I believe in Jesus, but not in God.

[immortal]

To OP -

 

Just by reading Gnostic books you will not become a Gnostic.

 

You are missing the deep mystical meaning behind the teachings of Jesus when he says "Father and I are One".

 

The "I" refers to the body and the mind.

 

The "Father" refers to an anthropomorphic God whose objective existence is responsible for the existence of body and mind.

 

The Body and the mind cannot exist independent of the Father which means to say that this world cannot exist without the Father.

 

Saying that Father and I are "ONE" means that you are neither your body nor your mind, You are the "ONE" from which "Father" itself originates. It is in this context that Jesus says "Father and I are one".

 

Its not that he means to say that the human form or the body of Jesus is the Father. It shouldn't be understood in that context. God forms the basis for the objective existence of this world and You form the basis for the existence of God.

Edited March 4, 2012 by immortal

[PeterJ]

Immortal

 

I presume you are voicing your opinions here, and simply forgot to qualify your pronouncements.

 

What do you mean here by 'You'?

 

If God creates you and you create God, then presumably you don't mean the same thing by 'you' in each half of this statement, for then then idea would be absurd.

 

Are you equating one of these 'you's with Holy Ghost? That would make some sense. But how can I believe in a God that I create?

 

If your God is anthropomorhic and objective that's fine. But where does Jesus ask us to believe in any such God?

 

He did not, as Astrocat5 points out. You are not describing the God of Jesus, and probably for the reason Jesus gave as quoted above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

[Tres Juicy]

It strikes me that if you believe in Jesus but not in god, then you must believe Jesus lied about god.

 

I mean, Jesus went on and on about god, god this, god that...

[seriously disabled]

The defintion of God is subjective and depends how the individual really wants to define him. Just like moral issues about good and evil, it's really all a matter of individual perspective.

 

The current world situation definitely shows that there is NO personal God who really cares about everyone in the same way. And if you don't believe me then just open up a news website.

 

Fact is if there really was a God who really cared about everyone in the same way then there wouldn't be so many sick and starving children in Africa who are just begging for food and medications.

 

If there was an all-loving and all-caring God then she would have made sure that everyone gets exactly what he needs in life and the world would not have been so unjust for quite a lot of people. Instead God just lets innocent children suffer and then die.

 

Evidence shows that God obviously does not care about everyone in the same degree. And he definitely doesn't give a shit about many people (about most people in fact I think).

 

He may care about some people but he definitely does not care about poverty-stricken families all around the world or about children living with serious disabilities, for example.

 

What I also found out is that financially successful people who earn high incomes and have a happy and healthy marriage are more likely to believe in God and be generally happy in life.

 

The same is not true however for individuals who live in extreme poverty or in harsh conditions and are begging for food and other psychological necessities.

Edited March 5, 2012 by seriously disabled

[immortal]

Immortal

 

I presume you are voicing your opinions here, and simply forgot to qualify your pronouncements.

 

What do you mean here by 'You'?

 

If God creates you and you create God, then presumably you don't mean the same thing by 'you' in each half of this statement, for then then idea would be absurd.

 

God created my body and my mind but that's not me, I am the Absolute from which everything came and that includes God too, so yeah the "you" in both those statements are not the same thing.

 

Are you equating one of these 'you's with Holy Ghost? That would make some sense. But how can I believe in a God that I create?

 

If your God is anthropomorhic and objective that's fine. But where does Jesus ask us to believe in any such God?

 

He did not, as Astrocat5 points out. You are not describing the God of Jesus, and probably for the reason Jesus gave as quoted above.

 

Jesus spoke about Father and taught that we are all gods, made in the true image of God.

[PeterJ]

God created my body and my mind but that's not me, I am the Absolute from which everything came and that includes God too, so yeah the "you" in both those statements are not the same thing.

Strange. I thought this was the view you opposed. Seems like we agree after all that God is a psychological phenomenon.

 

Jesus spoke about Father and taught that we are all gods, made in the true image of God.

Yes. But he does not say God is objective or anthropomorphic. Perhaps you just meant that this was how most theists see Him.

Edited March 5, 2012 by PeterJ

[immortal]

Strange. I thought this was the view you opposed. Seems like we agree after all that God is a psychological phenomenon.

