|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Is Jesus Perfect?
Something that is perfect does not change and grow. Only dead things do not grow. Jesus lives, he is not dead.
No living being can be perfect, it is a logical contradiction and a meaningless concept. Everyone is growing.
By way of analogy, what does it mean to be the perfect athlete? No matter how good an athlete is, no matter how many records they break, someone is always going to come along who is better and beats those records.
Last edited by mike1reynolds on Mon Apr 24, 2006 12:57 am; edited 1 time in total
No living being can be perfect, it is a logical contradiction and a meaningless concept. Everyone is growing.
By way of analogy, what does it mean to be the perfect athlete? No matter how good an athlete is, no matter how many records they break, someone is always going to come along who is better and beats those records.
Last edited by mike1reynolds on Mon Apr 24, 2006 12:57 am; edited 1 time in total
so what are you saying... jesus is perfect or not...
Jesus was sinless, now He is perfect.
| swapnalokam wrote: |
| so what are you saying... jesus is perfect or not... |
Perfection implies that something is unchanging. Only dead things do not change, all living things grow, so even in theory, only something inanimate and dead can be perfect.
This is not an attack on Jesus, it is a criticism of irrational descriptions of Jesus that unavoidably imply that Jesus is not alive.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| Jesus was sinless, now He is perfect. |
good points, but I would have to add this one to the list of amazing mysteries of christian thought, like Jesus being fully human yet fully God. It doesn't make sense, it defies logic, its an amazing wonder-filled thing.
I just thought of an anology that belongs in the initial post:
What does it mean to be the perfect athlete? No matter how good an athlete is, no matter how many records they break, someone is always going to come along who is better and beats those records.
What does it mean to be the perfect athlete? No matter how good an athlete is, no matter how many records they break, someone is always going to come along who is better and beats those records.
| a_dubDesign wrote: |
| good points, but I would have to add this one to the list of amazing mysteries of christian thought, like Jesus being fully human yet fully God. It doesn't make sense, it defies logic, its an amazing wonder-filled thing. |
I disagree that Christians think of Jesus as fully human. They think that he was born a god and did not have to strive for his spiritual attainment. I think that this sets a bad example for Christians and discourages spiritual striving. It is like a parent saying, "Do as I say, not as I do." Which never works.
(This is certainly not to say that Christianity in general discourages spiritual striving, but this view of Jesus as perfect I believe does.)
| mike1reynolds wrote: | ||
I disagree that Christians think of Jesus as fully human. They think that he was born a god and did not have to strive for his spiritual attainment. I think that this sets a bad example for Christians and discourages spiritual striving. It is like a parent saying, "Do as I say, not as I do." Which never works. (This is certainly not to say that Christianity in general discourages spiritual striving, but this view of Jesus as perfect I believe does.) |
Belief that Jesus was fully human and fully God is suppose to be one of the cornerstones (nicene creed), but I do agree that it gets overlooked a whole lot so people can have an excuse to not live up to the expectations that we're called to.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | ||
|
cannot learn? no he can't , he knows all, so there is nothing to learn.
cannot grow? nope, he is everywhere at all times, nowhere else to grow into
cannot change?
| Hebrews 13:8 wrote: |
| "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." (KJV) |
^ the bible says he doesn't ever change ^
So you think that Jesus is a stagnant being?
Well, I prefer The Message translation. It does a much better job of capturing the subtle nuances of the various languages the Bible is translated from.
For Jesus doesn't change--yesterday, today, tomorrow, he's always totally himself.
So your interpretation seems overly broad to me. The passage seems to me to be saying that Jesus is someone that you can always count on.
Well, I prefer The Message translation. It does a much better job of capturing the subtle nuances of the various languages the Bible is translated from.
For Jesus doesn't change--yesterday, today, tomorrow, he's always totally himself.
So your interpretation seems overly broad to me. The passage seems to me to be saying that Jesus is someone that you can always count on.
I should add that for a number of years I had considered Jesus to be racist for calling a gentile woman that came to him asking to heal her daughter, a dog. Every translation but The Message translation uses the word dog, but The Message translation says 'whelping puppy'. Talking to people who know the language, it turns out that this in fact correct, he called her a puppy, not a dog.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| I should add that for a number of years I had considered Jesus to be racist for calling a gentile woman that came to him asking to heal her daughter, a dog. Every translation but The Message translation uses the word dog, but The Message translation says 'whelping puppy'. Talking to people who know the language, it turns out that this in fact correct, he called her a puppy, not a dog. |
I didn't know that. Thanks.
As far as Jesus being perfect. I've always taken it to mean without sin. In the old testament, the Jews had to take an animal without blemish or spot for a sacrifice. That is what Jesus was, without blemish or spot, that's why he could become our sacrafice.
| livilou wrote: |
| I didn't know that. Thanks.
|
You are most welcome!
| livilou wrote: |
| As far as Jesus being perfect. I've always taken it to mean without sin. In the old testament, the Jews had to take an animal without blemish or spot for a sacrifice.
|
What does unblemished and spotless mean in human terms? You have created a chain of subjective definitions that are circular.
| livilou wrote: |
| That is what Jesus was, without blemish or spot, that's why he could become our sacrafice. |
I don’t think that you have considered how barbaric the notion of blood sacrifices is. Why did God supposedly require someone’s murder in order to forgive our sins? Why not just forgive our sins and forgo the murder?
| mike1reynolds wrote: | ||
I don’t think that you have considered how barbaric the notion of blood sacrifices is. Why did God supposedly require someone’s murder in order to forgive our sins? Why not just forgive our sins and forgo the murder? |
None of us is perfect and will never be as long as we live on this earth!
Only in heaven we will be perfect! Jesus died for us that we would resive salvation, who ever believes in him, from his heart! God looks at us through Jesus, He looks at us through perfectness, because only Jesus' holy blood can clean us from all the dirt we have!
People had to attone for their sins by offering sheep! Jesus was The LAMB that had to be offered and by Him we are saved! | Whong wrote: |
| God looks at us through Jesus, He looks at us through perfectness, because only Jesus' holy blood can clean us from all the dirt we have! People had to attone for their sins by offering sheep! Jesus was The LAMB that had to be offered and by Him we are saved! |
So then your God is a blood thirsty pagan god?
Also, your assertion that Jesus is omniscient is an assertion that he is a god too. This is pantheism, not monotheism. According to the Bible, pantheistic religions that deny monotheism are demonic religions.
The Holy Triune God is not a pagan god! Jesus is God's son and the Holy Spirit is God' s Spirit! They are 1 though they are 3, just like water is 1 and 3!
Water can become into ice or to steam! Water is a great symbol of God's triunity! Water is 1 yet it is 3, water, ice and steam! God is 1 and 3, God, Jesus and Holy Spirit!
God is not bloodthirsty, nothing else can atone for our sins, nothing else can wash them away! Only the blood of Christ, because it is pure and perfect so it only can clean us! There is nothing else perfect on this earth, but Jesus was!
Water can become into ice or to steam! Water is a great symbol of God's triunity! Water is 1 yet it is 3, water, ice and steam! God is 1 and 3, God, Jesus and Holy Spirit!
God is not bloodthirsty, nothing else can atone for our sins, nothing else can wash them away! Only the blood of Christ, because it is pure and perfect so it only can clean us! There is nothing else perfect on this earth, but Jesus was!
| Whong wrote: |
| The Holy Triune God is not a pagan god! Jesus is God's son and the Holy Spirit is God' s Spirit! They are 1 though they are 3, just like water is 1 and 3!
Water can become into ice or to steam! Water is a great symbol of God's triunity! Water is 1 yet it is 3, water, ice and steam! God is 1 and 3, God, Jesus and Holy Spirit!
|
So then you contend that God talks to himself, even making emotional pleas to himself? Why did Jesus beg God not to kill him in the garden? Why did God accuse himself of forsaking himself on the cross? How do you account for God's schizophrenic in this regard?
| Whong wrote: |
| God is not bloodthirsty, nothing else can atone for our sins, nothing else can wash them away! Only the blood of Christ, because it is pure and perfect so it only can clean us! There is nothing else perfect on this earth, but Jesus was! |
So then explain why a murder is required to forgive our sins? How is there any connection at all? Why not just forgive our sins? How does a murder have anything to do with God forgiving our sins?
Jesus is just folklore... you can say he's "perfect" or you can say he's a "fink" or whatever you want as long as it makes yourself feel happy. Frankly, I think the Easter Bunny is a jerk. But that's my faith-based opinion.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | ||
I don’t think that you have considered how barbaric the notion of blood sacrifices is. Why did God supposedly require someone’s murder in order to forgive our sins? Why not just forgive our sins and forgo the murder? |
Actually I have. I've also thought about how barbaric a time that was compared to how we live now.
Now this is my opinion only, so take it however you please. But I think God started the sacrifices because He wanted to show us that we had to do something for His forgiveness. It required an action of some sort, a conscience effort on our part, which hasn't changed.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
|
So then you contend that God talks to himself, even making emotional pleas to himself? Why did Jesus beg God not to kill him in the garden? Why did God accuse himself of forsaking himself on the cross? How do you account for God's schizophrenic in this regard? |
that boils down to the whole human issue talked about briefly before. The belief is part of the God Head (stupid term IMHO, but proper in this situation none the less) decided to be seperate from the rest, get a body and "move into the neighborhood" (John 1:14, Message). In the points mentioned I think we have an absolutely beautiful picture of Jesus's humanity. I'd also add the passage when hes so tired he falls asleep in a boat and doesn't wake up when a huge storm comes and is threatening to sink the ship (Matt 8, NIV).
