Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rainbow walking · 12-25-2002, 05:38 PM

clarity for those...um...newly derived wallgods who love to shift postings to other locations without carefully considering the implications.

In the earlier post entitled "Which sect was Jesus...", I introduced text that demonstrated a clear line of reasoning expressed by the christian's Messiah that we are all gods, (or possibly all Jews who follow the law are gods).

Clearly this goes towards stimulating some interesting arguments or possibilities about the existence of gods from a rather unique perspective...or would the folks here prefer to stick with the same ole bullshit and staple diet on the existence of gods?

Certainly it requires a new twist on the definition of a god but that is an area that hasn't been resolved anyway so what do I have to do here, draw a picture?

Come on folks, where's your flair for innovative subjects and scepticism? Oh...that's right...it got shifted to GRD.

diana · 12-25-2002, 06:24 PM

rainbow walking,

Feel free to repost it in this thread.

Incidentally, I make no apologies for moving your thread, as I couldn't locate a point or any association to a discussion that belongs in this forum. Next time, you might try being clear about your intent. I gave up omniscience for Lent.

Meanwhile, if it makes you feel better to be annoyed with me and vent your frustration, knock yourself out.

Merry Xmas, you grumpy old man.

d,
newly derived wallgod

rainbow walking · 12-26-2002, 02:33 PM

diana: Feel free to repost it in this thread.

rw: Thank you

Diana: Incidentally, I make no apologies for moving your thread,

rw: None were anticipated.

Diana: as I couldn't locate a point or any association to a discussion that belongs in this forum.

rw: Well, I'm not responsible for anyone's reading comprehension skills, but I thought the subject was at least as poignant as a recently submitted thread on one's personal views about eternity posted by you.

Diana: Next time, you might try being clear about your intent.

rw: My intent was to start a discussion in this forum on the existence of gods. Since defining the attributes of a god have generally been accepted here as a prerequisite to discussion I assumed bringing this subject up from the perspective presented in these unusual biblical texts would fall well within the parameters of this forum. I still think it does. However, if my presentation wasn't clear enough to ascertain my motives by someone as bright as you that might explain why it's generated no response.

Diana: I gave up omniscience for Lent.

rw: May I suggest you take it up again? It's a handy attribute for a wallgod;^}

Diana: Meanwhile, if it makes you feel better to be annoyed with me and vent your frustration, knock yourself out.

rw: Yes, I feel much better, thank you.

Diana: Merry Xmas, you grumpy old man.

rw: I'll have you to know I'm not an old man...or, at least, I don't think I am...{shrug}

d,
newly derived wallgod

rw: falls upon his keyboard in humble adoration. Merry Xmas to you to mam.

diana · 12-26-2002, 03:28 PM

...in light of his explanation above:

Quote:

when he apparently considers all men, (or maybe just Jewish men), gods?

Of course there are a number of possible interpretations to this text but it sure reads like he's defending his claim to being the son of god by declaring that this god revealed to Moses that all men were gods. What religious sect would this best fit?

John 10:33 _The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 _Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 _If he called them gods,

(the "them" Jesus is referring to here would be the Jews living during the time when Moses was allegedly given the law, since he referred to the law and the scriptures in his defense),

unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 _Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

d

Toto · 12-26-2002, 04:45 PM

RW - did you ever read the late Alan Watts? (or listen to his lectures)

He was an Anglican priest who made a living explaining Eastern religions to westerners. I think he was theologically a pantheist, who thought that matter was all connected, and all sacred, so that by recognizing your connections to the Universe, you could realize that you yourself are God (god, goddess, divine, whatever you call it). In spite of being a Christian until his death, he did not believe in a personal god.

After his death it was revealed that he was an alcoholic and a womanizer, and you don't hear much about him any more. (Except that you can recognize a lot of his influence in what other people say.)

diana · 12-26-2002, 04:55 PM

rw,

Quote:

Since defining the attributes of a god have generally been accepted here as a prerequisite to discussion I assumed bringing this subject up from the perspective presented in these unusual biblical texts would fall well within the parameters of this forum. I still think it does. However, if my presentation wasn't clear enough to ascertain my motives by someone as bright as you that might explain why it's generated no response.

You're looking for another angle on defining godly attributes? Certainly that belongs here. The problem was my inability to glean that from your original OP. I hope the misunderstanding is clear now.

It looks like an interesting idea, but I'm still not sure what you're driving at. Could you please list some of the possible conclusions from the passage?

Incidentally, if you take exception to my reading comprehension or have a complaint about my moderating in the future, please either PM me, PM an admin, or post your complaint in the forum created for that purpose.

