Why God made us

[kristine020]

Name: Kristine
Age:22 years old
Work: web design
Location: Caloocan city
Saying;“You know you are in love when you can’t fall asleep because reality is finally better than your dreams.”

that besides friendship God also made us due to the feeling of creating life.

Parents: why did you create your children? Isnt it plausable that God created biengs because each time a soul is created he gets the same feeling you get when trying to make children?

If God made us in his/her image then i reckon that just like us an orgasmic joyful feeling is experienced everytime a new soul is created/released.

A couple without contraception will risk pregnancy just for that feeling they get because they enjoy it so much. Can anybody really judge God when its the opposite way around, God enjoys the feeling for the soul purpose of creating life.

Additional Details
Just because God isnt babysitting billions of souls at every minute of every day i wouldnt say God was a bad parent.

 

[tonyrey]

Name: Kristine
Age:22 years old
Work: web design
Location: Caloocan city
Saying;“You know you are in love when you can’t fall asleep because reality is finally better than your dreams.”

that besides friendship God also made us due to the feeling of creating life.

Parents: why did you create your children? Isnt it plausable that God created biengs because each time a soul is created he gets the same feeling you get when trying to make children?

If God made us in his/her image then i reckon that just like us an orgasmic joyful feeling is experienced everytime a new soul is created/released.

A couple without contraception will risk pregnancy just for that feeling they get because they enjoy it so much. Can anybody really judge God when its the opposite way around, God enjoys the feeling for the soul purpose of creating life.

Additional Details
Just because God isnt babysitting billions of souls at every minute of every day i wouldnt say God was a bad parent.

Welcome to the forum, Kristine. A delightful post which is like a breath of fresh air.

 

[greylorn]

Excellent point my friend! I would definitely agree that our God is incredibly humble. He did come down from Heaven to serve us. Now the question is: Why did He come down to serve us? I know one of the reasons He came down to serve us is to reveal to us the incredible depths perfect patience and kindness has, even in the face of unjust impatience and meanness.

I understand your interpretation of purpose. Mine is different, and a bit too complex to explain here. (I’m closing in on book publication, though.)

I propose as an oversimplified hand-waving alternative, that God actually expects something of us which no human (except possibly myself) understands, He made a nasty error in the calculation of entropic force when designing the universe. As a result, the universe is indeed blowing itself apart. Although that will not happen for quite a few billion years, it will happen unless divergent thinking can find a solution. Neither God nor His assistants are capable of such thinking because they know too much, and are counting on bringing idiots such as ourselves to consciousness in hopes that a few of us will think of something they overlooked.

That is why Stephen Hawking’s disease went into abatement/remission when he began to work in the direction he’d been charged with.

Please consider a couple of concepts:

1. God expects us to master the Greatest Commandments, and there is no challenge more difficult. However, He has tremendous mercy to offer given the complexities of being ignorant humans in a very striven world.

What you see as “greatest commandments” are actually just a set of mickey mouse rules. I know several atheists who’ve had no trouble living by them.

They are difficult only because God programmed our little brains to behave otherwise. Our brains want to lie to protect their fragile egos. Many of us are inherently lazy and therefore prefer theft to honest work, and when we do get it, we steal pens from our employers and rip them off with false sick leave. Many of us are inherently lustful of one another— without that built-in program, adultery would serve the brain no purpose. Etc.

Yes, at the level of soul we have free will. But God seems to have arranged it (my opinion anyway) that the soul has to waste a lot of time using its free will to fight a brain programmed otherwise.

If you’ve ever ridden a horse, which requires overrriding of the animal’s natural will, you’ll find that it rides easiest on return to the barn, and is happiest when you remove saddle and bridle. .

1. God is also simple. He wants to participate in a Kingdom of non-fearing/free-willed people who will live perfectly patient and kind and motivated for God, so that there will never be a loss of peace, the potential for happiness is limitless, and this will last forever. Where this becomes complex is that God has no option but to create, and if a person analyzes what is required to achieve the goals of creating this Kingdom from nothing, one will understand the Fullness of Truth in Roman Catholicism.

I don’t know how you come up with the notion that an entity complex enough to create an awesome universe is simple. Methinks that you are anthropomorphizing.

Man is simple, and fundamentally downright stupid. God’s I.Q., by conventional definitions is infinitely greater than the highest human I.Q. I personally find it inappropriate to attempt to drag the Creator down to our level by referring to Him as simple.

You do not know Him, after all. You know some stuff that humans have written about him. And after 12 years of thorough Catholic teaching, some by first rate and well educated priests, I never heard the word simple applied to God.

I recall some teachers who, had I said such a thing, would have given me a well deserved smack.

It is only we humans who are simple. I’ve chosen to admit that and not get carried away with the “made in God’s image” slogan.

You have a very interesting perspective my friend. Please consider the following question:
If no human soul can improve upon the Creator’s skills (thoughts included), why do you place your faith in Stephen Hawking (reference post #13)?

