it’s not over your head,it’s just clumsily expressed
The mail should actually appear in thread as to your comment about God not being subject to the law. He actually invented it and practices it. The fundamental law as Jesus explains is that demand to love thy neighbour like thyselves. The key understanding is that it is a third person rule, e.g. thy neighbour like thyself as narcisism was frowned upon in those times and the ultimate act of love, e.g. to lay down ones life for those who are your family, e.g. thyselves, shows that it can not mean “yourself” as to sacrifice yourself is not an act of love for personal self but for the self you identify with like your wife and your family. So in Jesus he shows that he submits himself to that law. Understanding that automatically clarifies that this is not a sacrificial death of a narcistic God who has himself killed to please himself,but he dies for us that we can understand that as he lives on in us we live on in him.
God never says he is going to kill us for our sins as he submits us all to physical death but he states that in eating from the tree of self realisation we will suffer death as the logical consequence of wanting to hold on to a material self. Thus the explanation that God is killing himself to please himself is what makes atheists to refer to God as a wanker, and it is based on an incoherent interpretation of the gospel that is unfortunately shared with a lot of Christians who.also are confused about that.
I am sure I confuse you even more with what I say but that’s the fun of the debate. We are all after understanding the truth and we allmake it rather complicated trying to put it in language
it’s not over your head,it’s just clumsily expressed
And the same applies to our experience of time versus God’s experience of time. We have no way of conceptualizing what an existence not bound by time, space, matter, etc., might be like. This great distance between us and God cries out for a mediator to “bridge the gap.”
For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,
Al, your hope does seem unorthodox from a biblical perspective but does it make any more sense from the point of view of science? Poetically speaking, I like the analogy that likens a human life to that of one raindrop and God to the oceans. I can’t think of what is so unique in my own life that reference to it would be of any significance to any raindrop that falls after my time. I’m happy to live this life of mine free of the personal memories from anyone’s life that came before so I would not wish anyone who comes along later to be encumbered by mine.
I don’t believe in any form of personal immortality. But I do like to imagine that I am as much an instantiation of those deep oceans as any other raindrop has ever been. We are all but one raindrop but at the same time manifestations of what is much greater. Being singular gives us a personal perspective which is different from that of the deep oceans. No one of us can adequately imagine what that greater perspective must be like but I suspect our concern for our individual fate probably has no echo there. If the ocean remains in touch with each raindrop during its time of separation perhaps it shares in the thrill and fears of our experience? Or maybe the experience we have in our separation is completely foreign to the ocean.
Hmm, maybe you were misunderstanding me in that thread, I clumsily express things too. But that isn’t at all what I meant to convey.
Maybe they can make a new topic of this? It is an interesting point you bring up.
I find it interesting that most if not all humans don’t actually love themselves. I think what gets priority over that is the short term desires. I think that is what Paul means by us being a slave to sin, a slave to our desires. If we truly did love ourselves, we would want the best for ourselves, which is to follow God and put His desires for ourselves before our own. That would make us a slave to God, a slave to righteousness. And the sanctification process is trying to achieve just that.
Interesting, I will have to look into that word, I have never heard that before.
I am glad that Jesus tells the parable of the good Samaritan after this, as without that, the word love and that statement can be so wrongly interpreted.
Some say love is not allowing others to go to hell, them they put the burden of others salvation on themselves, and try by all means to ‘save’ people. Whether is is scaring them of hell, berating people, ect, "love’ can easily be turned to hate.
But when you put the good Samaritan in context, I think the best way to explain love is to put others well being/needs/desires before yours. Jesus also did this greatly when He washed the disciples feet. I don’t think Jesus was thinking “I don’t want to wash these gross feet, but I love them and will sacrifice for them and wash them”. I think He actually valued them and their needs/desires/well being so much more than Himself, that He actually wanted to wash their feet. A complete renewing of the mind, That is love, that only happens from the power of the Spirit.
I agree with you there. I also think it is not the act of death that means love, it is the act of doing everything in your moral power for the other person, up into the point of death. You can’t pull a gun out, say you love your neighbor, shoot yourself and that is love for them.
That is what I mean, that Jesus’ death wasn’t needed, it wasn’t the death that atoned, it was His life, His life that ended in obedience loving death for us all.
