Evidence for God from Science

Unfortunately, Christians did just that, and came up with an excuse (the trinity) and ruined their scriptures. They turned away from monotheism, and moved into henotheism. How many times did God say there is no other god but Him - neither after, nor before?

We do worship one God. If you check out the scriptues you'll see He is manifested in 3 persons all over them...but that is for another thread.

monotheist wrote:The true religion, no matter what it's called, is one that does God's will. If God said it, then do it. If God said not to do it, then don't. If you do what God said not to do, then repent, and pray that God will help you to never do it again. For example, God said take no idols to make them equal to Him. Unfortunately, Christians did just that, and came up with an excuse (the trinity) and ruined their scriptures. They turned away from monotheism, and moved into henotheism. How many times did God say there is no other god but Him - neither after, nor before? But, i guess you can thank Paul (Saul) for Christianity becoming henotheistic. If only all who are henotheists would repent. Jews are actually the better religion when compared to Chrisitianity or Catholicism, since they're still monotheists. They just err by rejecting Jesus (pbuh). Jesus (pbuh) was sent for them, to fix their ways, and put them back on the right path. Seems like they like the wrong path.

You're mighty long on claims and might short on support monotheist. How about supporting your statments instead of just throwing things out that you have not demonstrated you have evidence to back it up with?

James 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before God the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their misfortune and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

-NET

Jbuza wrote:James 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before God the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their misfortune and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

-NET

I like this verse a lot; thanks Jbuza (and good to see you posting again, welcome back).

Thanks

Good to have some spare time again. LOL

The ONE true religion is one that knows all Gods as equal.
...because if I believe that there is ONE true God, then this one true God is the God of all; and if God is fair and the ONE then God sees all opinions and all people as equal and therfore makes this so.

lissy,
you wrote that 'it is illogical to say that all beliefs are correct because those beliefs contradict each other' ...yet, I say that if one wants to be logical one has to acknowledge how it is possible and certain infact that all beliefs are equal with respect to each other.

If one wants to be logical, it is necessary to accept that any opinion exists because its opposite does. That without difference, a person cannot be sure in their identity. This means that it is necessary to see how people who are different to us are in a deeper way and sense, the same. In other words, if we change our perception of what is true, then we can encompass a different point of view within our own. Seeing how logic is about respecting the need for opposite opinions.

For example, the view that Christianity is right and another/other religions are wrong, is right as much as it gives such a person their identity. It doesn't give me my identity since I've reached a point wherein I feel the need to see how other opinions are a part of my overall opinion. But everybody bases who they are by accepting in their mind that an opinion is different/unlike their own. It's only when this friction between different opinions becomes a partnership based on war and conflict as opposed to wanting someone to be different. When, in other words, there is lack of respect for others that is seen to cause unhappiness, that definitions for what is logical need to change to truly reflect what is actual reality.

Elisa wrote:The ONE true religion is one that knows all Gods as equal.
...because if I believe that there is ONE true God, then this one true God is the God of all; and if God is fair and the ONE then God sees all opinions and all people as equal and therfore makes this so.

Really?

Based upon what authority? You think all opinions are equally valid?

Canuckster,
(hope that's spelt right).
The theory that I work with to try to make sense of things is based on the idea that the opposite to 'wrong' is 'right' and that this is relative; and then that 'wrong' and 'right' are flexible definitions. ...along the lines of, whoever wishes to be right must see the equality between two opposite perspectives, base this on relativity between these two (this is conceptual but is applied to emotions) and then the more that this is done, the more 'right' is found. 'Right' being the perspective that can regard 2 opposite perspectives as equally valid and in doing so, combine these two together.

...that's the theory in any case. However I am still working with it to apply it adequately.

...for example, I believe that there is only One god. that the true God is both fair and logical, and because of this, sees all opinions as equally vaid (this can only mean the involvement of 'relative'). So, a person who was of one religion and believed this to be right and others wrong, I would need to see how this opinion is in fact the opposite to mine, which is that all Gods are equal. This would mean that I would require respecting that 'everything is relative' and seeing how for such a person, such a definition is essentially as perfect as mine. If I held true to this, I could defend my opinion and those of others who believed the same or who were otherwise of like opinion to this other person (that there is only one God and it is only the God of their religion, but that this God is different and any other religion is an enemy therefore).

