God is Not a Person

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by adjensen

 

If you believe in the "God" of Christianity, does that mean you believe the Bible in its entirety, as well? Because that is the sole source of ...*ahem* authorized information concerning that "God".

No, as I have posted about a billion times, I am not a Fundamentalist -- my relationship is with God, not with a book.

reply to post by adjensen


And you don't believe any of the Christian views regarding "God"?

...I'm confused. How is a nonfundamentalist Christian a true Christian when it's the fundamentalist Christian who first joined Christianity? If anything, wouldn't it be the fundies who really know what's up?

That line of thinking leads me to speculate that any nonfundie is not a true Christian, but has Christian leanings, if you know what I mean. Just throwing it out there for discussion purposes.

reply to post by Akragon

The OT says it was God himself on the mount with moses... along with many other passages claiming God himself spoke through these "prophets"...

But lets remember.... Satan was an angel as well...

In Acts, chapters 6 and 7, you find the story of Stephen testifying in the spirit of inspiration before being stoned as a heretic.
He speaks of Moses as being sent "by the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush."
Then Stephen goes on to say of Moses, that he was the one "in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers."

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by adjensen

 

And you don't believe any of the Christian views regarding "God"?

Of course I do.

...I'm confused. How is a nonfundamentalist Christian a true Christian when it's the fundamentalist Christian who first joined Christianity? If anything, wouldn't it be the fundies who really know what's up?

A Fundamentalist is someone who believes that the Bible is the inerrant (apart from translation or transcription errors) word of God. When reality and the Bible are in conflict, it is reality that is wrong, not the Bible (hence the belief that the world was created 6,000 years ago and fossils were put there by Satan to fool people.)

A non-Fundamentalist sees the Hebrew Bible as being inspired by God, but ultimately written by men, and so it reflects real, allegorical and interpreted events within the history of the Israelites and their God. I am no longer a Fundamentalist (I once was one, a long time ago,) because I began to see it as a box that we are trying to confine God to, unnecessarily, though I can still sympathize with and see validity to the Fundamentalist's position.

The New Testament is more of a theological work than an historical one, so, while I still don't think it is the word of God (literally, things that he said,) there's not much in there that I disagree with.

reply to post by adjensen


I respect that view. It's not like it's made you a bad person, and who am I to say what deity you're supposed to believe in as long as you aren't harming yourself or others?

I think I've given a false impression in my crusades against the Christian god. There's a lot of it that I don't agree with, but all I'm trying to do is show that there are other spiritual paths that work just as well, and perhaps even better. I don't like seeing people drawing a box and cramming themselves inside of it because that's what they think the Bible is telling them to do. I like to see people questioning, wondering, probing their spirituality so that when they're done, they are at peace with themselves and the world.

That's all I'm looking for. Thanks for the talk!

reply to post by AfterInfinity

I'm saying whatever the NT and OT don't have in common should be discarded. If there are discrepancies, then they are suspicious. I don't care when they were made, if you have an updated version, the outdated version is no longer necessary. Yet they have two different doctrines floating around? Yeah, that's gonna end well.

You want everything all neat and pat, and so do a lot of other people and that is how we end up with the Modern Pop-culture Slogan-based Religion Version of Christianity that I am constantly fighting against on this forum.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
I like to see people questioning, wondering, probing their spirituality so that when they're done, they are at peace with themselves and the world.

That would be a fair statement as to where I am in my spiritual journey. Am I absolutely correct? No, probably not. Am I "close enough" for me? Yes, with my conversion to Roman Catholicism last year, I would say so, though the trip continues for as long as we're alive.

reply to post by adjensen


That is your decision to make. And I don't know if "close enough" is where anyone needs to be right now. "Close enough" sounds a lot like, "I've stopped caring." But that's just my opinion.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


No, it means that I recognize that a complete knowledge is not attainable, but that a "satisfying" knowledge is.

Prior to my conversion, the only spiritual issue that I had was with my religion (United Methodist) because it didn't seem to be serving my daily spiritual needs. After a lot of studying and thought, I decided that Paleo-Orthodoxy was what I was most connected to, but as that's not a real religion, I went to the RCC and found, not only a church that I think is closest to Paleo-Orthodoxy, but which has practices of prayer, teaching and service that do serve my daily needs.