I fully agree with you.
This was probably what my post was about. I think too many Christians think just this. That God demanded blood, and Jesus’ blood appeased His wrath. I do not agree with that at all.
That above post is still quite educated and above my head, but I kind of understand your post above now, knowing what you are referring to at least. But I still am not sure how you read that I said God is not subject to His own laws?
This sounds like Hinduism to me, where this life/existence is like a punishment, and we are stuck in it until we get it right and cease to exist. The worse we do, the more we suffer and the longer it takes, and the better we do, the more rewards and the sooner we can ‘non-exist’.
Which I do not believe in, though it is still interesting that those who do, also cannot ‘love’ themselves. Christians and Hindu both know (in our heads) a better way, but still cannot live what we want to. But in a Christian life, it is not based on our merits, rather our faith, but actions is a great indicator of our faith. I am glad it is up to God, who rescued us that try, or at least those who want to try, it gives me a peace that allows me to have better merits, than I think I would as a Buddhist who would be ‘self motivated’ by their condition. I guess Hinduism is a ‘game’ of long term vs. short term. Where as Christianity we already ‘won’ by having God change us through the Spirit of Jesus, now it is just a slow journey to perfection through allowing Him to perfect us.
@gbrooks9 I feel this is exactly what I was trying to say above. I may have worded it more crass, but @Christy has a gift (or maybe just a better education, or both) that is frequently able to concisely say what I have trouble explaining.
Not a Buddhist but I do try to empathize with a variety of traditions, including Christianity. But I think what I was expressing is probably closest to Taoism.
Sorry I meant Hinduism, where you are re-incarnated as something less regarded is you ‘fail’, and more highly regarded if you ‘succeed’
I apologize if i offended any other religions, I am no expert on them, that was my basic understanding of them. But it wasn’t so much focus on a comment of another religion as it was a comment on how difficult it is to do what you want to do, or what is actually best for us in the long term over the short term.
Which as frustrating as that is, I don’t get why you would want to ‘non-exist’, although I will admit as a Christian I do in a way want to non-exist as that I don’t want any part of me to detract from who God is. So if to exist is to be known, I do not want that. So maybe we (Christians and Hindus) are similar in that respect and I am just ignorant to their beliefs? Though I do wish to live and be used by God, for God. So in that respect, I don’t want to ‘not-exist’ at all, but exist all the more for what He made me to do!
in post 14 you said
thus my comment, as a lot of atheists think omnipotence has to include the ability to do stupid things and defy logic, thus subconsciously justifying their own thinking.
The teaching that God is an angry old man that wants to punish humanity in revenge for eating an apple from a tree that they were not supposed to eat from is an embarrassment for any intellectual. The bible does not say that “if you eat from that tree I will kill you”, but “if you eat from this tree you will die” like you tell your child the “if you touch that high voltage cable you will die” It refers to the logical consequence of puberty, e.g. the separation of the child from it’s parent by rejecting authority over their self by becoming their own self and becoming aware of their own “nakedness”, e.g. defining their private sphere over their own body.
To perceive he end of your physical existence as terminal requires the realisation of the self in the material body. In the resurrection of Jesus inside yourself you should realise that the essence of life, e.g. the soul or will that makes us go and manifest the love for others is a transferable item that is the immortal unit of life. In eating from that tree, e.g. the tree of life that is represented in the cross you can learn to see your-self in that immortal unit and become part of it again - and learn to fear physical death no more. In “raindrop” terms it would be the realisation of the raindrop to be part of the body of water and ceasing to think only to be a drop.
Oh yea, my fault. I didn’t mean it like that. That He doesn’t follow, or doesn’t have to follow His own laws.
I was trying to convey that I don’t think God is confined to judge laws like a man thinks He should. ie. God has no control over His ‘judging’, He is basically like a flow chart, more than a judge, where the law or consequences of the law must be sentenced and it doesn’t matter who suffers for it, but someone must suffer.
I don’t think He is constrained by the law in that sense.
Yes, I think we are on a similar page there. But I wouldn’t go as far to say that people think the "old man’ wants to punish humanity in revenge. I would bet there are very few Christians who think that.
I think that many Christians do believe though, that God HAS to punish humanity, and doesn’t want to (like He is bound), and that is why Jesus was sent, to save us from God, who has no control over the consequences/sentencing of law breakers.
