God and free will

[Bodhi-in-Training]

God created a perfect world.

 

Really??? Apparently we live in different worlds.

 

Lets start with animals. They must endure extreme conditions of heat or cold. A daily struggle to survive, either feeding on another being or trying to avoid being prey to another creature, there is no time for love or pity. Perfect design???

 

In humans, every year babies are stillborn or born with mental or physical disabilities. Perfect design??

 

Every year thousands die from natural disasters, floods, earthquakes, drought. Perfect design??

 

Much of this "perfect world" is faulty and cruel. Hardly a perfect creation.

[Ouroboros]

Since most of your post was once again, unwarranted assumption I will narrow it down to the pertinent details.

 

Evil is a word that has been invented by the human mind to separate what is considered being right or wrong in certain situations.

 

So you wish to equivocate between "good" and "right", and "evil" and "wrong".

 

This is an interesting dichotomy and I am curious to how you define what is "right" and "wrong".

It probably came out wrong. What I was trying to say is that the word Evil really doesn't have any meaning. There is nothing called evil, because it's a subjective word that is used depending on situation. There is no common or absolute evil. But of course there are acts that we might consider completely immoral, in a secular sense, but not in the meaning that people are evil doing those actions.

 

There is no evil, per se, but there are people that might do things that in a secular morality is not considered legit, because it breaks the foundations of what we strive for and the stability of society.

 

Let me see if I follow you here. Stability in the society is the goal of society? Therefore evil (wrong) would be anything that threatens that stability? So stability is the highest morality? This should be interesting because basically you are saying that Stalin killing millions of dissidents was in fact acceptable because it was done in the name of not upsetting society, His society.

Wow! You like to take it to the extremes don't you? Did that society stay? Was it stable? Does the Stalinist Soviet still thrive on killing dissidents? Don't you think it was wrong, what he did? I don't say he was evil, but he was absolutely a selfish tyrant that couldn't see the long term projection of survival for his little dream of a totalitarian society. So doesn't it prove my point? It was wrong what he did, because it didn't make a stable society or keep order.

 

And do you claim that society's goal is not to keep order and stability, but chaos and anarchy?

 

On the other hand, is killing innocent people caused by Evil? What about the war in Iraq? Is Bush evil, since innocent people had to give their lives?

 

No one is responsible for evil, it's a man made concept. Right and wrong, exists, but is extremely depending on context

 

 

So evil does not exist, therefore God is omnipotent and omniscient. There is no contradiction, and the world is in a utopian state, in fact it is in the "best state" it can be in. You have no objection to the Christian God

107503[/snapback]

Just because Evil doesn't exist, doesn't mean God exists. So it doesn't mean God is omnipotent nor omniscient. The implication is not that God must exist.

 

By the way, I thought the Bible was teaching about evil? So how can evil be removed and the Bible Christian God all of a sudden be true? Explain that.

[Guest Thegoodbook]

Since you have now stated that there is no evil, then you no longer have that objection. Omnipotent and ominscient are not contradictory in your worldview without the existence of evil.

 

On omnipotence- let us not confuse this with some of the absurdities posted. It is impossible to have both an immovable object and an irresistable force. The meanings of the two contradict each other and are therefore illogical.

 

All creation exists to testify to the glory of God. God in Christian terms is good personified. Good can not exist without the possibility of evil. The nature of God is such that he does not ever choose to do evil. We know from the New Testament that Jesus was God in the flesh and that he faced every temptation that we do but did not sin.

 

So we believe that there is both good and evil. We are created in the image of God but not as gods. The reason for this is to bring glory to God.

[Vulgaris Prime]

All creation exists to testify to the glory of God. God in Christian terms is good personified. Good can not exist without the possibility of evil. The nature of God is such that he does not ever choose to do evil. We know from the New Testament that Jesus was God in the flesh and that he faced every temptation that we do but did not sin.

 

Can you prove one word of that? I'm just wondering.