I put no faith whatsoever in Hawking, and find him in serious error on several points-- most notably his stupefying atheism. That blind spot is second to his acceptance of the “conservation of information” theory. He is one of a handful of otherwise good minds who will get a free copy of my book, which he will not read.

In Post #13 I wrote, *Maybe one very bright human such as Stephen Hawking will see the problem from a different perspective and find a solution. *

I don’t see how a statement prefaced with “maybe” can be interpreted as putting faith in the object of the statement. I, and a mathematician with whom I share ideas, are actually more likely to make the critical contributions than Hawkng, because we insist that the universe is created.

 

[greylorn]

Please consider the following:
What if it is God’s thoughtful will that created the soul of each person, then God’s bodily will that created the body of each person?

I don’t connect with your meaning. I’m an old school (ex)Catholic who was taught that the Creator was an entity without a body. I still prefer that idea because in the context of physics it makes sense. God with a body makes no sense whatsoever. The Mormons seem to have such a belief, but I’ve never gotten one of them to make sense out of it that I could wrap my mind around.

I’m only willing to deal with realistic hypotheticals, so you have to do some background work before sucking me into that question.

To better help understand all of that seemingly disconnected material, consider the simplicity of what is required to obtain unbreakable peace as an individual:

I’ve not discovered your “simple” mechanism. I expect to find a modicum of peace when someone lobs a .50 cal bullet between my eyes, and I figure that the brief respite will be interrupted with yet another unwelcome incarnation in another wretched human body, on a planet full of the same badly programmed brains I just left.

a. One must be patient with what is willed, for if actions are impatient, there is a loss of peace in society.

That is true. If we sit patiently and wait for the socialists and Democrats to take over, their goons will ensure peace. I’ve been told that many of the Jews gassed by Nazi goons died peaceably, Joe Stalin ordered that the millions of Ukrainians shot to death by his soldiers should die peaceably, perhaps knowing that many of their murderers were their own people. I imagine that many helpless people died in their acknowledged helplessness rather than trying to fight their persecutors, as Christ is alleged to have taught.

Some of us insist upon personal freedom and the enforcement of distinctions between right and wrong. We prefer life and liberty, but if a choice must be made we can find liberty in death. We are willing to act out our opinions in real life, despite personal cost, which upsets those who want to take charge of us, who then deal with us unpeacefully.

b. One must be patient with what is thought, for if a thought is impatient, there is a loss of peace in the individual.

Etc. The word balderdash springs to mind. It would be a Bill O’Reilly word if Bill could be taught to pronounce it.

c. One must be patient with the body. This could mean relaxed/tension-free muscles(or not uncontrollably tense). Without patience in the body, one will experience pain and fatigue, following the energy rush.

Tell you what. Why don’t you fall 10 feet off a roof onto a concrete slab someday, get your foot caught in a ladder and torqued about 90 degrees in a non-normal direction, and sit for awhile on your sorry behind atop ice cold concrete, patiently not feeling pain or fatigue until you die. My guess is that if you are too silly to crawl to a phone or knife drawer, and really prefer to sit and wait, you’ll start whining loudly enough a few minutes after the neighborhood mountain lion shows up for lunch.

I really dislike fatuous peaceniks who let others secure their safety. Don’t be one of them, please. I prefer to like people whenever feasible.

d. One must want to be patient with the spirit, for if the person does not want to be, there will be a loss of happiness when doing it.

You are right. One doesn’t, and there is.

Then follow the same reasoning in order to obtain a limitless happiness and unstoppable energy.
Please note: I apologize for my understandings to be so disconnected. The wisdom and grace of the Word is Amazing and Unbeatable!

I can deal with unhappiness and pain. Here’s why.

If I’m training a puppy to be a quality hunting dog, let’s say a pointer or retriever, I don’t coddle him during puppyhood. I take him out in the woods and fields to get wet and cold along with me. I smack him when he barks, because I don’t want him scaring game later. By the time he becomes a good dog, he’ll have had a mix of rough times and good. He’ll be hungry some times, and gnawing beef bones on better days.

If I’m training a U.S. Navy Seal, I don’t make it a point to keep him warm, dry, and happy. I don’t want him watching soap operas and learning crochet in a comfy barracks. Quite the contrary. There seems no better way to teach a man to swim 1000 yards in icy water with a load of weapons attached to his body for an assault upon an enemy than to make him swim twice that distance with four times the load, again and again, so than when he’s on a mission he’ll think that he’s getting a break.

Humans come with different proclivities, and in Matthew 25 you’ll note different expectations. I did some crochet as a kid and got beat up for it. I was a nice, harmless kid and got kicked around, and had no fun whatsoever. After learning how to use feet, fists, and words, the class of beatings I get has moved uptown.

As we each have different skills, we are expected to use them. You go ahead and crochet, knit, do “world peace” embroideries for your friends. That seems a fair use of your nature.

Struggling against forces of evil and taking beatings, sometimes returning them, is more my kind of thing. I’ll promise not to shoot holes in your embroideries if you agree not to wave them in my face while I’m taking aim at a worthy target.