But that's me -- everyone's journey is their own.

reply to post by adjensen

No, it means that I recognize that a complete knowledge is not attainable, but that a "satisfying" knowledge is.

Isn't that what people usually say before they discover the fine print?

But that's me -- everyone's journey is their own.

Indeed.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by adjensen

 

No, it means that I recognize that a complete knowledge is not attainable, but that a "satisfying" knowledge is.

Isn't that what people usually say before they discover the fine print?

I'm not sure what you mean, but I think that the closer one gets to "seeing" God, the more one understands that it's impossible, at least as we are. Augustine referred to it as the "Incompressibility of God":

We are speaking of God. Is it any wonder if you do not comprehend? For if you comprehend, it is not God you comprehend. Let it be a pious confession of ignorance rather than a rash profession of knowledge. To attain some slight knowledge of God is a great blessing; to comprehend him, however, is totally impossible.

- St. Augustine, Lectures on the Gospel of John

That's a fairly good description of why most Christians reject the "God is just a bigger version of a human being" image that far too many non-Christians think that we believe in, and which was a typical pagan belief. God is not some long bearded white guy sitting on a cloud -- we not only don't know what God is, we can't know what God is.

reply to post by adjensen


According to that quote you posted, it would then be impossible to call him benevolent or merciful, especially when you cannot be sure that those are truly his words.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by adjensen

 

According to that quote you posted, it would then be impossible to call him benevolent or merciful, especially when you cannot be sure that those are truly his words.

Except that the incarnate Christ is comprehensible. As Augustine says, we have an idea of the nature of God, through Christ, but God remains incomprehensible. This is a fairly constant theme throughout the early church, and is carried to its logical extreme in this statement by a Ninth Century theologian:

We do not know what God is. God Himself does not know what He is because He is not anything. Literally God is not, because He transcends being.

-- John Scot Erigena

Now, I don't know that I'd agree that God is incomprehensible to himself, but I know that he's incomprehensible to me, at least as far as I am now.

reply to post by adjensen

Now, I don't know that I'd agree that God is incomprehensible to himself, but I know that he's incomprehensible to me, at least as far as I am now.

I have two words to describe what I see as being a divine principle. More of a law than a person. "Motion" and "Source". The mobile source from which everything comes, because everything that is alive and thriving has perpetual motion at some level. Without motion, death. Death is perfect stillness at every level.

That's what "God" is to me. A divine principle that functions as a mobile source of everything except perfect immobility.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Well, that would certainly fill the bill of being incomprehensible, but it also falls into the realm of the "disassociated God" of the Deists (which is probably why you identify with them.) As I said, I have a "reasoned faith" and, while the reasoned part would be fine with a disassociated God, the rest of me, the practical experience and worldview, has seen that God is not detached, so, for me, there's something more to it than a creator that set things in motion and then "went away."

adjensen,
and
AfterInfinity,
and
jmdewey

I want to thank you all for the continued civility and open dialogue we've got going here.

In my brief membership at ATS, I have rarely seen a thread on this forum that isn't overrun by trolls of every type. I hope that one day, this thread will be discovered in the annals of civilized discourse, denial of ignorance, and open-minded discussion.

Each of you, in your own way, are brilliant.

Each of you has helped my spiritual growth; and for that, again, I THANK YOU!

reply to post by wildtimes


A pot cannot turn to the Potter and say "why did you make me like this?"

Gods thoughts and ways are as far above your thoughts and ways as the stars are above our heads

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Where is the philosopher of this age?

Hath not God made the wisdom of this world foolish?

reply to post by godlover25

A pot cannot turn to the Potter and say "why did you make me like this?"

Gods thoughts and ways are as far above your thoughts and ways as the stars are above our heads

Right. As in a chamber pot made for your "God" to excrete in whenever he feels like it. Your arguments and excuses are utterly transparent. I wish I could help you see, but you cling to your blindfold as a child clings to its blanket. I read your posts with the intent to understand, and you read my posts with the intent to argue. As such, I am no longer interesting in discussing anything with you.

Good night and good luck.

reply to post by wildtimes


I fear I may not be participating in this thread much longer. I can only converse with a brick wall for so long before I grow weary and decide it is folly. Either way, thank you for that kind post. I appreciate your involvement, as well.