Does his character evolve?
Does he alter?

Does he "mature", as do other fathers?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 26^th, 2010 at 12:29am:

Does his character evolve? Does he alter? Does he "mature", as do other fathers?

For god to evolve, would be to say he develops from a lesser being to a greater one... which would be meaningless in the context of an omniscient, omnipotent being.

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."

That's funny, so am I.

What's funny?
So are you what?

If you want to be a wag at least be a comprehensible one.

yes, still throughout the OT and running into the NT Gods character seems to ... soften.

in some parts of the OT he seems pretty hardnosed.
In much of the NT, Gods really plays hardball.
Which is quite his call
At  times (sodom and gemorah) it seems he is amenable to moses please to change his mind.
then later on, God gets what he wanted initially anyway.


later on in the bible, I think with david, it seems God really does reconsider a decision.
I'm sure there is one other area God genuinely changes his mind on a matter.


then in the NT, Jesus is really a different kettle of fish.
Hanging around with hookers, forgive others their sins ...........

that ain't the God of the OT.

Where's the continuity ?

Ahhh why do you suppose there is an Old Testament and a New Testament?
Are they not God's covenants with man?

So perhaps there was one set of rules and we "evolved" and then a second set of rules.

For example you can't reason with a 2 year old but when they are older and wiser you can and your expectations of them and their understanding is broader.

the OT is just for jews.
the NT is for everyone.

people have not changed since "adam was a boy."
hehehehhe

oh dear and the NT... who did Jesus preach that too?

Oh right Jews.

Nope you have it a bit wrong there sprint.

People and their understanding of nature and human nature has changed a lot since "Adam was a boy"

he preached to people like the Samaritan woman at the well
she had  had 5 husbands and now was living in sin.


people still experience hunger, pain, jealously, anger, greed, shame, they still lie, kill and decieve.

anyway, so you think God has not .... mellowed ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 27^th, 2010 at 9:04am:

he preached to people like the Samaritan woman at the well she had  had 5 husbands and now was living in sin. people still experience hunger, pain, jealously, anger, greed, shame, they still lie, kill and decieve. anyway, so you think God has not .... mellowed ?

Sprint, I know you accept that biblical scripture is man-made. Human relationship to the divine, determined by humans, morphs over time and across cultures.

In Abrahamic theology, god is immutable and transcendent.

in the OT, people did not do what God wanted them to.

almost without exception, everyone walked away from God.
I believe there were 2, maybe 3 people who did exactly what God wanted of them for all their lives in the whole of the OT.

our relationship with The Divine has always been ....... flawed.
from ever since adam was a boy :-)

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 27^th, 2010 at 3:51pm:

our relationship with The Divine has always been ....... flawed. from ever since adam was a boy :-)

Would you expect any other? Human existence is contingent, human nature imperfect. We are, in Buddhist terminology, bound in samsara - the wheel of suffering and some seek refuge through an ideation of the absolute, the immutable and unconditional - the divine.

I really think that the whole question could be better phrased as;
Does our concept of god evolve?

Now that is a far more interesting question, and certainly one that allows for a decent argument on the positive side.

Many very intelligent, caring people, who live by strong humanist principles, and who display great empathy for their fellow man also develop a concept of god, be it christian, or muslim, or hindu, or whatever, that they can assimilate into their core principles, albeit with a need to rationalise away many of the more extreme dogmas that the organised branches of religion espouse in a rigid, literal way.

The concept of God doesn't evolve because "God"" is a given.
In any religion, God is a gven.
Religions are stangnant without the pressure of movement, they don't evolve. They are a story like "Dick and Dora, they don't evolve voluntarily.

Preaching to the converted I know..carry on.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 27^th, 2010 at 5:08pm:

I really think that the whole question could be better phrased as; Does our concept of god evolve?

I prefer the original question. Would you say:

Does Harry Potter character evolve? or
Does our concept of Harry Potter evolve?

Why deny attributing a  character to God when you would grant one to Harry Potter?

Do you have something against God ? :)  I'll just add ... you Godless atheist to the end, because today I'm a Pentecostal.

Don't argue with me tomorrow - I'm planning to be a Rastafarian then.

That is probably deeply disrespectful.

Grendel wrote on Apr 29^th, 2010 at 5:17pm:

That is probably deeply disrespectful.

Yes.  Isn't he just?

Sad...  but predictable.

Grendel wrote on Apr 29^th, 2010 at 5:23pm:

Sad...  but predictable.

That's not very Christian of you. What are you? A Methodist?

onya muso

:)

muso wrote on Apr 29^th, 2010 at 5:12pm:

Why deny attributing a  character to God when you would grant one to Harry Potter?

Because that would make him one character type as opposed to another... Which is meaningless with the divine... The Abrahamic monotheistic god is beyond definition as he is absolute and transcendent.

