We are all G!ds.

[Quahom1]

The Bible is pretty specific about the status of Man "a bit lower than the angels now, judge of them later"... Why push the issue?

 

[taijasi]

I believe Roman Catholicism teaches the existence of several Orders of Angels. I'm no [Christian] angelologist, but I'd never want to go on record as stating that Throne, Powers, Virtues and Dominions (?) are all "a little ..." ~ oh wait, sorry Q, I see I had that backwards.

Nevermind!

 

[Thomas]

Re: Bringing up your post (It's a worthy topic)

you cherry pick yours Thomas, I cherry pick mine...

Whoa! You can't pin that one on me — you know I'm from the 'take it or leave it' side of the fence — context is everything, my good man, context!

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Re: Bringing up your post (It's a worthy topic)

I'm not suggesting that becoming our own god and defying our Creator is a good thing. I Am, however, suggesting that this is mankind's reality.

That's a contradiction — if it's not a good thing, then it's not God-ordained.
I am suggesting this is mankind's illusion.

We are gods and we ARE extremely powerful,

Being powerful doesn't make us God.

Surrender to God makes us even more so gods than when we defy our Creator, as we become more godlike when we surrender to His authority.

I don't see how, as God does not surrender to anything? I do see how we participate in the Divine Life when we choose to follow the Way God has ordained for humanity, but that is by His grace, not by any effect of our actions.

Keep playing your idolatry and heresy cards if you feel you must Thomas, but when the walls of your house come tumbling down, know this, "With what judgment you judge you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.

I can rest with that — it would be better if you could respond to the points made however, rather than just criticise me for making them.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

-- Thomas, If you don't know your role as a god, then I don't know what to tell you. Just don't sell your soul to the church. It could very well be that they fake it in attempt to fool the world and that IS Beast! --

Gatekeeper — the role of God was offered by the serpent in the Garden, and our primordial couple bought the lie, and paid the price.

Now you're saying the same thing again?

We (Mankind) ARE the fallen from heaven, gods loosed upon this earth.

Where in heaven's name does Scripture say that? All I see is that we are life infused into the stuff of the world, and that we are 'very good' — we are not created fallen, nor is the cosmos a fallen thing. It's this negative view of the natural world I resist entirely.

If we truly want to live, then complete surrender to God and His love is required, not a surrender to church dogma.

But what if it appears to me that your surrender is to your own invented dogma? What you're saying is you want Christ, but on your terms. Doesn't work that way, old friend.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Gatekeeper]

Re: Bringing up your post (It's a worthy topic)

That's a contradiction — if it's not a good thing, then it's not God-ordained.
I am suggesting this is mankind's illusion.

Defying God is a good thing?????

Being powerful doesn't make us God.

Elohiym (god/God) has different meanings, one of which is mighty.

I don't see how, as God does not surrender to anything? I do see how we participate in the Divine Life when we choose to follow the Way God has ordained for humanity, but that is by His grace, not by any effect of our actions.

I'm not saying we are GOD, but that we ARE gods (Mighty ones)

I can rest with that — it would be better if you could respond to the points made however, rather than just criticise me for making them.

God bless,

Thomas

Fair enough


GK

 

[Gatekeeper]

Gatekeeper — the role of God was offered by the serpent in the Garden, and our primordial couple bought the lie, and paid the price.

Now you're saying the same thing again?

I'm suggesting that we are gods -- NOT God (Obviously). We are mighty, and we can either further defy God or we can surrender.

Where in heaven's name does Scripture say that? All I see is that we are life infused into the stuff of the world, and that we are 'very good' — we are not created fallen, nor is the cosmos a fallen thing. It's this negative view of the natural world I resist entirely.

I suppose it is a matter of putting 2+2 together, Thomas -- We fell when we defied God, cast out of Eden. Eden was a paradise, it was a heaven, thus when we defied God we became the fallen and were cast out.

But what if it appears to me that your surrender is to your own invented dogma? What you're saying is you want Christ, but on your terms. Doesn't work that way, old friend.

My surrender is to God and His love, not to church dogma --


GK

 

[Thomas]

I'm suggesting that we are gods -- NOT God (Obviously).

You'll have to define 'gods' then ... as the general idea is incompatible with monotheism.

We are mighty, and we can either further defy God or we can surrender.

But that does not make us gods.

I suppose it is a matter of putting 2+2 together, Thomas -- We fell when we defied God, cast out of Eden. Eden was a paradise, it was a heaven...

But it was not any heaven. Paradise, yes, heaven, no. I think you've made 5.

thus when we defied God we became the fallen and were cast out.

Fallen from our human nature, not fallen from an angelic nature into a human nature.

