Why worship an imperfect God?

[Lori_7]

*************
M*W: I'm sorry. I just can't understand the concept of "hell right now."

It's been well documented in the bible just how violent your god is. I'm confused as to why you are denying that now?

What are we "afraid" of if there is a perfect god, and we have the opportunity to repent our sins, and face judgment before him if we live in "hell right now," what is the point of the whole concept you presented? Please explain.

Thanx,

M*W

please explain?????????????? how about you take a look around this world of ours? i'm not denying that god is violent. we are violent too. in his image...

in the garden why did we bite the proverbial forbidden fruit? to know of good and evil JUST LIKE GOD DOES. so now we do and what have we learned? i'm learning that the wages of sin are death just like he said, and i don't like it so i want to change, to repent, and through the blood of christ, be made sinless so that i can live forever. apparently god wants us to make that choice with the knowledge we need to make it. are you telling me that you can't see the effects of our sin in this world? are you suggesting we can change ourselves without christ? well then let me ask you, why haven't we, and when will we?

 

[Quantum Quack]

please explain?????????????? how about you take a look around this world of ours? i'm not denying that god is violent. we are violent too. in his image...

in the garden why did we bite the proverbial forbidden fruit?

And why do we men blame women for the temptation?

 

[Quantum Quack]

I'll answer my own question:
Because we refuse to accept responsibility for our own desires...

"Ahh It's the cocaine that done it"
" It's her fault I got arroused"
"The law says...."
"The bible says...."
and so on.....

 

[Lori_7]

And why do we men blame women for the temptation?

i don't know, from my experience men blame women for just about everything.

 

[Lori_7]

well shit, you beat me to it. i based my answer mostly on my marital experience though.

 

[Quantum Quack]

well shit, you beat me to it. i based my answer mostly on my marital experience though.

Lori I guessed that you would say that....hmmm..

But if you wanted to you could state that the worlds problems could be reduced down to simply not accepting responsibiliy for our desires.
For example:

Is poverty a problem when we refuse to share what we have.....we have decided to not support the growth of a poor person for example. Is the resultant poverty and associated crime a problem or is it as we would expect due to our greedy need for resources?

I.E. So we blame someone elses desires for our need of high tech, consumer goods made in China destroying thousands of lives and acres of environment...supporting a governement that has huge human rights issues...

See what I mean...

Take responsibility for our desires and therefore our actions, wear the consequences and soon you will have "heaven" on earth.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I wonder who is blamed for september 11 terrorist act.
The muslem bible, the USA Government, the economic war thats going on betweeen the Middle East and the west, peoples laziness, or is it simply a crazy bunch of guys flying a few planes without a license....

The terrorist with the gun in his hand is ultimately responsible to himself and himself only....no point blaming religion, religious conflict or even USA economic aggression.

 

[Tnerb]

Let me say "wow" it's been 15 months or so since posting the OP and since then so much learning and observations have taken place.
It is nice to revisit this old topic again I must admit.

There are many ways of approaching this issue and yet you know ..... all approaches lead to the same thing and are ultimately just "rightway" as each other....just a different path leading to the same conclusion..

To resolve the debate would IMO take many many pages of many many words and desciptions and dismantling of many many pre-conceptions. So steeped our beliefs are in societal conditioning and so cryptic, confused and some times deliberately ambiguous are the messages we seem to tell each other....

We have both material fact and conclusions drawn from those material facts. we have also beliefs based on those material facts as we know them. So in philosophy we have the same debate about subjectivity and objectivity relating to reality and imagination and how "persuasive" our imaginings can be unto ourselves.
Fact is:
Mankind has had a serious history of war amongst ourselves.
Mankind still fails on average to develop significant and enduring relationships with each other.
Individuals live in a state of isolation and conflict with their environment as a rule and not an exception.

If one looks at the self determination paradox; "we can not all do or have the same thing at the same time" even though we may want that thing.

For an example of the paradox:

John wants to use a particular chair at an auditorium to listen to his favourite speaker.
Jim also wants to use that same chair to sit in however because he is a little slower than John [ leg infury from an earlier car accident]
John sees Jim and smiles contentedly at his success at getting to the chair first and Jim swears to himself to try harder to be early next time.