OK, so we used to have a vengeful god, and a jealous god(sounds like a bit of a prick if you ask me) in the old testament, and then we got a more loving god, and a compassionate god at the start of the new testament(things are looking up, perhaps he has been in therapy) and then we got a a bit of a schizo god undergoing a severe identity crisis, I am the father son and holy ghost period(whoops, looks like it is back to therapy for you old son, or is that father, or perhaps ghost?) and finally we get the judgmental god who will be snatching people physically from their homes any day now for the big rap (ture) party, while condemning heathens like me to eternal torture( and now I am back to the start again, he is a prick)


Is that what you meant sprint?

mozzaok wrote on Apr 29^th, 2010 at 7:54pm:

OK, so we used to have a vengeful god, and a jealous god(sounds like a bit of a prick if you ask me) in the old testament, and then we got a more loving god, and a compassionate god at the start of the new testament(things are looking up, perhaps he has been in therapy) and then we got a a bit of a schizo god undergoing a severe identity crisis, I am the father son and holy ghost period(whoops, looks like it is back to therapy for you old son, or is that father, or perhaps ghost?) and finally we get the judgmental god who will be snatching people physically from their homes any day now for the big rap (ture) party, while condemning heathens like me to eternal torture( and now I am back to the start again, he is a prick)

To determine why God has such an identity crisis, you need to look at the origins of the Jewish religion in Zoroastrianism following the return from exile in Babylon of the Jewish aristocracy. The dominant religion of the Persian invaders then became the main influence for what was previously a polytheist religion, in which Jehovah was  the God of War.

The New Testament transformation culminated in the establishment of the current collection of gospels following the Council of Nicea in  325 AD.  Up to that time, there was a considerable Gnostic influence in the new religion of Christianity in its various forms. During the Council of Nicea, most of the "plain silly" Gnostic texts were purged, but the influences remained.

Quote:

That's not very Christian of you. What are you? A Methodist?

Why would it not be very Christian?

To me it was just a statement of fact.

Well it wasn't intended to be. I was just pointing aut that even Harry Potter can have an evolving character, while for Atheists, God is not allowed even to have a character since he's nothing...nada.

So cool it dey man....

Oh, please don't you rock my boat (don't rock my boat)
'Cause I don't want my boat to be rockin' (don't rock my boat)
Oh, please don't you rock my boat (don't rock my boat)
'Cause I don't want my boat to be rockin' (don't rock my boat)

Peace brothas \/

Actually it is as simple as theory of numbers. From 1,2,3...(n) to a +bi, which widens field of religions to include all sorts of atheistic denominations.

Can we add "atheistic denominations" to the list of things that do not exist, that tallo believes in?

Not believing in god, is to being religious, what not collecting stamps, is to being a philatelist.

mozzaok wrote on May 1^st, 2010 at 9:31pm:

Can we add "atheistic denominations" to the list of things that do not exist, that tallo believes in? Not believing in god, is to being religious, what not collecting stamps, is to being a philatelist.

No, that's agnosticism. atheism is this:

Not believing in god, is to being religious, what believing that collecting stamps is evil is to being a philatelist.

mozzaok wrote on May 1^st, 2010 at 9:31pm:

Can we add "atheistic denominations" to the list of things that do not exist, that tallo believes in? Not believing in god, is to being religious, what not collecting stamps, is to being a philatelist.

We can add atheism to the list of things that do not exist because somebody do not believe in them.

tallowood wrote on May 1^st, 2010 at 9:41pm:

mozzaok wrote on May 1st, 2010 at 9:31pm: Can we add "atheistic denominations" to the list of things that do not exist, that tallo believes in? Not believing in god, is to being religious, what not collecting stamps, is to being a philatelist. We can add atheism to the list of things that do not exist because somebody do not believe in them.

I'll be an atheist tomorrow, because Sunday is the day of rest from religion. It's been quite an exhausting week. Pentecostalism in particular - all that jumping around and arm waving. I was glad to be Rastafarian, and just bum around the next day.

I had the most fun as a Hindu a couple of weeks ago on  the Vishu Festival. The fresh fruit was great. It's a pity they don't have any more festivals until June. I have a soft spot for Hinduism.

Buddha Purnima is coming up next weekend, and I'm really looking forward to that too. I have my oil lamps and gold leaf all ready.  ;)

mozzaok wrote on May 1^st, 2010 at 9:31pm:

Can we add "atheistic denominations" to the list of things that do not exist, that tallo believes in? Not believing in god, is to being religious, what not collecting stamps, is to being a philatelist.

And being an "aphilatelist" does not have you thinking about not collecting stamps all day or obsessing about union with a rare stamp.

The concept of monotheism in Abrahamic religions is a fraud and is maintained by all three religions only from logical necessity.

However, this theological illusion of singularity is most useful to proselytising religions in persuading potential converts to embrace a new faith safe in the knowledge that the convert is worshipping the same god.

The gods of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are not the same, albeit those of Judaism and Islam are fraternal while the Christian god is more like their 3rd cousin - A little bit Jewish on his father's side and Pagan on his mother's. ;)

tallowood wrote on May 1^st, 2010 at 9:41pm:

mozzaok wrote on May 1st, 2010 at 9:31pm: Can we add "atheistic denominations" to the list of things that do not exist, that tallo believes in? Not believing in god, is to being religious, what not collecting stamps, is to being a philatelist. We can add atheism to the list of things that do not exist because somebody do not believe in them.

the list of things that do not exist because somebody do not believe in them.