 

So we believe that there is both good and evil. We are created in the image of God but not as gods. The reason for this is to bring glory to God.

 

So, in other words, your murderer liar god made us to pump up his divine ego. That's sick, and that you buy it says something about how sick you are in turn.

[Bodhi-in-Training]

Good can not exist without the possibility of evil. The nature of God is such that he does not ever choose to do evil.

 

Then why would this supposed “all-loving” God create evil to begin with, why would he inflict such suffering into the world? If there is really a God of love, why doesn't he put an end to all evil?

 

So we believe that there is both good and evil. We are created in the image of God but not as gods. The reason for this is to bring glory to God.

 

This is illogical however as God is supposedly “all-knowing” therefore God must already know what choices, good or evil, a person will make long before they ever make them, so what is the point? Couldn't an all-loving God think of a less cruel way to do this?

[Ouroboros]

Since you have now stated that there is no evil, then you no longer have that objection. Omnipotent and ominscient are not contradictory in your worldview without the existence of evil.

You're mixing the things up. It's omnipotence, benevolence and evil that can't co-exist, but anyway. Whatever. Omnipotence could exist, very true. Omniscience could exist, I agree. And?

 

On omnipotence- let us not confuse this with some of the absurdities posted. It is impossible to have both an immovable object and an irresistable force. The meanings of the two contradict each other and are therefore illogical.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you in agreement that it's a paradox with a God that is good and omnipotent but still let evil exist?

 

All creation exists to testify to the glory of God. God in Christian terms is good personified. Good can not exist without the possibility of evil. The nature of God is such that he does not ever choose to do evil. We know from the New Testament that Jesus was God in the flesh and that he faced every temptation that we do but did not sin.

So now your back to that evil does exist. And on the top you argued that now I could agree to the omnipotence and omniscience when evil was removed. Does you worldview include the concept of evil or not? And does it go hand-in-hand with omnipotence and benevolence?

 

So we believe that there is both good and evil. We are created in the image of God but not as gods. The reason for this is to bring glory to God.

107846[/snapback]

Wait a minute, didn't we agree on the top that evil is a man made concept? And why does it bring glory to God with us being humans and not gods? By the way, Jesus said we are gods. Are you claiming that evil is the glory of God? I'm not sure where you're going with this...

[Asuryan]

I'm still waiting for my answer.

[crazy-tiger]

Since you have now stated that there is no evil, then you no longer have that objection. Omnipotent and ominscient are not contradictory in your worldview without the existence of evil.

 

On omnipotence- let us not confuse this with some of the absurdities posted. It is impossible to have both an immovable object and an irresistable force. The meanings of the two contradict each other and are therefore illogical.

So, omnipotence is illogical... I actually agree with that.

Remember, omnipotence is being all-powerful. If you can't create both an irresistable force and an immovable object then you aren't omnipotent.

 

Now, since God is omnipotent, he's either an illogical being, (one that cannot exist) or he's not what he's made out to be. (or what he said he was...)

 

Either way, someone somewhere has been lying about God and those lies are in the Bible.

All creation exists to testify to the glory of God. God in Christian terms is good personified. Good can not exist without the possibility of evil. The nature of God is such that he does not ever choose to do evil. We know from the New Testament that Jesus was God in the flesh and that he faced every temptation that we do but did not sin.

Now... this is a problem, since "good" is a relative term.

 

Oh yes... God says it's not good to murder, but he goes right ahead and murders countless people.

Obviously, murder is sometimes good.

So we believe that there is both good and evil. We are created in the image of God but not as gods. The reason for this is to bring glory to God.

107846[/snapback]

Good and evil are relative terms... you believe that they are "fixed" terms, which is contradicted by your own belief. (do you like the way logic just doesn't apply at this point?)

 

Omniscience is also a problem for you... you believe that God knows all, which is possible, but you also believe in free-will.

