The God of OT vs the God of NT? Are they the same?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Spinoza felt that God was so intrinsic with everything that he often substituted "Nature" for God. In this case, "Nature" means virtually everything. So, a way of phrasing this approach can be summed up this way: "What is, Is".

I tend to take the position that whatever caused our universe/multiverse I'll call "God" and pretty much leave it at that. To me, there's simply not enough information for me to take it any further, so why should I guess. Or, to put it another way: "Whatever happened, Happened".

My problem with the above is that the term 'God' is thereby rendered superfluous and even unhelpful - as is often the case with term-dilution.

If the term is to have any value whatsoever, I think it must minimally signify preternaturel Agency and posit intentionality.

 

[Blastcat]

Agreed.

The moral guides ion the religious text exist and stand tall whether there is a deity or not.

The errors do not matter. You don't fix the bible, it fixes you.

You approve of Genocide on a global level?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You approve of Genocide on a global level?

Who are you asking?

 

[Blastcat]

My problem with the above is that the term 'God' is thereby rendered superfluous and even unhelpful - as is often the case with term-dilution.

If the term is to have any value whatsoever, I think it must minimally signify preternaturel Agency and posit intentionality.

Why should it have any value?.. It might be a completely spurious term. We can safely dilute AND delete such a term as completely irrelevant to reality.

Again, this reverts to the age old question.. What is the evidence that any god exists?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why should it have any value?.. It might be a completely spurious term. We can safely dilute AND delete such a term as completely irrelevant to reality.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Hong Xiuquan]

So, you can't use god as a moral guide, then. Right. I would agree with that. We create our own morality. No gods required.

The God of the Bible was not created from the minds of humans. The encounters of God in the Bible were written down after people witnessed their meetings with God.

 

[Blastcat]

Who are you asking?

I'm sorry, I'm a newbie here.. but I think it says that I was quoting outhouse? I was quoting him saying that you don't fix the bible, the bible fixes you.. whatever that means. And that religious texts are to be admired in a moral sense. I don't agree, I asked him about the great flood myth of the Bible. Apparently, drowning most people on earth is a moral guide that "stands tall", in his estimation.

So, I was asking him about the flood and genocide. But feel free to answer if you want.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The God of the Bible was not created from the minds of humans. The encounters of God in the Bible were written down after people witnessed their meetings with God.

That is at best a statement of faith, not fact.

 

[Blastcat]

The God of the Bible was not created from the minds of humans. The encounters of God in the Bible were written down after people witnessed their meetings with God.

Well, that's what the Bible says, I suppose. And you believe everything you read in a book? I know the story very well, I don't take all stories to be true.

How can anyone verify your assertion?

 

[Blastcat]

Thanks for sharing.

I would have enjoyed a response to the question more than your thanks.

 

[Flankerl]

Of course, I'm sure that if some non-Muslim were to quote Quran verses and Hadiths from translations done by non-Muslims, stripping them of all the nuance with which Muslims interpret them and understand them, so as to justify Islamophobic slanders, you would probably pitch a fit and cry foul.

Oh its not would, he is one of those who do pitch a fit and cry foul whenever there is such a thread.

Which is why he is a hypocrite.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm sorry, I'm a newbie here.. but I think it says that I was quoting outhouse?

What it says is:

You approve of Genocide on a global level?

So, I was asking him about the flood and genocide. But feel free to answer if you want.

I believe that the Flood narrative is an example of redacting folklore in such a way as to give it a unique ethical content.

 

[Hong Xiuquan]

To reply to the original question.......Abraham spoke to God but didn't know much about the God he came to serve. As time went by, God slowly chose to reveal more about himself. Moses was lucky as he was able to learn a huge amount about God. He shared a lot of what he learned with us by writing it down. As time went by, after over 1000 years of experiences with God....and every encounter different, we were able to learn a lot more about God. He didn't change, but our knowledge about him did. Jesus said he was there before Abraham was even born. When the prophets of the Old Testament met God in human form, they were actually meeting Jesus, the human form of God. God bless

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I would have enjoyed a response to the question more than your thanks.

I doubt that, but, very well ...

Words are tools serving two interdependent functions: conceptualization and communication. I could care less if you choose to defend or employ blunted tools primarily because I am not invested in either your conceptions or your communications having value.

 

[Hong Xiuquan]

Well, that's what the Bible says, I suppose. And you believe everything you read in a book? I know the story very well, I don't take all stories to be true.

How can anyone verify your assertion?

Someone who says that they met God can be believed or not. It's the same with everything in life. If someone says that they met so and so, we choose to believe it or not to believe it. However, with religion believing it or not becomes a more serious issue because more is at stake. It doesn't really matter if someone is lying about meeting the president last week. The theory of evolution is much the same as religion. Many scientists make wild claims (like Christians you will say) that are just stories to me too....like fish one day grew legs and crawled out of the oceans and evolved into bigger and bigger animals. It all needs faith to believe just like those who have a religion. Atheists have their stories too and choose to believe some stories and reject others.....we all do it. In the end Atheists are no different from any other member of any other religion. God bless.

 

[Hong Xiuquan]

That is at best a statement of faith, not fact.

Anything written down long ago and passed down to us could be debated with your words. However, even people alive today who have been to Heaven and Hell and come back to report to us as eyewitnesses are still not believed by many. For many, it seems, the only way they will believe in God is if they meet him face to face. Sadly, God is not willing to do this for everyone....for reasons unknown. He seems to be very selective in who he meets while they are still living.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Anything written down long ago and passed down to us could be debated with your words. However, even people alive today who have been to Heaven and Hell and come back to report to us as eyewitnesses are still not believed by many.

I can't imagine why ...

 

[outhouse]

You approve of Genocide on a global level?

Supply sources and show me where I implied that on any level.

 

[George-ananda]

I see you will have a combative mocking attitude to anything I say and we're not going to get anywhere. You go straight to how can I combat what he says instead of actually trying to understand why an intelligent person thinks differently. You might consider 'he can't be that dumb'. For example I fully understand the atheist's position because I was interested in understanding it. (And I was an atheist once). But anyway, let me jump back into the fray for a short time:

So, you are saying that you can comprehend what you can't comprehend? I don't get it.. you comprehend something or you don't comprehend it... How can multiplying ignorance equal to knowledge? This makes no sense.

God (actually Brahman in my case) is beyond our ability to fully comprehend. But through concepts we can understand, we can approach an understanding. Brahman can be experienced but once experienced can not be described in the world of finite minds.

It's so nice that you have luminaries. They also cannot comprehend. As you stated, God is a concept that is beyond your ability to comprehend. Are you now saying that these luminaries DO comprehend God or not? .. You really seem to want it both ways, and I'm not feeling particularly generous about that right now. Can you make up your mind?

Yes, I can make up my mind smarty-pants. There are God-Realized saints/sages that have 'experienced' that which can not be fully explained in language. And they can teach us the path to higher realizations.

But if these great thinkers can't comprehend God, then what does it matter what they think about it? It's all INCOMPREHENSION from the human camp. So, these great thinkers have thought a lot about what they don't comprehend?

Actually, the great spiritual sages/saints go beyond the thinking mind when they experience the divine. The thinking mind is actually an obstacle to getting at spiritual levels beyond the mind.

 

[outhouse]

even people alive today who have been to Heaven and Hell and come back to report to us as eyewitnesses are still not believed by many.

No one has done this that holds any credibility. This is unsubstantiated.


Supply sources, credible ones.