Supreme Irony?

[Elijah John]

Is it ironic is it that Jesus, the "incarnate Word of God" never wrote his down his words, but left that task for others, who may or may not have gotten it right?

If not a writer, was Jesus at least a good orator? Was he always clear, plain-spoken, effective and comprehensive?

Should the "incarnate Word of God" have been all these things in his communications?

[ttruscott]

Yeshua via the Ruach HaChedosh continues to communicate with His followers.

There is something terribly sad in the belief that Jesus communicates to people at number 43, or 78 or 186B in clandestine fashion. A man capable of walking on water and raising the dead and a God able to part the Red Sea would surely have advanced at least to pencil and paper.

Obviously HE communicates with the written word, HIS Bible, even while HE communicates with us as individuals in what is euphemistically called our hearts.

[ttruscott]

Apparently his sheep do not include all humans.

Consider the Mayans and also tribes living in the Amazon jungle (and such) that still to this day, thousands of years later, have not heard this message nor did they have the opportunity to hear about the works he supposedly did in his fathers name.

Christians tend to accept the Bible teachings that:
Col 1:23 claims that every creature / person under heaven, ie ever created, has already heard the gospel as a finished act. It also implies new births are not new creations.

Rom 1:l20 says that ever person has clearly seen the proof of the divinity of GOD and HIS power so they have no excuse when they finally face HIS wrath for their love for sin. This also implies new births are not new creations.

Anyone who does not remember hearing the gospel or having seen the proof of YHWH's divinity is apparently repressing these things from their memories because they love sin more than the truth, Rom 1:21+

[ttruscott]

Presumably, accompanying such a claim, would be incontrovertible truth.

Rom 1:21+ suggests no truth is incontrovertible by a sinner.

[Neatras]

Presumably, accompanying such a claim, would be incontrovertible truth.

Rom 1:21+ suggests no truth is incontrovertible by a sinner.

That's a pretty cool claim you've got there. Would be a shame if I contested that. I've made the request plenty of times for God to reach into my head and offer me some reassurance that he was there. I even made it really easy. If I felt so much as an iota of calm or relief washing over me, that would've been enough to convince me. But the unease and doubt remained. I opened the door, and nothing happened.

So when I make it excruciatingly easy, but the follow-up never comes through, you're either forced to dismiss my stated personal testimony as a lie, or admit your book doesn't catch edge cases like mine... Though now that I think about it, I'm not such an exception, plenty of people have gone through experiences like mine and come out non-believers.

[William]

[Replying to post 23 by Neatras]

viewtopic.php?t=34440

[Divine Insight]

Well hopefully you may be able to consider my own expansion of the idea of GOD and perfect et al, and allow yourself to reexamine your criticisms in light of that.

I hate to burst your bubble, but quite frankly you have yet to offer me any ideas of a God that I haven't already considered.

The idea that you think you have is already a grave mistake on your behalf.

Lets say that you were the GOD that was created and then created this universe to experience it from within, divesting your wholeness into every conceivable aspect of that unfolding creation in order to experience it with perfect intimacy. Would you think of yourself as 'imperfect' or 'not good enough' or 'stupid' etc?

I have already considered this view. In fact, as far as I'm concerned this is the truest form of Pantheism. And I've already gone though this with you before, we simply have some major disagreements on what this paradigm would entail.

You've just said it yourself in the quote above:

"divesting your wholeness into every conceivable aspect of that unfolding creation in order to experience it with perfect intimacy"

If that's the case, then we ARE this GOD. You can't put forth this kind of theology and try to still retain the idea of individual "souls" that are separate from God who might be judged by God. That would be ridiculous. This would be a God who passes judgement on himself.

We've been through this type of theology before. You want to argue that these individual "souls" could somehow be separate from God in this pantheistic theology, but that doesn't hold up with your quote above that proclaims that the creator God himself is the one who has divested its wholeness into every conceivable aspect of creation.

I've already considered that philosophy. In fact, I hold that this is in fact the only true meaning of "pantheism" (i.e. ALL is God).

That kind of theology is not compatible with the Abrahamic theology that has a God who creates humans that are SEPARATE from him and will be judged by him based on how obedient or disobedient they might behave with respect to his demands.

We've already been though this before.

Your theological ideas simply aren't coherent. Pantheism is not compatible with Monotheism. Yet you want to somehow meld those two ideas into one theological idea.

That can't be made to work, IMHO. Either God is everything, or God creates "souls" that are totally separate from God. Make up your mind which theology you want to go with an stick with it.

Don't accuse me of being unwilling to hear your ideas when your ideas are self-contradictory.

