Define God

queen annie wrote:

neologist wrote:
And yes, Adam and Eve's rebellion has put us all into slavery to sin.

By 'slavery to sin' do you mean 'bondage of death?'

Using Paul's words at Romans 7: 21-23: "I find, then, this law in my case: that when I wish to do what is right, what is bad is present with me. 22 I really delight in the law of God according to the man I am within, 23 but I behold in my members another law warring against the law of my mind and leading me captive to sin's law that is in my members."

We sin unintentionally all the time. It is when we sin deliberately that we alienate ourselves from God. (See Hebrews 10:26)

0 Replies

Define 'sin,' then, please--according to your own understanding.

0 Replies

Hebrews 2:14-15
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

and
Romans 6:4-23

0 Replies

queen annie--

How can "Unity" be regarded as part of a cycle? "Cycle" implies movement, and "movement" implies an imbalance...unstable energy.
I admit I don't really understand the "one through ten" example that you gave, so maybe I missed something.
I would be more likely to refer to the entire cycle as some sort of Unity.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

queen annie--

How can "Unity" be regarded as part of a cycle?

I don't know--it's the initiation and fruition of mankind's mortal cycle, I think.

Quote:

"Cycle" implies movement, and "movement" implies an imbalance...unstable energy.

Why does cycle or movement, either one, imply imbalance or unstable energy?

A rhythmic undulation is movement, part of steady cycle, and stable and regular. I think the quality that determines the stability of the movement/cycle would be directly that of the source energy of said movement/cycle, no?

0 Replies

Quote:

Why does cycle or movement, either one, imply imbalance or unstable energy?

I can't imagine a cycle that does not involve movement.
Movement is descriptive of a transitory state, some kind of change. Anything that is in motion is unstable...not at rest.
I think, really, that these are all word games. Or, rather, that we cannot describe anything completely; at some point, words break down.

0 Replies

queen annie wrote:

Define 'sin,' then, please--according to your own understanding.

My own understanding is not important. I would have a tendency to think some sins are less important than others. (especially if it happens to be one of my sins :wink: ) So the bible's descriptions should explain.

Falling short; or, missing the mark: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 2:24)

Or, lawlessness: "Everyone who practices sin is also practicing lawlessness, and so sin is lawlessness. " (1 John 3:4)

It is the deliberate sinners, those who make a practice of sin, who are condemned.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Anything that is in motion is unstable...not at rest.
I think, really, that these are all word games. Or, rather, that we cannot describe anything completely; at some point, words break down.

echi, just gotta ask - had any physics? Equilibrium is stable - by defintion. Second law of thermodynamics and all that. If not, for instance, orbits wouldn't work. The observed and/or deduced mechanics of atoms, planets and their satellites, stars and their satellites, star systems, galaxies, and galaxy clusters throw a huge wrench into your hypotheses. "Unstable" does not mean "At rest". "Motion" and "Rest" are purely relative terms, dependent entirely upon point of view. To a bug sitting on a speeding bullet travelling at a constant velocity, it and the bullet are at rest.

Now, I can sorta get along with part of your observation there ... " ... that we cannot describe anything completely ... ", but it isn't words that break down, its the process of observation. There's a rule for that - The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

My own understanding is not important. I would have a tendency to think some sins are less important than others. (especially if it happens to be one of my sins :wink: ) So the bible's descriptions should explain.

But...in this thread about 'defining God' we are conveying (or attempting to convey, that is) our own understandings related to the subject at hand--bible quotes, I daresay, would not be sufficient. And our conversation has led to another nebulous term often associated with ideas to do with 'God'--that being 'sin.' So why not give your own understanding? What the bible says, I've read. But I cannot read your thoughts and those are what I'm after, presently. Laughing

Not for any other reason than I like, so far, what you have shared.

