DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Religious Convictions
HTML https://religiousconvictions.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Religious Discussions
*****************************************************
#Post#: 1585--------------------------------------------------
Re: God's goodness ...
By: Kerry Date: April 28, 2015, 1:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=HereticMouse link=topic=160.msg1549#msg1549
date=1430148222]
Maybe, if, as Kerry has pointed out, the church believes that
God made a man blind, and other teachings - maybe that is why
the church doesn't see God heal much.[/quote]
Please do not misquote me. Please. Maybe other people
believe God made that man blind, but I did not say anything of
the sort. The Bible also does not say God made the man blind.
It just doesn't. Disagree with me all you want, but please
don't misrepresent what I write. I believe what the Bible says
of it:
Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the
works of God should be made manifest in him.
Are you sure you understand what I said and what John 9:3 says?
That does not say God made him blind. It doesn't, and I don't
think I said that either.
[quote]It is interesting, that all the healing ministers I know
or know of, all, without exception, believe that God always
wants to heal the person they are about to minister to.[/quote]
Some of these healers must not be willing to minister to members
of their own families then when we see family members dying of
cancer and so on. Maybe I can find a case I read about where a
faith healer's wife got sick and he couldn't heal her -- and he
said it was God's Will that she be sick. I forget who that
was. I'll see if I can find out who that was.
[quote]The church, is generally, double minded about it. For
me, I saw an increase in success rate when I became convinced of
it.[/quote]
Just an increase in the success rate? Of ye of little faith.
It should be 100%. You should be able to enter a hospital and
clear the place out. You should be able to go into a morgue and
raise them all. If it's God's Will, why not?
I simply do not understand your theory of things. I don't even
know why prayer or faith by men if required in your theory of
things -- if it's God's Will, it shouldn't matter if anyone
prays or has faith. God should just heal everyone and raise
everyone from the dead if that is His Will.
I'd like to see some doctors' opinions on the cases you say have
had success with. Not hearsay evidence coming from you but
names of the doctors and evidence that the healed people had
been their patients and had been cured when medical means could
not help them. I'd like to see real evidence from real doctors
-- the way the Catholic Church verifies claims of miracles. Of
course, I still have a few problems with some of their claims,
like the claim about Sister Marie Simon-Pierre being healed of
Parkinson's. One doctor said it was a miracle, and another
said it wasn't necessarily since quite possibly she had been
misdiagnosed and had a different illness that resembled
Parkinson's that can have remissions; and then along came the
rumor in the Polish press that she was sick again. What I do
know is that they wanted to make Pope John-Paul II a saint fast,
so I am not sure they followed strict protocol. Still
overall, how the Catholics handle things seems a lot better to
me than the stories I hear about people being raised from the
dead in a jungle somewhere or how so many people were healed in
a remote place.
Face it: The odds are that we're all gonna die. If not of some
illness, then of old age. Those are the odds; and the odds are
when we die, we're gonna stay dead until the resurrection later.
Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till
thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for
dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but
after this the judgment:
#Post#: 1594--------------------------------------------------
Re: God's goodness ...
By: Helen Date: April 28, 2015, 2:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I think this is one of the issues that goes round and round. I
too believe that Jesus took all our sin and sickness....God laid
it upon Him, The Lamb and Perfect Scapegoat. Yet God's will is
shown in Jesus Christ, and the saints continue to die sick.
I do have no doubt at all that the time laps between dis-ease
and the healing is a time used to perfect and deal with the
inner man. It causes us to throw ourselves upon the Lord and
dig deeper. Sickness of the soul is much worse than sickness of
the body. It's better to die with a sick body, saying " Yet will
I trust Him." Than have a well body and have many doubts about
the nature and love of God.
I believe in healing. Does the lack of seeing it manifested in
my body change that...no.
