GOD - CHRIST - ALLAH <the thread about them>

Welcome to the thread about the nature of god, I’m gonna start this off with christ<god<holy spirit.

His nature is perfection, omniscient and all present.

yet, somehow with all those attributes he still “desired” to create us and our world, and within that omniscient globe of him knowing all, we somehow have free will. My answer to this is simple, we have free will because this god does not exist.

The second problem is that christ is based upon about 10 other mythical god-men all of whom sacrificed themselves. So what does occams razor tell us? that christ was an actual person who just happened to be similiar to these pagan stories of god men? or the story of christ is a mix of fact and fiction?

Hi scyth,

What is the basis for the assigned attributes? Is it possible for a creator to not have these attributes? How would you ‘know’?

Are you making a distinction between the mythology of ‘christos’ and the man Jesus of nazareth?

JT

well the mythical figurehead of christos is definately different than yeshua of nazarene.

nazareth wasn’t yet a town in the era of yeshua of nazarene’s life. :wink:

the basis being the typical christian (any sect I believe) assumption that god carries these attributes and since christ is god in their eyes he also carries these attributes.

edit:

I guess we can’t know and that’s really my point here. Most of the attributes currently assigned to god by religion are ultra-anthropomorphications. Like YaHWeH, is an OMITS (Old Man In The Sky) god, and carries many human attributes, as well as one non human attribute… immortality.

The evolution of godhood is very interesting, god went from polytheistic origins (the sun, the moon, the stars storms volcanos, earthquakes etc.) to henotheistic origins, (more than one god but one great god, this was the short transition period between 1400 - 900 BCE.) to monotheistic origins. where at the time (900 - I believe about 1500 AD) They attributed “heaven” as being just up in the clouds. And the stars were fixed points in the earths atmosphere. (the earth was the center of the universe, and we were god’s “aquarium” so to speak.) At about 1500 AD copernicus found that the heavens don’t contain heaven or god, and we are not the center of the universe. This changed god slowly over the next couple of centuries from being an actual physically touchable god, to being a supernatural god.

during this whole time, god has been sitting in the corner watching our corner of the universe out of the corner of his eye. What we know of god has been taught to us by men. Men shaped god in their own image. Do you want to follow a man, or a god? What is god?

God is our id. God is our morals. God is our compassion. God is our understanding. We are god.

i wish i said this long ago on this board, but why exactly did god tell abraham (was that who?) to not sacrifice his son? was it because the value of abrahams son was greater than the good accomplished by his sacrifice? so god told abraham that the intrinsic value of a human being is so great, that sacrificing him to forgive your sins is not worth it.

god values his own son less than yours. and he also requires a physical death in order to be able to forgive sins, and he is all powerful… no further comment.

so anyway back to reality, there is no reason to say god is perfect. it is silly and clearly it leads to arguments as to why a perfect god does this and that.

theres no reason to say that god ‘desired’ to do anything or that he knows everything. for all we know, theres plenty of ‘gods’ out there in the metauniverse, and a ‘god’ is what all of our souls combined are. when a god gets worn out from doing his godly business, he goes to ‘sleep’ to rejuvinate himself.

that ‘sleep’ is when he breaks himself up into his individual parts and corrects some broken part of each of them. the way to correct this broken part is to test the moral decision making and if the individual part does not make the right choices, reincarnate it somewhere else under different conditions until some kind of usefulness happens to it and fixes it.

you can say a million and one things that happen out there that fit the evidence we see, you cant say why exactly any of them are impossible (not if i say them). please try again.

Now that is an interesting angle I never thought of. Abrahams son wasn’t worth a sin sacrifice but god>christ>son was.

but abraham is just a mythos about the beginning of judaism, and the origins of circumcision.

but critical analysis would reveal at least two interpretations:

  1. because of abrahams willingness to sacrifice his son all mankind has been saved:
  1. god would provide the “lamb for the sacrifice”

but of course the latter interpretation is really stretching it.

so in order for god to forgive our sins… we must kill as many lambs as we possibly can. oh wait jesus is the super lamb i forgot. that sacrifice makes up for our sins because when this wise man was walking around helping people, we took him, tortured him and killed him. clearly this sacrifice on our part makes up for our sins in the same exact way as the lamb. logic who huh?

christians and jews! answer this: which of the following two possible interpretations of this quote are more useful for humanity and which SHOULD be the one that both churches preach about:

  1. god is impotent in that he is unable to forgive your sins unless you kill something in his name, or believe that he killed something in your name a while ago, in a specifically defined ceremony that you must constantly recreate.
    Lesson: without killing something, you are fully accountable for your sins.