God is the Alpha and the Omega -two opposite opinions brought together as one. This is God. Whatever definitions people give for this -whatever form God takes is of no import. The only thing that matters is whether the Beginning and the End are found together, and that all opposite opinions that are felt to be opposite within one's emotions (these are what truly tell us where balance and fairness are for us) are respected equally. Since God is both opposites at the same time. Or, as some people have written: God is the 3rd dimension, the medium transcendental opinion, of any set of dualties/opposites. It is not Alpha and Omega split, or Good and Evil split, because for God, pure goodness and fairness, there is no such thing as Evil. Evil is merely when the balance as seen and recognised by one's mind is in the process of redefining itself according to a new and deeper set of opposites.

If God is all things and God is a person's system of definining themselves, their values, then certainly God is fair -since there can be no other definition. Therefore, God not only sees the merit within all opinions and perspectives, but actually sees both sides (and all in between) of any conflict that has arisen.

...all this of course is easier said than done. But this is the basis of my thinking.

Elisa wrote:Canuckster,
(hope that's spelt right).
The theory that I work with to try to make sense of things is based on the idea that the opposite to 'wrong' is 'right' and that this is relative; and then that 'wrong' and 'right' are flexible definitions. ...along the lines of, whoever wishes to be right must see the equality between two opposite perspectives, base this on relativity between these two (this is conceptual but is applied to emotions) and then the more that this is done, the more 'right' is found. 'Right' being the perspective that can regard 2 opposite perspectives as equally valid and in doing so, combine these two together.

...that's the theory in any case. However I am still working with it to apply it adequately.

...for example, I believe that there is only One god. that the true God is both fair and logical, and because of this, sees all opinions as equally vaid (this can only mean the involvement of 'relative'). So, a person who was of one religion and believed this to be right and others wrong, I would need to see how this opinion is in fact the opposite to mine, which is that all Gods are equal. This would mean that I would require respecting that 'everything is relative' and seeing how for such a person, such a definition is essentially as perfect as mine. If I held true to this, I could defend my opinion and those of others who believed the same or who were otherwise of like opinion to this other person (that there is only one God and it is only the God of their religion, but that this God is different and any other religion is an enemy therefore).

God is the Alpha and the Omega -two opposite opinions brought together as one. This is God. Whatever definitions people give for this -whatever form God takes is of no import. The only thing that matters is whether the Beginning and the End are found together, and that all opposite opinions that are felt to be opposite within one's emotions (these are what truly tell us where balance and fairness are for us) are respected equally. Since God is both opposites at the same time. Or, as some people have written: God is the 3rd dimension, the medium transcendental opinion, of any set of dualties/opposites. It is not Alpha and Omega split, or Good and Evil split, because for God, pure goodness and fairness, there is no such thing as Evil. Evil is merely when the balance as seen and recognised by one's mind is in the process of redefining itself according to a new and deeper set of opposites.

If God is all things and God is a person's system of definining themselves, their values, then certainly God is fair -since there can be no other definition. Therefore, God not only sees the merit within all opinions and perspectives, but actually sees both sides (and all in between) of any conflict that has arisen.

...all this of course is easier said than done. But this is the basis of my thinking.

Sounds like pantheism and universalism to me.

What is God has a different idea of what is fair instead of what you choose to believe is fair?

You seem to be suggesting that your concept of God creates your own reality. If your Gd or concept of God is no greater than what you yourself can create then, what is the point of your system?

Elisa wrote:Canuckster,
(hope that's spelt right).
The theory that I work with to try to make sense of things is based on the idea that the opposite to 'wrong' is 'right' and that this is relative; and then that 'wrong' and 'right' are flexible definitions. ...along the lines of, whoever wishes to be right must see the equality between two opposite perspectives, base this on relativity between these two (this is conceptual but is applied to emotions) and then the more that this is done, the more 'right' is found. 'Right' being the perspective that can regard 2 opposite perspectives as equally valid and in doing so, combine these two together.

...that's the theory in any case. However I am still working with it to apply it adequately.