I've done all the soul searching and navel gazing trying to find
out what is blocking my healing. ( Kenneth Hagin)
All it does is make a person depressed...it's like being under
water while God is speaking , seeing His lips move but you just
can't hear. God does not tease His people.
In my own life I have come down to the place of- " Lord I don't
understand, but I will trust You in this."
I am not the person who will point the finger at God and say- "
You did not tell us the truth, You say one thing, but You don't
do it." I do know people who do. I value my relationship with
Him more.
It remains a mystery, but not one that bothers me any more. I
gave it all back up to Him.
We can talk until the cows some home. He is our Healing He says
so. The saint continue to die in agony and pain.
There is something wrong somewhere....but it isn't on God's side
of the issue.
#Post#: 1597--------------------------------------------------
Re: God's goodness ...
By: Kerry Date: April 28, 2015, 4:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't give "by his stripes we are healed" a physical meaning.
Weren't people healed physically before the time of Jesus?
The allusion in 1 Peter 2 is to Isaiah 53 of course; but if you
read the whole chapter of Isaiah 53, it's rather hard to think
it applies to Jesus and to Jesus only. It does apply to Jesus
in one way but also to all Israel in another. It can also apply
to Christians today. The Law of Christ says we are to bear the
burdens of others as Jesus bore the burdens of others; and that
is true also of Israel who was to bear the sins of the Gentiles
and to intercede for them.
How can Isaiah 53 apply only to Jesus and no one and nothing
else, and in a physical way?
Isaiah 53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of
sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our
faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Is it fair to say that about Jesus? No, Jesus was popular with
many people although unpopular with Jewish leaders. We read
that multitudes came to hear him. We also read:
Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in
favour with God and man.
Should we also read this section of Isaiah 53 literally to mean
Jesus married and lived to see children?
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to
grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he
shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure
of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
How could he be an offering for sin if bruised? Bruised
animals were not supposed to be offered since they were
considered defective. And if we consider Jesus the Lamb of God,
corresponding to the lamb of Passover, that creates another
problem since the Paschal lamb was not a sacrifice for sin.
And if we say the painful things the Romans did was God doing
them, what does that mean?
No, there is a way a spiritually advanced person can attract
certain spiritual forces that are in this world and that make
people sick into himself. Quite often, the saint exhibits in
his own body symptoms of the disease for a while; and then after
a while, the evil he has absorbed is changed into good, and
the symptoms vanish. Thus the world is cleansed of some of
these forces.
There was a Tibetan lama who for some reason wound up in an
American hospital. The doctors would look at him one day and
diagnose him as having a disease and start treatment; and the
next day that disease would be gone and he had a different set
of symptoms. The doctors knew there hadn't been enough time for
the first treatment to have worked, but that disease was gone --
and they thought he had something else. The lama told them to
stop worrying about it; but they insisted on treating the new
disease. The next day, it too was gone, and he had yet
different symptoms. The doctors finally gave up. The lama was
absorbing negative spiritual energy and seemed to be making
himself ill -- well, he was ill temporarily.
I've never done healings; but I have absorbed other negative
spiritual energy voluntarily. Anyone with the correct heart can
do it; and perhaps I'll give instructions some time. This type
of heart is known to the Buddhists as the Wish-Fulfilling
Diamond" and to Catholics as the Sacred Heart. It works
because of the Sacred Flames in the Sacred Heart -- which also
can be said to resemble a salt crystal. All things are purified
by salt and fire. Jesus can do it easily -- he can absorb dark
energy from people -- dark energy that looks like dark smoke --
and he returns it to them looking like a stream dancing
particles of white light. He doesn't steal your energy. He
takes it, purifies it, and then returns it to you. I've seen it
happen. He's done it for me. And anyone can learn how to do
this although not as well as he does it.