 

[greylorn]

Nice thoughts! You are correct in that I am agreeing with you, but I am not wanting to. My reasoning for not wanting to is that if we use the general definition of physical being anything related to the body or brain, thereby making anything of the universe physical in nature, then we are left with physics being universal studies or the study of anything and everything and would still need to further define the branches of physics. I would find it interesting to state that I am going to my physics class to study the Catechisms of the Catholic Church, or that physical skills is all inclusive of acrobatic, psychic, comprehension, reading, writing, and musical skills.

Your desire to compartmentalize comes from good old ordinary human ignorance. You’ve not yet (there is hope) undertaken a wider education.

I would love to teach a class named, Physics of the Catechism 303b. It’s prerequisites would be Physics 301a, 301b, and Critical Thinking 101.

I’d be delighted to teach classes in balanced learning. Were I to train someone seriously interested in being a psychic, I would demand that he/she participate in interactive sports— tennis, basketball, football. I would also expect him to learn gamesmanship— poker or contact bridge, both games requiring a mix of mind and mechanics.

I would expect a football quarterback or running back to master non-contact country dancing on a Saturday night Dallas dance floor. Were I cross-training a sniper, I’d send her to you, to learn patience.

Regarding the physical universe as the most perfect God-written bible: You should check out gospelofcreation.com Really Cool Stuff!

I did check it out and read about the “2/3rds Rule.” Equivalent tripe can be found by picking any book at random from the shelves of your local metaphysical book store. The writer does not know how to paragraph. Content: all hype, zero useful content. I expect at least a bite of aged cheddar in my bait, and that stuff has the stink of New Age Nonsense, which I’ve already studied.

If you promise not to make more reading recommendations, I will serve you in kind by recommending that when my book comes out, you do not read it.

Fair enough: Is Jesus Christ God? If yes, then Jesus Christ is the Creator.

I recall a movie, The Man Who Would Be King, with Sean Connery and Michael Caine. Connery passed himself off to a primitive tribe as a God, and reigned supreme. Then, one day he crossed a social line, was bitten for his trouble, and bled. Gods don’t bleed, and Gods do not die-- at least not in that movie.

In honest studies of the Bible I found no suggestion that Jesus Christ is more than an excellent, wise teacher of fair social behavior. I see him as one who understood the reality of post-death consciousness, but not as one who knew quite how it worked.

To be fair, I do not regard anything written after Luke to be legitimate, with the exception of Magdaline’s Gospel (taken from Gnostic writings found in university stacks 30 years ago), which I found so remarkable and insightful that I cannot distinguish all my ideas from hers.

To consider your “If yes,” alternative, I say, NO!

The Trinity was always a bizarre concept to me, even back when my child mind believed in it. I now understand it more metaphorically, and have woven the concept into my own bizarre theories, Multiple entities working together toward a common purpose makes perfect sense. That’s how minds work together.

Effective corporations have a president, and behind him or her, any number of VP’s, secretaries, accountants, consultants, directors, etc. Three distinct entities working toward a common goal like creation makes good sense to me. In fact, I don’t think that three is quite enough to account for the vast extent and variation in their work.

But I am a traditionalist, and when I count 1+1+1 I always come up with three.

My interpretation of the Trinity is quite different from yours. I envision God the Father as the Physicist/Biochemist who assembled atoms from raw energy, stars from atoms, planets from stars, bodies from plenets.

I envision Christ as the PR guy who shows up now and then on developing planets to keep the poor souls newly coming to consciousness on track, as best he can. Christians know him as Jesus Christ, and other religions know him as the voice in the burning bush, Buddha, Zoroaster, etc. teaching what people can absorb that will make a difference in the right direction. I don’t think he’s been around this planet since his incarnation as Jesus.

I envision the Holy Spirit as the philosopher/spook-herder behind the scenes, asking, “do we really want to be doing this?” and keeping the agreed upon projects on an agreeable course.

These are just opinions, worth every nickel you paid for them. They are contrary to all belief systems that I know of. I mention them so that you can see where I come from in this “purpose” thread. I do not recommend that you consider any of my ideas in any other light.

Excellent conversation! Thanks for the excellent food for thought! I look forward to more!

Thoughts?

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Shike]

In honest studies of the Bible I found no suggestion that Jesus Christ is more than an excellent, wise teacher of fair social behavior. I see him as one who understood the reality of post-death consciousness, but not as one who knew quite how it worked.

To be fair, I do not regard anything written after Luke to be legitimate, with the exception of Magdaline’s Gospel (taken from Gnostic writings found in university stacks 30 years ago), which I found so remarkable and insightful that I cannot distinguish all my ideas from hers.

Take the first three Gospels if you wish. That Jesus claims to be more than a wise man is true, whether it is apparent or not at first glance. Study the texts from the perspective of a Jew and you will see it well enough.

Colorful posts; entertaining.

 

[jochoa]

Thank you very much greylorn for your consideration and the sharing of your thoughts! Giving me more food for thoughts has made my day better, and I look forward to further discussion with you!

