What is God's goal?

[Night]

My kids think the same of me when I forbid them from eating all the lollies in the shop without regard for their long term health.

So god is like a parent in your mind? Kind of a scary thought, considering hat he let happen to his son!

Furthermore, almost all enjoyable activities are either highly regulated by te bible, or are directly or indirectly prohibited by biblical law.

???

Self hatred, the bible teaches many people to hate themselves because they are inherently sinful people and need god to save them. Now do you really want me to bring out all of the quotes on the bible's stance on women?

No, you are describing socialism. The Bible says:

Absolutely not! Socialism is a socioeconomic model which has nothing to do with keeping the poor satisfied using a delusional religion. Socialism actually helps the poor giving them healthcare and other necessities. Socialism is what Jesus would have wanted, if you actually read what he said.

And with quotes like "it is easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" (I've forgotten the biblical text that came from), it is obviously anti-rich. Jesus was poor, and the bible said to be like Jesus. I can cite many other parts of the bible saying how wonderful it is to be poor if you want me to.

Good news! You are about 2000 years out of date.

I LOVE IT! It never fails to crack me up when Christians try to show that the "do not eat shellfish" portion of the bible is wrong, but still strongly condemn homosexuality. By the way, your citation did NOT say it was OK to eat shellfish or nullify any other ridiculous old testament laws. It simply said he will forgive you for it because his beloved son died on the cross for you (really Christians? Did he have to die on a cross? Why did god want that? Is god a masochist? Couldn't he have just snapped his fingers and done all that without sacrificing his son?).

So, anyways, eating shellfish is a sin, isn't it? Just as bad as murder?

[Anguspure]

So god is like a parent in your mind? Kind of a scary thought, considering hat he let happen to his son!

Absolutely like a parent to me and not scary at all.
Jesus chose to die and died at the hands of humanity for our sake.
When you consider that his Son will be next seen as this person:

I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. . . .On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:
KING OF KINGS AND Lord OF LordS.
Rev 19:11-16 (NIV)

I think the victory lies in His death.
You see we all have to die at least once, all of us that is except Jesus who chose to die so we wouldn't have to face the second death which is eternal.

Furthermore, almost all enjoyable activities are either highly regulated by te bible, or are directly or indirectly prohibited by biblical law.

To put it bluntly, bollocks. Here is what Paul has to say to you:

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?... Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?
Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
Gal 3:1-14 (NIV)

The only reason for following the law of Israel for the Christian is because much of it makes good sense. Obviously it is not beneficial or loving to covet, commit adultery, steal, murder, behave dishonourably, act unfaithfully etc etc.
If you see these things as merely fun maybe you need to open your eyes to the damage you cause with your self absorbed life.

Self hatred, the bible teaches many people to hate themselves because they are inherently sinful people and need god to save them.

The Bible does not teach self hatred but it does teach the value of honest self judgement and it does teach the supreme nature of self depreciating Love. Better to judge oneself and not be judged, and better to have Loved than to have never lived.

Now do you really want me to bring out all of the quotes on the bible's stance on women?

Feel free but I'm not sure that I will have the time to properly address your miscontextualisation, mistranslation, imbalance and misinterpretation in full.

Absolutely not! Socialism is a socioeconomic model which has nothing to do with keeping the poor satisfied using a delusional religion. Socialism actually helps the poor giving them healthcare and other necessities. Socialism is what Jesus would have wanted, if you actually read what he said.

Except that socialism denies the ability to Love by deny the freedom of the individual.
For example I happen to agree with the 10% or so of my income that the Tax man takes for the support of the vulnerable, poor and disposed in my country but if I didn't I would have no freedom to retain my private property that is the income that I make.
Further more if under socialism the poor and disposessed become well off and affluent it is always observed that they abandon their left wing leanings in order to pursue this very freedom.
Clever long term socialism only allows its benefits to extend so farand it must at all costs maintain the reminder that socialism is needed.

And with quotes like "it is easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" (I've forgotten the biblical text that came from), it is obviously anti-rich.

