God in our Image?

[GeoFee]

Hi,

Sometime past I abandoned resort to naming God. This following a long wrestle with competing points of view. That wrestle producing something of a hybrid. The best of all encountered along the diverse way, revealed by a purging of the worst in all encountered along that way. How you name your God matters little to me. The character you manifest while naming your God is what interests me. An honest anybody is preferred to a dishonesty anybody. So along the spectrum of character attributes.

The religious folk in Jerusalem had favoured names for their one God. Jesus seemed little concerned with discovering and serving any of these. Rather, he walked about in the name of I am who I am. This offended those who professed management of God's name.

We see through a glass darkly. Soon we shall see face to face.

George

 

[Mendalla]

We are all travellers in the dark following the light provided by our own candles........

Damn, I love this. Very UU.

This is really why we have "a free and responsible search for truth and meaning" as one of our principles. Our forebears were not always popular for their questions and explorations beyond the Christian orthodox, but considered the ability to freely engage in that questioning and exploration crucial to a meaningful faith.

 

[Jaebius]

As Mendalla points out - for all any of us know Unsafe, Jae, revjohn might see God how God sees God.
Trouble is, which one?

It's me.

 

[Mendalla]

It's me.

Oh definitely. There is no doubt in my mind that Jae has it right.

Not really but, hey, let him bask in the moment.

 

[Waterfall]

What I'm trying to suggest is that the way you see God is how YOU think God is like.

Not at all, if I were to create God as a result of what I wanted God to be He would not be a mystery in any way, he would leave no room for doubt, He would reveal Himself in a way that would be easily known and certainly wouldn't challenge me on a daily basis. I thank God it isn't so.
Fortunately we are lead to deeper understandings within scripture using our exoteric ,esoteric and mystical reasoning which if consistently used has the potential to enable us to ascend to a higher understanding and God to descend to meet us.
Someone once said religion comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable. God seems to have devised a way to keep us on our toes and vigilant.

 

[PilgrimsProgress]

It's me.

That's it - I'm joining chansen's crowd!

 

[PilgrimsProgress]

Damn, I love this. Very UU.

.

It just sort of came to me - the spirit at work?
God (or at least me) is engrossed with this thread.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

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.

If fruits of the spirit were solely from your god and not just from people, then I'd agree. You cant claim goodness is from a god without first showing a god exist.
Circular reasoning fallacy and begging the question fallacy.

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!

Care to expound on that, like supplying demonstrable evidence. Just saying, proves nothing and shows you are blind to reality. You are offering nothing to the discussion, you may as well have kept your mouth shut. (it's Kindergarten mentality)

So you must believe in god before you get the evidence of god. That's like saying I must believe in unicorns before I have the evidence for unicorns. (totally bat-s**t crazy) I have more respect for myself than that.

 

[Jaebius]

If fruits of the spirit were solely from your god and not just from people, then I'd agree. You cant claim goodness is from a god without first showing a god exist.
Circular reasoning fallacy and begging the question fallacy.

Care to expound on that, like supplying demonstrable evidence. Just saying, proves nothing and shows you are blind to reality. You are offering nothing to the discussion, you may as well have kept your mouth shut. (it's Kindergarten mentality)

So you must believe in god before you get the evidence of god. That's like saying I must believe in unicorns before I have the evidence for unicorns. (totally bat-s**t crazy) I have more respect for myself than that.

Since you won't open your blinky blinky eyes to see the evidence that God has put all around you, I'm certainly not going to waste my time offering mine.

 

[revjohn]

Jesus is humble, so he doesn't want to come right out and say that he's God. However, that he is God is absolutely the truth that he's sharing here. He wants the man to get it. To put the pieces together and come up with the only answer possible - that Jesus is Lord and God and King.

Just as I posted.

He does, as a matter of fact, not say that he is God in that many words.

He does make a claim that calls into question his designation by the questioner. Leaving the questioner to either affirm that he is God or deny that he is good.

The text does not report that the questioner did anything but continue with his questioning.

Nonetheless, Jesus being a good teacher does not refuse to cooperate until the questioner affirms that he is God or denies that he is good.

 

[revjohn]

What I'm trying to suggest is that the way you see God is how YOU think God is like.

I don't believe that is absolute. I don't deny that it is a phenomenon that is easy to see. History is full of individuals who have wrestled with God simply because God is entirely other.

God's worldview, morality are how YOU see God operating.

By no means.

God's worldview would be how God sees the world. Differently from the way I do I am quite certain.

God's morality would be defined by God's evaluation of what is good and what is evil. That will conflict with my own evaluation from time to time.

 

[Luce NDs]

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.

Are jackasses like god? One carried Jesus mother into a place of birth that was separate from the wilderness ... and look what the citii did to HeH!

Yet we still have to do these things according to mysterium tremens ... the pain of learning for rational that we generally don't know as yet ... some believe strongly that this would be negative thinking ... thus the B'N we get our selves in ... corn crib? Perhaps just kogn along in another tradition ... mire cog in the weal ...

 

[Luce NDs]

The bible tells us in Genesis that God's spirit moved over the water and Isaiah says the spirit was involved in the creation of the universe. The spirit of truth testifies for God always.

Tis a bit misty ... but the individual sol is like that until gathered a bit for the next step in the way ... it weaves ...

 

[revjohn]

As Mendalla points out - for all any of us know Unsafe, Jae, revjohn might see God how God sees God.
Trouble is, which one?

Speaking for myself.

How I see God is not how God sees God.