The danger with some people doing healings is that if their
heart is not pure or they don't know what they're doing, they
can absorb negative energy that causes an illness and then find
they can't correct it. That illness can then take over. One of
my friends met a Wiccan who did that -- he went around healing
people -- and one day healed a woman of diabetes, then got
diabetes himself and was never cured. He didn't know what he
was doing. My guess is the woman wanted her diabetes and he
stole it from her because he enjoyed performing the healings.
Yes, he stole her sickness and got stuck with it himself.
Think about Gehazi. True, he hadn't healed Naaman; but Gehazi's
heart was not pure. He thought he could something for himself
out of the deal; and the leprosy that had been Naaman's fell on
him.
There are a few saints too who absorb certain spiritual energy
and who keep absorbing it. They do this to help cleanse the
world of a particular problem, and they remain sick and always
will. They are obeying the Law of Christ by willing to bear the
burdens of others. I feel quite sure this was the case with
Pope John-Paul II with his terrible illness. He didn't enjoy
it, but he had the right attitude about it and knew it served a
purpose. I also inquired of Heaven about it -- and while I
don't always get answers to all my questions -- I was told it
was right for him to bear that illness. He was doing a good
deed. I think I could even tell you what type of negative
energy he was removing from the world. It was not God's Will
to heal Pope John-Paul. It was God's Will that many others not
suffer by allowing John-Paul to act like a magnet for that
energy. I do wonder though if he could have been able to
transmute the energy better -- changing it -- if he had had a
different philosophical outlook.
Some saints even get stigmata that resemble Jesus' wounds. I've
never had five wounds or even any that bled; but I did have
three odd marks on my right side once -- one close to my foot,
one on my hand, and one on my side. Partial stigmata? I
don't know. Perhaps. Does it matter? Then they all went away
after a year or so. But one need not have such visible marks
to do being what Jesus did. St. Catherine of Siena had the
stigmata and was embarrassed by them, so she prayed to have them
made invisible and her prayer was answered. What modesty on
her part! It was the strangest thing though about whatever it
was on my hand. One of my cats was attracted to it and would
frequently want to lick it.
Returning to Isaiah:
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his
mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep
before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
True about Jesus? Not completely. He talked to both the High
Priest and to Pilate.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in
his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any
deceit in his mouth.
Not true physically. He was buried in a tomb that had never
been used before.
Did Jesus ever behave violently? Yes. Did he ever deceive
anyone? Yes.
All these things pose problems with Isaiah 53. I wouldn't want
to pull out verse 5 and say I knew that meant we are healed
today because the Romans beat him.
#Post#: 1607--------------------------------------------------
Re: God's goodness ...
By: A nonny mouse Date: April 28, 2015, 6:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Helen link=topic=160.msg1594#msg1594
date=1430250187]
I think this is one of the issues that goes round and round.
There is something wrong somewhere....but it isn't on God's side
of the issue.
[/quote]
There is indeed ‘something wrong’, and the ‘issue’ is indeed on
man’s side of that particular equation.
And it lays in the fact that man, since the time of Moses,
(assuming he was the one who started it all) has insisted that
it all has to be laid out in writing.
God created what we call the ‘Laws of the Universe’ (you don’t
need ‘writings’ to tell you that…..they exist) and ‘God’s side
of that issue’ concerns the fact there is not much point in him
having done so and then negating it all by intervening to
override them, other than in exceptional circumstances according
to his sovereign prerogative.
Man’s confusing ‘writings’ extend to 800.000 translated
‘Biblical’ words which on the one hand tell you that “these
signs shall follow them that believe ….. they shall lay hands on
the sick, and they shall recover” and on the other hand tell you
that “no sign be given but the sign of the prophet Jonas”.
In Deism I at last find peaceful resolution of our religious
chaos in the simple trust that the Laws of the Universe will
prevail unless and until God chooses to make a major change.
#Post#: 1610--------------------------------------------------
Re: God's goodness ...
