Example: Jews. Christians. Muslims worship the same God of Abraham

[Unveiled Artist]

What I am saying guys is (for sake of debate not my personal belief), the Creator exists period. He is perfect, love, and all the above. THAT is his nature. His nature was written before books were thought of. His traits where sketched before any human ever heard of an artist. The origin. The begining. The Creator.

What happened?

Inspired people started writing about the Creator. Some people said X others said Y. Some described him as Z others metaphysically summarize him as A.

That does not change his origin. His original nature. He is the same Creator. One Creator. One God.

If the inspired people told group X that the Same Creator did one action.
The second group of inspired people y said the same God did an opposite action
While the third group of inspired people Z said the same God did even a different action.

Does these actions define God or is God already defined before the inspired people wrote these different decisions their god made?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Kinda like saying that there is more than one sky because three people from different parts of the word wrote about the sky differently (say more clouds on the east end), described what it does differently (more rain on the west end), and the "decisions" it makes differently (in the west, prediction will be 40F and the east 20C)

Same sky, though. Dont undestand.

 

[Tesla]

Kinda like saying that there is more than one sky because three people from different parts of the word wrote about the sky differently (say more clouds on the east end), described what it does differently (more rain on the west end), and the "decisions" it makes differently (in the west, prediction will be 40F and the east 20C)

Same sky, though. Dont undestand.

If all three descriptions were of the sky, then sure, they're all describing the same thing. The problem comes in when one guy points to a brick and says, "That's the real sky, the rest of you are all wrong. If you don't believe me, then you're going to hell. I'll pray for you to see the truth."

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If all three descriptions were of the sky, then sure, they're all describing the same thing. The problem comes in when one guy points to a brick and says, "That's the real sky, the rest of you are all wrong. If you don't believe me, then you're going to hell. I'll pray for you to see the truth."

haha.. well, that can have an influence on the negativity of each other's view of the same Creator. Maybe some of us are thinking more with our emotions? "So what you sy that's a brick. look up, silly"

 

[Tesla]

haha.. well, that can have an influence on the negativity of each other's view of the same Creator. Maybe some of us are thinking more with our emotions? "So what you sy that's a brick. look up, silly"

Yes, exactly.

 

[rosends]

I actually cant see "God changing his mind"...that's kind of out of my territory. I just know that if all three religions believe in One God of Abraham and his nature is the Creator, Perfect, Love, and all the above, then that nature would be the same.

Its like you're basing who the Creator is by the decisions he makes and not by who he is regardless of his decisions.

EDIT

I have my point now. Tell me if this is true.

You are basing the nature of God on the decisions he made?

--

To me, that doesn't make sense. Are Christians, Muslims, and Jews calling each others gods imperfect even though his nature is perfect and to say it is not because of X (from all believers) is lying against the very nature of each of your Creator?

You are defining the nature of God only in terms of his role as "creator" so that you can ignore the differences in nature which stem from other aspects. I am basing the nature of God on the totality of what the idea of God in each religion is supposed to be. In Judaism, God doesn't change his mind and said X. In Christianity, God negated X which means God must have changed his mind.

Does this have any impact on the aspect that is "role of creator"? Nope. But one cannot assume to capture the nature of God by looking at one facet and ignoring the rest. There is no "who he is regardless of his decisions" because his decisions are functions of who he is.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There is no "who he is regardless of his decisions" because his decisions are functions of who he is.

This is the crux.

How can there be one Creator of Abraham if each person's Creator is making decisions they say contradict each other?

Again (if that was to you), that's like my saying that my mother made decision A. My sister said she made decision B. and my brother decision C. So that makes my mom three different people rather than one person whose decisions changed based on the person who perceives it.

I wont ever understand how a Creator can make a decision, a complex one at that. That sounds borderline human. no pun.

 

[rosends]

This is the crux.

How can there be one Creator of Abraham if each person's Creator is making decisions they say contradict each other?

Again (if that was to you), that's like my saying that my mother made decision A. My sister said she made decision B. and my brother decision C. So that makes my mom three different people rather than one person whose decisions changed based on the person who perceives it.

I wont ever understand how a Creator can make a decision, a complex one at that. That sounds borderline human. no pun.

You mean after making the decision to create.

 

[metis]

IMO, I think the concept of religion in general is a human attempt to find God(s) that by nature has its limitations. As far as "creation" is concerned, who was here to know exactly what happened? Just because something is written, does that mean it must be correct?