I understand your interpretation of purpose. Mine is different, and a bit too complex to explain here. (I’m closing in on book publication, though.)

Congratulations to you on publication! I find your concept of reincarnation interesting and to better help me understand, please consider a few questions:
Would you say your purpose of living is to physically save the planet and universe?
How many times do you feel you have been reborn?
What other lives do you feel you have lived?

What you see as “greatest commandments” are actually just a set of mickey mouse rules. I know several atheists who’ve had no trouble living by them.

I definitely agree that some atheists have no trouble living in accordance with charity (patience and kindness), however it is impossible for an atheist to live in oneness with the Greatest Commandments. Some of the main reasons are:

1. Since an atheist does not believe God exists, s/he cannot be motivated for God while being patient and kind, therefore s/he is not putting God above all.
2. To live in complete oneness with the Greatest Commandments, one must willfully (thoughts and actions) worship God. Since an atheist does not believe God exists, s/he can’t praise God.
3. One of the most difficult concepts of living in oneness with the Greatest Commandments is the acceptance of the spiritual realm. Even most faithful persons have difficulty with the spiritual realm, just look at how many reject transubstantiation and absolution of sins through the priest.

Regarding the concept of programming: I definitely agree with some of your concepts, however, I believe the free will exists in spirit/soul, thoughts/mind, and feelings/body, and it is challenging to have all aspects of human nature will/think/feel/act in perfect unity.

I don’t know how you come up with the notion that an entity complex enough to create an awesome universe is simple. Methinks that you are anthropomorphizing.

I apologize for being incomplete in my statement. I should have stated: God’s desire is simple. He wants you, and I, and Him to eternally live in unbreakable peace with the potential for limitless happiness. It is the plan necessary to achieve this goal that is a beast!

Regarding anthropomorphizing: I know Jesus Christ is God, therefore God became human, therefore God is human, therefore God has human features.

It is only we humans who are simple. I’ve chosen to admit that and not get carried away with the “made in God’s image” slogan.

What I find incredibly amazing about “made in God’s image” is that when one accepts that the first substance to come into existence was a living cell-like being, one can recognize that every human, both male and female, initially comes into existence in that same exact image. One can also find great spiritual connection when admiring the Eucharist: The Body of God that Jesus Christ gave up in order to share the experience of a limitless happiness, which also happens to be in the same exact image of a single cell.

I don’t see how a statement prefaced with “maybe” can be interpreted as putting faith in the object of the statement. I, and a mathematician with whom I share ideas, are actually more likely to make the critical contributions than Hawkng, because we insist that the universe is created.

I apologize for limiting your faith being placed in Stephen Hawking. However, you are still placing your faith in only humans, whom no matter how developed, will never compare to the infinite intellectual and physical skills of the Creator. And to clarify as to how your statement of “maybe” indicates faith, please consider the following: A statement of “maybe” declares the lack of knowing. Thinking and having faith are also declarations of not knowing, and are therefore interchangeable. I can think the Dallas Cowboys will make it to the playoffs next year, or I can have faith the Dallas Cowboys will make it to the playoffs next year, only because I do not know if the Cowboys will make it to the playoffs and maybe they will.

I will respond to the others soon!

Thoughts for now?

 

[greylorn]

Take the first three Gospels if you wish. That Jesus claims to be more than a wise man is true, whether it is apparent or not at first glance. Study the texts from the perspective of a Jew and you will see it well enough.

Colorful posts; entertaining.

Thank you for the compliment. I care about my subjects, and those with whom I converse. If I cannot change any minds, at least I can amuse a few.

Trying to see something from the perspective of a Jew is an incongruent concept. I’ve know too few of them for fair practice, the first being a college roommate who briefly thought that he could park his bicycle in our room. About a decade or so back I had a Jewish ladyfriend, a professional writer of good intelligence and different perspectives, with whom I hoped to relate on a permanent basis, and put fair effort into it. One of her other lovers called when I was with her on a night when she’d neglected to mute her answering machine. A few weeks later when I declined a visit and went out dancing instead, she confronted me in the parking lot and pelted me with eggs by way of rebuke. She had a good arm. Raw egg, I found, is an excellent hair tonic and stabilizer. But I’ll never again try to understand a Jewish perspective. I believe that one must be born and raised into it.

Best I stick to the perspectives I own, those of a caucasian nerd of Kraut ancestry (successful German horse thieves) raised in the conventional midwest, and invite others to explain alternative perspectives.

For example, you might introduce me to specific verses (in older Bibles) that support your point, and elucidate those alternative perspectives from which you’d like me to interpret the passages. Otherwise I prefer to turn in an “F” on that assignment.

 

[Shike]

For example, you might introduce me to specific verses (in older Bibles) that support your point, and elucidate those alternative perspectives from which you’d like me to interpret the passages. Otherwise I prefer to turn in an “F” on that assignment.

I’m not your teacher so interpret things however you want.

That said, there are instances where Jesus uses God’s name for his own, he brings nature in conformity with his will, and he forgives sins… not to mention the countless ways he fulfills the Old Testament.