Quote:

Falling short; or, missing the mark: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 2:24)

Or, lawlessness: "Everyone who practices sin is also practicing lawlessness, and so sin is lawlessness. " (1 John 3:4)

It is the deliberate sinners, those who make a practice of sin, who are condemned.

With all due respect, if I didn't know a thing at all about the canonized scripture or had any idea of 'sin' of my own--how would these explain 'sin?'

They are vague and circular, at best. 'Lawlessness' means naught without an idea of what 'law' is. 'Falling short of the glory of God' is a good lead-in; but what does it mean to 'fall short of God's glory?'

All these things I ask with the addition of 'from your particular understanding?'

0 Replies

queen annie wrote:

. . . But...in this thread about 'defining God' we are conveying (or attempting to convey, that is) our own understandings related to the subject at hand--bible quotes, I daresay, would not be sufficient. And our conversation has led to another nebulous term often associated with ideas to do with 'God'--that being 'sin.' So why not give your own understanding? What the bible says, I've read. But I cannot read your thoughts and those are what I'm after, presently.
Not for any other reason than I like, so far, what you have shared.
. . .With all due respect, if I didn't know a thing at all about the canonized scripture or had any idea of 'sin' of my own--how would these explain 'sin?'. . .what does it mean to 'fall short of God's glory?'

All these things I ask with the addition of 'from your particular understanding?'

One of the problems we have in defining sin refers us to one of the main issues in the Garden of Eden. Recall that the name of the tree was 'the tree of the knowledge of good and bad'. Adam and Eve had, IMO, a perfect understanding of right and wrong built into their consciences. The only choice they had was whether or not to accept God's built in guidance. They chose to make their own decisions as to what was good and what was bad.

As a consequence, our own moral compass has been skewed by their action. What we may decide for ourselves as to right and wrong must not be our sole guide.

So I would have to say that my definition of sin corresponds with those things specifically proscribed by the NT.

(Jesus relieved us of the burden of the Mosaic law.)

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

One of the problems we have in defining sin refers us to one of the main issues in the Garden of Eden. Recall that the name of the tree was 'the tree of the knowledge of good and bad'.

Right--not the 'tree of the knowledge of right and wrong.'

As far as sin in the garden--there is no mention of it. There is a commandment, a brief interrogation, followed by penalties for all involved. No one is said to have chosen wrong over right nor did it seem that anyone provoked God into using the 's' word.
He used it with Cain, and then in regard to Sodom and Gomorrah, but it is not attached to Adam--the only correlation is by Paul, who said that because of Adam's trangression (violation) sin entered into the world, and death by sin . Therefore, even those that didn't commit violations in the same manner Adam did were still subject to death. Penalized by the standard sin penalty yet not sinners in the same sense as Adam?
It seems as if Paul considered 'breaking a rule' something not identical to 'sin.'
Babies are not qualified rule-breakers, are said to be innocent yet also 'born into sin.' A toddler that always minds his parents is still a 'sinner.'
'Evil' cannot be 'sin'--God created both 'good' and 'evil' yet it was said and recorded that 'only God is good.' It is written that Christ was 'without sin.'
What is sin?

Quote:

Adam and Eve had, IMO, a perfect understanding of right and wrong built into their consciences.

I think so, too--although I perceive it as the same sort of 'right and wrong' a tot has--right is to listen to mom & dad and wrong is not to listen. It doesn't serve them independently but it does do the job for safety and other vital concerns. Yet, to disobey is still to violate a given rule. Does a rule dictate what sin is? Paul, again, says no, it doesn't. It is not imputed without rules but it certainly exists.

Quote:

The only choice they had was whether or not to accept God's built in guidance.

Exactly the way I see it, too.
So is this is where sin comes into the picture?

Quote:

They chose to make their own decisions as to what was good and what was bad.

But the fruit was good to eat--and that's not disputed in the garden episode. If the fruit was good, shouldn't it have been 'right?' That seemed to have confused them...
Yet we read that 'God is not the author of confusion.'

Quote:

As a consequence, our own moral compass has been skewed by their action.