 

Free-will means that your decisions are not made for you in advance... having free-will means that knowledge of what you are about to do is unknowable.

If anything is unknowable, then omniscience is an illogical concept.

 

Once again, you believe something that is contradicted by your own belief.

 

 

 

See... we don't need to believe the way you do to object to the way you believe. If we can see something in your belief that doesn't add up, and if your belief impinges on our lives, then we are justified in objecting.

 

In this case, I object to your belief in good, evil and the way you try to claim that something illogical makes sense...

[Mr. Neil]

href="/post-34-1132086733.gif">

[Ouroboros]

108039[/snapback]

[crazy-tiger]

108039[/snapback]

You settling in for the show?

[Amethyst]

So, omnipotence is illogical... I actually agree with that.

 

True. I highly doubt that Spock would have found Q even remotely logical.

 

Now, since God is omnipotent, he's either an illogical being, (one that cannot exist) or he's not what he's made out to be. (or what he said he was...)

 

Or else he's a trickster alien like Q, playing the ultimate cosmic joke on us. (Somehow, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if that turned out to be the case.)

 

[Amethyst]

108039[/snapback]

 

I tried to find a smiley eating chocolate, but I couldn't, so I just made one.

[Mr. Neil]

You settling in for the show?

Yep!

[Ouroboros]

It's strange... how can you define "Evil"?

 

Is it a force?

 

Is it a spirit?

 

Is it immoral intentions?

 

If someone kills a person, is the killer evil?

If so, say the killer was a cop that shot a rapist, is the cop still evil?

 

Is it the opposite of good?

If so, say it's good to give candy to kids at halloween, would I then be evil if I didn't?

 

I'm not sure there are any true or solid definition of the word "evil"...

 

Anyone?

[Bodhi-in-Training]

It's strange... how can you define "Evil"?

 

Is it a force?

 

Is it a spirit?

 

Is it immoral intentions?

 

If someone kills a person, is the killer evil?

If so, say the killer was a cop that shot a rapist, is the cop still evil?

 

Is it the opposite of good?

If so, say it's good to give candy to kids at halloween, would I then be evil if I didn't?

 

I'm not sure there are any true or solid definition of the word "evil"...

 

Anyone?

 

Although I think evil is a bit of a nasty word, because if we perceive someone to be evil, someone else sees them as good. For example the person that kills someone out of rage, are they "evil", you may think so, but that indivuals mother may see an affectionate child, their partner may see a caring spouse, their children a loving parent...and so on. So can we really call this person evil? Hardly. This is one of the reason I don't believe that true evil exists in the world.

 

However, there are good and bad intentions. If I kill with the sole intent to inflict harm on another being, although not evil, it is not good. There is no mind of compassion at work here.

[NotBlinded]

What you refer to as human "imperfections" the Bible refers to as sin (moral evil). But you speak of it as if it is a "thing": a substance or commodity. This is the flaw in your argument.

Moral evil, when you think about it, is what? It is a DISORDERED act of the WILL. It is a wrong relationship and nonconformity between Gods will and our will. He did not directly CREATE sin; He allowed man to CHOOSE. Man is responsible, not God.

I agree that man is responsible and that would only make sense if you view your god as a god that only creates and not intervenes. We could be the result of god sneezing and not wipping up the mess!

 

Maybe it we look at the bible as a way to gain insight into understanding the relationship between the parables and the lives of humans, we could actually understand its meaning. Like this one:

 

The story of the stilling of the tempest by Christ is a beautiful illustration of this allegorical method of writing. The disciples set sail on the Sea of Galilee. They navigated the ship while the Master who accompanied them slept. All was well until a great storm arose. Then the disciples awoke the sleeping Passenger, and He in His might confronted the storm and stilled it by uttering three words, "Peace, be still."