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
|
So then explain why a murder is required to forgive our sins? How is there any connection at all? Why not just forgive our sins? How does a murder have anything to do with God forgiving our sins? |
I could go into an explanation of some ideas of dispensalism or fullfilment of laws or explanations of God's character using water and milk as an illustration, as those have been the answers I've gotten when I've asked this question of people, but none of them have really gotten to the heart of the question for me. If you, or anyone else, really wants me to I could go over those things, but I'm guessing they won't do much good.
This is one of those areas where I have to trust that God had a reason bigger than I can understand in the system being set up the way it is, embrace the mystery, and thank him that Jesus died for a relationship with me.
Good luck getting an answer that satisfies, and if you do, make sure to let me know.
| livilou wrote: |
| Now this is my opinion only, so take it however you please. But I think God started the sacrifices because He wanted to show us that we had to do something for His forgiveness. It required an action of some sort, a conscience effort on our part, which hasn't changed. |
I was with you until "which hasn't changed". If we have to do something for his forgiveness, christanity is turned into a works based religion, and the whole death of Jesus and grace of God goes out the window. The whole premise of the good news of jesus is that he died for us when we didn't deserve it.
| Robert Farror Capon wrote: |
| "Therefore we are safe. Not safe if... Not safe provided... Add anything - even a single qualifier, even a single hedge - and you lose the gospel of salvation, which is just Jesus, Jesus, Jesus." |
Although I think I could possibly agree on that reasoning for the ot jews having to sacrafice things to God, but theres to much for me to consider with that in my current tired state, most of my thoughts right now are getting really jumbled together.
*edited to add the paragraph after the RFC quote because I accidently hit submit instead of preview.
| a_dubDesign wrote: | ||
I was with you until "which hasn't changed". If we have to do something for his forgiveness, christanity is turned into a works based religion, and the whole death of Jesus and grace of God goes out the window. The whole premise of the good news of jesus is that he died for us when we didn't deserve it. |
I’m glad that I waited to respond because this is clearer and more concise than what I would have come up with.
| a_dubDesign wrote: | ||
I could go into an explanation of some ideas of dispensalism or fullfilment of laws or explanations of God's character using water and milk as an illustration, as those have been the answers I've gotten when I've asked this question of people, but none of them have really gotten to the heart of the question for me. If you, or anyone else, really wants me to I could go over those things, but I'm guessing they won't do much good. . . . Good luck getting an answer that satisfies, and if you do, make sure to let me know. |
Let’s hear your take. Here is my take, based on incorporating Eastern religious theology:
You can take on someone else’s karma and transmute it, although it is spiritual dangerous to do so. However, a master, in the Eastern sense, or like Jesus, who was often called Master, can do this without suffering spiritual harm. It is said that some people get sick and die of cancer or heart attacks because at the soul level they have made an agreement to taken on a portion of the world’s karma.
I believe that Jesus took on a HUGE amount of the whole world’s karma, and in so doing saved the world from certain destruction. As such, he did die because of the world’s sins, and he did die so that the world’s sins would be forgiven. In some respects it is not so very different from what Christians believe in this regard, but it doesn’t cast any blame on God the way the Christian take would seem to. With my interpretation God didn’t forgive our sins, God simply encourages Jesus to do what he needed to do to save the world. God can’t change our karma, that would be a sort of violation of our free well, only we can do that for each other if we choose.
When I think of works, I think of doing good, physical actions, things like that. I believe that in order to be forgiven, we have to repent, we have to realize that we've done wrong, as in mental and spiritual action. It's easy to say, "Okay God, I know I've done wrong, but I know you'll forgive me". It's when we mean it and aren't willing to go back to the life we used to live. It was asked in a different post, and I'm paraphrasing here, "If we know God will forgive us, what's to keep us from doing the same thing over and over again?". It's a change in how we think and feel, that's the kind of action I'm talking about.
But does state in the bible that faith without works is dead.
We'll never deserve the gift that was given us, but there are some works that we have to perform.
But does state in the bible that faith without works is dead.
| Quote: |
| James 2:14
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. |
We'll never deserve the gift that was given us, but there are some works that we have to perform.
I belive Jesus is an stoner, and so is his slut mother Marie, Jesus just "saw" or "heard" him, but these were just helusinations. everyone else who followed him was also on drugs. Marie lie that she was a virgin but she just didn't want annyone to find out she had sex. and any thing you do to prove me wrong i have an explanation for it. how ironic is it that im listening to personal jesus right now?
Livilou, I think that we've all been forgiven, we just need to realize it. I've had some conversation much like this one with some friends of mine who converted to eastern orthodox. They informed me about how I seperate my faith and works, something that much of westernized christanity does, and how in EO theres an understanding that faith and works are so intertwinded they can't be seperated, but it starts with faith. We realize we are forgiven, which leads to the act of repentance, which leads to more faith which gives life to works which in turn breeds more faith on and on and on.
| a_dubDesign wrote: |
| Livilou, I think that we've all been forgiven, we just need to realize it. I've had some conversation much like this one with some friends of mine who converted to eastern orthodox. They informed me about how I seperate my faith and works, something that much of westernized christanity does, and how in EO theres an understanding that faith and works are so intertwinded they can't be seperated, but it starts with faith. We realize we are forgiven, which leads to the act of repentance, which leads to more faith which gives life to works which in turn breeds more faith on and on and on. |
Looking at it that way, you could be correct. We have to have faith that if we repent, we will be forgiven. But it still takes an action on our part.
| Quote: |
| Marie lie that she was a virgin but she just didn't want annyone to find out she had sex. |
If you believe that Mary was even real, then you might as well believe that God knocked her up using magical powers. You see, abstenence isn't really 100% effective. There's no protection from God. And you better fear God or his strongman, Satan, will rape you for all eternity. Satan is like God's secret police, SS, or his caudillo. It's a good cop / bad cop relationship and Jesus gets to be the good cop.
"Religion is not a state of mind... it's a fact of life." If you think I'm lying then you better watch yourself. I'll put on my Quaker hat and whip you like a Mormon wife - just like they did during the Catholic Inquisition. Then I will call your family a bunch of heathen savages like the protestant pilgrims did to the Native Americans. Just don't make me invoke my racist Hinduism and evict all the darker skinned people, like a Zionist Jew. And if that fails, I could just blow myself up like a soldier for Allah.
Jesus was perfect.
He was like the buddha
He was born into this world as an innocent baby like Adam was innocent.
Like Adam he came part of this evil world, and knew nothing at first. But he learned about the world and the ways of the world, he learned about good and evil, he learned about his father God. In the desert he learned his destiny after being filled with the Holy Spirit. For only then was he truly complete, one in God. But yet since he was God-man he was perfect since his conception. But like the buddha he came to realise his own path, the path of illumination. And he learned the experience of suffering as well as the experience of overcoming death.
He was like the buddha
He was born into this world as an innocent baby like Adam was innocent.
Like Adam he came part of this evil world, and knew nothing at first. But he learned about the world and the ways of the world, he learned about good and evil, he learned about his father God. In the desert he learned his destiny after being filled with the Holy Spirit. For only then was he truly complete, one in God. But yet since he was God-man he was perfect since his conception. But like the buddha he came to realise his own path, the path of illumination. And he learned the experience of suffering as well as the experience of overcoming death.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| So then explain why a murder is required to forgive our sins? How is there any connection at all? Why not just forgive our sins? How does a murder have anything to do with God forgiving our sins? |
It's not a murder, jesus had to die so he could suffer in hell for us,(the three days when he was dead) although he was down there for only a short time, while he was there he took back the power satan had got from adam when he ate from the forbidden tree.
He had to die for that to happen, and no God couldn't just send him staight to hell, to goto hell you have to die with sins, he died for our sins.
| squirrelmaster wrote: |
| He had to die for that to happen, and no God couldn't just send him staight to hell, to goto hell you have to die with sins, he died for our sins. |
Excuse me... God couldn't do something?
Analogies about growing are somewhat out of place here. Growing, development towards 'perfection,' which may extend to the concept of evolution, is a notion widely regarded in the last few centuries. Bible, Christianity is not based on that principle.
I think that the idea of Jesus, him being both human and god, and the story of his life, the story given in the Bible, transcends the modern concept of growth and development. In modern world, the things that are considered better replace the old things. Some disciplines are not like that (philosophy, religion, literature,...), we don't throw out the Bible, Aristotle or Kant through the window because we found Derrida or Fukuyama. They sit side by side, complete and absolute in themselves, yet changing in/through us, when subject to our interpretation.
And, 'dead' things do change, some rot, some become forgotten, and others are subject to various interpretations. These interpretations in time may become widely accepted, and then the essence of the supposedly dead thing may change, or we may regard it as changed, until some new generations come which will come to learn of some different meaning of the 'dead thing.'