A Jew at the time of Jesus would know these things. That is why they wanted to charge him with blasphemy (and all that garment rending ). Simple as that.

 

[jochoa]

Hello again, my friend, greylorn! I would like to share a couple additional points regarding the simplicity of God, a different perspective in the purpose of creation, and on a following reply, a working concept of the Holy Trinity.

Regarding the simplicity of God, please consider the following:

1. Catholicism knows God’s Word is amazingly graceful, His Word is God, and grace is simple and elegant, therefore it can be recognized that God is simple.
2. The simplicity or complexity of the quality of a being is dependent upon what aspect of being is evaluated. If one considers the ignorance, laziness, and selfish work ethic of average humans, then yes, human nature is simply conditional. However, if one considers the nature of what, how and why the human body naturally grows and works, one will quickly realize the incredibly deep complexities of human nature.

I’ve not discovered your “simple” mechanism…
I really dislike fatuous peaceniks who let others secure their safety…
Struggling against forces of evil and taking beatings, sometimes returning them, is more my kind of thing…

I apologize if my earlier post came across as though I am either unappreciative of those who secure the safety and freedoms of all, or not supportive of the moral cause of struggling against forces of evil and taking beatings, and sometimes returning them. Please know that I am very grateful for those who secure the safety and freedoms of all, as well as in great support of the moral cause of struggling against forces of evil and taking beatings, and sometimes returning them. Additionally, I find there to be great room for defining the struggle, the forces of evil, taking beatings, and how to return beatings. To hopefully shed some light on the concept I am proposing, please consider an alternate perspective to understanding the purpose.

The Holy Spirit is perfect at freely choosing to be and spreading the means to freely choose to be patient and kind and motivated for God for the sake of unbreakable peace, limitless happiness, and eternal living equally for others and the self.
Since humans are ignorant, our purpose is to learn and grow through successes and failures to become one with the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, any act, done by an ignorant human, in efforts to grow closer in oneness with this Spirit is of higher morality.
Since spreading the means to freely choose is a necessary aspect of living in oneness with the Holy Spirit, then ensuring the freedom for all is a necessary aspect. Therefore, if one is incapable of reasoning with a tyrant and incapable of knowing or willing a completely patient and kind method of achieving equal peace and freedom for all, then the use of force to overcome the tyrant for the sake of freedom and peace for all is acceptable.and forgivable. As long as s/he continually tries to grow in greater oneness with the Holy Spirit.
I hope from the consideration of some of the aspects of the Holy Spirit, you will recognize the countless number of actions that are morally acceptable and forgivable when growing in oneness with the Holy Spirit.

Please know that I am sorry that my earlier post was overly emphasizing of patience. I find it very important to recognize that kindness, freedom, spreading the means, and motivation for God are equally important to patience, and I was only trying to share the difficulties of trying to achieve oneness with all the person in only one of the aspects of the Holy Spirit. Please know that I can validate fighting for freedom for all to be close in oneness with the Holy Spirit because it is an act of kindness towards many others at the risk of losing the self for the sake of freedom to choose to be motivated for God, and itself can be motivated for God, as well as executed patiently with as little force as possible.

Thoughts?

 

[jochoa]

Hello again, greylorn! Since I am thoroughly enjoying the discussion, and we have come to ponder the Holy Trinity, one of my favorite subjects, second only to the Greatest Commandments, I would like to share my concept of the Holy Trinity.

The Trinity was always a bizarre concept to me, even back when my child mind believed in it. I now understand it more metaphorically, and have woven the concept into my own bizarre theories, Multiple entities working together toward a common purpose makes perfect sense. That’s how minds work together.

Your concept is definitely valid, however, from my perspective there is room for further development, therefore it is incomplete. If one begins with the faith that God is responsible for this amazing and incredibly complex creation, one should place greater faith in the knowledge and wisdom of the Creator. Please consider the following:

Before anything was created, God came to exist as a single living cell that could think, feel, and will, the same exact image and likeness we, both male and female, are created, as well as the same exact image of the Host of the Eucharist. Before God existed as a single living cell, there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
During this time, God had an unbreakable peace and perfect happiness, however, He wanted to experience and share the means to experience a limitless happiness. In order to experience a limitless happiness, He needed three things: 1. free-willed beings who would Love like He Loves to ensure there would eternally be an unbreakable peace with the opportunities to experience limitless happiness. 2a. He had to remain the all-knowing God, who would be capable of delivering perfect judgments on the determination as to who enters the Kingdom of Heaven. 2b. He had to give up knowing everything, in order to experience a limitless happiness in the Kingdom of Heaven. 3. A plan that would reveal to the world the incredible depths of patience and kindness True Love has.
Therefore, at the fullness of time in the planning of creation, the single cell duplicated. The second cell is of the exact same body, but the mind of the initial cell did not carry over. Since the will proceeds from the mind and body, as a full human, the second cell’s will can be both divine and human. And since God needed a plan to reveal to the world the incredible depths of patience and kindness True Love has without sacrificing the free-will of His creations, He had to demonstrate perfect patience and kindness through an unjustly impatient, mean, and cruel Crucifixion. During this act, He revealed His Holy Spirit, but in order to fulfill the fullness of His purpose for creation, He needs a free-willed creation to become eternally one with His Spirit while living on earth.
Then the initial cell ensured His plan to bring free-willed creations to Love as He Loves would work, therefore He thought of all that would happen until one free-willed being would perfectly align his/her spirit with His Spirit. Since the free-willed creation becomes at one with the Spirit of God, it can be stated that s/he is One with the Spirit of God and therefore, is the Spirit of God. Please note, currently I am unable to reason if the third cell was created then or if the third cell is created near the end of time during creation. If the third cell was created at the end of the planning of creation, then the Holy Spirit, as a distinct person, could have literally spoken through the prophets, but since we do not profess to believe the Holy Spirit comes down from Heaven, I cannot declare that.
Therefore, before creation there is the Father (the initial cell, which remains eternally unchanging and is the law-maker and judge), the Son (the second cell, which is the only begotten Son, who is one in body with the Father, through whom all things were made, who comes down from Heaven in creation to become man), and the Holy Spirit, whether already created or not, (the third cell, which has aligned his/her will perfectly with the will of the Father, by becoming at one with the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ).

Now the main method I have learned to grow closer in oneness with the Spirit of God is by heavily focusing on mastering the Greatest Commandments, which through trials and tribulations, have come to the following understanding: Always want to learn, perfect, and spread the means to patience and kindness and motivation for God with all the body, and with all the spirit, and with all the thoughts, and with all the will, equally towards others and the self, so that as a society every relationship and individual will have an unbreakable peace, limitless happiness, and unstoppable energy.

Be careful what you wish for.

Please know my friend, I really hope you consider and share your thoughts on this concept, for I have yet to participate in a discussion which reveals holes and problems with this concept.

Thoughts?

 

[Shike]

Before anything was created, God came to exist as a single living cell that could think, feel, and will, the same exact image and likeness we, both male and female, are created, as well as the same exact image of the Host of the Eucharist. Before God existed as a single living cell, there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

If you speak of the incarnation, I don’t think you could say that Jesus was able to will and think from his human nature at the time he was a single cell. If instead you meant to give an analogy of the Trinity, then I can’t say I totally follow what you are saying. God does not have a corporeal body. It is an interesting analogy nonetheless, but I think the biological terminology hinders rather than helps your explanation.

In order to experience a limitless happiness, He needed three things: 1. free-willed beings who would Love like He Loves to ensure there would eternally be an unbreakable peace with the opportunities to experience limitless happiness. 2a. He had to remain the all-knowing God, who would be capable of delivering perfect judgments on the determination as to who enters the Kingdom of Heaven. 2b. He had to give up knowing everything, in order to experience a limitless happiness in the Kingdom of Heaven. 3. A plan that would reveal to the world the incredible depths of patience and kindness True Love has.

Instead of God’s goal being to experience a “limitless happiness”, why not say that His goal is to show His love for us… even after The Fall. Really, the perfection of any possible human happiness is contained in God’s perfect happiness. Why would God want to experience something the perfection of which He already experiences? The answer probably has to do with the fact that God is love and that He loves us.

Now the main method I have learned to grow closer in oneness with the Spirit of God is by heavily focusing on mastering the Greatest Commandments, which through trials and tribulations, have come to the following understanding: Always want to learn, perfect, and spread the means to patience and kindness and motivation for God with all the body, and with all the spirit, and with all the thoughts, and with all the will, equally towards others and the self, so that as a society every relationship and individual will have an unbreakable peace, limitless happiness, and unstoppable energy.

That is all well and good as long as you keep in mind the need for God’s grace at every instant. And not despair when such an end is not realized here and now.

 

[jochoa]

If you speak of the incarnation…

My great friend, Shike! I am deeply appreciative for your time, consideration, and sharing of your thoughts.

I think it is important to consider perspective. You are definitely correct in that the perfection of any possible human happiness is contained in the Father’s perfect happiness. You are also correct that gracefully His goal is to show His love for us. And I do complicate things by asking why is this His goal, but in doing so has revealed such wonderful concepts. But what about the perspective of the Son. Please consider the following: Would you prefer to experience perfect happiness in imagining amazing things in your solitude? Or…Would you prefer to experience a limitless happiness without losing any peace at all with the most amazing friends?

…keep in mind the need for God’s grace at every instant…

Amen!

Thoughts?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Shike]

First, recognize how this is the Wisdom of all things which come into existence:
If one interprets “the Word” as “unchanging forces” and “God” as “single source/entity of creation,” it can be read as “In the beginning were unchanging forces, a single source of creation acted with the unchanging forces, and the creation along with the single source is the source of the following creation.”