 

Many of the symbols to which I have drawn your attention are used in that story. The scene is on water, meaning that it concerns the emotions of man. The ship is the containing and conveying vessel, the body which carries the Soul over the waters of life. The disciples personify human attributes of the Soul, such as the impulsiveness of Peter and his inherent sainthood, the simplicity of the fishermen James and John, the busyness of Matthew at the receipt of custom, the faithful love of John, the only disciple who was present both in the courtroom and at the foot of the cross. All are within man, as also is Judas, who on occasion, tempts us to betray the divine within us. But also within each and every one of us is the Christ Nature, the God within us, our "hope of glory" as St. Paul said.

 

At the beginning of life (the voyage) that inherent divinity is unconscious (sleeps) until the storms of life, the gusts of desire, anger, hate, malice, greed, jealousy, threaten the safety of the soul. Then what is to be done? Do as the disciples did. Turn inward to the deeper part of your nature in search of the divine, the Christ–Nature, reach up to it, touch and awaken it, and thus exalted and inspired, confront fearlessly the storms of the lower nature and, with certainty of obedience, say to them "Peace, be still."

 

The value of the storms of life is also indicated in this story for, had it not been for the storm, the Christ might not have been awakened. So also the storms of life, difficult, painful and often tragic as they are, have their place in our lives and evolutionary progress. If we can learn to deal with them intelligently, rise intuitively above the emotional storms, and exalt ourselves into realization of our spiritual Selves, the awakened divinity within us, we shall find the most difficult of emotional problems relatively easy of solution.

 

This narrative also suggests the full evolutionary journey of the innermost Self of man with its peaceful sleep at the beginning (the unawakened condition of the human Monad, the divine spark). At the commencement of man's evolutionary pilgrimage, all powers are latent; but human life with its experiences – stormy and otherwise – fructifies, awakens the germinal divine powers; and these, consciously wielded, give peace at the end. This latter is not the peace of innocence and ignorance but the peace of power, fully awakened and consciously employed.

 

From this site: The Hidden Wisdom in Christian Scriptures

 

So, sit back and enjoy reading the bible as maybe it shoud be read.

[Ssel]

From this site: The Hidden Wisdom in Christian Scriptures

 

So, sit back and enjoy reading the bible as maybe it shoud be read.

Interesting. I hadn't read Hodson's work. What he was trying to say during the first 1/3 of that web site is exactly what I have been trying to convey.

 

I think His personal translations get a little sloppy. I tend to insist on a more concrete objective translation into English. He puts a great deal into the concept of everything being about the "inner self". This is a very limited view. It isn't entirely false, but it also is misleading.

 

When dealing with the abstract, one must realize that the particulars can be applied to many worlds of concern. That is what "abstract" means. In this case, those concepts that He applies only to the inner self, also apply to the outer world. But if you use those exact translations, the outer world application becomes confusing. I handle such things by changing the abstract definitions to either fit both, and all applications, or if I can't see any definition that would apply, I simply toss the document back on the shelf as uncertain.

 

The 3 qualities that ensure a proper translation from any ancient language;

 

1) Consistency - the same abstract definitions apply in every usage within the document

2) Completeness - the abstract definition set applies to the complete story leaving nothing still irrational

3) Relevance - the translation ends up telling something worthy of its telling (not merely an entertaining story)

[Ssel]

God in Christian terms is good personified....

 

So we believe that there is both good and evil. We are created in the image of God but not as gods. The reason for this is to bring glory to God.

Neither of these assertions are exactly true (if anyone is interested).

 

It's omnipotence, benevolence and evil that can't co-exist,..

This has been a common paradoxical issue for people for a long time. The above quoted assertion is actually false. In recent years, the West has made a point to reveal exactly why it is false (regardless of any religous rationale). As odd as it sounds, it is perfectly logical that God created both good and evil and is benevolent and omnipotent. But it is very unlikely you're going to find an SCC that could explain it.

 

[Abiyoyo]

I get this e-mail and I know it from someone here on this forum.

 

 

God gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness

But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God.

 

Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.