Which sounds equally embarrassing as it makes God more of a robot following protocol than a compassionate, loving, just, judge, or a God who is in control.
I think those previous two paragraphs are in agreeance that concept.
Sure, I can see the fruit being that in the garden. But after that ‘sin of awareness’, there are ‘actual’ sins. Like stealing from someone. There really isn’t a ‘logical consequence’ for something like that. Other than you again are relying on yourself more than God, and it slowly hardens your heart, making it more and more difficult to have that heart of flesh which is loving, and makes you more selfish. But other than that logical consequence, God is a judge. And that judge has the right to punish you for breaking that law, but isn’t compelled to punish you. Whatever the judge decides, goes. So if that judge wishes to have mercy on you, He is surely allowed. He is not confined by the law, in that the law says, one must be punished/suffer, so one must be punished/suffer, like it is out of the judges hand. Which again treats them more as a flow chart or a robot than a God/judge.
That is a neat way of looking at it, and maybe you are right. But that seems to not fit with the Genesis story. After man sinned, he was banished from the garden as God didn’t want them to eat the tree of life, as if they could have in the sinful state. So if eating the tree is 'learning to see you-self in that immortal unit", then a sinner could not partake of it, and it wouldn’t need to be banned from access to it.
But maybe both exist, a real tree that works slightly different and the metaphor for that tree that you speak of.
sounds still logically incoherent. God is very much in control over his judgements.
Suffering is a poorly understood subject as people wonder how God could allow suffering. Nobody must suffer as suffering is a consequence of rejecting reality as nonconforming with one’s wishes. Suffering ends with the acceptance of reality. Look at the likes if Nick Vuijick or Joni Eareckson Tada and you will understand that healing, e.g the relief from suffering is in achieving mind body harmony by accepting reality as the will of God. This is how Jesus, and those who followed him, could endure what we perceive as tremendous suffering from the outside, relative to our position.
suggests to me that you want to say that God is sovereign in his judgement, e.g he is the law, rather than having to follow someone else’s law, thus free to judge as he sees fit with regards to forgiveness. But then, his forgiveness is limited by our willingness to repent. With giving us free will he has given us the ability to love and repent. It is just a question of understanding what the repentance is about. It is definitively not about Adam and Eve eating a fruit and that ever since all mankind is doomed to die as ever since the beginning of physical existence death was the end of physical existence and none was bothered as it was a normal part of the cycle as And if you feel part of this natural cycle you have no problems with that as from the dust of the earth you came and to the dust of the earth you return. Only if you “realise” your “self”, e.g. not only understand it, but also “make it” reality you will start to become mortal. This is why the fall is the poetic description of puberty as it is exactly that process, the rejection of authority over the self by doing what you were asked not to do,that makes you a self that is separate from God’s eternity. In defining your being as the material existence of your body you logically become a temporary unit that ceases to exist with the end if that physical unit. To carry on living you have to become one with the father again.
I agree. Prior to this I said “I don think…”.
That is interesting. I like the way you put that. I was trying to explain the same in this thread
Reminds me of judge dredd
But yes, a judge by definition, judges as they personally sees fit, and are allowed to use the law for reason to sentence as a max punishment. Like a speed limit, you can go up to it, but can also chose to drive as slow as you want (other than for safety reasons on highways or courtesy reasons).
But most good judges have a great respect for the law and its reasons, but have wisdom, and do choose what they think is best for all.
I don’t see where you get that from. His forgiveness has nothing to do with what we do or don’t do, like a gift is Ivan regardless of actions. But you also can’t give something not wanted/received, it is freely given, but is not received until it is acknowledged and accepted.
But I would say His judgement is slightly tied to our repentance in that our repentance is the goal, and the judgment is poured out to help bring us to repentance. But He also lavishes us with mercy, which also leads to repentance. But it is up to the judge to decide if He wants to help right us with mercy or wrath…which is mercy, as you said, our living right is the reality, and rejection, of that reality is suffering. So His wrath is His love and mercy, to end our suffering.
looks like they forgot to lock it
If God hrboured wrath he would not be omniscient. He can help us with by applying justice or having mercy but wrath is not a feature only justice, love and mercy.
Why would God want to know such things?