I think that the idea of Jesus, him being both human and god, and the story of his life, the story given in the Bible, transcends the modern concept of growth and development. In modern world, the things that are considered better replace the old things. Some disciplines are not like that (philosophy, religion, literature,...), we don't throw out the Bible, Aristotle or Kant through the window because we found Derrida or Fukuyama. They sit side by side, complete and absolute in themselves, yet changing in/through us, when subject to our interpretation.
And, 'dead' things do change, some rot, some become forgotten, and others are subject to various interpretations. These interpretations in time may become widely accepted, and then the essence of the supposedly dead thing may change, or we may regard it as changed, until some new generations come which will come to learn of some different meaning of the 'dead thing.'
I'm afraid i didn't have time to read these replies.
Jesus lived as a fully human being. But as you see, He is part of the trinity, He's God in human form. Physically he changed, yes; He was perfect spiritually and mentally. God lived as a human so that he could understand the pain and temptation that we have put ourselves into, to set an example of perfection, and then after all that died the most painful death for us.
How can He not be perfect? Jesus is the son of God; He didn't sin, and although his body was not perfect (I mean Jesus was probably a pretty ugly guy), it's not stated that Jesus was physically perfect. Bodies are just the capsules you travel in, they aren't YOU.
-Rhys
Jesus lived as a fully human being. But as you see, He is part of the trinity, He's God in human form. Physically he changed, yes; He was perfect spiritually and mentally. God lived as a human so that he could understand the pain and temptation that we have put ourselves into, to set an example of perfection, and then after all that died the most painful death for us.
How can He not be perfect? Jesus is the son of God; He didn't sin, and although his body was not perfect (I mean Jesus was probably a pretty ugly guy), it's not stated that Jesus was physically perfect. Bodies are just the capsules you travel in, they aren't YOU.
-Rhys
| Indi wrote: | ||
Excuse me... God couldn't do something? |
well he could have sent him to hell, but then think of the technicalities, Jesus would have never been on earth to show us he was the savior so we would have ended off without christianity, which I don't think God would have wanted. I think it was a part God's plan for Jesus to save us the way he did.
i'll simply say: yes.
| patafizicar wrote: |
| Analogies about growing are somewhat out of place here. Growing, development towards 'perfection,' which may extend to the concept of evolution, is a notion widely regarded in the last few centuries. Bible, Christianity is not based on that principle.
I think that the idea of Jesus, him being both human and god, and the story of his life, the story given in the Bible, transcends the modern concept of growth and development. In modern world, the things that are considered better replace the old things. Some disciplines are not like that (philosophy, religion, literature,...), we don't throw out the Bible, Aristotle or Kant through the window because we found Derrida or Fukuyama. They sit side by side, complete and absolute in themselves, yet changing in/through us, when subject to our interpretation. |
Relativity and quantum physics didn't throw out Newtonian physics, they expanded it.
| patafizicar wrote: |
| And, 'dead' things do change, some rot, some become forgotten, and others are subject to various interpretations. These interpretations in time may become widely accepted, and then the essence of the supposedly dead thing may change, or we may regard it as changed, until some new generations come which will come to learn of some different meaning of the 'dead thing.' |
You very eloquently describe spiritual growth. For a concept with no meaning, you do a good job of describing its inevitability in this paragraph.
| squirrelmaster wrote: | ||||
well he could have sent him to hell, but then think of the technicalities, Jesus would have never been on earth to show us he was the savior so we would have ended off without christianity, which I don't think God would have wanted. I think it was a part God's plan for Jesus to save us the way he did. |
I don't see it. God could have put the knowledge of what Jesus allegedly did right into our minds - genetic memory, so that everyone one who is born is born with the knowledge of what happened. No, that wouldn't invalidate free will because he wouldn't be forcing anyone to believe anything, he would just be giving the knowledge that anyone could get from the bible anyway. It would eliminate the need for translation, and the possibility of someone changing the bible to suit their own ends.
And of course, that eliminates the bigger issue, that sacrifice was required to forgive. God cannot forgive without someone suffering? Or he just chooses to require that when something offends him, someone - anyone, not necessarily the person doing the offending - has to suffer? I don't claim to have God's mercy, and I am capable of forgiving without someone having to suffer. Why isn't God, unless he chooses not to?
Basically, it comes down to this. God requires someone to suffer for sins instead of just forgiving them without suffering either because:
1.) He is incapable of forgiving without someone suffering (which means he is not all-powerful).
2.) He doesn't want to forgive without someone suffering (which means he is not merciful or kind).
Either he can't or he won't.
Excellent point, Indi! That is why I think of it in a manner that is almost identical, except it doesn’t blame God for anything. Saying that God forgave our sins unavoidably casts doubts on God’s motives if you start to think about them. Saying that Jesus died to save the world by transmuting our karma does not allow any blame to be cast on God.
It is the same thing really, God created the rules of karma. He decided that everyone should be held accountable for their actions. Karma operates because the angels record everything, even your thoughts. People who have near death experiences often get to see this record. Some say that their life flashes before their eyes. Others describe it more vividly as a 4-dimensional whole, something that they are shown and somehow perceive in its entirety, from beginning to end all at the same time.
Rome was a demonic empire, the 1st Reich. If a Napoleon or Hitler had become emperor the world could have been taken over by Nazis two thousand years ago. Jesus’ sacrifice prevented that from happening.
Last edited by mike1reynolds on Sun Apr 30, 2006 4:24 am; edited 1 time in total
It is the same thing really, God created the rules of karma. He decided that everyone should be held accountable for their actions. Karma operates because the angels record everything, even your thoughts. People who have near death experiences often get to see this record. Some say that their life flashes before their eyes. Others describe it more vividly as a 4-dimensional whole, something that they are shown and somehow perceive in its entirety, from beginning to end all at the same time.
Rome was a demonic empire, the 1st Reich. If a Napoleon or Hitler had become emperor the world could have been taken over by Nazis two thousand years ago. Jesus’ sacrifice prevented that from happening.
Last edited by mike1reynolds on Sun Apr 30, 2006 4:24 am; edited 1 time in total
whoa, 
I didn't think of that, man.
That really makes me think, I guess I'll find out in heaven(hopefully, i'll make it there)
who knows, maybe the devil and god made a deal, and the only way the devil wouldn't be all over us like he was on job, was if he saw god(jesus) die???? i'm so confused
I didn't think of that, man.
That really makes me think, I guess I'll find out in heaven(hopefully, i'll make it there)
who knows, maybe the devil and god made a deal, and the only way the devil wouldn't be all over us like he was on job, was if he saw god(jesus) die???? i'm so confused
I just found an interesting verse:
But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Mark 13:32
So Jesus is not omniscient.
But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Mark 13:32
So Jesus is not omniscient.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| Excellent point, Indi! That is why I think of it in a manner that is almost identical, except it doesn’t blame God for anything. Saying that God forgave our sins unavoidably casts doubts on God’s motives if you start to think about them. Saying that Jesus died to save the world by transmuting our karma does not allow any blame to be cast on God.
It is the same thing really, God created the rules of karma. He decided that everyone should be held accountable for their actions. Karma operates because the angels record everything, even your thoughts. People who have near death experiences often get to see this record. Some say that their life flashes before their eyes. Others describe it more vividly as a 4-dimensional whole, something that they are shown and somehow perceive in its entirety, from beginning to end all at the same time. |
You have tried to shift the blame away from God to "karma". Doesn't work.
Either:
1.) God is incapable of forgiving sin because karma requires that it be paid for, and God cannot override karma.
2.) God is unwilling to forgive sin because karma requires that it be paid for, and God will not override karma.
So again, either he can't or he won't.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| Rome was a demonic empire, the 1st Reich. If a Napoleon or Hitler had become emperor the world could have been taken over by Nazis two thousand years ago. Jesus’ sacrifice prevented that from happening. |
*blink*
| squirrelmaster wrote: |
| who knows, maybe the devil and god made a deal, and the only way the devil wouldn't be all over us like he was on job, was if he saw god(jesus) die???? i'm so confused |
You're not alone in being confused. This is a very deep and troubling problem for theodicy. It is usually presented in a form known as "the problem of evil".
People only make deals with people they cannot or do not want to simply force to do their bidding. Thus if God made a deal with the devil, he either could not force the devil to leave us alone, or he didn't want to.
It's a very, very difficult problem to overcome. Omnipotence defies "common" sense - we're all used to being forced to do things we don't really want to do because we're not capable of doing everything we want. But an omnipotent being is. Thus, anything an omnipotent being doesn't do is because it doesn't want to do it... either that or it's not omnipotent. It can't be omnipotent and unable to do something.
So, essentially, either God is not omnipotent... or he wants sin, suffering, the devil, hell, eternal suffering - the whole shebang - he wants it all to exist.
| Indi wrote: |
| You have tried to shift the blame away from God to "karma". Doesn't work.
Either: 1.) God is incapable of forgiving sin because karma requires that it be paid for, and God cannot override karma. 2.) God is unwilling to forgive sin because karma requires that it be paid for, and God will not override karma. So again, either he can't or he won't. |
But a can’t or won’t here is not as problematic, it does not stipulate an unjust God. Karma is like conservation of mass and energy, God can intervene but needs a good reason. He doesn’t man handle the universe very much. He generally makes use of a comprador, a local who can act as an intermediary. So he won’t because that’s just not his MO.