 

[Tesla]

IMO, I think the concept of religion in general is a human attempt to find God(s) that by nature has its limitations. As far as "creation" is concerned, who was here to know exactly what happened? Just because something is written, does that mean it must be correct?

I would like to add to that by saying that if the creator needed his creation to believe in him, then the nature of said creator would be plainly obvious to each of us. By virtue of the fact that it is not obvious, it clearly isn't that important that we believe.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You mean after making the decision to create.

I never thought of a Creator (or used those term as we use for humans--singer, rapper, bartender). Assigning any human attribute to "God" does not make sense. If there was a "Creator" that creator didn't "decide" anything. No human choices or anything. Things just happen as "he" shapes them. We try to put meaning to it by designating human emotions, actions, etc.. However, if we step back and actually obsserve the sky and not define what it does we will find "God."



I remember in the Original Star Trek in one episode, The Apple, where Kirk and his crew went to a foriegn planet and saw many people they called primative. They saw this huge cave that only one person at a time could enter. Inside the cave was Vol (Vol-ST version of God). Whoever goes in, that person listens to what Vol tells him. He (not Vol) was inspired by Vol and runs out to tell everyone that "Vol has made a decision for us to do X, Y, and Z". That person used those words not Vol. He used the words-the actions, etc that best suited the language he spoke natively. However, there are no actions. That is how that community interpreter the nature of the universe, what they need to etc by "talking to Vol" and listening to him and following him as a community.



Moses to Jesus are the people who go to this cave and say "The Creator says this or that" and he doesn't. The Creator isn't any person. He isn't a He. Life doesn't make decisions.

Take a male and female creating a child (for G rated audience). When that child forms from the male and female, that is God: Life. That creation was not a decision made by the creation. Life creates. Period.



As such, Moses, Mohummad, and Jesus can all go into Vol individually and come back to their community in different time periods, differnet cultures, etc and explain what Vol said to them. However, that is not the nature of Vol. That is not the nature of God the words we use to define decisions life does not make. That is our language. Our way of describing how life gives us purpose. How life makes us grow. How God shares His love. These verbs our our verbs not God's,

Our words can contradict each other just as our cultural traditions do. However, that is not God. Traditions help us grow with God. The decisiosn we say he makes tells us how God helps us grow in these traditions. God is not defined by the Torah. The Bible. The Quran.

God has one nature only. The ways we describe who he is, what he does, how he is supposed to act does not come from him.. these are ways we connect with him by using our language, our culture, etc which we know best. The traditions we use. The prayers etc... all of these are not false. To mistake them as being God Himself or from God as if God were human, that excapes me completely.

 

[rosends]

I never thought of a Creator (or used those term as we use for humans--singer, rapper, bartender). Assigning any human attribute to "God" does not make sense. If there was a "Creator" that creator didn't "decide" anything. No human choices or anything. Things just happen as "he" shapes them. We try to put meaning to it by designating human emotions, actions, etc.. However, if we step back and actually obsserve the sky and not define what it does we will find "God."



I remember in the Original Star Trek in one episode, The Apple, where Kirk and his crew went to a foriegn planet and saw many people they called primative. They saw this huge cave that only one person at a time could enter. Inside the cave was Vol (Vol-ST version of God). Whoever goes in, that person listens to what Vol tells him. He (not Vol) was inspired by Vol and runs out to tell everyone that "Vol has made a decision for us to do X, Y, and Z". That person used those words not Vol. He used the words-the actions, etc that best suited the language he spoke natively. However, there are no actions. That is how that community interpreter the nature of the universe, what they need to etc by "talking to Vol" and listening to him and following him as a community.



Moses to Jesus are the people who go to this cave and say "The Creator says this or that" and he doesn't. The Creator isn't any person. He isn't a He. Life doesn't make decisions.

Take a male and female creating a child (for G rated audience). When that child forms from the male and female, that is God: Life. That creation was not a decision made by the creation. Life creates. Period.



As such, Moses, Mohummad, and Jesus can all go into Vol individually and come back to their community in different time periods, differnet cultures, etc and explain what Vol said to them. However, that is not the nature of Vol. That is not the nature of God the words we use to define decisions life does not make. That is our language. Our way of describing how life gives us purpose. How life makes us grow. How God shares His love. These verbs our our verbs not God's,

Our words can contradict each other just as our cultural traditions do. However, that is not God. Traditions help us grow with God. The decisiosn we say he makes tells us how God helps us grow in these traditions. God is not defined by the Torah. The Bible. The Quran.

