God as Father?

[Luce NDs]

Key words meaning, understanding of divine things?

Is that diverse? Could isolated individuals accept that as destructive to their power of individualism and irresponsibility factor?

What would I know unless smeared ... bottom-line shadow on the sidewalk ...

Possibly not as appears but what underlies the appearance ... A' Moor story ...

 

[revjohn]

I love this, but what if someone sees God as a violent vengeful God and thus believes that they are doing Gods will by forcing others to convert, should we speak out against this or are we desiring to control others just as much by insisting that God is love?

Part of the problem is avoiding the things we don't like or are uncomfortable with rather than actually dealing with them. That strategy permits us to construct a God which poses no threat to us in any way and results in a too small God. The same holds true moving the other way. The only difference is the character of the too small God we wind up inventing. A God so wrathful there is no possibility of grace is just as usesless as a God so loving there is no possibility of justice.

As if God can be reduced to only yes or only no.

Eg: God says not to kill/murder in the ten commandments but in the same breath kills 3000 people for worshiping the Golden calf.

As a matter of fact God does not say thou shalt not kill. God does say, thou shalt not commit murder. This is a common mistake though it does tend to make the discussion somewhat more difficult. With respect to that if the earth is the Lord's does the prohibition against murder represent God believing all life is sacred or all life is his? Does God consider murder a crime I commit against my neighbour or a crime I commit against his person?

Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight;
so you are right in your verdict
and justified when you judge.

Is it possible that we confuse a social definition of murder for a biblical understanding of the same charge?

And if God is sovereign over all the earth does the created have rights which bind their Creator?

Does the potter not reserve the right to smash down the clay pot while the clay is still workable? And once the clay has been fired and the final product inspected does the potter not have the right to destroy the work of his own hands? Artisans have the right to censor their own work in order to ensure that the value of the finished product remains high.

Do we presume that when God gives the order that X should die that God is pleased to give that order? There is an apocryphal story of Moses noticing God trying to leave the victory party early after the rout of the Egyptians in the Red Sea. Following after God Moses overhears him weaping and mourning for the dead Egyptians. Moses is annoyed. "Had you not acted O Lord they would have slaughtered your people!" God affirms that truth and then responds that the children of Egypt are not less his children than are the children of the Hebrews.

We presume that because we can imagine another way that God, being all powerful could make those better ideas work. As if God bows to our imagination.

A constantly angry God cannot be sustained. Just as a never angry God cannot be sustained.

A God who is slow to anger and quick to show mercy is a better God than either of those two with all of their limitations.

How can we ignore this side of God by insisting He is all loving?

By developing a more realistic image of love rather than settling for the saccharine version with is cotton candy fluff. A portrait which the whole of scripture actually paints for us. The parent image for example? Did your parents never tell you no? Is that the epitome of good parenting?

 

[Mendalla]

One of the things I learned from studying Hinduism is to embrace a God who is truly all-encompassing. Life, death, creation, destruction, and so on all fall within the purview of "God". This isn't a God who is always a pleasant and loving Shepherd, IOW. Through Krishna, the avatar of Vishnu, God urges Arjuna into battle because that is Arjuna's destiny. The death of Arjuna's enemies is as divine as their birth.

Thou seest Me as Time who kills,
Time who brings all to doom,
The Slayer Time, Ancient of Days, come hither to consume;
Excepting thee, of all these hosts of hostile chiefs arrayed,
There stands not one shall leave alive the battlefield! Dismayed
No longer be! Arise! obtain renown! destroy thy foes!
Fight for the kingdom waiting thee when thou hast vanquished those.
By Me they fall- not thee! the stroke of death is dealt them now,
Even as they show thus gallantly; My instrument art thou!
Strike, strong-armed Prince, at Drona! at Bhishma strike! deal
death

And let's not forget the teaching of Ecclesiastes:

"A time for war, and a time for peace", and "A time to be born and a time to die."

The fact is, the loving God so beloved of liberals is as simplistic as the vengeful, punishing God so beloved of many fundamentalists and conservatives. The universe is an immensely complex piece of machinery and any God responsible for such a universe must necessarily be similarly complex.