Do you actually understand this text? It is very Jewish and is not as anti-rich as you might suppose.

Jesus was poor, and the bible said to be like Jesus. I can cite many other parts of the bible saying how wonderful it is to be poor if you want me to.

Jesus poor? He was a respected Rabbi with a reasonably large following in a country where 1/40th of ones income was given directly to the man of God in ones life.
He had a treasure among his trusted ones, not something that one has if you've not got to pennies to rub together.
If he was poor it was because he used His income in the same way that he used his life.
We are called to be "wealthy" (in that a wealthy person has the wisdom to use riches correctly) not poor.

I LOVE IT! It never fails to crack me up when Christians try to show that the "do not eat shellfish" portion of the bible is wrong, but still strongly condemn homosexuality.

I happen to agree and apart from the fact that I don't practice homosexuality, I do not condemn unloving homosexuality any more strongly than I condemn the unloving eating of shellfish.

By the way, your citation did NOT say it was OK to eat shellfish or nullify any other ridiculous old testament laws.

If you understood what the "ridiculous old testament laws" were about you would understand that they were never binding upon anyone who was not a part of the nation of Israel under the Mosaic Covenant.
My reccomendation is that you become familiar with the letters to the Romans, Galatians and Hebrews.

It simply said he will forgive you for it because his beloved son died on the cross for you.

He died for US, not me or you but all of us no matter who you are

Really Christians?

I beleive so.

Did he have to die on a cross?

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." Gal 3:13 (NIV)

Don't ask me why. But it's certainly a cool "coincidence" that it was predicted that the Jewish Messiah would die in this way centuries before the method of execution was even invented.

Why did god want that?

He didn't, but he did create us with freedom of relationship and was prepared to do what was necessary to make up the shortfall in the event that we chose the negative.

Is god a masochist?

Only if Love comes under the umbrella of masochism.

Couldn't he have just snapped his fingers and done all that without sacrificing his son?

Only by taking back the freedom given, only by denying the right that he gave and only by denying His own nature of Love. So probably not.

So, anyways, eating shellfish is a sin, isn't it? Just as bad as murder?

Yup, as is touching human shit, touching a dead body, bleeding etc etc x 613 (if you wish to be an Orthodox Jew that is).
But why are you worried when its all covered by Jesus and the only exhortation or appropriate response is to grow in Loving relationship with God and Man?

[kjw47]

Is that concept in "god's word" the Bible or from god's word (the Jehovah's Witness teachings)? I only studied with the JWs for a very short time many years ago, but that sounds more JW or even Mormon theology than anything I recall in the Bible.

new scrolls are mentioned in revelations

[CarlPilkington]

Your use of logic is wanting. Your assumption that "God wanted sin to exist and for us to commit it OR God isn't perfect" is false. There are other possibilities and the two choices are not related as in either/or. Simplistic reasoning is inadequate for complex concepts.

And those possibilities are? If God didn't want sin to exist, it's safe to say he could have kept it from existing.

To answer your question: God has built a house (the universe) and has 'hired' some servants to help Him landscape His property. He gave His servants instructions and left them in charge until He is able to return (from a distant land where He has other interests). His immediate goal is for man to subdue the earth. Later, He will send us to other lands (planets).

No, he 'created' some servants to landscape. CREATED everything they are, were, and will be. He created them with the capacity for sin. You think God couldn't create freewill (Which doesn't exist anyway.) without sin? Only in this universe does that even seem impossible, but remember God could have made the universe in any way he wanted. He could have made it some abstract reality we would never understand but also didn't have such a thing as evil or sin. The whole "Free will" thing is false, and even if it were true it doesn't change the conclusion I came up with to begin with.

[pbxilixdq]

G_d be so big that some way had to be devised to experience Itself a bit at a time. Shields and veils had to be pulled over Itself as It broke into smaller parts and began exploring by manifesting Itself a bit at a time to the smaller conscious agents. Or some other scheme that involves forgetting of the source of self.

I agree.. so then what is god's goal? Is there a destination to these quickening divisions? Is there a limit?