By: Kerry Date: April 29, 2015, 12:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=A Trusting Deist link=topic=160.msg1607#msg1607
date=1430265544]
God created what we call the ‘Laws of the Universe’ (you don’t
need ‘writings’ to tell you that…..they exist) and ‘God’s side
of that issue’ concerns the fact there is not much point in him
having done so and then negating it all by intervening to
override them, other than in exceptional circumstances according
to his sovereign prerogative.[/quote]
You imagine that God is like corrupt men who make laws they
themselves do not wish to keep, placing themselves
aristocratically above others on the premise that might makes
right?
God has no need to override or suspend any of His laws since
they are all perfect. He designed the universe the way He
wanted and has no need or desire to tinker with its laws. What
appears as miracles to us are not really miracles at all but the
result of spiritual laws. The situation is like airplanes
flying. The law of gravity is not suspended when they can fly.
Our belief in scientific laws is based on the idea that the
universe makes sense, that our minds can understand it. That
idea is based on the idea of God as Creator who made the
universe in a way that we could perceive His existence. We
also should believe that we can discern something of His
purposes by studying His works. If God were to suspend His laws
willy-nilly, He would be undermining His own wish that we
perceive He exists and is a rational being. We could conclude
either there was no God or that God was irrational.
The atheist who says he has faith in science but does not
believe in God has no explanation for his conviction that the
human mind should be able to understand how universe works.
It is true that some people today teach that quantum mechanics
is random; but that is unscientific. That is saying the
universe behaves in an irrational random manner that the human
mind will never be able to understand. I side with Einstein on
that, and he said, "God does not play dice." It is bad
science and bad theology to believe the laws of science are not
universal and cannot be understood by the human mind. God
wants us to understand Him; and all His works can be studied as
clues about His Purposes. That idea is found in the Bible
too: Go study the ant. Consider the lilies of the field. The
heavens declare the Glory of God. And so on. We should never
fear science if it's true science that explains how things work.
Rationality is good. God is good and wants us to know it. We
should not believe God is capricious and behaves in ways that
undermines His own laws.
The problem with man is that often he craves a God who behaves
in a crazy way. Man also often wants a God he can manipulate
the way he can manipulate his fellow man. Perhaps most of all
man craves a God who is not just. Man seems to crave a God who
will play favorites and excuse their wickedness if only they can
flatter Him enough or cower before Him. Some have even
imagined God would show them favor if they sacrificed their
babies to him. What kind of crazy God would that be?
#Post#: 1611--------------------------------------------------
Re: God's goodness ...
By: A nonny mouse Date: April 29, 2015, 12:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Kerry link=topic=160.msg1610#msg1610
date=1430285277]
You imagine that God is like corrupt men who make laws they
themselves do not wish to keep, placing themselves
aristocratically above others on the premise that might makes
right?
God has no need to override or suspend any of His laws since
they are all perfect. He designed the universe the way He
wanted and has no need or desire to tinker with its laws. What
appears as miracles to us are not really miracles at all but the
result of spiritual laws. The situation is like airplanes
flying. The law of gravity is not suspended when they can fly.
Our belief in scientific laws is based on the idea that the
universe makes sense, that our minds can understand it. That
idea is based on the idea of God as Creator who made the
universe in a way that we could perceive His existence. We
also should believe that we can discern something of His
purposes by studying His works. If God were to suspend His laws
willy-nilly, He would be undermining His own wish that we
perceive He exists and is a rational being. We could conclude
either there was no God or that God was irrational.
The atheist who says he has faith in science but does not
believe in God has no explanation for his conviction that the
human mind should be able to understand how universe works.
It is true that some people today teach that quantum mechanics
is random; but that is unscientific. That is saying the
universe behaves in an irrational random manner that the human
mind will never be able to understand. I side with Einstein on
that, and he said, "God does not play dice." It is bad
science and bad theology to believe the laws of science are not
universal and cannot be understood by the human mind. God
wants us to understand Him; and all His works can be studied as
clues about His Purposes. That idea is found in the Bible
too: Go study the ant. Consider the lilies of the field. The
heavens declare the Glory of God. And so on. We should never
fear science if it's true science that explains how things work.
