I don't know. I suppose it depends on how extensive your "everything" is...

Everything in this world? Universe? Everywhere whether we can perceive it or not?

I remember that the christian bible limits creation to "the heavens and the earth". I always wondered how big these "heavens" were. We are all aware that there are questions regarding the use of certain words and phrases in the bible due to the many possible translations as well as the authors understanding and perceptions introducing certain limitations- maybe these "heavens and earth" are only the solar system?

It could be possible, in my opinion, that this universe is one of many and each has a different creator. For me, belief in a creator does not exclude the possibility that there might be other things...

For all I know we could be part of an art contest or science experiment.

I choose to believe that there is a creator. And I think of the creator as being outside that creation. But it doesn't upset me to think that I might be a teeny tiny piece of a part of a scrap of a canvas of an amature artist...

.


Abra,
I completely agree with you and especially the first statement made in this quote of yours.

But I also believe I will confuse you in my agreement with you et al.

So, endeavor as I might, God is not separate from us.

The Father of God is separate but equal with God.

The distinction lies in the definitioin of God. My definition of God is the Living Word personified. All other gods are not gods at all.

This distinction is the governance of creation and the natural world. All are one.

But at odds is the distinction that the Living Word that spoke it all into existence and the PERMISSION to do so, if you will, are separate. And that, my friend, is only told us by the mythological documents that disturb you so.

The qualifying diversion for me is that we only know of the Creator as told by Jesus, in that Jesus was there and spoke it all prior to manifesting himself carnally in a flesh wrap.

This is never going to be understood by humans.

The only evidence that we have is subjective to the words spoken by Jesus of Nazareth, and that evidence is truly a matter of acceptance or rejection with no tangible cause to verify.

This intangibility is only acceptable to those of us which have been touched by our God, Jesus Christ.

But completely incomprehensible to all mankind.

We can only know as we are known. hhmmmm......

I still embrace the wisdom of your beliefs entirely unmolested.

Where we may in fact differ is in our definitions of the hierarchy of creation.

God and creation are one, yes.
But God and the source are one without any of us only in the absence of the proof of the source.

The closest we can come to touching it is Jesus.

The closest we can come to being part of it all is by living in creation.

But then what? That's what divides and excludes many from the harmony we all should be able to embrace. My observation about mankind is that we are all to apt to be sovereign in our thinking and in our deliberations as people.

This is what divides us all, not the belief, but the systemic machinations of time.

As you know, Abra, I serve JESUS. But as a man in proxy, not as a sovereign.

I, like you, am a man under authority.

peace.

This is where you are mistaken. It’s not the documents themselves that disturb me. It’s the personal interpretations of these documents by men that disturb me. Interpretations that I totally disagree with. Interpretations that I personally view as ‘misinterpretations'.

I don’t believe that Jesus ever said that he was the only way. I believe that was a confusion in the minds of the men who wrote about him. They simply didn’t understand what he was actually saying because they, like you, were hung up on a preconceived image of ‘The Father’ as being a separate entity that dictates, and makes laws, and judges.

Jesus even tried to explain this to them in futility when he told them that they will be judged as they judge themselves and what measure they mete shall be mete unto them.

Once you get past the mental blocks that the men had who wrote about Jesus you can more clearly see what Jesus was actually saying. Jesus never claimed any association with the God of Abraham despite what people attempt to claim. His reference to “I AM” was not a reference to the God of Abraham, but an acknowledgement that he, and the spirit, are one. Just as this is true for you, and all mankind.

So, no, the documents don’t disturb me at all. It’s their gross misinterpretations that freak me out.

Jesus was no different from any other man, and he knew it. They just didn’t understand him is all.

You’re not a pathetically helpless slave to a cosmic dictator. You are the creator of your life. You are the a priori essence of your existence.

But if you wish to play games with yourself and pretend otherwise, please do not allow me to interfere.

Willy:



Jonlaw:


Bry:



teresita:



rabbit:



toastedoranges:



feral:



Lordling:







James:

The understanding of 'God' by many is contained within the interpretation of the Bible reharding 'Gods' emotions, which you realize that I believe are indeed... misplaced and human ones.



Hiya wench...




wouldee:

Hello my friend...

I realize your conviction(s) concerning 'God', Jesus, and spirit. Sometimes your delivery puzzles me... for instance, you posted:



Clear enough of a message for many to understand, I suppose, until later in the same post, when you also claimed something that seemed quite different:



Those two different viewpoints are at odds with each other, are they not? Perhaps it is I who have misunderstood you here?




That statement seems a little presumptious my friend, most unlike most of what I have read from you.





I have understood many of the parables which are reported to have been Jesus' words refer directly to what is within one... The kingdom of 'God'... So, actually I believe that it is Christianity which has made the separation not Jesus.