[minorwork]

I agree.. so then what is god's goal? Is there a destination to these quickening divisions? Is there a limit?

I'll not pull all the veils. Can you imagine why?

For G_d is so far beyond my ability to describe that to attempt to do so is vanity. I'd rather take the more pleasant path and raise myself by detaching from the veils as gently as possible.

I will quote some dogma about "god's goal." The goal being to know Itself.

[Night]

Absolutely like a parent to me and not scary at all.
Jesus chose to die and died at the hands of humanity for our sake.
When you consider that his Son will be next seen as this person:

I think the victory lies in His death.
You see we all have to die at least once, all of us that is except Jesus who chose to die so we wouldn't have to face the second death which is eternal.

Why did Jesus have to die? Couldn't god have just snapped his fingers and said "you can now ask me for forgiveness of your sins"?

Or was that simply not theatrical enough?

To put it bluntly, bollocks. Here is what Paul has to say to you:

The only reason for following the law of Israel for the Christian is because much of it makes good sense. Obviously it is not beneficial or loving to covet, commit adultery, steal, murder, behave dishonourably, act unfaithfully etc etc.
If you see these things as merely fun maybe you need to open your eyes to the damage you cause with your self absorbed life.

First of all, none of those things are "merely fun" to me, and it is extremely rude of you to suggest otherwise. Furthermore, you have never even met me, you know absolutely nothing about me, and it is simply wrong of you to say my life is "self-absorbed", as it is not.

The Bible does not teach self hatred but it does teach the value of honest self judgement and it does teach the supreme nature of self depreciating Love. Better to judge oneself and not be judged, and better to have Loved than to have never lived.

I cannot tell you how many gays have committed suicide because of the extreme self-hatred christianity engendered in them.

Feel free but I'm not sure that I will have the time to properly address your miscontextualisation, mistranslation, imbalance and misinterpretation in full.

Here then, I'll just give you one:

Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Except that socialism denies the ability to Love by deny the freedom of the individual.

Socialism does no such thing. It is simply an economic model, and introduces nothing new that does not already exist in the United States.

For example I happen to agree with the 10% or so of my income that the Tax man takes for the support of the vulnerable, poor and disposed in my country but if I didn't I would have no freedom to retain my private property that is the income that I make.
Further more if under socialism the poor and disposessed become well off and affluent it is always observed that they abandon their left wing leanings in order to pursue this very freedom.
Clever long term socialism only allows its benefits to extend so farand it must at all costs maintain the reminder that socialism is needed.

Your ignorant generalizations really don't put forth enough information to warrant a response. If you want to attack socialism, please attack specific policies, so I can give a specific reply.

Do you actually understand this text? It is very Jewish and is not as anti-rich as you might suppose.

Jesus poor? He was a respected Rabbi with a reasonably large following in a country where 1/40th of ones income was given directly to the man of God in ones life.
He had a treasure among his trusted ones, not something that one has if you've not got to pennies to rub together.
If he was poor it was because he used His income in the same way that he used his life.
We are called to be "wealthy" (in that a wealthy person has the wisdom to use riches correctly) not poor.

1 Corinthians 8:9 Though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich.

I happen to agree and apart from the fact that I don't practice homosexuality, I do not condemn unloving homosexuality any more strongly than I condemn the unloving eating of shellfish.

You missed the point, perhaps I didn't state it well. I'm saying, do you think that you can ignore the parts of the bible you don't want to abide by?

If you understood what the "ridiculous old testament laws" were about you would understand that they were never binding upon anyone who was not a part of the nation of Israel under the Mosaic Covenant.
My reccomendation is that you become familiar with the letters to the Romans, Galatians and Hebrews.

Can you please show me where in the bible it says only the Israelis should follow these laws?

Don't ask me why. But it's certainly a cool "coincidence" that it was predicted that the Jewish Messiah would die in this way centuries before the method of execution was even invented.

Jesus was a religious scholar, correct? It's not really that cool, considering that jesus was obviously setting himself up to fulfill the prophecy...

