If God is real ...

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

ALG: I disagree. I think the whole thing with Jesus being God might help Him with some of these miracles. I think it's pretty clear that if He is God, He could do things that we cannot. He was both God and man, so had the abilities of both God and man.

Your point is that although Jesus could perform miracles, this was because of his divine nature, and it does not follow that other human beings can also perform miracles.

I have two comments. Firstly, your point takes nothing away from my earlier point that if Jesus indeed performed such miracles, then the universe is definitely not as our normal five senses and our high school science textbooks tell us it is.

For if our normal five senses and high-school science textbooks are correct, then Jesus simply cannot have performed those miracles. They defy Newtonian physics and the Law of Gravity, among other things. If we do accept that those miracles did occur, then today, if a Christian comes across some reported account of a paranormal event (eg a channeling of some non-physical entity; or a "miraculous" healing), it would be actually ILLOGICAL for the Christian to say: "Oh that is impossible BECAUSE we know from science that things simply doesn't work that way."

Secondly, according to the same Bible, miracles were performed not just by Jesus, but by the other apostles as well. In fact, miracles were also performed by people like Saul / Paul, who never met Jesus in person at all. As a matter of fact, the same Bible tells us that before the time of Christ himself, there were already various interesting humans like Moses, who parted seas; transformed sticks into snakes; sent plagues of locusts etc.

So clearly, even according to the Bible itself, the bringing about of paranormal events was by no means limited to one human being, Jesus, alone.

The gospels end where they end, but they ended only because of the Church's canonisation (which you can think of as the Church officially declaring: "Ok, the story ends here"). If not for the canonisation, the story would just go on and on.

As a matter of fact, the story of God does go on and on, it hasn't ended, except that these parts of the story don't get recorded as part of the canonical gospels. You look at the story of the early Christian mystics, the paranormal events just go on and on, eg:

1. Joan of Arc and her visions of God;

2. bilocation (the phenomenon or ability of being, or appearing to be, located in two places at the same instant in time) exhibited by Saint Alphonsus Liguori; Saint Anthony of Padua; Maria de Agreda; Pope Cyril VI of Alexandria;

3. levitation by Saint Francis Xavier, Saint Gemma Galgani; Saint Ignatius Loyola; Saint John Joseph of the Cross; Saint Thomas Aquinas

4. the stigmata phenomenon (too many to name)

Etc etc etc.

It isn't as if reports of such paranormal events are limited to people strongly associated with Christianity. In fact, every religion has its fair share of such paranormal events. In the ancient Indian spiritual teachings for example, walking on water is quite commonly reported among the Indian holy men. Among their kind, it's not considered a particularly interesting ability.

All this suggests that if God is the source of such paranormal events, He may not be very fussy or particular about whether you call him Jehovah, Brahman, Allah, Gaia or Kuan Yin .... or if you give him a name at all.

In more modern times, the paranormal events still go on. You get weird folks like Matthew Manning who reportedly do all the same stuff that the early Christian mystics did, except that Matthew isn't particularly religious. You go check out the churches and mosques and temples and synagogues and monasteries around the world today - the paranormal events go on and on. You have folks like Neale Donald Walsch who talk to God directly all the time (and supposedly He talks right back). You also have folks like Erin Pavlina who happily hold conversations with the souls of the departed on a regular basis. Etc etc etc.

No doubt some of these events are fraudulent or mistaken or fictitious. But is it logical to think that ALL of them are? Did Jesus say at the Transfiguration, "I'm the last miracle performer, after I go up to the sky carried by these shining angels, no other authentic miracles should occur?". Nope. And if we do accept that the miracles reported in the Gospels are true, what basis do we have to believe that miracles will cease to occur, right at the point that the Church decided to officially end the story?

[mark7]

All this suggests that if God is the source of such paranormal events, He may not be very fussy or particular about whether you call him Jehovah or Brahman or Allah or Gaia or Ra .... or if you give him a name at all
************************************************** *******
i can petty much agree with everything your saying, as i said i think the word of god has been given to all nations in some form or other, we just call him by a different name, because of cultural and language differences,

the problem is most of these texts have been medeld with by man to suit his own objectives, which can only add confusion and devision between nations.
so people must learn to see past mans medeling and word play, such as the canonising of the bible in order to see the truth, will we ever find it ?
well apparently so if we take the time to look

Matthew 7:7-8 - Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.

Matthew 6:33 - But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.

if you simple dissmiss all these teachings because the human mind seems it to be implausible or impossible or fantasticated you will never know,

[NightSpirit]

Originally Posted by The Cloud

If God is passive-aggressive enough to have requirements for us that haven't been made absolutely clear, then I simply see no point in playing His game. I've no desire to put up with that in people, let alone my supposed Lord and Savior. A God that expects me to unconditionally love and follow Him despite the lack of evidence supporting His very existence is no God for me, nor is a God that creates rules that are GUARANTEED to be broken by EVERYONE created to follow those rules. Such laws, laws that are impossible to follow, are created in corrupt governments so that the leaders have a legal excuse to threaten or exercise force against people if they are becoming obstinate..