...for example, I believe that there is only One god. that the true God is both fair and logical, and because of this, sees all opinions as equally vaid (this can only mean the involvement of 'relative'). So, a person who was of one religion and believed this to be right and others wrong, I would need to see how this opinion is in fact the opposite to mine, which is that all Gods are equal. This would mean that I would require respecting that 'everything is relative' and seeing how for such a person, such a definition is essentially as perfect as mine. If I held true to this, I could defend my opinion and those of others who believed the same or who were otherwise of like opinion to this other person (that there is only one God and it is only the God of their religion, but that this God is different and any other religion is an enemy therefore).

God is the Alpha and the Omega -two opposite opinions brought together as one. This is God. Whatever definitions people give for this -whatever form God takes is of no import. The only thing that matters is whether the Beginning and the End are found together, and that all opposite opinions that are felt to be opposite within one's emotions (these are what truly tell us where balance and fairness are for us) are respected equally. Since God is both opposites at the same time. Or, as some people have written: God is the 3rd dimension, the medium transcendental opinion, of any set of dualties/opposites. It is not Alpha and Omega split, or Good and Evil split, because for God, pure goodness and fairness, there is no such thing as Evil. Evil is merely when the balance as seen and recognised by one's mind is in the process of redefining itself according to a new and deeper set of opposites.

If God is all things and God is a person's system of definining themselves, their values, then certainly God is fair -since there can be no other definition. Therefore, God not only sees the merit within all opinions and perspectives, but actually sees both sides (and all in between) of any conflict that has arisen.

...all this of course is easier said than done. But this is the basis of my thinking.

Hi Elisa, Iamb wondering what you think about the bible. Do you think it is Spirit breathed and the inerrant word of God? Do you believe that it our final standard and authority? I ask because in John 14:6 Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the life". I don't think it matters what we think is wrong or right. What matters is what God thinks is wrong and right and He has shown us this through His word. There has to be one truth and Jesus said it is Him.

God is fair, but what is better is that He is merciful. What is fair is for God to cast us all into hell because of our sin. What is merciful is that He sent His son to die for us so that anyone who believes in Him can be saved and have eternal life in Him.

This is the truth according to His word.

FFC: If you follow what Jesus has said, he once said to a man who asked to divide property between him and his brother: "Who gave me the authority to decide what is fair for you? Decide this for you self." -was something of what Jesus said to this man. -This is the word of God.

Furthermore, don't you believe that God works through people? That, whether or not we are 'right', we nonetheless act upon our beliefs whatever these may be -even if this means doing nothing. That one way or another, each person has beliefs and their ideas of morality, and that we can either do our best to conciously create these or otherwise we create them unconciously. And then, in this way, perhaps we could avoid hell or certainly pass through darkness, doubt and hardship with greater ease.

There is nothing to lose from seeking to know our own truth, and from doing our best to be concious about ourselves: you already are doing this. Any person with any interest whatsoever about who they are and what is true, has already embarked upon a journey into become more concious. The only requisite for desiring better or clearer values and the truth, is that one is alive. -So, of course a person ultimately is their own law maker. This is for one basic reason: the ultimate truth is that no other person truly has control over another. Despite how much people can be influenced or manipulated by others, the very heart or soul of who they are can never be changed.

-This is true because of the law of the universe that is that anything that exists exists because something that which is different or unlike it exists also. Take this truth (the only truth possible) to its ultimate and the only possibility is that the very fundamental basis of who one is, ones mind and one's feelings, is untouchable. The soul can get lost in the confusion that life throws at us, but no person can destroy it. Those who suffer greatly within come to discover this fact. Because if it were not true, and the fundamental heart of a person could truly be destroyed/altered, then this would negate the sufferring that one goes through in the first place. This concept and the concept of relativity that goes with it permits the person to see where truth and reality really exist for them now. And that just as the individual changes and evolves according to how their environment and experiences have impacted them, they see that the underlying truth and fairness that is God -the Alpha and the Omega- is relative; and relative truth is something that changes form even whilst overall it never ever changes.

Canuckster:
I think that your first question is asking: Is there a difference between what a person believes to be fair and what is fair? -Or, is it possible for God to think differently to us?