Why would someone interpret the Word as unchanging forces? Well, at the very least it is not a literal interpretation because logos does not mean unchanging forces. So I must presume you are going for some kind of allegorical interpretation. But if you are going for an allegorical interpretation, it would seem to me that the laws (or unchanging forces) should be seen in light of the scripture passage and not that the Scripture passage should be seen in light of the laws. It seems rather reductive to me.

Granted, even if we were to pursue such an interpretation, I get different results from such a substitution in Scripture. Namely, I would change your words in quotes to the following: “In the beginning were unchanging forces; the unchanging forces were with the single source, and the unchanging forces were the single source; creation was made through the unchanging forces.”

Now given these interpretations, it would seemingly limit to “God is everything” or pantheism. Therefore, it becomes necessary to recognize how God is a person, Jesus Christ.

Given the interpretations that you gave in the paragraph that the above quote is taken from, pantheism does not seem to follow. Only if one interpreted unchanging forces as God and perfect unity as identity would you start to get into trouble with pantheism. Also, if one’s position is pantheistic the solution is not to posit the Incarnation. The solution is to first resolve the problem of pantheism.

To recognize this, one must ponder the first substance to exist. Given that the first substance had to come from “nothing,” the first substance had to either be living (cell-like) or non-living (atom-like).

That is to assume substance must be material. I don’t think that is a very defensible assumption.

And if we assume the first substance to exist was living, and this living cell was Jesus Christ, then ALL things would have been created through this one living cell, which would not only validate prayers which state, “Through Him all things were made,” but would also validate why there are only two declarations of this principle instead of only 1 or three or more.

I can’t say I fully understand what you are saying here. The Incarnation happened in history at a specific place and time… within history. Yes, the Word has always been the same person, but you make it sound like His human nature is not bound to time and pre-existed atemporally just like the Father. As far as I know, that all things were made through the Word is not to say that all biological life descended (in the normal sense) from the Word–especially if the Word is the source of all physical laws.

I think it is important to consider perspective. You are definitely correct in that the perfection of any possible human happiness is contained in the Father’s perfect happiness. You are also correct that gracefully His goal is to show His love for us. And I do complicate things by asking why is this His goal, but in doing so has revealed such wonderful concepts.

By asking why of your concepts I get His goal of loving us… I don’t think you can get your concepts from asking why loving us is His goal.

But what about the perspective of the Son. Please consider the following: Would you prefer to experience perfect happiness in imagining amazing things in your solitude? Or…Would you prefer to experience a limitless happiness without losing any peace at all with the most amazing friends?

Why would you think the Son is in solitude?

 

[SMA_12]

The spiritual soul in itself does not contain material/physical parts which is why it is not “material/physical” by definition. By definition the spiritual soul is non-material.
Instead, the spiritual soul uses, but is not physically connected with, the brain to operate in the material domain. The non-material soul can also operate in the spiritual realm.

The glitch is that one needs to understand, not necessarily believe, the meanings of two different domains.

This post is from a few pages back, but it reminded me of an interesting philosophical argument for the existence of a soul. I will probably butcher it, but it goes something like this.

It is similar to the principle of causality: every event has a cause going back to an original uncaused cause. Every physical or mental process we take part in is the result of a previous process. For example in order to move your arm, first the nerve signal had to tell you muscles to do so, which came from your brain sending that message, but before your brain sent that message it had to decide to move the arm, etc.

But where did that decision come from. Maybe a stimulus from the environment. But in cases where there was no stimulus, you just decided to move your arm, there had to have been an original cause beyond your brain, because the brain is just physical matter and itself works through the principal of causality.

So there must be a life force, aka a soul, that is the original decision maker. If not, then we have no free will, our whole life is just a series of reactions and chemical processes.

So in a sense there is physical evidence of a soul, and it must have communication with the brain in order to make a decision.

 

[janpeterotto]

If God does not need us why did He make us in the first place. Why do people exist from a Christian perspective? What is our purpose?

This is a very good fundamental question, thank you for posing it so simply.

God’s not-needing can be our own identity.

His making of the universe(s) with us on a small planet, is not that selfevident. We assume a separation. Our logic finds it inevitable to elaborate on the distinction maker/made object. We have to be careful there.

I see “people” as expressions of intelligence and love. And these things are of God himself. So the “why” should be oriented towards God’s selfknowing.

I think we have to dwell on this philosophical theme much more than our clergy does. It is of vital importance.

 

[jochoa]

Hello again, my friend! Please know that I am sorry these concepts are not well-worded, and I am very appreciative that you are considering them. I would like to try explaining some of the concepts from an additional perspective.

Given John 1:1-2 DRB, God is answering the question: Where and How did God come to exist? So He tells the learner, John 1:1. Then the learner naturally questions: Well what was before that? And God responds, “The same was in the beginning with God.” So now when the learner thinks to ask: Well what came before that? S/he will know the answer as, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Therefore, the challenge becomes defining why God only stated this possible loop two times. And if one recognizes that the first material thing to come into existence is the body of God/Jesus Christ, then one can imagine the following sequence:
If Jesus Christ had been asked while living on earth: How did you come to exist? He would have responded with John 1:1, where the Word could have been the plan for Incarnation and God could have been Jesus Christ as the single-celled Father.
Then, when asked How did the single cell come to exist? He could have been allowing the Word to be referring to Love and God as the body-less nothingness.

