Do you believe you can become a Christ?
There is so much New Age thinking out there. People believe there is a higher power in them. Do you believe you can achieve Christ-like status and how? Specifically, can you be a Christ like Jesus being of divine status? Can you ever achieve Godhood?
If I could learn to speak fluent Elizabethan English, I reckon I would have a chance of convincing others, if not myself.
Of course, the others would probably need to be from Oklahoma.I'm old enough to remember when the term "New Age" began to be used in the mid-1970s, with the hundreds of New Age shops that popped into existence. Most of these New Agers were those who had turned on, tuned in, and dropped out during the 1960s. They thronged to these shops to buy quartz crystals for their crystal healing, tarot cards, books by Shirley MacLaine, Jane Roberts, and Carlos Castaneda, to sign up for biorhythm and astrology seminars, and generally envelop themselves in anything that involved lots of pseudoscience and counterculture.
For most, it was a passing fad. I did have a few friends who became fans of "A Course in Miracles," and some of them were briefly convinced that they could become Christ-like.Perhaps in the 70s it become well known but New Age was associated with Alice Bailey.
Anyway, why has no one become a Christ so far?Why has no one become a Christ?
People who believe that they are Napoleon or Cleopatra don't become Napoleon or Cleopatra, either. Belief isn't enough.People believe they can become a Christ with enlightenment through a new consciousness that New Agers believe will come in the New Age of Aquarius. No one here has this belief.
Bravo, Chasuk. Belief is so not there. Belief is all "here" -- caught in physical continuity, subject to its laws and the dichotomies inherent therein. On the belief vector, we have belief-disbelief. On the confidence vector, we have confidence-doubt.
As the Buddhists would say, beyond the mortal realm are the perfections -- the "paramitas" where the "one-sided coin" of these things reside. Where confidence is perfect (100%) and without a spot of doubt. This is where faith exists -- the kind of state where the immortal child of God within reasserts their viewpoint external to physicality and superior to it. Like the faith of Peter when he stepped out of his storm-tossed boat onto the Sea of Galilee, or the Centurion who's servant was ill and who asked Jesus merely to command the servant to be well, for he had such faith to transmit the order that Jesus was amazed!
Belief is of this world. It is tainted with varying degrees of doubt. It is a viewpoint of effect rather than cause. Faith is a viewpoint of cause (creation). Simple. Getting there, though, doesn't seem simple. Why? Because we are so attached to our egos. Humility is the antidote to ego. With that (utter humility), one opens the door to the Holy Ghost (true self), within. But if one does not believe in the Holy Ghost, one is left empty and self-condemned.
How do you know they haven't?
I mean, look at what happened with the original Christ, not likely that anyone with Christlike abilities is going to want that sort of attention....So who is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent? Who is on the same par as Jesus?
Since when would such as Christ be automatically put to death? I mean, New Agers are looking for their Christ to worship and adore. There will be the Anti-Christ who will certain have Christ-like characteristics. False Christs will be worshiped.This description is for the overall of the G/god of the bible. It's not ONE aspect.
You have no way to make this claim any more real than you do of the belief of him as a G/god. Why? Because, you simply do not know. To say you do because of the bible is to say that you're okay living a lie as though it's a truth. And that means you'd be willing to be and remain in that lie, as well as, spread it to others.
So much for character?
At the time Jesus lived, he was executed for making the claim he was God.
New agers? Oh please. New age people are waking up to the fact that a G/god isn't necessary/needed or even required to understand their own life and live their own life. Too bad more people don't realize it.
There are already a lot of false G/gods worshiped. It's a stunning amount of willful ignorance in the world, so it's not a surprise.Yes, but it's the greatest display of divinity.
Yes, it is technically true that I can't know if someone is on the same par. I'm not omniscient but I do know Jesus is the son of God. I don't say so because of the Bible. It means nothing without the Holy Spirit which is a real entity in the lives of those who love Him.
A Christ and the son of God are not automatically interchangeable. If Jesus said He was a messiah, then nobody would care. Others made that claim, too. Jesus was put to death because He witnessed to the truth and people tend to HATE the truth.
You don't understand New Age. They are looking for a divine Christ like figure to usher in the New Age so that THEY can have Christ consciousness. So, yes, they do need a deity that is Lucifer. They acknowledge Him as the giver of all knowledge.
We aren't talking about Gods per se. Christs don't have to be God. For example, the Jews were looking for a Christ and that Christ was never expected to be God or the son of God.
As far as I am aware, Jesus was none of those when he walked the earth.
Those are descriptions commonly used for God. However,they are 'concepts' used to describe what is unknown or indescribable at best. Those concepts have little or no relevance to the example Christ set down as a living human as his example can be described for the most part.Sorry, I should have clarified. Who is like Him now in His glory now that He has ascended into heaven? Since He is one with the Father and no longer separated by flesh, is He not omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent?
Kristenblog, virgin birth, being crucified to pay our sin debt, and rising from the grave makes Christ Jesus very unique; like the Son of God.
There were virgin births in our ancients history. They were sacred and holy and died too because that is a natural process of life. They are still considered alive in spirit to some. Might want to check out other indigenous cultures there are many unique people who existed/exist in the world. No one better than the other I might add.
Our ancient history has myths where different Gods (we had many Gods describing different processes of nature which were originally not Gods until we were colonized)fathered certain children that wandered our earth to accomplish whatever they were sent here to accomplish. Each historical account of various virgin births differed from tribe to tribe.
I'm asking you which virgin births, not the meanings.
Yes! What don't you understand about that?
HINE was the first mortal woman, created by Tane, god of the forest. She later became Tane's wife, and her children were the first of the Maori peoples.
Tane was a God, Hine was not.
Hinetitama was the daughter of Tane and Hine who had children to her father Tane the God.
Virgin Births.
Do you want more?There's a difference between god of the forest and God as a spiritual entity.
"Anyway, this is how the myth goes:
The First Woman
All of the children of Heaven and Earth were males. It was Tane who first felt desire and began to search for a wife. His mother instructed him in fashioning a female form from red earth. Then Tane breathed life into Hine-hauonè, the earth-formed-maid, and mated with her. Their child was Hine-ata-uira, maid-of-the-flashing-dawn (alias Hine-titama), and Tane also took her to wife.
One day, while Tane was absent, Hine began to wonder who her father was. She was disgusted and ashamed when she heard that her husband was also her father, and she ran away. When Tane returned he was told that she had gone off to the spirit-world, and he quickly followed after. But he was stopped from entering by Hine herself, in her new role as goddess of the underworld. “Go back, Tane”, she told him, “and raise our children. Let me remain here to gather them in.” So Tane returned to the upper world, while Hine remained below, waiting only for Maui to introduce death into the world, and begin the never-ending march of mortals to her domain."
http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/1966/maori- … aditions/4
God didn't mate with Mary. So Hine was not born of a virgin.
I would like more, please.How is it different in your mind? They were not physical beings? A virgin is someone who has not had sexual intercourse isn't she/he? Or is it something else?
Mary did not mate with a physical being. So how is it any different.
Look up Buddhas birth
Krishna's mating with a woman
They are all virgin births or at least my understanding of virgin birthsPenny, read this again!!
"Then Tane breathed life into Hine-hauonè, the earth-formed-maid, and mated with her. Their child was Hine-ata-uira, maid-of-the-flashing-dawn (alias Hine-titama), and Tane also took her to wife."
Mating is sexual intercourse. Both Tane, the forest god, and his wife were humans who had sexual intercourse. No virgin birth at all! This doesn't resemble Mary and God at all!
Please read carefully before responding to me.
Buddha:
The birth of the Bodhisattva
There lived once upon a time a king of the Shakyas, a scion of the solar race, whose name was Shuddhodana. He was pure in conduct, and beloved.of the Shakyas like the autumn moon. He had a wife, splendid, beautiful, and steadfast, who was called the Great Maya, from her resemblance to Maya the Goddess. These two tasted of love's delights, and one day she conceived the fruit of her womb, but without any defilement, in the same way in which knowledge joined to trance bears fruit. Just before her conception she had a dream. A white king elephant seemed to enter her body, but without causing her any pain. So Maya, queen of that god-like king, bore in her womb the glory of his dynasty. But she remained free from the fatigues, depressions, and fancies which usually accompany pregnancies.
again: the bold text. without any defilement. this text says he was born from a virgin.[/QUOTE]
Shakyas was married to Maya and thus Maya could not have been a virgin. Note, "These two tasted of love's delights…"
Also note that this scripture is from the Buddhacarita written in the second century AD.
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dha … /fdd67.htm
Krishna:
“LORD SHREE KRISHNA was the eighth child of Devki and Vasudeva. What were the names of his earlier seven siblings.
Vasudeva and Devaki had 7 (Seven) children earlier before Krishna. Two of his other siblings also survived, Balarama (Devaki’s seventh child who transferred to the womb of Rohini, Vasudeva’s first wife). According to Bhagavat Purana it is believed that Krishna was born without a sexual union, by "mental transmission" from the mind of Vasudeva into the womb of Devaki. Hindus believe that in that time, this type of union was possible for achieved beings”
Krishna was born in a prison.
http://www.mantraonnet.com/lord-krishna-mantras.html
It's irrelevant who Krishna mated with as that woman would not be a virgin.I know that is how you would like to believe it because it reinforces what you believe. That being that Jesus was the only human born to a supposed virgin.
Tane and all his brothers were elements of nature (spiritual forces if you like) they were in no way shape or form human. It is our culture and I should know. The Greek have similar stories. Just as Mary got magically pregnant without sex so did Hine and Hinetitama one of her children to the same God Tane.
If the virginity of Mary is the only factor that separates Jesus from others in your opinion, I would seriously review why you would use that as a basis for your argument when you have already been given examples that would dispute that.
What is indisputable however is that, in those days it was physically impossible to have child without sex. To believe that is erroneous thinking.
Tane and all his brothers were elements of nature (spiritual forces if you like) they were in no way shape or form human. It is our culture and I should know. The Greek have similar stories. Just as Mary got magically pregnant without sex so did Hine and Hinetitama one of her children to the same God Tane.
LMAO! Penny!! I am not interpreting this in any other way than how it is stated. What do you not understand about the information I've just posted? You know that mere mortals were known as gods, too?
Here's a case:
See? Mithras was a human god.
You're the one who was saying there were all of these virgin births and that is why I refuted that.
Let's take this into consideration:
Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846. John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.
Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860. John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.
Both were shot in the back of the head in the presence of their wives.
Both wives lost their children while living in the White House.
Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.
Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy.
Both were succeeded by Southerners named Johnson.
Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808. Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.
Lincoln was shot in the Ford Theatre. Kennedy was shot in a Lincoln, made by Ford.
Lincoln was shot in a theater and his assassin ran and hid in a warehouse. Kennedy was shot from a warehouse and his assassin ranand hid in a theater.
Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.
Now say someone two thousand years from now came across these facts. They'd say, "These are mythical figures, obviously one having evolved from the other."
Yes, physically. God impregnated a virgin through supernatural means.They were not mortal yet you are making them mortal to suit you...ok as you wish? You can make them mortal if you like, however it does not change the fact that they were not mortal.
There were other virgin births according to some stories like ours. What are you not getting about that?
Not sure how the fact that both were shot in the head had anything to do with virgin births? Nor why anyone would consider them myths?
Supernatural or spiritually if you like is not physical. Virgin births mean no physical sex.
Penny, I'm not sure what you aren't getting about this. Mating is NOT supernatural or spiritual. For heaven's sake, what is so hard about grasping this? I will concede that some gods are mortal and others not.
Like what? You haven't proven that.
Penny, how many times must I explain things to you? Do you see how similar the stories are? Can you understand that someone who had never heard of these presidents 2000 years later and came across this information would think that JFK is a fictitious president based on Abraham Lincoln because of the creepy similarities? This is in response to your comment:
"If the virginity of Mary is the only factor that separates Jesus from others in your opinion, I would seriously review why you would use that as a basis for your argument when you have already been given examples that would dispute that."
Now if JFK and Lincoln had identical stories then we can safely say they are fictitious or at least one of them. No story is identical to Jesus. In fact, many myths evolved to resemble Christianity.According to your statement it is see below
"Yes, physically. God impregnated a virgin through supernatural means"
Anyway.....I was not intending to prove anything except that what you (and first wilmiers) deem as the only virgin birth, being exclusive to Jesus is debatable. When it was in fact common amongst other belief systems. Proof of any virgin birth is pointless because we all know this is physically impossible.......without modern technology that is. Nor is it relevant of how one might become christ like. My initial response was to wilmiers who pointed out what was unique to Jesus.
Of course no story is completely identical. Your emphasis though appears to be on irrelevant details like his birth. It has little meaning compared to the philosophy he taught and his example of how to rise above the things of the mind that shackle us to such details. Details that are irrelevant to our relationship with the God within. Jesus philosophy however can be found in many other belief systems that although may not be identical on the surface, at it's depths, points to the same type of relationship one might have with the God within.
.Well then please give me examples of myths claiming virgin births.
You should watch Zeitgeist how they assign details to gods that match Jesus' exactly but, of course, Zeitgeist Pt 1 was torn to pieces because of its lies. I want to know what god myth would make someone believe, "Jesus obviously is a plagiarism of this god", etc.
I'm not going to repeat myself about what the context is of "God within". You refuse to see it. Jesus clearly taught us to have a relationship with the Father, not some god within and He clearly stated that the only way to the Father was through Him. That means a non Christian (who doesn't believe in the death and physical resurrection of Christ) cannot access God. This is unique to Christianity.
So really...believe the "god within" nonsense but I believe you should leave Jesus out of Him because He is nothing like you think He is.Lets just agree to disagree. We are going around and circles. I am okay that you believe one needs to believe Jesus died for our sins and that the only way to God is through Jesus. I am also okay with your belief that no one but Jesus knows the way. That is where you at. You cannot help that type of understanding because of where you currently are at in your beliefs. No harm, no foul.
I don't believe in the divine, at least not in the Western, Jesus-y, Jehovah sense. But I might believe that the divine is something that we can awaken within ourselves. There is at least some evidence of that; I know that I exist, and that there are aspects of this "me" that are unexplored.
Thanks for the dialogue, Pennyofheaven.Indeed and that which you can awaken in yourself is what I have been trying to point to. Thank you for the dialogue.
Penny, stop trying to wriggle yourself out of this one. What virgin births?
Penny is incorrect if she is asserting tales of "virgin birth" as common outside of Christian mythology, but a birth needn't be virginal to be miraculous. Tales of miraculous birth are indisputably common outside of Christian mythology, although it is unclear which mythology provided the original miraculous tales. indeed, such miraculous tales might have been indigenous to multiple cultures simultaneously.
Is there any difference between miraculous and virgin births?
A virgin birth qualifies as miraculous -- unless we are talking about conception via Interfemoral intercourse -- but not all miraculous births are virginal. The former subsumes the latter, as a category.
I am defending your position, by the way, just in case it might have seemed otherwise.Yes. A non virgin can eat an almond and get pregnant. That's a miraculous conception.
Wiggle out of what? Do you see much point in continuing our dialogue when clearly you and I have different viewpoints?
But the examples don't dispute it!
I don't understand why people either a) bring up examples where the differences outweigh the similarities by such wide margins that you would really have to be forcing the point or b) examples where the similarities were grafted onto it after Jesus died and rose again!
By the way, back in the day (2000 years ago) people were well aware that a woman couldn't get pregnant without having sex. That's why it's called a "miracle."How do the examples provided not dispute that Jesus was not the only person born by a virgin?
I realize that miracles of pregnancy without sex were accepted in the days of old. The examples given were of cultures that also believed in the same type of miracle.
That Jesus died and rose again is also not that different to other belief systems either. Our culture believes we rise again in spirit and ascend to different parts of our 72 heavens depending. Buddha went back to the eternal nothingness. Nothingness was one of our 72 heavens.
I am not sure why it is hard to accept that other belief systems believed in the same type of miracles."ahem" No, the miracles of pregnancy without sex were not just accepted in old cultures. If they were, then Jesus wouldn't have been crucified.
How did you come to that conclusion? History from different cultures will tell you otherwise. Jesus wasn't crucified because he was born to a virgin. He was crucified because they saw him as a threat.
But if they had believed He was born of a virgin, they would have at the very least been less likely to see Him as a threat. If He had actually (in their eyes) fulfilled the prophecies, which He was claiming to do, then they would have accepted Him.
And if pregnancy without sex was considered commonplace (which it most certainly was not,) then the prophecies would be meaningless.Think about it: if Joseph didn't have sex with Mary until after Jesus's birth -- and Matthew very explicitly indicates that he didn't -- then how was Mary's virginity ascertainable? Did a physician check that her hymen was intact? Yes? No? If no, then Mary's virginity was totally useless as a prophecy.
Matthew 1:24-25:
"When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."If Mary had been a teenager living in a major urban metroplex in the late 20th or even 21st Century, then your point would be valid. But she was a teenager (probably) living in a very small town in 1st Century BC Israel. You know the joke about small towns? The great thing is, everybody knows you! The terrible things is, everybody knows you! (And I've lived in small towns, it's true!)
Well, it was just like that, only a thousand times moreso, back then. If Mary had been with a man, everybody would have known. Especially once she started showing.Mary was married to Joseph when Jesus was born, so that she became pregnant and bore a son is still useless as evidence of fulfilled prophecy.
Yes but she was obviously pregnant before they got married. Meaning that this would have a secret to no one.