Hold on to that penny tallo, but I am pretty sure you are thinking of Tinkerbell there, but keep your eyes closed tight, and keep on repeating, "I do believe, I do believe."

mozzaok wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 10:32am:

tallowood wrote on May 1st, 2010 at 9:41pm: mozzaok wrote on May 1st, 2010 at 9:31pm: Can we add "atheistic denominations" to the list of things that do not exist, that tallo believes in? Not believing in god, is to being religious, what not collecting stamps, is to being a philatelist. We can add atheism to the list of things that do not exist because somebody do not believe in them. the list of things that do not exist because somebody do not believe in them. Hold on to that penny tallo, but I am pretty sure you are thinking of Tinkerbell there, but keep your eyes closed tight, and keep on repeating, "I do believe, I do believe."

Dunno about holding onto anything... "atheism" is not an object but a state of disbelief.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 9:26am:

The concept of monotheism in Abrahamic religions is a fraud and is maintained by all three religions only from logical necessity. However, this theological illusion of singularity is most useful to proselytising religions in persuading potential converts to embrace a new faith safe in the knowledge that the convert is worshipping the same god. The gods of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are not the same, albeit those of Judaism and Islam are fraternal while the Christian god is more like their 3rd cousin - A little bit Jewish on his father's side and Pagan on his mother's. ;)

That's an interesting assertion. Can you expand on that? Do you mean that they are really henotheism or polytheism in disguise? I can see some validity in that argument only that if you're referring to the Roman Catholic, Coptic Orthodox or Greek Orthodox traditions.

It probably applies less so in Protestantism, unless you count the Trinity.

muso wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 6:40pm:

That's an interesting assertion. Can you expand on that? Do you mean that they are really henotheism or polytheism in disguise? I can see some validity in that argument only that if you're referring to the Roman Catholic, Coptic Orthodox or Greek Orthodox traditions. It probably applies less so in Protestantism, unless you count the Trinity.

To step back a bit from the punchline…

Not henotheistic in their respective theology but each is somewhat crypto-henotheistic as evidenced by the at best thinly disguised rejection (at worst violent intolerance) of the others’ theologies – Not so true regarding Judaic attitude towards the others, but more so as far as Christianity and Islam are concerned. It is doubtful that Jews would accept the Christian god and Allah as Yahweh.

Nor polytheistic in their respective theology, at least indisputably not in Judaism and Islam but arguably crypto-polytheistic in Christianity with the doctrine of the trinity and veneration of the saints.

Each permutation of Abrahamic religion has arrogated the concept of monotheism to itself, adapting it to the cultural sensibilities of the people it first served. Each (Christianity and Islam), from logical necessity only, recognizes the others as worshipping the same, one god. But the god at the centre of each religion is different enough in temperament to be in fact an entity distinct from the others. Although it’s true to say that Yahweh and Allah are more fraternal in that they are both essentially warrior gods, while the Christian god is distinctly unwarlike.

The charade of oneness is betrayed by the fact that no religion truly tolerates the existence of the others (except where necessary) with two of the three committed to usurping and obliterating the others. Jews soon lost interest in pursuing Christians as Jewish heretics when it became clear that Christianity was a distinctly separate religion worshipping a god no devout Jew would recognize.

If one accepts that religions are human devised concepts, it is no great leap to assert that the god worshipped by one is not the same as the others. Given that Mohammed apparently had little knowledge of Judaism or Christianity, while Paul (and his successors) was determined to de-Judaise the nascent Christianity, the founders effectively created new gods.

That was really interesting, Helian.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 9:26am:

The concept of monotheism in Abrahamic religions is a fraud and is maintained by all three religions only from logical necessity. However, this theological illusion of singularity is most useful to proselytising religions in persuading potential converts to embrace a new faith safe in the knowledge that the convert is worshipping the same god. The gods of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are not the same, albeit those of Judaism and Islam are fraternal while the Christian god is more like their 3rd cousin - A little bit Jewish on his father's side and Pagan on his mother's. ;)

This is half-baked at best.

Platonism sounded the monotheistic bell separately from the Jews, although how much they both - Jews and Platonits - owe to earlier mystery religions and rites remains debatable.

The only relationship between Yahweh and Allah is that the latter is a parody, a misunderstanding of the former. That is the only kind of kinship you can attribute to them, apart from the geneology in genesis about that 'wild ass of a man' the father of the Arabs. Mohammed tried to do the 'Christian thing' of updating judaism for the jews but they laughed in his face and thought him a complete smacking prat. That made him murderously angry and so he killed the jews and got the phone call from Allan declaring the jews the sons of apes and monkies. In other words, he was first trying to ingratiate himself and got mad only when the jews told him to p!ss off.