 

No, God is anthropomorphic and objective, God is not a psychological phenomena because the mind itself came from God, its not the other way around where the mind creates the notion of God. God came from the Absolute unity (i.e You), mind and body came from God.

 

 

Yes. But he does not say God is objective or anthropomorphic. Perhaps you just meant that this was how most theists see Him.

 

I beg to differ and that's how I interpret his teachings, that's what the Holy spirit has revealed to me.

[Tres Juicy]

God is not a psychological phenomena because the mind itself came from God, its not the other way around where the mind creates the notion of God.

 

 

I beg to differ, there is at least some evidence that suggests that the human mind is predisposed to create and believe such things, but no evidence for an actual real god

[PeterJ]

No, God is anthropomorphic and objective, God is not a psychological phenomena because the mind itself came from God, its not the other way around where the mind creates the notion of God. God came from the Absolute unity (i.e You), mind and body came from God.

This goes against much of what you've said previously so now I'm confused. I thought you were a theist. Now you say God is a creation of the Holy Spirit and therefore not a ctreator God but a created phenomenon. I agree, but now can't understand what you have against Gnosticism, Kabbalism, Buddhism etc, which merely propose the same idea.

 

I beg to differ and that's how I interpret his teachings, that's what the Holy spirit has revealed to me.

Maybe. But you won't find Jesus telling us that God is an objective phenomenon, and not many theists would agree that their God is an anthopomorphic fantasy. If God is anthropomorphic then everyone will anthropomorphise Him in a different way.

 

I would agree with you that He is just such a fantasy but when I suggested this you disagreed. So I'm a bit confused. How can one believe in a fantasy? Or are you suggesting that He is real and also anthropomorphic? This would seem to be a contradiction.

[immortal]

This goes against much of what you've said previously so now I'm confused. I thought you were a theist. Now you say God is a creation of the Holy Spirit and therefore not a ctreator God but a created phenomenon. I agree, but now can't understand what you have against Gnosticism, Kabbalism, Buddhism etc, which merely propose the same idea.

 

Its in harmony with whatever I had said previously. I am a realist, science has not given an objective account of reality and its method has made most of the workings of nature to be incomprehensible and I don't think science can give an objective account of reality and that is an open question. So atoms, quarks, fermions, bosons etc don't exist independently in the external objective world and what we can see are just correlations of an underlying reality so it best to say that scientific models and physical objects are just ideological concepts and do not exist in the outside world. This is just my opinion.

 

So all that is real is our personal conscious experience because because that is what is left of and that's the only thing we know of which implies only the mind is real, but now the question arises from where did the mind came from, that mind came from God and forms the objective basis for the existence of this world and God itself came from the Absolute unity i.e from YOU.

 

"The Universe produced phenomenally in me, is pervaded by me... From me the world is born, in me it exists, in me it dissolves."

 

So yes you created God and God created your mind and body (which is made up of just five elements) and finally when you realize yourself God itself dissolve in you. This is a literal interpretation and therefore God is real, fundamental and he is anthropomorphic.

 

My objection was that there is an objective external world of God and we don't know who is the God, it can very well be the Father of Jesus, the God of the Upanishad, or the Abrahamic God, we don't know what the hell is going on out there but none the less this objective world of God should exist if absolute unity has to exist.

 

Maybe. But you won't find Jesus telling us that God is an objective phenomenon, and not many theists would agree that their God is an anthopomorphic fantasy. If God is anthropomorphic then everyone will anthropomorphise Him in a different way.

 

I would agree with you that He is just such a fantasy but when I suggested this you disagreed. So I'm a bit confused. How can one believe in a fantasy? Or are you suggesting that He is real and also anthropomorphic? This would seem to be a contradiction.

 

Anthropomorphic God means a personal God, God is a person, he is real and fundamental and I have told you I don't go by logic, I go by revelation and I don't see any contradiction in it.

[john5746]

Anthropomorphic God means a personal God, God is a person, he is real and fundamental and I have told you I don't go by logic, I go by revelation and I don't see any contradiction in it.

 

More accurately, you don't have a problem with contradiction, since you don't follow logic. I doubt if this is really the case - maybe just in your head when you are typing on the internet. But practically, your everyday actions, I bet you do follow logic for the most part. I doubt you wait for revelation to feed you or make devices work. Science and logic deliver the goods that you enjoy all around you.