Now we know what kind of God you don't want. So can you tell us about the God you do know or believe in?

Your description of the God of the Bible is inaccurate but assuming it was true that He is like that, why do you think we would choose to go along with it? Do you think it is that we are following a pretend God? Or is it that we are desperate for a God and will take any God we can get, even a cruel one?

Why do so many people, including myself, say they have peace and joy with this corrupt God that can't be pleased and is out to get us?

Are we to be just dismissed as deluded fools or is it possible you may be misunderstanding something?

Originally Posted by The Cloud

But who are you to decide what parts matter? That is your interpretation. Not only is that your interpretation, but it is your interpretation of other men's interpretations of other men's interpretations. The Bible has been translated and re-written many times over the course of history, and had countless opportunities for modification or mistranslation. It's very contents have been censored by the Catholic church; there are scrolls that have not been incorporated, for political reasons most likely.

The books in the Bible were written by various people before and after Jesus over the span of thousands of years. The Catholic Church did decide which books were included in the Bible but some of the books in there also come from the Jews and I think they have guarded theirs against mistakes pretty well since about 3000 years ago. Much of the NT consists of direct and indirect quotes from the OT.

Forgetting about the books they left out for a second, which we can read if we want, who do you think is in charge of this conspiracy to twist and manipulate the books that are included in the Bible and for what purpose? Have the Jews and the Catholics been working together for thousands of years to control us all with the Bible? Do you dismiss all of the Bible because some of it may have been tampered with or do you actually have some knowledge of major changes to the text that altered the meaning?

The whole Bible, Old and New Testament, has in it the underlying theme of freedom from the law and religion and is about our liberty in God. It is a story of the love and mercy of God. As pianoperformer alluded to earlier, what did it profit the Apostles to write the NT and then be tortured and die rather than to deny the words they had written and what they told people they had seen?

Maybe there is a word or two that could have multiple meanings and they chose the wrong one in translation but we don't worship the book anyway. We worship the God of the creation that the book is about and He says there are no rules but to love Him and love your neighbor as yourself.

The Bible says Jesus came to us, sent from God with a message. What is that message? That God is your Father, that He loves you and wants your permission to come into you and guide you by His Spirit, to become one with you so you may know Him.

So did Jesus lie? Have you found that there is there no God that comes in if you ask Him? Are all the people for the last two thousand years who say, like me, that they have felt Him come in and feel His love and know His guidance, are all of them lying too and conspiring with each other?

I don't understand why you wouldn't want what Jesus described but assuming you don't, what then? Well, eventually He will stop asking and
leave you as you are, to trust in your own power and find your pleasure and love wherever you want and you can live your whole life and then die.

After that? Who knows? I don't know because I haven't been there yet. I could tell you what Jesus said would happen but I have to trust that by faith whereas I already know the first part of the message is true. I came to God because of the love and to be close to Him and learn from Him...as well as to to be forgiven.

Is it the unfairness in the story of Jesus that you don't like, that you have to agree before God comes in? Or is it that you think He is already in just because you are alive? Great! So is He? Already in, I mean? What's that like?

Originally Posted by The Cloud

Perfection by its very nature does not allow for imperfection.

Would you elaborate on this concept, please?

[12345]

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

If we take these principles and use them to have our own power outside of God then LOA can become our religion of self.

I couldn’t agree more!

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

The entire Bible, OT and NT is about Jesus and it's the same God in both. Jesus is described as the fulfillment of all creation and that the fullness of God dwells in Him. It is possible for Jesus to be revealing aspects of Himself to people in other religions and still be the only way to God at the same time.

I also think this is possible. For those who have never had the opportunity to hear about Jesus, I truly believe God will not hold it against them. I believe that God will first judge their hearts (i.e., how they have lived their lives with respect to what they know is right and what is wrong), then allow those who have truly done what they believe is right in their hearts to choose to accept Christ. I don’t believe that anyone who will be given this opportunity by Christ will reject it, because they unknowingly chose to embrace the spirit of Him in their earthly lives even though they may not have had any other choice than to adhere to another religion entirely. I think it all comes down to what opportunities we have been given to hear Christ, and how we respond to them. If the only opportunities third world countries are given for hearing Christianity are through quack Christian televangelists, for example, I don’t think God would consider these as genuine opportunities to respond to Him and thus would not hold it against them.

God bless to all.

[philm]

Originally Posted by mark7

hmmm it says "US" not me or i or him, but US

Ok i get it. Finally. "It" meaning but God as well as the United States.

seriously though how will this knowledge improve the taste of my coffee ?