Christianity is much more jewish than Islam. It is at the very least NOT a parody but a development of judaism. It is no acccident that it has been called a jewish superstition. It extends the 'chosen people of god' option to the gentiles through a new covenant.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 7:24pm:

muso wrote on May 2nd, 2010 at 6:40pm: That's an interesting assertion. Can you expand on that? Do you mean that they are really henotheism or polytheism in disguise? I can see some validity in that argument only that if you're referring to the Roman Catholic, Coptic Orthodox or Greek Orthodox traditions. It probably applies less so in Protestantism, unless you count the Trinity. To step back a bit from the punchline… Not henotheistic in their respective theology but each is somewhat crypto-henotheistic as evidenced by the at best thinly disguised rejection (at worst violent intolerance) of the others’ theologies – Not so true regarding Judaic attitude towards the others, but more so as far as Christianity and Islam are concerned. It is doubtful that Jews would accept the Christian god and Allah as Yahweh. Nor polytheistic in their respective theology, at least indisputably not in Judaism and Islam but arguably crypto-polytheistic in Christianity with the doctrine of the trinity and veneration of the saints. Each permutation of Abrahamic religion has arrogated the concept of monotheism to itself, adapting it to the cultural sensibilities of the people it first served. Each (Christianity and Islam), from logical necessity only, recognizes the others as worshipping the same, one god. But the god at the centre of each religion is different enough in temperament to be in fact an entity distinct from the others. Although it’s true to say that Yahweh and Allah are more fraternal in that they are both essentially warrior gods, while the Christian god is distinctly unwarlike. The charade of oneness is betrayed by the fact that no religion truly tolerates the existence of the others (except where necessary) with two of the three committed to usurping and obliterating the others. Jews soon lost interest in pursuing Christians as Jewish heretics when it became clear that Christianity was a distinctly separate religion worshipping a god no devout Jew would recognize. If one accepts that religions are human devised concepts, it is no great leap to assert that the god worshipped by one is not the same as the others. Given that Mohammed apparently had little knowledge of Judaism or Christianity, while Paul (and his successors) was determined to de-Judaise the nascent Christianity, the founders effectively created new gods.

Well put.  It's arguable that the Trinity are just facets of one God, and that because the Saints have no actual powers of their own, they are not gods but merely intercede.

However that's just semantics really. It's (cryptic) henotheism in just as valid a sense as Romans following the cult of Bacchus were henotheistic.

Some people might argue that all three monotheistic gods are basically the same one on the basis of historicity, but that the confusion comes about as a result of man's interpretation, so the existence of the 'charade of oneness' depends on the viewpoints of the individual faiths.  For example the Bahaii  believe that the three (J, A, Y) are the same god, and Catholics in their strong ecumenical POV, are not far behind.  

Soren wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 8:38pm:

Christianity is much more jewish than Islam. It is at the very least NOT a parody but a development of judaism. It is no acccident that it has been called a jewish superstition. It extends the 'chosen people of god' option to the gentiles through a new covenant.

This is laughable at best given Christian theology. Mosaic law nearly all overturned. Dietary laws largely abolished, the requirement of circumcision abolished. The gross mistranslations of scripture in the gospels particularly in Matthew. The literal understanding of Jewish scripture by Christians where once were understood as metaphoric. The eventual adoption of Pagan rituals, the trinity, the crypto-adoration of saints, the Virgin birth, the death of the pretender Messiah by nailing to a tree, the resurrection, the rejection by Paul of all that was distinctly Jewish.

What Christianity arrogated from Judaism (and the only thing it ultimately really needed from Judaism) was the concept of monotheism, which, as you say, was in fact developing in Greece. However, for the learned Paul, it clearly wasn't logically acceptable to simply ignore the already established monotheistic Judaism... For him the One in Greece had to be the same as the One in Jerusalem, otherwise he'd have had to argue away the problem of two... But he was always ready to ditch Jewish rites in favour of whatever was more acceptable to non-Jews.

muso wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 8:40pm:

Some people might argue that all three monotheistic gods are basically the same one on the basis of historicity, but that the confusion comes about as a result of man's interpretation, so the existence of the 'charade of oneness' depends on the viewpoints of the individual faiths.  For example the Bahaii  believe that the three (J, A, Y) are the same god, and Catholics in their strong ecumenical POV, are not far behind.

Cosmic oneness is a common theme in religions. Hinduism claims it, Sikhism makes a particular point of it and Buddhism also embraces it. However, Eastern religions tend to make a point of not defining the One and often content themselves instead with creating myriad aspects of this oneness in the guise of gods or demi-gods.

Soren wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 8:38pm:

The only relationship between Yahweh and Allah is that the latter is a parody, a misunderstanding of the former. That is the only kind of kinship you can attribute to them, apart from the geneology in genesis about that 'wild ass of a man' the father of the Arabs. Mohammed tried to do the 'Christian thing' of updating judaism for the jews but they laughed in his face and thought him a complete smacking prat. That made him murderously angry and so he killed the jews and got the phone call from Allan declaring the jews the sons of apes and monkies. In other words, he was first trying to ingratiate himself and got mad only when the jews told him to p!ss off.

Understandable that Mohammed in his mission to usurp monotheism would seek approval from monotheists first before attempting the much greater challenge of de-polytheising the Arabs, not to mention that it would have greatly enhanced his chances with the polytheists were he able to claim communion among old monotheists with his new monotheism.