  2. god wants us to be ultimately selfless. i cant think of anything in the world i would selfishly care about more than my son (you know, vicariously selfish). theres nothing else i wouldnt kill first.
    abraham, by giving up his son, is saying that he would give up everything for god. god says ‘yes, good abraham, do not selfishly hold anything to yourself, not even your most valued material possesion.’
    Lesson: be very selfless

which one of these things ends up luring people to a weekly ceremony where they can be enticed to donate money for better, more beautiful sacrificing equipment?

BOOYA

I’ve always seen the story of Abraham as a lesson that one must give up or release anything and everything that is considered valuable or precious (a son would fit that description) to be in the grace of that which is creator. It is in the rejection of dualism that one is ‘saved’ from ‘sin’. Of course, my interpretation won’t be made into a movie. It isn’t as poetic as the biblical account.

JT

damn double post!!!

tentative, that raises the question. Why? why would god demand such an outrageous sacrifice to have Abram show his loyalty to him? It’s totally outrageous if god asked me to kill my son to show my love for him I’m sorry I’m saying no. Damn me to hell. A child deserves to live.

I’m not sure what you mean when you speak of “dualism”. Elaborate please?

I would say that “god” doesn’t want us to become attached to physical and material possessions. and in attached I mean “enamored”

I.E. The object or possession becomes as or more important than people in your life, and causes you to push people out of your life.

the problem with that interpretation is that it wasn’t about the “possession” or “love” towards the child that was important. This passage after thinking about it more is telling the early jews that you should love god more than your own children, and kill your children if god whims it so.

scyth,

You’re going to have to forgive poetic license here. Look ‘behind’ the story line. God didn’t ask or demand that Abraham sacrifice his only son.(literally) Abraham simply realized that he could allow nothing (even his own son) to come between him and God. The allusion to physical sacrifice was used to illustrate the necessary detachment of things of this earth to avoid the deadliest of sin - to make that which is creator separate from oneself. Abraham wasn’t about to physically sacrifice his son, (I don’t care what Cecil B Demille thought) but he understood that even something that extreme would be preferable to allowing God to become externalized in his own life. It is a very emotional, visual dramatization of our need to keep God within us.

This probably isn’t an adequate explanation for those with the plastic Jesus on the dash and the little fish on the trunk lid. :unamused:

JT

no that’s just dogma and consumerism at play. by spending money on jesus fish they are admitted to heaven. :unamused:

I prefer the fish decals with the “IXTHUS” written in them. But that’s just greek and consumerism at play. By spending money on ancient languages we can call ourselves intellectuals.

You say “(judiasm is a combination of Egyptian religion and Sumer religion.)” which doesn’t fit the legend of Abraham, who rejected his father’s many idols. Don’t know where you see the resemblances with Egypt; no animal-gods in judiasm either.

Finally, if anyone is interested, i once read a very interesting explanation of the Isaac sacrifice on a college website by a philosophy professor. Wish i could refer you to it, but it’s not online anymore. I mention it just so you know there are more interesting expositions of the passage out there.

my real name

The one thing that the story of Abraham does appear to tell us is that human sacrifice was the norm at one stage in this part of the world, just as it was until a much later stage in the Americas

Hi scyth,

OK, let’s try another tack. “That which is called the Tao (way) is not the Tao (way).” The story of Abraham is not about a jealous god demanding sacrifice. It is about a man who intuitively came to the realization that the “way” was not allowing anything of this world to separate him from his creator. And yes, even his family. By letting everything go, he obtained everything.

I agree that the story was written to conform to the language, customs, and practices of the times. And in the many translations the story was made to point at “christos” as the ultimate sacrifice.

Isn’t it interesting that in his internal dialogue with god Abraham discovered that sacrifice wasn’t necessary? That sacrifice for sin only became necessary when man externalized creator?

There isn’t anything ancient or modern in this interpretation. It has been with us since the first human said “I”.

Please feel free to disagree with everything I’ve written.