Agreed!!!





Again, wouldee?... This is a different perspective than you have already given once, while at the same time being the same perspective that you also have already given once.

God either does or does not speak to an individual. I wonder which you believe to be true?





Ahhhh.... so much obvious truth in this statement, however do all understand it as I?





This would all depend on what one is movings towards and/or away from, would it not?

Delusional?







anoasis:



When speaking of a monotheistic 'God' which must be prior to all other things, 'God' was everything, before anything else. Polytheism would not be supported with this concept...





I do not believe in the notion of intentional creation by reason of a 'God' which was everything, thereby could not have been able to distinguish anything from nothing... after all 'God' was everything before anything else. In this thread, I earlier explained this conclusion, so it is not necessary not go into it all in detail once again...

Abyssus abyssum invocat in voce cataractarum tuarum; omnes gurgites tui et fluctus tui super me transierunt...

slow, you do come up with some good ones........granted I have to google 'em to find out what the heck they mean, but I'm never disappointed with the effort.

Sorry Lordling, I missed the original of the one you quoted, so I used your quote. "There is no pleasure to be had in puppets." Punch and Judy popularity would disagree with that statement. Mr. Rogers stayed on the air 'till he died, puppets were huge in that neighborhood.
Sherrie and Lamb Chop, Charlie Horse, oooo, what was that dog's name ---- Hush Puppy!!!!!

Anytime.....

I don't think God is limited to natural law.

What came first, the chicken or the egg?


If 'god' is everywhere, and always been there, and always will be, then, what is the punchline?

If collective consciousness, has always been here, and always will, then I already know the punchline......


And it's a doozy of a Universal joke...

hi there CS my friend.

looking back to your quote here I see what you mean.

I am presumptive when challenging anyone to think. and to study.

preachy huh? But give it a little room to breathe and ponder it some more.

God talking to all.....yup.

The Father and God are a learned distinction that bears contemplation, but not of my opinion, but rather about the clarity of scripture regarding that distinction.

Nowhere does the Bible say that the Father has spoken to us except through the Son, or JHWH (OT). The language is the issue.
Grammatically, the distinction is made always that whatever the Father says or has to say, is delivered by the Son, The Word; be it OT or NT. Studying Exodus 3:14 is difficult but worth the effort.Point being that God speaks to all, but that is not directly from the Father. It is in the will and disposition of the Son and by extension in servitude to the Son, by the Holy Spirit.

My point is more generally that since the cross, all are in grace and the Living Word speaks to all mankind. However, not all understand that there is more than grace and inspiration to life as we know it, naturally. Assumptions abound as to the voracity of feelings and emotions that do not always reflect the greater importunity offered us to press in for fellowship beyond the relationship that all have in this age of grace.
Ministry is not salvation but service.
Service is reciprocal love born of fellowship that is intimate at best. Quite often, 'at best' is an ignored prerequisite when considering where the true benefits of service afford place, and for and to whom. hhmmmmm..............

~ A Cerebral Awakening ~


I once was just a thought
that hadn’t yet been thunked
a meandering reflection
that almost went defunct

But then one day the word went out
and a mind perceived my name
the perceiver was the entity
that set my soul aflame

And in the flames I saw my life
flickering with fervor
Simmering with scintillations
with me as the observer

I watched my life unfurl
as thoughts within the mind
manifest like flowers
in a garden I designed

Every thought I thank
gave rise to new sensations
interweaving with my soul
like physical creations

I created what I thought
I encountered what I thank
I imagined all that ever was
in this great cerebral bank

Like Alice in a wonderland
and Dorothy in the Oz
I wallowed in the fantasy
and knew I was the cause