[mark7]

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over
all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth
upon the earth.

lol read the passage

throughout the bible, the wording is plural, not singular

so if i meaning just me says, "right i am going to wash my car"
i dont mean me myself and i, i dont mean me and someone else,
i mean me, just me , singular.

but if you read the bible you will constantly find that god is
refering to doing or making things in a plural tense, its not rocket science lol

i wouldnt say right us is gong to clean my car, or us is going to have a coffee

ha ha ha mad lol, gramatical context of words is what it is

right us is going to sleep for a while, see all of you multidimentional peoples later lol

[philm]

Mark,

The Bible is still a book & books can only take you so far. They're an artifical substitute for your life & will take you away from yourself.

take care & be careful : )

[Maguru]

Maguru:

I'm sure you will agree you are indeed not perfect. I'm sure you have made mistakes, or have done things you wish you hadn't. I'm sure you have been tempted to do something you believed to be wrong. I'm sure you have lied, hated, judged. If you've done any of these, you are not perfect.

Further, if there is a God, I believe He would have His own standards of morality. Perfection would be in comparison to those standards.

Everyone is offended from time to time. Maybe it shows something about ourselves that we are offended, or maybe it is just because, as I said, no one is perfect.

I also think everyone judges, and is something we all try not to do. You speak of it above like it is some novel concept to you, and you have no idea why anyone has trouble with it, but I think it is a universal concept and vice.

My asking why it is so difficult 'not to judge' was a genuine question. If we are to remove judgement then we have to remove the cause which I believe are unrealistic expectations without understanding.

It is your judgement that I am not perfect in comparison to godly qualities but I fit in perfectly with the rest of humanity.

Why can't we all be perfect within our humanity instead of imperfect in the eyes of unattainable self-righteousness?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by mark7

lol read the passage

throughout the bible, the wording is plural, not singular

Hardly. See for example Exodus 3:15, where God introduces Himself to Moses ... in the singular, not plural.

Furthermore the Christian God is traditionally referred to as a "He"; not a "Her" and not a "They".

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by philm

How are you so sure God refers to Himself as "Us" ? do you have a direct line with God ?

The Bible says it. See mark7's post.

Originally Posted by mark7

hmmm it says "US" not me or i or him, but US

Because there is also Christ there. He was long around before he came to earth.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Your point is that although Jesus could perform miracles, this was because of his divine nature, and it does not follow that other human beings can also perform miracles.

I have two comments. Firstly, your point takes nothing away from my earlier point that if Jesus indeed performed such miracles, then the universe is definitely not as our normal five senses and our high school science textbooks tell us it is.

For if our normal five senses and high-school science textbooks are correct, then Jesus simply cannot have performed those miracles. They defy Newtonian physics and the Law of Gravity, among other things. If we do accept that those miracles did occur, then today, if a Christian comes across some reported account of a paranormal event (eg a channeling of some non-physical entity; or a "miraculous" healing), it would be actually ILLOGICAL for the Christian to say: "Oh that is impossible BECAUSE we know from science that things simply doesn't work that way."

Secondly, according to the same Bible, miracles were performed not just by Jesus, but by the other apostles as well. In fact, miracles were also performed by people like Saul / Paul, who never met Jesus in person at all. As a matter of fact, the same Bible tells us that before the time of Christ himself, there were already various interesting humans like Moses, who parted seas; transformed sticks into snakes; sent plagues of locusts etc.

So clearly, even according to the Bible itself, the bringing about of paranormal events was by no means limited to one human being, Jesus, alone.

The gospels end where they end, but they ended only because of the Church's canonisation (which you can think of as the Church officially declaring: "Ok, the story ends here"). If not for the canonisation, the story would just go on and on.

As a matter of fact, the story of God does go on and on, it hasn't ended, except that these parts of the story don't get recorded as part of the canonical gospels. You look at the story of the early Christian mystics, the paranormal events just go on and on, eg:

1. Joan of Arc and her visions of God;

2. bilocation (the phenomenon or ability of being, or appearing to be, located in two places at the same instant in time) exhibited by Saint Alphonsus Liguori; Saint Anthony of Padua; Maria de Agreda; Pope Cyril VI of Alexandria;

3. levitation by Saint Francis Xavier, Saint Gemma Galgani; Saint Ignatius Loyola; Saint John Joseph of the Cross; Saint Thomas Aquinas

4. the stigmata phenomenon (too many to name)

Etc etc etc.

It isn't as if reports of such paranormal events are limited to people strongly associated with Christianity. In fact, every religion has its fair share of such paranormal events. In the ancient Indian spiritual teachings for example, walking on water is quite commonly reported among the Indian holy men. Among their kind, it's not considered a particularly interesting ability.

All this suggests that if God is the source of such paranormal events, He may not be very fussy or particular about whether you call him Jehovah, Brahman, Allah, Gaia or Kuan Yin .... or if you give him a name at all.

In more modern times, the paranormal events still go on. You get weird folks like Matthew Manning who reportedly do all the same stuff that the early Christian mystics did, except that Matthew isn't particularly religious. You go check out the churches and mosques and temples and synagogues and monasteries around the world today - the paranormal events go on and on. You have folks like Neale Donald Walsch who talk to God directly all the time (and supposedly He talks right back). You also have folks like Erin Pavlina who happily hold conversations with the souls of the departed on a regular basis. Etc etc etc.