Which is kind of part of the thinking that led me to pantheism. Life, death, et al. are not only natural parts of existence, but necessary for it to continue. Death is often just a clearing of the way for new life. A volcano erupts and destroys the forests around it, but the ash is natural fertilizer and when things quiet down, new life quickly emerges. I have even seen this with my own eyes crossing a (IIRC) 20ish year-old lava flow in Nicaragua a couple years ago. Vegetation was starting to spring up around and in the flow.

Short version: The universe does not love us in the sense that we think of, but it is a hospitable environment for us provided we don't eff up too badly and use our capabilities to prepare for eventualities like natural disasters (which are just that, natural, not punishments from God) and care for each other when s**t happens. If we off ourselves, it ain't because God did it.

 

[mgagnonlv]

Now, back on topic. If God as Father is too patriarchal and ties God to a gendered human image and God the Creator is too impersonal, what is the middle ground. What is the image of God that defines God as a creator/parent figure? God the mother simply reverses God the Father and creates similar issues (ties God to a specific human, gendered image) so that can't be it.

Or do we need to do a sort of quantum thing and say that God is both Mother and Father with us seeing the image that we most need to relate to at any given time?

As far as I'm concerned, "God the Father" and "God the Creator" are not the same, but two different concepts. It all goes down to this impossible to grasp concept called "Trinity". To me, "God the Creator" refers to the creation itself: the fact God is at the basis of all beings (and yes, in a way totally compatible with the scientific theory on evolution). On the other hand, "God the Father" highlights that he (she?) is the one making the rules and even guiding me a bit like my parents did: with some rules, guidance and suggestions, and sometimes discipline.

So yes, God created the world, redeemed us (mostly by sending his Son, but the Son is not the only one who redeems us), and also comforts and guides us (but it's not exclusively a "Holy Spirit" thing). Do we have three gods? No, only one. And are there really three persons? I would say the only one we have known first hand is the Son. Is he really the Son of a single-parent house (the Father)? Is the Holy Spirit really another person, like a step-mother (that's almost what we learnt in elementary school)? And on the gender front, the only one we're sure of is God the Son.

The more I reflect on Trinity, the more it seems to be an abstract concept to describe different facets of God: creator, ruler, guide, comforter, etc.

So should we say "God the Mother"? Why not! As long as we don't mean by it that God can't be a father figure "because only mothers can really be caring" (i.e. sexism of another kind), that's good.
Or should we say "God the Parent"? That would be the best non-gender-specific metaphor. Except "parent" tends to point to some distant relative.
Or should we say "God the Father and Mother"? No issue with that, except for its length. But I'm sure that some people would say that we now have God in 4 persons (Father, Mother, Son, Spirit) and that it is not right!

 

[Luce NDs]

Then there are some theological philosophers that touch on the fourth part of God as a quadrant ... and we could dance around this 2-2 4 eternity as the sign (∞) indicates ... stood on one end it allows for 'oli h'eight and curtailed at one end allows for the famous alpha program and additional beginning out of being ... mid section being "X" from any angle an unknown ...

I suspect this eternal squabbling will not be resolved until brute fore's are inclined to learn from what went bi ... and thus quintessence as we read into ancient essence ... the old brain stem? It reacts as a slave to what is cognizant in the Nous world!

And things on end are similar to ETic instead of emic ... or that's what the olg Url said ... but who pays any attention to stuff that could be learned from history ... when much of it is corrupted by those on top as winners ... thus subtle parts ... profound losers ... buried IDe! Once starting to work, and brew ... up chi comes as Sheila ... some say Shekinah ... but she did!

The old man on the mountain remained there topped out ... archetypical!

 

[Waterfall]

Part of the problem is avoiding the things we don't like or are uncomfortable with rather than actually dealing with them. That strategy permits us to construct a God which poses no threat to us in any way and results in a too small God. The same holds true moving the other way. The only difference is the character of the too small God we wind up inventing. A God so wrathful there is no possibility of grace is just as usesless as a God so loving there is no possibility of justice.

As if God can be reduced to only yes or only no.