My surrender is to God and His love, not to church dogma --

Not really, your surrender is to a personal dogma once you've 'heard the word', as it were, then amended it to suit yourself.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

Nice bit of Discussion...I'll provide an appropriate response.



Yes I've already done it. And the fact that I said it, and my words are now published makes it so. You see now. I just said it. I just wrote what I just said. That is more than anyone can say of the G!d of the bible, Moses, or Jesus.

Now the above response in no way denigrates the three names mentioned. It is just that factually I now have more proof, more evidence than they, or you.

But obviously it is not the direction the discussion has been going, and my answer is on par with the question. I hope you enjoyed it.

very amusing

clearly the diety called wil is a bit touchy when his godhood is questioned

 

[seattlegal]

We are not God. We are only His shadows.

Dang!
Shadow (psychology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Interfaith.org, Pusaka!

 

[Gatekeeper]

You'll have to define 'gods' then ... as the general idea is incompatible with monotheism.

Sometimes angels are referred to as gods. It can also mean great, as well as mighty. I never suggested that were were comparable to God, only that we are powerful (Mighty).

But that does not make us gods.

According to the Hebrew term elohiym it does -- It is also written in scripture that we are gods, so I'm not sure why you reject the concept.

But it was not any heaven. Paradise, yes, heaven, no. I think you've made 5.

Maybe I'm reading into it a bit too much, but mankind certainly fell from and cast out of paradise, which I myself would consider heaven.

Fallen from our human nature, not fallen from an angelic nature into a human nature.

Fallen from what? I don't think of it as falling from a former nature -- We are what we are. I think we simply catered to that part [in] us that opposes God. Since Adam and Eve chose to disobey God, God has allowed us to be consumed by our selfish ambitions or that part in us that opposes Him.

Not really, your surrender is to a personal dogma once you've 'heard the word', as it were, then amended it to suit yourself.

I suppose if I bowed down to RCC dogma, you would have a different attitude, eh? I surrender to God -- Not "dogma" -- Sure, I have my questions and thoughts, and I have come to a different understanding than you, but I don't surrender myself to personal dogma -- I question, I seek, I think and attempt to understand things to the best of my ability. To do these things is our reasonable duty, Imo.

GK

 

[seattlegal]

I know what you trying to do...

You do? Well clue me in then!

 

[Thomas]

Sometimes angels are referred to as gods. It can also mean great, as well as mighty. I never suggested that were were comparable to God, only that we are powerful (Mighty).

Angels in Scripture are messengers of God, but not themselves gods.

According to the Hebrew term elohiym it does

Not necessarily, elohiym can also refer to rulers or judges, angels or gods, godlike, or God-empowered.

It is also written in scripture that we are gods, so I'm not sure why you reject the concept.

I reject your interpretation of the concept. In both cases the term is used somewhat sarcastically, but that seems to have escapoed both you and Wil.

Maybe I'm reading into it a bit too much, but mankind certainly fell from and cast out of paradise, which I myself would consider heaven.

Then I suggest you are. There is a distinction, the Bible makes that quite clear.

Fallen from what? I don't think of it as falling from a former nature -- We are what we are.

Fallen from what we were created to be. what you think is one thing, what Scripture says is another.

I think we simply catered to that part [in] us that opposes God. Since Adam and Eve chose to disobey God, God has allowed us to be consumed by our selfish ambitions or that part in us that opposes Him.

OK. That, to me, is fallen. Another word is corrupted, when the low overthrows the high.

The Fall might be more accurately seen as a fall from Grace, not necessarily a fall from nature. Man walked with God in the garden, then disobeyed God, so God withdrew His companionship, His Grace, or His Spirit, from man.

We are gods only in as much as we participate in the Divine Life of God, and then we are not gods by nature, but 'gods' by filiation.

I suppose if I bowed down to RCC dogma, you would have a different attitude, eh?

No, but if you were more cognisant of informed commentary, then you might not make what is evidently an error of reading.

It's not RCC dogma, its Christian teaching generally.

I surrender to God -- Not "dogma" --

No, you surrender to yourself.

but I don't surrender myself to personal dogma -- I question, I seek, I think and attempt to understand things to the best of my ability. To do these things is our reasonable duty, Imo.

But if not your dogma, then who's?

And you rely on your own infallibility?

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Wil and Gatekeeper —
Whilst I argue with you, the issue I am actually arguing with is an old one — the notion of the 'god within' is hardly new, and the reading of Christian Scriptures to support that notion is not new either.

But it is flawed, and has been tackled by a number of comentators.