No doubt some of these events are fraudulent or mistaken or fictitious. But is it logical to think that ALL of them are? Did Jesus say at the Transfiguration, "I'm the last miracle performer, after I go up to the sky carried by these shining angels, no other authentic miracles should occur?". Nope. And if we do accept that the miracles reported in the Gospels are true, what basis do we have to believe that miracles will cease to occur, right at the point that the Church decided to officially end the story?

ALG, those who also performed miracles had the backing of God.

Anyone who believes in God will obviously admit that God can do things humans cannot (e.g., creating the universe, lol).

[fellowtraveler]

Originally Posted by philm

seriously though how will this knowledge improve the taste of my coffee ?

LOL.

There ya go. The Church of Starbucks...

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by philm

Ok i get it. Finally. "It" meaning but God as well as the United States.

seriously though how will this knowledge improve the taste of my coffee ?

Please keep this thread serious. I want to have an intelligent discussion about religion, which can't happen when people attack it without giving second thought.

Originally Posted by Maguru

My asking why it is so difficult 'not to judge' was a genuine question. If we are to remove judgement then we have to remove the cause which I believe are unrealistic expectations without understanding.

It is your judgement that I am not perfect in comparison to godly qualities but I fit in perfectly with the rest of humanity.

Why can't we all be perfect within our humanity instead of imperfect in the eyes of unattainable self-righteousness?

Why can't we admit we are imperfect, and will always be as long as we are in this world? There's not one person I know who would say they are perfect.

[mark7]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark7
lol read the passage

throughout the bible, the wording is plural, not singular

Hardly. See for example Exodus 3:15, where God introduces Himself to Moses ... in the singular, not plural.

Furthermore the Christian God is traditionally referred to as a "He"; not a "Her" and not a "They".
************************************************** **********************

ok cleaver cloggs
explain this away to me then,

"Elohim," one of the primary titles of God in the Old Testament (occurring over 2500 times), is in the plural.

Adonai is plural

only the word Adon is singular which occurs very rarely in the bible

now try and tell me god is singular ha ha ha

[mark7]

oh forgot to add:
Elohim is also plural.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

ALG, those who also performed miracles had the backing of God.

Sure, if you like to put it that way .... but this only goes back to questions like:

1. who does God back;
2. how does one get God's backing;
3. what is God anyway;
4. if God is in all things, aren't you just an extension of God yourself;
5. if God is omniscient and omnipresent, how could you EVER do anything without God's involvement anyway.

Also you may be interested in noting the distinction between performing a miracle, and being the beneficiary of it. For example, Jesus performs a healing miracle, and the sick person is the instant beneficiary of it. The only pre-requisite, according to the Bible, is that the sick person needs to have faith.

If you really stare at it, you'll see that "faith" is pretty hard to define. What exactly must the person have faith in?

(1) That the strange-looking man standing in front here who just introduced himself as "Jesus from Nazareth" can heal me?

(2) That the strange-looking man standing in front here who just introduced himself as "Jesus from Nazareth" is the Son of God?

(3) That I may be healed, I don't know how exactly, but somehow it is just possible?

(4) That I may be healed, I don't know how exactly, but somehow it is not merely possible, but absolutely certain to happen, because of God?

(5) That I may be healed, I don't know how exactly, but somehow it is just absolutely certain to happen, because of some mysterious powerful force in the universe that cares for me?

(6) That I may be healed, I don't know how exactly, but somehow it is just absolutely certain to happen?

Etc etc. You'll see that the distinctions in the formulations above can be quite fine; they slide into each other quite fluidly. For example, if (4) works, why not (5), and if (5) works, why not (6)?

And if (5) and (6) work, why would people not see paranormal events (like miracles) occur in their lives, just by the fact that they held complete faith (or a strong belief) that a certain result would occur ....... WHETHER they actually believed in "God" or not?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by mark7

now try and tell me god is singular ha ha ha

It doesn't really matter to me. If you read my earlier post where I discussed the pantheistic point, you might see that.

Whether we describe "God" as singular or plural, in the end it's only our description. The singular/plural distinction is merely a concept we've applied to another concept we call "God".

Remember my previous illustration? I said that I, ALG, may appear to be one kind of person to my family members; another kind of person to be my friends; another kind of person to my colleagues.

"I", ALG, have no absolute reality. Apart from the fact that my mind & body are changing all the time, people may also perceive "me" in very different ways. For example, in Pianoperformer's reality, I may be an arrogant son of a b**** who always says he's wrong, but in other people's realities, I may be a completely different kind of person.

Just as "I" have no absolute reality, God may be said not to have an absolute reality either. In fact the more complex a "thing" is, the less likely it is to have an absolute reality. Ultimately, even a solid object like a stone or a spoon has no absolute reality since it is composed of subatomic particles unpredictably popping in and out of existence.

Thus a discussion of whether God is "singular" or "plural" is of limited use. ALG himself would appear to be a different kind of person, to different people in different contexts. Would you say that ALG is a singular or plural entity? Whatever you please. Same for God.