 

It just doesn't give you the warm fuzzies, which is very important - I don't discount them. I get my warm fuzzies from interacting with my family or contemplating the vastness of the universe. Can you get the warm fuzzies without trying to fork universal explanations into them and onto others? Maybe some people can only get the fuzzies by convincing others into a group think?

[PeterJ]

So all that is real is our personal conscious experience because because that is what is left of and that's the only thing we know of which implies only the mind is real, but now the question arises from where did the mind came from, that mind came from God and forms the objective basis for the existence of this world and God itself came from the Absolute unity i.e from YOU.

What objective base? It's all smoke and mirrors. You seem to argue for and against the same view, which is confusing.

 

The Universe produced phenomenally in me, is pervaded by me... From me the world is born, in me it exists, in me it dissolves.

Yes. But these are not the words of an objective God.

 

So yes you created God and God created your mind and body (which is made up of just five elements) and finally when you realize yourself God itself dissolve in you. This is a literal interpretation and therefore God is real, fundamental and he is anthropomorphic.

I think you might like to check the meaning of 'anthropomorphic.' He cannot be real and anthropomorphic, or real and a quale.

 

My objection was that there is an objective external world of God and we don't know who is the God, it can very well be the Father of Jesus, the God of the Upanishad, or the Abrahamic God, we don't know what the hell is going on out there but none the less this objective world of God should exist if absolute unity has to exist.

You wouldn't need to know what going on out there. A unity cannot be said to exist. The situation would be more subtle.

 

Anthropomorphic God means a personal God, God is a person, he is real and fundamental and I have told you I don't go by logic, I go by revelation and I don't see any contradiction in it.

Well no. As you don't go by logic you wouldn't. I go by strict logic and revelation, and see no need for the idea that revelations contradict logic. They might contradict ordinary logic or our presupositions of what is 'logical', but the idea that the universe is 'illogical' is not necessary if it reduces to a unity, since no contradictions would be possible.

 

Anyway, as I value logic, (having created God He then gave me a brain) and you don't, so we're going nowhere with this. Still, clarified a few issues.

[immortal]

More accurately, you don't have a problem with contradiction, since you don't follow logic. I doubt if this is really the case - maybe just in your head when you are typing on the internet. But practically, your everyday actions, I bet you do follow logic for the most part. I doubt you wait for revelation to feed you or make devices work. Science and logic deliver the goods that you enjoy all around you.

 

It just doesn't give you the warm fuzzies, which is very important - I don't discount them. I get my warm fuzzies from interacting with my family or contemplating the vastness of the universe. Can you get the warm fuzzies without trying to fork universal explanations into them and onto others? Maybe some people can only get the fuzzies by convincing others into a group think?

 

My body is a student of computer science, my brain codes programs, it does it in an algorithmic way based on a set of rules, this is enough to make devices work and give us some joy. The problem with this is you don't have to be conscious or self aware of your body to make these devices work, the body and the brain is a machine and machines are indeed capable of designing other machines. But we are something more than machines, we have a conscious thought which is non-computable which doesn't work based on a set of rules, it works by intuition which implies that there is a human mind to implement conscious thought, in this human mind cognition or pre-processing of sensory data takes place and if all that the we know is our cognition from sensory data how can I be sure that the human body as described by molecular biology and the human brain as described by molecular neurobiology indeed exist out there in the physical world. So as long as you are confined to this kind of cognition, a state of mind then obviously everything appears to follow a set of rules and those rules are mathematically formulated by science.

 

So obviously my body and my brain works based on logic and its inevitable that I have to go by logic in this state of Mind.

 

The main doctrine of Mysticism is that we can percieve the world in a different way and in a different state of mind and we can achieve direct realism means we can directly know the noumenon, in this state the mind doesn't processes data coming through the sense organs and only such a state of mind can give an objective account of reality and such an objective account of reality shows us that the mind cannot think on its own, it needs the help of a personal God to make it think, so we don't have free will, we don't have control over our thoughts and it also requires an underlying reality made up of just five elements.

 

So here is my body and my brain and here is my mind and my personal god but the where the hell I am. You are no where in this world picture, You created God and God created the world. You are the basis of this world.

