole of history becomes a story that can reveal the character of your God. Plus, if he has the power and willingness to intervene in human events, he may actually be able to reveal himself to you personally, …if you ask him to.
I asked for a bible verse that says God is limitless. You did not provide one, therefore your previous statement is entirely without support. And I assume that some of your other statements about what Christianity is, or is not, should be taken with a pinch of salt.
Really? So you are the sole owner of the job description for God? Where do you get these strange ideas from?
This is actually quite funny. You are attempting to teach me what Christians believe and what motivates them. Let’s just say I have the inside track on that particular issue and I disagree with you. And here is the context of the verse that you were thinking of.
Matthew 19
23Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” 25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” 26Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
You might want to ask what the disciples thought was “impossible”, before you start to digest what “all things are possible” means.
On the contrary, you have demoinstrated yourself to be ignorant of the basic principles of the Christian faith. Many of your assumptions about what Christians believe are simply wrong.
I don’t care about winning any argument. I care about the truth.
Hello F(r)iends,
This “maybe god” is largely undefined, but that’s why I am asking you to contribute.
I think that a god that established free will would not interfere with the process.
Any intervention would affect free will…
Free will and butterfly wings, once touched they won’t get off the ground.
-Thirst
What is the purpose of this delicate free will? Either, there is no purpose and excercising free will is an experiment largely for God’s entertainment, or God has a specific desire in our excercise of free will. If he has a specific direction that he would like us to go with our free will, it seems logical that he would make that direction known. And this would involve a certain degree of intervention.
Sorry, no; i just remember reading it in there some where.
I think this point about the gentiles makes my suggestion more reasonable, not less. If one is forgiven for blasphemy against the Father and Son, but not against the Holy spirit, then what must these gentile believers believe? That the thread from which Zeus dangles the other gods is the holy spirit? Is that enough? There’s no reason to think not.
Hello F(r)iends,
Ned,
Free will and “specific direction” are incompatible.
Either there is free will in which we are led in any direction…
Or there is no free will.
Free will or determinism, make a choice… 
Entertainment?
If there is free will with direction…
Then we are rats in a maze for god’s entertainment anyways!
-Thirst