Today, "God" may present Itself/Themselves as a burning bush (as to Moses); tomorrow "God" may manifest as Jesus, a human being; the next day It/They could present as the Holy Spirit descending in tongues; another day as a big burst of talking white light (as to Saul) ......

....... It/They could jolly well present itself as Ganesha an elephantine idol; or Kuan Yin a female deity; or as a non-physical entity akin to a spirit guide; or through angels delivering messages (as to Daniel); or as a voice in Joan of Arc's or Donald Neale Walsh's head; or as the bright light at the end of the tunnel in a near-death experience; or in the form of any odd-looking "deity" (remember? Hinduism has 340 million of those) .......

You see? Do you therefore say that God is "plural"? Or "singular"? Whatever. It is not a meaningful distinction to me.

If It/They can present itself as a burning bush, then as far as I'm concerned, it is entirely possible that It/They may well present itself as a cat, or dog, or a dream, or vision, or a stone, or a feeling in your heart.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

Following the intent of the thread, why do you believe that? Instead of telling us what you believe is not, can you say what you believe is?

I think pianoperformer was wise in his OP in asking us to state why we believe what we do. It just seems so many have formed an opinion of what is right by saying they believe what they do because they think everything else is wrong.

I know none of us can prove anything, just asking what evidence that this is right proved the belief for you.

NightSpirit, I believe there is no personal, interventionist god for the same reason I believe there is no Easter Bunny. It's not that I have evidence that there is no god or easter bunny. It's that I have seen no evidence that convinces me that there IS one. The possibility exists that both god and the easter bunny are out there, but the likelihood appears about the same to me for both: that is, so small as to be insignificant.

I only mentioned to Maguru that I believe there is no personal interventionist god to let her know that my post had not been coming from a position that I can hear her "fight" with god or her belief in god and am trying to convince her of anything.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Why can't we admit we are imperfect, and will always be as long as we are in this world? There's not one person I know who would say they are perfect.

Imperfection is no excuse for being judgmental. Imperfection has no reason to tell lies. Imperfection has no reason to feel hate. Imperfection has no need of remorse or regrets. Imperfection does not make mistakes, it is a mistake. Imperfection cannot be tempted, it knows no different. Imperfection is not responsible. Imperfection denies our humanity.
If I were not perfect then I would not have had these human experiences.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by mark7

ok cleaver cloggs
explain this away to me then,

"Elohim," one of the primary titles of God in the Old Testament (occurring over 2500 times), is in the plural.

Adonai is plural

only the word Adon is singular which occurs very rarely in the bible

now try and tell me god is singular ha ha ha

Have you seen the two times I replied to your point? I have already explained why it is so.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Sure, if you like to put it that way .... but this only goes back to questions like:

1. who does God back;
2. how does one get God's backing;
3. what is God anyway;
4. if God is in all things, aren't you just an extension of God yourself;
5. if God is omniscient and omnipresent, how could you EVER do anything without God's involvement anyway.

... Snip ...

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I think you're stretching the Bible to fit your beliefs, when you don't even believe in the Bible.

Originally Posted by Maguru

Imperfection is no excuse for being judgmental. Imperfection has no reason to tell lies. Imperfection has no reason to feel hate. Imperfection has no need of remorse or regrets. Imperfection does not make mistakes, it is a mistake. Imperfection cannot be tempted, it knows no different. Imperfection is not responsible. Imperfection denies our humanity.
If I were not perfect then I would not have had these human experiences.

You're not perfect. No one is. Imperfection manifests itself in many ways. I just mentioned a few, and yes those things are imperfect, or something an imperfect person would do. Do you disagree?

We all fall short even of our own standards. If God has standards, then I imagine we fall short even more.

That's only to say we try to be better. But no one can ever say they are perfect.

[Ecce Homo]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

But no one can ever say they are perfect.

I can. In Matthew 5:48, Jesus in his famous Sermon on the Mount, teaches the listeners to “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (NIV). The word perfect here has two meanings in the original Greek. One is akin to the usual way we define it, holy, flawless, etc. The other meaning is complete. It’s in that sense that I can say that I am perfect because I am complete. The deepest part of who I am, the part "beneath" thought and emotion, is whole, without any need of addition or improvement. I Am perfect.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

You're not perfect. No one is. Imperfection manifests itself in many ways. I just mentioned a few, and yes those things are imperfect, or something an imperfect person would do. Do you disagree?

We all fall short even of our own standards. If God has standards, then I imagine we fall short even more.

That's only to say we try to be better. But no one can ever say they are perfect.

I agree from your perspective that when high universal standards are set, most will fall short of meeting them. I agree from your perspective that comparing human behaviour to an idealistic view of how it should be would appear imperfect.

However, if you are imperfect how can I trust your perspective? You make these statements as if they were facts but isn't it true that your view is simply your judgment?

Imperfection is just a 'state of mind' as is perfection.