 

So obviously yes just because I rely on revelation doesn't necessarily mean that I have to be illogical in the normal natural world. The natural world is logical but it is not the ultimate reality, so logic is insufficient what we need is revelation to know the ultimate reality and hence I go by revelation when talking about mysticism.

 

As you can see if science gives an objective account of reality then automatically the doctrine of mysticism will be disproved.

 

What objective base? It's all smoke and mirrors. You seem to argue for and against the same view, which is confusing.

 

As I have said earlier my view violates the Law of Contradiction or the Law of Opposites. To me both the Opposites can exist simulataneously and I have no problem in harmonizing the two opposite views that a personal God with a form and having plurality and an absolute unity which is non-dual both simultaneously exist. So I'm arguing that both the personal God as well as the Absolute unity exist simultaneously and it is as fundamental as it is real. This is illogical and hence you are shouting that "Hey, this cannot be possible". Yeah not possible for a logical mind but not for mind which has had revelations.

 

Yes. But these are not the words of an objective God.

 

The phenomenal world is created by the mind, this begs the question from where did the mind came from, if absolute unity is non-dual and one then how and from where did the mind originate, the mind has to exist and it should be real because we are being in the world right now. The basis for the mind is the personal god and for the basis for the personal god is the absolute unity.

 

I think you might like to check the meaning of 'anthropomorphic.' He cannot be real and anthropomorphic, or real and a quale.

 

There is nothing to state that qualia must be confined with in the mind, qualia can exist outside the mind too, the mind itself is a qualia and there are schools of philosophical thought which argues for the existence of qualia outside the mind in western philosophy itself which I read it on Wikipedia but I forgot where I read that and hence don't know which philosophy was that. Overall there is nothing which says why qualia cannot exist outside of mind.

 

You wouldn't need to know what going on out there. A unity cannot be said to exist. The situation would be more subtle.

 

I take a positive metaphysical position not a neutral metaphysical position. Shankara clearly says that "unity exists and I am that." This is a positive assertion.

 

Well no. As you don't go by logic you wouldn't. I go by strict logic and revelation, and see no need for the idea that revelations contradict logic. They might contradict ordinary logic or our presupositions of what is 'logical', but the idea that the universe is 'illogical' is not necessary if it reduces to a unity, since no contradictions would be possible.

 

Anyway, as I value logic, (having created God He then gave me a brain) and you don't, so we're going nowhere with this. Still, clarified a few issues.

 

I am convinced of one thing if quarks, atoms, fermions and bosons actually exist in the outside physical world then I will proclaim myself as a strong atheist denying the existence of a personal god and also of the absolute unity. The metaphysical theories of Hegel or of absolute idealism or the scientific theories of naturalism has nothing to do with the absolute unity of mysticism. It is ridiculous to think that quarks, fermions, bosons came out of that absolute unity. The ancient people following the mystical traditions neither knew anything about modern science or of particle physics nor they knew anything about the metaphysical theories of Hegel or of absolute idealism all they had knowledge about was of the Gods and about revelations and mysticism has nothing to do with the rational theories of metaphysics or the empirical theories of science.

 

There can only be two possibilities atoms, particles, fermions and bosons exist in the outside world which would completely vanish the existence of personal god and absolute unity and I will be a strong atheist or else the brain and the body as described by molecular biology do not exist which means personal god and unity exists and it is the ultimate reality.

 

But you can never ever assert that the brain exists in the outside physical world and also assert that the world is a unity. I hope you have got my point.

Edited March 5, 2012 by immortal

[astrocat5]

To OP -

 

Just by reading Gnostic books you will not become a Gnostic.

Quite right.

 

You are missing the deep mystical meaning behind the teachings of Jesus when he says "Father and I are One".

 

The "I" refers to the body and the mind.

'I' is Jesus, in 'I and the Father are one (and the same.)

 

The "Father" refers to an anthropomorphic God whose objective existence is responsible for the existence of body and mind.

'You cannot know the Father - he's too high above you.' So don't pretend you do.

 

The Body and the mind cannot exist independent of the Father which means to say that this world cannot exist without the Father.