As far as I can see you simply don't have a coherent theology to offer.

I'm aware of Pantheism. Pantheism has its own problems. It also requires the assumption that the God who has become all humans and animals on the planet also doesn't mind being eaten alive, burned alive, tortured, etc.

It doesn't mind suffering the emotional pain of a mother who gives birth to a grossly deformed baby.

It doesn't mind being abused by horrible hateful abusers.

It doesn't mind BEING horrible hateful abusers.

In Pantheism someone like Hitler was just God himself playing the role of a murderous dictator. Who else could Hitler have been? In pantheism there are no others. God is all that exists.

Pantheism has its own set of problems. The only argument that can be made is that God was also all the victims of his own malicious behavior. So in the end, God hasn't hurt anyone but himself. We can hardly say that there's anything wrong with a God who only preys on himself.

But there's no point in trying to make that compatible with the Abrahamic God who passes judgement on wrong-doers. God himself would be the wrong-doers. There could be no one else to pass judgement on.

We've been through this before.

Yet here you are acting like as if you are trying to bring this to my attention for the first time and I'm refusing to consider it. I'm fully aware of Pantheism and it's many problems.

[JehovahsWitness]

Is it ironic is it that Jesus, the "incarnate Word of God" never wrote his down his words, but left that task for others, who may or may not have gotten it right?

Jesus was called the word of God not the SCRIBE of God.

The fact is that very few, if *any* holy books were written by the antagonist personally. Neither Buddah nor Mohammed are reported as writing anything at all and I have to wonder if this proves true even for secular figures of ancient history (like Jesus, Alexander the Great evidently left his contemporaries to write about him, I supoose because he ws busy conquering the known world) The phenomena of the "autobiography" seems to be a relatively recent literary form.

CONCLUSION Although "irony" is very much in the eye of the beholder, historically and contextually it seems reasonable to conclude that there is nothing unduly concerning that Jesus of Nazareth, (who after all died at the relatively young age of just 33, one year older than Alexander ) did not leave any written works that himself had penned.

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS


Are images of Jesus realistic?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 494#925494

Did Jesus seek personal prominence and glory?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 924#815924

[marco]

We are not sheep.

Ah, but we are. In our utter inability to find salvation on our own, we are all sheep in need of a Shepherd. To bring us into His Fold. Indeed we are.

In addressing his half-witted audience, Jesus might have found more relevance in calling them fish, with him as the man with the big net. Today most of us have stopped bleating and we don't walk fields looking for lambs or pretending to be sheep. Salvation does not come from making bonfires of heretics nor from beheading people who draw Muhammad; nor indeed from supposing God bothers about a sparrow. Salvation comes from spanning seas without begging God to part them; or curing the sick without magic. If we insist on living in ancient times with ancient metaphors we risk forgetting the many people who actually help civilisation.

[William]

[Replying to post 46 by Divine Insight]

The idea that you think you have is already a grave mistake on your behalf.

I see the claim but no substance.

Without the substance, the claim cannot be considered a matter of truth.

Lets say that you were the GOD that was created and then created this universe to experience it from within, divesting your wholeness into every conceivable aspect of that unfolding creation in order to experience it with perfect intimacy. Would you think of yourself as 'imperfect' or 'not good enough' or 'stupid' etc?

I have already considered this view. In fact, as far as I'm concerned this is the truest form of Pantheism. And I've already gone though this with you before, we simply have some major disagreements on what this paradigm would entail.

Well as long as we have breath in our bodies and opportunity to work at these disagreements, we can.

"divesting your wholeness into every conceivable aspect of that unfolding creation in order to experience it with perfect intimacy"

If that's the case, then we ARE this GOD.

No. We are all aspects of this GOD. Your experience of perfect intimacy and mine and every others are unique, In that we are not all engaged in that awareness of intimacy and awe etc. We act (as a species) more like something lost to the knowledge of our true nature as GOD, which is natural enough given the circumstance but of course, something which we can overcome.

You can't put forth this kind of theology and try to still retain the idea of individual "souls" that are separate from God who might be judged by God.

And I do not. My theology is that we each judge ourselves (in relation to afterlife experience to come) We are aspects of GOD so in judging ourselves we do so as those aspects of GOD-consciousness.

That would be ridiculous. This would be a God who passes judgement on himself.

This is true in one sense, but it is not GOD passing Judgement on GODs undivided self.
It is that GOD allows for the process to unfold that way for each of us to judge ourselves as we will. Eventually the process will bring every individual back into that wholeness - that understanding that we are indeed all aspects of GOD - and yet still be individuals.

