Re-branding God (tm)

[steve95054]

(05-13-2011 03:35 PM)greg Wrote:  You have told us all what Jesus didn't mean, so why don't you take a stab at telling us what Jesus might have meant. Clearly Jesus was pointing us towards truth.

See John 1:1; 14:6; Eph. 5:26, Heb. 11:3.

[Ricardo]

Greg, I'll reply to your "word" in the inerrant thread. later. We've got enough on our plate here trying to find a definition of God that makes sense.

[Don]

Quote:The only truth you and I have, is our personal experience, our testimony. Fortunately, that is what counts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you believe that there is any absolute Truth then?

Do you believe that there is not any absolute truth found in Scripture?
When God declares who he is do you reject that as true?

Your arguments sound very techincal and intelectual but at some point you have to anchor your beliefs and convictions in truth. Not just some subjective experiential truth but absolute truth. We cannot find truth in and of ourselves because any truth that is only in us is temporal, and subject to change. Truth that is only in us is finite and unreliable. We do not have all knowledge so there are things outside of us that affect truth that is limited to only "us".
Truth is trancendent to our being. We have to look outside ourselves for Truth. In order for Truth to be True it cannot be relative. Relative Truth is not True because it is a moving target without a foundation.

In order for truth to be concrete, aboslute and trancendent then it must have its foundation in something or someone who is totally other than we are. Such a person or thing would have to be self existing, ominpotent, omnipresent, and omniscient at the very least.

This being we know as God. We know of him by both natural revelation, (all of creation, the universe on the macro scale and the irreducable complexity of cellular structures on the micro scale) and by Special revelation in Scripture. He makes claims that only he can make and only he has fulfilled.
I think that's pretty convincing bonafides. Who is like unto God? Who can give counsel to God? He is God and there is none other.

Edit: I took the quote and ran with that thought. If I have misread the line quoted or that is not what you meant by it then please correct my understanding.

[oneflewoutofthecuckcoosnest]

(05-12-2011 09:37 PM)Ricardo Wrote:  I did walk away from God.

When I walked out of my Fundy church, I thought I was walking away from God, from my family, from my friends, from salvation itself.

And yet, everywhere I walked to, there He was!

My family never let me leave them, quite a few of my friends stuck with me, and Salvation, I've never felt more secure than I felt when I stopped trying to earn it through the church's rules and regulations.

Abandoning the doctirne of Inerrancy helped me focus on the Living God, rather than the paper god.

Like. Thanks for sharing.

[Ricardo]

(05-13-2011 06:44 PM)Don Wrote:  

’Ricardo’ Wrote:The only truth you and I have, is our personal experience, our testimony. Fortunately, that is what counts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you believe that there is any absolute Truth then?

“Absolute Truth.” I’m not sure how to recognize it, interpret it, put it in practice, or even share it with you. Other than “subjective experiential truth.”

Yes, we are all looking for a truth that is not finite. That is why we left our churches. That is why we come back day after day to SFL. That is why we pray without ceasing and we continue to read scriptures day and night. And we continue our endless conversations.

And sometimes a glimmer of that Truth shines through.

I’ve got to be careful and not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Surely God reveals Herself through scriptures. And through nature. And directly to each one of us. But even if we agreed on which canon, and which manuscripts to declare as Her words, we then have the problem of interpretation. Which interpretation do we declare as “Absolute Truth?” MINE, of course

Absolute Truth may exist somewhere, but it is not to be captured by one person, to wield against everyone else.

Meanwhile, all I can do is keep on singing: “This little light of mine, I’m going to make it shine!”

[Dude]

I like this discussion.

Richao's comments mirror an idea I've been dealing with for a while now. A guy at work, fundamentalist but not baptist, is a strong predestination guy. My thought is that it really doesn't matter. While I don't believe in election myself, I don't see where holding one belief or the other makes any real difference in how I live or my relationship with God (or anyone else's either). It doesn't determine whether one is a real Christian or not.

Where is the thread on Bible literalism mentioned previously? I couldn't find it anywhere.

[Ricardo]

Dude,

It will soon be a year since you asked. Sorry, did not notice.

One of the inerrancy threads is here: http://www.stufffundieslike.com/forum/sh...p?tid=2806

[Bob M]

(05-12-2011 08:29 PM)Ricardo Wrote:  There is brand-name confusion these days: God, the Father ™ used to be the God in "Heaven," while God, the Holy Spirit ™ used to be that part of God that was on Earth, after God, the Son ™, came and went.

Today, with the Jewish Cosmology relegated to a quaint place in the history of Science, God in "Heaven" needs to be re-branded, re-marketed, since it really is not that much different from "God everywhere." Miticlorians make more sense today.

I’m not sure we can avoid anthropomorphism. But what we need is to update the anthropomorphic definitions from five thousand years ago.

