I believe that the human being is by itself the potential god. There are quiet alot passages in the bible that support this thinking. I believe that i have godly potential and, being aware of it, am thereby authorized to call myself Son of God. Having the potential doesnt mean, that you are God, but that the possibility is there, that you become God. In the process you are children of God, like Jesus.
Of course not every human being is aware of this potential. Some wont even dare to think that way, like most of the catholics with their idea of trinity, that i believe is wrong. For me Jesus is not “true god”. True God is he, who Jesus refered to as his father and who is identical with the God of the Old Testament. For the catholics Jesus is their God, but that doesnt count for me. My God is the father, who is of course represented to a certain degree of truth by those, who are his children, but not without inconsistancy, as the teachings of Jesus are not without inconsistancy. I see God as my true father (which is nothing else, than Jesus actually preached) and Jesus as my brother in this sense.
The catholics think, there are two beings: the godly being, and the human being, Jesus belongs to the 1st category, and … well the rest of us to the second. To me this view is wrong. To me, there is only one being and those that spawn from it are his children, who seek a certain lvl of conciousness and identity withhin the true identity of God. But theoratically that identity is God himself for all of them. It depends on the lvl of realization of the godly potential that they have in them. The cath. church is not able to relate to this view. In fact what i speak is heresy in the eyes of a catholic. But i say: they dont dare to think that way, because they have made Jesus their only god. They want everyone to worship him as a bride… but i dont see myself as Jesus’ bride, i see myself as Son of God aswell and thereby not even Gods Bride.
Well it seems to me, that those ppl who are by their own will, brides, or lets call them sheeps of Jesus, are unwilling to accept the idea, that there is a conciousness above their own, that will grant a human being the same status, that the cath. church claims only for Jesus. Therefor they have build a wrong theology around worshipping Jesus and depressing the godly potential of the human being. Sometimes i have the feeling, that Jesus himself is responsible for this doctrine, since it is said, that he is the head of his church.
well, i would write some more.. but 1st want to see, whether someone will respond to this. Plz feel free to comment.
Re: My perspective on the divinity of Jesus
Matthew, I agree that the New Testament regards at least a certain group of believers as in some sense having the same status as Jesus. My own (minority) view is that it is essentially the early church as it is called to suffer with Jesus and be vindicated with him that is accorded this status. But any reading of the New Testament must somehow take seriously passages such as Galatians 4:4-6, which attribute the same status of sonship to those who are in Christ and have the Spirit of the Son.
I also agree that we cannot make sense of Jesus if we simply regard him as a ‘godly being’ quite distinct from the rest of humanity. But that is not Catholic teaching anyway.
Having said that, I would still ask how you understand passages like 1 Corinthians 8:6 (‘yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist’) or Philippians 2:9-11 (‘Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father’)?
Surely these texts indicate that Jesus was regarded as ‘Lord’ in a unique sense, having a status equivalent either to YHWH or to Caesar as kurios?
Re: My perspective on the divinity of Jesus
tyvm for your comment Andrew… im eager to discuss the matter with you and others that want to join in…
In your counter-argument you are refering to the teachings of Paul, who is very grateful towards Jesus. He clearly sees him as his saviour, being directly converted by him through the vision, as we all know.
Generally i believe that Paul offers a good theology, but in his affection for Jesus could not abstract from his person and see the status of his lord as a possibility for all mankind. He was clearly a servant of Jesus’ and his church and understood himself so. Thereby his ability to face the truth about the potential of man (and therby himself) is limited by this duty he carried out. His honor ends, with what he would achieve for Jesus.
Now refering to the 1st passage in Corinthians, i believe, that this is clearly a display of the theology of the “logos”, or “the word”, through which everything was made, that we also find at the beginning of John. Appearently unlike Paul, John is a little more cautious connecting this potency only to Jesus.
