Who is God to you?

You didn't say exactly what makes theological systems so special and flawless in comparison with other systems. Is it just your belief or you have some arguments?

Well, you are probably a great humorist. I don't understand how a system built solely on words can be true, or right, when it describes a matter that is completely beyond language as well as human senses. Either you think of God as a being inside this world, an idol, or if not, then I need your definition of theology.

Or let's look at another definitions:

The study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially: the study of God and of God's relation to the world. - Merriam-Webster's Dictionary

Reasoning or discussion concerning the Deity. - Augustine of Hippo

The science of things divine. - Richard Hooker.

So the guys are going to scientifically study and discuss an, ahem, Someone that doesn't yield to any kind of law but instead of that is the only law-giver that can easily change all the laws of nature just during their study, twist their minds, warp their senses, and alter their personalities. Just tell me by what means they are going to study That. I don't know about you, but for me it seems very funny. No wonder that one of the first, and the most influential, theologian called Dionysius the Areopagite, or Pseudo-Dionysius, if you wish, outwardly said that the less we talk about God, the better, because we can't say anything about Him that is true.

You know what? The majority of saints didn't care about theological systems at all. They just had an EXPERIENCE.

Kidding?

 

You just think that because god's twisting it into your brain:willy_nilly:

 

and shes your GOD too,, OBEY!!!

 

God is more an it than a who to me.

 

Try actually answering a question sometime.

Why do you, as a "Christian", continue to deny the Christ?

 

I can understand that.

Well, I know many things about Jesus what did you have in mind?

I beg your pardon, only God is the arbiter of righteousness.

Well, you got one thing right.

It was you that diverted from the thread topic, I merely commented on your diversion.

And yet you seem to comment a lot about this person you have never met.

So are you saying that you think Jesus could have been dishonest in some things?

 

Did you ever meet him?

Oh, excuse me, my misinterpretation of the fact that you, "according to what the bible says" can tell everyone what is so.

You told me what I should be believing. I comment on an inaccurate statement.

We have his words. That is what I know some about.

No, I think he was consistent.

 

It is in the definition of a theological system. If a system was truly set up by God then it would by definition be flawless.

Thanks.

Just because you don't understand it does not mean that can't happen.

Why would God have to be inside this world? God could also be outside this world or both inside and outside.

You have an interesting view of God but then that is the point of this thread.

You are the one who used the the term "theological system", I was just speaking in similar terms but you are in a sense correct. But please realize that their "Experiences" were not just random but were directed by God to set up a complete "theological system".

So you really didn't mean to say that only shallow people can be honest?

 

:beatdeadhorse5:

You might notice that the OP question was "Who is God to you?"

Not who has the most valid handle on who god is.

 

And so who is God to you?

 

No, this is not what I think. This is just a set of theological quotations.

 

So it is a matter of belief for you and you can't prove it. Well, I can live with that

But you surely don't think that when God sets up theologies, he is restricted by your personal beliefs and creates them according to your stipulations? As if you asked Him: Please make for us a flawless theology, you hear me? flawless, - and He obeyed! In that case it is you who are the true One

And why does He need theologies at all? It is very dubious that He does.

Wow, dude, I can agree with that! )))) But could you please give me your understanding?

As I said above, it is not my view of God. I just briefly mentioned some mainstream theological ideas. My own view is somewhere earlier in this thread.

I?? No way, just look through our posts. I've begun to use it after you.

Alas! Goodbye, free will))))

At least not exactly. In the first place, I meant that people just can't be so shallow.

 

Sure, but I am afraid that what you call handles are inseparable from the opinion itself.

 

To add to this truism that I share, god is a force or energy, not a being based on the Greek Zeus that meddles in the lives of ppl.

God may be the collective consciousness that flows thru all and which we each share a piece, causing one piece to disagree with another piece even tho we are all one.

 

I was not talking about my beliefs but we can if you wish.

No, God is not restricted by my personal beliefs nor does he create theologies according to my stipulations but God is restricted by who he is and by definition God is flawless and thus could not produce what is flawed.