Back to square one.If it was obvious that Mary was pregnant before she married, then it is more reasonable to accept her pregnancy as evidence of fornication -- likely with Joseph -- than as evidence of a miracle. If you accept her virginal conception on faith, then the evidentiary power of the prophecy is moot.
Besides, the Old Testament doesn't actually prophecy a virgin birth.That's up for debate.
The OT prophesies a "maiden." i.e. a young girl. Back in those days, if you were a young girl and unmarried, you were a virgin! That wasn't true 100% of the time, but often enough as makes no difference. Culturally speaking, at that time and in that place, you'd better be! It could be life or death!
Now, from a purely human standpoint, you're right. It would be more reasonable to assume that an unmarried girl who became pregnant did so as a result of fornication (sex outside of marriage.) The most common charge was that she did it with a Roman soldier, thereby making Jesus that much more not the Messiah since His father was one of the hated Romans! If the other prophecies hadn't been fulfilled, I'd look a lot more skeptically on this one.Those who suggest a Roman soldier are miscreants. Safely ignore them.
However, I see zero evidence of any unambiguously fulfilled prophecies, and I've spent literal decades looking.
I need to go to bed. G'night for now...Hope you slept well!
This far out in history, truly unambiguous happenings must be taken on faith.
But then, that's what faith is all about.
Still, it's not like there's no proof...
I'm not following you. They weren't married for the entire nine months. When Mary went to visit Elizabeth, I don't think they were married. She was a virgin, unmarried and never been with a man when she became pregnant. That she was married to Joseph when Jesus was born has never been in dispute. Nor does it negate the prophecy.
They were betrothed, however, which is the same, only sex changes it to "marriage." It may be that because the threat to women was so great, Joseph could have possibly lied to save her life, even if she was pregnant because she cheated on him. I imagine in such a patriarchal society, most men would've killed the woman themselves, but maybe Joseph was "different." It's not impossible. What's the best way to keep your betrothed from being stoned and keep it strong. Tell everybody that God did it. You may chuckle, but Jesus was probably was just a wise, normal man, who thought himself special because of a lie that mommy and daddy told. Trickery is much easier on people who didn't grow up around you. I don't think it's coincidental that Jesus couldn't do for the people from his hometown. Even if they didn't know that he was illegitimate, if there were kids that grew up around him, they probably knew and saw any flaws he might've had that would've made his "mysteriousness" less affective as well as his capabilities as a demagogue.
Although you make some good points, that's a rather modernist interpretation. Remember that, hometown or not, Jesus was making claims that could be (and were) compared to Scripture. No, I don't think the religious leaders of the day took any statement about Mary's pregnancy being from God at face value, in fact they would probably have been even more suspicious. And also remember that it wasn't just Jesus' hometown but His own family, including His mother who didn't believe Him. If the wonderworks were all we were talking about, you'd probably be right. It's well known that there were a lot of "wonderworkers" around at that stage in history. But there were a lot of other things going on in Jesus' life that matched up with prophecy, which is why people wanted to crown Him king. Things that no man, no matter how charismatic, could've faked.
If an angel appeared to me and told me that my betrothed had become supernaturally impregnated, I would probably believe it. I imagine that angels are pretty convincing. However, as a member of the public, not having received an angelic visitation, I would have believed that Mary was promiscuous, and/or had engaged in premarital sex with Joseph.
I doubt anyone knew. It could easily have been a secret. According to the story she was taken as his wife early on, but he didn't sleep with her until after the birth of the child. The baby was born while on the road, among strangers. The date could easily have been fudged when anyone asked the age of the child. The family moved around a lot during the first few years. There is no reason to believe they didn't hide the circumstances of his birth during his childhood and every reason to believe they did.
Agreed.
My only point was that for a prediction to be counted as fulfilled prophecy, the status of Mary's virginity would have to be known, and not just taken on faith. If it were taken on faith only, then the prophecy was moot.Agreed. However, if I lived back then and saw the sick healed, the hungry fed and the dead raised (not to mention a guy walking on water); it wouldn't have been considered a great leap of faith to believe he was the son of God.
Unfortunately, the only thing left is faith. Who could ever prove any of it happened?Perhaps unsurprisingly, I don't believe that anyone saw the sick healed, the hungry (miraculously) fed, the dead raised, or Jesus walking on water. To believe that those things occurred, I would have to have faith. To believe that Mary gave birth as a virgin, I would have to have faith. If I already had that faith, I wouldn't need prophecy for convincing.
There is also a very real possibility that Mary really could have been a technical virgin. There are documented cases of non-penetrative pregnancies. They are rare but they happen. Not miraculous though.
LMAO... I know right.
But seriously if you were living 2000 years ago in a time of superstition and you KNEW that you had never actually had sex with your betrothed... maybe some pinch and tickle but not the sex you know causes babies... then what would YOU think. Must have been God.Wow... I'd never heard the "Mary was a blackout drinker" argument. Nice.
I know plenty of people over the years who had trouble holding their alcohol and couldn't remember a damn thing about the day before.
So, I could see it happening. Drinking was huge then. Probably more so than now. Once... when I was 17... I woke up wrapped in a shower curtain on my friends kitchen floor with no memory of how I got there or why my legs were covered with abrasions... some of which still had glass sticking out of them.
Never drank to excess again. I would have to assume that waking up pregnant would have had the same effect.
edit... she surely would have known that SOMETHING along those lines happened when she woke up the next day. There are certain...er...aftereffects after normal sex those...um... aftereffects would have been worse with a freshly torn hymen.
To quote Wikipedia:
"Interfemoral intercourse and genital rubbing, although notionally forms of non-penetrative sex, can carry a risk of pregnancy through transfer of the sperm-bearing fluids to the sex organs."
Interfemoral intercourse is also known as intercrural sex, which you can read about here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfemoral_intercourseWow! That can't be very common, though. It must be rather hard for it to enter the vagina.
And many members of the public did, in fact, believe that. We don't know for sure what actually happened, the implications of the writings are that they kept it as quiet as they could, but once Jesus reached adulthood and began His earthly ministry, many people disbelieved that His mother was a virgin when she conceived.
Of course they did. If your daughter came home and told you she was pregnant, but did not have sex and an angel said it was divine. Would you say "okay"?
No.
All things being equal, of course not. There are some major differences, though, including that in 1st century Syria Palestine, the Jews were expecting a Messiah. The Scriptures (OT) had to be fulfilled.
However, that did not mean that everyone just accepted at face value that the pregnancy was miraculous. Nor should they have. Again, Jesus fulfilled many more prophecies than that. But His rejection also fulfilled prophecy.
I thought that's why they moved to Nazareth. To escape all that goes on in little towns. The gossip and the shame would have been too much. Considering she was meant to be a virgin.
I'd need to do a little research. That's not the reason given in the Bible why they moved to Nazareth.
Who are you talking about again? The ones that crucified him or the ones that believed in him?
I never said it was commonplace in Jesus's time. I said other cultures had beliefs that there were virgin births. As did the followers of Jesus,.Maybe we need to review.
Which cultures believed that men were born of virgins?Awww ok might need to go back a couple of pages. In summary. Ancient Maori, Buddhas, Sufis, Hindus um and I can't remember the other ones mentioned.
It may not be the most thorough investigation, but Google and Wikipedia have failed to back up those claims.
I might take Pennyofheaven's word on the Māori stuff, as I'm pretty sure that that's what she _is_.
Really? Cool! Although I would hope she would back it up with more than just saying it. I'd love to "hear" the actual stories!
Check out page 9 of this thread if you like. Saves me writing it again.
The below is compliments of wikipedia. I notice they don't have ours...but why are we going there again?
Greek mythology
Leda: Leda's father was the Aetolian king Thestius. The story goes that Zeus, the dude with the lightening bolts and thunder clouds, admired Leda very much. So, like any randy god, he took the form of a swan and seduced her. Ew. Anyway, the result of this celestial gettin' down were two eggs. From these eggs hatched Helen of Troy, Clytemnestra, and Castor and Pollux. Technically, this isn't virgin birth since Zeus physically did the deed, but the sentiment is more or less the same, although termed 'miraculous birth.'
Perseus: Son of Danae, who was locked away in a room while a child and impregnated by Zeus (busy fella, that Zeus) in the form of a shower of gold (no, really).
Hephaestus: According to some accounts, the goddess Hera was so annoyed at how Athena had sprung forth from Zeus' head that she conceived Hephaestus without the aid of a man, by force of will alone. Apparently, it didn't go so well, as she threw him off Mount Olympus after seeing his ugly face. Hephaestus is the only Greek god who is lame.
[edit]Hinduism
Nothing in Hindu scripture suggests a "virgin" birth, though the idea of a miraculous conception is common.
Krishna descended directly into the womb of his mother, Devaki.
Avatars of the god, living in the Human realm descend into human women's wombs, i.e., without intercourse.
Karna: Was the result of Queen Kunti asking the god Surya for a child, without taking Kunti's virginity, just before she married King Pandu.
The Pandavas: Brahmin laid a curse upon King Pandu, telling him not to touch either of his two wives sexually or he'd die. Queen Kunti, ever resourceful, simply asked the other gods to give her and her co-wife children. The gods gave them the Pandavas.
Buddhism
The Buddha: His mother, Queen Maha ,was Koliyan princess. The night of her child's conception, she dreamed of a white elephant with six tusks entering her right side.
Egyptian mythology
While it is a popular belief that Horus was born of a virgin Isis, this is not supported by ancient authors. Herodotus records that the Egyptians believed that Isis was impregnated by having intercourse with the severed penis of the dead Osiris. Calling this parthenogenesis is a considerable stretch and a work of pseudohistory.
Finnish and Karelian mythology
Marjatta: while herding, she eats a lingonberry and becomes pregnant. She gives birth to a boy who will grow up to be the king of Karelia."Perseus: Son of Danae, who was locked away in a room while a child and impregnated by Zeus (busy fella, that Zeus) in the form of a shower of gold (no, really)."
He came in the form of a golden shower and married her which means Perseus was conceived because he was born 4 years later after the marriage.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22381/22 … tm#page205
Pseudo-Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 2. 26 & 34 (trans. Aldrich) (Greek mythographer C2nd A.D.) :
"To Akrision and Eurydike, Lakedaimon's daughter, was born a daughter Danae. . .
While Akrisios was making oracular inquiry into the problem of fathering sons, the god informed him that a son born of his daughter would slay him. In fear Akrisios constructed a bronze chamber beneath the earth, where he kept Danae under guard. Now some say the Proitos [twin brother of Akrisios] seduced her, which led to the hard feelings between the brothers, but others say that Zeus had sex with her by changing himself into gold that streamed in through the ceiling and down into her womb. When Akrisios later learned that she had given birth to Perseus, not believing that Zeus had seduced her, he cast his daughter out to sea with her son on an ark. The ark drifted ashore at Seriphos, where Diktys recovered the child and brought him up."
http://www.theoi.com/Olympios/ZeusLoves3.html#Danae
Hephaestus: According to some accounts, the goddess Hera was so annoyed at how Athena had sprung forth from Zeus' head that she conceived Hephaestus without the aid of a man, by force of will alone. Apparently, it didn't go so well, as she threw him off Mount Olympus after seeing his ugly face. Hephaestus is the only Greek god who is lame.
There was no male fertilization and so it was a parthenogenetic conception and not a virgin birth.
"Krishna descended directly into the womb of his mother, Devaki."
Khrishna was Devaki's 8th child.
Karna: Was the result of Queen Kunti asking the god Surya for a child, without taking Kunti's virginity, just before she married King Pandu.
The Pandavas: Brahmin laid a curse upon King Pandu, telling him not to touch either of his two wives sexually or he'd die. Queen Kunti, ever resourceful, simply asked the other gods to give her and her co-wife children. The gods gave them the Pandavas.
This story is featured in the Mahabharata which was completed after between the third and 5th century AD.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Mahabharata
One of the books in it is the Bhagavad Gita Mahābhārata and it was completed in 200 AD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita
"The story of Karna is told in the Mahābhārata, one of the Sanskrit epics from the Indian subcontinent. The work is written in Classical Sanskrit and its development dates to a period broadly contemporary with the classical age of ancient Greece and Rome, c. 400 BC–400 AD."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karna
Legend
"Karna's father was the solar deity Surya and his mother's name was Kunti. Karna was born before his mother's marriage to prince Pandu.[5] The story of Karna's miraculous birth is this:
When Kunti was a young woman, a wise though irascible old man, the sage Durvasa, visited her father's palace, where Kunti served him with utmost care for an entire year. Pleased by her service and hospitality, the sage foresaw that Kunti would have difficulty having a child after her marriage to Pandu, and granted her a boon to overcome this difficulty. By this boon she could call upon any god of her choice, and receive a child through him. Out of curiosity, Kunti still being unmarried, she decided to test the power of the mantra and called upon the god Surya. Compelled by the power of this mantra, Surya appeared before her and handed her a son, who was as radiant and powerful as Surya himself. The baby was wearing armour ('Kavacha') and a pair of earrings ('Kundala'). Though Kunti had not physically given birth to the baby, she was unwilling to be accused of being an unmarried mother and so with the help of her maid Dhatri, she placed the baby Karna in a basket and set him afloat on 'Ashwa' a tributary of the holy river Ganges, the Ashwanadi, in the hope that he would be taken in by another family."
There was no virgin birth because Kunti had not physically given birth to the baby. Surya just handed her a son.
It is not correct that Kunti was not married before having Karna.
"Buddhism
The Buddha: His mother, Queen Maha ,was Koliyan princess. The night of her child's conception, she dreamed of a white elephant with six tusks entering her right side."
This story features in the Nidanakatha which dates to 500 AD
http://www.ehow.com/info_8555919_differ … hists.html
"Egyptian mythology
While it is a popular belief that Horus was born of a virgin Isis, this is not supported by ancient authors. Herodotus records that the Egyptians believed that Isis was impregnated by having intercourse with the severed penis of the dead Osiris. Calling this parthenogenesis is a considerable stretch and a work of pseudohistory."
So why include this for your argument of a virgin birth?
Finnish and Karelian mythology
"Marjatta: while herding, she eats a lingonberry and becomes pregnant. She gives birth to a boy who will grow up to be the king of Karelia."
This is a bad example. This story comes from the Kalevala, a 19th century poem by Elias Lönnrot from Finnish and Karelian oral folklore and mythology. The Marjatta legend represents the Christianization of Finland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalevala#Marjatta
http://metalfromfinland.com/finland/kalevala
Always take note of when these myths were written down! They often come after Jesus.I read that entry too. What I got out of it is basically what I said before.
You don't consider those examples as pregnancies without sex? Check out my above post. All of her children were conceived the same way Jesus was. Without sex and from a God.
Penny, I refuted that. If you don't like something, you ignore it.
Go back to page 8 Claire. You will see you refuted nothing. Every reply you gave I responded to. You are making assumptions that have no foundation. I ignored nothing although it seems like you would like me to have. Take a look at the post's and see who ignored whose post's.
Penny, I looked through page onwards and couldn't find your refutation to my argument:
"Perseus: Son of Danae, who was locked away in a room while a child and impregnated by Zeus (busy fella, that Zeus) in the form of a shower of gold (no, really)."
He came in the form of a golden shower and married her which means Perseus was conceived because he was born 4 years later after the marriage.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22381/22 … tm#page205
Pseudo-Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 2. 26 & 34 (trans. Aldrich) (Greek mythographer C2nd A.D.) :
"To Akrision and Eurydike, Lakedaimon's daughter, was born a daughter Danae. . .
While Akrisios was making oracular inquiry into the problem of fathering sons, the god informed him that a son born of his daughter would slay him. In fear Akrisios constructed a bronze chamber beneath the earth, where he kept Danae under guard. Now some say the Proitos [twin brother of Akrisios] seduced her, which led to the hard feelings between the brothers, but others say that Zeus had sex with her by changing himself into gold that streamed in through the ceiling and down into her womb. When Akrisios later learned that she had given birth to Perseus, not believing that Zeus had seduced her, he cast his daughter out to sea with her son on an ark. The ark drifted ashore at Seriphos, where Diktys recovered the child and brought him up."
http://www.theoi.com/Olympios/ZeusLoves3.html#Danae
Hephaestus: According to some accounts, the goddess Hera was so annoyed at how Athena had sprung forth from Zeus' head that she conceived Hephaestus without the aid of a man, by force of will alone. Apparently, it didn't go so well, as she threw him off Mount Olympus after seeing his ugly face. Hephaestus is the only Greek god who is lame.
There was no male fertilization and so it was a parthenogenetic conception and not a virgin birth.
"Krishna descended directly into the womb of his mother, Devaki."
Khrishna was Devaki's 8th child.
Karna: Was the result of Queen Kunti asking the god Surya for a child, without taking Kunti's virginity, just before she married King Pandu.
The Pandavas: Brahmin laid a curse upon King Pandu, telling him not to touch either of his two wives sexually or he'd die. Queen Kunti, ever resourceful, simply asked the other gods to give her and her co-wife children. The gods gave them the Pandavas.