Well unlike Paul i believe that the human being itself is the logos, the principle of all creation and that it was Jesus’ part to make it apparent towards mankind. Imo God is more than just the logos of course, b/c the logos at 1st is only the sheer potency of him. You might also call it his essence, or his inner self, that he fathers, while he is the fullfilled logos, the consiousness, the spiritual absolutness that corresponds to this potency in him. He therby controls it and is able to create out of it (out of himself). Imo the logos itself cant create, because it lacks the spirit, that the father has. You could say, it is naked and mindless self. But when God sets the logos into the environment, that God created out of it, it begins to anticipate this environment as its own spirit and gains more and more control over itself. It thereby starts to develop towards its state of fullfillment, that God is, who it now begins to realize as its true Father, getting ahead of itself and actually starting to father and/or mother (!) its own emerging logos. This is now what happens to a certain degree in the development of the mind of every human being but can also be seen as the general concept of life and be wittnessed on the physical lvl for just about every living creature. It gets to a degree of realization of its kind, where it starts to develop its own potency to a lvl, where it decides to stop or rest its potential.
Most ppl wont end up anywhere near godly claims of course… we are speaking of a sheer possibility. But to prove that is enough. You could very well ask from an ontological view, how the human being could even relate to God, if God was not his real potential.
Appearently you know the scripture very well Andrew. You will know, that Jesus said to the jews: “you are gods” refering to some part of the old scripture. Because they accused him of blasphemy, setting himself up as God, by claiming to be his son. So somehow he gave himself away there you could say, by virtually saying: im claiming nothing else, than what God has allready granted man in your own scripture.
Re: My perspective on the divinity of Jesus
Yes, Jesus reminds the Jews, when they accused him of blasphemy, that the Law says, ‘I said, you are gods’ (Jn. 10:34). The allusion is to Psalm 82:6. But I don’t think that this is understood as some sort of latent human potential for divinity. It appears to have to do with the Jews’ status as ‘sons of the Most High’, which refers to their covenantal relationship to God. In other words, it is specifically the Jews as God’s chosen people who are ‘gods’ in the context of this particular psalm.
According to Jewish tradition it is at the giving of the Law that the people are addressed as ‘gods’. Jesus seems to echo this: ‘If he called them gods to whom the word of God came…’ (Jn. 10:35). The point again is this: it is not all humankind who are called ‘gods’ but that people which receives the word of God.
Incidentally, I would have thought that a strict Jew like Paul would have needed a lot more than a sense of gratitude to persuade him that Jesus should be given the name which is above every name.
Re: My perspective on the divinity of Jesus
well, i partly disagree… there is more to this statement of Jesus, that is not only concerning the jews, b/c - as it is well explained in the theology of Paul - the jews aswell are justified by their believe and not just by their sucession from Abraham, so they are just about like every human being. Abraham was a human being and was justified for his believe. And actually if you look back to Genesis and the banishment of Adam and Eve from paradise we get some nice piece of information from God, who is saying something like: “Look, now mankind has become like one of us”. Actually this is the same, what the snake was telling them would happen. So the snake didnt lie, mankind became equal to godly potential. I even say, they had it before they ate the apple. Because if they didnt, how could they even choose and get this knowledge? They were in a state of unconscious virginity before, but even then, they allready had this potential, but their mind was not aware of it.
Look i believe, that Jesus was a human being and THEREBY godly… the problem with traditional church teachings is, that they see contradiction in the human being and the godly being. But imo the contradiction is not a contradiction of the being, but it is a difference in the consciousness, as you can see with Adam and Eve. They had the godly potential, but they were not aware of it, but when they ate the apple, they became aware and thereby lost their state of virginity. This sounds bad for the most, but on the other hand, they now had the freedom to choose their own fate within God. They became self-responsible, b/c they were able now to do good or bad by their own decision, and earn the price, or take the blame for it. This is a vital step towards the godly mindstate, b/c God is the one, who is in control, and responsible for everything, b/c everything spawns from him and is thereby related to him, he keeps it alive.
Now the consciousness of God seems something so enormous, that most ppl would not even try to imagine what it would be to be in Gods place. But on the other hand. Being able to even respond to Gods will and being aware of his presence is actually a clear sign of prove, that it is possible.
What we are talking about here is not “a parallel god being made in a man”, alltho the church is somehow suggesting this idea, with her thinking of trinity, b/c she is setting Jesus on the same lvl as God (the allmighty). Well imo there can only be one true God. Now IF a human being would fullfill its potential and became God, to me, that would mean not a 2nd God, but it would simply become God, the God. Now that is hard to imagine, without thinking of a sort of replacement, where the - so believed - 1st God was kicked out of the game. That is rubbish of course. In fact, i believe, that THE God himself is emerging through the growing potential God, and thereby coming back to himself, so to say. Its like a cycle being closed.
on human 'divinity'
Matthew76, welcome to the conversation.