But by what mechanism? How could their actions distort our personal, individual thoughts?

Quote:

What we may decide for ourselves as to right and wrong must not be our sole guide.

Certainly not--mainly because what is 'right' for one frequently causes a 'wrong' to another--whether through ignorance, lack of consideration, empathy, or sheer oblivion.

Quote:

So I would have to say that my definition of sin corresponds with those things specifically proscribed by the NT.

Such as?

Defining man's 'sinful nature' goes a long way toward defining God's nature--at least from my vantage point.

0 Replies

Hi queenie;

Without having to quote your entire post:

I don't understand your reference to Paul.

When I was speaking of Adam and Eve's understanding of right and wrong, I was speaking in a moral sense, as good and bad.

When the first human pair rebelled, they lost not only their right to life, they lost their physical and moral perfection as well. Like a damaged blueprint, any offspring they produced would carry the same defect.

None of us sin in the same manner Adam did in the sense that Adam was perfect. We have an excuse, so long as we don't deliberately practice sin.

In order for us to be relieved of the sentence of death, a perfect man had to live a perfect life and suffer death in place of Adam. Jesus came to earth for that reason.

I know of no reference to God having created evil. Where did you see that?

What connection would the taste of the fruit have to do with whether or not it should be eaten?

You posted a hail of topics. I'm not sure I answered any of them.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

non-denom christian wrote:
I understand that God knows everything. He knows our thought before we do. Free will is the cause not the reason. God can jump in and change what ever he wants any time he wants, but he has reasons for letting life go on as we would have it.

On the topic of logic, not to dis you Phoenix, just want to let you know that things would be a lot more logical to you if you were directed by the holy spirit. It's the only way to even begin to understand life and our existence. Here's hoping you find what your looking for.
I believe you are saying God's capacity to know all is selective. I would agree.

I don't quite understand the phrase 'free will is the cause not the reason.' What do you mean by that?

Free will is the "because", not the "reason".
To dissect and reason the meaning of free will means you totally miss the point. Free will... to freely choose to accept Christ, thus partaking in the Spirit to be one with God. Look beyond the definition of free will and you will understand the cause. Free will is the only way to eternal life. It is an individual choice that one wills himself to do, or not to do. God is the sun, we can choose to get a tan or live in the dark.

ie: sunshine
The sunshines even when we don't see it. The sun shines even when it is dark. We can choose to sit in the shade, the sun still shines. We can choose to fly to the other side of the planet to avoid the sun, it still shines. We may not have the means to fly around on an airplane to avoid the sun all day, doesn't mean the choice is no longer available, only that we feel we don't have one.

0 Replies

2 Tim 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Here is one of many verses in the Bible where it explains God is calling to each and every one of us to draw near to him.

This calling, if denied will lead to confusion and separation. However, if we heed the calling that comes from within, we will be fulfilled.

I agree with Neo., that from the beginning, according to this verse, before sin, man was given the choice of free will, and heard the calling of God to do what was right, which is... to draw near to God, avoiding sin. Eve knew that the serpent was not of God, and chose to eat anyway. She wasn't punished for being ignorant. She wasn't ignorant to what was right, only to what was evil.

God told Adam and Eve everything they needed to know based on their own comprehension, just as he does with each of us individually today.

The biggest difference between then and now is the spiritual connection we have been given through Christ which was not present before his death on the cross because of original sin. Jesus explained that he couldn't stay here on the earth, for if he did then the Comforter could not come. Comforter meaning the holy spirit.

Sin, then became as a veil, separating us spiritually from God. An earthly thing, needing earthly sacrifices as in the Old Testament (which was a curse), Once sin became flesh, it was necessary for flesh that was perfect (Jesus) to be sacrificed in order to overcome it, so that our unity to God could be obtained through the spirit once again. The new Testament is a blessing.

Definition of "testament" What one wills after he is dead. Once Christ died, His testament could not be overwritten, for it was His will and testament, that was brought into existence upon his death.