 

 

Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.

 

Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?

 

 

The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator.

 

Let us suppose that this perfect God did create the universe. Humans were the crown of his creation, since they were created in God's image and have the ability to make decisions. However, these humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey God.

 

 

What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, and yet this "perfect" God created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans. The ultimate source of imperfection is God. What is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible.

 

Wow.

 

Let me get this straight.

 

1. God created humans

2. Humans are not perfect

3. God is not perfect

4. There is no God

 

Well this is an interesting theory with a lot of logical holes in it.

 

First off God did create humans, but there was a plan that included Christ redeeming those same humans. The Bible calls Christ, the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. That phrase only makes sense if God (this may also merit a discussion of God and time) had reasoned before he made the world, to have something for people to be redeemed from namely sin. Which means that God determined that man would fall and become in need of a Savior. When Adam fell, the whole creation was put under the curse of sin accounting for your "imperfections" in the universe.

 

Adam had a free will in that he was able to do what he desired. He did not screw up God's plan of free beings being good everywhere. God planned to exhibit his goodness to something that did not deserve it (us). He showed us how complete his goodness was, first in creating us, second in providing us with reason, and third with redeeming his own through his son, Christ Jesus.

 

God's plan was not necessarily to create perfection in the sense you are using it, meaning free from sin.

 

 

My POV,

 

Why does God, the Bible and all the other surroundings of us and Christ always have to be perfect. The only thing described in a perfect sense from the God perspective in the book is Jesus. When God is described to have created this world in Genesis, He said it was good, not perfect.

 

I think we all, believers to unbelievers, have been brainwashed in some way about God and the Bibles teachings. Pastors, preachers, pulpit warmers all across the world are pinning God with descriptive words including perfect, flawless, fatherly, hold our hand type of situations.

 

God is sovreign. God is what people have claimed Him to be. God acts for His will, which has always been according to the Word. God surely didnt will for people to have vain lives and suffer, yet we do. Also, God surely doe4snt will for people to disobey or rebel, yet we do.

 

God willed for His Son, to come and give us a light to follow. God willed for His Son to be perfect, not us.

Sometimes I think that we try to be something that we can't become, only become closer to perfection in spirit as Jesus was claimed to be.

 

People have been disobeying God and acting imperfectly since time began. A Man came, as God, in human form, in all spirit lacking nothing. He had a will to accomplish from above and did, giving anyone no excuse to mess up.

 

All we were upheld to do, to experience the transition of perfecting our spirit, was to believe that Jesus was God's Son. The sad part is that then, some didnt believe, and saw the acts of Jesus; now some choose not to believe because Jesus hasnt "proved" that He is real to them.

 

I would have to say the same thing that Jesus said about the disbelief in His time here. Even if He came and performed miracles and wonders and signs right infront of us there will be some that still remain stubborn and unwilling to believe, even seeing with there eyes.

 

Perfection was made available to us through Christ Jesus, that was the "action" God took because of our decisions, and choices to live for what we see and worship that in itself.

 

JK

[Ssel]

Perfection was made available

I would suggest that the word "perfect" be defined before this kind of arguing continue.

 

The word only has one usable definition which, once considered, resolves a great deal of misunderstandings on both sides of the issue. Remember the idea "all things are relative".

[SkepticOfBible]

 

The only thing described in a perfect sense from the God perspective in the book is Jesus.

 

 

How was Jesus perfect. And why would God have perpective on Jesus if Jesus was God himself? So what you are really saying that God was perfect in his own eyes.

I think we all, believers to unbelievers, have been brainwashed in some way about God and the Bibles teachings. Pastors, preachers, pulpit warmers all across the world are pinning God with descriptive words including perfect, flawless, fatherly, hold our hand type of situations.

 

I am glad you admit that even you are brainwashed

 

God is sovreign. God is what people have claimed Him to be. God acts for His will, which has always been according to the Word. God surely didnt will for people to have vain lives and suffer, yet we do. Also, God surely doe4snt will for people to disobey or rebel, yet we do.