We've been through this type of theology before. You want to argue that these individual "souls" could somehow be separate from God in this pantheistic theology, but that doesn't hold up with your quote above that proclaims that the creator God himself is the one who has divested its wholeness into every conceivable aspect of creation.

I've already considered that philosophy. In fact, I hold that this is in fact the only true meaning of "pantheism" (i.e. ALL is God).

Of course it holds up as well as explains adequately the theistic element so often cast aside by those who think GOD is dead or some other such thing.
Panenthism is simply saying this is the way the creator of this universe set things up.

It is saying a completely whole GOD divested Itself into the creation. That GOD was essential 'us' before 'we' became 'individuals'. That process was set up to allow for such a thing to be possible. The end game is that, through the process, the parts will eventually recognize themselves as aspects of one another and in doing so support the vision of the end game.

That kind of theology is not compatible with the Abrahamic theology that has a God who creates humans that are SEPARATE from him and will be judged by him based on how obedient or disobedient they might behave with respect to his demands.

I don't think that is necessarily the case. I think that this kind of thinking evolved through a distortion of unifying ideas which are part of the Abrahamic theologies, so that they serve the purpose of those who preferred separatism. Even in that, one can see this as natural enough under the circumstances but many theists are moving toward a more unified understanding of GOD and each other in relation to Panentheism. They may not even all call it Panentheism, as it isn't about naming it but about doing it.

This is why people like myself have come to see Jesus as being a Panenthiest in his message although there are some words and actions attributed to him which are questionable re that. This is why one has to sort the wheat from the chaff... as the best course of action.

Your theological ideas simply aren't coherent. Pantheism is not compatible with Monotheism. Yet you want to somehow meld those two ideas into one theological idea.

I have already done the melding within. The idea of one GOD is monotheism and the idea of Panentheism acknowledges this all the way to First Source. The fact of the matter is that we are dealing with a particular creation which the creator designed in order to eventually have myriads of individuals all coming to the same conclusion of their own free will at their own pace, helping each other as a natural part of that process.

In line with that idea we need to acknowledge that in terms of us and the universe, presently, we are newly born. The vision of the creator whom we are aspects of - given the gift of individuality for the purpose of eventually willingly contributing to creating true unity through the process of separation - the creators vision is comprehensive and understands the end game. The creator has faith in Itself that what it envisions will eventually come to pass - perfectly through this process.

That can't be made to work, IMHO. Either God is everything, or God creates "souls" that are totally separate from God. Make up your mind which theology you want to go with an stick with it.

That is just an aspect of the process which is necessary as a step - not the destination.

The souls are never even a tiny bit actually separated from GOD. You are not separate at all from GOD. Only your beliefs tell you that you are, but your beliefs have been allowed to trick you. How is that possible?

Don't accuse me of being unwilling to hear your ideas when your ideas are self-contradictory.

They are not self contradictory. They are simply expressions of an individual who has made effort to unify separatism in the understanding that separatism is a self created illusion based upon faulty interpretations of insufficient information.

As far as I can see you simply don't have a coherent theology to offer.

There is a difference between lack of coherency and complexity. It may be simply that the complexity is more than some people are willing to put themselves through contemplating. We are indeed within an extremely complex problem which cannot easily be solved through simple statements of faith, be that faith in theism or atheism.

It may be that the theology I have to offer is coherent enough but that individuals willfully work at rejecting it because they have already established their beliefs - set in concrete and are unwilling to change, for a number of reasons.

For myself, I simply take the opportunity to continue to advocate this Panentheist world view and adjust my approach in explaining what I know is a complex theology, in order to clarify as best as possible under the circumstances.

I'm aware of Pantheism. Pantheism has its own problems. It also requires the assumption that the God who has become all humans and animals on the planet also doesn't mind being eaten alive, burned alive, tortured, etc.

This is not a problem. A GOD by definition is a creative eternal being which either has had no beginning - in the case of The First Source - or has had a beginning (was created by FS directly or indirectly as the case might be) and one such GOD (altogether us) chose to create this universe in order to experience another type of beginning which effective allowed it to forget itself and explore that universe through that process.
In relation to being on this planet, the terror etc is neither here nor there. It is simply experience related to the new. It is not the only thing on offer anyway.

Think of it in terms of how human beings design simulations - say a game. We do not at present have the ability to create fully immersive simulation experiences but when we do there is no reason to believe that these will exclude those things which are unpleasant. Not to say that they cannot be excluded.

This inclusion can be dealt with because it is 'not real' in the sense that those who experience the simulations will 'come back' to their reality eventually, and no harm done.

Effectively this means that any harm done is not permanent and in that no one will blame anyone else because it was all just a simulation designed for that purpose.