My answer to these questions is that it is certainly possible, and i would in fact state that such a thing is inevitable. This is the same as asking: does the human being evolve and does the world aroung evolve and change? Some have called 'God' another definition for the mind. Well: let's take them on that definition: suppose that God is the mind -that Alpha and the Omega; an individual's concept of reality, as constituted by a comparison of what is 'this' to what is 'that'.

Now, observe that we human being change; and that part of the struggle of changing is to recognise through our minds when this has happened. This is the same as asking oneself: Do I wish to continue living the same way? Do my ideas about who I am and what morality is for me, do who I am true justice. There is only one way to answer such a question; and the answer is not found within the mind....

The biggest obstacle to discovering the truth is one's emotions and the bias and subjectivity that this means. Many highly intelligent people do not see the 'objective truth' because they do not become clear as to what their own subjective emotions and point of view is. Yet, how is it possible for a human being, that is by nature subjective and bias, to have the attributes of objective fairness, if they lack the ability to see, recognise and account for their innate bias and imperfection-? This is how The Son of Man was The Son of God. Being that perfection, goodness and objective truth exists according to where one looks for it.

Through listening to one's emotions can we discover whether and when it is time to change our mind's view of reality. Only if our emotions tell us that our values, far from serving us and giving us identity, have instead become our enemy -and have instead been felt to deprive us of our identity -ie: go against our feelings. -But, this question is up to the counsel of the individual, since they alone know how they feel and only the individual can determine if their values need to be replaced because it is now decided that who they are has already changed through their experiences. -Is it worth sticking to the same view or does this view (this relative definition which is what God always is) no-longer reflective of one's true self. -A very big question to ask, since it is the same as asking: Is what I sacrifice now worth it? -Does it give me what is of true value, or does it take away what is of real value to me? -And for a while a person is still figuring out the difference between true value and what is not important, just as who they are is evolving according to how their experiences change and effect them. ...So this is a big question and is not at all one to be taken lightly.

So, I will use two different definitions for the mind and for God. One is the mind, which is the old vision of God, and the old emotions -all of which are who we are in the past. The second is the Mind and the new vision we have of God (which is equal to the old God because both are based on relativity, on constructs of the mind that give us the 'is' and the 'is not' comparisons for identity, values etc) and the new God/the Mind go in accordance with the present-now becoming the future Self. And emotions are the only thing that can give us any indication of whether our idea of God, our understanding of who we are, has changed. -What is worthwhile keeping compared to what isn't. -Again- it's a question that the individual decides and through their emotional decision is the new image of God, what is for them the true Alpha and Omega relative values and thus -the WHOLE of who they are- they 'see' the new form for God.

So, the question is: does one's values and mind's view speak the truth about one's feelings? -This is the best way (probably the only way) to discover whether the true God and our image of God are the same thing.

I'll answer your second question later. Have to go now...

Canuckster:
In answer to your second question that was: If your concept of God is no greater than what you your self can create, then what is the point of your system?

...it is that, because my concept of God is something that I create and have the power and potential to recreate, I can therefore rely on the possibility to evolve in my views and sense of self to fit whatever dynamic I choose to fit. The point of my system therefore is that I give my self the possibility to change according with life's changing diversity, all the while directing who I am given the surrounding circumstances. I choose to choose who I am instead of having it chosen for me.

Other than that, because I live with the concept that I have the power to change my perception of what the truth is, and what this means in relation to who I am, I allow my self the option to continuosly recreate what I want for my self. Because there is always a greater image of God and a Higher Self to realise, I keep this ambition in mind; and thus do not give-in to becoming limited by the values that I keep which eventually are like a crib that protected the child when it was very small, but which now are a barrier because the child has out grown them. -People evolve, people grow. I wish to recognise this fact and be clear in my mind so as to see when I've changed and outgrown my old self.

Elisa wrote:Canuckster:
In answer to your second question that was: If your concept of God is no greater than what you your self can create, then what is the point of your system?

...it is that, because my concept of God is something that I create and have the power and potential to recreate, I can therefore rely on the possibility to evolve in my views and sense of self to fit whatever dynamic I choose to fit. The point of my system therefore is that I give my self the possibility to change according with life's changing diversity, all the while directing who I am given the surrounding circumstances. I choose to choose who I am instead of having it chosen for me.

