God Is Not A Tolerant God

[sandy whitelinger]

And yet, when we remove God from our imagination and bring It into the world of definition, we are removing It from It's throne, and stripping It of It's omnipotence.

I think that is nonsense. God is what He is regardless of how we percieve Him or think about Him. By the way, the God of the Bible, of whom this thread is about is a He. I'm sure He will accept your apologies; He is forgiving as well as longsuffering.

 

[doppelganger]

God is what He is regardless of how we percieve Him or think about Him.

Yet everything about "Him" is a construct of thought. This is the classic error of mistaking the sign for the thing signified. It's actually a form of idolatry.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Yet everything about "Him" is a construct of thought. This is the classic error of mistaking the sign for the thing signified. It's actually a form of idolatry.

You must be a construct of thought as well.

Perhaps you have forgotten that when Moses asked God whom shall I say sent me God replied, "I AM that I AM. Tell them that I am sent you." Notice He did not say, "I am WHATEVER. Tell them WHATEVER sent you."

 

[Darkness]

Perhaps you have forgotten that when Moses asked God whom shall I say sent me God replied, "I AM that I AM. Tell them that I am sent you." Notice He did not say, "I am WHATEVER. Tell them WHATEVER sent you."

I have to step in or else this will never resolve. Where is God? Who has measured Its length, width, and depth? Christians believe God to be a Trinity of Three Gods. Muslims believe God to be a singular whole. Hindus believe God to be the Universe and More. For all religious peoples (save Left-hand Pathist and such) God is the trasncendant reality; the Ultimate Good. We have no way to prove God's existence, nor touch It in anyway. And those mystics who claim to be able to, have very abstract and contradicting concepts of God's presence. For now, God must exist as a symbol of our idealism. No one here is arguing that God is whatever our thoughts create It to be.

 

[sojourner]

I think that is nonsense. God is what He is regardless of how we percieve Him or think about Him. By the way, the God of the Bible, of whom this thread is about is a He. I'm sure He will accept your apologies; He is forgiving as well as longsuffering.

I agree that God is what God is. However, sex is not one of the defining categories. God was portrayed by the early patriarchal society as male, since that identity fit better into the anthropomorphic mold they made of God. In order to be male, one has to have a human body with a thingy out front. It would be more correct to say that "God is often portrayed as a 'he.'"

 

[doppelganger]

You must be a construct of thought as well.

I am.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I think that is nonsense. God is what He is regardless of how we percieve Him or think about Him.

Defining is putting bounderies around something. Knowledge is defining--naming. It is inescapable, but an awareness of this inflates the power of "God" more than any scripture from any holy book can.

It is thus that the Gnostics and Greeks described Agnostos Theos, the Unknown God. It is also thus that Lao Tzu left the Tao as the "Nameless," and "Non-describable."

Anything else ensnares God in our perceptions and we spiral ever further away from It. For example:

By the way, the God of the Bible, of whom this thread is about is a He. I'm sure He will accept your apologies; He is forgiving as well as longsuffering.

Describing God as "He" limits It to the associations we ascribe to "He." God is no longer infinite, It is entrapped in a gender dichotomy--in our perceptions, at least.

 

[joeboonda]

Describing God as "He" limits It to the associations we ascribe to "He." God is no longer infinite, It is entrapped in a gender dichotomy--in our perceptions, at least.

Matthew 6:9
After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

 

[Darkness]

Matthew 6:9
After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

In order for God to be a Male, there would either have to be a Female Goddess counterpart (oh no, I blasphemed) or He could have a Male body with a thingy.

 

[joeboonda]

In order for God to be a Male, there would either have to be a Female Goddess counterpart (oh no, I blasphemed) or He could have a Male body with a thingy.

I did not say God is male, I just quoted Jesus' who called him Father and taught us to do the same. We see things in term of male-female as we were created thus. God may be our father in the sense that he created Adam and Eve and we came from them, making God our Father in that sense. The Bible refers to God as our Father in Heaven and is above everything and that is good enough for me. The Bible also makes references to the idea that although equal, a wife's role is submissiveness to the husband as the husband is submissive to God:

I Cor.
3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
7For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Eph. 5

21Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Col 3

17And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.
18Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. 19Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.

 

[Darkness]

The Bible also makes references to the idea that although equal, a wife's role is submissiveness to the husband as the husband is submissive to God:

It is sad you cannot even see that being submissive does not make you an equal. Paul was a true misogynist. To say otherwise is a blatant misrepresentation of Paul's teachings and truly requires much mental deciet.

 

[rojse]

In order for God to be a Male, there would either have to be a Female Goddess counterpart (oh no, I blasphemed) or He could have a Male body with a thingy.

Or it could be a hermaphrodyte, or it could divide into two, each copy being identical to the "parent", or it could clone itself...

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I did not say God is male, I just quoted Jesus' who called him Father and taught us to do the same. We see things in term of male-female as we were created thus. God may be our father in the sense that he created Adam and Eve and we came from them, making God our Father in that sense.

Thus, God is reflecting our perceived gender dichotomy.

 

[joeboonda]

It is sad you cannot even see that being submissive does not make you an equal. Paul was a true misogynist. To say otherwise is a blatant misrepresentation of Paul's teachings and truly requires much mental deciet.

I believe Paul's teachings are the Word of God to us. And while Eve was not formed from Adam's foot but by a rib from his side, and is equal to him, a woman has a different role than a man and this is used as an example for us pertaining to our relationship to God.

 

[joeboonda]

Thus, God is reflecting our perceived gender dichotomy.

God is showing us his attributes with what we can understand. Jesus refers to him as Father and tells us to do the same. I don't think sex has anything to do with it. Take it how you want, I guess.

 

[Darkness]

I believe Paul's teachings are the Word of God to us. And while Eve was not formed from Adam's foot but by a rib from his side, and is equal to him, a woman has a different role than a man and this is used as an example for us pertaining to our relationship to God.

Then God is a misogynist. You can say things like "women have a different role," but that merely translates into inescapable submission.

 

[sojourner]

It is sad you cannot even see that being submissive does not make you an equal. Paul was a true misogynist. To say otherwise is a blatant misrepresentation of Paul's teachings and truly requires much mental deciet.

Paul's society (and therefore his POV) was male-dominant. I think we have to ligitimately ask ourselves this question: If Paul were a 21st century American, and not a 1st century Jew, what would he have to say to us?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I agree that God is what God is. However, sex is not one of the defining categories. God was portrayed by the early patriarchal society as male, since that identity fit better into the anthropomorphic mold they made of God. In order to be male, one has to have a human body with a thingy out front. It would be more correct to say that "God is often portrayed as a 'he.'"

The God of the Bible is refered to in the male gender. A more thourough study of the Bible on your part would reveal the need of God being male.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Then God is a misogynist. You can say things like "women have a different role," but that merely translates into inescapable submission.

Matthew 22:29

 

[sandy whitelinger]

No one here is arguing that God is whatever our thoughts create It to be.

Then you aren't reading very carefully.