So in this example both persons have an unalienable right to the same chair. Both are born with absolute devine perogative: [ intro concept #1 ]
Assuming that John is not specially priviledged by the auditorium [ reserved seating][discrimination]

John and Jim could be considered to be in a [ friendly? hmmmm ] contest over who has the right to the seat. Obviously it is determined by who is fastest, strongest, smartest, [etc] and circumstances beyond boths control.
Both could be considered as "Gods" in their own right limited by the determination and actions of other individual Gods.

So much so are they limited by other gods[esses] actions that they are merely human men/women fighting over a damn seat in an auditorium.

Proposition:

All self-animated life forms are born with absolute devine perogative or more precisely "absolute free will " however by virtue of being born they are immediately being subjegated to a life of oppression due to the fact that there are many other entities with the same identicle absolute freewill.
Thus every baby is born a "sinner" as their very attempt to live, exist [ even as an innocent baby wanted by their parents] is a act against the freedom of others. [refer to neighbours getting upset because the baby cries at night]

So basically if you start every action with a "please forgive me..." you are attempting to inspire agreement in the form of compassion in your society.

We are all apologists and we are all seeking forgiveness all the time to achieve a certain peace or harmony.

It is impossible to make a decision that does not in some way violate someone elses decision. So this means that we are constantly "sinning" against another "God"

I have always held the view that religion has been not only a tool used to control the masses but a way that humans cryptically attempt to understand their very natures.

The idea of Man born in Gods image, the garden of eden story etc etc are all about becoming aware of our true natures IMO.

Now as to the notion of a montheistic God one can see that if humanity actually learned to work together with out conflict or violation as one we have the abuility to be a culminant human God in this sector of the universe. A concordance of will and freedom....

So every time you accidently bump into someone you are confirming that you are a sinner and naturally you seek an apology "oops...excuse me!"

[assuming your of normal or everage character disposition]



unlikely hey?
The perfection in the trade of "absolute freedoms" is the ambition. The more successful you are at trading your absolute devine perogative [ prostitution ] the more successful you are at getting what you want.
John sells his right to the seat for $10 to Jim.

So the perfect God is one who can trade perfectly...I guess....

many ways of approaching this issue and yet you know ..... all approaches lead to the same thing and are ultimately just "rightway" as each other....just a different path leading to the same conclusion..

I agree.
I've been inspired by this thread since it was first started this some odd 15 months ago.

I wouldn't say "inspired", I would say excited. hehe.

To resolve the debate would IMO take many many pages of many many words and desciptions and dismantling of many many pre-conceptions.

You're talking to the preconceptionist here....

We have both material fact and conclusions drawn from those material facts. we have also beliefs based on those material facts as we know them. So in philosophy we have the same debate about subjectivity and objectivity relating to reality and imagination and how "persuasive" our imaginings can be unto ourselves.

Yup. I would suppose you mean here material fact as in, the fact with the existence based off of by god. And the beliefs based off of those material facts.
Yes this is all true as you have said it.


But the truth is:

God has either a physical existence attached to it, and it is as simple as that. There is no refuting a statement of fact, a statement which is true. This is my proposition. How in the would would one intend to refute

"There is a physical basis to the existence of God.

"Refute."

Why would one worship an imperfect God? My opinion on this subject is that, indeed it would inspire a lot of discussion, but the opening post was what the topic is about, it shouldn't spread into topics of the physical basis to gods existence relating with the electron; it should stay with the fact that God created us with whatever he created us with.


Anyway that's my opinion on this topic.

I would guess that it would take a lot of debating to do.
Why would one worship an imperfect God? What if God is entirely imperfect, why would someone worship something that cannot exist outside of the universe; why would someone read the bible intentionally knowing that while they are reading it they are hearing the same knowledge just presented?

 

[Tnerb]

see edit ^^^

 

[Quantum Quack]

Sis,
Are you talking about the use of the words "self evident" therefore no reductionism will allow description without imperfection?
I get the impression that you are saying that the answer is "self evident" and that by attempting to explain it either, by way of question and / or answer we are reducing the whole therefore entering the world of pre-conception. falsehood and thus imperfection.
If you are then you have a battle ahead of you as many have tried to explain the "trap" for as long as man has had a voice.


Why worship an imperfect God?
Is it simply that we are worshiping more the explanation of what is [ nec. imperfect due to reductionism][i.e. bible] rather than "what is"? [unreduced] persee...?
For example Panthenism idealy worships the whole and not the reduction thus worships the perfect God. IMO

 

[Quantum Quack]

btw this is treated quite effectively by the Buddhist "Diamond Sutra" or more precisely the Singapore version of it.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

i've told you a million times that i think people choose to stay in hell because they refuse to see the truth about their sin, which is judgement, and choose to repent, which means to want to change. and jesus is the way to change.