That is to assume substance must be material. I don’t think that is a very defensible assumption.

Perhaps I should rephrase: What was the first material thing to exist? There are only two options: living or non-living. Given that Catholicism knows: Through the Son, all things were made. Had non-living material things been created like the sun, the earth, plants, etc. and then Jesus came to exist, Jesus would not have been able to make all things. Therefore, we should find a concept which validates that God initially does not have a body, as well as having a body before anything else can be created.

Yes, the Word has always been the same person, but you make it sound like His human nature is not bound to time and pre-existed atemporally just like the Father.

Please consider the following stipulations which help guide my interpretations and concepts:

1. There is only one God, which must be Jesus Christ, because He is fully God.
2. God does not change.
3. There are three persons in one person.
4. The Fullness of Truth regarding His Church is the Roman Catholic Church, therefore I especially focus on the Nicene Creed, as well as Scripture.

By asking why of your concepts I get His goal of loving us… I don’t think you can get your concepts from asking why loving us is His goal.

I am sorry I am currently unable to gracefully explain the development of the concepts. Thank you very much for considering.

Why would you think the Son is in solitude?

I am referring to when Jesus Christ/God was the only person to exist, and I stated the Son because Jesus Christ, as the Father, will always know everything, and therefore always exist in perfect happiness. So which would you prefer?

Thoughts?

 

[greylorn]

Please know my friend, I really hope you consider and share your thoughts on this concept, for I have yet to participate in a discussion which reveals holes and problems with this concept.

Thoughts?

Thank you for sharing your beliefs. It is impossible to discuss beliefs rationally, as I’ve learned over years of trying to deal with believers. Arguments mounted against belief systems can come from three sources:

• Another belief system.

Such arguments amount to a “my God is better than your God” match which is customarily won by the devotee with the largest biceps, bigger gun, or larger army.

• Logic. Believers claim that God created logic, math, etc. Trying to use logical arguments against a belief system is always defeated by the, “logic does not apply to God” defense.

So I don’t bother.

• Reference to contrary factual information.

Such arguments require comparative logic, which is already doomed. Moreover, religionists simply claim that God can do anything, including turning water into wine without blowing up Jerusalem. (See my arguments and their ripostes on the appropriate thread, if it has not been scratched.)

I have never in my entire, way too long life, been able to convince a believer of any stripe that there was a hole in his belief system. I’m not willing to try again.

Personally, I regard your ideas and beliefs, as expressed, as not relevant to anything that concerns me. Yes, that is selfish. What concerns me is learning how this universe really works, where it really came from, and the options for human purpose. I cannot see the relevance of any of your thoughts to my purposes. This is not to say that they are wrong; they are simply irrelevant to me, because they do not relate to anything that I wish to do. Good luck with them.

 

[Quarles47]

If God does not need us why did He make us in the first place. Why do people exist from a Christian perspective? What is our purpose?

God made us to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him because God Loves us, Knows us and Serves us.

 

[jochoa]

I have never in my entire, way too long life, been able to convince a believer of any stripe that there was a hole in his belief system. I’m not willing to try again.

My friend, I am deeply appreciative that you took the time to consider my concepts. I look forward discussing other topics with you!

…I cannot see the relevance of any of your thoughts to my purposes…

Since our discussion seems to be coming to a close, please consider a redirection: You mentioned you believe that when you die, you will incarnate into another body in another wretched place. Consider that if you will work on patience, you will experience greater peace. If you will work on kindness, you will experience greater happiness. If you will work on wanting peace through patience, you will experience greater happiness while being patient with ignorant individuals. And my friend, you are definitely making the world a greater place by fighting for the security of freedom for all! The more people who will work on these aspects of living, the less wretched your next reincarnation will be.

Regarding the discussing of beliefs, please know that I greatly appreciate being told where holes are apparent because this helps me develop greater perspective, for I will take the time to understand your perspective and will develop my understandings accordingly.

Such arguments amount to a “my God is better than your God” match which is customarily won by the devotee with the largest biceps, bigger gun, or larger army.

Please know that I know my God is your God because there is only one God. We just have different understandings of the God. Now if it comes down to the “your understandings are better than mine” match, I will definitely be getting back to work embroidering.

Logic. Believers claim that God created logic, math, etc. Trying to use logical arguments against a belief system is always defeated by the, “logic does not apply to God” defense.

Please know that I learn based on logic and reasoning. When I ask to be presented with holes in the concept, I am asking where is it unreasonable and illogical from your perspective. However, I am glad to agree to let it be a discussion for another day!

Reference to contrary factual information.

I respect your position to not discuss further, however, in my considerations, I have yet to see how this concept goes against factual information.

Thank you once again for the excellent discussion! I had great fun pondering your thoughts! I hope the publication process goes as smoothly as possible, and I hope you are satisfied with the results of publication! Congratulations!