The Father is perfect, and everything he makes is perfect - perfectly free to reject him, if you want. God rejected the Father and made this world. The Father has nothing to do with material stuff, and I believe that making this 'imperfect world' did not please the Father.

 

Saying that Father and I are "ONE" means that you are neither your body nor your mind, You are the "ONE" from which "Father" itself originates. It is in this context that Jesus says "Father and I are one".

Jesus was talking to simple people and he used simple language to do this. When Jesus said, 'I and the father are one,' that's exactly what he meant.

 

Its not that he means to say that the human form or the body of Jesus is the Father. It shouldn't be understood in that context. God forms the basis for the objective existence of this world and You form the basis for the existence of God.

God became imperfect when he rejected the father and created the Cosmos. As I say, the Father considers material stuff beneath him, The father has no need for material stuff, I'm kinda surprised you can't see that.

 

Immortal

 

I presume you are voicing your opinions here, and simply forgot to qualify your pronouncements.

 

What do you mean here by 'You'?

I don't follow that.

 

If God creates you and you create God, then presumably you don't mean the same thing by 'you' in each half of this statement, for then then idea would be absurd.

The world (cosmos) is material and material stuff does not please the Father. Do you think the Father loves gold? That would be absurd.

 

Are you equating one of these 'you's with Holy Ghost? That would make some sense. But how can I believe in a God that I create?

The Holy Ghost? Me? Yes, you're right that humans created God, but he exists, just like the world.

 

If your God is anthropomorhic and objective that's fine. But where does Jesus ask us to believe in any such God?

Jesus never asks us to believe in God. He wants us to believe in the heavenly father. I don't beleve in god - that's the old Jewish religion, the God of Abraham. I'm not Jewish, I'm gnostic.

 

He did not, as Astrocat5 points out. You are not describing the God of Jesus, and probably for the reason Jesus gave as quoted above.

Jesus never said he was the son of god - others said that about him. Jesus said he was the son of man, just so tyere would be no mistake. But everybody makes that mistake.

 

In moments of vanity - say preening in a mirror, you give off small (tiny) amounts of hydrogen. When the male is sexually excited, he gives off NO (nitrous oxide) Females in such situations, give off pherenomes, tiny bits of matter that excite males.

When you're afraid, you give off chemicals that dogs can pick up on. The list is pretty well endless...

 

When God thought he was as good as the Father - if not better, hydrogen was created - enough to make a huge cloud that went critical in the center and the first star was born. The universe evolved from this center - outwards. In this way, God created the Cosmos.

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I beg to differ, there is at least some evidence that suggests that the human mind is predisposed to create and believe such things, but no evidence for an actual real god

The world is proof of a real God. God is real - as real as the Cosmos. Unfortunately, the (material) Cosmos does not please the Father. When God rejected the Father, he created a 'rival' set of beings, beings that would (he imagined) take over from the Father and restore him (God) to power. That's why God doesn't like it if we kill each other - or worse. Nice chatting to you, Tres.

[PeterJ]

The main doctrine of Mysticism is that we can percieve the world in a different way and in a different state of mind and we can achieve direct realism means we can directly know the noumenon,

For Buddhists et al there would be no noumenon. Do you not know this? You are not talking about mysticism but your own worldview. Mysticism's 'doctrine of the mean' is not called this for nothing.

 

But you can never ever assert that the brain exists in the outside physical world and also assert that the world is a unity.

Quite so. I would never ever assert that the world is anything. I would state that according to logical analysis a metaphysics of unity is the only view that cannot be reduced to absurdity. This is a demonstrable and testable claim, not an appeal to personal experience, and you cannot falsify it.

 

I hope you have got my point.

I'm afraid I rarely do. It seem to me you regularly state things that contradict each other, and your mysticism is heterodox as your point about noumenon illustrates. I have never come across your particular combination of views and do not know how to discuss them with you since all you do is appeal to private knowledge. It's an approach that I did not expect to come across on this site and it seems to leave no room for discussion or even the slightest possibility of error.

