Since you are happy to answer questions here’s another:
You are opposed to the creeds, So please go through the Nicene Creed line by line and explain what you find objectionable. Please take one statement at a time.
- I object.
- “God” is either “Eternal” or He is “Not Eternal”;
- “God” is either “Omnipresent” or He is "Not Omnipresent.
- Consequently, we have four possibilities:
- Likewise: A human is either “Eternal” or “Not Eternal” and either “Omnipresent” or “Not Omnipresent”.
- We can now consider 16 possibilities as shown in the table below:
- My Comments on the “16 Possibilities”:
- 1st Question, Bharat: "If one human is eternal and/or omnipresent, are all humans eternal and/or omnipresent or only some?
- 2nd Question: "If only some are eternal and/or omnipresent, which are and which are not?
- 3rd Question: “If only some are”, is it possible for those who are neither eternal and omnipresent "to make God?
- 4th Question: Elsewhere you wrote,
- If God is eternal and omnipresent and one or more humans are eternal and omnipresent, that which is eternal and omnipresent is indistinguishable from itself. What is there to be merged if not merged already? Seems to me that only that which is not yet eternal and/or not yet omnipresent is not yet merged into God. In other words, God changes as more humans become eternal and/or omnipresent. In other words. it seems: you promote the Mormon doctrine that the Mormons now back away from: “What man is, God once was; what God is is what man will become.” What if someone wants to become God, but does not want to merge with the existing God?
We know you find Judaism, Christianity, and Islam defective and in need of significant change. But what changes do you envision for Hinduism?
1 Like
Alice in Wonderland always tried to believe in 6 impossible things before breakfast.
1 Like
Welcome to Alice’s Sandbox. Grab a shovel and dig in.
I’m not sympathetic with Mr Bharatjj’s mission to sell you on redefining what it is you think you are as a Christian (even though I am a fan of radical ecumenism). However I do think you are on thin ice in what I take to be the claim behind what I’ve quoted. In so far as there can be a role for something like God in the emergence of the cosmos I do think what that is must have been of a nature that is constant and never evolving. That would seem to be an axiom of Christianity but apart from what you all choose assume at the outset, I see no reason why what people know as God could not have evolved alongside humans. If God is the ground of being then that could be true whether God as men know Him is God2.1 or 2.2 or 2.N.
- That’s a mighty long sentence.
- It may, or may not be, helpful to retrace the path that I took to come up with my 3rd Question to Bharat.
- Bharat wrote to riversea, in another thread now closed: “Panpsychism provides a basis for defining God–which is the common refrain of all religions. All matter has consciousness. The Collective Consciousness of all matter–including you and me–that is God. This idea that “we make God” though our collective consciousness is, in my understanding, consistent with the scriptures but against their popular interpretations.”
- Note that 'humans making God through our collective consciousness" is something that Bharat thinks scripture “says”, except that, in fact, no Christian scripture that I know of says that. In other words, IMO, he’s making stuff up and spreading nonsense.
- riversea glommed on to what he said and now wants to know:
- Bharat wrote to riversea, in another thread now closed: “Panpsychism provides a basis for defining God–which is the common refrain of all religions. All matter has consciousness. The Collective Consciousness of all matter–including you and me–that is God. This idea that “we make God” though our collective consciousness is, in my understanding, consistent with the scriptures but against their popular interpretations.”
- To be clear, and in response to your observation, the God that I–and, I believe–the majority of orthodox Christians affirm and trust in is indeed constant and not evolving. But Bharat clearly does not believe that is true. Ergo, I agree with you wholeheartedly (fancy that!
): it’s an axiom of Christianity. - Regarding your willingness to entertain the possibility that God has “has evolved along side humans”, Yahweh don’t evolve regardless what the others do. What use does anyone have for a god who is barely a little more clever than us human beings and evolving? Hardly the kind of god that I want to be the “ground of my being”.
It sure is! Don’t try this at home. Not only that but in the process I mis-texted. I had meant to say “ I do NOT think IT IS BEYOND A DOUBT what that is must have been of a nature that is constant and never evolving.”
From outside of Christianity it is an open question. Because it is axiomatic to Christianity it is necessary to the internal coherence of that worldview.
From my POV, since I think there is something real, important and dynamic which grounds God belief, a coherent unified theory of religious practice must preserve the coherence of every such tradition. That is why I do admire Bharatjj’s intent even though I disagree with his approach. One can’t convincingly argue that he is a member of a tradition like Christianity if he doesn’t actually embrace the same defining beliefs. You may be a fine fellow but that is clearly neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for being hailed as a fellow Christian.
1 Like
Which is one reason why the last people on earth Christians should take their definition of a Christian from are non-Christians. As for being a fine fellow, I’m as defective as they come.
My mission in life is not to convince humans that I am a Christian. I pack my luggage a lot lighter than many.
I neither agree with his intent nor with his approach.
- I disagree. IMO, the assertion that Yahweh is constant and not evolving is essential to trusting Him
- Mattew 7:24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it."
- My house may be a shack, but at least I know where to build it.
2 Likes
I’m sure that is true too. It just isn’t part of my truth since I’m not a member of the club. 
1 Like
Some people believe in alternative facts.
The Latin anagram answers Pilate’s question:
Quid est veritas? “What is truth?”
Est vir qui adest: “It is the man who is here.”
No cats, but there are a lot of rabbit holes. And occasionally an un-tethered balloon with a string attached to it floats by.
I like this. Thanks.
Three major errors. 1. Idols are like the Christian Cross. But Hindus have delinked the idols from God. 2. God has a purpose–evolution to Unity. Hindus deny evolution. 3. Caste system.
I give my understanding briefly below.
1 Every particle has consciousness (Panpsychism).
2 Consciousness of parts coalesces to make a Collective Consciousness (CC) (Durkheim).
3 The CC deeply influences or “governs” the individual (Durkheim). Just as the President made by the people governs the people.
4 The CC resides in the unconscious (Jung).
5 CC is what we call “God.” So, our collective consciousness coalesces to make God, Who, in turn, governs us through our unconscious. The scriptures, of course, do not say this. But they do not deny this either to my understanding.
The references for these statements can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/170sonIEyIRV-QR5uYa9rbsRQYQNnkaE9/edit?usp=share_link&ouid=115481530671741156769&rtpof=true&sd=true
Lots of sand.
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
John 14:6
2 Likes