Do you trust God?

[Trailblazer]

Finally love manifests by the sufferings of Jesus, Muhammad and others who are attacked at every turn by those who cannot accept what they offer and who accept and even embrace that suffering because they are motivated only by love:

For me specifically as a follower of Meher Baba, it was his two car accidents: one in the US and one in India. What was his reaction to being badly injured and spending the rest of his life in pain?

Certainly these men and others accepted and embraced suffering because they were motivated by love, but I do not understand why that would mean that God is love. After all, God never suffered or sacrificed for humanity. Only humans can suffer and sacrifice.

So all we really have to know if God is loving is what religious scriptures say. For most religious people that is enough.

 

[sun rise]

I'll ignore the rest of your post for now, and just ask you to explain what it means to be "both divine and human." Your treatise on how a "being" (of some sort) can be both would be fascinating for all readers, I have no doubt.

Since you wrote "all readers", I'll comment that it's not in any sense new or strange to me. Whether it be God in human form, the Avatar, or man becoming God (Ramakrishna, Rumi, Hafiz, Ramana Maharshi, Kabir,St. Francis of Assisi and so forth), I've been studying their lives and works for decades.

 

[Sheldon]

No, it is just simple logic.

Oh let's not malign logic here please, as nothing about your rationale is remotely rational. One cannot ascribe limitless power without a shred of evidence, and then limit it without a shred of evidence, without violating the law of non contradiction.

Or using sophistry and semantics of course, which no doubt will now follow.

 

[sun rise]

Certainly these men and others accepted and embraced suffering because they were motivated by love, but I do not understand why that would mean that God is love. After all, God never suffered or sacrificed for humanity. Only humans can suffer and sacrifice.

So all we really have to know if God is loving is what religious scriptures say. For most religious people that is enough.

To try to state it more clearly: God in human form suffered. This is from the non-dual perspective.

I do agree that most religious people are satisfied with various scriptures.

 

[Sheldon]

Ordinary humans do not have the capacity to understand God.

1. God communicates to a Messenger

2. God cannot do what is not within His nature to do.

3. God has no hands so God cannot write.

4. God could communicate to humans in another fashion

Is it me? An unevidenced claim, followed by 4 claims that directly contradict it.

 

[Sheldon]

Suave said: ↑
This begs the question, "How would anyone know it is God who is writing through Messengers?

That is a very valid question. It is possible to know but not everyone knows.

You seem to have answered without actually answering, again. The question was "how would anyone know" not is it possible to know, which you have already presupposed without offering any objective evidence.

 

[Suave]

Uh-huh! All that, and what we're left with is "37" will help us decipher a picture of a triangle --- yet you can't even say what that decipherment might look like?

I am slightly unimpressed.

Uh-huh! All that, and what we're left with is "37" will help us decipher a picture of a triangle --- yet you can't even say what that decipherment might look like?

I am slightly unimpressed.

Eight of the canonical amino acids can be sufficiently defined by the composition of their codon's first and second base nucleotides. The nucleon sum of these amino acids' side chains is 333 (=37 * 3 squared), the sun of their block nucleons (basic core structure) is 592 (=37 * 4 squared), and the sum of their total nucleons is 925 (=37 * 5 squared ). With 37 factored out, this results in 3 squared + 4 squared + 5 squared, which is representative of an Egyptian triangle.

 

[Trailblazer]

Omnipotent means literally that.

Omnipotent means all-powerful, not can do anything. Atheists are famous for conflating the two.

What does true omnipotent mean?

Omnipotence (from Latin: Omni Potens: "all power") is the state of being truly almighty and above all in every sense and aspect.

Omnipotence | Superpower Wiki
https://powerlisting.fandom.com › wiki › Omnipotence

What does omnipotent mean God?

all-powerful

The term omnipotence refers to the idea that God is all-powerful. There are many stories in the Bible which reveal the power of God. An example of God's omnipotence is found in Genesis chapter 1 that describes the creation of the world.

Characteristics of God - God - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - BBC
https://www.bbc.co.uk › bitesize › guides › revision

Does omnipotent mean powerful?

The word omnipotence derives from the Latin prefix omni-, meaning "all", and the word potens, meaning "potent" or "powerful". Thus the term means "all-powerful".