Neither takes into consideration what it means to be human. Neither contain understanding or empathy. Neither of them are natural human states of being and both unattainable. They are merely concepts.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by Maguru

Yes, I was taught I was imperfect too. I no longer believe that to be true because perfection is variable and depends on comparisons from a human perspective.

Perhaps you could define what you mean by perfection. How about, perfection is always making the right choices? Do you always make the right choices?

I'm sorry that is not my human nature. I am much more understanding towards my transgressors because I see them as human beings first. Why is always a good question.

Your instinct comes before your sense of reason. Your instinct is your human nature. BTW, I can hear an air of superiority in your response here. I was giving you an example of following instinct and not some personal confession.

And are you better than others because of your ability to reason? Maybe if we all were perfectly rational...

Is this what is in your heart? Don't you choose to be offended? If you chose not to be offended then forgiveness would not be required.

Perhaps we can choose to be offended. But then we come back to do we always make the right choice?

And I can think of some circumstances where offense would be universal. If someone killed your family, would you be offended? If they took everything you own, would you be offended? If they slandered you and destroyed your livelihood, would you be offended?

It's nice to sit in some ivory tower and say, "I am never offended." But the reality is that all people get offended some time. What I am saying is that when we have made a wrong choice, we are presented with another choice: which is either forgive or seek revenge.

Why is it so difficult not to judge?

When people look at their own imperfection, they feel inferior. So they judge others in order to feel superior. This goes back to attempting to live up to some impossible standard. My point is that the Biblical God is not expecting you to be perfect. That's why Christ showed up in the first place.

[The Cloud]

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

Would you elaborate on this concept, please?

I'm starting with the last point first, because it seems to me to be the most important one. I am acting under the assumption that God is perfect, and that sin is imperfection. Now, I don't know what Bible you subscribe to, but in the Bible that I grew up with sin was a pretty big theme. With regards to sin, I was taught that the only man to be wholly without sin was Jesus Christ. So everybody sins, but as long as we seek forgiveness for those sins from God it will be granted.

Now, the way I figure it, sin and perfection cannot co-exist. Yet God created man, a creature that is not only capable of sin [imperfection] but is incapable of not sinning. A perfect being created imperfection. There are only two possible resolutions to this quandary; either man is perfect, or God is imperfect. Either scenario is at odds with the Biblical portrayal of man and God.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

Do you dismiss all of the Bible because some of it may have been tampered with or do you actually have some knowledge of major changes to the text that altered the meaning?

I don't dismiss all of the Bible. I merely recognize that it is just a book like any other, with no divine qualities, to be interpreted and learned from as I see fit.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

So did Jesus lie? Have you found that there is there no God that comes in if you ask Him? Are all the people for the last two thousand years who say, like me, that they have felt Him come in and feel His love and know His guidance, are all of them lying too and conspiring with each other?

I don't believe that you're wrong or that you're conspiring to trick me. In fact, I'm fairly certain that you and I have similar beliefs. The difference is the labels that are being put to those beliefs. Where you say God, I might say universe. You say you are Christian; I refuse to put a label on what I believe.

The fact that we seem to disagree so much only further indicates to me that we believe the same things. I can tolerate different beliefs, as long as they don't harm me. What I find myself arguing against the most strongly is usually people saying the same things that I believe, but using words that I don't agree with to say it. Whether or not you and I agree, the word Christian gets my hackles up and puts me on the defensive, which in turn gets your hackles up just the same.

The thing that bothers me most is when self-proclaimed Christians say that the bible must be interpreted, which I have no disagreement with, but then turn around and say that I'm going to go to Hell if I don't label my interpretations as Christian. As if somehow their interpretation of the Bible is special because they stamp the word Christian on it. I have no anger or resentment against God or Jesus. I'm not trying to be rebellious against a cruel, unjust Creator. I simply don't believe that there is a singular separate entity called God that created the universe, or that Jesus was divinely conceived. I don't doubt that you've felt His love and spirit come into you. I seek the same thing, except that I won't call it God when I find it.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

Now we know what kind of God you don't want. So can you tell us about the God you do know or believe in?

I believe in the universe. Using Occam's Razor, I have decided that the simplest explanation is that the universe has no beginning or ending, and has been around forever. The same must be said of any Creator of the universe, were there one, it is just simpler to believe that the universe had no creator and is eternal in and of itself. I also believe that there are no truly discrete parts to the universe. The objects that are labeled "You" and "Me" do not exist independent of each other. In fact, they are entirely co-dependent, neither one being what it is without the other. So the universe is as much a part of me as I am of it; that is to say, I am the universe and the universe is me. Even if God did create the universe, that would make him as much a part of the universe as you or I. In that case, God would be the universe, and the universe would be God, neither being what it is without the other. I don't have to seek God's love or open my heart to him or follow any other rules, no matter how well-intentioned. I have no need to be perfect or seek perfection, because perfection and imperfection do not exist. I just am, as is everything else.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by The Cloud

Using Occam's Razor, I have decided that the simplest explanation is that the universe has no beginning or ending, and has been around forever.