"Of all conceivable forms of enlightenment the worst is what these people call the Inner Light. Of all horrible religions the most horrible is the worship of the god within. Any one who knows any body knows how it would work; any one who knows any one from the Higher Thought Centre knows how it does work. That Jones shall worship the god within him turns out ultimately to mean that Jones shall worship Jones. Let Jones worship the sun or moon, anything rather than the Inner Light; let Jones worship cats or crocodiles, if he can find any in his street, but not the god within." G.K. Chesterton Orthodoxy Chaper 5

and here ...

Spirituality Fuzziness and The God Within
A year ago I wrote a post about the in-vogue-but-fraught-with-ambiguity self-identification "Spiritual but not religious." My main criticism of this category is that it's so broad as to lack any specific meaning, and people who ID this way usually do not seem focused on adding clarity. Instead, they enjoy the ambiguity that seemingly absolves them from forming clear beliefs (even if a belief is "I don't know if God exists").

But there's another problem with "spiritual but not religious" and its New Age influence: it tends to devolve into a kind of self-worship. A great example is the GQ interview with John Edwards' mistress Rielle Hunter. Here's Hanna Rosin’s take on religion of the self:
"… I read Rielle’s interview and immediately thought of many yoga teachers I’ve met, the acolytes of Marianne Williamson and other devotees of what they call “Eastern” religion. The blossoming New Age/Buddhism lite that populates yoga classes talks about the toxic nature of the Western “ego” (you know, we work too hard, we value ourselves above others, etc.) But then it replaces this ego with something like a supreme inner deity residing in all of us whose dictates can never be ignored … you call it silly but to Rielle it’s so profound—divine, even." Ben Casnocha's blog

I'll follow up with a post on the notion of the self as soon as time allows.

God bless.

Thomas

 

[wil]

Wil and Gatekeeper —
Whilst I argue with you, the issue I am actually arguing with is an old one — the notion of the 'god within' is hardly new, and the reading of Christian Scriptures to support that notion is not new either.

But it is flawed, and has been tackled by a number of comentators.


and here ...


I'll follow up with a post on the notion of the self as soon as time allows.

God bless.

Thomas

Nobody said it wasn't knew, nor should anyone be shocked to find that we can find some orthodox commentators that disagree.

Nor would it be to troublesome to find volume after volume of books and commentators that agree...tis the nature of the beast Thomas, tis called belief. If everyone was on the same page, we'd only have one religion, and one belief, and it would obviously be mine! (hee hee)

Our belief is not flawed, it is only flawed in your opinion and according to your teachings and according to those who you pick and choose.

We choose not to hide our light under a bushel, we let it shine, from within.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

Nobody said it wasn't new, nor should anyone be shocked to find that we can find some orthodox commentators that disagree.

I'm not shocked by the persistence of error, the persistence points to something in human nature.

Scripture is the product of a Tradition, not the other way round. Scripture is written to transmit the teaching on which the Tradition stands.

Then people come along, want all the benefits the tradition offers, without paying the price, and declare that the Tradition doesn't know what it's talking about, and they alone have an infallible understanding of what the text means.

Lionel Corbett, a Jungian philosopher, noted that in the traditional mandala, the gods sit in the centre. In the modern version, man sits at the centre.

... tis the nature of the beast Thomas, tis called belief.

No, it's called ego, which stands prior to belief.

If everyone was on the same page, we'd only have one religion, and one belief, and it would obviously be mine! (hee hee)

Quite, that's my point.

Now, everyone invents their own, and insists that a personal invention stands on equal terms with Tradition ... ego again.

Our belief is not flawed, it is only flawed in your opinion and according to your teachings and according to those who you pick and choose.

No, your belief of my Scriptures is flawed, because you've rejected the tradition that transmits it. You got the scriptures, didn't like the teaching that went with it, so invented a new one.

How anyone can declare themselves a nontheist, and then reference the world's fundamental text of Monotheism as a foundatiopn of their beliefs, I find questionable.

We choose not to hide our light under a bushel, we let it shine, from within.

It's not God's light, Wil, that's the point, that's the critique of the texts. You've pushed God aside, and put you in His place.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[wil]

Hi Wil —

I'm not shocked by the persistence of error, the persistence points to something in human nature.

Scripture is the product of a Tradition, not the other way round. Scripture is written to transmit the teaching on which the Tradition stands.

Scripture is the product of tradition...and then tradition becomes a product of scripture?? There was no confessional, no sunday services in scripture that I've found... sure there was the traditional wine and challah, but where is all the rest of the stuff of today? No Lent season, no easter, no christmas, no ash wednesday or mardi gras...

Then people come along, want all the benefits the tradition offers, without paying the price, and declare that the Tradition doesn't know what it's talking about, and they alone have an infallible understanding of what the text means.