Omnipotence - Wikipedia

A deity with limitless power cannot master a skill, that evolved mammals with opposable thumbs possess? The more detail you ascribe this deity you imagine, the less and less impressive it becomes. What else can't this deity with limitless power do?

God cannot write because God had no fingers, although God could cause writings to be written.

 

[Trailblazer]

Omnipotent.....lite....

Is that kind of like Bud Lite?

 

[Trailblazer]

Well a sceptic might note, that given the number and variety of humans who claim to know one or another deity's thoughts, on paper or otherwise, the deity seems entirely redundant. If only limitless power and knowledge, could match the ingenuity of evolved apes in producing it's own thoughts.

If the deity did that how would you know that it was the deity who did that?

 

[Truthseeker]

Yes, I suspect there are a number of Gods one shouldn't trust.

Tom Hiddleston, my wife loved him in a Shakespeare play.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'll ignore the rest of your post for now, and just ask you to explain what it means to be "both divine and human." Your treatise on how a "being" (of some sort) can be both would be fascinating for all readers, I have no doubt.

That would require that I explain what I believe about the nature of a Manifestation of God (what I normally refer to as a Messenger of God).

A Manifestation of God is not an ordinary man. Manifestations of God possess two stations: one is the physical station pertaining to the world of matter, and the other is the spiritual station, born of the substance of God.

“Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself. To this testifieth the tradition: “Manifold and mysterious is My relationship with God. I am He, Himself, and He is I, Myself, except that I am that I am, and He is that He is.” …. The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.” “Say, praise be to my Lord! Am I more than a man, an apostle?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 66-67

In other words, one station is that of a human being, and one, of the Divine Reality. It is because they possess both a human and a divine station that they can act as *mediators* between God and man.

Every Manifestation of God is a mirror of God, reflecting God’s Self, God’s Beauty, God’s Might and Glory. These Manifestations are the Primary Mirrors of the Divine Being.

The Manifestations of God are another order of creation above an ordinary man. Their souls had pre-existence in the spiritual world before their bodies were born in this world, whereas the souls of all humans come into being at the moment of conception. The spiritual world is where They get their special powers from God. They possess a universal divine mind that is different than ours and that is why God only speaks to them directly and through Them God communicates to humanity.

 

[Sheldon]

Uh-huh! All that, and what we're left with is "37" will help us decipher a picture of a triangle --- yet you can't even say what that decipherment might look like?

I am slightly unimpressed.

No no, you don't understand, this isn't 36 we're talking about, or 38. This is 37!


"Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

Or just despair really, it's your call...

 

[Audie]

God has never lied to me

 

[Truthseeker]

So I take it that Brahman is not a personal God that ever intervenes in peoples' lives?

That's right. Also many Hindus, as I understand it, believe that Brahman is the universe, and they are a part of Brahman.

 

[Trailblazer]

Oh let's not malign logic here please, as nothing about your rationale is remotely rational. One cannot ascribe limitless power without a shred of evidence, and then limit it without a shred of evidence, without violating the law of non contradiction.

My beliefs are not only logical, they are rational. I believe in an all-powerful God because I have evidence.

I am not limiting God's power, I don't have the power to do so. God doeth whatsoever He willeth at His own behest.
I don't know what God can do, I only know some things God has done.

“Say: He ordaineth as He pleaseth, by virtue of His sovereignty, and doeth whatsoever He willeth at His own behest. He shall not be asked of the things it pleaseth Him to ordain. He, in truth, is the Unrestrained, the All-Powerful, the All-Wise.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p, 284

 

[Aupmanyav]

Do you trust God?

A silly question, as far as atheists go. I do not even believe in the possibility of existence of any God. That also negates the truthfulness of any self-proclaimed or so-believed prophet / son / messenger / manifestation / Mahdi.

 

[Suave]

No no, you don't understand, this isn't 36 we're talking about, or 38. This is 37!


"Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

Or just despair really, it's your call...