 

I have no objections to your view but please do not call them mysticism or gnosticism. You are still in the world of duality, this is clear, in fact you state it, and the result is a misrepresentation. It is not a question of whether your view is correct or not, just that you're flying under a false flag. It makes the issues confused and imho does the opposite of lending credibility to the Jesus of the NT and the NH library. This is a science site and I think we should respect that, and not push our views on the basis that our revelations are deeper than those of other people. This approach may be fine elsewhere but it is going to be massively counterproductive here. At any rate it prevents me from engaging in any real discussion. All I can do is keep pointing out that your view is idiosyncratic, just in case anyone thinks you're right about mysticism and writes it off as a result.

 

But I'll try to bite my tongue more often. I'll bite it in this thread anyway.

[immortal]

@Astrocat5

 

Firstly if you post your thoughts with a embedded quote its highly difficult for others to quote your post and answer it to the point.

 

 

Where is the evidence from the scripture which indicates that Father was present prior to the God of the Old Testament, can you quote the scripture where it says that the God of Moses rejected the Father and went on to create this world or are you making up this stuff on your own?

 

The trinity concept of Christianity is not mentioned in the Old Testament, why is the heavenly Father not mentioned in the Old Testament? or Did Moses lied to us?

 

God said "I will be his Father and he will be my son".

 

This clearly indicates that the God of Abraham, Jacob, Issaiah, David and Moses is equal to the Father of Jesus in the New Testament.

 

If the Father and Jesus was present from the beginning or prior to The Genesis then why anyone would say like that "I will be his Father". This clearly indicates that the arrival of Jesus was a prophecy which was yet to be fullfilled.

 

Irrespective of whether the God of Moses was the Father of Jesus or not, this statement from Jesus "The Father and I are One" has a deep mystical meaning which is often claimed by christian mystics that "God and I are One" or "I am God" which is also in harmony with Jesus teachings that "You all are Gods, men of the most high".

 

It may be that since Jesus was preaching to ordinary people he said "You can not know the Father" that doesn't mean he is unknowable, it shouldn't be taken literally, infact that would undermine Gnosticism itself because its a view which says we can know everything that is there is to know.

 

For Buddhists et al there would be no noumenon. Do you not know this? You are not talking about mysticism but your own worldview. Mysticism's 'doctrine of the mean' is not called this for nothing.

 

As I have repeated many times earlier there is theistic mysticism too, if you assert that only Buddhism can be called as Mysticism then one can easily see your double standards and a bias towards non-theistic mysticism. Mysticism involves both theistic as well as non-theistic doctrines.

 

My view is one of the views of the Isha Upanishad of Yajnavalkya and just because my view is not in line with yours you are asserting that I am not talking about mysticism holding your narrow atheistic view of mysticism.

 

 

Quite so. I would never ever assert that the world is anything. I would state that according to logical analysis a metaphysics of unity is the only view that cannot be reduced to absurdity. This is a demonstrable and testable claim, not an appeal to personal experience, and you cannot falsify it.

 

I would be extremely happy if you just stick to that but you link your theory with mysticism that's when the problem kicks in.

 

 

I'm afraid I rarely do. It seem to me you regularly state things that contradict each other, and your mysticism is heterodox as your point about noumenon illustrates. I have never come across your particular combination of views and do not know how to discuss them with you since all you do is appeal to private knowledge. It's an approach that I did not expect to come across on this site and it seems to leave no room for discussion or even the slightest possibility of error.

 

I have no objections to your view but please do not call them mysticism or gnosticism. You are still in the world of duality, this is clear, in fact you state it, and the result is a misrepresentation. It is not a question of whether your view is correct or not, just that you're flying under a false flag. It makes the issues confused and imho does the opposite of lending credibility to the Jesus of the NT and the NH library. This is a science site and I think we should respect that, and not push our views on the basis that our revelations are deeper than those of other people. This approach may be fine elsewhere but it is going to be massively counterproductive here. At any rate it prevents me from engaging in any real discussion. All I can do is keep pointing out that your view is idiosyncratic, just in case anyone thinks you're right about mysticism and writes it off as a result.

 

But I'll try to bite my tongue more often. I'll bite it in this thread anyway.

 

I am still in non-duality of Advaita as formulated by Shankara. Do you expect me to not call non-duality of Shankara as mysticism or Gnosticism.

[Tres Juicy]

It strikes me that if you believe in Jesus but not in god, then you must believe Jesus lied about god.

 

I mean, Jesus went on and on about god, god this, god that...