 

If you read the bible, God hasn't made up his mind about the very law he gave. Do we follow the Torah or not?

 

I mean christians can't even agree on this Basic fundamental. The reason is that the bible(specifically the OT and NT) is contradicting iitself

 

Debate Between Messianic Jews and Christians

 

God willed for His Son, to come and give us a light to follow. God willed for His Son to be perfect, not us.

Sometimes I think that we try to be something that we can't become, only become closer to perfection in spirit as Jesus was claimed to be

.

 

So is God powerful than the Son?

 

All we were upheld to do, to experience the transition of perfecting our spirit, was to believe that Jesus was God's Son. The sad part is that then, some didnt believe, and saw the acts of Jesus; now some choose not to believe because Jesus hasnt "proved" that He is real to them.

 

It isn't difficult to change above in a islamic formula

 

All we were upheld to do, to experience the transition of perfecting our spirit, was to believe that God revealed himself to Mohammed. The sad part is that then, some didnt believe, and saw the acts of Mohammed that he did in Allahs name, now some choose not to believe because Allah hasnt "proved" that He is real to them.

I would have to say the same thing that Jesus said about the disbelief in His time here. Even if He came and performed miracles and wonders and signs right infront of us there will be some that still remain stubborn and unwilling to believe, even seeing with there eyes.

 

The pharisees had asked for a sign, yet Jesus had supposedly had promised him that he will show them alleged "sign of Jonah". Did Jesus go back to Pharisees?

 

Even his own apostle, Thomas did not believe that he came back. Thomas only believed that he came back when Jesus actually showed his wounds to him. So if Thomas can get a revelation then why can't I?

 

BTW if you think that Miracles and Wonders were supposed to impressed the Hebrews, then I suppose you haven't read the bible have you

Deuteronomy 13:1

The entire word that I command you, that shall you observe to do; you shall not add to it and you shall not subtract from it. [2] If there should stand up in your midst a prophet or a dreamer of a dream, and he will produce to you a sign or a wonder, [3] and the sign or the wonder comes about, of which he spoke to you, saying "Let us follow gods of others that you did not know and we shall worship them; [4] do not hearken to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of a dream, for HASHEM, your God, is testing you to know whether you love HASHEM, your God with all your heart and with all your soul. [5] HASHEM, your God, shall you follow and Him shall you fear; His commandments shall you observe and to His voice shall you hearken; Him shall you serve and to Him shall you cleave. And that prophet and that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death, for he had spoken perversion against HASHEM, your God Who takes you out of the land of Egypt, and Who redeems you from the house of slavery to make you stray from the path on which HASHEM, you God, has commanded you to go; and you shall destroy the evil from your midst.

 

The above specifically tells that that G-d will grant the power of miracles to people who would lead us astray from Judaism.

 

Deuteronomy 13 specifically says that Hebrew must not worship anything they had not previously known, no matter how many miracles the prophet performs, or how many events he predicts correctly.

 

I hope you would agree that Jesus was, in essence, something that the Hebrew had not known, I mean nowhere does the OT says that Messiah would be worshipped.

[MQTA]

...

I think we all, believers to unbelievers, have been brainwashed in some way about God and the Bibles teachings. Pastors, preachers, pulpit warmers all across the world are pinning God with descriptive words including perfect, flawless, fatherly, hold our hand type of situations.

 

God is sovreign. God is what people have claimed Him to be. God acts for His will, which has always been according to the Word. God surely didnt will for people to have vain lives and suffer, yet we do. Also, God surely doe4snt will for people to disobey or rebel, yet we do.

 

God is more than likely anything but what people have claimed Him to be. Maybe someone(s)' right, but nobody really knows. God is God, if God, then God. God. What is God? The Creator? The Maker? Nobody knows, you're right, they're all brainwashed. Kids have questions and there's plenty of people who want to feed them their answers, even if they have to threaten and put hell fear into people to get their 10%.