Rationality is good. God is good and wants us to know it. We
should not believe God is capricious and behaves in ways that
undermines His own laws.
The problem with man is that often he craves a God who behaves
in a crazy way. Man also often wants a God he can manipulate
the way he can manipulate his fellow man. Perhaps most of all
man craves a God who is not just. Man seems to crave a God who
will play favorites and excuse their wickedness if only they can
flatter Him enough or cower before Him. Some have even
imagined God would show them favor if they sacrificed their
babies to him. What kind of crazy God would that be?
[/quote]
I've no idea how all that relates to, or negates, the simple
statement that "God created what we call the ‘Laws of the
Universe’ (you don’t need ‘writings’ to tell you that…..they
exist) and ‘God’s side of that issue’ concerns the fact there is
not much point in him having done so and then negating it all by
intervening to override them, other than in exceptional
circumstances according to his sovereign prerogative".
#Post#: 1612--------------------------------------------------
Re: God's goodness ...
By: A nonny mouse Date: April 29, 2015, 1:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You imagine that God is like corrupt men who make laws they
themselves do not wish to keep, placing themselves
aristocratically above others?
No, I don't imagine that.
God has no need to override or suspend any of His laws since
they are all perfect. He designed the universe the way He
wanted and has no need or desire to tinker with its laws.
That's exactly what I believe.
What appears as miracles to us are not really miracles at all
but the result of spiritual laws.
I don't confine God's sovereign intervention in that way.
The situation is like airplanes flying. The law of gravity is
not suspended when they can fly.
So what? We build groins and sea defences to conteract beach
migrational drift due to tidal rotation, and that likewise does
not suspend rotation.
Our belief in scientific laws is based on the idea that the
universe makes sense, that our minds can understand it. That
idea is based on the idea of God as Creator who made the
universe in a way that we could perceive His existence.
We also should believe that we can discern something of His
purposes by studying His works. If God were to suspend His laws
willy-nilly, He would be undermining His own wish that we
perceive He exists and is a rational being.
Who told you all that to be God's purpose?
We could conclude either there was no God or that God was
irrational.
Or that, in general, He exists on a non interventionist basis.
The atheist who says he has faith in science but does not
believe in God has no explanation for his conviction that the
human mind should be able to understand how universe works.
It is true that some people today teach that quantum mechanics
is random; but that is unscientific. That is saying the universe
behaves in an irrational random manner that the human mind will
never be able to understand. I side with Einstein on that, and
he said, "God does not play dice." It is bad science and bad
theology to believe the laws of science are not universal and
cannot be understood by the human mind.
I agree.
God wants us to understand Him; and all His works can be studied
as clues about His Purposes. That idea is found in the Bible
too: Go study the ant. Consider the lilies of the field. The
heavens declare the Glory of God. And so on.
As I have often said "Man creates God in man's own image" and
since the Bible is the result of that, we have the image of a
God who does what man has said that he does. Some of which
'creations' will likely reflect the truth, whereas others will
not.
We should never fear science if it's true science that explains
how things work.
Rationality is good.
I agree.
God is good and wants us to know it.
We should not believe God is capricious and behaves in ways that
undermines His own laws.
That, as a generality, is exactly what think I said I believe.
The problem with man is that often he craves a God who behaves
in a crazy way. Man also often wants a God he can manipulate
the way he can manipulate his fellow man. Perhaps most of all
man craves a God who is not just. Man seems to crave a God who
will play favorites and excuse their wickedness if only they can
flatter Him enough or cower before Him. Some have even
imagined God would show them favor if they sacrificed their
babies to him. What kind of crazy God would that be?
Not the sort of God that I have learned to reject.
But it has taken 50 or so years for it to sink in.
#Post#: 1617--------------------------------------------------
Re: God's goodness ...
