God is Not a Person

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

If God talks to me (hypothetically, but as he talks to an Elijah or an Isaiah), then God considers himself to be separate from me.
Communication implies distinction.

Not necessarily. Do a little more thinking on it. Think duality.

reply to post by wildtimes

I'm quite aware of scientific discoveries, and comfortable with the fact that scientific discoveries are being made.
But none of the discoveries you mention are relevant to the question of whether the Biblical God was, or was not, communicating with people.
If someone claims to have met another person, either you believe him or you don't. Scientific discoveries don't affect the matter one way or the other. That's what I mean by "no new facts".

reply to post by Manunnaki

You are agreeing with me.
"Duality" is a distinction between two.
What I was presenting was an argument against Monism.

reply to post by DISRAELI

If God talks to me (hypothetically, but as he talks to an Elijah or an Isaiah), then God considers himself to be separate from me.
Communication implies distinction.

a : a process by which information is exchanged between individuals through a common system of symbols, signs, or behavior ; also : exchange of information

b : personal rapport

Let's look at 'personal rapport'.

Definition of RAPPORT
: relation; especially : relation marked by harmony, conformity, accord, or affinity

So communication with "God" can be defined as a personal affinity. Considering many Christians call it a "relationship", I'd say that's a fitting definition. So, as we can see, communication does NOT necessarily imply distinction. Personally, I'd say sitting in your bedroom, alone, praying to your god, is the opposite of distinction. Obviously, there's a connection, and I daresay there's a melding area where the god and the mortal overlap. Otherwise, such an experience is impossible except in the strictest of terms, just as a person can only hear their friend's voice over the phone, and nothing else.

Christians I talk to describe it as much, much more than that. I am of the personal belief that there is credence to their experience, but the greatest credence can be ridiculed when interpreted incorrectly.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Since we are on the topic of "God"s nature, I am arguing against your argument against monism.

reply to post by wildtimes


Great thread. You should have mentioned the post in the other thread where the person mentions that if Christ were God, He could have no beginning. If God is the Alpha and Omega, with no beginning or end, then Christ cannot be God, since Christ has a beginning. It is a valid point of logic except for one fact. All of creation is the first Image of God. The Son then entered the world as a Kinsman to show the symbolism behind the cross and sacrifice of the first creation of the world. This is the one point that throws a chink in the chain of reason and rationality.

Creation is THE image of God. There is no reason for us to think this is idol worship saying God is imaged in the material world. God said this himself.

Genesis 1:27

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

We then see the fact that there are two creation stories in Genesis. Genesis 1 is the image from Elohim (Eternal God - Alpha and Omega). Genesis 2 is then YHVH (LORD) as the Shepherd of mankind on behalf of God. We can also point out that the first Image of God was the Son, the Word that created the universe.

1 Colossians 1: 15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

As I pause here, I ask you a simple question. Have I presented a paradox to what you have stated in your thread? Further, is there a paradox created when we see that Jesus was created, yet still God? The only paradox that can be created is the one we create ourselves. What you say is true, yet to suggest that God is not a person would be wrong.

Let's go backward now to where we started. You are cut from the loaf that is God.

1 Corinthians 10

And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.

If you are from the one loaf, where is that loaf from? Are you a person? Are you the image of God, cut from one loaf?

1 Colossians 1: 15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Where did the loaf originate?

What material did God use to create the loaf? Was that material outside of the one God? Is God conscious?

When you look in a mirror, you see you. Since you see both you and your image, you do not assume the image is actually you, but a reflection only. Since you cannot see God, what does that say about his image?

You are a child of God and to be a child you must have a father. It's the pattern in nature and evident by any standard.

Matthew 18

10 “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.

Is the person the soul and is the acorn the tree? Is the acorn the enfolded oak tree or is the oak tree enfolded into the acorn? Which is the one that represents the acorn and oak tree both? Word.

John 1

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.

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

You are stating that we are part of the overall universe? The only question to answer is this: Are you a person? What does that say about your source? All things flow from a source. The dew on the ground is the water it comes from in the ocean of water. The same loaf.

Keep that mirror handy (1 Corinthians 13).

11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

God is personified in all of us personally. We are together the one loaf. We are all persons. We are not God, yet part of God's handiwork. Jesus was the perfected Image of God and the last Adam (Heel that crushes Satan's head). I never could figure out why the heel was the part of the loaf nobody wants. I personally like the heel.

Originally posted by wildtimes
DISRAELI, if you have important information to offer that disputes the theory and thinking of Deists, why would you withhold it?

If I do decide to abandon this thread, it might be out of irritation because of this harping on about my leaving it, and the twisting of my words that is involved.
Just to recap- I pointed out that the OP was not the Biblical viewpoint. Somebody observed that the Biblical viewpoint was not the premise of the thread, so I inferred that pressing it might be off-topic. Out of courtesy (because I get sensitive to off-topic trolling on my own threads), I thought I should withdraw gracefully.That was all.
Now can we please let the subject go?

reply to post by adjensen

I think that you're confusing omnipresence with pantheism.

By logical definition, the creation cannot be the creator.

I'd like to argue against that, if I may. If I were to make a tattoo on my arm, is that tattoo part of me? Is that artwork, that creation, separate from me? At which point do I draw a boundary? At which point is it no longer flesh?