*************
M*W: Why is it then, Lori, that you believe you are in hell in this life, but I don't sense that I am? I'm not a proud person. I do good for others who are less fortunate than I. I appreciate all that I've been given, and all that I've earned, in this life. Theists have accused me so many times of being "bitter," but I'm not a bitter person.

I would like for you to explain to me why you think "people choose to stay in hell?" People make their own hell, and I am sorry that you have done that to yourself.

"Repenting" means "to stop those negative actions (sin) that you have commited toward yourself and others and do it no more." It is about you. It is about me. It is about everyone who accepts responsibility for themselves. Why do you believe this all revolves around a mythical character whom you think can save you from yourself?

 

[Quantum Quack]

*************
M*W: Why is it then, Lori, that you believe you are in hell in this life, but I don't sense that I am? I'm not a proud person. I do good for others who are less fortunate than I. I appreciate all that I've been given, and all that I've earned, in this life. Theists have accused me so many times of being "bitter," but I'm not a bitter person.

I would like for you to explain to me why you think "people choose to stay in hell?" People make their own hell, and I am sorry that you have done that to yourself.

"Repenting" means "to stop those negative actions (sin) that you have commited toward yourself and others and do it no more." It is about you. It is about me. It is about everyone who accepts responsibility for themselves. Why do you believe this all revolves around a mythical character whom you think can save you from yourself?

good post MW...
just sorry that Lori is wearing the brunt of it...when so many are caught up in the same problem

 

[heretic5]

The word of God is in the Bible; but isn't the Bible.

Some of the posts in this thread have quoted or otherwise mentioned one or another part of the Bible. The drawback to that is that not all parts of it are equal. The Bible twice warns that it has been altered. The first place is Matthew 13:33 which reads, "Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened." A second place is Luke 13:21 which reads, "It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened."

This situation causes the question: in addition to the warning about alterations, was a way provided to remove the alterations? Yes. The way is thrice mentioned. The first mention is at Deuteronomy 19:15 which reads, "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. The second mention is at Matthew 18:16 which reads, "But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." The third mention is at 2 Corinthians 13:1 which reads, "This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." Their commonality, which is the way to remove the alterations, reads, "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."

This way has been applied to the first four books of the so-called New Testament, and is being applied elsewhere in the Bible. The results are available for inspection, but I do not yet qualify to include a link in a post. so you perhaps might send a PM, unless I don't yet qualify for that either

To summarize: 1- the premise that the entire Bible is the word of God has been shown to be false; 2- the actual word of God is now available for discussion; 3 - discussions about the actual word of God can therefore now replace the discussions about the altered word of God.

 

[Tnerb]

Sis,
Are you talking about the use of the words "self evident" therefore no reductionism will allow description without imperfection?
I get the impression that you are saying that the answer is "self evident" and that by attempting to explain it either, by way of question and / or answer we are reducing the whole therefore entering the world of pre-conception. falsehood and thus imperfection.
If you are then you have a battle ahead of you as many have tried to explain the "trap" for as long as man has had a voice.


Why worship an imperfect God?
Is it simply that we are worshiping more the explanation of what is [ nec. imperfect due to reductionism][i.e. bible] rather than "what is"? [unreduced] persee...?
for example panthenism idealy worships the whole an dnot the reduction thus worships the perfect God. IMO

Please don't address me as sis :bawl:

Are you talking about the use of the words "self evident" therefore no reductionism will allow description without imperfection?

Please explain.

Do you mean, self evident as in, what is evident via self, ?

And that therefore, there is no reductionism (reducing the values of said theories) that will allow a description without being imperfect?

Yes, Being imperfect the theories will be imperfect. This is really hard to understand btw.

I get the impression that you are saying that the answer is "self evident" and that by attempting to explain it either, by way of question and / or answer we are reducing the whole therefore entering the world of pre-conception.

The answer is self evident.
There is a God or there isn't a God. Period.
If only I knew what a preconception actually was ... :bawl:

If you are then you have a battle ahead of you as many have tried to explain the "trap" for as long as man has had a voice.

No battle lies ahead of me. The only battle that lies ahead of me is victory.