Given that Mohammed lived close to the time of the resurgence of the Roman Empire under Justinian, its probable that he expected Jews outside the empire to have considered him an ally against a common religious enemy - Christianity.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 8:56pm:

Soren wrote on May 2nd, 2010 at 8:38pm: Christianity is much more jewish than Islam. It is at the very least NOT a parody but a development of judaism. It is no acccident that it has been called a jewish superstition. It extends the 'chosen people of god' option to the gentiles through a new covenant. This is laughable at best given Christian theology. Mosaic law nearly all overturned. Dietary laws largely abolished, the requirement of circumcision abolished. The gross mistranslations of scripture in the gospels particularly in Matthew. The literal understanding of Jewish scripture by Christians where once were understood as metaphoric. The eventual adoption of Pagan rituals, the trinity, the crypto-adoration of saints, the Virgin birth, the death of the pretender Messiah by nailing to a tree, the resurrection, the rejection by Paul of all that was distinctly Jewish. What Christianity arrogated from Judaism (and the only thing it ultimately really needed from Judaism) was the concept of monotheism, which, as you say, was in fact developing in Greece. However, for the learned Paul, it clearly wasn't logically acceptable to simply ignore the already established monotheistic Judaism... For him the One in Greece had to be the same as the One in Jerusalem, otherwise he'd have had to argue away the problem of two... But he was always ready to ditch Jewish rites in favour of whatever was more acceptable to non-Jews.

The whole point of Christianity is that it is not about the law. The pharisees, then the church as a worldly power - they are about the law. Mohammedans are about the law. Christianity is about the heart. That is the only way it can be the  'calling out from the nations', from the particularities of pagan and jewish law, into something greater and better, a non-parochial binding together.

Soren wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 9:42pm:

The whole point of Christianity is that it is not about the law. The pharisees, then the church as a worldly power - they are about the law. Mohammedans are about the law. Christianity is about the heart. That is the only way it can be the  'calling out from the nations', from the particularities of pagan and jewish law, into something greater and better, a non-parochial binding together.

Then it is not a sect of Judaism nor anything like Judaism and the Christian god is about as much like Yahweh as Mars is like Krishna.

So?

The jews were not war-like for 2000 years, since th destruction of the second temple. Does that mean that they were no longer jews?

You seem to latch only the trivial and make it a principle.

Soren wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 10:05pm:

So? The jews were not war-like for 2000 years, since th destruction of the second temple. Does that mean that they were no longer jews? You seem to latch only the trivial and make it a principle.

Judaism is all about the law and adherence to the 613 Mitzvot.

That is what defines Judaism more than its monotheism.

The point of those 613 laws is that they come from a personal god, the one and only, who in his wisdom happened to chose the jews as the vehicle for his plans. And were the jews miffed!
At any rate, those laws are not acts of parliament but the laws of a single Lord of Hosts who created everything and so on and so forth. One god. 613 laws given by that one god. That's the only reason to adhere to those laws.

Soren wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 10:16pm:

The point of those 613 laws is that they come from a personal god, the one and only, who in his wisdom happened to chose the jews as the vehicle for his plans. And were the jews miffed! At any rate, those laws are not acts of parliament but the laws of a single Lord of Hosts who created everything and so on and so forth. One god. 613 laws given by that one god. That's the only reason to adhere to those laws.

That's right. And adherence to those laws is the sine qua non of Judaism. Without the law its not Judaism, nor a sect of Judaism nor anything a Jew would recognise as even remotely Jewish.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 10:20pm:

Soren wrote on May 2nd, 2010 at 10:16pm: The point of those 613 laws is that they come from a personal god, the one and only, who in his wisdom happened to chose the jews as the vehicle for his plans. And were the jews miffed! At any rate, those laws are not acts of parliament but the laws of a single Lord of Hosts who created everything and so on and so forth. One god. 613 laws given by that one god. That's the only reason to adhere to those laws. That's right. And adherence to those laws is the sine qua non of Judaism. Without the law its not Judaism, nor a sect of Judaism nor anything a Jew would recognise as even remotely Jewish.

What came first, though? The laws or Yahweh? Yahweh. No god, no laws. It is a misunderstanding to say that judaism is only about those laws, as if their divine source was secondary and not primary.

Soren wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 10:32pm:

What came first, though? The laws or Yahweh? Yahweh. No god, no laws. It is a misunderstanding to say that judaism is only about those laws, as if their divine source was secondary and not primary.

And Yahweh chose his people and gave them the law. If you're not keeping the law, you're not worshipping Yahweh.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 10:36pm:

If you're not keeping the law, you're not worshipping Yahweh.

That's a step too far.

Soren wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 11:34pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 2nd, 2010 at 10:36pm: If you're not keeping the law, you're not worshipping Yahweh. That's a step too far.

Ask a Jew... After all, he's their god.

i tend to agree with that.
if oone worshipped yahweh, one would be obedient to his laws.
As a ...sign of ones belief.

and more

It must also be conceded by those who question Mohammed's claim to have had divine interlocutions, that Christian theology was established by a man who made exactly the same claims about himself. This was Paul's sole claim to authority equal to or above the Jerusalem Council. That Council initially reluctantly accepted his claims then later vehemently repudiated them after he began preaching a heresy so grave they wanted him dead.