I also agree with Neo. that some sin is willful and some is not. If a man swung an ax and the end broke off and hit your co-worker in the head, killing the co-worker... are you guilty of murder? No

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Hi queenie;

Without having to quote your entire post:

I do apologize for such an onslaught, neo--I sometimes just get thoughts begging transference that have overgrown my brain and so they just go....

Quote:

I don't understand your reference to Paul.

Paul seems to be the only writer in the canon who mentions 'sin' in regard to Adam, as extending toward us all, as you were also approaching that idea. But yet it doesn't seem he is saying quite the same thing as is most often given as 'the reasons for'--not by you, particularly, but by most bible-reading people in general.

Quote:

When I was speaking of Adam and Eve's understanding of right and wrong, I was speaking in a moral sense, as good and bad.

Right, I realize that. But my point is: 'a moral sense'--is that about God or is that about humans?
What I get, from the bible, is that 'right' is primarily addressed as an anatomical direction and secondarily as something pleasing in God's sight. Then there is my personal favorite mention: Genesis 18:25.
'Wrong' seems to be confined to unjust acts to gain unfairly or in violence from others--not God, but one another. We 'wrong' each other.
And, like I said, 'only God is good.'
Sin just doesn't seem to be relevant to our sense of morality, because of the context in which such words are used in the bible.

Quote:

When the first human pair rebelled, they lost not only their right to life, they lost their physical and moral perfection as well. Like a damaged blueprint, any offspring they produced would carry the same defect.

But what is that defect?

Quote:

None of us sin in the same manner Adam did in the sense that Adam was perfect.

I don't find that, either--that Adam was 'perfect.' The manner that Adam sinned, I think, is that he violated the commandment of God--he did not trust God's love or wisdom as much as he did Eve's. He was in charge of himself and of Eve--instead of loyalty to God's instructions, his loyalty was to his wife, which was backward, all around.
Saul, the first King of Israel, also sinned in the same way as Adam--he did not maintain loyalty to God's instructions....it cost him dearly.
But yet it is written that David had a heart that 'was perfect with the LORD God.' Also Noah was a 'just man and perfect in his generations.'

Quote:

We have an excuse, so long as we don't deliberately practice sin.

I don't think we do...
John 15:22 and Romans 1:20 seem to say our excuse is no longer valid, in the days of the new covenant.

Quote:

I know of no reference to God having created evil. Where did you see that?

Isaiah 45:7.

Quote:

What connection would the taste of the fruit have to do with whether or not it should be eaten?

If morality is key to the 'sin' issue--the ideas of 'good/bad' connected to 'right/wrong'--and we read:

'And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. '

something just doesn't jibe. And it causes many who read that--with the ideas of morality being somewhat synonymous with sin and associating good with right and bad with wrong--to have grave misunderstandings and quite honestly, legitimate distrust toward such a God that would entrap His pilot human models in such a dismal way....

Quote:

You posted a hail of topics. I'm not sure I answered any of them.

I am sorry to plummel you so...it probably seems to be straying off-topic, too, but truly, I have a definite direction with all this--related ultimately to 'defining God.'

0 Replies

Hi Queenie;
I'll be limited in web access for a few days, but I just wanted to mention this:

A more appropriate translation of Isaiah 45:7 would be to use the word calamity. I say this because the 'evil' events which have befallen mankind are as a result of man's disobedience, and not as a forethought of God.

Just as death was not a part of God's purpose.

And n-dc, I haven't forgotten you. Thanks for your input.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

echi wrote:
Anything that is in motion is unstable...not at rest.
I think, really, that these are all word games. Or, rather, that we cannot describe anything completely; at some point, words break down.

echi, just gotta ask - had any physics? Equilibrium is stable - by defintion. Second law of thermodynamics and all that. If not, for instance, orbits wouldn't work. The observed and/or deduced mechanics of atoms, planets and their satellites, stars and their satellites, star systems, galaxies, and galaxy clusters throw a huge wrench into your hypotheses. "Unstable" does not mean "At rest". "Motion" and "Rest" are purely relative terms, dependent entirely upon point of view. To a bug sitting on a speeding bullet travelling at a constant velocity, it and the bullet are at rest.