I’ll warn you ahead of time, I have trouble sticking with an idea unless I can tell where it’s coming from. So perhaps you should explain where you’re getting all these ideas from. They may have some worth (though I won’t deny I’m very skeptical at this point), but I’m curious to see how you’re going to adjudicate the differences between you and (e.g.) Andrew. He points us back to the biblical text and offers a very close reading.
As far as I can tell (please correct me if I’m wrong), you just pick pieces from the biblical story, and build an entirely new (and, if you don’t mind my saying so, a somewhat fanciful) metaphysic from it.
So perhaps a clarifying question is in order: do you consider yourself to be a Christian interpreter? That is to say, are you trying to do justice to the story and worldview of the authors and compilers of Scripture within the Christian tradition?
Or are you offering an alternative to the Christian tradition, appropriating some (but certainly not all) elements of the Christian story, and claiming that this is somehow better?
To put it bluntly: why should we believe your story?
Peace,
-Daniel-
Re: on human 'divinity'
Hello Daniel!
well yes, i consider myself an interpreter of biblical content. Im a strong believer in the bible, maybe even more than some christians i had discussions with. For example: many christians have this thinking nowadays, that the 1. Testament has become irrelevant by the teachings of Jesus, and that the God of the 1. Testament could aswell be just a barbaric invention of the jewish ppl. I think this is pure heresy. The 1. Testament is a revelation of the True God, as he is revealing himself powerful and clearly in the history of Israel. He is speaking through the prophets, and his speech is powerful and honest and there is allegory alot in it.
I believe in this God, and actually at this point i feel more related to him, than to Jesus. Simply b/c i dont believe, that Jesus is this absoluteness that carries his creation through time, alltho i dont doubt, that he has the potential. I think we need to understand, that development is crucial. And the development is something that is at risk. Life is risky if you want to see it that way. Alot of things can go wrong, even if you believe you are on top of it all. Look at the seed of a tree - Jesus uses this allegory himself, so its biblical truly -: it has the potential to develop into a big tree, BUT its not yet there. It has to go through a hard process of development to realize and fullfill its potential and many things can go deadly wrong.
Now, we know, that Jesus had quiet a hard time on earth. He faced alot of pressure from the world and also from within. He had to face his fears and temptations. Imo this pressure is essential to drive the developmet process alltho it can be very painful and sometimes even bring you to the edge of destruction - and we are not talking about a tree anymore, but about the development of the mind of course. He was facing spiritual forces and emotions, that were trying to overwhelm him, so he would loose control and just let them take over. This was a tough test. He had to face his own execution. He knew it was Gods will and he had to suffer it.
Imo it is obsolete to deny, that Jesus has developed throughout his history. Now there is no reason to believe, that his development was done with the Ascension. In some way, it just about started there, as he had become head of his church and now had to play this role to guide and control his spiritual body. I thereby also find it possible, that he has responsibility for the history of the church and the way his teachings were expressed towards mankind. So now the development was going further, you see.
The true God would allways stay the same, b/c he cant develop further, he is absolute, there is no error in him. But his children can make errors, b/c they are still in the process of development, even tho they have his divine potential.
Of course the church wont tell you that there is a possibility of error in Jesus. The church even claimed to be error-free herself. Well to me it becomes ridiculous there, b/c you cant deny, that errors were made by the church. And it is not a problem really, if you are in the mindframe to accept it. But if your theology makes you believe, that Jesus is allready true God and is thereby guiding his church through true and error-free spirit, you cant accept errors.
Look, i found this site here interesting… open source means to me, that you accept, that there is a development going on in the mind of man and we are in it and working on it. Sometimes this development can cause you to make errors as things dont turn out to be as you planned them and you had to accept that, b/c only God in his absolute mind is perfect and error-free. Im not at all talking about reversing christianity. Actually im taling about fullfilling it even further using some insights of philosophy and thereby setting the relation of Son and Father straight.