God promising land sounds pretty convenient for a bunch of nomads. God the “general” makes sense for an invading force. God the “King” doesn’t do much for me, not even after watching “THE” wedding. What does kneeling down to a god mean today? What does raising our arms in praise, (like little satellite dishes,) mean for a God of a universe billions of light years across? Why would this god toy with his creatures on this small planet, on this mediocre galaxy, testing their loyalty with requests to sacrifice sons?

I’m not done with describing problems. Pretend for a moment that we are “GOD,” and we are watching over the billions of ant colonies on Earth. We have given these ants some instincts and some measure of intelligence. Why would we as gods want to reward (or punish) for eternity the behavior of merely each ant’s lifetime?

An eye for an eye: the punishment needs to fit the crime. Eternal punishment or reward is simply not fair. Condemning all my ants to Eternal Hell because the first ant I made screwed up, does not make sense. An eternity where a few of my creatures will do nothing but worship and praise me for eternity is narcissism elevated to infinity. Condemning the majority of my creatures to eternal torment is Infinite cruelty.

We laugh these days at the concept of martyrs for Jihad receiving seventy virgins in Paradise. How is that different than receiving crowns in a Heaven with streets of gold?

Who makes these things up? No wonder guys like Rob Bell need to come up with a different paradigm!

“Ours is not to understand,” we are told, “ours is to obey.”

I don’t buy this anymore.

When my concept of a God of Justice does not conform to a specific style of biblical interpretation, the answer is not to drop Justice. Instead, I have no choice but to drop the interpretation style. I took a course at Fundy U, where we went through EVERY verse that described God. Of course there are conflicting attributes. When we read passages in the bible where God is patently unjust, the answer is not to jump through hoops in order to explain how what may appear to be unjust actually is the opposite. The answer is to realize that at the time some of those books were written, that was the attributes all gods had.

As you may have noticed, re-branding God impinges on several other cherished doctrines.

The definition of God as All Knowing REQUIRES God to be guilty of allowing unspeakable evil. It also does a number on the concept of Free Will. The definition of God as All Powerful REQUIRES God to be the source of all natural calamities.

The only way I can imagine God, is by taking much more seriously to those scriptural passages that make emphasis in our lives here and now. If I were God I would be curious as to what my creatures can do for themselves with the skills I’ve given them. Free will is the ONLY hook I can think of that would keep me interested. (My god, as me, has ADD.)

I truly cannot grasp a God who knows everything and controls everything, past present and future.

Many of us grew up with model trains. Marklin, of course. (Those Lionel fans are heretics…) Once I laid the track the way I wanted, making the appropriate adjustments because I never had enough track segments to do everything I wanted, I could run the train(s) only so many times before I was completely and utterly bored.

The fun part for me was the building of the track, the creative side. Still is: I’m a Systems Analyst.

If I were GOD, I would absolutely throw in Free Will into the mix. It is the only thing that would keep me coming back to the ant farm, to see what my creations were up to. If I already knew what is going to happen, it would kill any interest I may have.

This means creating a religion based on a LIVING God instead of a paper god. (Papyrus god?) This means depending not only on an imperfect bible, but on an imperfect tradition of an imperfect church. It means having the humility to admit that I may not have the whole story, and that I depend on paying attention to the little bit of God’s light that may be in your heart. (Even Greg’s.)

I’ve got more, way more, but I guess this is enough to get the conversation going.

Needless to say, I don’t have the Truth, neither do you. I pray, with God’s help, and with your input, we come ever so closer to Him.

Well, I , for one, am glad you aren't God. I am glad that the God of the Bible is God. He has revealed himself to us people made in his image. We are not ants. Bad analogy. And he has given us the ability to make real choices that we are held responsible for. And all powerful/all knowing can be reconciled with these things, just not by analogies like ants on an ant farm. Its much more complicated than that.

[Don]

Quote:When we read passages in the bible where God is patently unjust...

It amazes me when the creation stands in judgment of it's creator, and delcares him unjust.

If the Creator is unjust then on what basis does the creation judge him? According to what standard of justice? If the creator is unjust then how can what he creates be just?

[Ricardo]

(04-07-2012 10:54 AM)Don Wrote:  

Quote:When we read passages in the bible where God is patently unjust...

It amazes me when the creation stands in judgment of it's creator, and delcares him unjust.

If the Creator is unjust then on what basis does the creation judge him? According to what standard of justice? If the creator is unjust then how can what he creates be just?

There you go, again.

What is wrong with this picture?

MEN wrote those books. MEN selected them into canons. Men declared them infallible.

Now, when any of us have doubts, Men tell us: "How dare you question GOD?

I'm not questioning God at all. I'm questioning specific definitions of God. that include actions and attributes that I find incompatible with my God.