This story is featured in the Mahabharata which was completed after between the third and 5th century AD.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Mahabharata
One of the books in it is the Bhagavad Gita Mahābhārata and it was completed in 200 AD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita
"The story of Karna is told in the Mahābhārata, one of the Sanskrit epics from the Indian subcontinent. The work is written in Classical Sanskrit and its development dates to a period broadly contemporary with the classical age of ancient Greece and Rome, c. 400 BC–400 AD."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karna
Legend
"Karna's father was the solar deity Surya and his mother's name was Kunti. Karna was born before his mother's marriage to prince Pandu.[5] The story of Karna's miraculous birth is this:
When Kunti was a young woman, a wise though irascible old man, the sage Durvasa, visited her father's palace, where Kunti served him with utmost care for an entire year. Pleased by her service and hospitality, the sage foresaw that Kunti would have difficulty having a child after her marriage to Pandu, and granted her a boon to overcome this difficulty. By this boon she could call upon any god of her choice, and receive a child through him. Out of curiosity, Kunti still being unmarried, she decided to test the power of the mantra and called upon the god Surya. Compelled by the power of this mantra, Surya appeared before her and handed her a son, who was as radiant and powerful as Surya himself. The baby was wearing armour ('Kavacha') and a pair of earrings ('Kundala'). Though Kunti had not physically given birth to the baby, she was unwilling to be accused of being an unmarried mother and so with the help of her maid Dhatri, she placed the baby Karna in a basket and set him afloat on 'Ashwa' a tributary of the holy river Ganges, the Ashwanadi, in the hope that he would be taken in by another family."
There was no virgin birth because Kunti had not physically given birth to the baby. Surya just handed her a son.
It is not correct that Kunti was not married before having Karna.
"Buddhism
The Buddha: His mother, Queen Maha ,was Koliyan princess. The night of her child's conception, she dreamed of a white elephant with six tusks entering her right side."
This story features in the Nidanakatha which dates to 500 AD
http://www.ehow.com/info_8555919_differ … hists.html
"Egyptian mythology
While it is a popular belief that Horus was born of a virgin Isis, this is not supported by ancient authors. Herodotus records that the Egyptians believed that Isis was impregnated by having intercourse with the severed penis of the dead Osiris. Calling this parthenogenesis is a considerable stretch and a work of pseudohistory."
So why include this for your argument of a virgin birth?
Finnish and Karelian mythology
"Marjatta: while herding, she eats a lingonberry and becomes pregnant. She gives birth to a boy who will grow up to be the king of Karelia."
This is a bad example. This story comes from the Kalevala, a 19th century poem by Elias Lönnrot from Finnish and Karelian oral folklore and mythology. The Marjatta legend represents the Christianization of Finland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalevala#Marjatta
http://metalfromfinland.com/finland/kalevala
Always take note of when these myths were written down! They often come after Jesus.
Can you direct me to the page of your refutation?Penny's refutation is succinctly stated. She doesn't believe in the virgin birth. She considers it an irrelevant detail.
From page 8:
". . . Your emphasis. . . appears to be on irrelevant details like his birth. It has little meaning compared to the philosophy he taught and his example of how to rise above the things of the mind that shackle us to such details. Details that are irrelevant to our relationship with the God within. Jesus philosophy however can be found in many other belief systems that although may not be identical on the surface, at it's depths, points to the same type of relationship one might have with the God within."She said there were other gods and goddesses that had virgin births. She didn't provide me with any.
Penny was wrong about the virgin births, which she probably knows if she has researched it at all. If I were her, I would concede this explicitly. However, that still doesn't change the fact that she has answered your assertions by indicating clearly that she considers any purported miraculous events to be irrelevant details.
But that's not a refutation. She listed these gods and gave me their story which she associated with a virgin births. I told her the correct version of these gods and she has not refuted the proof I gave her that virgin births of other gods don't exist.
I agree that it is not a proper refutation, in the sense of providing falsifying or corroborating evidence. But it is probably the only refutation that you will get.
Only because it is irrelevant to the original dialogue.
Well one did not know you do not count miraculous births as virgin births. That they were impregnated by Gods should have demonstrated the similarities to Jesus birth. Alas that is not so for you.
Our version of virgin births with Tane however is irrefutable. She was a virgin and Tane was a God.
So what was your whole point in trying to prove Jesus was the only one born to a virgin again?What don't you understand? Miraculous births aren't always tantamount to virgin births? If someone ate an almond and became pregnant it does not mean that woman was a virgin.
It's a stretch to dismiss the immaculate conception because other Gods were said to impregnate others. The Anti-Christ is going to be the product of the devil impregnating a woman.
"So what was your whole point in trying to prove Jesus was the only one born to a virgin again?"
I was refuting your claim. You made that claim.
You are correct, wrong perhaps only in that miraculous births offered up as examples did not qualify as virgin births? Not wrong in our own cultures version of virgin births.
Yes you are right these are irrelevant details.But they're not irrelevant details! I don't mean to say that if you can pull a "virgin birth" out of some other religion that Christianity falls down, it doesn't. But there are no irrelevant details in the life of Christ. It's all rooted in the prophecies.
I gave you them. With Tane, you believe that being a God married to a mortal and impregnating that mortal without physical sex is not a virgin birth. I can do little about what you define as virgin birth. What you did not get is giving birth to a child through miraculous means should qualify as a virgin birth. Jesus birth was supposedly virgin. Was that not miraculous or not?
I think the point is that many people refute that Mary got pregnant with Jesus without having had sex.
A very valid point that has been sorely missed by some.
What about when Vishnu came to the world by impregnating a woman out of his sorrow for the world? I think that counts as well
Then there is Ra who started off the whole line of pharaoh's by impregnating a human woman so she could give birth to a god.
Kudos on the Maori story, a new one for me
Considering I want to move to NZ it is fun to learn more about the native history of the land
Another one
The poet Kabir was said to have been born of a virgin (a hindu) through the palm of her hand! Not even Jesus pulled THAT one off!This one is completely irrelevant to me because he lived around 1440AD. I'm only interested in so-called virgin births before Jesus which people claim Christianity plagiarized from.
Yes it counts as a virgin birth as I see it. Buddha and a few others but my minds gone black wondering why I am even going there hehe.
Oh awesome you will love NZ if you like nature even small towns and if you ever take the plunge. I like learning about others history as well.Please would you be more specific when you mention these gods?
This is what I can find about Vishnu:
Devaki, a Hindu mother goddess mentioned in epic and Puranic literature, was the daughter of Devaka, and the wife of the mythical king Vasudeva. She bore eight children including Krishna and Balarama. Devaki's brother, Kasma, believed the eight children would kill him, so he slaughtered the first six. In order to save the remaining two, Vishnu after impregnating Devaki with two hairs from his head had Balarama transferred to the womb of the goddess Rohini, and Krishna to Yasoda, the wife of a cowherd, Nanda. A.G.H.
http://www.themystica.org/mythical-folk … evaki.html
So we see here that Vishnu impregnates a woman who has already had 8 children. Therefore this is not a virgin birth and it most certainly wasn't motivated by the sorrow of the world.
As for Ra, you need to be a lot more specific. All I know is that his descendants were believed to be him incarnate. I can't find references of him impregnating virgins.
Hi Penny! Great point!
I never replied to wills post because really, it means nothing at all to me. He does not seem to understand that the myth of virgin births is not a good argument or point to make to someone who simply believes it all to be hogwash. Since he doesn't even make the effort to understand the person he is talking to let alone use language they will be able to respect, it's hardly seems worth my time.
I do love that you are one of the few who will make that effort to understand where the other person is coming from. I don't always agree with you but do find your posts interesting to read and often worth responding to or (if its a conversation you are having with another) simply to read more.
BTW I hold all the claims of virgin births in the same doubt as I do Christianity's particular spin on that story. I do tend to think, in a world where a woman can be stoned to death for sex outside of marriage any pregnancy outside of marriage should be claimed as a virgin one, might just save a womans life! That to me makes the better story, how some very smart woman got out of being horrifically killed by her society and spawned a religion
Then again, thats my droll take on things
Thanks!!
No and that is exactly what they are for modern man. Colourful myths in an effort to describe our origins or historical events that could not be explained with the language of the day. Our ancient history is thick with mythical beings that supposedly did this or that and for the most part does not make sense when taken literally.
In our culture a woman could be exiled to slavery, cursed or worse killed if there was sex out of marriage. Yet there was nothing wrong with the husband offering his wife to a visiting warrior! Go figure?
So I understand why it might have been better to claim the child was from a God haha!!!
This is silly. Who'd believe that a woman was a virgin when she started to show? The body doesn't lie.Um, thats the point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This woman in this myth you prattle on about as tho you were there to witness it yourself not just parrot the story as it was told to you in a 2,000 year old game of wispers, clearly states that Mary claimed to have gotten pregnant while being a virgin. Hell, no one would have thought God would even think about impregnanting a woman where a mans penis had already been, he would only go for virgins (sick twisted chauvinistic cave man male arrogant ignorance there). So this unwed woman gets pregnant, so the claim is made she is carrying God's son because other wise she wasn't a virgin, just got up to a little something something and saved her life by making up some cock and bull story about it being God she was 'with' instead of some guy which is WAY more likely!
Not very good at picking up on the points people are making are you?I think you are not getting what I am saying. If He had impregnated someone who was not a virgin and married, the baby would automatically be assumed to be the child of the parents, not God. Mary could only be convinced she was carrying the son of God by being a virgin. There were no DNA tests back then.
If Mary stated she was a virgin to save herself, it wouldn't matter. Joseph wouldn't have believed her and the law was to stone her. It was only through the intervention of an angel that Joseph believed her.
In fact, wouldn't claiming to be a virgin even though pregnant seem to be a desperate attempt to get out of stoning?
Ironic ain't it?
Easier to understand quantum physics then the babble of religion that can be found round these parts....What is even more ironic is that she was supposed to be a married virgin (from what I remember). I don't know about any of you guys, but that was the first thing I got out of the way.
That is usually something that comes somewhat high on the list of things to do. I wonder what ancient attitudes were toward having sex while pregnant?
I wouldn't believe it if it wasn't the Holy Spirit.
But there was a definite end to the means. The end was that we should all be made clean and sinless so that we could all be with God in Heaven. Nobody (let me repeat, nobody) else in history has had that ability, whether they wanted the attention or not. Only God in human flesh could have acheived that end.
You know, this is one of the most disturbing things about religious folk.
They imagine an eternity in Heaven and think it's completely realistic.
While these same people fail to understand that the human body itself could achieve the same end result(eternity/immortality) and no G/god would be required. And these same people cannot imagine it. It's pathetically sad.
Considering that we are genetically engineered to decay and die (we can prolong life, but we cannot make it infinite,) just how is this possible?
You might like to read about some in Eastern philosophies/religions. At least some of them agree they are not the only ones. I don't suspect Jesus ever claimed that either.
Jesus did claim exclusivity. ALL monotheistic religions claim exclusivity. You can suspect that green cheese flew down on a flaming pie and created the beat, but Jesus still claimed exclusivity.
That is subject to ones perception. How have you come to that conclusion?
Well, 1 person, plus 1 more person, plus the person who wrote the book, and the person who knew him, and the person(s) who knew Jesus....
It all adds up to where it has long since ceased being just "subject to ones perception." Unless you are determined that your perception is the only possible arbiter, in which case you negate not only the necessity but also the very existence of a god of any description, in which case isn't this conversation superfluous?Other persons does not mean "Jesus" himself advocated that exclusivity. This is why in my view it is subject to ones perception. Not mine alone and not yours alone. Everyone will understand what is written about differently, and this understanding is based on their perception. Just as those who chose to write about Jesus and his philosophy, this too was based on their own perception.
But Jesus did advocate exclusivity. In fact, advocate would not be a strong enough word.
When He said "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me."
It doesn't get any more exclusive.How did I know you would point to that? Jesus explains further on in that chapter what he meant. It can be understood as exclusivity for sure but when the other verses in the same chapter are taken into account one might realise what Jesus was pointing to. Like when he said, when you see me, you are seeing my father or something like that. When he said, I am in the father and the father is in me. He is obviously pointing to the God within. "I speak not of myself" he goes on to say but the "father within". Can't remember the exact words but that's about the gist of it. For me, it is clearly not pointing to Jesus but what dwells within him and makes no claim that he is the only way to know the father in the whole entire planet..At some point there he states that we will know he is in his father, we are in him, and he is in us. No separation then.
He was most assuredly not pointing to the "god within." He was claiming a unique relationship with God, which again His Jewish listeners would not have mistaken. But He was claiming to have a relationship that other human beings do not have. He was Jewish, not Greek.
If it is a certainty for you, I can do little about that.
When did he say other humans could not have the same relationship?
Who said he was Greek?No one said He was Greek, I was attempting to point out that your definition of the "god within" is more Greek (gnostic) than Jewish. He didn't have to say that other humans couldn't have that relationship because everyone He was speaking to already knew that.
I'll try to be a little more clear. Sorry for any confusion.Oh ok sorry my misunderstanding.
The bible refers to the God within many times. Are you saying it does not mean what it says?Clever!
No, I am saying it does not mean what you say it means (if I'm understanding you correctly.) Again, maybe I'm misunderstanding you and if I am, I apologize. But if I read you correctly, you think that Jesus was talking about some kind of spirit within humans that they can access. The Bible never, ever says anything that means that. God is always a being unto Himself, and the only way that people can access God is by looking outward, not inward.
That doesn't mean we're not supposed to think about these things. He gave us brains and He expects us to use them. But the idea that we are all god, or that we are all gods, is not in the Bible.The bible says the following and they are just a few that come to mind because it seems to be a recurring theme.
"Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;" Where is the holy spirit if it is not within you? ....and .....
"Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you" Where is the kingdom if it is not within?
What do you think this means? "On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you"
If we have no access to what is within, why would the bible teach it?
It has just dawned on me why there always seems to be so much opposition to the God within from the followers of the bible. It appears you might be perceiving me to be saying that we are Gods wholly and completely. This is not what I am saying. Nor could anyone in their right mind say such a thing if they understood that God is infinite and everywhere. When I speak of the God within I am speaking of just a tiny part of the infinite nature of God. The verse below says it all.
One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all
If you have a different understanding I am open to hearing it if you would like to share.Chris, do you wish to share your understanding or not? If no it's ok. We can leave it at that.
I base my understanding on the following verse:
"Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,..."
We are created beings. To the extent that we have any of God within us, that does not make us Gods. And we do not access the god within, we access God without.That is what I find fascinating. One interpretation of one passage out of the entire book, and our line of reasoning as to what the whole thing ultimately means moves in a direction directly opposed to another. It's like thoughts don't intersect anywhere; once they bounce off of one line of the text. The whole book takes on a completely different meaning.
The whole book interconnects. The real trick is to try not to bring your preconceived ideas and desires to the table when you're trying to understand it. It ain't easy, believe me. I know. And the older I get, and the more I read it, and study and listen to those who have studied it, the more I find the richness of God in it.
Except that the "whole book" _doesn't_ connect, not without a lot of squinting. Really. I can demonstrate that it doesn't if you wish, or not. :-)
Please do. I'm not the be all and end all of Biblical scholarship, but I've found that it generally fits together fairly well...
I'll do my best, but first I ask that you pledge your sincere intention "not to bring your preconceived ideas and desires to the table" at any time during my deconstruction.
Are you willing to do that?I don't know, because you just handed me a heck of a preconcieved idea over in your "Chess" forum.
My "Chess" forum is an argument about arguments.
This has nothing to do with that.I don't know...
I think that terming religious discussion "masturbatory show and tell" would have an awful lot to do with this. Certainly with your attitude toward it.
It makes me think that you treat this all as some kind of parlor game, a kind of debate exercise but that it has real little value. On the other hand, I think of this as very much life and death, in the next world.Sorry, Chris, but you haven't read carefully, or, if you have, you haven't read the thread in its entirety. The sole reason that I asked for your "sincere intention" is that I hope to avoid games.
All arguments are discussions, but not all discussions are arguments. To me, this distinction is very important, as I thought I made clear here:
"An argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something _by providing evidence_. A religious belief, not requiring evidence to be sustained, cannot be argued authentically. I am not saying that it cannot be authentically discussed. However, to _argue_ about a religious belief is like arguing about an opinion (i.e., utterly pointless)."That clarifies it a little, but doesn't really change what I said. Or let me put it this way, do you consider the discussions we've been having to be "utterly pointless" even though they've been "authentically discussed?"
My apologies, but I guess I still haven't explained well enough.
Suppose that we were arguing about you favorite flavor of ice cream.
You: My favorite flavor of ice cream is chocolate.
Me: No, it isn't.
You: *blinks* Pardon?
Me: Your favorite flavor of ice cream is hazelnut.
You: We can't argue about my favorite flavor of ice cream. That would be utterly pointless.
Me: Why?
You: Because some topics are outside the scope of things that can be authentically argued. In fact, they _literally_ can't be argued. My favorite flavor of ice cream is one of those things.
Me: Can your favorite flavor of ice cream be discussed?
You: Of course. Anything can be discussed.
Now let's turn this to religion. Do you believe in the Holy Spirit or the divinity of Jesus based on evidence? No, you believe based on faith. Therefore, a religious belief is outside the scope of what argument can authentically address, because an argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something _by providing evidence_.
However, religious belief can be profitably discussed, as we have done on several occasions..
Or let me put it this way, _all_ non-argument discussions are authentic, even the trivial ones. They have no criteria by which they can be judged inauthentic. Further, I don't have discussions or arguments that I consider "utterly pointless," ever.
Do you understand?I'm not sure, but if you wish to go ahead with the religious discussion then I'm game.
I would agree that it interconnects, but I doubt we would agree as to how or why.