Re: on human 'divinity'
Thanks for the clarification—although not everything is clear to me, so let me ask a few more questions.
You suggest you are ‘an interpreter of biblical content’ and a ‘strong believer in the Bible’. However, you seem to take issue with most of what the New Testament seems to say about Christ and the Church. I am unsure how to reconcile these seemingly contradictory facts. Would you consider yourself more truly Jewish than Christian? But if so, how do we begin to explain your thoroughly innovative metaphysical scheme wherein all humans are potentially God? This is not Jewish, in any orthodox sense. It seems rather Mormon to me.
The crux of your argument seems to be that Jesus clearly changed, developed and grew, and that therefore he could not be ‘God’ in any straightforward sense, since "The true God would allways stay the same." Your framing of the matter in this way clearly departs from the New Testament’s own take on the issue. The ‘Jesus = God’ equation has been given much thought on this forum, and I recommend you poke around to read some of what has been said on those threads. The meaningfulness of the Christian tradition’s insistence on the ‘divinity’ of Jesus derives from the narrative context of Jesus’ story rather than from a decidedly modern theory of metaphysics.
Further, your argument could be simplified by simply saying ‘God is spirit’ and ‘Jesus was not (only?) spirit’, therefore Jesus was (/is) not God. The fact that the biblical writers held on to the (very odd in any worldview) belief that God had reconciled the world to himself in Christ suggests that this way (much like your ‘developmental’ argument) of putting it does not do justice to what the Scriptures are saying. For this reason, and because you clearly want to be a faithful interpreter of Scripture, I suggest that you revisit your rejection of the traditional Christian teaching. Perhaps NT Wright’s books could help you in this.
Cheers, -Daniel-
Re: on human 'divinity'
hmm… well if we talk about contradiction… i believe, that the inconsistancy is in the speeches of Jesus, and not in my interpretation of it. Of course, he says at one point: im the way, the truth and life…or: the Father and i am one… and so on. But then why did he even bothers to set himself aside of the Father as his Son and not simply says: look im God, ive all the power and stuff…
We also find sayings that indicate, that Jesus doesnt believe at this point to be truely God. For example when he says as a response to someone who called him “good”: why you call me good? Only God is good….
but we dont have to look for cheap examples… it is evident throughout the New Testament, that Jesus is relativizing himself before God and its clear, that he speaks and acts as his representative.
I mean, if he truely believes to be God, what is this Father-Son thing about anyway, ive to ask.
Now i disagree, that i intended, that God is spirit. To me the spirit could be seen as the living substance of his absolute mind. There are many hints, that the spirit could actually be seen as more of a substance in which God enters and blows a persons mind to give him an idea of his wonderfulness. So from my ideas i find it hard to believe, that the spirit is a seperate divine person, as it is seen in church trinity.
Well where do i stand? Its not so easy, b/c i dont even care to classify myself. Im surely not jewish, b/c the jews deny Jesus completely. And i would never deny, that Jesus is Son of God, and was THE prophesied messiah for the jews and also for the rest of the world… yes! I believe this, i dont deny it.
But the question is, in what relation i want to see myself towards Jesus. And appearantly - alltho this might sound a little sniffy - i dont feel satisfied imagining myself as one of Jesus’ brides. As i allready stated: i wouldnt even want to be his bride, if i believed, that he was true god, b/c im a guy, who sees himself as a conqueror and not as a follower. Its not, that the teachings of Jesus are not helpful, but i dont want to bow down to Jesus like this. Now just imagine the situation if God had several Sons - and this imagination is not at all unbiblical, as you should know - would he want one Son to treat the others, like they were his brides? Wouldnt that be a gay move, in spiritual terms?
Well actually this is the current situation i am in. I feel that i am Son of God, but there is no acceptance in the church for the appearance of further Sons of God. Its somehow an odd situation, where you have to see God as your true Father, but then, when you want to develop towards him the church steps in and tells you to bow down before Jesus, the, so believed, only Son.
Well i simply dont accept this. And im self-confident enough to take this stand. I dont mind to oppose Jesus and his church in this matter…
Re: on human 'divinity'
Matthew,
You suggest that Jesus implicitly says he’s not the Father. While it is true that Jesus does not claim to be the Father (hence the Father-Son distinction), it is equally true that he tells stories and acts in such a way that he must be seen as YHWH returning to Jerusalem (cf. Perriman, Wright). The Christian tradition has long wrestled with this and found the language of Trinity and Incarnation to be the most accurate.