Yup .... The problem is that most people will struggle with that, because they still don't realise that time is pretty much an illusion. They don't see that whatever they may conceive the past and future to be, all past and future events are just thoughts in their heads.

Past and future are usually respectively represented by the words "memory" and "imagination", and both memory and imagination are really just bursts of electrical activity occurring in the brain synapses.

All we really have is a dynamic Now. Whenever we struggle with the past or with the future, we're just struggling with the little bursts of electrical activity in our own brain synapses.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by The Cloud

I'm starting with the last point first, because it seems to me to be the most important one. I am acting under the assumption that God is perfect, and that sin is imperfection. Now, I don't know what Bible you subscribe to, but in the Bible that I grew up with sin was a pretty big theme. With regards to sin, I was taught that the only man to be wholly without sin was Jesus Christ. So everybody sins, but as long as we seek forgiveness for those sins from God it will be granted.

Now, the way I figure it, sin and perfection cannot co-exist.

Why?

Originally Posted by The Cloud

Yet God created man, a creature that is not only capable of sin [imperfection] but is incapable of not sinning. A perfect being created imperfection. There are only two possible resolutions to this quandary; either man is perfect, or God is imperfect. Either scenario is at odds with the Biblical portrayal of man and God.

Or God gave man free will, which includes the ability to sin.

Originally Posted by The Cloud

I don't dismiss all of the Bible. I merely recognize that it is just a book like any other, with no divine qualities, to be interpreted and learned from as I see fit.

IMO, it can either be rejected in its entirety or accepted in its entirety. You can't pick and choose what seems right.

Originally Posted by The Cloud

I don't believe that you're wrong or that you're conspiring to trick me. In fact, I'm fairly certain that you and I have similar beliefs. The difference is the labels that are being put to those beliefs. Where you say God, I might say universe. You say you are Christian; I refuse to put a label on what I believe.

The fact that we seem to disagree so much only further indicates to me that we believe the same things. I can tolerate different beliefs, as long as they don't harm me. What I find myself arguing against the most strongly is usually people saying the same things that I believe, but using words that I don't agree with to say it. Whether or not you and I agree, the word Christian gets my hackles up and puts me on the defensive, which in turn gets your hackles up just the same.

Why does it put you on the defensive? We're all only expressing our beliefs.

I don't think your beliefs are really that similar to Christianity. You might believe in treating others as you would want to be treated, or loving your neighbor, but you know what the central focus of Christianity is, and if you agreed with it, well, you'd be Christian. That's what makes Christians, Christians.

Originally Posted by The Cloud

The thing that bothers me most is when self-proclaimed Christians say that the bible must be interpreted, which I have no disagreement with, but then turn around and say that I'm going to go to Hell if I don't label my interpretations as Christian. As if somehow their interpretation of the Bible is special because they stamp the word Christian on it. I have no anger or resentment against God or Jesus. I'm not trying to be rebellious against a cruel, unjust Creator. I simply don't believe that there is a singular separate entity called God that created the universe, or that Jesus was divinely conceived. I don't doubt that you've felt His love and spirit come into you. I seek the same thing, except that I won't call it God when I find it.

Then your interpretations aren't coming from the Bible. I'm really not sure what you mean here, because the overall theme of the Bible is pretty clear, whether you agree with it or not. There might be variations in how the minor details can be interpreted, but no one disputes the main premise.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Perhaps you could define what you mean by perfection. How about, perfection is always making the right choices? Do you always make the right choices?

Well no I wouldn't say it is about making right choices at all. If we knew what the right choice was, it wouldn't be a choice. My idea of perfection would be that every human life carries equal value but in reality it does not exist.

Your instinct comes before your sense of reason. Your instinct is your human nature. BTW, I can hear an air of superiority in your response here. I was giving you an example of following instinct and not some personal confession.

And are you better than others because of your ability to reason? Maybe if we all were perfectly rational...

Correct me if I am wrong but this feels like it's becoming personal. Have I offended you?

Perhaps we can choose to be offended. But then we come back to do we always make the right choice?

And I can think of some circumstances where offense would be universal. If someone killed your family, would you be offended? If they took everything you own, would you be offended? If they slandered you and destroyed your livelihood, would you be offended?

I would be devastated!

It's nice to sit in some ivory tower and say, "I am never offended." But the reality is that all people get offended some time. What I am saying is that when we have made a wrong choice, we are presented with another choice: which is either forgive or seek revenge.

If we have made a wrong choice wouldn't we be seeking forgiveness and asking for mercy?

When people look at their own imperfection, they feel inferior. So they judge others in order to feel superior. This goes back to attempting to live up to some impossible standard. My point is that the Biblical God is not expecting you to be perfect. That's why Christ showed up in the first place.

If god does not expect us to be perfect why has he set these standards? Surely this is a double standard?

If there is a god then maybe god should raise the bar and expect perfection, instead of sending his son to take responsibility for our imperfections?

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by Maguru

Well no I wouldn't say it is about making right choices at all. If we knew what the right choice was, it wouldn't be a choice.

