God in our Image?

[revjohn]

Not to validate God, but to justify going off the narrow path.

That was how I interpreted Mendalla's comment.

Few of us attempt to validate God. Ever. Most of us attempt to use God, or scripture, to validate our departures from either. Which is not that different from Durkheim's claim though the claim by Durkheim is not the whole of God.

 

[revsdd]

Is that so? Has there been a good psychological study to show that there really was a change and not just something they had been ignoring or repressing coming to the fore?

None that I'm aware of.

It is still change and possibly one for the better, but it wouldn't really be the 180 degree flip we are sometimes led to believe happens in conversion experiences.

Didn't say anything about a 180 degree change.

Take me as an example. If I suddenly spouted "Jesus is Lord, praise be to Jesus" you would only have to look at the fact that I grew up Christian and took a lot of my values from that upbringing to suggest it isn't really that big a deal. Chansen doing so, OTOH, might be a bigger deal though perhaps there is already a seed there that we just don't see in our interactions with him.

You're simply looking at it here as a simple change in belief, whereas I'm thinking more of a change or evolution in moral or ethical views evidenced by a change in behaviour (I don't think it has to be a blinding light sort of thing, but a gradual and noticeable change.)

So not questioning that there is a change, just that it really represents something new rather than something already there coming out.

In the end, I'm not sure that it matters. Actually, since we're all created in God's image, one could argue that a positive conversion (presuming a positive view of God, which I concede I do) is always just what was already there coming out.

I could also suggest that it is not always a change for better, as converts are sometimes among the most militant among the faithful. Witness how many Western Al Qaeda and Caliphate followers are converts. Not saying most converts are like that, but it is a sign that conversion isn't automatically the blessing some portray it as.

No disagreement from me on that. Some converts are entirely nasty people.

I do think, however, that I'm speaking of conversion as an ongoing process rather than an instant change. For example, over the years since I "converted" to Christianity, my views on and understanding of some issues have changed, which I think is a result of being "converted" in an ongoing way as I continue to walk with the Holy Spirit and reflect on God's Word.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

If you follow God how could you not be influenced? We are taught how to discern false witness.

No you're not, if you had you would not be religious, this statement alone claims you have demonstrable evidence for your beliefs and you don't. If you did have demonstrable evidence you would be able to convince me.

 

[Jaebius]

No you're not, if you had you would not be religious, this statement alone claims you have demonstrable evidence for your beliefs and you don't. If you did have demonstrable evidence you would be able to convince me.

Not necessarily. Not if you're unwilling to examine and consider the evidence.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Not necessarily. Not if you're unwilling to examine and consider the evidence.

Then supply the actual demonstrable evidence, and we will see if I'm unwilling to accept it. It is pointless claiming I would be unwilling, without first supplying it.
Just because someone doesn't believe the same thing as you doesn't mean they are unwilling. You need to entertain the possibility that you may be looking at your "evidence" through blinkered eyes.

 

[Waterfall]

No you're not, if you had you would not be religious, this statement alone claims you have demonstrable evidence for your beliefs and you don't. If you did have demonstrable evidence you would be able to convince me.

Hard to show you evidence of the Holy Spirit working in others when you refuse to look for the fruits of the spirit in people. These fruits are the evidence.....you have to stop using those without this as examples of those who follow God, but it seems you prefer to find examples of those who don't have these attributes and claim God as non existent.

 

[Luce NDs]

If you follow God how could you not be influenced? We are taught how to discern false witness.

The last line is hypothetical...which you agree with by saying,"which it can't".

If God is everything ... could narrow-vision 'd people see that surrounding them? Swivelling heads are popular with icons like owls ...

 

[Mendalla]

Hard to show you evidence of the Holy Spirit working in others when you refuse to look for the fruits of the spirit in people. These fruits are the evidence.....you have to stop using those without this as examples of those who follow God, but it seems you prefer to find examples of those who don't have these attributes and claim God as non existent.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control.

Assuming this is what you mean by "fruits of the spirit", the better evidence is those who show the fruits but don't have faith in God, or at least have faith in a different God than Christianity. While that doesn't disprove the existence of God (or of the Christian conception thereof), it also means we can dismiss the fruits of the Spirit as any kind of positive evidence that there is a God. These "fruits" are signs of being a good, self-disciplined person, but calling them "fruits of the spirit" is itself a statement of faith, not something that can be used as proof of anything.

 

[Luce NDs]

Hard to show you evidence of the Holy Spirit working in others when you refuse to look for the fruits of the spirit in people. These fruits are the evidence.....you have to stop using those without this as examples of those who follow God, but it seems you prefer to find examples of those who don't have these attributes and claim God as non existent.

Are fruits allowed in a vegetative state?

 

[Jaebius]

Then supply the actual demonstrable evidence, and we will see if I'm unwilling to accept it. It is pointless claiming I would be unwilling, without first supplying it.
Just because someone doesn't believe the same thing as you doesn't mean they are unwilling. You need to entertain the possibility that you may be looking at your "evidence" through blinkered eyes.

[FONT=Open Sans, sans-serif]Pavlos, I have regenerated eyes. I suggest it's your own that are going blinky blinky. The evidence for God is all around us. Open your eyes! Believe![/FONT]

 

[Luce NDs]

Then if god is in everything around us ... why be so narrow-minded?

 

[chansen]

Hard to show you evidence of the Holy Spirit working in others when you refuse to look for the fruits of the spirit in people. These fruits are the evidence.....you have to stop using those without this as examples of those who follow God, but it seems you prefer to find examples of those who don't have these attributes and claim God as non existent.