Other than that, because I live with the concept that I have the power to change my perception of what the truth is, and what this means in relation to who I am, I allow my self the option to continuosly recreate what I want for my self. Because there is always a greater image of God and a Higher Self to realise, I keep this ambition in mind; and thus do not give-in to becoming limited by the values that I keep which eventually are like a crib that protected the child when it was very small, but which now are a barrier because the child has out grown them. -People evolve, people grow. I wish to recognise this fact and be clear in my mind so as to see when I've changed and outgrown my old self.

Elisa,

What did Jesus mean when he said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father, but by me." John14:6

Bart

The theory that I work with to try to make sense of things is based on the idea that the opposite to 'wrong' is 'right' and that this is relative; and then that 'wrong' and 'right' are flexible definitions. ...along the lines of, whoever wishes to be right must see the equality between two opposite perspectives, base this on relativity between these two (this is conceptual but is applied to emotions) and then the more that this is done, the more 'right' is found. 'Right' being the perspective that can regard 2 opposite perspectives as equally valid and in doing so, combine these two together.

So, you assert there are no absolutes therefore all points of view are equally valid and we must seek to synthesize all points of view to in effect gain the broadest spectrum of tolerance.

Please explain to me how you would synthesize the views of Hitler with regard to Jews and his Final Solution with those of Jesus Christ's commandment to love your enemies.

...that's the theory in any case. However I am still working with it to apply it adequately.

I bet. No easy task it would appear.

...for example, I believe that there is only One god. that the true God is both fair and logical, and because of this, sees all opinions as equally vaid (this can only mean the involvement of 'relative'). So, a person who was of one religion and believed this to be right and others wrong, I would need to see how this opinion is in fact the opposite to mine, which is that all Gods are equal. This would mean that I would require respecting that 'everything is relative' and seeing how for such a person, such a definition is essentially as perfect as mine. If I held true to this, I could defend my opinion and those of others who believed the same or who were otherwise of like opinion to this other person (that there is only one God and it is only the God of their religion, but that this God is different and any other religion is an enemy therefore).

So, it seems then that the only attitude that your system will not tolerate is intolerance itself.

God is the Alpha and the Omega -two opposite opinions brought together as one.

Actually, Jesus is the Alpha and Omega and by no means was that statement intended to demonstrate opposites. It was in the context presented, the first and last letters of the Greek opposite and intended to demonstrate Jesus' equality with God in terms of his eternal existance and complete encompassing of everything God is.

This is God. Whatever definitions people give for this -whatever form God takes is of no import.

Really? What about the definitions God gives? Can you see how what God says about himself would trump any opinion Man would have to offer? God chose to send Jesus Christ and God in the flesh to reveal Himself to men and women.

The only thing that matters is whether the Beginning and the End are found together, and that all opposite opinions that are felt to be opposite within one's emotions (these are what truly tell us where balance and fairness are for us) are respected equally. Since God is both opposites at the same time. Or, as some people have written: God is the 3rd dimension, the medium transcendental opinion, of any set of dualties/opposites. It is not Alpha and Omega split, or Good and Evil split, because for God, pure goodness and fairness, there is no such thing as Evil. Evil is merely when the balance as seen and recognised by one's mind is in the process of redefining itself according to a new and deeper set of opposites.

Where there is no evil, there can be no good. Where there is no standard of right and wrong, there is no restraint upon man's ability to kill, rape, oppress and enslave other than that which he chooses to place upon himself by his own conscience or the restraints of society. We've seen the fruits of this kind of thinking throughout history, but especially in the 20th Century in which more people died in war, famine, pograms, genocide and totalitarian regimes than the combined history of mankind preceeding.

If God is all things and God is a person's system of definining themselves, their values, then certainly God is fair -since there can be no other definition. Therefore, God not only sees the merit within all opinions and perspectives, but actually sees both sides (and all in between) of any conflict that has arisen.

God is not all things. God is not evil. God cannot lie. God does not act contrary to His nature.

You appear to be seeking to make God in the image of man and attribute the "tolerance" you elevate above all, back upon Him. It is God who defines justice, not us.

...all this of course is easier said than done. But this is the basis of my thinking.

I appeal to you to think again and consider the implications of your thoughts.