By: HappyHeretic Date: April 29, 2015, 5:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Kerry link=topic=160.msg1597#msg1597
date=1430255902]
[size=12pt]I don't give "by his stripes we are healed" a
physical meaning. Weren't people healed physically before the
time of Jesus? The allusion in 1 Peter 2 is to Isaiah 53 of
course;
[/quote]
Matt 8 refers to Is 53 after Jesus healed people:
16 When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought
to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all
the sick. 17 This was to fulfill what was spoken through the
prophet Isaiah:
“He took up our infirmities
and bore our diseases.”
Oh and look - Jesus healed all the sick there.
Mike HM
#Post#: 1618--------------------------------------------------
Re: God's goodness ...
By: HappyHeretic Date: April 29, 2015, 6:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Helen link=topic=160.msg1594#msg1594
date=1430250187]
I do have no doubt at all that the time laps between dis-ease
and the healing is a time used to perfect and deal with the
inner man. [/quote]
I do too. But I don't think God causes us to be sick nor
prolong our sickness in order for that to happen. There are
many ways that God can use to disciple us toward being more like
Him - He doesn't need to use sickness.
Ian Andrews used to preach a message called something like "13
reasons why people don't get healed". One of the reasons he
gave was because they believed God was using the sickness to
improve their character.
I think we have to be careful to not let our experiences from
not receiving healing turn to a theology of God wanting us to
remain sick for some reason. (I'm not saying you have, but
that its easy to end up there when following what you were
saying).
[quote]
It remains a mystery, but not one that bothers me any more. I
gave it all back up to Him.
We can talk until the cows some home. He is our Healing He says
so. The saint continue to die in agony and pain.
There is something wrong somewhere....but it isn't on God's side
of the issue.
[/quote]
I agree. But I'm not happy to let it rest at that - people are
in pain and die early. God has given the church the authority
to do something about it and told us to go and do it.
There is a slightly selfish reason, too - I'm hoping that as
people become convinced that God wants to heal everyone and
their faith to see people healed increases - that someone will
be able to pray for me and get my incurable condition dealt
with.
Regards,
Mike HM
#Post#: 1619--------------------------------------------------
Re: God's goodness ...
By: Kerry Date: April 29, 2015, 6:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=A Trusting Deist link=topic=160.msg1611#msg1611
date=1430286204]
I've no idea how all that relates to, or negates, the simple
statement that "God created what we call the ‘Laws of the
Universe’ (you don’t need ‘writings’ to tell you that…..they
exist) and ‘God’s side of that issue’ concerns the fact there is
not much point in him having done so and then negating it all by
intervening to override them, other than in exceptional
circumstances according to his sovereign prerogative".
[/quote]You were doing just fine until you added that last
phrase which implies maybe God didn't get things completely
right to begin with and has to intervene at times -- or perhaps
just for the fun of it, breaks His own laws.
What we call "signs and wonders" or "miracles" are really only
things we don't understand yet or can't do ourselves. We should
accept the fact we don't understand them and not leap to the
conclusion that God is changing His Mind about things and making
exceptions to His laws.
[quote author=A Trusting Deist link=topic=160.msg1612#msg1612
date=1430288140]
You imagine that God is like corrupt men who make laws they
themselves do not wish to keep, placing themselves
aristocratically above others?
No, I don't imagine that. [/quote]If you imagine God hasn't
planned ahead and intervenes on exceptional cases by overriding
His laws, you are imagining that.
[quote]God has no need to override or suspend any of His laws
since they are all perfect. He designed the universe the way
He wanted and has no need or desire to tinker with its laws.
That's exactly what I believe.[/quote]
I hope everyone could believe this because if it's true, it
means God is very reliable. There may be other things we don't
understand about Him; but we should be able to perceive God is
reliable and doesn't vacillate the way we humans often do.
This means if we can discern other things about Him, we can
trust that He will not change in the future. Thus faith in God
is justified.