You select the nicest Christians and then claim "fruits of the spirit". There is no consistent "fruit of the spirit". Some people who claim to be "filled with the spirit" are jackasses. And if you want to be a hate-filled bigot, you can find justification in the bible.

This is something you are accomplished at ignoring. I understand there are good Christians trying to right wrongs and make the world a better place. But you don't need to believe to get to those positions. And in promoting tolerance and acceptance of others, it's not atheists you'd be arguing against, but other Christians. Who want things like no same sex marriages, border walls and immigration bans with exceptions for Christians.

 

[Jaebius]

You select the nicest Christians and then claim "fruits of the spirit". There is no consistent "fruit of the spirit". Some people who claim to be "filled with the spirit" are jackasses. And if you want to be a hate-filled bigot, you can find justification in the bible.

This is something you are accomplished at ignoring. I understand there are good Christians trying to right wrongs and make the world a better place. But you don't need to believe to get to those positions. And in promoting tolerance and acceptance of others, it's not atheists you'd be arguing against, but other Christians. Who want things like no same sex marriages, border walls and immigration bans with exceptions for Christians.

Terrible thing to want exceptions for the most persecuted faith group in the world.

 

[Luce NDs]

Terrible thing to want exceptions for the most persecuted faith group in the world.

Persecuted or persecuting?

 

[Waterfall]

You select the nicest Christians and then claim "fruits of the spirit". There is no consistent "fruit of the spirit". Some people who claim to be "filled with the spirit" are jackasses. And if you want to be a hate-filled bigot, you can find justification in the bible.

This is something you are accomplished at ignoring. I understand there are good Christians trying to right wrongs and make the world a better place. But you don't need to believe to get to those positions. And in promoting tolerance and acceptance of others, it's not atheists you'd be arguing against, but other Christians. Who want things like no same sex marriages, border walls and immigration bans with exceptions for Christians.

That's the key......some claim to have it. It doesn't mean they have it. And I would say,yes, you do need to believe in the God of your faith to get to those positions because whatever the atheist believes is a process that is in their own image and the current culture.....similar to those "jackasses" you lovingly refer to.

 

[Waterfall]

Assuming this is what you mean by "fruits of the spirit", the better evidence is those who show the fruits but don't have faith in God, or at least have faith in a different God than Christianity. While that doesn't disprove the existence of God (or of the Christian conception thereof), it also means we can dismiss the fruits of the Spirit as any kind of positive evidence that there is a God. These "fruits" are signs of being a good, self-disciplined person, but calling them "fruits of the spirit" is itself a statement of faith, not something that can be used as proof of anything.

I disagree, holiness is not obtained by following culture, it requires something outside of ones self placed in us that would guide us if culture and social norms go wrong.

 

[Mendalla]

I disagree, holiness is not obtained by following culture, it requires something outside of ones self placed in us that would guide us if culture and social norms go wrong.

Right, and that something outside of ourselves doesn't have to be a supernatural being. We exist in relationship to many things that are beyond us, including the universe itself, even if one doesn't believe in a personal, law-giving Deity. The fact is, almost all of the "fruits of the Spirit" were virtues espoused by philosophers in pre-Christian times (e.g. the Stoics) and in non-Western cultures (e.g. the Confucians), who would have held them up as signs of wisdom or being a sage, not the product of "the spirit". Were they guided by the Spirit and just didn't know it? Or could these virtues originate somewhere other than in a supernatural realm?

 

[Waterfall]

Right, and that something outside of ourselves doesn't have to be a supernatural being. We exist in relationship to many things that are beyond us, including the universe itself, even if one doesn't believe in a personal, law-giving Deity. The fact is, almost all of the "fruits of the Spirit" were virtues espoused by philosophers in pre-Christian times (e.g. the Stoics) and in non-Western cultures (e.g. the Confucians), who would have held them up as signs of wisdom or being a sage, not the product of "the spirit". Were they guided by the Spirit and just didn't know it? Or could these virtues originate somewhere other than in a supernatural realm?

I don't believe the Holy Spirit...as Christians refer to it.....is limited to time or space.....so of course it can influence humans throughout the ages.

 

[Mendalla]

I don't believe the Holy Spirit...as Christians refer to it.....is limited to time or space.....so of course it can influence humans throughout the ages.

So one can be a non-Christian and still be influenced by the spirit? And if one is a good person (bears "fruits of the spirit" in Paul's words), the spirit should get the credit, not oneself, even if one doesn't believe the spirit exists?

 

[Mystic]

Our unconscious need to remake God into own image might be the most important form of modern idolatry. This need underlines the importance of the repeated biblical principle: "The fear (reverence, awe, and yes, fear, too) of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." The advocated fear implies a recognition that the real God is wholly other and does not jump just because I crack my whip. This recognition means that our comfortable mental constructs of God must be understood in terms of our need to manipulate God, so that God supports our agendas. It is precisely to prevent such undisciplined mental constructs that the OT God thrice evades requests for His name and. after Moses' request for His name, substitutes the evasive but illuminating phrase, "I am who am", more clearly translated as "I will be whatever I will be." To prevent such idolatrous theology, God reminds us in Isaiah, "My ways are not your ways, nor my thoughts your thoughts."

So how can this danger be best avoided? By stressing an experiential/ contemplative approach to God rather than a merely doctrinal and ritualistic approach. Mystical experience often produces a dread and fear, as one realizes that, though the real God wants an intimate connection with us, He connects with us in a way that reminds us that we are only scratching the surface of a hidden, elusive, mysterious, yet somehow still loving ultimate reality. But a more mystical connection with God also transforms life into a more exciting and adventurous faith quest.