The difference here is that it accounts for everything in a Christian-like manner without the need for God to be either unjust or completely incomprehensible.
| Quote: |
| I don't see it. God could have put the knowledge of what Jesus allegedly did right into our minds - genetic memory, so that everyone one who is born is born with the knowledge of what happened. No, that wouldn't invalidate free will because he wouldn't be forcing anyone to believe anything, he would just be giving the knowledge that anyone could get from the bible anyway. It would eliminate the need for translation, and the possibility of someone changing the bible to suit their own ends.
And of course, that eliminates the bigger issue, that sacrifice was required to forgive. God cannot forgive without someone suffering? Or he just chooses to require that when something offends him, someone - anyone, not necessarily the person doing the offending - has to suffer? I don't claim to have God's mercy, and I am capable of forgiving without someone having to suffer. Why isn't God, unless he chooses not to? |
How could God truly forgive if he did not yet know what it was like to be tempted to sin? This is why he sent Jesus down; So he could understand our temptations, thus be able to forgive truthfully.
Regards
Rhys Andrews
| mike1reynolds wrote: | ||
But a can’t or won’t here is not as problematic, it does not stipulate an unjust God. Karma is like conservation of mass and energy, God can intervene but needs a good reason. He doesn’t man handle the universe very much. He generally makes use of a comprador, a local who can act as an intermediary. So he won’t because that’s just not his MO. The difference here is that it accounts for everything in a Christian-like manner without the need for God to be either unjust or completely incomprehensible. |
I suppose that some ethical standards may allow for that kind of justification. Mine do not. In my ethical framework, if Joe builds a system whereby a computer monitors the behaviour of a bunch of the people and dishes out Joe's prescribed punishment to anyone that breaks the rules Joe created, then Joe is most certainly responsible for that system's behaviour.
Professional legislation in my field agrees. If I design a machine to do some job, then I am responsible for the operation of that machine. If it does not do what it was supposed to do the way I intended to do it, I can be charged with professional misconduct - most likely negligence - and lose my licence. That is unless, of course, I can demonstrate that I could not have been expected to reasonably forsee that the machine would not work as intended.
The nature of God makes your excuse for him even more problematic. If God is infinitely knowing, then any system he develops must work precisely the way he intends. Karma - and any judgements it makes - must work precisely the way God wants it to work. Thus any punishments it requires must be required because God required them to be required. Karma is designed according to God's specification, and works according to his desire. Although he is not manually ordering every single little karmic payback, it is still his system, the way he wants it. Thus, if karma is unjust, God is unjust.
Or to put it another way: You are not claiming that God is unaware of the machinations of karma, are you? Although God lets karma do all the work, he knows exactly what is being done all the time, right? He is omniscient, isn't he? So if God is aware of everything, and can override karma at any time, then any time karma requires something unmerciful be done, God is allowing that to happen. Put another way, he won't stop karma's cruelty.
So still, either God can't (because he can't interfere with karma) or won't (because he doesn't want to interfere with karma) stop suffering. And your claim that he won't because he does not want to interfere with the machinations of karma is as problematic as ever, because it still implies that God wants suffering (since karma was designed by God to create suffering, and he has no interest in stopping it).
| RhysAndrews wrote: |
| How could God truly forgive if he did not yet know what it was like to be tempted to sin? This is why he sent Jesus down; So he could understand our temptations, thus be able to forgive truthfully. |
So... before it was claimed that God couldn't do something, now the claim is that God didn't know something.
Either God is omniscient or he's not. You can't go half-way with infinity. Half of infinity is still infinity. Same argument applies for omnipotence.
| Indi wrote: |
| I suppose that some ethical standards may allow for that kind of justification. Mine do not. In my ethical framework, if Joe builds a system whereby a computer monitors the behaviour of a bunch of the people and dishes out Joe's prescribed punishment to anyone that breaks the rules Joe created, then Joe is most certainly responsible for that system's behaviour.
Professional legislation in my field agrees. If I design a machine to do some job, then I am responsible for the operation of that machine. If it does not do what it was supposed to do the way I intended to do it, I can be charged with professional misconduct - most likely negligence - and lose my licence. That is unless, of course, I can demonstrate that I could not have been expected to reasonably forsee that the machine would not work as intended. |
I'm not say that God isn't responsible, I'm saying that (1) sometimes you have to let children make their own mistakes. And (2) it sets a bad example if God does everything for us and we do nothing for ourselves. Now Christians turn this on it's said and say, we're safe, Jesus did everything for us. By specifying precisely what Jesus did and what he averted, this interpretation which sets a bad example is also dealt with.
| Indi wrote: |
| The nature of God makes your excuse for him even more problematic. If God is infinitely knowing, then any system he develops must work precisely the way he intends. Karma - and any judgements it makes - must work precisely the way God wants it to work. Thus any punishments it requires must be required because God required them to be required. Karma is designed according to God's specification, and works according to his desire. Although he is not manually ordering every single little karmic payback, it is still his system, the way he wants it. Thus, if karma is unjust, God is unjust.
|
How is karma unjust? And why do you assume that I think that God is all knowig? I happen to think that this is mathematically impossible due to Geodel's Theorem. According to the theorem, God, like any other system, is always going to have self-referential issues. There are always self-referential statements within a system that are either true or false, but can't be proven within that system. The only way to prove them is by adding a new rule to create a metasystem. Then this new metasystem will have problematic self-referential statements which require a metametasystem, etc, etc...
Consciouness is infinite, there is no ending point, no limit to where it can expand too. There is an inner infinity inherent in every system.
| Indi wrote: |
| Or to put it another way: You are not claiming that God is unaware of the machinations of karma, are you? Although God lets karma do all the work, he knows exactly what is being done all the time, right? He is omniscient, isn't he? So if God is aware of everything, and can override karma at any time, then any time karma requires something unmerciful be done, God is allowing that to happen. Put another way, he won't stop karma's cruelty.
|
When is getting one's just desert unmerciful? You harm others and you are going to suffer yourself eventually. There is nothing unmerciful about it.
| Indi wrote: |
| So still, either God can't (because he can't interfere with karma) or won't (because he doesn't want to interfere with karma) stop suffering. And your claim that he won't because he does not want to interfere with the machinations of karma is as problematic as ever, because it still implies that God wants suffering (since karma was designed by God to create suffering, and he has no interest in stopping it).
|
He can't violate free will. An excessively authoritarian father does his children a disservice by doing everything for them and never allowing them to learn by their mistakes. If they didn't understand, after he prevents them, they still won't understand, and will just make the same mistake in a bigger way later on in life.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| I'm not say that God isn't responsible, I'm saying that (1) sometimes you have to let children make their own mistakes. And (2) it sets a bad example if God does everything for us and we do nothing for ourselves. Now Christians turn this on it's said and say, we're safe, Jesus did everything for us. By specifying precisely what Jesus did and what he averted, this interpretation which sets a bad example is also dealt with. |
The "God as father, us as children" metaphor doesn't work. Parents do not create their children, they procreate, and thus have no control over what their children are. Human parents are bound by biology to create human children, and they are not free to redefine what "human" is. Parents cannot be held responsible for the decisions (or sins) of their children because they do not have full control of what their children are when they procreate.
God creates. He could make us any way he wanted. A creator is fully responsible for his creation. Any mistakes we make are thus ultimately God's responsibility. He could have made us so that we would not be tempted by sin. And no, that's not a violation of free will. We would still be free to choose sin - the only difference is that it would no longer be as attractive as it is now. He made us so that we are easily temptable by most "sins" - and that apparently doesn't violate free will - so why could he not have made us more difficult to tempt? That's certainly not "doing anything for us" - it's choosing option A or option B at design time when creating the universe. God chose option A, that there be sin and suffering and humans be easy to tempt by it. Why? The only answers are either that he had to make that choice, or he wanted to make that choice. Thus, again, sin and suffering exist because God either can't or won't get rid of it.
God may feel he has to let us make mistakes - although he doesn't, because if he's omnipotent, he doesn't "have" to do anything - but that doesn't excuse the existence of sin and/or suffering. Ultimately, as the creator of everything, he is responsible for it all. Every sin, every bit of suffering. Try all you want, you can't absolve him of the responsibility for the situation that he created.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | ||
How is karma unjust? |
I did not say it was. Must I bold every "if"?
What I forgot to do was to continue the logic. I guess I got distracted by something. If the logic is followed, it would go like this:
If karma is unjust, God is unjust. If karma is evil, God is evil. If karma is unmerciful, God is unmerciful. Whatever karma is, God made it that way precisely and deliberately, as an extension of his own will.
Karma is unmerciful. It is not merciful to say that every wrong deserves another wrong. Put colloquially, two wrongs don't make a right. Yet, that is precisely what karma decrees. Per karma, every sin is punished. Karma doesn't understand or forgive. Thus it is without mercy.
By extension, either God cannot overrule karma, or he is without mercy. Either he can't or he won't be merciful.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| And why do you assume that I think that God is all knowig? I happen to think that this is mathematically impossible due to Geodel's Theorem. According to the theorem, God, like any other system, is always going to have self-referential issues. There are always self-referential statements within a system that are either true or false, but can't be proven within that system. The only way to prove them is by adding a new rule to create a metasystem. Then this new metasystem will have problematic self-referential statements which require a metametasystem, etc, etc... |
I assumed that because you have neglected to define God. I was forced to extrapolate from the most widely accepted definition, and the most widely accepted definition is that God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent. If you did not share that view, you should have been upfront and said so.