Thank you.

d

rainbow walking · 12-26-2002, 05:24 PM

Diana, in response to your request for possible conclusions, one glaring possibility exists that both Jesus and the Jews held a god concept quite different from the common omnimax representation normally presented in this forum. It reads to me as if Jesus is merely reminding his critics of a common knowledge interpretation of the OT law in reference to the men living under its jurisdiction. If he appears to support such a claim, and using this claim in his defense would qualify as evidence that he indeed held such a view as a legitimate claim, then we have quite a different picture emerging of what Jewish men held as a viable god concept 2000 years ago. If the Jews from that era held a belief that orthodoxy qualified them to be equivalent to gods, (and we know that other cultures in that era had no problem conferring the status of godhood upon their emporers and pharoahs and queens), this certainly begs closer scrutiny in unraveling the christian spin of the modern day god concept.

Toto: Sorry to say I've never heard of Mr. Watts. It would appear from these scriptures that Jesus held an unorthodox definition of the concept of "god" also, in comparison to the modern christian view. If we were to allow his opinion any authority then we can close the book on the question of the existence of gods since anyone who lives under the Mosaic law would qualify as a god. Do you have any idea what jesus was trying to convey in these scriptures?

Gurdur · 12-26-2002, 05:25 PM

First: content to justify this post:

rainbow walking,

I guess you just re-invented Mormonism; check out their doctrines. 'Course, it's only the men who get to be real Gods, but the Mormons do have sex in heaven (albeit with your Earthly partner), which I guess makes up for some things.
I suppose:
Being a God means never needing Viagra.

Check out Mormon doctrines; you might also like to compare Nietschze, who said much the same thing from an anti-religious viewpoint, and without heaven.

'Course, I think your translation of the cited passages is wrong - a better translation would be "Offspring of God", but the expert around here on that would be Apikorus - email him.

_______________

....this post:

Quote:

Originally posted by diana
.....Incidentally, if you take exception to my reading comprehension or have a complaint about my moderating in the future, please either PM me, PM an admin, or post your complaint in the forum created for that purpose.

And if we just want to say we &hearts; you ?

rainbow walking · 12-26-2002, 05:56 PM

Some interesting perspectives you've presented...Sorry to say I'm not very knowledgable of Mormon doctrine and beliefs. On the other hand, if we allow the reading of these texts to be rendered "sons" of god then they contradict other interpretations of similar subject material where "sons of god" are specifically used, such as in Genesis 6 and Job. The standard christian exegetic holds these to be referring to angels.

Anywho, thank you for your input. It's much appreciated. I'm not entirely sure where all of this is going but it certainly would be interesting to find out.

Toto · 12-26-2002, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rainbow walking

Toto: Sorry to say I've never heard of Mr. Watts. It would appear from these scriptures that Jesus held an unorthodox definition of the concept of "god" also, in comparison to the modern christian view. If we were to allow his opinion any authority then we can close the book on the question of the existence of gods since anyone who lives under the Mosaic law would qualify as a god. Do you have any idea what jesus was trying to convey in these scriptures?

Rainbow - I wouldn't necessarily assume that anything in John is related to anything Jesus said, assuming he existed of course. But making all of those assumptions -

The passage in John relates back to Psalm 82: 6 "I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.' 7 But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler." (NIV trans.) Taken in context, "gods" must be metaphorical.

So is Jesus misquoting Psalms? or more likely, is he playing with the people who are about to stone him, diverting them with a scriptural puzzle or paradox until he can escape?

If John is actually a gnostic take on the whole situation, then the hidden meaning is probably that we all become "gods" by being born again spiritually. Jesus was the first to realize this - that he is in fact a god, or maybe that should be phrased that he is in fact the Buddha, if you think as some that there was some Buddhist influence in the Roman empire about that time.

Perhaps Jesus realized something like this, from Alan Watts The Book on the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are , where he describes how he talks to children about the God-concept:

Quote:

"God also likes to play hide-and-seek, but because there is nothing outside God, he has no one but himself to play with. But he gets over this difficulty by pretending that he is not himself. This is his way of hiding from himself. He pretends that he is you and I and all the people in the world, all the animals, all the plants, all the rocks, and all the stars. In this way he has strange and wonderful adventures, some of which are terrible and frightening. But these are just like bad dreams, for when he wakes up they will disappear.
"Now when God plays hide and pretends that he is you and I, he does it so well that it takes him a long time to remember where and how he hid himself. But that's the whole fun of it--just what he wanted to do. He doesn't want to find himself too quickly, for that would spoil the game. That is why it is so difficult for you and me to find out that we are God in disguise, pretending not to be himself. But when the game has gone on long enough, all of us will wake up, stop pretending, and remember that we are all one single Self--the God who is all that there is and who lives for ever and ever.