[quote]What appears as miracles to us are not really miracles at
all but the result of spiritual laws.
I don't confine God's sovereign intervention in that
way.[/quote]
Then you have God operating outside His own laws.
[quote]The situation is like airplanes flying. The law of
gravity is not suspended when they can fly.
So what? We build groins and sea defences to conteract beach
migrational drift due to tidal rotation, and that likewise does
not suspend rotation.[/quote]So what? It means we should jump
to conclusions and think God is capricious or ignoring His own
laws if a "miracle" occurs.
[quote]Our belief in scientific laws is based on the idea that
the universe makes sense, that our minds can understand it. That
idea is based on the idea of God as Creator who made the
universe in a way that we could perceive His existence.
We also should believe that we can discern something of His
purposes by studying His works. If God were to suspend His laws
willy-nilly, He would be undermining His own wish that we
perceive He exists and is a rational being.
Who told you all that to be God's purpose?[/quote]
No one had to tell me; but Maimonides did say something along
those lines. I can see within myself a mind that seeks to
understand the universe and also a universe that appears to be
constructed in a way that the human mind can understand. I
conclude from those two observations that if there is a God who
created me and the universe, that He created the universe in a
consistent manner and gave me a mind so I could understand it --
and thus perceive something of His purposes. If He intervened
in a way that was irrational, then He would be working against
His own purpose of wanting me to understand something about Him
by studying His works.
[quote]We could conclude either there was no God or that God was
irrational.
Or that, in general, He exists on a non interventionist basis.
[/quote]
How about His interventions, if such things exist, follow
certain rules.
[quote]God wants us to understand Him; and all His works can be
studied as clues about His Purposes. That idea is found in the
Bible too: Go study the ant. Consider the lilies of the field.
The heavens declare the Glory of God. And so on.
As I have often said "Man creates God in man's own image" and
since the Bible is the result of that, we have the image of a
God who does what man has said that he does. Some of which
'creations' will likely reflect the truth, whereas others will
not.[/quote]I was wondering if perhaps you were doing a little
creating of God in your own image when you imagined that He is
capable of designing rules and laws that He Himself is unwilling
to observe. Is God like men who say, "Do as I say and not as I
do"?
[quote]God is good and wants us to know it.
We should not believe God is capricious and behaves in ways that
undermines His own laws.
That, as a generality, is exactly what think I said I believe.
[/quote]
Perhaps some day you will be able to drop the "as a generality"
part. It is rather like walking off a cliff though. What if
you're wrong? What if God is not all good and you bet that He
is? What if God is capricious and you bet He isn't?
Perhaps the only way to find out is to place the bet. I
remember when I did it. I did feel as if I was stepping off a
cliff. But then I told myself, "I don't care. If I go to ruin
over it, too bad. I'd rather be dead than live in a universe
with a God who wasn't all good. If I perish, I perish. If
there is some other kind of god who can be evil, I guess I would
have to oppose such a god. To satisfy me, God must be good --
and better than I can imagine myself now."
I stepped off that cliff; and the angels bore me up. One can't
find that out unless he does it.
Psalm 9:11 For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to
keep thee in all thy ways.
12 They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy
foot against a stone.
Yes, you could say I created God in my own image more or less.
One must do that. And if one becomes like the innocent child,
it's quite safe to do. We all would like to live in a world
without guile or hate, wouldn't we? Yet so few of us live that
way or will even admit it. But that God-Nature is still within
us. Find that in ourselves -- find God within, and then we
begin to know something about the God-out-there. Find too the
things that displease us about ourselves and be willing to get
rid of them instead of seeking to excuse the very things that
bring us misery.
Alexander Pope, excellent poet that he was, also had sound
theology at times:
Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;
The proper study of mankind is man.
[quote]But it has taken 50 or so years for it to sink
in.[/quote]
It did sink in. :)
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page