As far as the whole ‘God is spirit’ thing… that was a quote from Scripture (John 4:24 to be precise). It also isn’t directly related to the person of the Holy Spirit of Christian doctrine.
You said: "i dont feel satisfied imagining myself as one of Jesus’ brides." To be fair, traditional Christianity might suggest it does not exist to make you ‘feel satisfied’. Further, in traditional Christian doctrine, the Church is pictured as Christ’s Bride (singular). The individual Christian is not a bride of Christ. As far as that being a ‘gay’ move… Well perhaps you’ve just forgotten that much language is metaphorical.
As far as being a ‘son of God’… I would suggest that Scripture legitimates describing human beings as children of the Creator. And thus, males as ‘sons of God’. This is not the same as the messianic title ‘Son of God’, nor is it even close to the expression ‘God the Son’, however. So call yourself a son of God, but don’t think that, at least within the biblical worldview, this makes you and Jesus of equal importance. There is no room in the biblical imagination for a human being ruling over the cosmos apart from reference to Christ. He is in the form of God, we are not. He is ruling until all his enemies are under his feet, we are not (except perhaps vicariously as those who are ‘in him’).
If your rejection of the kingship of Christ that is so central to orthodox Christianity centers on your impression that Jesus didn’t make any kind of ‘divine’ claims for himself, or at least not consistently, I recommend you revisit precisely that thesis. (Again, the work of NT Wright might help you in this regard.)
Best, -Daniel-
Re: on human 'divinity'
Well i disagree with your initial statement, Daniel. You can refer to some author, but to me there is no sign of clear evidence, that the God of the 1st Testament is identical with Jesus. But instead there is evidence, that Jesus sets himself below this God who he calls his Father. Look at this statement 4 example: “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vine grower. He takes away every branch in me that does not bear fruit…” Now the grower is obviously the one in control here, alltho its metaphorical, i agree, but again it sets Jesus below God.
Ok… ive found the passage you are refering to. Jesus is actually saying here “God is spirit”. That is interesting of course, since there is another passage, where he says something like: “every insult against Father or Son shall be forgiven, but not insults against the spirit.” To me this is a clear sign, that in the spirit of God a person becomes close to him, or denies him. It is by the spirit, that God reveals himself to his children, to make them become equal to him. So if you deny the spirit, you deny Gods true affection for you and not just an imagination of divine personalities. But still i tend to see it more as a substance of God rather than God himself.
lol… well i find personal satisfaction quiet important. Im not talking about cheap lusts, sinful behaviour and such of course. And i disagree if you say the single person is not Jesus’ bride. If the whole spiritual organism is his bride than even more so every single cell of it. KK…metaphorical, i know. Now dont think, that i condemn the status of a bride, or the concept of church. I think its wonderful that a church exists, where so many ppl use their given talents to serve and worship God, to whom they are bound by love and spirit. Thats cool and it surely represents Gods will for man. But then i also believe, that it is given to some ppl, that they grow out of a church. You could aswell say, that they are born out of this church organism and become something autonomous in God. Actually the same thing kinda happened in Jesus’ coming. Jesus was set by God into the spiritual body of Israel represented by the Virgin Mary. He and his own spiritual body, his church, became autonomous from the former spiritual rulership of the jews.
So let me ask this question: why is it so unimaginable, that somethin is born out of a motherly spiritual organism and becomes autonomous against it? Not autonomous in denial of the other, but in true affection and respect for the other.
Re: on human 'divinity'
Thanks for continuing the conversation.
The ‘some author’ I referenced is an Anglican bishop who spends his time studying the Bible, and who is widely recognized as a top-notch biblical scholar. Since he spends more time in Scripture than I do, I trust his authority. I don’t trust it blindly, but I’ve tried on his lenses, as it were, and found that they make the biblical text ‘click’ into place quite well (better than alternative sets of lenses). If in contrast you’re reading Scripture alone, outside of a tradition, I would suggest that this is dangerous and problematic. Not fatally so, since this has in very rare cases led to some kind of insight (e.g. during the Reformation). However, your reading seems to be somewhat helter-skelter (sp?). For instance, the ‘God is spirit’ claim from John 4 is entirely different from Jesus’ opaque reference to ‘quenching the Spirit’. But that’s not my central qualm with your view.