I think, you bring preconceived notions to 'Christianity'. That statement about how you read the story of the beginning of humanity being one of them.I think most people bring preconceived notions to it. It's just that mine were exactly the opposite of what I now had to figure out why I believed differently.
i.e. Just because I became a Christian didn't mean I went from thinking it didn't make sense to that it was all hunkey-dorey on the turn of a dime. I struggled with it for a long time, and sometimes still do.Of course you struggle to understand. My point was simply that consensus is impossible. Everyone chooses a different jumping point. That jumping point will lead you in a different direction and your interpretation of the meaning of that starting point will cause you to veer away from many others that chose the same point.
It fascinates me only because of the use of the word Christian. I would think that would mean you look to the words of Christ first, understand how they line up and only after that would you read the rest. Accepting that anything which didn't line up with the beginning point (that being the message of Christ) meant you hadn't understood correctly. You'd back up and start again.
It doesn't appear to work that way in practice.Often it doesn't. It is supposed to, and that's the way I try to practice it.
1 John 4:16: "And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them."
Eph. 4.6: "one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."
Gal. 2:20: "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."
2 Corinthians 13.5: "Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you —unless, of course, you fail the test?"What are you getting at? Are you saying you agree with Penny's interpretation? Because I obviously don't (at least as I understand her interpretation) and can point out how those passages fail to support her position.
Which I'm sure you expected from me, anywayI don't agree or disagree with Penny. I maintain few opinions on Christian theology. When I was still a Christian, I was a Preterist, and I suppose I still am, at least if I'm donning my "Christ hat" for purposes of argument.
However, there are occasional hints of pantheism in the bible, and was presenting them for your study.I agree that there are occasional pantheist statements in the Bible but not that the Bible endorses it.
Obviously, I'm not a preterist.
There are two instances in Genesis where man is created. Man in Gods image and man of dust. So are you talking about the man of Dust only? If so, where did the man in Gods image go do you think?
Why do you disregard all the other verses of the bible?I don't. Neither do I take them out of context. Man was created from the dust, God breathed life into man "with the breath of His nostrils," and God created man in His image. It takes a very strenuous and ultimately brittle interpretation to say that the verses in any way are unrelated or cancel each other out.
Not unrelated? Sure it appears unrelated. Did God ever command Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply? I don't think so. From the text, it doesn't appear as if child birth played a factor until the expulsion from Eden. And it was shown as a curse. Not a command to be fruitful.
Absolutely brilliant. And correct even. There was never a command to procreate, it was in fact a curse. As immortals, neither appear to have desired, needed nor reason to procreate. One of the effects of expulsion was this curse. I have yet to fully figure out what the purpose behind was meant to do.
James.Emile, what is Gen.1:28 saying? Be fruitful and multiply. Gen.2:16 shows a curse because of the womans actions, a great increase in pain in pregnacy and childbirth. In addition, a craving for your mate (husband) and domination by him. At least this is what I'm reading.
Everyone sees something different. However, I believe the first chapter of Genesis shows that the writers didn't see 'sin' in their story of the beginning. The first chapter shows that, in their opinion, humanity was designed to have dominion over all of the earth. The Garden story was an expansion on the special relationship God would have with the line of their ancestors.
This is what I get for jumping in in the middle, surely I'm missing the point. I agree, in verse 28 they are not talking about sin. But they are definitly talking about generating offspring, and no doubt to have dominion. Why Adam and Eve's creation was mentioned twice I have no idea. But it is hard not to recognize procreation was the primary focus of this particular verse, dominion almost looks as tho it were mentioned as an after thought, as if it were a fore drawn conclusion. Now the word that is really interesting for me is "replenish." This could be seen as they're not being the first, and looking at Cain and the land of Nod... but that's something else altogether.
Hmm...
John 10:34-36
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’?
35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken—
36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?
Psalms 82:6
6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’
I don't know...It appears to me that it is covered in the bible...Actually, I've dealt with that one before, twice.
Jesus was not calling them gods. He was upbraiding them for thinking that they had a special connection with God because they were chosen by Him, but failing to realize that Jesus was the very one fortold by the Laws of Moses, which they held as their special connection to God.
So although I dont agree with your interpretation, your assessment is correct. It is covered in the Bible.In the book of John...Jesus was using the OT for his defense...Read to whole section...
And In Psalms...That is actually refering to the faithful as "sons of Gods" also known as gods themselves...again read the whol section...
And if you get something different than this, then you are disagreeing with all current biblical scholars who have spent many years in study and research....Um, no. I'm not disagreeing with all Biblical scholars. Some, I have no doubt, but all? No.
Does that mean you only disagree with the biblical scholars that do not fit with the understanding you have been taught? Or fit with your understanding as you have thought about it on your own?
Most likely the former than the latter. Ego works wonders.
That second part. Which, I suspect, makes me quite consistent with most of the other people on these forums.
Christ just means anointed one...There are plenty of people who have been anointed in todays churches...Catholic churches anoint their clergy. Many other denominations, as well, use oil to anoint clergy or the sick.
If you are talking about becoming an inspiring religious leader and creating a following...There are plenty who have done this as well...
Perhaps, you would be able to better define exactly what type of responses you are looking for in regards to this question.Good point, but I was referring to a Christ with a higher power in them like Jesus.
Christ comes from the word messiah which is saviour. Can we save ourselves?Not to pick, But Messiah (Hebrew) and Christ (Greek) both mean Anointed One. The Hebrew anointed their kings/high priests/judges (rulers) with oil.
Christ and buddha are the same, in that they are forms of consciousness or titles added to the character of wise men.
Yes, I know, but I specifically outlined what type of Christ I was referring to and that is one like Jesus not just any anointed person.
Depending on your understanding...
"Messiah" (a Hebrew word for which the Greek equivalent is Christ,) is a human being anointed by God to lead the nation of Israel to the Kingdom of God.
or...
"Christ" is the Son of God (and therefor God, the Son) who came to save us all from being separated from God forever by dying on the cross to take away our sins.
Neither of these offices can be assumed. By definition, an anointed one must be anointed by somebody other than themselves, and in this case, it would be God. The "New Age"/Gnostic understanding of a "Christ Consciousness" means that we not only can be like Jesus in that we can do the good things He told us to do, but that we can be like Jesus in that we can be our own God! Of course, there are multiple variations on that, but that's the gist.
And it can't be done.Here I go again, not to be picky, but "messiah" is a Grk word transliterated for the Hebrew word Mashyach; anoited one. Christ comes from the Grk word christos, meaning "the anoited one," or at least that is what we are told. The Latin derivative of "christ" actually comes from the word cretin. Cretin is a person with deformities, physically or mentally, an idiot. When the Emissaries were called "christians" (cretins), they were being insulted by being called idiots. Christos is also the Grk version of the word Krishna.
Then everyone has the potential to be a Christ. Lol.
Thanks for this information.Yes, you're being picky.
What difference does that make in what I said?
How can you become what you already are?
To think that you can become means that you are already convinced that you're not and you will continue to be that.....
So the only and wise option then is to believe that you already are.
Then your eyes will show you how and why you are just what you believe.You are not a Christ. Don't delude yourself. What Christ-like thing can you do?
Believing what you like, it will not change who I am and you come from the doubtful place when you ask for proof, and such doubtful was cannot be satisfied.
Plus it made your question unnecessary unless of course if it was posed so that the doubtful can have its time while it is yet day.Again, why ask, for the Christ is to you whatsoever you make him to.
So he is a saviour to those who see him as such or thief to who sees him as such.
The one who believes positively recieves the reward of their belief and the who believes negatively he too recieves his reward.
That never changes the Christ, but can change the one believing.
The Christ is all things perfect..So what type of Christ are you?
That is absolute nonsense. Those who think positively can receive a heavy blow of suffering and the negative can receive fame and fortune.
Yes, there's new age thinking. But, there are also plenty of people still using century old junk too.
People believe there's a higher power in them? I don't believe such a thing. I know there's a higher power within me and when I have the ability to understand the knowledge required, then I will tap into that power. But, make no mistake an attribute it to some G/god.
I don't need to. It's not a requirement. Understanding Jesus' teachings however and living it without the mystic BS, is something I already do.
No such thing as divinity. That's the mystic BS I referenced.Give me an example of your higher power that you can tap into.
I swear, do you have a reading comprehension problem? Or do you only read(pay attention) to words that suit what you want to read?
I will give you the exact same post I gave another person in the forums, just the other day.
Read it for what it says. Don't add words that are not said.
The above conversation between James(jacharless) and myself took place the other day. The below link is to the forum thread we were discussing it.
Go to page 8. http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/99411
According to the bible you can.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
Of course it can mean anything you want it to.
It might also mean, whoever wants to be christ-like, may need to get to the stage that Jesus did when he said I and my Father are one.Most people look at the scriptures and not realize what the context is.
Jesus made the following promise as He prepared his disciples for His departure: “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go to the Father” (John 14:12). Before we discuss the meaning of “works” and “greater works” in this verse, we should consider the significance of works in the Gospel of John. The previous verse tells us the key purpose of works: “Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; otherwise believe on account of the works themselves”
http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue65.htm
What were Jesus' works? To lead us to faith in Him as the son of God. Yes, He did miracles but that was not His main purpose. The reason why Jesus said you could do better works is because of the conquering of death and sin and the resurrection. What greater works did the apostles did that Jesus didn't do? A vast conversion of people to Christianity including the Gentiles.
So it has nothing to do with achieving Christ-like status to be one with the Father but rather doing works that reach out to people which could bring people to God. The mission for us is not for our own glorification to become Christs. Christians are on a mission to bring others to Christ.Conquering death and sin? I have not yet heard that Jesus is still alive in a physical body and I have not yet heard from Religion that sin no longer exists. So what death did he conquer and what sins did he die for? If death and sin still exist I don't understand your logic.
Greater works does not necessarily need to mean performing greater miracles. Jesus was more than the miracles that he performed.Jesus rose from the dead. That means He conquered death. He ascended into heaven and thus is not still around in a physical body. Jesus conquering sin does not mean that sin does not exist. By taking on the sin of the world and for God to be able to forgive those sins went Jesus could reconcile with God and that means we can, too, if we truly repent. Sin gets washed away from a person when they truly repent. Now God can't make people reject their sin. Thus people keep sin alive.
By conquering death, it means death is not our final destination. Like Him, we will be raised from the dead to have eternal life.
Well, that's what I said.Since we are made in God's image first, spirit if you like, then of dust. We too will do what Jesus did. So what other death could you possibly be talking about except for a physical one? The physical body dies. The spirit does not. So what death did Jesus conquer in your mind?
So are you saying Jesus had to die or God would not forgive our sins? And that if Jesus had not died he would not have forgiven our sins? That surely does not make sense to you does it? Jesus would have eventually died, it is the nature of our world.
You did say miracles were not his main purpose but then you went on to say what did the apostles do that were greater than Jesus. So in what terms did you mean greater? Greater as in miracles or greater as in person hood?What He meant in being made in God's image is to mirror His nature like practising love being selfless, etc. There is no way we take on any divine attributes. I'm talking about conquering the physical death. Did Jesus not rise from the dead with a glorified body? We are not going to have our old bodies used on this earth. It will be a glorified body.
If Jesus did not die for hundreds to see no one could witness the resurrection and the resurrection is the victory over death and evil. When we die, we will either be with God or descend into hell. Heaven can only be accessed if we are sin-free and no one is capable of living a sin free life. God knew that and sacrificed Jesus, and Himself Jesus being God incarnate at the same time, to take on the penalty for us. Taking on all that sin meant Jesus was responsible for the most heinous sins ever committed. The penalty of sin is a complete separation from God and that is hell for God cannot be near evil. This is why Jesus cried, "Lord, why have you forsaken me?" For Jesus full of sin to reconcile with God, God had to forgive all sin. By forgiving all sin, I mean sin committed by someone who truly repents. Without Jesus, it would never have been possible for God to forgive sin because He cannot go near it but Jesus bridged the gap between us and God. God, the form of a human, could reach us to us and come to our level so that we could dwell upon sinners.
By greater works, I do not mean doing miracles. Greater works in this context meant we could bring more people to a faith in God through the Son because of the victory of Christ. When Jesus was on earth, the victory wasn't achieved yet. The Apostles reached out to the Gentiles who Jesus did not ministered to mainly.
And the Apostles could do miracles because it was essential for the Christian faith to have survived. Many people converted to Christianity because of these miracles. Miracles aren't done today like they could back then because the Word of God has been firmly established in the form of Gospels.So in your logic when God made man in his image it was Gods nature yes? So where did this image go? Left outside the body when Adam was created or inside? Or neither? If he conquered physical death, he would still be physically alive. I have no doubt he rose but I don't see it was in the manner you describe. His body died, his inner body did not, which is why Mary couldn’t touch him. What divine attributes are you talking about? Are you saying that there is no need to take on the attributes of selflessness or are there other divine attributes I do not know about?
Hundreds did not witness the resurrection so why would one believe it is the victory over physical death? If Jesus walked the world physically after death, he would have done another sermon on the mount type thing to prove to the said hundreds that death could be conquered physically, yet that was not the case. Jesus would also be here today preaching God's word. Jesus physically died full stop. If there was such a need to demonstrate conquering death via belief in God then that would be ultimate proof of such a conquest.
Lets see if I understand what your are saying correctly about God forgiving our sins. You say on one had that heaven can only be accessed if we are sin free and in another breath say no one is capable of living a sin free life. So there is no hope for anyone who wishes to access heaven because living a sin free life is not possible. The penalty of sin is hell. So Jesus took on all the sins of the world to reconcile with God so that those who were separated from God and lived in hell could be forgiven and God could get nearer to them because God cannot go near evil. So to those who were in hell that truly repented God forgave their sins and went to heaven. All others remain in hell. God also could not get near sin till Jesus bridged the gap and now God can get near sin. But you must truly repent before God can forgive your sins. If you fail to repent you go to hell. So sin as much as you like and as long as you truly repent you will go to heaven. Can you not see this does not make sense. Can you not see this type of thinking as problematic?
So greater works for you means how many people one can recruit to follow the Christian faith? If you can do miracles one can up ones chances of recruiting? The apostles were not as successful as Jesus because Jesus recruited more than them?Penny, we were made perfect, however, there is a creature called Satan who ALSO wanted to make us in HIS image. Creation is tainted. We have the capacity to do both good and evil. Ancient stories around the world report on "gods" genetically manipulating man's genes. The Bible even supports this when the Elohim (gods) said, "Let US make man in OUR image". These evil demons descended to earth to interbreed with mankind.
I believe the capacity to do evil comes from the R-complex in the brain or, as it is also know, the Reptilian brain.
He is physically alive. He ascended into heaven alive, right? That's what the Bible said. As for Mary, Jesus was trying to tell her something very important when she she clung to Him. Notice, she did cling onto Him but He told her not to. He was trying to relay the message that He was not risen to resume life as they knew it before. Perhaps Mary had that expectation and having lost Him once to death, she didn't want to release Him in fear of Him going again. But the ascension had to happen and she had to let Him go.
Then we have Doubting Thomas where Jesus allowed Thomas to put His finger through the hole in Jesus' wrist. Jesus used this doubting moment to chastise Him for His lack of faith. So whatever Jesus did, He always had a message behind it.
I don't think I said we have any divine attributes because we don't. The attributes we do take on are the characteristics of Jesus like love, compassion, selflessness, for example. If we do not have those attributes we are against Jesus.
Well, according to Paul, hundreds did (1 Corinthians 15: 3-9). Even if hundreds didn't, ought we doubt the account of the witnesses as mentioned in the Gospels? And Jesus remained on earth for 40 days before ascended to heaven. He didn't hole Himself up in a house and let no one seen Him. Here is a timeline:
1. His first appearance was to Mary Magdalene, on that early Sunday morning. (Mark 16:9; John 20:10-18 ).
2. Jesus appeared to the women returning from the tomb. (Matthew 28:9-10).
3. Jesus appeared to two disciples on the road to Emmaus. (Luke 24:13-32; Mark 16:12-13).
4. He appeared to Peter in Jerusalem. (Luke 24:34; 1 Corinthians 15:5).
5. He appeared to his disciples and other followers, and also a second time to the two men from Emmaus, in a locked room in Jerusalem. The apostle Thomas wasn't there at that time. (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-23).
6. A week later, Jesus again appeared to his disciples behind locked doors, and this time Thomas was present. (John 20:24-29).
7. Jesus appeared to seven of his disciples on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. (John 21:1-24).
8. Jesus was seen by 500 believers at one time. (1 Corinthians 15:6).
9. He appeared to James. (1 Corinthians 15:7).
10. He appeared to eleven disciples on a mountain in Galilee. (Matt. 28:18-20).
11. He walked with his disciples along the road to Bethany, on the Mount of Olives, and then ascended into Heaven. (Luke 24:50-53).
12. He was seen by Paul on the road to Damascus. (Acts 9:3-6; 1 Corinthians 15:8).
Jesus does not need to be here to preach to us. He'd be put to death over and over again if He did for Satan would make sure of that. He had completed His mission on earth and gave His followers the Holy Spirit to continue His ministry.
When I say the penalty of sin is hell I meant that if we don't repent of our sins when we DIE, not now on earth. We are on earth and are continuously being given chances to repent. If someone sees the full glory of the Lord and knows what Jesus did and His truth and they still want to do evil then that means they would never repent and thus could never have the gift of salvation. It's the end for them.
God cannot go near sin period for He is in heaven but it is because of Jesus who did take on the sins of the world that God can be with those who love Him despite them sinning providing they repent because of the Holy Spirit entering the world because of the victory of Christ.
The reason why Satan has more influence over the earth than God does is because people live in sin and the more sin, the less there is a presence of the Holy Spirit on earth. If someone commits a heinous deed then God has no influence on them because sin has separated that perpetrator from God.