 

 

Did this get missed?

 

I think it's a fair point

[ydoaPs]

Did this get missed?

 

I think it's a fair point

 

Jesus was dyslexic; He was talking about his dog.

[Tres Juicy]

Jesus was dyslexic; He was talking about his dog.

 

 

This makes more sense.

 

"I love my dog he loves me"

 

Replace "salvation" with "salivation" and you might be on to something, I know that my dog regularly offers me salivation

[astrocat5]

It strikes me that if you believe in Jesus but not in god, then you must believe Jesus lied about god.

 

I mean, Jesus went on and on about god, god this, god that...

Jesus didn't lie. He might have talked about god, but perhaps not in a nice way. Much has been lost in the translations - I think you can see this. When they cornered Jesus, they said they were the children of Abraham, and they worshipped the god of Abraham - but Jesus told them they were children of the devil, and they worshipped the devil, else they would be on his (Jesus') side instead of against him. That's John 8 verse 42 and a few more.

I'm not so sure Jesus had a high opinion of god.

Jesus was always creful to stress that he was 'of the Father.'

Liste, that 'god' person is a god of the Jews. Not that I have anything against the Jews - but they're god's children and that's nothing to do with us.

When you die, you come to these big 'Pearly Gates.' There's sounds of a great p[arty going on inside and a sign above that says 'God's People Only,' and everybody is pushing and shoving to get in these gates - but me, I'm not one for crowds and this kid on crutches - we find ourselves walking along the wall.

 

And we find this really narrow entrance, and sitting outside it's always this guy or his girlfriend - and they invite us in. And I remember Jesus always said, 'Enter by the narrow gate,' so I think that's the way in.

 

As for God's People, there's just a cliff, and a couple of speakers rigged to pump out party music.

There's no turning around, of course.

 

But we make our choices in this world, in our day to day living. You can put your faith in the god of Abraham, or Jesus. I know who I'm choosing.

[Tres Juicy]

Jesus didn't lie.

 

 

But he speaks of god. You dont believe in god.

 

Do you believe that he was mistaken then?

 

I did not ask about his opinion about god, I simply said that if you believe in Jesus but not in god then he must be a liar

[astrocat5]

But he speaks of god. You dont believe in god.

 

Do you believe that he was mistaken then?

 

I did not ask about his opinion about god, I simply said that if you believe in Jesus but not in god then he must be a liar

I looked thru' the gospels to see how much Jesus talked about god, and it wasn't much. There was the time he said, 'Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and unto god what is god's.' You must remember he was talking to God's People and that's why he talked about god. He never said he was the son of god. Others said that about him. Jesus called himself 'the son of man,' so there would not be a mistake made.

Jesus wasn't mistaken, but when there was no one around, he'd talk to his disciples about the Heavenly Father.

In the prayer he gave us, the 'Our Father,' the second line is 'Hallowed be thy name.'

That means the Heavenly Father's name is too holy for us to know. We don't know his name - only that it is 'hallowed' or very holy.

We 'can't know the Father' - that's not me, that's Jesus. It certainly isn't 'God.'

You might enjoy a relationship with God - that's strictly your business. But I'm Jesus'. It's a question of choice, plain and simple.

 

@Astrocat5

 

Firstly if you post your thoughts with a embedded quote its highly difficult for others to quote your post and answer it to the point.

 

 

Where is the evidence from the scripture which indicates that Father was present prior to the God of the Old Testament, can you quote the scripture where it says that the God of Moses rejected the Father and went on to create this world or are you making up this stuff on your own?

 

The trinity concept of Christianity is not mentioned in the Old Testament, why is the heavenly Father not mentioned in the Old Testament? or Did Moses lied to us?

 

God said "I will be his Father and he will be my son".

 

This clearly indicates that the God of Abraham, Jacob, Issaiah, David and Moses is equal to the Father of Jesus in the New Testament.

 

If the Father and Jesus was present from the beginning or prior to The Genesis then why anyone would say like that "I will be his Father". This clearly indicates that the arrival of Jesus was a prophecy which was yet to be fullfilled.

 

Irrespective of whether the God of Moses was the Father of Jesus or not, this statement from Jesus "The Father and I are One" has a deep mystical meaning which is often claimed by christian mystics that "God and I are One" or "I am God" which is also in harmony with Jesus teachings that "You all are Gods, men of the most high".

