|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Nov 3, 2009 12:31:31 GMT -8
very good questions. first i know that Ishvara is the one who has attributes because the Saguna God is unkowable (yet can be known), he is nothing (yet is something) he is spirit (yet is matter). he is incomprehensible, pure potential, a being of paradoxes, and even by saying he is that i am creating an Ishvara. Saguna God does not hate, yet he does. He does not love, yet he does. he creates and destroyes and does nothing as well as everyhitng.
so anything that has a definite attribute solidly defining God, it is a projected Ishvara (which is not bad in the least).
i dont think any of the bible is Gods words, but that God-manifest is what inspired the writers to express this manifestation. but what they see with their spiritual eyes depends on how open those eyes are, hich is dif for each person. we have to interpret the bible according to the writers intention, not Gods. firstly because Saguna has no intention, and secondly because God did not write the bible. Humans did. the bible is not Gods word.
the bible is merely an expression of Gods word. we can use it as a guide to find that word, but we can express it in ways other than the bible, ritual and christianity. we an express it through science, religion, philosophy, etc. all of theses systems are merely symbols that are there to guide the seeker into the truth. we can choose to espress that truth when we find it any way we want, even creating our own bout of symbolism like the masons.
shalom
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 3, 2009 17:08:01 GMT -8
First off, I'd like to address these comments:
These are patently unbiblical statements (not to mention illogical*).
The whole point of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ is that God has an intention- a loving intention at that.
2 Cor. 5:18-19
All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
1 John 4:16a
And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love.
I really want you to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God's love for you is not a mere projection but is more real and objective than the universe itself.
Really, yeshuafreak, what reason do you have to believe all this? I haven't seen a defense here just descriptions of your new beliefs.
*Logically, and philosophically, God cannot love and be unable to love if you define the word love consistently in the statement nor any other of the opposites you ascribe.
|
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Nov 6, 2009 15:51:31 GMT -8
god is obviously illogical. this is true for most philosophical and religious systems. god is the proposition and negation of that proposition because he is everything. i wont get into what god is here though.
i truly see your intention. in dealing with the verses, these lines are not fully adequete to adress them. however, you must remember that i dont blieve that those verses have to be true. just know that.
however, there is no reason to discard them so i will del with them: Paul spoke with the OT view of God- amorphism i belive it is called. he gives god desire, moods, hands, feet and body, etc. but that is NOT literal. those are "dumbed bown" explanations of God. and Yochanon spoke with metaphor VERY often, so i wouldnt put it past him to be using this word as a metaphor. however, since Yochanons theology differs (in nomenclature and technique, though not message) from Shaul, i see the need to interpret his writings differently.
love to John meant the Will to Give. it is the same hting. (i use will to give for reaons not needed to be discussed here) it is dealing with our eventual release from sin. love is the absence of fear and anger and such, according to Yochanon because his thesis is that God is love. if you consider God as love, then yes, everything against god IS evil. but i am calling something completely different Love, making a different point. i use Will To Give for God because i use love for a different meaning. i agree compoletely with R. Yochanon, but i just use different words. i also define love differently than you.
apologetics is not my bowl of nuts, but i do have valid reasons for believing what i belive, and can give them to you. right now is not the time. i willl start a different thread. but my main argument is from a philosophical and logical (it IS logical that god is illogical- something i will discuss later) standpoint. i dont use scriptures (not just biblical scriptures,) very much because i find those as expressions of the trusth AT BEST (sometimes they are false) and they are many times unreliable. but i still use them as supporting evidence and for communicating ideas to those who are not well versed in those scriptures. (that is why i dont quote bbile verses to you- you know them. but you dont know about hinduism and taoism and such, so i WILL quote those).
But what has motivated e to find a new system of beliefs is this: the traditional view does NOT work now. it just doesnt. there are to many problems with the augustinian God (a primitive one) and there are too many problems with taking the bible literally or anything less than figurative when speaking of gen 1-11 or stories like that. there are just too many. o i have looked at science, philosophy, etc for the answer. of course, they are NOT proof, but provide real evidence. even christians get evidence for their bleifs from archeology and such. i am taking the evidence and consturcting a theory that works.
i dont care if it is compatible with the bible is not. if something is proven to be wrong in the bible, than i am not going to twist the meaning of the verse, but i am just going to say that the person obviously let human nature take over or was not writing a historical account or that the text was changed or wherever the evidence points!
so if you want apologetics, i am going to be taking from science, philosophy, archeology etc that provides evidence- and then i am looking to the scriptures that need proving. they cannot provide the evidence, only the theory that needs evidence. saying that god performed mass murder during the flood and will in armeggedon and the lake of fire, is proposterous, and i will not serve a heavenly hitler. God is something more than a being just like us with as many problems that we have. i am looking for the meaning behind the amorphism.
shalom
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 6, 2009 20:53:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Nov 7, 2009 17:43:36 GMT -8
i will be sure to post in both threads.
|
|