And, no, the gift of salvation is not automatic. You cannot just sin as you like and "repent" later. Having this sort of thinking means you are not TRULY repentant but see God as a "softie". That's the height of disrespect.
Yes. Miracles don't necessarily mean people would convert. Jesus was accused of being a magician, charlatan and demon-possessed, however the apostles did influence many. Without Paul, however, the Christian faith surely would have died because Paul had the understanding more than them despite the fact that the disciples knew Jesus on earth. Paul is an example of someone doing greater works than Jesus. Peter wanted to keep Jesus exclusively for the Jews when Paul said Christianity was for all. There were quite a few fights about this.You still didn't answer where you think the image of God went? We are made perfect how? Through this image or through the flesh that was made some time later or both? How is creation tainted? Did Satan create man? Did Satan create man in Satan's image? If 'in Gods image' is Gods nature as you stated earlier is all that is good and Satan's image is all that is not good., where are these natures? If it is the brain then that is within us, is it not?
Selflessness is inherent in everyone it just gets covered up with conditioning. Again I ask though what divine attributes are you referring to that seem to separate us from God in your view?
So physically alive to you does not necessarily mean in a physical sense? Meaning you do not need a body to be physically alive just a spirit? There are many that see spirit and I wasn't aware there were that many witnesses. You would think however that he would 'appear' to non believers rather than believers.
I don't think you fully appreciate the physical death of Jesus. Making him out to be something he was not is not useful to your cause. Yes he completed his mission by way of death, to which there is no coming back from physically. This is my point. I have no doubt Jesus spirit is alive in a spiritual sense but not in the way you seem to be understanding it.
Please explain salvation as you understand it?
I am not sure if you are aware that you describe the mind of man quite well when you talk about Satan and God. When you relate it to the mind of man you would be correct except in that God and Satan are not separate from what we identify with as 'I' or 'me' except if we make it so.Penny, is there something about this you don't understand?
"Penny, we were made perfect, however, there is a creature called Satan who ALSO wanted to make us in HIS image. Creation is tainted. We have the capacity to do both good and evil. Ancient stories around the world report on "gods" genetically manipulating man's genes. The Bible even supports this when the Elohim (gods) said, "Let US make man in OUR image". These evil demons descended to earth to interbreed with mankind.
I believe the capacity to do evil comes from the R-complex in the brain or, as it is also know, the Reptilian brain."
When it is said we are made in God's image, I do not mean physically as God has no physical form. As I mentioned, Satan genetically corrupted man not created man. This is my take. The nature of God we have in us is our souls',, direct response to God, whereby the brain relays emotion, etc However, evil was never hard-wired into our brain. How could Satan tempt us and corrupt our nature if it was not possible for us to be influenced by evil? After all, the angels in heaven that are perfect can never be tempted to do evil. So Satan through his physical demons manipulated our brain make-up so it is now also hard-wired into our brain to do evil. It's in our genetics. Some people are born with the propensity to be alcoholics, for example.
As much as the brain is within our bodies it doesn't make God within us. The brain is the medium through which He communicates which directly responds to the soul. People think it is the other way round but it is not relevant right now.
Selfishness by far dominates selflessness. Babies are the most selfish beings. Babies aren't born selfless. Selflessness comes with life experience most of the time. It is hard-wired into our brains but selfishness is stronger.
You can't not see something other than in a physical sense if you describe it as physically alive. Jesus did raise from the dead but it was a glorified body. He did have the hole in His wrist but that was to prove He actually rose from the dead. Our physical bodies will never be resurrected, only our glorified bodies.
As discussed above, we can never ever lead a sinless life because the propensity to do sin is hard-wired into our brains. No matter how close to God I get, I still manage to sin. It's unavoidable and God knows that. How can we reconcile with God if we sin still? Only be Jesus taking on our sins on our behalf so that could have our sins forgiven. Jesus became possessed with the most vile evil that has ever existed which must have repelled God. If Jesus was to reunite with God, He had to forgive all that sin so that Jesus could be clean again. That was the victory of Christ! He conquered death and all evil! Just as Jesus united with God we can, too, because we can be forgiven, too.
Of course. Aren't we made in God's image and genetically manipulated in Satan's image. When you see kindness, compassion, love, etc, people are mirroring the nature of God. They are being influenced by God. When people are spiteful, do evil, etc, they are being influenced by Satan. People are taking on his nature.When put that way I am getting more of how you are understanding it and perhaps the terms you used were not gelling but. Ok
Babies are initially helpless and that they need to be feed and changed and loved. Does not mean they are not selfless. This is not selfish in my view it is a way to communicate their needs. Needing and communicating that need does not mean one is selfish. It becomes hard-wired through conditioning which eventually covers up what is naturally arising. I do agree Selflessness comes with life experience because it reveals more about who we are and what is inherent. When we know ourselves well it becomes less about self and more about others.
So salvation is to be forgiven for our sinful nature that we inherited from the old's from way back when?
So we need to be constantly forgiven because we revert back to our sinful nature because we cannot help it. In other words because of the original sin the whole of mankind needs to pay for one woman and one man's disobedience. God giveth and God taketh away in other words. Only if we truly repent for something God supposedly put there in the first place will we be forgiven. That makes no sense at all.I should have said toddlers. Infants aren't selfish or selfless. If one does not discipline a toddler they will grow up to be selfish children and then selfish adults. Unfortunately, life experience doesn't always refine people. People have to allow themselves to be learn from life and be selfless.
As much as it is hard-wired into our brain to sin, it doesn't give us an excuse to sin as much as we like. Some people choose to sin over and over again and be evil. So we do have a choice whether we do right or wrong but we all make mistakes where we didn't mean to do wrong.
And there was no first woman or man. Some say, however, that Adam and Eve were the first genetically modified people. God did not make us with the propensity to sin. Read my previous comments again.
Deleted
I'm really to Christ as in God-like status.
I hate it when I unfollow a thread and it still shows up in notifications, feed, etc. Just saying...
And still... NO!
Because of LOVE, everyone could be like God. Giving our life by serving our fellowmen is just like Christ.
The humility and all-out service to humankind is the work of Christ and His happiness.I was talking about Christ as in divine status not in nature.
Thanks for stopping by.
Well there was always Elvis and perhaps to a lesser extent the gloved one. And lets not forget John Lennon, we as also executed at a young age. But certainly with Elvis there were many sighting of him after his death, just like Jesus.
Not quite. Being seen in the Jungle Room isn't quite the same as being seen ascending to Heaven!
Except to Elvis-philes!
No one can be Christ if you become a Christian you act like Christ but there is only one Christ...any man who says that he can become Christ deceives himself and the truth is not in Him
Call it finding the inner Buddha, becoming the Christ or realizing the Self - I feel they all mean the same. IN fact, even in Christ's life we see a kind of evolutionary' path that he set for all of us:
He began with, "I am the messenger of God"...moved on to... "I am the son of God" and finally said, "I and my Father are one".
Guess it would be good for us to follow that!So as his understanding through experience deepened one can clearly see how I and my father are one came in to being.
Jesus was the son of God from the start. He never evolved to be the son of God.
John 1 says:
The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.
John 1:14
New International Version (NIV)
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
In fact, not only is Jesus the son of God but God incarnate as well.
Hey, I just want to apologize for the argument that has risen due to my original comment about what I believe as a Mormon. I hope I haven't offended you.
Adam, that is the Eye of Light, Son of Lights, was called divine.
The Un-Begotten Forefather cannot be named, as none came before him, to say they made him. For everything with a name {title} is begotten of something else. This is why you know [He] cannot be called a god. For a god is named and imagined, given likeness, like man was imagined and given likeness.
Man is immortal, brought forth from the invisibilities as the divine of creation. No other creation made before him that can describe his glory. All the elements of creation fashioned before him, are in him and known to him, as he was made to rule over them. For this reason also, the First of many was revealed, to undue that forgetfulness in man, to restore the anointing, glory to him, which was the Will, from the beginning.
So then, all can be restored to the immortal man, as that First Example showed and explained.
Because if there is a First Fruit, then more fruit of equal of greater likeness must follow. And the Interpreter guides each one to the place of perfection, which existed in him, although he was not aware/had forgotten.
JamesInteresting you should mention that. A few months ago, I actually achieved Buddha status with just a few, simple meditation execises. I'm currently writing a book on my amazing experience (it will, hopefully, become my third bestseller).
But we humans are, of course, never fully satisfied with our achievements, no matter how great they are. As a result, I'm now well on my way to accomplishing Christ-like status about which I will also write a book.
The question is, however, if too many of us achieve this sort of status, who will be boss?Who will be boss? That would be me. Call shotgun quick! Before someone beats you to it.
My first bestseller (many moons ago) was on how to become the ultimate antichrist. It's since gone out of print, but I believe it can still be read in 15 parts somewhere on eHow.
I do not think I could have anything Christ-like aside from only trying to interact or treat others.
I do believe there are people whose egos seem to be larger than the universe and tend to express themselves as if every word that comes out of their mouth is gospel this would include some nonbelievers as well.
With as wonderful as the biblical history has recorded Jesus even he gives all the credit to the father. He came because the father sent him, he does the father's will. So if people are parading around like they have all the power then I say something is seriously wrong with that picture.Agreed! What monumental egos to believe one can become a Christ. No one can be a god if they have to be in a position of ignorance in the first place.
Claire, there's just enough "truth" in some of the New Age beliefs to make them seductive.
Ego loves this stuff. Ego hungers for power, adulation and being "right."
Christ? There is only one. Can we be like Christ? Certainly! But even Christ was subservient to the Father -- by the Father's will, not that of the Son.
Humility is key, but so is love. These, with responsibility and faith, combine to make one worthy of awakening -- turning away from the attachments to physical reality, and back to the purity of spiritual harmony with the Father and the Son. This is when the Holy Ghost (true self) within awakens.
So many people confuse arrogance with faith. There are many similarities. They both look like unshakable confidence.
Many people confuse humility with belittling self. Again, there are similarities. They both look like less of the "self." But the key is that true humility doesn't even take ego self into account, because it doesn't exist. All other forms of seeming humility involve a great deal of ego, concentrating on the self -- beating up the self, whining and resenting.
One key clue to ego is "importance." Without ego, nothing is ever "important." Think about this carefully for a moment. So much of scripture tells us this, but even one minister thought it was too "New Age" to be scriptural. Don't look at the letter of scripture; work harder and look beyond the literal to see the spirit of it.
To whom is anything ever "important?" Ego, of course! Is God important? No, never! He merely is -- I AM that I AM!
If something needs to be done, we merely take responsibility for it. "Importance" creates attachments. One becomes fearful or desirous. "Oh, no! I've lost my most important thing!"
Belief is a mortal action, full of effect and vulnerable. Faith is spiritual action, full of cause and invulnerable. Belief can be wrong. Belief can lead to failure. Faith never leads to failure, because it is pure creation. And faith can only be achieved by taking on utter humility to quell the only obstacle -- the soporific, ego! God answers all prayers instantaneously and in the affirmative. You cannot pray from the viewpoint of selfishness (ego). God does not listen to physical "things" (rocks, Homo sapiens bodies, egos); He only listens to His children. But a child of God has to wake up, first, in order to ask of God, otherwise it is only the body paying lip service to the prayer -- a pretense and a lie.
Becoming like Christ can only be achieved by giving up one's attachments to this world. One can still use the things of this world, but by the will of God, the Father. Humility! Let God direct you. And don't become attached to your prosperity. Remember Abraham when he became too attached to Isaac.Of course Satan will give the truth part if it serves his purpose.
We can emulate Christ in our behaviour like being loving, etc.
I'm sure Jesus was called arrogant.
New Agers love to pounce on the part where Jesus was said to have said, "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you." People think that it means they have divinity within them. What they don't realize is that it is a contextual error.
"Many modern archaeological discoveries have validated the historical accuracy
of the Bible and have helped Bible scholars understand the meaning of certain ancient words ..... In Koine Greek, the expression entos humon (literally, 'inside of you') often meant 'within reach'. Thus Jesus' statement is Luke 17:21 could mean 'The kingdom is within reach.'" (Philip W Comfort, p 273 The Origin of the Bible).
There are other interpretations of that particular verse:
"The kingdom of God is in the midst of you."
"For the Kingdom of God is among you."
"For behold the kingdom of God is among you."
After all, Jesus could not have said the Kingdom of God is within the Pharisees (Luke 20)?
Likewise, Colossians 3:12-17 says:
6Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God. 17And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father,"
I just wanted to get this straight because New Agers use this ambiguity to try and get Jesus down to their level. I just can't stand that and I don't want other Christians claiming Jesus is within.
http://www.voiceofjesus.org/kingdom_not_within.htmlI think I can largely agree with you here Claire. The "kingdom of God within you" only occurs in one place and we cannot form a doctrine from a single verse. In all other instances of the term "kingdom of God", and there are many, it is always explicitly a kingdom that is external to the person, and something we must enter into not something that enters us.
Interestingly, the Kingdom of God was always referred to by Jesus as coming near in time from the perspective of that people, being imminent, and as I understand it, the kingdom was established on Earth at his resurection. This fulfills the prophecy in Daniel about the rock being hewn from the mountain, smashing the Earth's systems (the statue, the Roman Empire being the last) and growing continually until it filled the Earth. This started 2000 years ago and us still growing now. Thus ideas of a future millennial rule (also based on a single verse) is a misunderstanding.
Also just as he said the kingdom was imminent, he also made it abundantly clear his return was too. So waiting for a second coming is waiting in vain. He has already come at the resurection and every eye will see him when they die.
The kingdom of God is here now, and we are able to do the things Christ did and greater things as a result.I still don't see how this can be missed?
The kingdom cannot be observed according to the verse prior to the kingdom is within you. This means it is not external. The verse after the kingdom is within says something like you cannot say it is here or there, which also indicates it is not an external thing.
My kingdom(Gods kingdom)is not of this world points to the same thing.
There are many more verses that point to the kingdom within.
Seek first the kingdom of God and all things would be added unto you.
If it's external then more would find it and we would be living in a world of peace.They were expecting visual signs to a kingdom as if it were an Earthly kingdom. A kingdom external to us and one that is not observed as one would the Roman Empire, are not mutually exclusive.
When he said his kingdom is not of this Earth, he is saying that its origins are in Heaven but that it come to Earth. This confirms exactly the interpretation of Daniel of nebuchadnezers dream of a rock cut from the heavenly mountain and establishing a kingdom on Earth.
I've searched all instances of "the kingdom of God" in the bible as I really really would like to find a load of evidence that the kingdom is literally within everyone. I was very disappointed to discover that the "within" occurs only once, and all other uses of the term are talking about something we must enter or something external.
Seeking first the kingdom can still be about seeking something external, it does not necessarily imply an internal search.
People at large don't find it because they do not look for it.Perhaps not in those actual words no. Here are some that I found. There are many others if you need more.
Jhn 14:17 even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
1Cr 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God
dwelleth in you?
Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in
you all.
Often Jesus said let your will be done and not mine. That for me indicates that he had a will of his own as we all do and realized the will of God differed to his. Acknowledging he and his father were one meant he realized where the kingdom of God resided.
I understand seeking externally but if you do not know the essence of God you will not recognize that all things are in and of God. No separation as some might think.
If you are preaching the word of God on the other hand how do you discern what is God's will and what is your own if you do not believe God is within you?But John says it plainly in 14:17, that God dwells within those who seek him, not the World at large that doesn't.
I don't doubt that God dwells in us by his spirit, but it's not automatic. Now God dwelling in us is not to be confused with salvation. I think salvation is a done deal and that all humanity has been saved because the sacrifice has been done whether people believe it or not. But for God to dwell in us is different, it's the next stage on.Yes and I agree God dwells within those who seek God. It makes sense that if one does not seek God it would appear God does not dwell there but God does in my opinion and one just needs to be looking to find it. If however we are looking every where except where God dwells we could be looking forever and a day.
After all that I have said, I'm still not absolutely sure on whether God dwells within everyone or not. I'd love it to be true, but I can't be certain because when I run a search on the term "kingdom of God" it's not what I find.
I am mindful of the occasion of when Paul was talking to the Athenians and said that in Him (Jesus) all things hold together and that all things were made by Him for Him. Thus all of humanity was made by Him and each person is held together by Him. I am currently working my way through the book "The Third Jesus" by Deepak Chopra, and his view is that the Westen Church misunderstood Jesus anyway, and he supports the view that Jesus attained sonship via a God consciousness and that God does dwell within all people. It's not an easy book to read, and perhaps by the end my views will modify. Who knows?DisappointHead, you end with "who knows?"; this scares me because when a person is saved "He does know". There are multitudes of manifestations of the gospel of Jesus at all levels and magnitudes, but one who is saved (received God Spirit) knows the whole truth and sees all manifestations are incompletes of the gospel of Jesus. The whole cancels all incompletes.
God destined us to be like His Son, Jesus. The end of our journey and goal and purpose is to be with God continually and permanently receiving from God.This is the particular passage of Paul you are referring to:
"[Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born [prototokos] of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities [i.e., hierarchical angelic powers]---all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross."
Paul was saying that Jesus holds the universe and earth together. It is Jesus' force that brought all creation into being on heaven and earth. It does not mean Jesus is within and is one with us for we were created through him and FOR Him.