If God is not omniscient, then you have introduced the possibility that he cannot eliminate all suffering. Nothing's changed. He still can't or won't. You have just admitted that maybe he can't, whereas before, with God being omnipotent and omniscient, there was no chance of that.
It is inescapable. If this world is God's creation, and there is suffering in it, then it is there because God either can't or won't get rid of it. You suggest he can't. Thus you have your solution to the problem.
The standard Judaistic definition of God does not allow that conclusion. The God of the bible is omnipotent and omniscient. Thus you cannot argue that he can't rid the world of suffering, and the conclusion must be that he won't. Which, of course, rules out the possibility of him being benevolent.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| When is getting one's just desert unmerciful? You harm others and you are going to suffer yourself eventually. There is nothing unmerciful about it. |
Unless you have a radically different definition of mercy, "an eye for an eye" (which is what karma demands, that every wrong be punished) demonstrates a complete lack of mercy.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| He can't violate free will. An excessively authoritarian father does his children a disservice by doing everything for them and never allowing them to learn by their mistakes. If they didn't understand, after he prevents them, they still won't understand, and will just make the same mistake in a bigger way later on in life. |
The "God as father" metaphor is flawed. A father has to teach his children. Your example demonstrates what happens if a father does not teach, but instead does everything for them.
God can create his creations with the knowledge. He doesn't need to teach. They will come into existence understanding, and won't need to make mistakes to learn.
| Indi wrote: | ||
The "God as father" metaphor is flawed. A father has to teach his children. Your example demonstrates what happens if a father does not teach, but instead does everything for them. God can create his creations with the knowledge. He doesn't need to teach. They will come into existence understanding, and won't need to make mistakes to learn. |
You are doing loops with this ‘God can do anything’ argument as if it were a mathematical abstraction rather than dealing levelly with the subjects of ethics and justice. You are also incorporating a sort of Creationism into your limitations on all expressions of theism, which I find quite odd. While I think that God is the hand behind evolution, I don’t think that God has to short circuit evolution in order to be just or merciful.
An eye for an eye is a euphemism for a primitive expression of justice that does not take into account any nuance for individual situations. It was better than what they had before which was no accountability; it was some measure of justice, but far from the idea. Karma is not subject to this criticism, it is completely nuanced.
So do you think that if God set up the universe with no accountability rather than with karma, that it would be more just?
Last edited by mike1reynolds on Mon May 01, 2006 6:08 am; edited 1 time in total
| Indi wrote: |
| The "God as father" metaphor is flawed. A father has to teach his children. Your example demonstrates what happens if a father does not teach, but instead does everything for them.
|
Obviously you don’t have kids. You can’t teach kids everything, all you can do is your best, but if they are bound and determined to do something that you know is going to hurt there is only so much that you can do. If you try to step over the line you are only going to make them more intransigent and make matters worse. There is an old saying, “A man convinced against his will is not convinced still.”
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| You are doing loops with this ‘God can do anything’ argument as if it were a mathematical abstraction rather than dealing levelly with the subjects of ethics and justice. You are also incorporating a sort of Creationism into your limitations on all expressions of theism, which I find quite odd. While I think that God is the hand behind evolution, I don’t think that God has to short circuit evolution in order to be just or merciful. |
Again, I have had to assume a definition of God because you have failed to provide one. I used the creator definition, that God is the creator of the universe, because it is the most widely accepted definition.
Perhaps instead of being coy about your beliefs, you should simply define what God is, what he does, what his capabilities and/or limitations are and how the universe we can observe relates to God. Until then, I will continue to assume the most common definitions, whether they agree with yours or not.
The problem of evil that I am quoting has nothing to do with ethics or justice. It is about the nature of God. Remember, the discussion is "is Jesus perfect". Since by most definitions Jesus is either God or some subset of God, if I prove God cannot be perfect, then neither can Jesus.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| An eye for an eye is a euphemism for a primitive expression of justice that does not take into account any nuance for individual situations. It was better than what they had before which was no accountability; it was some measure of justice, but far from the idea. Karma is not subject to this criticism, it is completely nuanced. |
Karma is nuanced? Do bad and equivalent bad will happen to you. Take someone's eye and an eye will be taken from you, or you will be dealt some equivalent punishment to losing an eye. "An eye for an eye" is simply a crude simplification of the previous sentence. Karma may not require a literal exact exchange of suffering like "an eye for an eye", but the concept is identical. Cause X units of suffering, and X units of suffering will come back your way. There is nothing merciful about this process. In fact, there is an absolute and utter lack of mercy.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| So do you think that if God set up the universe with no accountability rather than with karma, that it would be more just? |
First, obviously not. Nothing I have said implies anything of the sort. That is a blatant straw man.
Second, just and merciful are two entirely different concepts. Karma is just. Karma is not merciful.
Third, if God has designed to the universe to be governed by karma, then it is about as just as it is going to get. But it is not merciful.
If the universe really is goverened completely by karma, then it is not merciful. If this is the case - that the universe is governed by karma - then God either cannot override karma, or he will not. He can't or he won't be merciful. It always comes back to can't or won't.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| Obviously you don’t have kids. You can’t teach kids everything, all you can do is your best, but if they are bound and determined to do something that you know is going to hurt there is only so much that you can do. If you try to step over the line you are only going to make them more intransigent and make matters worse. There is an old saying, “A man convinced against his will is not convinced still.” |
*blink*
Er... none of that has anything to do with what I've written.
I said that a father must teach (or try to teach if you want to be anal - the argument is unchanged) his children for them to learn things the father wants them to know. God does not have to teach anything. He can just insert the knowledge into the person, without the process of teaching. Thus the argument that suffering is necessary for learning is irrelevant when talking about God. If suffering exists, it doesn't exist because we need it as a lesson in anything.
| Indi wrote: | ||
Again, I have had to assume a definition of God because you have failed to provide one. I used the creator definition, that God is the creator of the universe, because it is the most widely accepted definition. Perhaps instead of being coy about your beliefs, you should simply define what God is, what he does, what his capabilities and/or limitations are and how the universe we can observe relates to God. Until then, I will continue to assume the most common definitions, whether they agree with yours or not. |
What is the definition of you? What is your definition of George Bush?
Since I assert that God exists and science is accurate, obviously I don’t think we all fell off the cabbage truck 6,000 years ago. Get real.
God is the Creator, he made the Big Band and has patiently watched over and guided the universe ever since. Now, have I really explained anything? Don’t you know anything about liberal theology? Every denomination, every sect of every religion has its conservatives and its liberals, and they all sound pretty much the same in each sect and religion. The most significant distinction is between the liberals and conservatives, the differences between different religions and sects are not nearly as pronounced. The liberals all agree with each other, regardless of religion or sect, and the conservatives all disagree with everybody else and exaggerate the differences between them and conservative of other tradition in order to contrive a meaningful distinction.
Anyway, obvious my theology is liberal. The definition and limitations of this are pretty concrete and universal.
| Indi wrote: |
| The problem of evil that I am quoting has nothing to do with ethics or justice. It is about the nature of God.
|
It is about conjecture from contrived definitions, like “What if the sky was green?” Meaningful debate about the nature of God would deal with issues of ethics and justice. You are not trying to put yourself in God’s shoes, attempting to define what you, or the most selfless level headed person you can imagine would do. You are not dealing with God as a real being with a point of view and an objective, you are just coming up with distorted analogies that don’t describe a point of view at all. You are arguing about unstoppable forces vs. immovable rocks, instead of dealing with practical points of view. God is going to have a point of view. He is not a definition, he is a being with an opinion.
| Indi wrote: |
| Remember, the discussion is "is Jesus perfect". Since by most definitions Jesus is either God or some subset of God, if I prove God cannot be perfect, then neither can Jesus.
|
I started the thread to argue that the notion of perfection is a mathematical abstraction with no meaning in the context of consciousness. You are arguing that a definition of God somehow excludes justice. You have to create a contrived definition in order to do this. You have no problem toying with definitions as if it were a game, because you don’t believe in God and so exaggerate the tiny differences as being huge contradictions. But there are only two common conceptions of God with any relevant distinctions to this debate, the liberal and conservative conception. It isn’t a big array of choices.
| Indi wrote: | ||
Karma is nuanced? Do bad and equivalent bad will happen to you. Take someone's eye and an eye will be taken from you, or you will be dealt some equivalent punishment to losing an eye. "An eye for an eye" is simply a crude simplification of the previous sentence. Karma may not require a literal exact exchange of suffering like "an eye for an eye", but the concept is identical. Cause X units of suffering, and X units of suffering will come back your way. There is nothing merciful about this process. In fact, there is an absolute and utter lack of mercy. |
But is it unjust? Fairness and justice aren’t always merciful. Mercy is not a requirement for justice in this context.
| Indi wrote: | ||
First, obviously not. Nothing I have said implies anything of the sort. That is a blatant straw man. |
That is the obvious alternative to karma. What other alternative do you propose that would be more fair and just?