God has one nature only. The ways we describe who he is, what he does, how he is supposed to act does not come from him.. these are ways we connect with him by using our language, our culture, etc which we know best. The traditions we use. The prayers etc... all of these are not false. To mistake them as being God Himself or from God as if God were human, that excapes me completely.

Then that entire "nature of God" conception is alien to Judaism. God uses man's language to communicate, but the message is of the divine and directly from the divine and not just one of mediated interpreter.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Then that entire "nature of God" conception is alien to Judaism. God uses man's language to communicate, but the message is of the divine and directly from the divine and not just one of mediated interpreter.

Shrugs* That just doesn't make sense to me, God using man's language.

However, since that is a Judaism perspective, then I can see why you'd say God can't contradict Himself since (right?) he only speaks one langauge?

In my belief (which I do believe in God just not the Abrahamic view of him), "God" has no language. So, for him to contradict himself is, well, impossible. That's like saying the formation of the child, somehow in this "decision" there were two separate forces. One wanted the child to have short arms, the other force wanted the child to have long arms. Anyway, my example is totally silly. I hope you get my point though.

 

[Tesla]

Shrugs* That just doesn't make sense to me, God using man's language.

However, since that is a Judaism perspective, then I can see why you'd say God can't contradict Himself since (right?) he only speaks one langauge?

In my belief (which I do believe in God just not the Abrahamic view of him), "God" has no language. So, for him to contradict himself is, well, impossible. That's like saying the formation of the child, somehow in this "decision" there were two separate forces. One wanted the child to have short arms, the other force wanted the child to have long arms. Anyway, my example is totally silly. I hope you get my point though.

From a Jewish perspective, G-d is one, and G-d is ALL. G-d is everything that is in the universe. He’s not male or female, and he has no human form. He “speaks” every language, and chooses to characterize himself in a certain way so that humans can relate to him. Every reference in the Hebrew Scriptures to G-d’s body parts is metaphorical. When he conveys a message to us, it’s like a parent getting down on one knee to speak to a toddler.

Maybe a good way to describe G-d is to say that G-d is the entire universe, and all of its atoms, all of its dark matter, gravity, time, and energy… but is also sentient. Any effort to limit G-d in any way is simply not a Jewish concept.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

From a Jewish perspective, G-d is one, and G-d is ALL. G-d is everything that is in the universe. He’s not male or female, and he has no human form. He “speaks” every language, and chooses to characterize himself in a certain way so that humans can relate to him. Every reference in the Hebrew Scriptures to G-d’s body parts is metaphorical. When he conveys a message to us, it’s like a parent getting down on one knee to speak to a toddler.

Maybe a good way to describe G-d is to say that G-d is the entire universe, and all of its atoms, all of its dark matter, gravity, time, and energy… but is also sentient. Any effort to limit G-d in any way is simply not a Jewish concept.

I understand up to the point of "he chooses" and he "speaks".. the verbs are throwing me off. Is he actually choosing or speaking or is what you're saying a way to describe how god "communicates" even though these things have nothing to with his nature just how we describe our interaction with god?

Talk about god as if he is human (using human languages-actions, attributes like love, etc) boggles me.

 

[metis]

I do believe it is quite impossible to define and know the attributes of God with one possible exception, namely that we may understand a bit about God by observing creation itself. A painter paints what (s)he feels is important, so...

 

[Tesla]

I understand up to the point of "he chooses" and he "speaks".. the verbs are throwing me off. Is he actually choosing or speaking or is what you're saying a way to describe how god "communicates" even though these things have nothing to with his nature just how we describe our interaction with god?

Talk about god as if he is human (using human languages-actions, attributes like love, etc) boggles me.

The Jewish concept is that G-d is sentient, all-knowing, and does not make mistakes. G-d deemed that we would better understand him if we framed him in terms that we could relate to. We can relate to humans and physical forms, so for our benefit, G-d frames himself in a physical way. G-d does not "speak" in the sense that he has a mouth and voice box. He "speaks" by communicating in any way that he feels is appropriate. Just off the top of my head, we see several forms of communication in the Hebrew Scriptures. G-d speaks face to face with Abraham and Moses, He is heard by the entire nation of Israel as an actual voice (be it in the air, or communicated directly to their brains), or he can speak to prophets through dreams or visions.