Only by taking back the freedom given, only by denying the right that he gave and only by denying His own nature of Love. So probably not.

So, god couldn't give man the ability to pray for forgiveness and receive it without sacrificing himself/his son? I thought he could do anything?

Don't you see how ridiculous, ancient, and barbaric your religion is?

Yup, as is touching human shit, touching a dead body, bleeding etc etc x 613 (if you wish to be an Orthodox Jew that is).
But why are you worried when its all covered by Jesus and the only exhortation or appropriate response is to grow in Loving relationship with God and Man?

I'm not worried at all, it's a BS religion.

However, I am concerned with your mental health, and I must ask, where does the bible say that these restrictions only apply to the Jews?

[pbxilixdq]

I'll not pull all the veils. Can you imagine why?

For G_d is so far beyond my ability to describe that to attempt to do so is vanity. I'd rather take the more pleasant path and raise myself by detaching from the veils as gently as possible.

I will quote some dogma about "god's goal." The goal being to know Itself.

If the disconnect between you and god is illusionary, then why can't you understand yourself? Granted, what good would traditional understanding do in the face of GOD.. what words could describe that.. but if the disconnect is illusionary that why can't you BE god.

Experiences are empirical if you don't interpret their meaning. They are a natural occurrence of reality, how could they not be? Vain to describe god, yes. That's personally why I disagree with religion. But is it vain to experience oneness with god? Is that not by definition MORE REAL than even a scientific conclusion about the universe is "real"? I'm not saying there may not be a spectrum of varying degrees of oneness, but there is at least a pathway.

[minorwork]

If the disconnect between you and god is illusionary, then why can't you understand yourself? Granted, what good would traditional understanding do in the face of GOD.. what words could describe that.. but if the disconnect is illusionary that why can't you BE god.

Could be, on condition that free will becomes a pipe dream. I can't handle that reality and I've tried. Give me the shields, the veils anytime. Anything but raw reality.

Experiences are empirical if you don't interpret their meaning.

And how is that done? I take it that it's NOT easy or natural. In my experience such can not be sustained at a near ideal level for very long with remembrance.

They are a natural occurrence of reality, how could they not be?

The world of thought is distinct from the world of phenomena by remoteness of experience in the world of thought. Sure, thought is experienced but not by the perceptions of the world of phenomena. In terms of phenomena, yes, but not thru the 5 senses.

Vain to describe god, yes. That's personally why I disagree with religion. But is it vain to experience oneness with god? Is that not by definition MORE REAL than even a scientific conclusion about the universe is "real"? I'm not saying there may not be a spectrum of varying degrees of oneness, but there is at least a pathway.[/QUOTE]Amen!

[grandpa]

Could be, on condition that free will becomes a pipe
dream.
I can't handle that reality and I've tried.

I don't view any act, or lack of action, to be through sheer willpower, because I question that there's a such thing as "sheer willpower." I view "free will" as a relative term. I don't know if you agree or disagree with it, but there it is.

Grandpa h.

[DoctorBarber]

You're wasting your time with threads like this. People have been trying to understand why God does this, and why God does that for generations. And the reason that still to this day none of you can figure it out is simply because of who he is. God. If we could easily understand him and why he does what he does, then he wouldn't be much of a god, would he?

[kjw47]

You're wasting your time with threads like this. People have been trying to understand why God does this, and why God does that for generations. And the reason that still to this day none of you can figure it out is simply because of who he is. God. If we could easily understand him and why he does what he does, then he wouldn't be much of a god, would he?

Its not that hard to understand--after God out of his love created everything and handed it on a silver platter to Adam and Eve-- Satan rebelled and raised the issue whether or not mankind needs God to direct their paths to true happiness, by telling Eve they would become like God knowing good and bad--basically saying if they were like God they wouldnt need God--So when the first human pair kicked him in the teeth after all he did for them-he said ok lets see if mankind needs God to direct their paths--this sick system of things prove we do need his direction-and he isnt interferring too much--and he is making darn sure the issue is settled for all time.