Now, I can sorta get along with part of your observation there ... " ... that we cannot describe anything completely ... ", but it isn't words that break down, its the process of observation. There's a rule for that - The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

timberlandko--
queen annie--

Good points, timberland. I understand that "motion" and "rest" are both relative; whether it's the words that break down or the process of observation, I think is arguable (provided the words can hold it together long enough). Whatever the case, I have trouble accepting the idea that "Unity" could be considered a part of any cycle. I understand "Unity" to mean the "whole thing" not "part of the whole". But then, I admit I still don't know enough of the details about what queen annie was describing. I may just need to catch up with this thread, but right now I am flying out the front door. So...
Oh, yeah. Physics? Yes. A little formal, but mostly informal.

0 Replies

The hebrew word,

http://queen-annie.net/alephbet/shin.gif

http://queen-annie.net/alephbet/resh.gif

that we find translated as 'evil' in Isaiah 45:7 is the exact same word translated evil in the Genesis account of the garden, and is the very same evil that God, Himself, declared He would bring upon humans in various passages in the bible.

It is, like you say, defined as 'adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, displeasure, distress, grief, grievous), harm, heavy, hurt, hurtful, ill-favoured, evil mark, mischievous, mischief, misery, naughty, noisome, sad sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked, wickedly, wickedness, worse, wretchedness, and wrong.'
God created it, controls it, yet it is a thorn in man's side of his own cause...I believe all those things, from reading them as well as observation and life in general.

There isn't really any other concept of 'evil' in the Hebrew. The letters of the word mean, in order right (end) to left (beginning) are:

he=breath of God/Spirit
shin=divine power/protection/provision
resh=wickedness

God gave us evil for a reason--ultimately for good. God can do 'evil' and it is 'good' yet even man's 'good' is often inherently 'evil.' How is that?

God does it for the good of all souls--man always acts in the interest of his solitary, selfish, good (that is, when not guided by God's selfless kind of 'good' intentions)

God gave that tree, with tasty and pleasant fruit, right smack dab in the middle of their very existences in the garden, for a specific purpose. They
did technically disobey God, no doubt--but God wasn't caught off guard or subsequently forced to reroute His plan for humanity, as a whole. No one threw a wrench in God's workings or even in the world, itself, by eating of that tree.

That commandment and tree were the very first stumbling block--and God is layer of that which we stumble upon in the road--even if we call it Satan,
God is still commanding Satan's adverserial role on the behalf of all of us.

There truly isn't any God-given natural 'good' or 'bad' or 'right' or 'wrong.' There's only submission vs disregard for our Creator. 'The law of liberty' has nothing to do with our focus on morality, and morality, itself, keeps us from both God and true freedom. We are servants of corruption in the name of 'moral righteousness'--directly due to a misunderstanding about the true nature of sin.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Whatever the case, I have trouble accepting the idea that "Unity" could be considered a part of any cycle. I understand "Unity" to mean the "whole thing" not "part of the whole".

Ah-ha, I see how we keep passing each other by on this choppy philosophic ocean--you gave me the clue I had been searching for--I've been doing a little 'lurking' in a few other threads, and I thought your posts regarding 'conscience' reveal that you have a somewhat novel insight upon things--but I can relate to what you're saying here a lot better.

Unity, as I am apparently obsessed with, Laughing

is not a noun but a descriptor--the 'whole' can certainly be united, but by default, is not necessarily in a state of true unity in and of itself. Unity is a state of mind, a 'being-ness', also maybe called a consciousness, awareness, state of spiritual development, level of spiritual maturity, etc... To you, I guess it would be a form or ability (or give me a better term) of one's conscience. Maybe a inner priority that drives the standards established in one's conscience would be a better way to say it.