Sure it would. Right now, the right choice for me would be that I should be studying. Instead, I'm replying to this thread. If someone cheats on their spouse, that person obviously knew it was a wrong choice, but they did it anyway. We all do things from time to time that we know we shouldn't.

Originally Posted by Maguru

My idea of perfection would be that every human life carries equal value but in reality it does not exist.

I'm having trouble parsing that statement.

I believe perfection is defined as:

the state of being without a flaw or defect

Are you?

Originally Posted by Maguru

If god does not expect us to be perfect why has he set these standards? Surely this is a double standard?

Why do you set standards for yourself, when you somehow are probably going to fail to reach those standards completely? maybe not every time, but we all do something that is not up to our standards. If we have standards for ourselves, then surely God also has moral standards.

Originally Posted by Maguru

If there is a god then maybe god should raise the bar and expect perfection, instead of sending his son to take responsibility for our imperfections?

Then we would all fall short and could never please God. Speaking for Christians, the idea of Jesus sacrificing himself in order to cover the sins of mankind is seen as a loving act by God, so that we don't have to be perfect. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to be perfect, as I think most do anyway, but for those who believe in that sacrifice, they don't have to worry too much about the divine punishment for those imperfections since they have already been covered for.

Do you really want a God who has no moral standards? Do you want a God who doesn't care either way if you kill someone? From my perspective, the God that Christians believe in seems to be the perfect balance between moral standards, and mercy.

You basically have three choices when it comes to God:

1. God has no moral standards and there is no punishment for murderers, thieves, etc.
2. God has moral standards, and everyone who doesn't reach those standards are punished.
3. God has moral standards, but realizes we can't be perfect, and so has a provision for covering for our imperfections, as long as we take the first step and accept that provision.

I don't want you to think I'm defending Christianity because I'm not yet totally dedicated to anything yet, but I do see some compelling points in their beliefs.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

You basically have three choices when it comes to God:

1. God has no moral standards and there is no punishment for murderers, thieves, etc.
2. God has moral standards, and everyone who doesn't reach those standards are punished.
3. God has moral standards, but realizes we can't be perfect, and so has a provision for covering for our imperfections, as long as we take the first step and accept that provision.

Actually I can think of many more possible choices, such as

"God has flexible moral standards, which can differ greatly from person to person, depending on a wide range of factors, such as the person's individual personality, talents, opportunities, cultural background, social conditioning, and previous life experiences."

"God has moral standards, but failure to reach those standards doesn't necessarily lead to punishment, since God represents ultimate love, forgiveness etc"

"God, being whole, perfect and complete unto itself, expects, and requires nothing from anyone else, and therefore does not prescribe moral standards. We have free will to choose our own moral standards and free will to punish ourselves for failure to meet those standards".

"God is the ultimate mystery and as God is unknowable, we would not be able to know what standards, if any, he has prescribed for us."

Etc etc etc.

IMO, it's also rather irrelevant to go down this route:

Do you really want a God who has no moral standards? Do you want a God who doesn't care either way if you kill someone?

.... since atheists generally would also have strong objections to murder. You don't need to believe in the existence of God to be horrified by the act of murder.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Actually I can think of many more possible choices, such as

"God has flexible moral standards, which can differ greatly from person to person, depending on a wide range of factors, such as the person's individual personality, talents, opportunities, cultural background, social conditioning, and previous life experiences."

Sounds unfair. My moral standards shouldn't be higher than anyone else's, from the perspective of God. Morality doesn't depend on personality, talent, etc. Morality is universal. I don't want an unfair God.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

"God has moral standards, but failure to reach those standards doesn't necessarily lead to punishment, since God represents ultimate love, forgiveness etc"

I don't want an unjust God. I think we all like to think murderers and other people who commit such horrible crimes, are of course disapproved of by God and maybe will receive some divine retribution. If God has moral standards, I should think He would want His creation to follow those standards.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

"God, being whole, perfect and complete unto itself, expects, and requires nothing from anyone else, and therefore does not prescribe moral standards. We have free will to choose our own moral standards and free will to punish ourselves for failure to meet those standards".

God created the universe. It's only natural that He would have moral standards for his creation. After all, if he does have those standards, who else could it be but for us? You are arguing an impersonal God. My three statements assumed a personal God.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

"God is the ultimate mystery and as God is unknowable, we would not be able to know what standards, if any, he has prescribed for us."

Again, we assume a personal God. A personal God would not be unknowable, and would want to reveal Himself. Also, a caring God would want to reveal Himself.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Etc etc etc.

IMO, it's also rather irrelevant to go down this route:

I don't see it as irrelevant, since we were discussing morality.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

.... since atheists generally would also have strong objections to murder. You don't need to believe in the existence of God to be horrified by the act of murder.

I didn't say people wouldn't be horrified by murder. I said God should be horrified by murder, too. After all, why else would we have those moral standards if they didn't come from somewhere? We know what is right and wrong, but who has set these standards? Most of these standards are universal, across cultures.