 

It may be that since Jesus was preaching to ordinary people he said "You can not know the Father" that doesn't mean he is unknowable, it shouldn't be taken literally, infact that would undermine Gnosticism itself because its a view which says we can know everything that is there is to know.

 

 

 

As I have repeated many times earlier there is theistic mysticism too, if you assert that only Buddhism can be called as Mysticism then one can easily see your double standards and a bias towards non-theistic mysticism. Mysticism involves both theistic as well as non-theistic doctrines.

 

My view is one of the views of the Isha Upanishad of Yajnavalkya and just because my view is not in line with yours you are asserting that I am not talking about mysticism holding your narrow atheistic view of mysticism.

 

 

 

 

I would be extremely happy if you just stick to that but you link your theory with mysticism that's when the problem kicks in.

 

 

 

I am still in non-duality of Advaita as formulated by Shankara. Do you expect me to not call non-duality of Shankara as mysticism or Gnosticism.

Someone else answered this post - it wasn't me, astrocat5. I don't know who jumped in here!

[immortal]

Someone else answered this post - it wasn't me, astrocat5. I don't know who jumped in here!

 

Your approach of assigning the God of the Old Testament to "Demiurge", who created the material world going against the divine will has been strongly criticized by Plotinus and by Valentinus. In fact Plotinus went on to say that "if some Gnostics think that the material world was created by an evil God and its not of the divine then why don't they just commit suicide".

 

I'm basically with Plotinus and Valentinus here who think that even that was the play of the supreme Godhead or the Holy Father as you are thinking.

[astrocat5]

Your approach of assigning the God of the Old Testament to "Demiurge", who created the material world going against the divine will has been strongly criticized by Plotinus and by Valentinus. In fact Plotinus went on to say that "if some Gnostics think that the material world was created by an evil God and its not of the divine then why don't they just commit suicide".

 

I'm basically with Plotinus and Valentinus here who think that even that was the play of the supreme Godhead or the Holy Father as you are thinking.

The god of the old testament created the world. I think we can agree on that. This world is not perfect. We should be able to agree on that also. The world is imperfect because it was made by an imperfect being - your god.

 

It's not a level playing field. The world favours the rich. If you're rich, life's good. Try being poor - it sucks! Surely you can see these things?

 

Our heavenly father is perfect and everything he creates is perfect - perfectly free to reject the father if it wants. That's what god did - reject the father. gOD looked at himself and thought he was just as good - if not better - than the father. God made the world to compete with the world of the heavenly father. The heavenly father doesn't get his hands dirty with 'materiel.' That's God!

 

I also think Eve was right to choose smarts in the garden. It was she who made Adam smart. This upset god greatly - people getting smart. You would have preferred to be made ignorant. Well, without trying to be mean, I think you are.

 

Gnostics don't commit suicide. They give their lives to Jeseus and (hopefully) die serving him.

[immortal]

The god of the old testament created the world. I think we can agree on that. This world is not perfect. We should be able to agree on that also.

 

It's not a level playing field. The world favours the rich. If you're rich, life's good. Try being poor - it sucks! Surely you can see these things?

 

Your view correspond to the Sethians who introduced Demiurge as an evil God to solve the problem of evil which was strongly criticized by Plotinus.

 

Everything is inhabited by the true God, good and evil as such don't exist, the material world even though it doesn't exist in the external world, only it exists in our minds is important in fulfilling the works of the true God. This is how Valentinians view it.

 

The world is imperfect because it was made by an imperfect being - your god.

 

What do you mean by "your god".?

 

Our heavenly father is perfect and everything he creates is perfect - perfectly free to reject the father if it wants. That's what god did - reject the father. gOD looked at himself and thought he was just as good - if not better - than the father. God made the world to compete with the world of the heavenly father. The heavenly father doesn't get his hands dirty with 'materiel.' That's God!

 

Again Plotinus criticized the Sethians for not seeing the Goodness of the Demiurge.

 

Gnostics don't commit suicide. They give their lives to Jeseus and (hopefully) die serving him.

 

Knowing the Holy Father through the teachings of Jesus gives you deliverance.