To exist and function from the 'unity' principle makes one's conscience probably as godly/perfect/unspotted as it could be. I know that probably doesn't go with your concept of conscience, though....More like, no matter what comes up, a conscience in the unity state has minimal work to do, absolutely no convincing of the id/ego parts that often oppose it's leadership...and the sometimes inevitable hindsight that reveals the conscience just didn't quite see the whole picture beforehand which might lead to contrition or regret--this is eliminated. It is perfect selflessness within individuality that is not egocentric.

That's how I perceive both God's primary essence (as the energy and direction of the creative forces and the source of the human mind) as well as the concept of Christ being 'without sin.' That's what I perceive is the universal goal of humanity, just by virtue of the inevitable return to our source in the course of the cycle I'm speaking of.

Numbers are totally outside of our common quantitive use for them, in the list I gave earlier in the thread. They are more like vibrational energies that reside each on their own plane (not like a geometric plane, exactly, but that's the best way I can express it), along with a part of the soul-population of humanity. Its the number's energies that determine the
consciousness that embodies it's particular plane. God, or my concept of the inconceivable, is resident in all planes, yet is rooted and originated from the 'one' level and the cycle was completed by God's doings 2000 years ago when He bridged the gap between our level (consistently at the 'two', generally speaking, IMHO) and the rest--making 1 to 10 a continuous cycle that keeps its rhythm while we each travel our own little pioneering path through the cycle. 1 is the same as 10--but we start at 2 as far as self-awareness goes--and I think that perhaps only God at the start will ever experience true 'one'--unity is now 10, ten times richer than one, figuratively speaking. 'One' must have been a lonely place, I think...that's why we are all here.

Also, I think the idea of God being self-existent and not created, previously eternal--is rooted somehow in the concept of 'zero' --not as 'nothing' but as 'emptiness' and as such inherently was a vacuum, both ethereally and from a physics standpoint.

I have often wondered if this is what 'black holes' are about..the 'zero' state of being....The mayans believed that the source of Creation was found in the galactic center, which of course, is a black hole.

0 Replies

Hi queenie;

Buried within your avalanche of words is the assertion that God somehow knew in advance that Satan would rebel and that Adam and Eve would join.

I've been considering a new thread on the topic of determinism.

But first, a few definitions:

Ambrose Bierce in [i]The Devil's Dictionary[/i] wrote:

Destiny: A tyrant's authority for crime and a fool's excuse for failure.

Predestination: The doctrine that all things occur according to programme. This doctrine should not be confused with that of foreordination, which means that all things are programmed, but does not affirm their occurrence, that being only an implication from other doctrines by which this is entailed. The difference is great enough to have deluged Christendom with ink, to say nothing of the gore. With the distinction of the two doctrines kept well in mind, and a reverent belief in both, one may hope to escape perdition if spared.

Reprobation: In theology , the state of a luckless mortal prenatally damned. The doctrine of reprobation was taught by Calvin, whose joy in it was somewhat marred by the sad sincerity of his conviction that although some are foredoomed to perdition, others are predestined to salvation.

Foreordination: This looks like an easy word to define, but when I consider that pious and learned theologians have spent long lives in explaining it, and written libraries to explain their explanations; when I remember that nations have been divided and bloody battles caused by the difference between foreordination and predestination, and that millions of treasure have been expended in the effort to prove and disprove its compatibility with freedom of the will and the efficacy of prayer, praise, and a religious life, recalling these awful facts in the history of the word, I stand appalled before the mighty problem of its signification, abase my spiritual eyes, fearing to contemplate its portentous magnitude, reverently uncover and humbly refer it to His Eminence Cardinal Gibbons and His Grace Bishop Potter.

Accident: An inevitable occurrence due to the action of immutable natural laws.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know