| Indi wrote: |
| Second, just and merciful are two entirely different concepts. Karma is just. Karma is not merciful.
|
You introduced the subject repeatedly, before and while talking to me. You are getting self absorbed in your own argument. I’ve used it all of twice, only in response to you, and coupled with justice the second time. You are the one obsessed with mercy. If you know that it is irrelevant to karma then why are you making a knowingly irrelevant argument over and over again?
| Indi wrote: |
| Third, if God has designed to the universe to be governed by karma, then it is about as just as it is going to get. But it is not merciful.
|
It may or may not be merciful, depending on the context. Karma isn’t just punishment, it is also getting what you’ve got coming to you, which may be good. So anyway, if it as just as it can get, then this whole line of reasoning is irrelevant and doesn’t have the slightest chance of going anywhere meaningful.
| Indi wrote: |
| If the universe really is goverened completely by karma, then it is not merciful. If this is the case - that the universe is governed by karma - then God either cannot override karma, or he will not. He can't or he won't be merciful. It always comes back to can't or won't.
|
So what? You either can’t or you won’t tie this in with something relevant!
| Indi wrote: | ||
*blink* Er... none of that has anything to do with what I've written. I said that a father must teach (or try to teach if you want to be anal - the argument is unchanged) his children for them to learn things the father wants them to know. God does not have to teach anything. He can just insert the knowledge into the person, without the process of teaching. Thus the argument that suffering is necessary for learning is irrelevant when talking about God. If suffering exists, it doesn't exist because we need it as a lesson in anything. |
You have it backwards, this is what everyone wants supposedly, but there are certain requirements, you have to clear away the obstructions. You can’t just automatically get filled up with data from God if you are totally self-absorbed in your own BS. God doesn’t violate free will.
All the where’s and whys are of little point to go into, it won’t change your mind on anything, even theists probably wouldn’t agree with me, it’s just my opinion on the matter. This topic is just grinding to a meaningless halt, this isn’t going anywhere but definitional game playing.
If you've got a point, by all means get to it. Most of the points I'm objecting to are trivial and not really worth discussing, unless there is some kind of overarching theme behind all the little points that are trivial in isolation.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | ||
What is the definition of you? What is your definition of George Bush? |
What is the relevance of either? If we were talking about me or Bush, they would be relevant definitions. But we are talking about Jesus and - by extension - God.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| Since I assert that God exists and science is accurate, obviously I don’t think we all fell off the cabbage truck 6,000 years ago. Get real. |
Quote me the passage where I stated or implied that.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| God is the Creator, he made the Big Band and has patiently watched over and guided the universe ever since. Now, have I really explained anything? |
Partially. Now I know that you believe God really did create the universe and was not created by or with it. That is more than I knew before, and the start of a meaningful dialogue.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| Don’t you know anything about liberal theology? Every denomination, every sect of every religion has its conservatives and its liberals, and they all sound pretty much the same in each sect and religion. The most significant distinction is between the liberals and conservatives, the differences between different religions and sects are not nearly as pronounced. The liberals all agree with each other, regardless of religion or sect, and the conservatives all disagree with everybody else and exaggerate the differences between them and conservative of other tradition in order to contrive a meaningful distinction.
Anyway, obvious my theology is liberal. The definition and limitations of this are pretty concrete and universal. |
Obviously not, because I don't know them. What harm is there in explaining them?
| mike1reynolds wrote: | ||
It is about conjecture from contrived definitions, like “What if the sky was green?” Meaningful debate about the nature of God would deal with issues of ethics and justice. You are not trying to put yourself in God’s shoes, attempting to define what you, or the most selfless level headed person you can imagine would do. You are not dealing with God as a real being with a point of view and an objective, you are just coming up with distorted analogies that don’t describe a point of view at all. You are arguing about unstoppable forces vs. immovable rocks, instead of dealing with practical points of view. God is going to have a point of view. He is not a definition, he is a being with an opinion. |
He is not a definition, he is a being with an opinion, eh? Well that depends on your definition of God. In various definitions, God is not a being, he is an opinion and/or he is nothing more than a defintion. You seem to assume that your definition of God is universal and universally understood. You said as much in the paragraph above. Obviously not, because the definition I was working on - which I thought was near-universal - was not your definition.
As for the rest of what you said, I am not putting myself in God's shoes, assuming he has shoes. Assuming he has feet. I am pretending God is a sentient being with his own point of view and objective. What analogies have I come up with, other than breaking karma down to the mechanics of "an eye for an eye"? You introduced the "God as father" analogy, not me. I have never mentioned an unstoppable force or an immovable rock, nor anything close - show me where you think I have. I thought that my point of view was quite practical, and directly related to God's motives and thus perfection.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | ||
I started the thread to argue that the notion of perfection is a mathematical abstraction with no meaning in the context of consciousness. |
Then why didn't you call the thread "Perfection is a mathematical abstraction with no meaning in the context of consciousness" or something similar (but shorter)?
The thread is called "Is Jesus perfect". The first post deals with the perfection of Jesus. I am answering to that topic.
If that is not the topic here, say so and I will leave.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| You are arguing that a definition of God somehow excludes justice. |
Quote the part where I said or implied that the definition of God excludes justice, or take that back.
My position has been that the definition of God excludes mercy. I have explicity stated that mercy and justice are not the same. I see no reasonable way that my position could be construed to be that God cannot be just.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| You have to create a contrived definition in order to do this. You have no problem toying with definitions as if it were a game, because you don’t believe in God and so exaggerate the tiny differences as being huge contradictions. But there are only two common conceptions of God with any relevant distinctions to this debate, the liberal and conservative conception. It isn’t a big array of choices. |
If you don't like my definition, then provide one. Better yet, provide both the "liberal" and "conservative" definitions for me.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | ||
But is it unjust? Fairness and justice aren’t always merciful. Mercy is not a requirement for justice in this context. |
Correct.
But I am not talking about justice. I am talking about the nature of God. If God accepts karma as absolute law, he may be just, but he is without mercy.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | ||||
That is the obvious alternative to karma. What other alternative do you propose that would be more fair and just? |
I thought I was pretty clear when I said: "if God has designed to the universe to be governed by karma, then it is about as just as it is going to get." But I am not interested in justice or alternatives to karma. I am interested in God. I have never once expressed any interest in whether God was fair or just. I have only discussed mercy.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | ||
You introduced the subject repeatedly, before and while talking to me. You are getting self absorbed in your own argument. I’ve used it all of twice, only in response to you, and coupled with justice the second time. You are the one obsessed with mercy. If you know that it is irrelevant to karma then why are you making a knowingly irrelevant argument over and over again? |
Because mercy may be irrelevant to karma, but not to the perfection of God (or Jesus, by extension). I don't care whether or not God is just. That's a whole different debate. I am simply pointing out that if karma governs his universe he is not merciful.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | ||
It may or may not be merciful, depending on the context. Karma isn’t just punishment, it is also getting what you’ve got coming to you, which may be good. So anyway, if it as just as it can get, then this whole line of reasoning is irrelevant and doesn’t have the slightest chance of going anywhere meaningful. |
Exactly.
But justice was never my point. Mercy was.
Karma can never be merciful, by definition. Mercy requires compassion, and karma is inanimate. Karma is a system - a machine. It cannot be merciful. Ever.
Overruling karma could be an act of mercy. Karma itself cannot.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | ||
So what? You either can’t or you won’t tie this in with something relevant! |
I can and I will. God - by your definition - is not merciful. Thus he is not perfect. Thus Jesus cannot be perfect.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| You have it backwards, this is what everyone wants supposedly, but there are certain requirements, you have to clear away the obstructions. You can’t just automatically get filled up with data from God if you are totally self-absorbed in your own BS. God doesn’t violate free will. |
Why can't God fill me up with data, despite my own "self-absorption"? How would doing so violate free will? He could implant the entire bible and the one true interpretation of it directly into my brain. I would then be free to believe or ignore it.
Requirements? Obstructions? These things should not be a problem for God. But again, if these things really do exist, then God "can't". He can't eliminate evil and suffering because of requirements and obstructions.
He can't or he won't, all over again.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| All the where’s and whys are of little point to go into, it won’t change your mind on anything, even theists probably wouldn’t agree with me, it’s just my opinion on the matter. This topic is just grinding to a meaningless halt, this isn’t going anywhere but definitional game playing. |
Oh? I thought we were getting some interesting insight into the perfection of God and/or Jesus. The only stumbling block was that you wouldn't - and still haven't - given your definition of God. Yet whenever I have shown that some definition of God includes imperfection, you have pointed out that it is not your definition of God.
Either your definition of God is relevant to this discussion or it is not. If it is, then you should provide it. If it is not then you shouldn't be using it to shoot down other points.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| If you've got a point, by all means get to it. Most of the points I'm objecting to are trivial and not really worth discussing, unless there is some kind of overarching theme behind all the little points that are trivial in isolation. |
My point: Evil exists. Suffering exists. God either can't or won't remove them. Thus God is either not perfectly powerful, or not perfectly good. Thus God must be imperfect. Thus Jesus is imperfect.
And your point?
If anyone really cares about this debate, I'll continue. A vote of hands?
| Indi wrote: |
| My point: Evil exists. Suffering exists. God either can't or won't remove them. Thus God is either not perfectly powerful, or not perfectly good. Thus God must be imperfect. Thus Jesus is imperfect.