 

 

God willed for His Son, to come and give us a light to follow. God willed for His Son to be perfect, not us.

Sometimes I think that we try to be something that we can't become, only become closer to perfection in spirit as Jesus was claimed to be.

 

So perfect that nobody ever lived as described by cut/pasting the Greek version of the Hebrew OT to make up what was believed would have been the description had such a person lived.

 

 

People have been disobeying God and acting imperfectly since time began. A Man came, as God, in human form, in all spirit lacking nothing. He had a will to accomplish from above and did, giving anyone no excuse to mess up.

 

All we were upheld to do, to experience the transition of perfecting our spirit, was to believe that Jesus was God's Son. The sad part is that then, some didnt believe, and saw the acts of Jesus; now some choose not to believe because Jesus hasnt "proved" that He is real to them.

 

I would have to say the same thing that Jesus said about the disbelief in His time here. Even if He came and performed miracles and wonders and signs right infront of us there will be some that still remain stubborn and unwilling to believe, even seeing with there eyes.

 

Perfection was made available to us through Christ Jesus, that was the "action" God took because of our decisions, and choices to live for what we see and worship that in itself.

 

Once the world puts these beliefs on the level of the beliefs they've already dismissed, then we can all be living in unity as one. The only thing that was accomplished 1900 or so years ago was the effect of another Tower of Babel, except this time for real. Now we all talk different languages and have totally different ideas about the stupidist of questions.

 

 

JK

 

 

You were Just Kidding?????

[NotBlinded]

From this site: The Hidden Wisdom in Christian Scriptures

 

So, sit back and enjoy reading the bible as maybe it shoud be read.

Interesting. I hadn't read Hodson's work. What he was trying to say during the first 1/3 of that web site is exactly what I have been trying to convey.

 

I think His personal translations get a little sloppy. I tend to insist on a more concrete objective translation into English. He puts a great deal into the concept of everything being about the "inner self". This is a very limited view. It isn't entirely false, but it also is misleading.

 

When dealing with the abstract, one must realize that the particulars can be applied to many worlds of concern. That is what "abstract" means. In this case, those concepts that He applies only to the inner self, also apply to the outer world. But if you use those exact translations, the outer world application becomes confusing. I handle such things by changing the abstract definitions to either fit both, and all applications, or if I can't see any definition that would apply, I simply toss the document back on the shelf as uncertain.

 

The 3 qualities that ensure a proper translation from any ancient language;

 

1) Consistency - the same abstract definitions apply in every usage within the document

2) Completeness - the abstract definition set applies to the complete story leaving nothing still irrational

3) Relevance - the translation ends up telling something worthy of its telling (not merely an entertaining story)

Yes, that is why I show such interest in what you post.

 

I agree with you that the three qualities must be met, not only within the bible but also amongst all religions and philosophies that developed during the time of the mystery schools. The ones that don't fit the qualities may not have developed from that school or were interpolated at a later time without this understanding and should be laid aside. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are incorrect because they are not understood, it only means that they are uncertain (as you say). I believe there are more levels of understanding but the keys are not yet known.

 

This is also why I asked you ealier if you had studied this line of thought or if you arrived at it on your own. I meant no offense to that, I just saw the correlation to Theosophy in your posts. I think it's great if your understanding came from yourself. You have put a great deal of work into this and I admire that.

 

Perfection was made available

I would suggest that the word "perfect" be defined before this kind of arguing continue.

 

The word only has one usable definition which, once considered, resolves a great deal of misunderstandings on both sides of the issue. Remember the idea "all things are relative".

...to the thinking mind.

 

Edit: I thought I should come back and say that the comment above is not meant to be insulting to anyone. I just wanted to see what Ssel had to say about it. Clue: It comes from my study of enlightenment.