I see only what God has been pleased to reveal and that, as observed through a particular lense. While some revelation of God's self to me will be unique to me because my experiences are uniquely mine I belong to a faith tradition and communities which test our perceptions of those revelations.

I operate under no belief that I see the entirety of God nor do I operate under the belief that even what I do see is comprehended clearly. The doctrine of Total Depravity informs me, first and foremost, that I can be mistaken no matter how earnest. While I clearly believe that some theological traditions and perspectives are better than others you will not here me, nor will you ever read me, saying that you must see things and do things my way.

I will not advocate that others must see God as I see God. That doesn't mean that I won't question other perspectives in an attempt to discern if they are, or are not, looking at God. While God is multi-facetted I do not believe it is necessary that everyone is looking at the same thing from different angles.

At the same time I am not going to be docile and remain silent about what I see, particularly when I believe that I am seeing with clarity.

So I invite others to wrestle with me in coming to grips with an understanding of God and a deeper grasp of their view. I'm not interested in participating with a group of people who will not wrestle. Their God is too small to convince me it is God at all.

 

[Luce NDs]

Or perhaps "the spirit" is bulls**t.

Thus the spirit would be a pain ... and that is good for learning!

Then if God said everything was good ... where did bad come from ... that dark mysterious woman made after gods creation? Thus the evil in mystery for those that believe they know it aL ... and thus mysterium tremens (holy experience) is probably when you loose track of your learned experience ... dynamics of passions can do that to yah!

Happens sometime in the dark of night ... and God knows who Joan of Arc screwed up in their battle for Gael Supremacy ?

Tis an arcane mystery ... keeps observers attuned to stuff requiring as tout Ness ...

 

[Luce NDs]

What I'm trying to suggest is that the way you see God is how YOU think God is like.
God's worldview, morality are how YOU see God operating. As Mendalla points out - for all any of us know Unsafe, Jae, revjohn might see God how God sees God.
Trouble is, which one?

Can thoughts about god be inverted or only converted? The down side of God ... that day after the incident? Sunday morning coming down ... O' to look at things from the other ends ... thus the head mon ... to up some esteem! After that if all the candles gather ... would there be a flash ... and urge to get into grander mysterium? Eternally there's no NDs to wit ... someone said only the wise Q-Y ... I get an image of Andy (capp) stumbling home to a frustrated woman ... should heh 'ave smartened up afore?

 

[revjohn]

This brings up another issue - what is so wrong about doubting or questioning some aspects of faith?
For me, a mature faith implies that one gives serious thought and consideration to how faith is presented.

Had nothing of the kind happened there would have been no schism between Roman and Orthodox Christianities, nor would there have been Reformation and Counter-Reformation. The history of the Christian faith is much more than the bleating of senseless sheep.

I also question revjohn's view about the wisdom of the elders in community - not only do they attribute their view of God to God like we all do- but I find a touch of misplaced arrogance in their "certainty".

The question is fair.

I don't present the elders as infallible. I recognize that they have been wandering in the wilderness more years than I and I find it entirely possible that they have learned from mistakes that I do not need to repeat. If I want to get stronger in my faith I need to find something tougher than marshmallow to wrestle with.

We are all travellers in the dark following the light provided by our own candles........

Can't agree.

Well not entirely. We are all travellers in the dark. We do not generate our own light. In that regard we are more moon than sun. We can reflect light but we do not ourselves generate light.

 

[Luce NDs]

Had nothing of the kind happened there would have been no schism between Roman and Orthodox Christianities, nor would there have been Reformation and Counter-Reformation. The history of the Christian faith is much more than the bleating of senseless sheep.



The question is fair.

I don't present the elders as infallible. I recognize that they have been wandering in the wilderness more years than I and I find it entirely possible that they have learned from mistakes that I do not need to repeat. If I want to get stronger in my faith I need to find something tougher than marshmallow to wrestle with.



Can't agree.

Well not entirely. We are all travellers in the dark. We do not generate our own light. In that regard we are more moon than sun. We can reflect light but we do not ourselves generate light.

Thus the urge for gathered moonies ... you can see these in the Sistine Chapel ... of course without sectz and discourse for talking to angels and daemons is forbidden in the real world ... the physically oriented would say you had a psychic experience and that would be impossible while in lack of mind ... so something as strange attractor arises ... de Light!

Mine 'd ... everyone should get one to support the wormhole theory ... vermin wood text as a woe dan spade!

 

[revjohn]

talking to angels and daemons is forbidden in the real world

Not forbidden. Just heavily provisoed.

When talking to angels one needs to be wary of scoffing at their claims, of course if you manage the "Do not be afraid" bit you probably tread more lightly.

When talking to demons one needs to be wary of the half-truth that will slip you up and become a nasty reality. Best not to listen at all because what ever truth is shared will not be in your best interest.

Of course, that is just what I hear.

 

[Luce NDs]

Not forbidden. Just heavily provisoed.

When talking to angels one needs to be wary of scoffing at their claims, of course if you manage the "Do not be afraid" bit you probably tread more lightly.

When talking to demons one needs to be wary of the half-truth that will slip you up and become a nasty reality. Best not to listen at all because what ever truth is shared will not be in your best interest.

Of course, that is just what I hear.

Yes those dark voices from the spread of silence ... can be expounded upon but not publically when in the presence of those that believe not in non-physical attributes ... too dynamic ... they can move one up or down a tier ... painfully ... thus one learns ... although authorities would rather you not and thus the label falls nous (from one of the highest authorities). What was that adage about corruption 've authority?