Take note:
"One of the key words in the Colossians passage above ("...and in Christ all things hold together") is the Greek word sunistemi which means "to stand-together," "to be compacted together," "to cohere," "to be constituted with." This passage can be applied to the structure of the atom, for example. The nucleus of every atom is held together by what physicists call "weak" and "strong" forces. (Physicists today are familiar with four basic forces in the natural world: gravity, electrical forces, a "strong," and a "weak" nuclear force which act at very short ranges. The first two forces decrease in strength inversely with the square of the distance between two objects. Recently two additional close-range, weak gravitational forces have been suggested. These are thought to be quantum mechanical corrections to Newton's Law of Gravitation.)
The nucleus of the atom contains positively-charged and neutral particles--to use a simplistic model. Mutual electrostatic repulsion between the like-positive protons would drive the nucleus apart if it were not for the "strong force" which binds the nucleus together.
The third New Testament passage which talks about atomic structure and physics is 2 Peter:
"But the Day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise and the elements (atoms) will be dissolved with fire and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up." (2 Peter 3:10)
The Greek word translated "elements" in this passage from Colossians is stoicheion which means the building blocks of the universe, or "the ordered arrangement of things." It can also mean the "atomic elements." The word translated "dissolved" is literally (in Greek) luo, meaning "unloosed." This suggests a further, future letting-go of the nuclear binding force that holds the nucleus together. This passage strongly suggests that the active power of God is behind the mysterious strong force that holds every atomic nucleus together. If this is so, all the other fundamental forces of nature are likewise forces that originate with Christ and His sustaining direction of the old creation."
I'd advise both you and Penny to research the context of these passages before coming to any conclusions.If you don't get what you just posted, ok.
I doubt anyone can be absolutely sure because we cannot see within another person. In other words, we cannot perceive what they do only what we do. Only they will know and only they can confirm. Yet when one experiences the God within it makes sense because the God within does not discriminate.
If God is within us, why do we sin? Since God is within you does that mean He sins to?
WOW! Who is your god? Since when does a god have to be responsible for what you do? So when you do something wrong, is Satan within you? I mean, what would tempt you to do evil otherwise?
So you do think you are a god...Perhaps a better question to ask would be what is God? Just so you know, it is not 'my' God. I have explained where God dwells and I have explained what is indescribable at best what I have experienced. It is not a who in my understanding.
Where did I say God or Satan for that matter is responsible for anything I do? That is your take on God and Satan from what I gathered from our discussions.
I am and accept full responsibility for anything I say or do Good or Bad.
It appears you 'think' I think I am a god and no matter what I have said you continue to think that.
Little I can do about that. So what is the point of discussing my view further if you only read into it what you want to?It's true. We have two completely different views on what God is.
Get back to your other comment later.
Well... some faiths say he is a jealous God... So that would make him covetous of other Gods. That would be breaking the 10th commandment.
He had a child out of wedlock with the woman of another man. That would be adultery... so there goes the 7th commandment.
And that whole killing thing...Let's not even get into that. So that's it for the 6th commandment.
He likely doesn't take his own name in vain or worship other Gods or graven images though... so I think he's safe there.
If he takes Sundays off then that explains a lot. As that is the only time a lot of Christians think to pray for those less fortunate. He likely has no neighbors to lie about and no parents to honor. I'm not sure what he has to steal either...Are you a Christian? I have noticed in the past you have been rather scathing towards Christianity. You know my stance on the Old Testament.
Since when does God need to be married to another to impregnate her? You know that is an asinine comment. If Mary was married to Joseph at the time then obviously Mary would think the child is Joseph's and would never believed it was God.
According to your and Penny's logic you both believe God is a sinner Himself which means the devil triumphs over Him. Do you believe that? How can a perfect entity sin?
Chopra is correct. Those to whom the scriptures were given were called gods, and Jesus said for that reason that we are all gods. It is not the body which needs to yield, it is the soul, the breath of life (which is eternal) and all will be brought into God. Eventually. It is an ongoing process, like redemption, forgiveness, Armageddon and judgement. If a creature is borne from a bird, doesn't it follow that the creature is a bird. What of Man, male and female borne of God? Doesn't that follow, logical, that we may be God? In the denial of this is what has caused ALL of the problems. The way out of those problems is to embrace this, and in doing so, we begin to fully understand the meaning of this. The body is the temple wherein God dwells. Don't wonder that God knows your mind, he dwells inside of you. Someone asked how God could possibly be in all of us? I ask, how is it that energy exists in all of us. Both most surely do.
You don't know the texts of what Jesus meant by "ye are gods". Here is what I wrote to Eindenwolf:
John 10:33-36 The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God." Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods" '? "If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), "do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?
Jesus was quoting Psalm 82:
God presides in the great assembly;
he renders judgment among the “gods”:
2 “How long will you[a] defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?[b]
3 Defend the weak and the fatherless;
uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
5 “The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”;
you are all sons of the Most High.’
7 But you will die like mere mortals;
you will fall like every other ruler.”
8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
for all the nations are your inheritance.
So what Jesus was pointing out is that these Jews had no problem accepting their leaders as "gods", meaning those rulers with special duties to God, but when Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, it was blasphemy. He was pointing out their hypocrisy.
The difference between those "gods" and Jesus is that Jesus was divine and the former were "gods" as in title only.
A father may have a child but they are separate people. The child is not one with his father. It's the same with God. We are His children but we are not one with Him. Are birds created by God gods? Shouldn't we as a god have omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence like God?
It's the idea one can be a god that has caused all the problems? New Agers work on progressing themselves rather than serving others.
Yes, the salvation is for everyone and for all time, but if you don't accept it, then you don't go to Heaven.
Here's another contextual issue. God dwelling in us is not literal but figurative and it is indirect dwelling when we try and take on the nature of Jesus and a believer's behaviour can reflect Jesus' characteristics. When someone is loving, one might say, "She/he is behaving very Christ-like."
Personal or direct dwelling is a direct fusion of the Holy Spirit into a person like Mary or the apostles who spoke in tongues. People, like you, can believe in immediate dwelling in which there is no intermediary between them and God. They are one.
If the latter is the case, then we know longer have a trinity. There would be four in the Godhead; Jesus, God, people and the Holy Spirit. If we were part of God then when we sin, He sins also, as one can't divide themselves in two.
The Bible makes it very clear where God literally resides:
“Do not be rash with your mouth, and let not your heart utter anything hastily before God, For God is in heaven, and you are on earth...” {Ecclesiastes 5:2} “God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.” {Acts 17:24} See also Matthew 5:48; John 3:13; and 1 Peter 1:3,4,22.
So one can say that the influence and the word of Christ dwells in us; that is our faith. It is not a literal dwelling. Colossians 3:16 makes this clear:
"Let the WORD of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom...."
I only now of one case when Jesus said, "Let Your will be done, not Mine" and that is when He was in the Garden of Gethsemane. This was a moment of weakness and SO human. He was afraid of death and hell and the temptation by Satan to exercise His power to save Himself. He was praying to God to stamp out that temptation so that His will could be God's. God would have been separated from Jesus if Jesus had exercised the temptation to pull out because God and Jesus' will have to be one. Often we think things are our will against God until sometimes later we realize that we had the will all along to do God's will and it was SATAN who tried to convince us it wasn't our will.
We discern what God's will is by the gift of the Holy Spirit that enables us to have a relationship with Him. This relationship, however, takes place between heaven and earth. We are not in the same dimension or place.Our bodies are temples and they are not made with hands.
How you interpret the verses is your path and that is where you are at for the moment. If there is no God within for you. ok.But if we interpret the verses wrongly (for whatever reason) then our path diverges from the one God has planned for us and we will separate from His will forever.
Who determines what interpretation is right or wrong? If the path diverges it diverges. Separation forever is a concept. The only forever we know is right here and now. We can learn different interpretations only in the now. If we do get the right interpretation in one of our now's then it's all good isn't it?
Christians ought to pray to the Holy Spirit to make the right interpretation. I do and I am willing to correct myself when I am wrong.
So it is the individual that interprets. No such thing as right or wrong when it comes to interpreting. If there was and absolute right interpretation everyone would agree on the one meaning. Yet that is not the case, even with Christians.
Understand, Penny, that the Holy Spirit is the believer's favorite sockpuppet.
Yes apparently so and it has the ability to make one right in their assertions which is debatable more often than not.
Consider you may be guilty of the same thing.
I make no claims to being right or wrong. Which is why I said it is debatable. No assertions no matter how we may think we are right are beyond debate. If one thinks their assertions are beyond debate is sadly disillusioned. I understand the nature of change. Beliefs change. Temporal like the world we live in.
You don't appear to be budging from this Tane myth.
What has the Tane myth got to do with...there are no absolutes? I do realize you believe you have the ultimate and absolute truth....ok.
Nobody is ever going to get everything right. We are not omniscient. I personally pray to God that they I don't misrepresent Him in any way and if there is something I'm not sure of I pray He will reveal the answers and to correct me when I am wrong. Still, this is never going to guarantee infallible interpretation.
What a Christian can state as the absolute truth, however, is that Jesus is the son of God, was crucified, took on the sin of the world and rose again victorious over Satan and death. Any Christian who says they are not sure of this must not claim to be a Christian.Absolute truth or absolute belief? Regardless,there are no absolutes as I see it. Your truth is absolute to you based on what you read and believe the bible to be saying but is largely tainted by perception. That Jesus was crucified and took on sin is a common Christian perception that is taught. That he died full stop is not. Sin of the world still seems to exist according to Christianity as I have said previously. Victory over Satan and Death is still debatable. As you might be able to tell (or not) from our dialogue.
Penny, I have the truth whether you like it or not. If I said I didn't I'd be lying.
This is what outraged the Jews. Jesus said, "I am the son of God", not "I think I am". If He didn't say the truth He'd be a liar.
No, it is God who interprets. Humans just need to be willing to accept it.
I doubt whether it is non acceptance that is the culprit. It is more in how they perceive God and where they perceive God to be. If God is perceived as being somewhere outside of this existence as we know it then how does God interpret? If God is perceived through the limitations of the conscious mind then how does one know what God's interpretation is?.
As I said, if it's all about perception, then there really is no God and this conversation is silly.
That isn't necessarily true. No one knows the essence of God, if it does exist. Everyone speculates. Even those who claim knowledge. Whether they admit it or not.
I enjoy conversations with Chris, and while he's one of the few theists-Christian specifically on here that I respect, I don't think he can grasp this idea, not because he's stupid or slow or anything, but because of Christianity, especially when you are very spiritual and very much indoctrinated at the same time, certain ideas are believed to true, without question. Especially if you've had subjective experiences to "back it up," though those are actually what should be trusted the least when it comes to "evidences." Even though he is somewhat open minded, some ideas just make others impossible, though that shouldn't make it hard to actually consider, he wouldn't see the need to consider the possibility because he "knows" that what he "knows" is true.
I'm not really talking for Chris, as I don't know what goes on in his head, this is just what I've observed. He can correct me if he'd like. I meant nothing I said in here to be taken offensively.I respect all views from hubbers attempting to post honestly. Whether I agree with them or not. Standing firm when others disagree displays a strength of character. But, the refusal to consider alternative views shows a degree obstinance (or arrogance). And when those views concern cosmic questions I admit to a modicum of frustration since any train of thought, followed to it's logical conclusion, can only be chalked up to conjecture.
I am left to wonder why honest people can't understand this and use their train of thought, at times, to justify behavior patterns their obvious compassionate sensibilities on other levels are in direct conflict with.
Why does the knowledge of uncertainty cause some to be interested in other views and some to dig in their heels and insist they know the answer? Why do we react differently to the desire to find answers? And why would anyone imagine a deity created a universe that functions in elegant harmony, but chose to create a species and put them at odds with one another?No, you're on the right track. Certain ideas do cancel out other ideas. While it's true that the starting point of my belief was my subjective experience, I've realized that I was placing too much emphasis on that (I think someone accused me of thinking I was some kind of prophet. That was not good.)
My actual knowledge of God and ideas about God do come from studying the Bible. Yes, I do believe it to be literally true, so there are things in there that I take on faith. But I do believe that God has revealed Himself in history, so not everyone has to speculate about His nature.
Not really. If God does exist and He reveals Himself, then there is no speculation by those He has revealed Himself to.
That doesn't mean that everybody has received the same revelation in the same way (in formal theology, there is General Revelation, which is what is revealed to everybody, like in the Bible, and there is Special Revelation. This is what the Prophets of the OT or the Apostles received.) And it doesn't mean that people actually understand God. If you read the Bible, it says several places that He is not like us. But it means that we don't have to speculate, we have data.At this point, I'm wondering why there is no emoticon offered by hub pages showing it banging its head against a wall.
The religious forums definitely need one.Okay, perhaps I'm not quite understanding you. What I think you're saying is that no one knows what God is like or even if he's there.
Which I'm hearing as an absolute, as in that absolutely no one really knows what God is like.
Am I wrong?If it were possible to know with certainty, you could offer proof. Without proof, no one can claim knowledge. I don't care how insistent you are that you have it.
Out of curiosity, what logical reason could a deity have for providing information to you in such a way that to claim to possess it makes you look arrogant, or foolish? Why would a deity refuse to back up anything you have to say with even an ounce of fact?
Why would a deity that refuses to back your statements expect you to also show a callous disregard for humanity? Doesn't it seem logical that, if a deity wanted its followers to attempt to subjugate their neighbors by refusing them freedom of conscience, it would give you something to back up the claims for a cosmic need to do it?
It would be easier to accept your claims (and the claims of others like you) if you believed this entity limited its desire for control to the people it interacted with. It seems suspiciously convenient that the people you are attempting to hurt by your beliefs aren't given the opportunity to discuss anything with this entity. They just have to take your word for it that some cosmic force thinks you are special enough to be given proof while the rest of us should toe your line because....why? You're special?
I'm not attempting to be difficult and I realize I have meandered away from the point. I just want you to understand that to expect anyone to accept your claim of knowledge would then mean that every argument you present has some cosmic seal of approval and I'm not willing to concede that the cosmos hates a large share of humanity.Great way to sum it up. I've been trying to say that more or less for some time now. That's actually why I've moved away from the idea that a "God" is anything like the Western since of it. I truly believe that certain Eastern ideas have a more plausible grasp, though I specifically don't adhere to them because it isn't absolute. Which is why I consider myself something like a "Naturalistic Pantheist." I respect myself, others, and nature, I recognize it's beauty, I'm trying to learn thankfulness and the like, but I specifically adhere to no deity and I think that which we label "God" isn't really all the super-natural or separate from ourselves and our surroundings. If you study Easterners that have tapped into their "chi," and observe Chinese medicine, even shamans from more tribal peoples, etc, you may find that people are certainly capable of some interesting things. That was certainly a little off topic.
I gotta say that at this late date, that you would still use language like "control" and "hurt people" really, well, hurts me. I thought I was more clear than that.
I'm truly sorry you feel that way. I don't want to control or hurt anybody.
Contrary to what you and Thousand Words and others think, it's not that I don't understand what you're saying. I just don't agree with it. I don't think that makes me evil.I don't think you are evil. Maybe oblivious to the pain caused by words that ostracize groups of people. I know you may think giving people room to live by their own conscience is bad, but I do honestly think if there was a God who wanted the devout to (and not saying you do any of these things, but most vocal Christians do) insist that abortion was murder, speak out as if homosexuality was sin and think many people are hell bound; that God would be more vocal himself.
Whether you agree, or not, claiming to have a relationship with God and then saying those things hurts people. Deeply. And I believe unnecessarily. Because you don't know.
None of us has the right, or the cosmic mandate, to harm another individual. Either physically or emotionally. I believe religion to be a form of terrorism and those who honestly cannot see how they hurt others can't forever expect to be deemed innocent due to ignorance of the harm they inflict.I thought we were friends (sort of, here on HP.) I had hoped I was explaining myself better than that.
This makes me very sad. I'm sorry you feel that way.You seem like a nice person. I know I seem like a twit. You'll have to excuse my behavior. I'm dealing with some disappointments in trying to get a business off the ground so I think I'm wrapped more tightly than usual.
But, I'll be honest. When I think of the example of Christ and I read all of these, what I consider to be, outlandish views on other people's lives by professed Christians...not to mention the ideas concerning the afterlife, it's frustrating. Keeping our own lives straight is difficult enough without being constantly judged unworthy on a cosmic scale by avatars. And told, in no uncertain terms, that these judgements are 'the truth' and to imply otherwise demeans the religion.
Doesn't anyone stop to think that it all goes both ways? Freedom of religion is great, but sometimes I feel as if the religious are attempting to pile the rest of us up so they can use us as stepping stones to heaven. I don't like it.I'm going through difficulties myself right now, and the end is unpredictable. I'm a bit tightly wound myself right now, so it's okay.
I understand what you're saying. Freedom of religion is a topic worthy of a hub or three, but for right now I will just say that when I was not Christian, the only reason I didn't feel like it was being shoved down my throat was that I lived in a big (BIG!) city where I could choose to surround myself with like-minded non-religious types. There were still plenty of religious people waiting to talk to me (hint: Jews For Jesus shoved a leaflet at me several times a day. And remind me to tell you about my conversation with a Mooney some time...)
Many religious people feel that we are being systematically marginalized and the government is increasingly moving to try to exclude us from the public square.
I know that many Christians come off as thinking we're better than non-Christians. Many do feel that way and that's wrong, it's exactly the opposite of what Jesus taught. I am ashamed that I have felt that way in the past. Humility is not really a natural human trait and some of us need to work harder on it than others.
I hope that your business does well. I've never tried to run one (I'm not really suited for it,) so I can only imagine what you're going through there.