As a matter of fact God does not say thou shalt not kill. God does say, thou shalt not commit murder. This is a common mistake though it does tend to make the discussion somewhat more difficult. With respect to that if the earth is the Lord's does the prohibition against murder represent God believing all life is sacred or all life is his? Does God consider murder a crime I commit against my neighbour or a crime I commit against his person?



Is it possible that we confuse a social definition of murder for a biblical understanding of the same charge?

And if God is sovereign over all the earth does the created have rights which bind their Creator?

Does the potter not reserve the right to smash down the clay pot while the clay is still workable? And once the clay has been fired and the final product inspected does the potter not have the right to destroy the work of his own hands? Artisans have the right to censor their own work in order to ensure that the value of the finished product remains high.

Do we presume that when God gives the order that X should die that God is pleased to give that order? There is an apocryphal story of Moses noticing God trying to leave the victory party early after the rout of the Egyptians in the Red Sea. Following after God Moses overhears him weaping and mourning for the dead Egyptians. Moses is annoyed. "Had you not acted O Lord they would have slaughtered your people!" God affirms that truth and then responds that the children of Egypt are not less his children than are the children of the Hebrews.

We presume that because we can imagine another way that God, being all powerful could make those better ideas work. As if God bows to our imagination.

A constantly angry God cannot be sustained. Just as a never angry God cannot be sustained.

A God who is slow to anger and quick to show mercy is a better God than either of those two with all of their limitations.



By developing a more realistic image of love rather than settling for the saccharine version with is cotton candy fluff. A portrait which the whole of scripture actually paints for us. The parent image for example? Did your parents never tell you no? Is that the epitome of good parenting?

Is there a guarantee that this behaviour from God doesn't continue after we die and we are in "heaven"? Once we die will we never sin again?

 

[Luce NDs]

Is there a guarantee that this behaviour from God doesn't continue after we die and we are in "heaven"? Once we die will we never sin again?

Once dead to the dynamic emotional self (an IHCy item) will there be a desire to do unfair things to succeed?

Few consider the demiurge of the dual natured God that can be disastrous when not having a clue ... a single clued IDe?

 

[Jaebius]

Is there a guarantee that this behaviour from God doesn't continue after we die and we are in "heaven"? Once we die will we never sin again?

Heaven isn't our ultimate home. The new Earth's our hope.

 

[Waterfall]

Heaven isn't our ultimate home. The new Earth's our hope.

And will God continue to discipline or shape us on the new earth?

 

[Jaebius]

And will God continue to discipline or shape us on the new earth?

I don't believe so. Not discipline. Sin will be gone.

 

[Luce NDs]

Sin is gone when one is buried in mindful mire ... that'd be the dirt ... a subtlety regarding when people have no emotions left ... only noetic stuff! Did Christ in essence draw a line there?

God love irony and pyrite ... gives the earth that burnt ochre appearance ... like after the a'D'mick bomb went off ... nothing left by the shad-ow-eeL ass ... More Leigh than fore ward ... back rheum stuff ... creeping schemes ... sometimes referred to as sacred conspiracies about unseen wisdom ...

 

[revjohn]

Is there a guarantee that this behaviour from God doesn't continue after we die and we are in "heaven"?

Much of heaven is invention. It is the domain of God and the angels of God. There are saints surrounding the throne of God and martyrs beneath the throne. Mind you we get that from apocalyptic literature so taking things literally when they are deliberately shrouded in mystery is dubious practice.

The only guarantee is that Jesus died once for all and that through his death and resurrection all sin, past, present and future is atoned for.

Life in heaven (fiction though most of it is) presupposes a post judgement reality. And post judgement the sorting of sheep and goats means only the sheep remain in the fold while the goats have been cast out. Meaning that no future judgments will be necessary.

Once we die will we never sin again?

Interesting question but not one many theologians have spent much time contemplating. Final judgment probably presumes that there will be no judgment beyond that point. And if we are justified and sactified, or put another way, restored to factory default we remember that we were originally pronounced good and restored to mint condition we probably have knowledge enough to not repeat initial catastrophe.

Just speculation on my part since scripture is more or less silent on the day to day happenings of the Messianic Kingdom.