 

[outhouse]

but the message is of the divine and directly from the divine and not just one of mediated interpreter.

To me that demeans the concepts. Why would they tell people so much pseudo history, and outright mythology?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I read everything. You lost me, though. When I speak of God, I dont speak in active voice as "God deemed what is appropriate" and "he can only speak to prophets." It's more, God IS life.

This is long. It's a story and narrative to ocmpare how I see God and life compared to how you (and other believers) explain it to me.

The Jewish concept is that G-d is sentient, all-knowing, and does not make mistakes. G-d deemed that we would better understand him if we framed him in terms that we could relate to. We can relate to humans and physical forms, so for our benefit, G-d frames himself in a physical way. G-d does not "speak" in the sense that he has a mouth and voice box. He "speaks" by communicating in any way that he feels is appropriate. Just off the top of my head, we see several forms of communication in the Hebrew Scriptures. G-d speaks face to face with Abraham and Moses, He is heard by the entire nation of Israel as an actual voice (be it in the air, or communicated directly to their brains), or he can speak to prophets through dreams or visions.

Let me think of a comparison.

The two of us are in separate rooms. Both rooms are pitch dark. There is no lamp. There is no light bulb. The door is locked. We have no key.

Then, in both of our rooms, suddenly, the light comes on.

I think wow, all this time being in the dark, with all these experiences, now I can see. There is light. Period. Who cut it on? Why would I ask that? That isn't in my brain to ask because there is no switch. There is nothing there to make me think there is a way to cut the light on. It's on. I can see. That's it. Now, I can focus on this life. This room. I can see the road ahead. Can't see my destination. I don't feel trapped.

(This is what I'm hearing from you)

You think all this time from being in the dark, I got light. From all my experiences, it must have come from somewhere or someone. But where? Who? It must be God (given that's what you were taught?). He must have cut on a switch that does not exist. He created a bulb that is not there. Then you think even more that not only did he did this without anything, how wonderful. That's a pure miracle. Now, I can feel this light prickle all over me. It is his love. His grace. Now, I know. I also found out he deemed it appropriate that we have this light. He tells us what we should and should not do. He is God.

-

Then for some reason our doors open. Light splashes from both our rooms. I decide to visit you. I see light you see. (I'm not blind) but I don't look for switches. I dont see light bulbs. I did not look for them. I knew they where not there because they were not there in the first place. That is not how light brightened my room. I don't ask, because I dont need to. That's like asking for directions when you can see your destination already.

Then I ask you in curiosity (thinking that your light came on the same way mine did)

"How did you see he light?"

This is what you say: (Which many of us non believers find odd)

Well, when the light came on, I knew there was someone who cut it on. I felt that person. I didn't need to know there was a switch to cut on the light. I dont need to see a bulb to which that switch and wires should go to. It didn't just come on. There was someone there.

"Someone?" I ask, scratching my head. I know it's a mystery, but, I thought, huh?

"Yes, someone" you say. Then you go on, "he deemed it appropriate that we have this light so we can see where we going. He said that he did this out of love for us."

I look around, "Where did you get this from? In my room, no one is there. I saw no switches. No light bulbs. The light came on. How did you come to that conclusion?

You say, "I got it from God."



This word, God and deity are foriegn to my ears. That's not my life experiences (not what's in my room). But reality doesn't change just because we have different experiences. Reality is One room. No switch. No light Bulb. We can have traditions and written scripture that says these things exist; however, depending on the person, depends on how they will accept these traditions, scriptures, etc as the source.

That's okay that people believe what they believe. People can believe that who or whatever they believe is a someone or something that cut on the switch and lit the room. However, reality doesn't change because of what we believe....

So....

A Christian. is no different than you nor a Muslim. We are all in our individual rooms. We have all our individual stories. From believers to atheists. However, the reality of it is there is there is No Switch and No Bulb.

That's why the Native Americans call it the Great Mystery.

The Great Mystery is what others call God.

God IS Life Itself.


I hope you read this and everyone else. I think I might keep in on hand. I haven't written in ages.

 

[rosends]

To me that demeans the concepts. Why would they tell people so much pseudo history, and outright mythology?

Who is "they"?