God does not need theologies, we need theologies and God helpfully has provided us with a flawless one.

God is not limited by what we think language can or can't do and thus God can do with language what man thinks is impossible.

Sorry, when you said; "So the guys are going to scientifically study and discuss an, ahem, Someone that doesn't yield to any kind of law but instead of that is the only law-giver that can easily change all the laws of nature just during their study, twist their minds, warp their senses, and alter their personalities. Just tell me by what means they are going to study That. I don't know about you, but for me it seems very funny.", it sounded like you were stating what you believed.

Again, sorry, when you said "All systems, I thought that included "theological systems".

How so?

Can't be so shallow as to be honest?

 

Thanks for sharing.

 

Okay, Older Water Brother, for now we have talked about many things, but here, I think, is the core of our disagreement as to who God is:

Anything restricted and unable in some way or another is not whole (as you like to say, by definition ). Anything restricted and unable is too small and banal to be God. And I don't see how a restricted something could induce that mystical awe with which king David wrote his psalms. I am not saying that it isn't possible to be joyfully awed by the simplest ordinary things - on the contrary, it is very much possible, - but even that comes from the fact that these simple things have in them a kind of that divine unrestrictedness, so to speak. So I have to come to a paradoxical conclusion that God is not restricted even by Himself. I am not ashamed by the absurdness of it, because it is purely linguistic absurdness, and the divine reality is quite another matter.

So I hope now we have come from the handles to the essence But I have to admit that your point of view, when we have come to that, is very surprising for me.

So why do you need them?

This is a trifle, but I used the word "system" only after you talked about belief systems. My opinion is, as you can see, that God is very antisystematic, although, of course, He is not restricted even by that and can make up systems as well.

Well, if even the saints are permanently directed by God for some final purpose... This doesn't necessarily mean the lack of free will, of course, but I can't imagine God to be so petty and pedantic.

Yes. By being honest I mean not only that someone doesn't lie deliberately, but also that someone doesn't hide anything psychologically unpleasant from him- or herself under the veil of some trashy activity.

 

God is the entity that yanks my chain when I've been bad, gives me comfort when all seems lost, and is a constant reminder that I'm not the one in control.

 

So you restrict God to being unrestricted and thus make him "not whole"? A paradox indeed.

Are you also saying that the world needs crime and violence, war and famine, pestilence and genocide, rape and child abuse to be whole, because without them the world would be restricted?

Okay

We all need them but only one the correct one.

While you are correct, I did use the word "system" before you in this thread, I was answering this post:
Originally Posted by RooRshack".... but I just personally am not convinced that if one human belief system is correct, we could know which one it is.... Look for the single one that claims to be wrong, perhaps? "
and was merely answering in kind. But when you said "All the systems are essentially wrong", I merely was pointing out that if God were to set up a "system" of belief it would not necessarily be "essentially wrong" and in fact would of necessity be right.

Permanently directed by God? I thought we were talking about just their "EXPERIENCES" or divine revelations, not being permanently directed by God in everything they do.

What?

 

Certainly not. Whenever He wants to be restricted, He is restricted. Whenever He wants to be not whole, He is not whole. Whenever He wants to be a man, He is a man. Whenever He wants to be a woman, He is a woman. Whenever He wants to be a blade of grass, He is a blade of grass. Whenever He wants to be sparrow's droppings, He is sparrow's droppings. Whenever He wants to be a serpent, He is a serpent. Whenever He wants to be a devil, He is a devil. And so on, and so forth. It has nothing to do with me.

All these things are your cherished restrictions, dude, restrictions of our freedom. And they are not even things, they are your abstractions, generalizations, pigeonholes, so the world wouldn't lose anything without them.

Also I have to notice that I have never said that the world is whole. In this thread I said quite another thing - that the world is NOT complete without God.

Why, I don't need them at all, unless you use this word, theology, in a very special sense, but you didn't give me your definition.

Whether permanently directed, or directed in their most important endeavors, not a big difference.

Exactly what I said