 

[Mendalla]

scripture is more or less silent on the day to day happenings of the Messianic Kingdom.

We'll know when we get there. As it should be, really. That's part of why I was a agnostic about the afterlife long before I took that stance about other spiritual matters. There is no way to know what we will find there (if anything) save through personal witness that is either suspect or subjective. It's a matter of faith even moreso than the existence of God (whose presence one could presumably experience while still alive).

 

[Luce NDs]

Such contemplation of imaginary things is contemptible to physiologists ... some abstract required so as to get one into the shadowy realm that they say doesn't exist ... as creation found a neat place to stoe IDe ...

Then why such etudes into the noetic and mental philosophy? It is like a large sea above and within ... not encouraged by those stuck or instituted ... too X-Pan 've? Devil to keep up with ...

 

[Luce NDs]

We'll know when we get there. As it should be, really. That's part of why I was a agnostic about the afterlife long before I took that stance about other spiritual matters. There is no way to know what we will find there (if anything) save through personal witness that is either suspect or subjective. It's a matter of faith even moreso than the existence of God (whose presence one could presumably experience while still alive).

It may be just an Eire case here and now ... like unknown god-word ... they are all aver the place ...

 

[Waterfall]

I don't believe so. Not discipline. Sin will be gone.

Part of the problem is avoiding the things we don't like or are uncomfortable with rather than actually dealing with them. That strategy permits us to construct a God which poses no threat to us in any way and results in a too small God. The same holds true moving the other way. The only difference is the character of the too small God we wind up inventing. A God so wrathful there is no possibility of grace is just as usesless as a God so loving there is no possibility of justice.

As if God can be reduced to only yes or only no.



As a matter of fact God does not say thou shalt not kill. God does say, thou shalt not commit murder. This is a common mistake though it does tend to make the discussion somewhat more difficult. With respect to that if the earth is the Lord's does the prohibition against murder represent God believing all life is sacred or all life is his? Does God consider murder a crime I commit against my neighbour or a crime I commit against his person?



Is it possible that we confuse a social definition of murder for a biblical understanding of the same charge?

And if God is sovereign over all the earth does the created have rights which bind their Creator?

Does the potter not reserve the right to smash down the clay pot while the clay is still workable? And once the clay has been fired and the final product inspected does the potter not have the right to destroy the work of his own hands? Artisans have the right to censor their own work in order to ensure that the value of the finished product remains high.

Do we presume that when God gives the order that X should die that God is pleased to give that order? There is an apocryphal story of Moses noticing God trying to leave the victory party early after the rout of the Egyptians in the Red Sea. Following after God Moses overhears him weaping and mourning for the dead Egyptians. Moses is annoyed. "Had you not acted O Lord they would have slaughtered your people!" God affirms that truth and then responds that the children of Egypt are not less his children than are the children of the Hebrews.

We presume that because we can imagine another way that God, being all powerful could make those better ideas work. As if God bows to our imagination.

A constantly angry God cannot be sustained. Just as a never angry God cannot be sustained.

A God who is slow to anger and quick to show mercy is a better God than either of those two with all of their limitations.



By developing a more realistic image of love rather than settling for the saccharine version with is cotton candy fluff. A portrait which the whole of scripture actually paints for us. The parent image for example? Did your parents never tell you no? Is that the epitome of good parenting?

So God will use evil if it serves His purpose?

 

[Jaebius]

So God will use evil if it serves His purpose?

I believe God sometimes allows evil to take place.

 

[Waterfall]

I believe God sometimes allows evil to take place.

What's the difference? Who created evil?

 

[Jaebius]

What's the difference? Who created evil?

"Uses" suggests that God perhaps creates evil. I don't believe he does.

"God did not create evil, but He does allow evil. If God had not allowed for the possibility of evil, both mankind and angels would be serving God out of obligation, not choice. He did not want “robots” that simply did what He wanted them to do because of their “programming.” God allowed for the possibility of evil so that we could genuinely have a free will and choose whether or not we wanted to serve Him." - Did God create evil?

 

[Waterfall]

Isaiah 45:7