It would be the claim of all Jews that Christianity misunderstands and misrepresents Judaism whenever Christians assert that Pauline Christianity is an extension of Judaism.

They would also challenge the belief that Christians are in fact worshipping the same god.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 11:58pm:

Soren wrote on May 2nd, 2010 at 11:34pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on May 2nd, 2010 at 10:36pm: If you're not keeping the law, you're not worshipping Yahweh. That's a step too far. Ask a Jew... After all, he's their god.

Jewish law distinguishes between the (particular) covenant between G-d and the children of Israel (brit Sinai), and the universal covenant G-d makes with humanity (brit Noach). The latter is expressed in the seven Noahide laws: the prohibitions against idolatry, blasphemy, murder, theft, illicit sexual relations and undue cruelty to animals ("a limb from a living animal"), together with a positive command to establish a system of justice. Together they constitute the minimum threshold of human civilization under the sovereignty of G-d, and an individual who satisfies them has "a share in the world to come". They are, as it were, the "depth grammar" of the multiple languages in which humanity addresses itself to G-d.

The importance of this idea is that it constitutes a rejection of the view that one religion alone holds the key to salvation (extra ecclesiam non est salus) - a view that has historically been the basis for "holy war", that is, a war designed to spread the one true faith by force. Such an idea is unknown in Judaism.


http://www.chiefrabbi.org/ReadArtical.aspx?id=1047

So no necessity to recognise Yahweh as the god worshipped for the non-Jew to have a share in 'the world to come'.

If an Orthodox Jew is the arbiter of what is idolatry, then Christians (Catholics and Orthodox) are idolaters and so not only worship another god, but don't have a share in the world to come. That would include Hindus and Buddhists as well.

Of religious monism, all the major extant religions are monist. That all is One, is of the One or created by the One is near universal and not in dispute... Only the ontology of the One, or the fact of the One's ontology is in dispute.

In monist terms, the definition of god, by that fact, renders the entity defined as less than the One, for the One must be above definition as it must include all things within itself... including itself.

Yahweh, the Christian god and Allah, once defined or endowed with character and personality, therefore, are rendered three gods among many.

Helian,
Travis is using your login details.

helian -
Quote:

........It would be the claim of all Jews that Christianity misunderstands and misrepresents Judaism whenever Christians assert that Pauline Christianity is an extension of Judaism. They would also challenge the belief that Christians are in fact worshipping the same god.......

As I see it, jews are still awaiting the coming of Jesus.
They believe Jesus was not the one prophesied about in the OT.

The jewish and christian gods are one in the same.
Different paths to the same destination.


mohammad is not hinted to in the OT or NT.
the koran and the bible are in opposition, they tell a different story.

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 5^th, 2010 at 9:37am:

helian - As I see it, jews are still awaiting the coming of Jesus. They believe Jesus was not the one prophesied about in the OT.

They await the coming of the Messiah and Judaic scripture prophesies him as a military leader. The fact that the gospels make an acrobatic feat of jamming the Jesus story into the Judaic Messiah prophesy, indicates that Jesus was not a candidate for Messiah-ship in the first place.


Sprintcyclist wrote on May 5^th, 2010 at 9:37am:

The jewish and christian gods are one in the same. Different paths to the same destination.

More 'philoso-babble' than practised. The trinity is anathema to Judaism.


Sprintcyclist wrote on May 5^th, 2010 at 9:37am:

mohammad is not hinted to in the OT or NT. the koran and the bible are in opposition, they tell a different story.

Jesus is not mentioned in the OT.

hmmmmmmm, that's not how I read it

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 5^th, 2010 at 11:21am:

hmmmmmmm, that's not how I read it

Start with the tragi-comic fabrication to get Jesus born in Bethlehem.

or one could go back much further, back to a prophecy of WHERE the messiah was to be born .


"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times. "

Micah 5:2

Around 700 BC


Appears to be smidgen of a hint at Jesus in there to me

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 5^th, 2010 at 12:48pm:

or one could go back much further, back to a prophecy of WHERE the messiah was to be born . "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times. " Micah 5:2 Around 700 BC Appears to be smidgen of a hint at Jesus in there to me

Hence the need for the acrobatics to get Jesus born in Bethlehem... Ignoring the fact that Jesus never ruled over Israel.

Sprint, if you are talking of "Jesus of Nazareth" then you oughta put your faith in Rudd of Canberra, because Rudd actually exists.
Jesus of Nazareth never existed in the context in which it is portrayed.
Please find me Nazareth at the time of the "supposed" Christ.
It doesn't exist...QED..proven fact.
Nazareth is a figment of the imagination, not a part of history. So too is the Jesus as portrayed in the bible. Well, not even in the bible because there wasn't much specific mention of him. The legend of Christ has grown and people will fight to uphold that legend, even though it is not true.

Whether Jesus existed or not, whether he was from Nazareth or whether that legend grew out of one of the many mistranslations and misunderstandings of Judaism (i.e. Jesus the Nazarene mistaken for meaning 'of Nazareth'), there is little doubt that his contemporaries did not know of a story of his being born in Bethlehem.