While this may not be exactly who Chris is, I think you made an extremely valid point.
What do you mean? First of all, it's extremely important to understand who you're looking foolish or arrogant to. To other human beings? I've been accused of that most of my life, since long before I became a Christian. The sad part is that it was so often true! But if you know God exists, then even if you're not good at explaining why, it doesn't look foolish or arrogant to Him, and that's important.
BTW, I'm not trying to open old wounds by revisiting this. You did ask valid questions.
In my experience, there are two kinds of "evidence." There's the "burning bush" evidence, in which people want something so incontrovertibly a miracle, and they want it right in front of them, that they don't think they can argue around it and then would have to accept God (i.e. literally seeing a burning bush just like the one Moses saw.) The other kind is the kind where people see the nuances and accept the possibility. In reality these have more to do with the people than with the evidence.
For instance, The Universe. Explain it. Now get real. No offense, and I'm certainly not an astrophysicist or cosmologist, but the parts that we can see and touch and feel (proverbially speaking, of course,) even the parts that can be explained by the Theory of Relativity, don't cancel out the question "Where did it come from?" In reality you're left with one of two explanations, either "God made it," or "It's just always been." And the universe does seem like an awfully orderly place and the world does seem rather neatly designed for human life.
As for "burning bush" evidence, there's problems with it, the formost being that (again in my experience) people who want the burning bush are already preprogrammed to dismiss it. Is this true in every single case? Of course not. But there's a sort of Dr. Thirteen aspect to many people, where they look hard to find any kind of "rational" scientific explanation.
Umm, I think you're missing a very big point here. I know that the world is full of people, both Christian and not, who would like to "subjugate" their neighbors both physically and psychologically. But Jesus wasn't like that. Granted, He was preaching to a world where people just accepted that there were gods (usually multiple) and specifically to a group who believed they had a special "in" with the one true God. Still, He was making it plain that they had to choose the right way, they could choose another if they wanted.
By the way, what makes you think that following Jesus means giving up your freedom of consience? It's actually quite the other way around, if you know Him.
Ignoring the last part (but no, I don't think I'm special,) the fact is that everybody has the opportunity to discuss this with God. He interacts with everybody constantly. Read the Bible. Don't just skim it, or read certain parts (Christians are just as guilty of this as non-Christians.) Read the whole thing. Think about how the parts interact, because I assure you they do. Pray, and not just once or twice, but constantly. Ask God, He will not withhold from someone who really wants to know.
Agreed. I agree that neither God nor the cosmos hates a large share of humanity. I do have faith and I argue a lot from faith, which makes it difficult for people who want things concretely. I understand that. And I try not to be difficult (I have been that way in the past.) But I'm not asking anybody to simply accept my claim of knowledge as the be all and end all. God is more than capable of proving Himself, He most certainly doesn't need me. Nor has He given me any special word of knowledge like some prophet of old. I try to say that it's a starting point, a jumping-off point. You stil need to do your own research. I don't want anyone to follow me, I want them to follow Jesus! And that's not something that anyone can do for someone else.Fyi. I believe in a higher consciousness since I have seen evidence of one. I do not think reading the Bible would bring me to a better understanding, any more than I think reading the quran would.
And I abhor it when a believer insists that is the only way to know more. I honestly believe everyone goes around their butt to ponder their elbow.
You believe in a higher power because you see evidence of a higher power. You make a choice to attribute that to the God of the Bible. You make a choice to confine that consciousness within parameters you are comfortable with. As we all do.
So, I think it is more important to attempt to clearly understand why we choose the parameters we do. God is backing no one. The good, bad and the ugly can claim a relationship. It's all the same.Well, as I've said often and will say often again, I really didn't choose to believe in God. Make of that what you will, it's certainly not worth rehashing and I've got the hub up if you want to read more. I suppose that does make a pretty big difference in how you view things.
Ok. I read your hub. There is nothing in it that goes against my assertion that you simply want to think what you think.
Your evidence that a higher power exists does not constitute proof that the Bible, and your understanding, are accurate. It proves a higher power exists. One that cares for you unconditionally, perhaps. Maybe even in spite of your beliefs.
How does one know God without perception in your opinion?
Boy, that was quite the twist!
What I said was that if one's perception is the sole arbiter of reality, then there is no God. God is a real being who reveals Himself, so in that sense of course our "perception" of Him plays a role. But it does not ultimately define who He is or even whether He exists, just the same as my perception of you does not determine whether you exist or not, or who you are.
Let's put it this way, either the Bible is right or it is wrong. There are no other "interpretations." The mental and spiritual contortions required to literally torture any other meaning out of the text means that, by definition, people must literally ignore large sections of what the Book (or collection of books) actually say.
If it's right, and your path diverges, then eternal separation is not only an inevitability but one for which you will be eternally wondering why you didn't pay more attention to it when you had the chance.
If it's wrong then we're all wasting time here.The literal understanding of the bible depends on ones ability to perceive the messages. You will find most Christians do not agree on the literal meaning so how can there be a right or wrong? If you take revelations literally for instance it makes no sense at all. Mostly because visions are of things that do not exist unless you read it other than literally. Perhaps I am not understanding what you are meaning?
The eternal now is all that exists. Any other eternal is a concept we construct in our minds to explain the unknown.Define "most Christians." Most Christians believe that Jesus literally died for us and rose on the third day. That's pretty much the definition of Christianity.
The "eternal now" exists for God and God alone. Everyone else exists in time.We were not discussing the definition of Christianity. The reply was in response to you saying the bible was either right or wrong and cannot be interpreted wrongly.
Everyone's time is here and now. Now never goes away.(unless we are sleeping) That is the eternal now I was referring to. Is that eternal or not for you? If not ok.
There is the spiritual Kingdom of God now that is with those who love God and that is the relationship we have with God because of the death and resurrection of Christ.
The physical Kingdom of God would be in the case of Jesus' second coming as mentioned in Revelation 19:11.
Understandably, people during His time thought Luke 21 applied to them. They did not realize it was a Revelation prophecy. After all, Jerusalem was surrounded by armies in 70 AD but during that time, there wasn't a World War as is implied, "...nations will be in anguish and perplexity.."
But people today can apply His words now because of the things that are happening right now. We truly are close to World War Three. Israel is picking a fight with Iran and if Israel attacks Iran, Iran can come to their territory and decimate Jerusalem.
And when Jesus said we could do greater works, He did not mean we could do miracles, etc. He meant that we can have lead more people to a faith in God.
I remember reading an article a couple weeks back talking about the Pole shift that is to occur, or already occurred, and in alignment with the end of the Mayan calender. So, supposedly, after December 24, 2012, our DNA will go through some sort alteration in line with a galactic wave force that is to hit Planet earth to "rebirth" the Human DNA for a futuristic era we're leading into.
These young geeks sounded like experts and had me lapping every word off the page. They said most already made the change....or "adapted." They said, those of old age (50's and up) won't be able to make this switch (whatever that mean). Then they explained the period of the "Rapture" and how the wave force will make the Human body "lighter" for the event.
Those that don't rapture, aren't ready or the body wasn't yet ready to adapt, so they stay on Earth until the body respond. A mystery about some Naburi planet suppose eclipse planet Earth for a short period of time and those that haven't yet rapture, would be given the choice to "beam" over to the Naburi planet or remain on Earth and then that planet move along, out of Earth's orbit.
Those that stay on planet Earth yet again will then be those going through this Tribulation spoken about in Revelation. I can't remember all the details and my recollection isn't as fluid and vivid as those guys understand it. We suppose to have some sort telepathic-powers to move things by the mind. The ultimate human, if you will.
Ahh...probably craps but it sounds so realistic the way they described it.That's part of the human condition sure.
@penny dying is one thing which is surity...dying painfully too might happen...but to be disillusioned to level of jesus is not for everyone....in that point not everyone can become christ and we should be glad about it otherwise world would cease to exist....people would wait for some unseen god doing all the work and it would be chaos...
What do you mean by disillusioned?
Why would being Christ-like mean waiting for God to do all the work?@penny obviously...christ did nothing than conversations on unproven theme....if all become christ like we would see zero work and mere conversations on concepts like gods kingdom and such themes though in present formats...gods kingdom was what christ inherited as concept since it was popular concept of that era...in present times it would be something else...obviously he was taken over by political/social environment of those era and so was disillusioned...m glad world is coming out of that and in another 100 yrs would be totally out of jews creation called yaweh...
I see what you saying but if all were to be Christ-like, most likely, we wouldn't be in that role until our 30's ---- enough time to do our contribution to the civilization of our country before serving a higher calling.
When one sees the ills of the world the only reason one would feel disillusioned is if one believes in an illusion. I doubt this was the case with Jesus. Disappointment maybe? Disappointment in that people did not have a relationship with God except in lip service, rituals, false beliefs or what have you.
Given the "I and the father are one" statement. What Jesus did the father did makes sense. So if any Christ-like wanna be today that gets to that stage, it may not necessarily mean they would stop working or whatever it is they do. If they continue to work God is working. If they take a holiday God is holidaying.
And greater works than he shall do. If sermons or conversation is not your expertise as was Jesus reputedly there is no restrictions on what greater works might be for the christ-like person. Could be an artist, scientist. Who knows?@penny
your para two , para three point taken...no problems in that...
How did disillusion come into the picture?? And dying slow/painfully???
In order to be Christ one must be crucified to pay our sin debt alone with having a virgin birth.
Why does it bother you so much what others believe?
You want to control what other believe?? NonsensePeople must believe what they want to believe but I hate Satan's deception. I also pose a question and then wait for people to respond to me. At least most of the time. It means they want my input. So it is definitely not about control. This is a religious forum so people must expect people like me. I certainly keep my religious beliefs to myself when I am out with other people unless asked.
The commandments are for man, not the creator. Chris...to whom was Jesus praying in the Garden at Gethsemane?
Jesus was praying to the Father, as He is the Son. Although Jesus is God just as surely as The Father is God, there is a difference in roles and it is important that they be respected. Also, it was important for Jesus to maintain his relationship. And although Jesus is fully God, He is also fully man and so had to live as one.
So many have forgotten that, and so, have a misrepresentation in their hearts. The humanity of Jesus gives his life and sacrifice, meaning. To forget his humanity takes all meaning away from him. What would be the point of an immortal giving up his 'life' and coming back from the 'dead'. None whatsoever.
Very interesting question. I don't believe any person can achieve Christ-like status. A person cannot be a Christ like Jesus being of divine status. None of us can ever achieve Godhood because we're mortals. Anyone who says that he or she is immortal is automatically a liar. I guarantee you that 200 years from now (if the world hasn't been destroyed by then) that person will be dead.
This is why people believe they have the potential to be Christs and not know. They are too mortal and too finite in the mind to be a Christ.
But my point of view is not like to be equal with God but to like God in a sense of love. There is nothing wrong being a perfect or working hard to be a perfect individual. Jesus said you must be perfect as my father in heaven is perfect.
Jesus said that we must follow Him. Following doesn't mean being like him but obeying and reflecting His good deeds towards mankind.I must agree that there is nothing wrong on trying to be a perfect individual. sirgeov, I'd be lying to you if I said that I wasn't seeking Christian perfection. I know that I am. True that we must seek perfection. And we certainly do need to reflect good deeds towards mankind (I could do a better job of that!)
Again this is a contextual issue. This is the context of the word perfect:
The word "perfect," in the Bible, can and does mean "complete" or "finished." Jesus was made "perfect" through suffering (Heb. 2:10; 5:8–9). He completed or fulfilled God’s plan for Him as our Savior by suffering for us.
"Perfect" can also have the meaning of "mature" or "grown up." In Philippians 3:15, the apostle Paul speaks to "as many as be perfect" (KJV). The NKJV translates this phrase "as many as are mature."
When Jesus said, "Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect" (Matt. 5:48), He was saying, "Let your love be complete as God’s love."
http://centervilleroad.com/articles/perfect.html
It is not possible to perfect i.e. without sin.
We can become Christ if we go down to the fancy dress shop and buy us some fakey beards and robes and then break some bread for a sandwiche but then drink Jesus juice....Allah be praised!
As an answer to the original, "Do you believe you can become a Christ?" question: yes. I will skip over all the other posts because I can get into a lot if I try to answer everything. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. We believe that everyone does have the potential to become like a God (which Christ was in his glorified, ascended-into-heaven state). In a nutshell, we believe that when we die, our bodies and spirits are separated and that there will be a resurrection which will reunite our bodies and our spirits and we will become like gods and goddesses and have the power to create.
Awesome!!
The world needs more people like you!My understanding of Mormonism is shaky so, since you brought it up, I'm curious about that belief. Do both men and women rule and create? Are they equal in power and influence? From what I've heard the guys who become gods have a harem, or multiple wives. Are the women of Mormonism going to become goddesses with multiple men in their harem or will they be the harem?
I'm sincerely interested.In the Celestial Kingdom -- the highest of heaven's three levels -- men can have multiple wives, but wives can't have multiple husbands.
I wonder if Mormon women are OK with that? I'd be grumbling if I was a Mormon.
I'm ok with it. My husband speculates that there may just be more women than men. Don't take that as a Mormon belief! Just speculation. To answer your other question about men and women ruling and creating: yes. Both men and women will have the power to rule and create and both are equal.
Well, they couldn't very well be equal if women can't have multiple partners but men can.
Then again, you did mention more women than men. So, what about lesbian women? Can they have a harem of women, or is it strictly prohibited that women have to be a part of the harem and never the master of it?Lesbians won't make it into the highest level of Mormon heaven, which is strictly a one-man, many-woman affair. More women make it to the highest level because more women stay faithful to their wedding vows, and, in order to make it into the highest level of Mormon heaven, you have to have been a Mormon couple married in the Mormon temple.
I just want to say that it doesn't necessarily have to be one man, many women. I think it could be just one man, one woman, too. I'm sure most men will have multiple wives, but I really don't think all the men will have multiple wives.
I learned more about Mormon theology in five minutes than in the previous 45 years.
Interesting that some religions still think about sex after death. Do they think we take our bodies with us? Muslims talk about being given 72 virgins or something to that effect as if they still have a body and a need to procreate. Infantile in thought.
The point is not men vs. women. The point is family. In the Celestial Kingdom, men and women will be able to have children together, just as we can here on earth. In a homosexual relationship, you simply cannot have children. I suspect that in heaven, there won't even be any homosexuality to speak of. In any case, I think that in the Celestial Kingdom, people won't be looking for a partner for sex per se, but rather looking for someone to have a family with.
But, you said they would all have the power to create. So, homosexuals could have a family of their own; without adopting the offspring of other gods and goddesses. Since that obviously won't be a problem, gays should do OK.
If the gods/goddesses aren't having sex for any reason other than procreation is that really heaven? Sounds like a lot of work with no up side. Are you leaving something important to the explanation out?Yes, they do have the power to create. They can create worlds and have children, but they can only have children in the natural way. The same way we create children here. God has told us that marriage is between a man and a woman. We believe that the command to Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth is still a commandment for us in today's world. I think that since those in the Celestial Kingdom will have bodies united with their spirits, they'd have to procreate in order for their children to have both bodies and spirits united. Again, don't take my word for it. That's just what I suspect.
I didn't say that they would only have sex for procreation. I just think that's what the main goal will be. However, I do believe that they will have sex for enjoyment. I think it'll be very similar to how marriages on earth work. The husbands and wives work together to create and work together to raise their children. They'll learn together and have their time alone together and bond with each other.
We believe that in the Celestial Kingdom we will sill learn. We will make families. We will create worlds of our own with our families. We will have perfected bodies. There will be no sickness or pain.So, no gays allowed in Mormon heaven. Gotcha.
Women have to share their partner with multiple women but men don't. I understand that.
Sounds like the men have it all figured out. How does it feel to know you will be eternally second class? Are the guys letting other ethnic groups in yet, or is it still a whites only, no gays, heaven.I'll just say again that the point is family. Not men vs women or anything else. Family. It's the most fundamental and most important foundation of our religion.
It's going to be a rather empty heaven then.
If there are no ethnic groups, gays, or submissive women, how many would you imagine are left to fill heaven assuming there is one and it needs to be filled?
It's kind of creepy when you think about all the heavens people are so sure exist. A segregated cosmos. After death, they all get their little pedestals they imagined. It sounds like a pitiful hope for eternity.
Well, to hopefully clarify a bit: we believe that there are 3 glories of heaven. Everyone can make it to one of the three. Each is a part of heaven. The Celestial Kingdom is the highest degree of the highest degree of glory, which will be where God resides. That's where those who have had certain ordinances performed and are righteous will go. That does not include people who are homosexual and participate in homosexual activities. They will go to a lesser degree of glory. You CAN be homosexual and live worthily. Take a look at this: http://www.joshweed.com/2012/06/club-un … ut-of.html
Women do not have to be submissive. In fact, many LDS women are not submissive. We count on our husbands who hold the priesthood to give us instruction from God for our family. But we work together. We support each other. It is our duty to care for and raise children. Yes, many work. Yes, that is OK. It is also OK if the men stay at home and raise the children. Women are NOT second class and never will be. Not by our church standards. Yes, there are INDIVIDUALS who will say otherwise, but as a whole, this is where we stand.
We have said nothing about ethnic groups. As long as everyone does what they're supposed to, they will be just fine. As a whole, we don't care who you are, what your background, religion, nationality, ethnicity, etc. As long as you are keeping the commandments of God, you are going to make to one of the 3 glories of heaven, where the main focus will be on FAMILY.I enjoyed the homosexual story. He is full of love and appears to practice what he preaches according to what I read. Very nice. I like that it is all about family.