And your point? |
Now mike1reyonolds will imply your logic to prove that you are not atheist. Since you are telling that God is imperfect, you believe that God exist. Even though you are believing in an imperfect God, you cannot be atheist.
| nam_siddharth wrote: | ||
Now mike1reyonolds will imply your logic to prove that you are not atheist. Since you are telling that God is imperfect, you believe that God exist. Even though you are believing in an imperfect God, you cannot be atheist. |
^_^
assuming god exists, I recon he is so good he is bad
and maybe a bit tierd after millions of years of bullshit from us humams
and maybe a bit tierd after millions of years of bullshit from us humams
| Yantaal wrote: |
| and maybe a bit tierd after millions of years of bullshit from us humams |
Ain't that the truth.
Sidharth, you don't actually have a point of logic to contribute, just an insult. But at least you could meaningfully address a topic so that it could reach a singular conclusion. We had to agree to disagree, but at least our debate could percolate to that logger head. That sort of rational debate is not possible with Indi. He will twist every definition to try to exploit his advantage rather than arguing honestly. So the debate goes around endlessly never covering any ground, just going further and further off into tangents because Indi's ego will never allow him to concede a single point.
Sidharth, your arguments are consistent, and not totally arbitrary designed only to exploit what you think are loopholes in the argument. You argue what you think and don't make up arguments simply to grasp at any means of salvaging a tanking argument. You and I both conceded wrong points too each other. I haven't been able to concede a point too Indi because he has never made a valid point, and he has not conceded any points too me, because his ego can't stand to loose. When I debated with you I learned a tremendous amount by researching your and my arguments. In debating with Indi I hven't learned a God damned thing. You are honest in your debate, Indi is dishonest.
I'm not saying that this thread is proof of this, that came for me in another thread. But once having come to that realization I've simply lost all motivation to talk to such a person. I don't have time for people like that. I throw in the flag, I'm not going to debate with dishonest people.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| In debating with Indi I hven't learned a God damned thing. |
Not even the definition of intersubjective? ^_^
I remember the part about the TV screens vs. a big screen and how watching the same movie on the TV screen is supposedly intersubjective while watching on the big screen isn't. I learned that your definition of intersubjective is some meaningless distinction that probably has nothing to do with the actual meanig of the term.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| Something that is perfect does not change and grow. Only dead things do not grow. Jesus lives, he is not dead. |
Jesus is without sin, which doesnt rule out the option for growth, just in the 'obedience to the commandments' category
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| I remember the part about the TV screens vs. a big screen and how watching the same movie on the TV screen is supposedly intersubjective while watching on the big screen isn't. I learned that your definition of intersubjective is some meaningless distinction that probably has nothing to do with the actual meanig of the term. |
Hm... axiomatic and reflexive denial of any useful information because of the source... sounds like what you were accusing me of... interesting....
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| I just thought of an anology that belongs in the initial post:
What does it mean to be the perfect athlete? No matter how good an athlete is, no matter how many records they break, someone is always going to come along who is better and beats those records. |
When god is manifested in phisical form, he will thus be perfect. There are no words or human thoughts that can describe this. It is beyond your ability to make an accurate annalogy. This is not to be offensive, under the assumtion that Jesus was in fact the mesiah(sp?), he would be god manifested in human form. Human FORM, form does not implie that he had the same behavural characteristics.
On the other hand perhaps by his very nature he wasn't supost to be perfect. Perhaps the point was for god to show that he is able to step down for a short while and experiance the world as we do. Under the previus assumtion he did in fact take on all our sin. That would thus make him sinfull. BUT does carrieng the sins of another necisarily make you the imperfect one?
If it helps anyone to ponder this. The word sin actualy came from archery, it means to miss the mark, the bulls-eye. It originaly had no meaning for spiritual use.
I am also in no way imposing the beliefe that christ is the messiah, merely becuase i believe so does not mean you have to.
| Aredon wrote: |
| There are no words or human thoughts that can describe this. It is beyond your ability to make an accurate annalogy.
. . . If it helps anyone to ponder this. The word sin actualy came from archery, it means to miss the mark, the bulls-eye. It originaly had no meaning for spiritual use. |
How can one ponder something that has been explicitly posed as imponderable? You indirectly acknowledge that your conclusions are illogical, but claim that these apparent flaws in reasoning would be resolved if one had an infinite intelligence. Then tell me, how do you have the slightest idea that you are correct, since you don’t have infinite intelligence?
Well no one's perfect, I mean noone and I can prove it. This might sound a bit like a joke. If you ask Jesus to make a stone that he wouldn't be able to carry he would make it, but he wouldn't be able to carry it, but if he says he can't, that means that he can't make it which means he's not perfect 
Hi
as a muslim i dont belive jesus is god but a prophet from god whom i love and respect any way as a prophet he is human and humans make mistakes but prophets are sinless
just my own opponion
im out
as a muslim i dont belive jesus is god but a prophet from god whom i love and respect any way as a prophet he is human and humans make mistakes but prophets are sinless
just my own opponion
im out
| mike1reynolds wrote: | ||
How can one ponder something that has been explicitly posed as imponderable? You indirectly acknowledge that your conclusions are illogical, but claim that these apparent flaws in reasoning would be resolved if one had an infinite intelligence. Then tell me, how do you have the slightest idea that you are correct, since you don’t have infinite intelligence? |
I was attempting to approach the topic from two sides, the first was my personal opinion, the second was me showing that i could understand where the arguement that he was not perfect could actualy fit into what i believe. I inderectly contradict myself to show that the tide can turn both ways, that in fact there is evidence to suggest both dirrections. Im not imposing what i believe on anyone here, im merely trying to give as much understanding on BOTH sides so that others may step back and think to themselves "hmm that could work too" Though i do argue sometimes in things i strongly disagree with, im not attempting to force anyone to believe anything different then what they already to. This being stated I personaly am unsure as to whether christ was perfect as we define it or not. Perhaps he was a form of perfection we are yet to comprehend. Perhaps by takeing on OUR imperfections he in fact made himself perfect.. After all, what perfect creator doesnt need to know exactly how his creation feels? Would that not fundimentaly make him perfection? My ideal creator would want to know exactly what it is like to be us, and then save us from ourselves. So the question becomes a parradox.. by being imperfect would that, in fact, MAKE him perfect?
On another note, i never said i was correct. I should not have to present evidence that i am correct, to prove it to myself all i should need is faith. Proof helps, but shouldnt be needed for me to believe what i do.
Jesus Don't did anything wrong when he lived!
You may think this is impossible but dont forget that God Helped him and Jesus is God!
God Bless!
You may think this is impossible but dont forget that God Helped him and Jesus is God!
God Bless!
| totax wrote: |
| Jesus Don't did anything wrong when he lived! |
Creating a public disturbance, destruction of property, vandalism, assault... and all that was just when he was driving the money changers out of the temple.
We was angry at them maby:P
But he dind not commit a sinn....
And The temple was holy not a place to sel or heave buissnes...
But he dind not commit a sinn....
And The temple was holy not a place to sel or heave buissnes...
If Jesus is God, or the same as God, or Godlike or Godly, regardless of what he is , by his own actions I see him as not perfect, if he was perfect why did he face temptation (if he was perfect he would not need to be tested by defintion) and by stating that I am also saying God is not perfect.....The way I see it is God is lonely....Creating angels did not fill the void ,did not give God the companions he required (surely if God could create individual free thinking beings "ad hock" he would have , he has/wanted/needed to create us as we are
If God requires servants/subjects he could create them , after all he is God...He has not created us to love him without thought on the matter ,so we have to conclude if God wanted us to be his subjects "ad hock " well we would be ...and look around anybody can see we are not... the way I see it is the world as we know it is not like that..so logically(using the world as we know it is not like that as a reference) I would have to assume that God wants free thinking "companions" to share eternity not robots/servants/creations who suck up(or have to be filled with every thought they will ever have ) like theres no tomorrow............ultimately if we were created why else are we here ?????
If God requires servants/subjects he could create them , after all he is God...He has not created us to love him without thought on the matter ,so we have to conclude if God wanted us to be his subjects "ad hock " well we would be ...and look around anybody can see we are not... the way I see it is the world as we know it is not like that..so logically(using the world as we know it is not like that as a reference) I would have to assume that God wants free thinking "companions" to share eternity not robots/servants/creations who suck up(or have to be filled with every thought they will ever have ) like theres no tomorrow............ultimately if we were created why else are we here ?????
tumbelweed
man what ok jesus as i said god created him as a human as a prophet as a great prophet and yes humans make mistakes humans get angre and the rest of it but god is god look god is perfect how the hole servents thing man god has created us all for a reson as the quran says it {We have only created the human and the spiret only for worship} ok now i no that god aid we in the quran so let me get that outta the way this We in arabic is a royal We for there are 2 We's ok with that been said now the verse god created us for worship ok how this is beggining with our intention and then our right deeds couse hay all right actions can be for the sake of god also with him been lonly i wont realy comment on this but i thing watch what u say im muslim and i found that a discusting thing to say its god and i think jew's and cristans alike will have the same discust
man what ok jesus as i said god created him as a human as a prophet as a great prophet and yes humans make mistakes humans get angre and the rest of it but god is god look god is perfect how the hole servents thing man god has created us all for a reson as the quran says it {We have only created the human and the spiret only for worship} ok now i no that god aid we in the quran so let me get that outta the way this We in arabic is a royal We for there are 2 We's ok with that been said now the verse god created us for worship ok how this is beggining with our intention and then our right deeds couse hay all right actions can be for the sake of god also with him been lonly i wont realy comment on this but i thing watch what u say im muslim and i found that a discusting thing to say its god and i think jew's and cristans alike will have the same discust
death_dealer
Are you saying no God can have emotions ?