Now deep in the game it is natural to cry 'foul' and question the sanity of any entity which would create and then inject Itself into that simulation...and the simulation I am speaking to of course... is the universe itself, and specifically the Earth and our shared reality on it.

But I say that any who have such difficulty accepting this simply hasn't learned to embrace it for what it is and learn to go with the flow.

It is what it is. If you think it is the product of an insane entity - if indeed one is to accept the idea of a creator of the universe and that we each are aspects of this entity - then judgments as to 'sanity' are for each of us to deal with and even help one another deal with.

The easier path of course ...at least what looks to be the easier option...is not to deal with it, but afterlife will only show the individual that this was not the greatest option at all.

Either way, when it comes to judgement we are - individually - essentially judging our self, as we see that, in relation to the experience.

It doesn't mind suffering the emotional pain of a mother who gives birth to a grossly deformed baby.

No. The individual mother-personality may mind or not. Case by case. It is not for me or you to judge how a mother should or shouldn't react.

It doesn't mind being abused by horrible hateful abusers.

It accepts the good with the evil. One has to balance their arguments based on the truth and the truth is, not everything in this world is evil. The world is not filled with horrible hateful abusers and the afterlife stage makes sure that these expressions carried out by such are dealt with through their own self judgement. The haters will receive their own just deserts as part of the process and will not be forever under the penalty of their earthly expressions - their choices to hate and hurt have consequences just as those who choose to love and to help also have consequences.

Most of the hateful expressions derive from inability to overcome adversity due to not wanting to bother, or in some cases not being able to.

It doesn't mind BEING horrible hateful abusers.

This in relation to the entity creator Itself?

Its preference is connected to its vision of the end game. In that, it does mind but allows for. These horrible things expressed through individuals are done so for two main reasons. The individuals are ignorant of these greater realities at play, or they are conflating acts of horror with acts of GOD.

They are acts of ignorance either way.

Again, one has to allow for the FACT that we are in the very early stages of this experience. The universe is extremely new in relation to how old it is going to get.

And;

We are but one species on one planet going through our particular version of reaction to the reality.

In Pantheism someone like Hitler was just God himself playing the role of a murderous dictator. Who else could Hitler have been? In pantheism there are no others. God is all that exists.

Again, the entity GOD which created this was not like a 'Hitler' or some other evil personality.

Essentially It wants to create individuals who can learn to exemplify who IT is within the context of their individuality. That is the gift. Hitler got it very wrong but he is simply a small part of the story unfolding here on this planet, and he squandered the gift and is now paying the penalty through his self judgement. Eventually the individual will transform through that process of judgement...

Pantheism has its own set of problems. The only argument that can be made is that God was also all the victims of his own malicious behavior. So in the end, God hasn't hurt anyone but himself. We can hardly say that there's anything wrong with a God who only preys on himself.

The whole point of Panentheism is to shift from the reasoning of duality and separatism into that of the reason of unity and wholeness. Presently the human reaction based on the duality thinking processes have enabled us to call out a dark side to GOD which is oft referred to as Satan or the devil.

Thus our human experience has split GOD into two factions but neither faction is actually doing anything but setting an opaque window which distorts our understanding and leads us to second guessing based upon what is apparent to us here and now, through the lens of separatism.

As such we are experiencing a self created duality which explains why presently the afterlife exhibits the renditions of those human beliefs to which we will be experiencing as real after this experience of reality.

Therein the dark and light sides of this GOD are further explored from the human perspective.

These will change in due course as more information of experience become available - individual by individual.

In the grand scheme of things -as much time as we understand the universe has to go -that is but a blink in terms of eternity and eternity is the actual abode of the GODs and GOD the First Source. These excursions into created universes are just that. Excursions.

These are excursions into finite realms of beginnings and when considered in that context gives the individual a means to escape the accusations normally hurled on the GODs by the mortals. We are those GODs (that GOD) experiencing being finite, and that illusion will be somewhat removed as we move from this experience to the next (afterlife) one.

Panetheism allows the individual a way in which to view things without the lens of duality distorting what is being viewed.

Yet here you are acting like as if you are trying to bring this to my attention for the first time and I'm refusing to consider it. I'm fully aware of Pantheism and it's many problems.

Panentheism does not have 'its owns sets of problems' The problem is that you not yet understood it in its own terms but are trying to understand it by the terms of duality.

Panentheism looks for and finds the actual unity in the perceived duality. It is its own 'lens' and what you are describing is that which has tried to understand it through the lens of duality, and this is essentially why you have so far come to the conclusion that there are problems with Panentheism. Not just problems, but seemingly insurmountable problems.