JT

actually I’m saying that Abraham is a fictional character made to support moses legendary god. He may be based on an actual historical character like Moses is, but it’s unlikely god actually came and talked to him like the story depicts.

I still say you are reading into it what you want to see. I find it very doubtful the writer or abraham were interested in following the “tao” of god. Seriously the middle eastern religious developments up until christ (the actual spiritual leader not the one that is taught by religions) taught the importance of strict dogmas. I mean… god STILL got his blood sacrifice, a goat that was sitting innocently caught in a bramble brush on the hill. (that they say god supplied)

so the blood sacrifice for sin was still necessary, and abraham got to keep his son because he held god higher than his own son. So the question becomes… what is more important? Your flesh and blood children? or an imaginary being that lives in the sky and demands blood sacrifices for sins he created?

I realize I’m stretching it a bit here. But my point is when imaging god we’ve got to stretch it a bit. We’ve got two incompatible worlds. The real and the unreal. God lives in the unreal. Nothing tangible can test him. Yet… that wasn’t always the case. Mohammed talked to an angel in a cave. He believed that god was a physical being. Early christians believed christ was god in physical form. Jews believed that Moses talked to god in a cloud on top of Mt. Sinai.

I mean… we no longer have such a believable concept of god. We’ve become grounded in the reality of science and naturalism. Where has it left the meaning of life? Where has it left our purpose? is there a purpose to helping others without an afterlife? yet, how can we possibly believe in a god that we now know is just complete anthropomorphication?

that’s my agnostic side coming out JT,

gladly, because I know you won’t take it as personally as others here.

-MB

definately, when moses came on the scene he changed the sacrifice to just animals, then the creators of chrisitanity changed it to one grand sacrifice from christ.

i think the the early believers in jesus realized that sacrificng something is stupid. it doesnt make any sense unless god said it himself to them specifically.

there is a problem with humans in that they WANT to sacrifice something. since they failed at sacrificing themselves (in any personaly annoyance way)-o, and come sunday mass those failures are on their mind. they WANT to see that lamb suffer and die.

they also want to see the waste of their nice food (sacrifical lamb)down the drain. this destruction of food that could have made them happy will now force them to be unhappy so that they may reflect upon their sins and what juicy lambchops they wont be eating in return for their commiting of those sins.

this is purely a unique psychological reaction to the unusual gain of good. if youre an animal, theres only so much good you can get at the expense of others. nature naturally aims at an equilibirum. if youre a human, there are all kinds of complicated things you can selfishly take, and when you do, someday youll feel that you should pay them back.

both we and animals want to get ourselves back to equilibrium. the pain in our lives equalling the good.

the problem happened when that sacrifice that all humans want to do was exploited by a smart rich man. the rich man introduced beliefs that would result in money for him. he would say ‘the way to aleive your guilt is to eat crackers, or give money to the poor, or me, muahaha yes of course ill give it to the poor’

this ritual is a thing that humans require. its hard to ACTUALLY alleviate guilt. if you can trust that some superman is able to do the job, then youve got too much stress in your life to avoid freaking super man who everybody in the country believes can heal the sins youve commited.

people believe in organized religion becaue they are afraid that the priests/bishops know something about how to get into heaven that they dont know. they just want to get as close to them and follow their rules as closely as possible.

wow drunk, im going to guess that this post made sense. if not, you now know why

my real name:

some interesting sites:

Zoroastrian influences:

mithraism.erudition.net/append/passage4.htm

askwhy.co.uk/judaism/0260IranGods.html

and this one

winternet.com/~swezeyt/bible/swezorig.htm

a summarized history of judaism to christianity

Topic 1. All mankind would still have existed had Abraham not chosen to slay his son. God could have destroyed Abraham and could have destroyed Isaac but Isaac was not the only son of Abraham. Ishmael was also Abraham’s son and the covenant was not made with Ishmael.

Topic 2. Why did god not establish his covenant with Ishmael also? Is this an example of the authors of the story trying to establish “His chosen people?”

Topic 3. Why did god make Ishmael’s fate to live with his hand against everyone. Read GENESIS 16:11-12. Seems very unfair…

Topic 4. Why is it a stretch?

Assuming there was a god, he spoke to Abraham, he sent an angel to stop the slaughter of Isaac, he blessed Abraham after Abraham passed the test… Why is it a stretch? Did you mean the former (topic 1) was a stretch?