[NotBlinded]

My POV,

 

Why does God, the Bible and all the other surroundings of us and Christ always have to be perfect. The only thing described in a perfect sense from the God perspective in the book is Jesus. When God is described to have created this world in Genesis, He said it was good, not perfect.

And we are still evolving. Maybe the creation is not yet complete.

 

I think we all, believers to unbelievers, have been brainwashed in some way about God and the Bibles teachings. Pastors, preachers, pulpit warmers all across the world are pinning God with descriptive words including perfect, flawless, fatherly, hold our hand type of situations.

Maybe not so much brainwashed as misinformed (if there is a difference). The message wasn't meant to be understood by all because of the perceived misuse of power if the knowledge fell into the wrong hands.

 

God is sovreign. God is what people have claimed Him to be. God acts for His will, which has always been according to the Word. God surely didnt will for people to have vain lives and suffer, yet we do. Also, God surely doe4snt will for people to disobey or rebel, yet we do.

I don't think that the Word means the bible. Take these verses by John: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"; "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (1:1, 14).

The Greek word that was translated to Word was Logos. The Logos is a reflection of the divine mind, therefore, the universe is a reflection of this mind...not the book. When the Word was made flesh, it is referring to all humans (all things), not just to Jesus.

 

God willed for His Son, to come and give us a light to follow. God willed for His Son to be perfect, not us.

I think that Jesus found his inner divine-spark that dwells in us all. His perfection really has nothing to do with anything other than his ability to understand his inner nature.

 

Sometimes I think that we try to be something that we can't become, only become closer to perfection in spirit as Jesus was claimed to be.

Here you answer your own ponderings, although this statement contradicts itself on a deeper level. If we become closer to perfection in spirit as Jesus claimed to be, we are becoming everything he desired us to be. (Please keep in mind that it doesn't matter if Jesus was real or not, only the teachings that have surrounded this figure is what is important.)

 

People have been disobeying God and acting imperfectly since time began. A Man came, as God, in human form, in all spirit lacking nothing. He had a will to accomplish from above and did, giving anyone no excuse to mess up.

That is part of the evolution of mankind; to attain this perfection. The message is that anyone can be like Jesus and this is not unique to Christianity. Jesus said let us be perfect as the Father and the kingdom of heaven is in each of us. In order to be perfect as the father, we must be equal with him and rise to perfection. The Brahmins taught also that each man is god and a part of god. And, if we are able to become perfect (in wisdom), where does original sin fall?

 

That is why you seem to contradict yourself above...we can become perfect in wisdom as Jesus desired. There is no contradiction.

 

All we were upheld to do, to experience the transition of perfecting our spirit, was to believe that Jesus was God's Son. The sad part is that then, some didnt believe, and saw the acts of Jesus; now some choose not to believe because Jesus hasnt "proved" that He is real to them.

It doesn't matter if we believe he was real. The message is that god is in us all, Jesus included, and we can perfect our spirit just as Jesus did. We don't have to believe in Jesus for salvation, we have to believe that we all are god (Being, universe, whatever) or parts of this Being in order to find salvation. This is not something that is later, but here, on earth.

 

I would have to say the same thing that Jesus said about the disbelief in His time here. Even if He came and performed miracles and wonders and signs right infront of us there will be some that still remain stubborn and unwilling to believe, even seeing with there eyes.

I think these miracles are related to the individual's spiritual journey. There are others however that do believe in the occult workings only when it falls within the laws of the universe. That is one of the main reasons why a Sacred Language was used. They feared this power would fall into the wrong hands if the wrong people were able to tap the power of god (universe, whatever) that is inside them. They believe that one may be able to tap the power to split the sea but not power to make the sun stand still (so to speak).

 

Perfection was made available to us through Christ Jesus, that was the "action" God took because of our decisions, and choices to live for what we see and worship that in itself.

Perfection was always available to us...and this person (or persona) Jesus attained this perfection that is connected to all that is.