Why worship an imperfect God?
Is it simply that we are worshiping more the explanation of what is [ nec. imperfect due to reductionism][i.e. bible] rather than "what is"? [unreduced] persee...?
for example panthenism idealy worships the whole an dnot the reduction thus worships the perfect God. IMO

Yeah? Why?

Whatever God is, my previous post clarifies most of what I had wanted to say.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Some of the posts in this thread have quoted or otherwise mentioned one or another part of the Bible. The drawback to that is that not all parts of it are equal. The Bible twice warns that it has been altered. The first place is Matthew 13:33 which reads, "Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened." A second place is Luke 13:21 which reads, "It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened."

This situation causes the question: in addition to the warning about alterations, was a way provided to remove the alterations? Yes. The way is thrice mentioned. The first mention is at Deuteronomy 19:15 which reads, "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. The second mention is at Matthew 18:16 which reads, "But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." The third mention is at 2 Corinthians 13:1 which reads, "This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." Their commonality, which is the way to remove the alterations, reads, "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."

This way has been applied to the first four books of the so-called New Testament, and is being applied elsewhere in the Bible. The results are available for inspection, but I do not yet qualify to include a link in a post. so you perhaps might send a PM, unless I don't yet qualify for that either

To summarize: 1- the premise that the entire Bible is the word of God has been shown to be false; 2- the actual word of God is now available for discussion; 3 - discussions about the actual word of God can therefore now replace the discussions about the altered word of God.

given that you are quoting an English translation this is not surprising is it?
My Portuguese version is in deep sh*t I guess...

 

[lightgigantic]

*************
M*W: Why is it then, Lori, that you believe you are in hell in this life, but I don't sense that I am?

illusion that existence in a medium that has inevitable factors of death, old age and disease, sufferings caused by ones own body and mind, the bodies of other living entities and environmental factors such as drought, etc can be a medium of happiness

I'm not a proud person. I do good for others who are less fortunate than I. I appreciate all that I've been given, and all that I've earned, in this life. Theists have accused me so many times of being "bitter," but I'm not a bitter person.

yet despite all your so called altruistic endeavors, the inevitable suffering of this world doesn't diminish a fig

I would like for you to explain to me why you think "people choose to stay in hell?" People make their own hell, and I am sorry that you have done that to yourself.

well by your own admission you are happy here so I guess you don't have an impetus to look further abroad

"Repenting" means "to stop those negative actions (sin) that you have commited toward yourself and others and do it no more." It is about you. It is about me. It is about everyone who accepts responsibility for themselves. Why do you believe this all revolves around a mythical character whom you think can save you from yourself?

as opposed to the myth that the problems of existence can be solved either individually or collectively?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Whatever God is, my previous post clarifies most of what I had wanted to say

ok...then we shall rely only on your previous post.....or someone elses attempt to understand it
btw please accept my apologies for not being clever enough to comprehend what you have said and seeking clarification.

 

[Dirtywhite]

"So basically, he's saving "sinners" from himself. It's a sweet little con game I suppose. Instill fear, threaten violence, then formulate a "plan" to save them from the horrible place of hell (a place he created) and then actually be praised and thanked for doing it and come out looking like a hero. "

LOL, you missed the point he saves from death physical and spiritual and frankly he would be insane to give every an eternal blessing to those that would try destroy him... also hell is seperate topic becuase "hell was made for the Devil and his angels" who was involved in that first sin, so in effect he is trying to restore man's relationship with himself. If you don't want that relationship it does not apply to you. That said if you don't like him, why would he let you into his "house"? If you oppose his attempts to save you he has no chioce but to let you die. In his own words "Why should you die? I take no pleasure in the death of him who dies."

 

[Dirtywhite]

Further evidence that it was never about breaking the law in Gods eyes... The man on the cross with Christ "Today you will be with me in paradise". A thief and sinner being promised paradise in his final hour that is not the words of someone who wants judgment on man.

So why the violence why the judgment in the OT? Very simple there is a war being fought but it is a separate issue yes it does overlap because one side wants Man destroyed and one wants Man saved. That said God is very clear if you side with his enemies, you will be treated as one of those enemies but even if you do you can be forgiven even on your death bed. Life isn't all about obeying God but rather acknowledging you need help. In the words of Paul (aka Saul) the law was never placed there to be obeyed as that is impossible (yes he says that) It was mention to bring us to realise that we can't help ourselves and we need Gods intervention.