garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary Samuelson) (08/17/84)
Rich Rosen remarks: I thought god was "depersonalized". AHA! If I thought that, I wouldn't be interested in God, either. The term "depersonalized" suggests something less than a person. Perhaps a better term would be "superpersonalized." If you think that humanity is the best (or most intelligent, or most powerful, or most whatever) that there is, then it follows that anything (God included) would be less than human. But if you think that humanity is imperfect, and that there is therefore the possibility that something better exists, then something (such as God) could be more than human. God has feelings, too. Gary Samuelson bunker!garys "What is UNDER the brick?"
bmt@we53.UUCP ( B. M. Thomas ) (08/18/84)
If, as Scripture says, [Mm]an is made in the image of God, then the idea of personality originates with God, and not with men. God is thus a person, and we are persons because of having been created like [Hh]im, instead of God being a person or not being a person based on whether or not he is like us, or whether we think he is like us. Sexuality is also his idea, and we are sexual beings, but like everything else, I believe that this has some meaning. Many of the scriptures quoted in this discussion imply that the idea of human sexuality derive from God's relation- ship with Man. God's idea is also that we should have something like equality with him by identifying with us through coming to earth to live as one of us. It is also Jesus that he wants to be the answer to all of the questions about what God is like. Jesus is likewise the closest thing you are going to get to an objective proof that God even exists. He either was what he said he was(God in human flesh) or he was a liar. We may all be liars, but if Jesus told the truth, you can trust him. (My God, what WAS I talking about...?) Sorry about the ramble. Hope you get the point(s). Love ya. from over the rainbow of we53!bmt(Brian M. Thomas @ AT&T Technologies, St. Louis, MO) If you think I'm nuts, you're not the only one.
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/18/84)
> Rich Rosen remarks: > I thought god was "depersonalized". > > AHA! If I thought that, I wouldn't be interested in God, either. > The term "depersonalized" suggests something less than a person. > Perhaps a better term would be "superpersonalized." [GARY SAMUELSON] Or "non-personalized". But whether or not you'd be interested in a deity doesn't change what its actual character is, does it? > If you think that humanity is the best (or most intelligent, or > most powerful, or most whatever) that there is, then it follows > that anything (God included) would be less than human. > But if you think that humanity is imperfect, and that there is > therefore the possibility that something better exists, then > something (such as God) could be more than human. Our being imperfect doesn't imply that there *is* something more perfect. That's nothing (nothing) but wishful thinking. > God has feelings, too. Isn't that just as anthropocentric as given god (virtual) genitals? (... and a beard) -- If it doesn't change your life, it's not worth doing. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (08/24/84)
From Rich Rosen: >> Rich Rosen remarks: >> I thought god was "depersonalized". >> >> AHA! If I thought that, I wouldn't be interested in God, either. >> The term "depersonalized" suggests something less than a person. >> Perhaps a better term would be "superpersonalized." [GARY SAMUELSON] > Or "non-personalized". But whether or not you'd be interested in a deity > doesn't change what its actual character is, does it? You do not know God. Why do you think you have a better idea of His actual character than those of us who have met Him? > Our being imperfect doesn't imply that there *is* something more perfect. > That's nothing (nothing) but wishful thinking. Then where did we get the idea of "perfect"? If imperfection was all that existed, how could we possibly form any concept of perfection? I think the wishful thinking is on your side; you don't want there to be a God, since He would change your life in ways you might not want. Sometimes I feel the same way about Him, even now. But what else is there? Jesus once looked over a dispersing crowd and said to His disciples, "Will you also go away?" Peter replied, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." >> God has feelings, too. > Isn't that just as anthropocentric as given god (virtual) genitals? > (... and a beard) God wants us to know Him as best we can, so He manifests Himself in ways that we can understand, culminating in becoming a man Himself, complete with real genitals and beard. His appearance in visions with beard (e.g. Daniel 7) was just to render Himself comprehensible to His audience. Finally, we are made in His image; as it were, we are statues of Him. Thus our characteristics (except sinfulness) are a dim indication of His, not to mention the fact that He Himself is represented numerous times in the Bible as having emotions; so, to the best of our understanding of Him, God does have feelings. -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq [the man with the cornrowed chest hair :-)]
jnelson@trwrba.UUCP (08/28/84)
From: aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) Subject: Re: Gender of God -- More or less than a person? You do not know God. Why do you think you have a better idea of His actual character than those of us who have met Him? Oh.... excuse us. It's quite plain now that only a select few (such as yourself) have been privilaged to see the true nature of God. Why do YOU think you have a better idea of his character when you have only met him? Just how many years DOES it take to grasp and understand the infinite? So sure you are that it was God you met, and not the reflection in a mirror. Then where did we get the idea of "perfect"? If imperfection was all that existed, how could we possibly form any concept of perfection? This is the same mistake that Plato made, and you've taken it hook, line and sinker. Are you telling me that it is impossible for me to imagine ANYTHING that does not already exist in the temporal world? I can conceive of MANY things, often things that could never exist, yet they DO exist... in my imagination. Perfection is what you imagine it to be. Everyone has his own idea of what heaven is like, and no two will be exactly the same. Perfection is relative to the individual, and constructed upon the basis of his past experiences and ideas. That's how it could possibly be done. I think the wishful thinking is on your side; you don't want there to be a God, That's what I think of people who say they've met God or know God intimately. They rush head-long to the conclusion that most appeals to them... that they have experienced some sort of personal and meaningfull communion with the diety. What is required here is a healthy sense of what is real and what might very well be your own thoughts. His appearance in visions with beard (e.g. Daniel 7) was just to render Himself comprehensible to His audience. Which implies that your intimate relationship with God is in fact a relationship with a false-front of his, since you have just stated that God is essentially incomprehensible. If God IS putting up such a false front, then there is little to be learned of his true nature since these are images of what WE want him to be.... what is palatable to us (His audience). "My first name" - Speaker umcp-cs!speaker