You ask "why is it so unimaginable, that somethin autonomous is born out of a motherly spiritual organism and becomes autonomous against it?" If by ‘motherly spiritual organism’ you mean something like God, then I don’t think it’s unimaginable at all. In fact, I think it’s what Scripture assumes and teaches through and through. But that claim is not the same as your claim that we can be like God <i>in a metaphysical sense</i>. We are ‘in his image’ to be sure, and thus we are (or were supposed to be) his representatives on Earth. But we will never be ‘spirit’ like God is spirit. We will never be Creators like God is Creator.
And so let me ask you a question. Why do you want human beings to be, in a strong sense, divine? What hangs on that question for you?
Looking forward to your response, -Daniel-
Re: on human 'divinity'
Im afraid, you misunderstood, Daniel… i did not mean God when i was talking about the “motherly spiritual organism”. I was refering to the church. But i didnt express myself clearly.
ive to ask you something, Daniel, reading about your attitude, that i find very common for christians. You wrote: “But we will never be ‘spirit’ like God is spirit. We will never be Creators like God is Creator.”
Now dont find it odd, when i ask you this, but how are you supposed to know that by your own believe? I find contradiction in this statement of yours, when i analyse it. Actually for saying this you require the opposite of what you are saying. You could say: “i dont know, if we ever gonna be like God”. But saying this, what you said, means, that you know God so well, in and out, that by this knowledge you could judge yourself absolutely and terminatively. But if your judgment about yourself was true, how were you supposed to make it? See?
I dont say, that your attitude is wrong, but it is a determination, that you have made for yourself, or what christians have made for themselves and thereby not an objective argument against mans divine potential. I simply dont count myself in, when you say “we”. Im not “we” who have determinded themselves to see themselves as you discribed it. That is where i am truely “open-source”. Im not afraid of divinity, and im not afraid to claim divinity, b/c i actually feel, that this is my determination and also my right.
In return i would ask you, what is your motive to believe, that human beings are none-divine. What is your motive seeing yourself as an inferior creature in contrast to the divine being?
Re: My perspective on the divinity of Jesus
Seems to me people can choose to believe whatever they want for whatever reason they want.
Re: My perspective on the divinity of Jesus
Genesis 1:26-27 clearly states that God created all human beings (male and female!) in God’s own image. In this sense we are all "gods" with a small g. The Church teaches that the divine image of humanity was distorted as the result of our first (or original) sin. In a real sense the role of Jesus is to restore the image of God to those who believe in Him and enter into God’s Kingdom by being born again through the Holy Spirit.
Jesus could not be fully human and fully divine unless humans are created in the image of God. Humans could not be reconciled with the Father through the Son if we were not created in the image of God.
The difference between us and Jesus is that we are estranged from God and Jesus was not. We do wrong and He is without sin. We are self-centered and He is loving. If humans do not have the potential and indeed the need to be loving, creative, and generous like God then sin would not be tragedy.
Humans are not God because we do not have the power and knowledge of God. Nonetheless God is Love, so we need to stop trying to be God and start being the humans created in God’s loving image that we are meant to be.
Peace and Joy,
Relates
Re: My perspective on the divinity of Jesus
Hello Relates,
i have my problems with the concept of original sin. To me it seems, that the disobedience of Adam and Eve was an act of destiny for mankind. God has created this temptation in satan, at least satan could not act without his permission, as we know by the story of Job. I dont believe, that a human being is per se estranged from God. Actually i think, that a person is not loaded with sin, but is innocent from the start. It rather depends on how much he is affected by a probably sinful environment and his own temptations.
Imo it does not matter whether you have commited a sin. The question is, what you learn from it and if you repent to become a better person. I think seeing Jesus as a being without sin is quiet overrated. But on the other hand: can you asure me, that Jesus has never commited any sin? We dont know much about his youth. Can you asure me, that he has never been disobedient or rude to his parents or other ppl? I dont even care if that is the case, but i mean, it is irrelevant aslong as you become a greater being by overcoming your wrongs.