T’was the illusion of illusions
that finally made my day
it woke me from my slumber
and sent me on my way

~~~

Abra (1/31/08)

Inspired by Jess Lee, unbeknownst to her.

You may preach till the cows come home Wouldee.

That's the beauty of life.

It's your dream. Have at it.

C.S.

I better understand your original post with this clarification, however in your initial sentance here - you are assuming that this is an acceptable - and exclusive premise. That initially there was God - and nothing else. Though it may appear to defy logic that something else "existed" along side of God, there's nothing within a monotheistic understanding of God that demands that matter - of some form or another - was not present. In a biblical sense, it is imposibble to assume otherwise, because before the creation, time did not exist. In the biblical account of creation, God spoke the creation into existance. Your belif or disbelief of this being an attribute of God hardly represents the absolute truth of this, so it falls short of your assuming it as a premise to support your argument that all things must be a part of God, and somehow evolved from some part of God. This does not disprove your argument, it merely does not support it. On the surface of the statement of your OP, it seems fairly logical to think that the creation is somehow a "part" of God, therefore all things are esentially "God" - however there just isn't enough to establish this as a truth by assuming your premise is absolute.



Yes, and I have noticed a tremendous improvement in your presentation of the idea's you put forth. Though in this thread - exegesis is not an issue, because it is not necessarily a biblical concept being adressed here. But your conclusion that God is "indivisible" has not been established by a premise that is "absolutely" acceptable. The idea that at the time of creation "God was all there was" - is clearly a subjective statement.

Okay, I'll try to help you with this question.

God knows everything that has, is or will happen.

Before God created Satan, God couldn't know that Satan would rebel. If something cannot happen (Satan couldn't rebel if Satan didn't exist), God cannot know it will happen. If God knew things which cannot happen, then God would know far more useless information that truthful information. So God created Satan and all of the angels knowing that giving them free-will might result in their rebellion.

Think about the war in heaven...God didn't cast Satan out of heaven, the Angels did. God allows them the expression of free will, the Angels could have choosen to join with their rebellious brothers.

Throughout the Bible, we see God express the truth that He is bound by paradox. "You will rebel, but since you are faithful now I will bless you." "I cannot give you Canaan today, the people there won't deserve my judgement for 400 years." God knows the future, but he doesn't act upon it until his action is required. With Canaan, God would not punish them until their evil was significant enough to warrant His judgement. God does not punish us for future crimes, we are punished for what we have already done. Even if God had known that Satan would rebel, would God still be good and just if He judged Satan for an action Satan never got a chance to commit?

It's not a bet, it's a test. God is testing his creations, Angels and humans to see who will use their free will to choose good rather than evil. Why does God have to test us if he knows the future? I already answered that! God can't know what we will do unless we will actually do it.

Hiya Lee....


James... once again a poetic nature shines...


sealove:

'God', in my opinion, is more than just bound by natural law, as 'God' is described in the Bible.


Eljay:



Eljay, if one believes(biblically or otherwise) that a 'God' created all things then what I said would absolutely hold true. 'God' would not be considered much of a 'God' insofar as the creator of all things should 'God' not have created all things, which includes all matter. That is contained within any historically repeated monotheistic understanding of the 'God' of Abraham?





Agreed, and further, before the creation, no thing existed. I fail to see the relevance of the concept of time to this discussion though. 'Gods' existance is independant of any time construct... before time... after time.





Physiological principles such as speech require a physical existance for the capability to form an audible 'sound', and a listener with similar attributes to 'hear'.





Agreed...




I have given what I feel to be a quite sound a priori explanation of why I believe that 'God' must be indivisible.



spider:



Not according to your next sentence... which was:






That which I underlined above is very problematic for me. The Bible clearly determines that with 'God' all things are possible.

'God' knows all or 'God' cannot know all... which is it for you spider?





War in heaven? Heaven... as in the perfect place of peace and wonder, created by the perfect omnigod? War must be perfect, or on the mind(s) of the author(s) responsible for those words. I choose to believe the latter.




'God' is bound in the Bible?... as in contained? This notion I completely agree with. The 'God' in the Bible is indeed contained within it, by man's expression of (mis)understanding.

'God' is not bound by anything spider.



One will 'test' another's choice of 'good and evil' as a result of questioning another's integrity, combined with mistrust and not truly knowing what the choice will be. If 'God' knows all, there is no questioning.

Creative Soul you keep limiting your thinking to the concept of God and the physical world ...I was saying that "THOUGHT" exist outside the physical world and only use the material existence to manifest itself into a physical reality and that the material existence is what "THOUGHT" use to create the reality around itself which would indicate that no creator was ever needed

FOR EXAMPLE:
if you remove an arm for a person isn't the person still theirself..if you take the legs does not the person still exist...so what would you have to take from a person so that they don't exist...the answer is their "THOUGHT"..my point is that it is the body that exist in the physical world not the "THOUGHT" that THOUGHT just use the energy from the physical world as clay to create the reality to manifest itself in it

Voil - most excellent!

Here are some very good concepts that one might apply as they examine the fairy tale world of 'creation'.

Reason/intent/purpose

creative thinking - what inspires it?

desire/need - what drives them?

NOW please, attempt to include these in your fairy tale/science fictional attempt to justify the human concept of god.

Intent must include desire, need and creative thinking to carry out the intent, and what good is all of this without purpose?

Further question, what need would 'god' have to attain self awareness. What individuality can be found or even conceptualized when NOTHING even exists exept god. What basis of comparison would have indicated to the ALL and ONLY that it was alone - only physical has the illustion of seperatism and only the physical can concieve of alone, lonley, individual.

"


God did he made the trees toiletpaper is made of