I think you need to ask yourself the question "why does God want worshipers" or " why does God want to be loved "
Are you saying no God can have emotions ?
I think you need to ask yourself the question "why does God want worshipers" or " why does God want to be loved "
sorry look my point was that god is capable of creating a human and god dose love his servents but we are also created with a weakness that is need and god needs nothing its we need god not god needs us
so u see if u say god had a son thats saying god needs something also god wants worship and to belove for resons such as he created u and i so isnt it the least we can do like i mean if i gave u a present i expect a simple thank u also also u may help me out a touc more where as god has given u and i hands and eyes love and those who confert us and we confert them that is wat i mean so ofcorse god wants us to worship him to apprecate him if god created u to live in a wheel chare then thank god ur sain
no what i mean
im out
so u see if u say god had a son thats saying god needs something also god wants worship and to belove for resons such as he created u and i so isnt it the least we can do like i mean if i gave u a present i expect a simple thank u also also u may help me out a touc more where as god has given u and i hands and eyes love and those who confert us and we confert them that is wat i mean so ofcorse god wants us to worship him to apprecate him if god created u to live in a wheel chare then thank god ur sain
no what i mean
im out
death_dealer
Forgive me if I have got the wrong end of the stick..I wouldnt want to belittle anybodys God or beliefs...but what are the "reasons" we were created by God ?..... you seem to be saying we are created just to worship God.....cant the angels do this ?....as I said before if God wanted robots he would have created them
I think you have missed my point .... I am not saying God isnt worthy of love and respect...I am not saying God is a sad and lonley being.
I am though implying that God has given us all individuality ,a capasity to think for ourselves has given us the (created in his image) Godlike spark of life that enables us to discuss the virtues of the creation and the creator, God wants us to be different by the vary nature the world is...just look out of your window.......or better still ask him
P.S Him could be a Her or an it.........I would'nt like to upset the ladies or the aliens here
Forgive me if I have got the wrong end of the stick..I wouldnt want to belittle anybodys God or beliefs...but what are the "reasons" we were created by God ?..... you seem to be saying we are created just to worship God.....cant the angels do this ?....as I said before if God wanted robots he would have created them
I think you have missed my point .... I am not saying God isnt worthy of love and respect...I am not saying God is a sad and lonley being.
I am though implying that God has given us all individuality ,a capasity to think for ourselves has given us the (created in his image) Godlike spark of life that enables us to discuss the virtues of the creation and the creator, God wants us to be different by the vary nature the world is...just look out of your window.......or better still ask him
P.S Him could be a Her or an it.........I would'nt like to upset the ladies or the aliens here
as far as god creating us in his image i dont belive or may agree with this as i said im muslim god would only create us of a diffrent image couse god's image is the greatest image so a great rewared will be to see god ( hope u get my drift {plz contemplat this} i dont wanna send the wrong image)
as for god being a lonly being like i understand ur point but u must also becarful of ur words this is phelosify and when mixed with religion is a very dangrous thing couse (as i see it) are bast on diffrent things
and of course god can create the angels to respect and love and worship where as god can create the animals that are practicly a sorce of life that practcly all thay do is sleep eat and u no the rest
but the humans may choose to do witch everso god orders mankind to worship him but has not forced the human to do so but has given god's threat of hell to those who dont worship him
as for god being a lonly being like i understand ur point but u must also becarful of ur words this is phelosify and when mixed with religion is a very dangrous thing couse (as i see it) are bast on diffrent things
and of course god can create the angels to respect and love and worship where as god can create the animals that are practicly a sorce of life that practcly all thay do is sleep eat and u no the rest
but the humans may choose to do witch everso god orders mankind to worship him but has not forced the human to do so but has given god's threat of hell to those who dont worship him
| tumbleweed wrote: |
| death_dealer
Forgive me if I have got the wrong end of the stick..I wouldnt want to belittle anybodys God or beliefs...but what are the "reasons" we were created by God ?..... |
The reason we exist is a question that troubles all of mankind, it always has and always will. Logicaly it seems pointless for us to be here. We are created to be tested... to then suffer or be blessed forever.. I have asked myself many times why we are even on earth to begin with. However, i have come to face the fact that i am indeed here, therefore whatever possible purposes i have here. Let me fufill them. The reasons God made us are not for us to question. No more can a child question that 1+1=2, than we can question that which is everything... God, unless we too understand everything.. but then we would in fact.. be part of God.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| Something that is perfect does not change and grow. Only dead things do not grow. Jesus lives, he is not dead.
No living being can be perfect, it is a logical contradiction and a meaningless concept. Everyone is growing. By way of analogy, what does it mean to be the perfect athlete? No matter how good an athlete is, no matter how many records they break, someone is always going to come along who is better and beats those records. |
Christ is perfect =)
Christ is so perfect, and he made a way to heaven!
| totax wrote: |
| Christ is so perfect, and he made a way to heaven! |
Thats absolutely true! Christ opened the gates of heaven to us sinful people, who don't deserve it!
the answer is very clear: Jesus is truly human and truly God. God is perfect. therefore Jesus is perfect.
| elincinerador wrote: |
| the answer is very clear: Jesus is truly human and truly God. God is perfect. therefore Jesus is perfect. |
Therefore humans are perfect, too. Because you can't have a perfect whole with imperfect parts.
| Quote: |
| elincinerador wrote:
the answer is very clear: Jesus is truly human and truly God. God is perfect. therefore Jesus is perfect. Therefore humans are perfect, too. Because you can't have a perfect whole with imperfect parts. |
way to true think of it for a momment, why would God the so called father of jesus need jesus to do his work. Ok logicly it absured but yes i am a person who belives logic is lik 20% of religion. However there is thing like that for e.g. jesus opened a way to heaven why would god need jesus to do that i mean god is god. If your saying jesus showed mankind a way to heaven so did Mohommed the last prophet of islam i quote one of his meny saying "whosoever finds a path to knowlage god has mad a path for in to paradise" thats only 1 E.g. although this is only for the muslims
| death_dealer wrote: |
| way to true think of it for a momment, why would God the so called father of jesus need jesus to do his work. |
(Actually, there is an answer to that - the theory goes that God is so awesome that humans are not capable of perceiving him directly. That is, if God actually showed himself to you directly, it would be more than you can possibly bear. Depending on who you believe, only a handful or so people in all of history have actually seen God (possibly only Moses), and only a small number more have been spoken to directly by him (the prophets, but not even all of them).
In order to actually reach most of us, God has to use intermediaries that we are capable of handling. For example, Muhammad was given his instructions largely via the angel Gabriel, presumably because he was not ready to handly seeing God directly at the time. So in order for God to get the message to all of us about the "good news" (our sins being paid for), he needed an intermediary, someone that everyone could be able to handle perceiving. So, God used his "son" as a means of bridging the gap between us and him.
That's why Jesus had to come to Earth, and not God himself. Even though Jesus is an aspect of God, he is not all of God, and so human minds were able to handle perceiving him directly.
This thinking is Christian thinking, but it is very, very old Christian thinking. The majority of modern Christians tend not to give it as much thought. To many of them, Jesus is God, God is Jesus, and God sent Jesus to us instead of coming himself or sending any random angel or another human prophet because it had to be someone "special", with no real explanation of why his "son" or what that actually means for God to have a son metaphysically.)
inda said:
muslims belive this to but as i said god dose not need jesus to do anywork for him. but as mentioned god had allowed us free will the will to choose if this is right or wrong there for sent prophets (including jesus) for the same reason god allowed him miricals so that belive in what jesus has to say
| Quote: |
| (Actually, there is an answer to that - the theory goes that God is so awesome that humans are not capable of perceiving him directly. That is, if God actually showed himself to you directly, it would be more than you can possibly bear. Depending on who you believe, only a handful or so people in all of history have actually seen God (possibly only Moses), and only a small number more have been spoken to directly by him (the prophets, but not even all of them). |
muslims belive this to but as i said god dose not need jesus to do anywork for him. but as mentioned god had allowed us free will the will to choose if this is right or wrong there for sent prophets (including jesus) for the same reason god allowed him miricals so that belive in what jesus has to say
| Soulfire wrote: |
| Jesus was sinless, now He is perfect. |
Yes, He is perfect... Jesus is perfect... He is God...
| Quote: |
| Soulfire wrote:
Jesus was sinless, now He is perfect. Yes, He is perfect... Jesus is perfect... He is God... |
jesus is not perfect wheres your proof "he made a road to heaven" right
| Quote: |
| He is God |
now jesus is god so...... dose that make Mery the goddess of females or soemthing common man like do the math
Related topics
 |