That legend began decades after his death, it seems, to link him to the OT prophesy that David's town, Bethlehem, would produce a Messiah. Matthew and Luke enter into the realm of pure fiction in trying to place his birth in Bethlehem and at the same time linking him to the universally despised Herod the Great.

so your're of the opinion Jesus was not the messiah ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 6^th, 2010 at 11:59pm:

so your're of the opinion Jesus was not the messiah ?

He thinks jesus wasn't even a naughty boy.

Not even a naughty boy ???????????
ripped off.

that was a great movie, even the preludes were excellent

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 7^th, 2010 at 1:00am:

Not even a naughty boy ??????????? ripped off.

Nein, nein.. He was naughty alright... He was very bloody naughty...

If only he'd paideth heed... One shalt speaketh not of state insurrection


Quote:

CENTURION : What's this then? 'ROMANES EUNT DOMUS.' People called Romanes, they go the house? BRIAN : It, it says 'Romans go home'. CENTURION : No, it doesn't. What's Latin for 'Roman'? Come on... BRIAN Aaaahh.. CENTURION Come on. BRIAN Ah! Romanus? CENTURION Goes like? BRIAN Annus? CENTURION Vocative plural of  'annus' is? BRIAN Anni? CENTURION Romani. [crosses out the 'es' and writes in 'i'.] Eunt? What is eunt? BRIAN Go. CENTURION Conjugate the verb 'to go'. BRIAN Uh. Ire - Uh... eo, is, it, imus, itis, eunt. CENTURION So eunt is? BRIAN Ah, Uh, Third person plural of present indicative. They go. CENTURION But Romans go home is an order, so you must use the? --[The centurion lifts Brian by the sideburns...Ouch.] BRIAN The imperative. CENTURION Which is? BRIAN Ahm. Oh, oh, um... I, I. CENTURION How many Romans? BRIAN Ah. Plural, plural... ite, ite. CENTURION Ite. [He again corrects the writing on the wall.] Domus? Nominative? 'Go home'? This is motion towards, isn't it, boy? BRIAN Dative, sir. --[The Centurion whips out his weapon, and prepares to slit Brian's throat.] BRIAN Ahh! No, not dative, not the dative, sir. Oh, Ah. Uh. The accusative accusative. Ah, Domum, sir. Ab domum! Ah! Oooh! Ah! CENTURION Except that 'domus' takes the? BRIAN The locative, sir. CENTURION Which is? BRIAN Domum. Aagh! ah. --[Again, the writing is amended.] CENTURION Domum... um... Understand? BRIAN Yes, sir. CENTURION Now write it out a hundred times.

My god, that was like an acid flashback to a bad trip, with the fiendishly evil brother irvine terrorising clueless youths with nonsense about constructing a sentence with the future perfect tense, and an ablative appropriate.
Gleefully beating lads viciously about the ears as he spotted each and every error.

It was the perfect storm of schoolboy horror, Latin, with evil Irvine, no malevolent creature from the fiery pit could evoke greater fear into a young man's heart than that dread combination.

(That this combination could exist, was also proof positive that there was no god, at least no god without cruel and evil predilections.)

mozzaok wrote on May 7^th, 2010 at 8:02am:

My god, that was like an acid flashback to a bad trip, with the fiendishly evil brother irvine terrorising clueless youths with nonsense about constructing a sentence with the future perfect tense, and an ablative appropriate. Gleefully beating lads viciously about the ears as he spotted each and every error. It was the perfect storm of schoolboy horror, Latin, with evil Irvine, no malevolent creature from the fiery pit could evoke greater fear into a young man's heart than that dread combination. (That this combination could exist, was also proof positive that there was no god, at least no god without cruel and evil predilections.)

Mozz? You're a refugee from the Holy Mother Church?

Do you wonder what brother irvine is doing now?

3 to 6 for assault? ;D

they were one of the best comedy "teams " I have seem.

evolved from the brilliant "Monty Pythons Flying Circus"
I guess that has aged now ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 7^th, 2010 at 8:06am:

they were one of the best comedy "teams " I have seem. evolved from the brilliant "Monty Pythons Flying Circus" I guess that has aged now ?

Aged, like good wine.

mozzaok wrote on May 7^th, 2010 at 8:02am:

fiendishly evil brother irvine terrorising clueless youths with nonsense about constructing a sentence with the future perfect tense, and an ablative appropriate. Gleefully beating lads viciously about the ears as he spotted each and every error. It was the perfect storm of schoolboy horror, Latin, with evil Irvine, no malevolent creature from the fiery pit could evoke greater fear into a young man's heart than that dread combination.

Sh!t!! My wife is a classicist. Now I'm twiggin' onto, like ... everything!!

Ahhhh.



:D

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 7^th, 2010 at 8:05am:

mozzaok wrote on May 7th, 2010 at 8:02am: My god, that was like an acid flashback to a bad trip, with the fiendishly evil brother irvine terrorising clueless youths with nonsense about constructing a sentence with the future perfect tense, and an ablative appropriate. Gleefully beating lads viciously about the ears as he spotted each and every error. It was the perfect storm of schoolboy horror, Latin, with evil Irvine, no malevolent creature from the fiery pit could evoke greater fear into a young man's heart than that dread combination. (That this combination could exist, was also proof positive that there was no god, at least no god without cruel and evil predilections.) Mozz? You're a refugee from the Holy Mother Church? Do you wonder what brother irvine is doing now? 3 to 6 for assault? ;D

Last night I was chatting online to a Catholic Theology lecturer I hadn't seen for years. He was very pleased that I had decided to be a Catholic once a fortnight, but was quite ambivalent towards my other religions.

