Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

In reply to the discussion: The God problem (part 2) [View all]

SarahM32

(270 posts)
32. Charles, you were right. I did "predict" you would say some of those things.
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 03:44 PM
Feb 2013

In the thread for The God Problem Part 1, in response to my comment (click here), you said I had predicted some of the things you would say in Part 2. And you were right.

We are pretty much on the same page regarding concepts of God, because I like the concepts discussed in the article on The Nature of God, which points out how Hindu, Taoist, Judaic, Christian and other concepts of God can be seen as very similar. God is what makes the Universe alive, and is the heart an essential substance of all things -- the primordial vibration of Divine Light Energy, Source and Essence of all life and form, and "Word" made flesh in all of us.

However, we do still differ in our beliefs about certain things.

For example, while Paul, the author of Colossians and many of the other epistles and books of the Christian church canon, did express much of the truth that the apostles had learned from Jesus, he was also wrong about much. He wrongly assumed he understood the Torah and Tanakh, and assumed that "Christianity" should supersede Judaism. He even feuded with James and others about that. (See About Christianity.)

That has proven problematic, especially since Paul was the first to produce and distribute his written work he had a lot of influence over Mark, Luke, Matthew, and, to a certain but lesser extent, John. And I think that's why Thomas Jefferson and other Enlightenment thinkers considered Paul the guy who "corrupted" Christianity and was responsible for what it became during the Dark Ages, the Inquisitions, Crusades, and, in certain cases, ever since (e.g., because of the "religious right&quot .

I promote a unique message, as you know, because it deals with all these important and crucial issues. But the message is rejected by most people, mainly because of the declaration the author has made -- that he is the "modern son of man."

As he say, it is no wonder he's rejected. It was predicable, and was predicted, because he doesn't meet anyone's expectations. He serves only God, and rather than exalt himself he merely wants to liberate and empower humanity.

I think there is a quote from Isaiah that is very telling. It's quoted in the beginning of the article on Prophecies Regarding He Who Fulfills Them:

There are many prophecies about him in the legends and scriptures of all religions. However, the prophecies in the Hebrew book of Isaiah are perhaps the most specific, and Jesus of Nazareth agreed with them, which is why he said that the next "son of man" would "first" be rejected by his generation and suffer many things before the judgment he delivers is recognized and acknowledged.

Listen to me, and hearken all peoples, from far: the Lord has called me, and from the womb of my mother has God made mention of my name. And the Lord God has made my mouth and pen like a sharp sword, in the shadow of God’s hand have I been hidden; and the Lord has made me as a polished arrow, in God’s quiver I have been concealed. And God said to me: 'You are My servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.' But I said: 'I have labored in vain, I have spent my strength for naught and vanity; yet surely my righteousness is with the Lord, and my satisfaction with my God.' And now says my God that formed me from the womb to be a loyal servant, to bring Jacob back to God, and that Israel be gathered unto God — for I am honorable in the sight of the Lord, and my God is become my strength. Indeed, God said: 'It is not enough that you should be My servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the offspring of Israel. I will also give you for a light of all the nations, that My salvation may be unto the ends of the earth.' Thus said the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One, to him who is despised of men, to him who is abhorred of nations, to a servant of rulers: ‘They shall see, and they shall lower themselves and acknowledge God; because of the Lord that is faithful, even the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you.’” – Isaiah 49:1-7

The author (or authors) of the book of Isaiah revealed much about the modern son of man, even though most Jews, Christians and Muslims do not understand Isaiah. For the man who fulfills prophecies is sent not to favor one nation or religion over others, or to establish a new religion, but to fulfill the religions of the world and embrace all nations. His mission is about reminding humanity of essential universal truths and the will of God, and about our spiritual relationship with God and with each other.

But, he is rejected and despised because he dares to judge the political and religious leaders of the world, and he is only human and flawed. In fact, as the Prophet Isaiah prophesied, he is like Jacob who was called Israel because he struggled with God, and he has been covetous and willful. But, after having been severely stricken and afflicted, and suffered many things, he has become increasingly contrite of spirit, realizes his vain folly, and he recognizes God as his only refuge.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

The God problem (part 2) [View all] Thats my opinion Feb 2013 OP
This is not significantly different rrneck Feb 2013 #1
Everything is energy of one form or another Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #2
A D please reread Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #3
The problem I have with this that if you are trying to look at something in a different way Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #4
Significant statement ! Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #6
You are assuming that 'love' started with religion Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #9
Since most people use the word God with some sort of meaning Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #11
See that is a lot of the problem Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #15
A remarkable post Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #16
I do get very angry... trotsky Feb 2013 #41
Feel good about yourself skepticscott Feb 2013 #24
And still managed a dig at "non-religious bigots" who dare to question the Great One. mr blur Feb 2013 #27
And I don't even think he realizes skepticscott Feb 2013 #30
........... Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #31
In the end, what difference does it make? BlueStreak Feb 2013 #28
It would be a lot more fun Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #38
If I'm reading you correctly okasha Feb 2013 #5
Very, very close to what I mean. Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #7
That brings me to rwo more questions,then. okasha Feb 2013 #13
Coextensive many be a limiting word. Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #17
I thought you meant panentheism, okasha Feb 2013 #19
Try this definition from Tom Hayden Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #42
Thanks. okasha Feb 2013 #45
The problem is you're trying to pass off as some "new revelation of God" Leontius Feb 2013 #8
You got it ! Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #10
A great post for the Religion group goldent Feb 2013 #12
I find the field you are describing fascinating. Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #18
There is a philosophical theory that is something like your idea about the nature of matter. Jim__ Feb 2013 #20
Even if you accept that notion skepticscott Feb 2013 #23
I was talking about the human understanding of the nature of matter. Jim__ Feb 2013 #25
And that understanding skepticscott Feb 2013 #29
I hadn't heard of that before, but it seems right goldent Feb 2013 #34
May the Force be with you! backscatter712 Feb 2013 #14
The similarities have been remarked on before muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #52
For those who care, it's the first chapter of Colossians, not the second muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #21
Whoops! Typo. Of course it is Colossians 1 Thanks for trhe correction nt Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #40
However, you're still not addressing the problems of quoting a believer in the person of God muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #47
Colossians as two foci--parrticularly in this first poetic chapter. Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #51
Perhaps you could explain again skepticscott Feb 2013 #22
Sounds like you are discribing "the ether" edhopper Feb 2013 #26
Charles, you were right. I did "predict" you would say some of those things. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #32
There's that phrase skepticscott Feb 2013 #33
We shouldn't assume this isn't "Joseph Adamson" making the posts himself muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #35
Exactly skepticscott Feb 2013 #36
With that most recent post, it seems very likely to be Adamson himself. trotsky Feb 2013 #37
Indeed; I notice he's now taken the Adamson name off the bottom of the website pages muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #54
So with this I assume you have formally abandoned your first thread... trotsky Feb 2013 #39
Hmm... Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #43
Please, TMO skepticscott Feb 2013 #44
Ancient history, literary criticism and Biblical indterpretation Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #46
It's even more amazing okasha Feb 2013 #49
Ok, perhaps you might elaborate. Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #50
hate to say it but this was glaring. a sore thumb Phillip McCleod Feb 2013 #53
Very interesting deutsey Feb 2013 #48
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»The God problem (part 2)»Reply #32