12-25-2002, 05:38 PM	#1
rainbow walking Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Erewhon Posts: 2,608	O'tay...let's try this again with a little more... clarity for those...um...newly derived wallgods who love to shift postings to other locations without carefully considering the implications. In the earlier post entitled "Which sect was Jesus...", I introduced text that demonstrated a clear line of reasoning expressed by the christian's Messiah that we are all gods, (or possibly all Jews who follow the law are gods). Clearly this goes towards stimulating some interesting arguments or possibilities about the existence of gods from a rather unique perspective...or would the folks here prefer to stick with the same ole bullshit and staple diet on the existence of gods? Certainly it requires a new twist on the definition of a god but that is an area that hasn't been resolved anyway so what do I have to do here, draw a picture? Come on folks, where's your flair for innovative subjects and scepticism? Oh...that's right...it got shifted to GRD.

12-26-2002, 02:33 PM	#3
rainbow walking Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Erewhon Posts: 2,608	tsk...tsk...tsk diana: Feel free to repost it in this thread. rw: Thank you Diana: Incidentally, I make no apologies for moving your thread, rw: None were anticipated. Diana: as I couldn't locate a point or any association to a discussion that belongs in this forum. rw: Well, I'm not responsible for anyone's reading comprehension skills, but I thought the subject was at least as poignant as a recently submitted thread on one's personal views about eternity posted by you. Diana: Next time, you might try being clear about your intent. rw: My intent was to start a discussion in this forum on the existence of gods. Since defining the attributes of a god have generally been accepted here as a prerequisite to discussion I assumed bringing this subject up from the perspective presented in these unusual biblical texts would fall well within the parameters of this forum. I still think it does. However, if my presentation wasn't clear enough to ascertain my motives by someone as bright as you that might explain why it's generated no response. Diana: I gave up omniscience for Lent. rw: May I suggest you take it up again? It's a handy attribute for a wallgod;^} Diana: Meanwhile, if it makes you feel better to be annoyed with me and vent your frustration, knock yourself out. rw: Yes, I feel much better, thank you. Diana: Merry Xmas, you grumpy old man. rw: I'll have you to know I'm not an old man...or, at least, I don't think I am...{shrug} d, newly derived wallgod rw: falls upon his keyboard in humble adoration. Merry Xmas to you to mam.

12-26-2002, 05:24 PM	#7
rainbow walking Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Erewhon Posts: 2,608	Clarification not a problem...I think Diana, in response to your request for possible conclusions, one glaring possibility exists that both Jesus and the Jews held a god concept quite different from the common omnimax representation normally presented in this forum. It reads to me as if Jesus is merely reminding his critics of a common knowledge interpretation of the OT law in reference to the men living under its jurisdiction. If he appears to support such a claim, and using this claim in his defense would qualify as evidence that he indeed held such a view as a legitimate claim, then we have quite a different picture emerging of what Jewish men held as a viable god concept 2000 years ago. If the Jews from that era held a belief that orthodoxy qualified them to be equivalent to gods, (and we know that other cultures in that era had no problem conferring the status of godhood upon their emporers and pharoahs and queens), this certainly begs closer scrutiny in unraveling the christian spin of the modern day god concept. Toto: Sorry to say I've never heard of Mr. Watts. It would appear from these scriptures that Jesus held an unorthodox definition of the concept of "god" also, in comparison to the modern christian view. If we were to allow his opinion any authority then we can close the book on the question of the existence of gods since anyone who lives under the Mosaic law would qualify as a god. Do you have any idea what jesus was trying to convey in these scriptures?

12-26-2002, 05:56 PM	#9
rainbow walking Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Erewhon Posts: 2,608	Hi Gurder Some interesting perspectives you've presented...Sorry to say I'm not very knowledgable of Mormon doctrine and beliefs. On the other hand, if we allow the reading of these texts to be rendered "sons" of god then they contradict other interpretations of similar subject material where "sons of god" are specifically used, such as in Genesis 6 and Job. The standard christian exegetic holds these to be referring to angels. Anywho, thank you for your input. It's much appreciated. I'm not entirely sure where all of this is going but it certainly would be interesting to find out.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-25-2002, 06:24 PM	#2
diana Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 6,471	rainbow walking, Feel free to repost it in this thread. Incidentally, I make no apologies for moving your thread, as I couldn't locate a point or any association to a discussion that belongs in this forum. Next time, you might try being clear about your intent. I gave up omniscience for Lent. Meanwhile, if it makes you feel better to be annoyed with me and vent your frustration, knock yourself out. Merry Xmas, you grumpy old man. d, newly derived wallgod

12-26-2002, 04:45 PM	#5
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	RW - did you ever read the late Alan Watts? (or listen to his lectures) He was an Anglican priest who made a living explaining Eastern religions to westerners. I think he was theologically a pantheist, who thought that matter was all connected, and all sacred, so that by recognizing your connections to the Universe, you could realize that you yourself are God (god, goddess, divine, whatever you call it). In spite of being a Christian until his death, he did not believe in a personal god. After his death it was revealed that he was an alcoholic and a womanizer, and you don't hear much about him any more. (Except that you can recognize a lot of his influence in what other people say.)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.