Now again, when i look at your statements, especially the last one, it is a display of a quiet stubborn (forgive) christian attitude. I want to ask you the same as Daniel: How would you know that? Ive never said, that i am God, but i find it reasonable to believe, that ive the potential to become God (yes the loving one).
You say: “start being a human”. But how is that? Can you describe it? Let God be God? Ok, but again why would he bother me? He was he, i was i. If you find the relation to God essential for humans, isnt it human then trying to be like him, the one, we call our father?
Re: My perspective on the divinity of Jesus
I believe it was the story of Adam and Eve growing up and realizing they could make their own choices and live with the consequences. I don’t believe there is anything about sin or temptation or satan or destiny etc…
Adam and Eve are ready to go off into the world and leave G-d (or the father or parent) and start their lives. It is a story of growing up.
Re: My perspective on the divinity of Jesus
Matthew,
If you thought that I was being critical of you when I made the comment that people should stop trying to be like God and starting being more human, you misunderstood. I was speaking primarily from my own experience, and from my observation of others. If this is stubborn, so be it. I call real life.
Jesus said that He came not to be served, but to serve. People think of God as One Who must be served, worshipped, and obeyed. Jesus is pointing out I believe that God has done much for humanity, created us, provided for us, helped us, saves us from our selfish ways, etc. If we want to be divine then this is what we need to do for others.
You seem to minimize the reality of sin. Looking around the world I see war, hate, superstition, crime, greed, fear, envy, etc. The picture is far from pretty. Where does all this negativity come from? Why do people blow each other up and themselves in Iraq and elsewhere? If evil doesn’t come from God or from nature, from where does it come, if not from humans?
As I tried to say before, our goal as humans is not power or popularity, but Love. God is Love. If you are able to love all people unconditionally without any help and assistance, more power to you. Jesus did. (No one else has been able to make a believable claim to be God.) I cannot nor has anyone else that I am aware of.
Some people seem to think that we live in a zero-sum reality, that is, a place where there is a limited amount of love, joy, and peace. Thus if we love, praise and glorify Jesus, there is less praise and glory for us. But God has created a non-zero-sum universe so that the more we love, praise, and glorify Jesus and each other, the more there is for all.
Peace and Joy,
Relates
Re: My perspective on the divinity of Jesus
Hi again Relates!
The human being is capable of causing alot of destruction, thats for sure. God would not use his absolute power destructively, alltho he will sometimes have to use destruction to serve his higher cause, as we can read in the bible from many examples.
Imo the human being feels this power within it, but at 1st doesnt have the developed morality and consciousness to control it or understand its true nature, and thereby use it constructivly, but would act selfish and destructive, if the social environment wasnt there to teach it a lesson and contain its madness.
We are talking about the development of a child here, who has to gain control over his inner self, which imo is the potency of the true God. It is the source of powerful emotion, the source of real life. To me, that is the meaning of the sentence: “The kingdom of heaven is in you”. But since it is such a great temptation to get carried away with it and end it in destructive short circuit, it allways has to experience diciplining borders, to grow far and become a beautiful being. Again think of the “Seed and Tree” allegory of Jesus. He is really giving us hints there.
The history of mankind is really the history of developing what lies inside the human being. But if the human social organism turns evil, it will of course hinder or virtually end any further fruitful development. That is now something that God had to counteract. He had to discipline the human being by himself, as we can witness by the history of chosen Israel. They were a stubborn nation aswell, but with the advantage of some good ppl as their chosen forefathers.
As i said: if you christian guys here refer to the human being, you allready have a certain idea of it in mind and you accept this idea as a predetermination of your personality. I could not do this. To me there is only one 1st and final determination for the human being and this is God himself. It is not unthinkable, that the kind of relation you have with God is growing slowly into equality, while at 1st, you merely have the status of an infant and a servant to him, as the ppl in the 1st Testament. Of course, as your relation to God becomes deeper, you will be able to serve His cause even more, but you would not just do it for Him, just acting as his servant, but more importantly for yourself. You begin to feel the urge to act like God would, for your own satisfaction and THEREBY are serving God the best.