I am not mistaking omnipresence with pantheism. Personally, I'm not convinced the two are mutually exclusive. In fact, omnipresent means "in all places at all times". Pantheism asserts that "God" is equated with all laws and principles in the universe. If "God" is in all places at all times, then it stands to reason that he could very well be the cause of all laws and principles, and even 'equated' with them. Furthermore, the Bible states that he is the source of all things. This means that he must be the cause of all laws and principles, for he created them and is still among them, for he is the source of ALL, and is omnipresent! The Bible itself supports this idea. So perhaps omnipresence and pantheism are not enemies, but BROTHERS, in this matter.

Do you have any compelling arguments against this?

reply to post by EnochWasRight


Which means every birth is the image of "God"? Or is every birth a reenactment of creation? I don't get it. Please explain further.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

Which means every birth is the image of "God"? Or is every birth a reenactment of creation? I don't get it. Please explain further.

edit on 30-11-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Yes.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

Which means every birth is the image of "God"? Or is every birth a reenactment of creation? I don't get it. Please explain further.

edit on 30-11-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

That was the short version. Here is the long version.

Revelation 20

7 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Notice the tense of the story. It shifts. Is it past or future? Has this happened or will it happen? Are we reading it now after the fact, or is it yet to come for us? Is time a reality for God? Is he limited by time?

This brings up a question as to 1) How God knows the future 2) Why we are in an image learning about what has already happened. Sounds like a movie. Moving images in slices of time would be what in your mind? When you collapse the wave of indeterminate reality, what are you doing to make it determined? Do you make the Earth turn? Do you make your eyes see? Do you make your hair grow? No. You do two things in this story called life. You think and move. What can you decide with what is presented? Can you make a choice that is not answered by the laws of nature? You can find God or not. It's a choice and God will present Himself to all of us in this life.

Read this again: Eyes Wide Open

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by adjensen

 

I think that you're confusing omnipresence with pantheism.

By logical definition, the creation cannot be the creator.

I'd like to argue against that, if I may. If I were to make a tattoo on my arm, is that tattoo part of me? Is that artwork, that creation, separate from me? At which point do I draw a boundary? At which point is it no longer flesh?

How can you think that tattoo ink is "you"? It's something ON you, it isn't you.

Do you have any compelling arguments against this?

Yes, as I said, you are clearly confusing these two terms.

Omnipresence -- God is (or can be) everyWHERE
Pantheism -- God is everyTHING

That's not the same thing, it's not even close. As I said, the creation cannot be the creator, because the creation is dependent on the creator to create it, and a self-created creation is logically impossible.

reply to post by adjensen

That's not the same thing, it's not even close. As I said, the creation cannot be the creator, because the creation is dependent on the creator to create it, and a self-created creation is logically impossible.

In that case, the God of the Old Testament must be a false god, because he appeared to Adam, Abraham and Moses as a physical entity that was a part of creation. Jesus, who you claim to be GOd, also appears as a part of creation.

But I disagree with your assessment that self creation is impossible. I can become many things, by my own determination.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

That's not the same thing, it's not even close. As I said, the creation cannot be the creator, because the creation is dependent on the creator to create it, and a self-created creation is logically impossible.

In that case, the God of the Old Testament must be a false god, because he appeared to Adam, Abraham and Moses as a physical entity that was a part of creation. Jesus, who you cliam to be GOd, also appears as a part of creation.

What is it with reading comprehension these days? It says THE CREATION CANNOT BE THE CREATOR. It doesn't say "The creator cannot be incarnated into the creation." If I make a box, the box isn't "me", but I can certainly climb inside, can't I?

But I disagree with your assessment that self creation is impossible. I can become many things, by my own determination.

Fine, you cease to exist, then cause yourself to exist out of nothing, and you'll have made a point.

We're not talking about "reinventing yourself", for pete's sakes, we're talking about the creation of the universe out of nothing.

reply to post by adjensen


Are you saying that God climbed into a box, into a puppet of skin and bones to appear to Adam, Abraham and Moses, et al? Was Jesus just a God puppet of skin and bones that God stepped into to perform a puppet show for an immediate audience?

If so, what was his sacrifice?

reply to post by DISRAELI

Now can we please let the subject go?

Erm,
No!
You're asking that the subject of the thread be ignored?
That's not fair.
Nor "just".

reply to post by EnochWasRight

Creation is THE image of God. There is no reason for us to think this is idol worship saying God is imaged in the material world. God said this himself.

Ed, I don't see where we disagree on this point.
Creation IS the image of God! Like you said above.....
why do humans constantly bicker about what God is vs Creation??

reply to post by DISRAELI

Creation is THE image of God.

There is no reason for us to think this is idol worship saying God is imaged in the material world. God said this himself.

"God" said this by creating the universe to begin with! That's what it is. It is what it is. And humanity has a very hard time reconciling our narrow sensory perceptions and linear thinking with "what is."

I think "God's" creation is perfect. "God" created it. "God" then left it to grow or die.

Shall we die? Or shall we grow?

I think god is probably an orb. Like a stationary orb.. quite small but quite bright

But yeah, definitely not a person. This is what pisses me off about a lot of today's christians. They definitely picture either a younger white guy with a brown beard or an older white guy with a white beard. I think this false understanding alone contributes a great deal to their lack of enlightenment

I fully believe there is a "God", but the bible is complete and utter BS, written by men to make other men conform ( sorry for the sexism, but it gets my point across ) However, if this "Biblical" "God" does exist, I want nothing to do with him as he is one cruel, socio-pathic individual!

Also, if "God" really does communicate, why did he so matter-of-factly way back when, but nowadays if someone says he has talked to him, he is automatically a nutball?

reply to post by windword


What are you talking about? That post made absolutely no sense.

As I said, the creation cannot BE the creator, that's a logical impossibility, and your claim that the creator cannot interact with the creation makes no sense.