We used to have some very interesting conversations about religion.  I don't knock the Left Footers. They are an interesting lot.

Mozz - I was actually top of my class for Latin. These days it's very rusty.

Animum debes mutare, non caelum

Well with Job he was a real prick.

Then the nurturing side of him came through with Jesus .... ah no, wait. Bad example.

Nope doesn't evolve, just plays politics.

locutius wrote on May 14^th, 2010 at 1:47pm:

Well with Job he was a real prick. Then the nurturing side of him came through with Jesus .... ah no, wait. Bad example. Nope doesn't evolve, just plays politics.

This is called transference among educated people. What do you call it?

Yes, having god in your life is bound to make you more well rounded.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vClQBrEeGqQ

That freak is just so over the top, we almost feel compelled to think it could not possibly be real, but then we reflect on other abberant behaviour we see from the strangely devout religious folk, and we know that nothing is too wierd for them. Praise the lord.

mozzaok wrote on May 15^th, 2010 at 2:15pm:

That freak is just so over the top, we almost feel compelled to think it could not possibly be real, but then we reflect on other abberant behaviour we see from the strangely devout religious folk, and we know that nothing is too wierd for them. Praise the lord.

Are you saying you don't think he was taking the piss?  

Well that is what I am saying Helian, normally I would immediately discount this guy as taking the piss, but religious fruitcakes do stuff far crazier than this every day, so how the heck are we supposed to tell any more.
I do however think that if this guy had stopped about 30 seconds earlier, it would have been more convincing.

Just wanted to make sure you weren't doing a bit of ironic piss taking yourself.

If he wasn't being a comedian... (which I'd bet he was)... then it's more indicative of a psychiatric condition than his religiosity.

Soren wrote on May 14^th, 2010 at 9:58pm:

locutius wrote on May 14th, 2010 at 1:47pm: Well with Job he was a real prick. Then the nurturing side of him came through with Jesus .... ah no, wait. Bad example. Nope doesn't evolve, just plays politics. This is called transference among educated people. What do you call it?

I call it getting bent over a table.. :o. but you can flower up the story if you want to.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 26^th, 2010 at 12:29am:

Does his character evolve? Does he alter? Does he "mature", as do other fathers?

I think it is our idea of what God is that evolves.

Quote:

Does his character evolve? Does he alter? Does he "mature", as do other fathers?   Back to top

 It is a great question that again may have the answer included. (I was taught by a good great man once)

 It is only logical  that as the below evolves so does the ABOVE.
 {And no I'm not channeling}
 To wit, as Jesus may say, "As God is the Father, so surely he must grow not like unto one child, but all children."
 How can it not be so?
 Surely this is logic.

 Surely as one thing grows, what it is connected to it grows.
 How else can you explain our purpose?
 We cannot be here, but to make the major whole grow.
Amen. That made man said to me: "As individuals grow, so does the WHOLE"

 That blew me away more than all of nature's disasters (which may again be caused by man's unnaturalness)
 

Evolvermore, it's logical that God is our equal.
Hard to think, I know, so infant are we.

I think Gods a bit more than our equal.

He is spoken to as being "Father"
I've been a Dad for 20 years, i'm now a better dad than I was 20 years ago.
Better than i was 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago.

Can God progress into something better than he once was ?
Does he evolve, or forever stay as he always was?

Sprintcyclist,
I meant as a father is equal to his kid,
Isn't it so God must be to his "kids?"

We are of the same seed.
Ultimately the same.
Even as different as a seed to a giant tree = nothing could be more opposite yet equal.

Yet the ultimate growth comes with new fruit. :exclamation [smiley=engel017.gif]

Very interesting thought.

thanks

I forgot to add, it was not my thought that God was equal.
I never would have thought!!

God does not evolve, it is our understanding of what god is and isn't that needs to evolve.

God does not evolve, it is our understanding of what god is and isn't that needs to evolve.

______________

on the money and entirely correct

beloved angelic human being

namaste and eternal blessings are truely yours

-:)

Superman1 wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2011 at 1:18am:

Sprintcyclist, I meant as a father is equal to his kid, Isn't it so God must be to his "kids?" We are of the same seed. Ultimately the same. Even as different as a seed to a giant tree = nothing could be more opposite yet equal. Yet the ultimate growth comes with new fruit. :exclamation [smiley=engel017.gif]

that's really interesting superman.
and why chatsites are good.
In a church, questions like this are not raised.

I am one to encourage discussions where I have NO idea where they may finish !!!!!!!!!!

What if God was like the pure version of what we were meant to be ?


Quote:

So God created mankind in his own image,   in the image of God he created them;   male and female he created them.

Genesis 1:27



Only thought Adam accepting sin, we became impure ?
from then on, through our genes, the impurity (flaw) continued?