"The first information system emerged on the earth as primordial version of the genetic code and genetic texts. The natural appearance of arithmetic power in such a linguistic milieu is theoretically possible and practical for producing information systems of extremely high efficiency. In this case, the arithmetic symbols should be incorporated into an alphabet, i.e. the genetic code. A number is the fundamental arithmetic symbol produced by the system of numeration. If the system of numeration were detected inside the genetic code, it would be natural to expect that its purpose is arithmetic calculation e.g., for the sake of control, safety, and precise alteration of the genetic texts. The nucleons of amino acids and the bases of nucleic acids seem most suitable for embodiments of digits. These assumptions were used for the analyzing the genetic code. The compressed, life-size, and split representation of the Escherichia coli and Euplotes octocarinatus code versions were considered simultaneously. An exact equilibration of the nucleon sums of the amino acid standard blocks and/or side chains was found repeatedly within specified sets of the genetic code. Moreover, the digital notations of the balanced sums acquired, in decimal representation, the unique form 111, 222...., 999. This form is a consequence of the criterion of divisibility by 037. The criterion could simplify some computing mechanism of a cell if any and facilitate its computational procedure. The cooperative symmetry of the genetic code demonstrates that possibly a zero was invented and used by this mechanism. Such organization of the genetic code could be explained by activities of some hypothetical molecular organelles working as natural biocomputers of digital genetic texts. It is well known that if mutation replaces an amino acid, the change of hydrophobicity is generally weak, while that of size is strong. The anti symmetrical correlation between the amino acid size and the degeneracy number is known as well. It is shown that these and some other familiar properties may be a physicochemical effect of arithmetic inside the genetic code. The "frozen accident" model, giving unlimited freedom to the mapping function, could optimally support the appearance of both arithmetic symbols and physicochemical protection inside the genetic code."


. 2003 Aug;70(3):187-209. doi: 10.1016/s0303-2647(03)00066-2.
Arithmetic inside the universal genetic code
Vladimir I shCherbak 1
Affiliations

• PMID: 12941485
  
• DOI: 10.1016/s0303-2647(03)00066-2

"Numerous arithmetical regularities of nucleon numbers of canonical amino acids for quite different systematizations of the genetic code, which are dominantly based on decimal number 037, indicate the hidden existence of a more universal ordering principle. Mathematical analysis of number 037 reveals that it is a unique decimal number from which an infinite set of self-similar numbers can be derived with the nested numerical, geometrical, and arithmetical properties, thus enabling the nested coding and computing in the (bio)systems by geometry and resonance. The omnipresent fractal structural and dynamical organization, as well as the intertwining of quantum and classical realm in the physical and biological systems could be just the consequence of such coding and computing."

Reference: NeuroQuantology | December 2011 | Vol 9 | Issue 4 | Page 702-715 Masic, Natasa Nested Properties of shCherbak’s PQ 037 and (Biological) Coding/Computing Nested Numeric/Geometric/Arithmetic Propertiesof shCherbak’s Prime Quantum 037 as a Base of (Biological) Coding/Computing
http://Nested Numeric/Geometric/Arithmetic Properties

 

[Trailblazer]

To try to state it more clearly: God in human form suffered. This is from the non-dual perspective.

I don't know what the non-dual perspective is.

I do not believe that God ever took on human form because that would mean that God became a man (incarnated).
I believe that God manifested in human form but I don't believe that the Essence of God ever became a human.

"The Christian equivalent to the Bahá'í concept of Manifestation is the concept of incarnation. The word to incarnate means 'to embody in flesh or 'to assume, or exist in, a bodily (esp. a human) form (Oxford English Dictionary). From a Bahá'í point of view, the important question regarding the subject of incarnation is, what does Jesus incarnate? Bahá'ís can certainly say that Jesus incarnated Gods attributes, in the sense that in Jesus, Gods attributes were perfectly reflected and expressed.[4] The Bahá'í scriptures, however, reject the belief that the ineffable essence of the Divinity was ever perfectly and completely contained in a single human body, because the Bahá'í scriptures emphasize the omnipresence and transcendence of the essence of God….."

Jesus Christ in the Bahá'í Writings

 

[Truthseeker]

No, I don't trust God nor do I love God, and when I say God, I mean the Christian God depicted in the bible. I honestly don't know of any other gods, therefore, I've never sought to know or worship another god. If the God of the bible exists, which I have my doubts now, then I don't believe that this God is worthy of love, admiration, and worship. I've already shared my reasons for my contempt towards the Christian God in other threads, so I don't think I should repeat myself in this thread, unless I'm asked to elaborate by someone who hasn't read my other posts. I also don't want to derail the thread, which I've been guilty of doing in other threads.

That God is misunderstood by Christians. It is the same God as in the Baha'i Faith, where hell is simply distance from God, in my opinion.