3 Glories of heaven sounds like the 3 paths of the religious Taoists.
A couple of questions:
Why would God worry about sexual orientation?
Why would God need man to instruct a woman?
Are there no woman priests?For some-odd reason it won't let me reply directly to penny's post there, so let it be known that this here post is in response to hers.
Question 1: Sexual orientation one way or another really doesn't matter to God. He loves all of his children equally and gives all of us equal chance to return to live with him if we keep his commandments. When people choose not to keep his commandments then they are just as accountable as anyone else will be.
Question 2: God calls upon women to teach the members of the church as well as men, and both can serve as missionaries. In the Church women are part of the Relief Society, which happens to be the oldest and largest women's organization in the world. Both women and men teach and pray in church meetings, and make decisions regarding the welfare of the members.
Question 3: Women do not hold the priesthood, per se, but one interesting fact (I find it interesting, anyway) is that to have a priesthood position of authority such as Bishop (basically a priest) it is requisite for that individual to be married in the temple. In other words, he must be a family man who will have the support of his wife while he serves as a bishop. Another thing to note is the fact that those who serve as church leaders do not receive wages for their service.So homosexuality is not an issue as it does not have any thing to do with the commandments. It is not a necessity for man to instruct a woman and although women cannot be a priest, man cannot be a priest unless he has a wife?
Did I get that?
(By the way if you are looking at the threaded version of the forum you might not be able to reply. If you look at the chronological version you would be able to reply. See top right of forum to make your choice.)Aha! The secrets of the reply option have been unlocked! Anyway,
We believe in the Law of Chastity, which is a commandment that basically states "thou shalt not have sexual relations with anyone aside from thy spouse to whom thou art legally and lawfully wedded." You can be a homosexual without participating in homosexual acts, like that fellow whose story was linked by Care Bear; he's going STRAIGHT to the Celestial Kingdom. But engaging in homosexual acts is just as much a sin as engaging in heterosexual acts outside of marriage, if not more so.
As for the rest of the stuff, I think you've gotten it. The thing I like about priests having to be married is that it suggests that man needs woman to accomplish anything, and vice versa.Along with what MrBeanz said about homosexuality (or maybe to expound? I don't know), the point is that homosexuality itself isn't the sin. It's what you do that matters. Like Josh Weed in the blog page I posted before. He knew he was gay since age 12 (if I remember right), but didn't engage in homosexual activities. I hope this helps...
The acts of homosexuality are not specifically against the commandments though?
Mr Beanz said it is only when you engage in sexual relations with anyone other than the legal spouse?
So if they get married and engage in sexual relations it appears that it is not against the law of chastity.
That is why it puzzled me that he decided to get married. I think it is wonderful the way it has turned out but I don't understand what law according to your faith it was going against if he chose the path of homosexuality?Not specifically, no. But we have been told that we are to "multiply and replenish the earth" (the command given to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden that we have been told by modern day prophets is also a commandment to us in today's world). You can't very well do that in a homosexual relationship.
I don't really know much as to what's been said on this subject. Maybe MrBeanz can be more help. I just know that I've been taught that engaging in homosexual behavior is wrong, and I think it is because we are supposed to have children.
I did just find this in an article in a church magazine, the "Liahona": "The Church teaches that human sexuality has a purpose in Heavenly Father’s plan. In order for us to be happy and to fulfill that purpose, we are commanded to live the law of chastity. Homosexual behavior is contrary to that purpose and violates God’s commandments." You can see it at http://www.lds.org/liahona/2012/01/to-t … w+chastity if you'd like.
I don't know. But I do have to think: why would someone who is homosexual choose to not act upon it and choose a traditional marriage? There's the story of Josh Weed that I posted earlier and I just saw another on mormon.org that's the same idea. If homosexuality weren't against the commandments of God, why would someone choose to not act on their desires or homosexuality?
Anyway, like I said, I don't know much. Sorry if it sounds unorganized... It kind of is, hahaTo multiply and replenish the earth can be understood on many levels. If that is the only purpose homosexuality is not accepted. I don't understand. There are men who are born sterile. There are woman who are not fertile. Multiplying is therefore not possible. A gay couple would not be able to reproduce but it makes them no different to straight couples that cannot reproduce.
That article only says it is against the commandments and the law of chasity. It does not go into specifics.
The commandments do not forbid it. The law of chastity doesn't either.
Another thing came to mind. If God is not a respector of persons would that not include their sexual orientation. If God worries more about what is in the heart. A homosexual may have conflict within the heart if they are never allowed to engage in the acts they wish to according to their faith. It would seem more useful to allow them to engage without guilt or shame. They are not conflicted and are able to receive more of what God might share.
I don't know. It makes no sense.Like I said, I don't know much. I don't know why some men are sterile and some women are infertile. Maybe for the same reason(s) that there are disorders like Down's Syndrome or cerebral palsy.
The 10 commandments that everyone are familiar with don't specify about homosexuality. That doesn't mean that it's acceptable. There are plenty of bible verses that say that homosexuality is an abomination. They don't say homosexuality, but they say a man lies with a man as he lies with a woman.
God doesn't care if a person is homosexual. He cares about the actions of all of us. If our hearts are in the right place, then it doesn't matter.
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, either. I know the article wasn't specific. I haven't found anything just yet that is specific apart from the bible verses. Sorry I don't have much to go on. I'll keep looking.No worries, I think I remember those passages where man lies with man I cannot remember if I understood it then either. Might have to revisit to get my head around it if no one knows why it is not acceptable. Thanks for the help.
I'll have to do some research to get a really definitive answer. I can think of a number of complicated things like the divinity of the family as ordained of God versus satisfying physical desires, so on and so forth, but in all sincerity, the reason that I stand where I do on this issue is because I trust God. I have a personal testimony that He lives and loves us all, and that He knows more than I could ever know. Mankind (and womankind) is extremely confused on the subject, and people argue and contend for both sides endlessly, which to me just emphasizes how desperately we need His guidance.
I don't doubt that few people will be satisfied with that answer, but it makes the most sense to me and I think it's a lot less confusing than anything else I could come up with.It makes no sense to me. If man is making his own mind up about God making homosexuality an issue. It is worth exploring.
Ok. I have one article that I can refer you to by an Apostle of our church. It's kind of long, but it may help you understand if you're interested.
http://www.lds.org/liahona/1996/03/same … 83_000_006
Jesus taught that we will neither be married nor given in marriage after the resurrection.
Sounds like heaven to me...
Someone else can take him for the night... I'll just read or something.
Do these other wives help with house cleaning and cooking? Can I request someone who can cook a decent gyro?Sorry, I'm a feminist through and through. I'm not being a part of a harem and I'm not going to join a collective of individuals in servicing a man's wants and needs. It's backward and demeaning. I don't have any problem with other people doing it, if they choose, but I do take offense at the belief that it is some Godly life.
That's fine. You can think what you want. Just please stop demeaning my religion.
I don't demean your religion. I'm simply pointing out that your religion demeans women.
You are offending me. And I'm sure you offend many LDS people, women included. Our religion does NOT demean women, no matter what you think. You are entitled to your opinion. I understand that. But I am entitled to my beliefs as well and I don't need you or anyone else to try and convince me to think differently from what I already know to be true. I have NO doubt in my mind that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is true. I have NO doubt that the teachings are true. I don't need any physical proof. I have felt things that you cannot even imagine. I was married to the man of my dreams because of this church. I have the best support system (mostly women, mind you) because of this church.
You are entitled to your beliefs. But, when you voice them I am entitled to voice my beliefs. See how that works?
I have no doubt in my mind that LDS beliefs are the product of men wanting to convince women that some god said they were a lesser class. If your belief is true, since you believe it. Mine is also.
Since you've asked me to not voice my beliefs, because they offend you; could you stop voicing yours? Because they offend me.
No one can demean your religion unless you allow them to.
Man, people can't so much as tell a joke around you.
I knew Melissa was joking. But, this is a serious Mormon belief that offends every freedom women have fought to attain.
So... what are you trying to accomplish? Do you hope we'll denounce our religion? Deny the Christ? Convert to feminism?
Is it possible to convert to feminism? Is that a religion? I thought it was simply a higher level of thinking. I don't think the devoutly religious could make that leap.
I'm sorry, but baiting me is not going to work. Perhaps you could put your superior intellect to work and employ logic to prove your point? Assuming you have a point?
And you didn't answer my question, either.Now who is it that can't take a joke?
I did answer your question. Feminism isn't a religion, so I wouldn't be in the business of looking for converts. You, on the other hand, are part of a religion and that religion does actively seek to convert. I think we've both determined I'm not interested.You accused me of being incapable of achieving a higher level of thinking. I fail to see how that could be considered funny.
And to clarify: my question was "What are you hoping to accomplish" rather than "are you asking me to convert to feminism." That was simply an example I tossed out for a possible answer to the primary question, which still remains unanswered.
So here's something that makes me curious: you say you're not interested in converting to my religion as if I and other participants in this forum have been earnestly trying to convert you, and yet this whole thing started by you asking a question and us trying to answer it. Were I trying to convert you I'd be talking more about the Book of Mormon and how families can be together forever. Much more pleasant doctrines, and much easier to understand.
But, of course, that depends on whether you actually want to learn something or just start a fight. And from the way you've been insulting people and needlessly condemning their beliefs, it's pretty clear that it's the latter.
Which is something I'm very curious about. Why would you get online just to pick fights with people? I don't understand it. If you wanted people to change their way of thinking wouldn't it make more sense to avoid making them angry and defensive?
WOW! I just got done reading the conversation between you two(Emile and Chasuk) and you know what, you're both seem to be thinking people lived, as we live now?
Of who's business was it about the birth? If they were married, but the marriage wasn't consummated, but a child came to be. Why would anyone question having a child?
It's not like "did you consummate your marriage"? question came up at any time. I mean seriously.By my understanding of historical judaism, that society was similar to Islamic society today. So, I would think they were very interested. A few of the laws expecting people to stone someone involved sexual infidelity and unmarried women who had sex didn't survive well in the community.
So, no, they didn't think like we do. I'd compare them to the Taliban.
So what is the Mormon preoccupation with ancestry. I had a Mormon girl friend once and I do believe they did a search on me.
It's all about family. That includes our ancestors. We have certain ordinances that need to be performed for the living as well as for the dead so that our families can be perpetuated beyond the grave. We have the power to perform them for those who have passed on and they then have the option to accept or reject it.
So what happens if the records of family history were destroyed?
In that case, those ordinances cannot be performed for them by us on earth until the Millenium, when we will have contact with them and we can then perform the ordinances for them.
This is just the basic idea. I don't know everything and I'm sure there's more that goes with it.
Would seem to me then as a Pagan, that I would be totally dependent upon your good graces, and completely a goner if you didn't exist. Am I in the family of man?
I don't know if I'd necessarily say you were a goner. We believe that in order to receive the highest degree of glory (to live in the presence of God), there are certain steps you'd have to take, including having the aforementioned ordinances performed. But we also believe that there are lesser glories as well. So if you don't have some or any of the ordinances performed for yourself, you just wouldn't receive the highest degree. And then if someone were to find your records or contact you during the Millenium, you could have the opportunity to accept or reject the ordinances.
Anyway, yes. You are in the family of man. Everyone is. As a whole (there are always going to be individuals who do care), we don't care what race, religion, ethnicity, culture, etc. you come from. You are a child of God, thus making you part of one big happy family.
(I hope I made at least some sense...)
Actually my Mormon girlfriend's x did. Don't think he cared for me. He punched a couple of holes in the wall, visiting her when I was away. Just kidding. Makes perfect sense. Just that I have been a subscriber to the ideal of the classless individual once called Bohemian.
Yes. anyone can become a Christ if they grow a beard and long hair to suit and then wear some sweaty robes and slipper kippers
No, that's a hippy.
Definitely not a Christ.Yes they can become fake Jesus not real Jesus
Yes they can become fake Jesus not real Jesus
72 virgins sounds as good. Not sure what happens when ya run outta virgins. Seems like 72 PMSing former virgins begins to sound a lot less like Paradise. I've never heard what Islamic women get when they die....geuss they get their virginity back!
Heaven is a vision of the the attainable future. It is a place that human beings might walk into without having died to get there. The more I read these forum pieces, the more I see that very few people seem to know what is plain to see. Being a representative of my chosen people, it worries me that you all are out there...I mean REALLY OUT THERE!!!
So, let me see if I understand you. Humanity has survived on earth, living and dying, since humanity began....and you think you will waltz into a heaven while alive. And you think everyone else if out there?
Don't look now, but you may be out there with the rest of us.Jesus himself said it. That there would be those who would walk into heaven and did not die. Must not be very far. Maybe it is right in front of us, and has been all the time. I know that believing we can't get there keeps us from trying. And when we were SO CLOSE!
If Heaven was an attainable place in this world, we would have done it by now. Or maybe we have, there have been so many different visions of Heaven on Earth that maybe we've simply attained them all and not been smart enough to understand that sometimes, you really do get what you pay for.
So why are we back there again? You keep missing the point? So what is the point of continuing our dialogue pray tell?
The point being is: If you don't believe it, then it is impossible. EVERY idea, every concept, every advance, has started out as a thought, with no reality in material space. Everything we have started out that way. We, as in mankind, male and female, are the physical manifestation of that which we call the Divine. We are here to 'push the stone', surmount the obstacles, peel back the envelope, break the records, explore the frontiers....and to constantly demonstrate that we, mankind, are more than the sum of our parts. We won't acheive a physical heaven on earth until we learn to respect each other in every way, shape and form.
I truly believe it. I think that is what WE are all about. It is what separates us on this planet, and it is the difference between thinking that we have arrived and knowing full well we haven't. This is the nature of our next step here. The train doesn't leave the station until everyone is on board. Got plenty of time...unless you want to be on schedule, but, in truth...if there is a schedule, no one here has it.
People are slowly waking up! I have a feeling that they will soon realize that all the labeling they have been programmed to assign to EVERYTHING and all the mental patterns that they allow to unconsciously control them are not in anyone's highest good and are blocking them from BEING who they truely are.
I was right there nodding up until the physical heaven on earth part. Maybe it us just that I don't want to imagine a heaven here. I don't want to be stuck in a physical form for an eternity.
Other than that, it sounds great. I'm all for figuring out a way for everyone to respect everybody.
- Chasukposted 11 years ago
0I believe that it is possible for me to become a Christ, theoretically, as long as we omit the requirement that I be a descendant of David. Actually, I don't know that I'm not a descendant of David. I haven't been diligent enough at my genealogical hobby to trace my lineage that far back.
After all, the Christ wasn't supposed to be God or God incarnate. That was a Christian invention. I suppose I could orchestrate the physical rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem, and inspire all of the Jews to return to Israel. Oh, and I could bring an end to war, forever. That is, I could do these things if I were considerably more charismatic and motivated. I'd also have to make sure that they all occurred within my lifetime, as the Second Coming is also a Christian invention.Why is Hubpages still lacking in the "like" button department?
Yeah but trying out the procreation equipment is rather good fun though. Every cloud...... And all that.
Weekend, a sincerely doubt a true Christ would boast about writing books or joke about who gets to be boss. I similarly doubt someone of such a stature would proclaim it, unless they were divinely guided to do so for the benefit of humankind. Have you gained the abilities over life and death as Christ reportedly demonstrated?
Rabraet, buy my books and you, too, will gain these coveted, Christ-like abilities.
LOL weekend! Oh my... I'm most grateful that I have the discernment to know better.
My second book, Rbraet, was on how to become a leading guro. Are you aware of how many millions of successful, leading guros there are since publication of that book? I am now teaching my following how to become a Buddha, and then they'll learn how to become a Christ. Have faith, Rbraet. Follow me. Be a believer. Buy my books. My next one will be a bigger bestseller than the Bible and that's not without reason.
Related Discussions
- 163
Besides the belief in a higher power, what other differences separate non-believ
by capncrunch 8 years ago
Besides the belief in a higher power, what other differences separate non-believers and believers?What is the agenda of either side?
- 169
Do Atheists Prove there is a God by saying they don't believe in One?
by James Q smith 15 years ago
Just a question, but it would seem if there really were no God, then Atheists couldn't exist. Is Atheism a religion? They definitely seem to be unified by a common belief.
- 9
If atheists do not believe in a higher power, then what do they actually BELIEVE
by Monica 11 years ago
If atheists do not believe in a higher power, then what do they actually BELIEVE in?...I've always wondered about an atheist's way of getting through life. Do they actually believe in anything? Are they considered to be bias if they believe that there is no god?
- 54
Why do you feel that your religion has lost touch with many?
by Liam Hallam 12 years ago
Why do you feel that many people have deserted a particular religion or simply chosen not to followHave the major religions not moved with the times? As an agostic i'd like to see what others feel and see?
- 674
Is RELIGION Detrimental To The Whole of Society?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 9 years ago
So many people insist that Atheism is detrimental to society while religion enhanced society. Hmmm, now let us see this objectively instead of subjectively. Religions have been the source of wars and other types of divisions among humankind. Religions have also been the source of...
- 83
Existence of a higher power(s).
by ragnaworks 14 years ago
Why is the existence/non-existence of a higher power dependent on the validity of any particular religion? Are we as humans really so arrogant, that we think if none of our gods are real, that must mean there is no such thing as a higher power at all anywhere in the universe? Isn't it possible that...