Lionel Corbett, a Jungian philosopher, noted that in the traditional mandala, the gods sit in the centre. In the modern version, man sits at the centre.

whose modern version? not mine...or any Christian I know... in the churches tradition the earth was the center.... that has changed.

No, it's called ego, which stands prior to belief.


Quite, that's my point.

Now, everyone invents their own, and insists that a personal invention stands on equal terms with Tradition ... ego again.


No, your belief of my Scriptures is flawed, because you've rejected the tradition that transmits it. You got the scriptures, didn't like the teaching that went with it, so invented a new one.

I've invented nothing. I do have my beliefs, but they are not of my own invention, we are just following different traditions.

How anyone can declare themselves a nontheist, and then reference the world's fundamental text of Monotheism as a foundatiopn of their beliefs, I find questionable.

It is actually quite simple. That G!d on the roof of the Chapel is dead and gone. That santyclause guy keeping a spreadsheet/database of who has been good or bad and throwing lightning bolts and plagues, or bumper crops depending on the whims of his latest chemical imbalance is over. The invisible man in the sky and pearly gates and street paved with gols

It's not God's light, Wil, that's the point, that's the critique of the texts. You've pushed God aside, and put you in His place.

God bless,

Thomas

It is G!ds light...as you said G!d is the only uncreated. All that is and all that will be....

So when I say nontheistic....I just don't buy the old man in the sky that is still being sold on a regular basis.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

We choose not to hide our light under a bushel, we let it shine, from within.

thats not light that is something else entirely.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Angels in Scripture are messengers of God, but not themselves gods.


Not necessarily, elohiym can also refer to rulers or judges, angels or gods, godlike, or God-empowered.

That's my point, Thomas -- The term elohiym has different applications, one of which is attributed to mankind -- We are gods (elohiym) which could mean mighty, great, rulers, etc. You reject that the term should be applied to us at all, when the term is in fact used in association with man.

I reject your interpretation of the concept. In both cases the term is used somewhat sarcastically, but that seems to have escapoed both you and Wil.

Sarcastically? That's would be your interpretation of the text, or rather your traditions interpretation of the text. I suggest that mankind's fall was no different than Satans fall. We were cast out of paradise and into the world, whereby we inherited death because we stood in defiance to God.

Then I suggest you are. There is a distinction, the Bible makes that quite clear.

We are called elohiym. Angels are called elohiym. Satan and his angels were drove out of heaven and thrown down to the earth, just as mankind was drove out of paradise thrown down to till the earth. Jesus tells us that he will separate his sheep from the goats, "Then he will say to those (Goats) on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. I personally see a parallel, a correlation between Satan, angels, and mankind -- You apparently do not --

Fallen from what we were created to be. what you think is one thing, what Scripture says is another.

I believe we were created to be gods (elohiym), but when we defied God (Pursued evil), He drove us out of paradise whereby we became lower than the angels (elohiym) and inherited death.

The Fall might be more accurately seen as a fall from Grace, not necessarily a fall from nature. Man walked with God in the garden, then disobeyed God, so God withdrew His companionship, His Grace, or His Spirit, from man.

I won't disagree with this sentiment --

It's not RCC dogma, its Christian teaching generally.

The bandwagon argument, eh? Of course! General Christian teaching MUST be correct, right? I mean look at church history! Surely they have it right, right? How many have died by the hands of the so called church? How many heretics who dared oppose church doctrine were burned at the stake? General Christian teaching was forced upon mankind, and free thought was discouraged by fear of death.

No, you surrender to yourself.

... and you say this because?

But if not your dogma, then who's?

I search matters out and do not rely on the fallibility of the Church to develop my views. You do, which is your choice, but don't criticize me for searching beyond the forced doctrines of the RCC --

And you rely on your own infallibility?

.... and you rely on the church to shape and mold your views


GK

 

[Thomas]

That's my point, Thomas -- The term elohiym has different applications, one of which is attributed to mankind -- We are gods (elohiym) which could mean mighty, great, rulers, etc. You reject that the term should be applied to us at all, when the term is in fact used in association with man.

I'm rejecting it when the implication is that we are inherently divine by nature.

As powerful as we might be, without Him, we can do nothing.

Sarcastically? That's would be your interpretation of the text, or rather your traditions interpretation of the text.

The Tradition that wrote the text. And wrote it to imply just that ... don't argue with me, read it, and it's obvious.

I suggest that mankind's fall was no different than Satans fall. We were cast out of paradise and into the world, whereby we inherited death because we stood in defiance to God.

I don't argue that ... pride was the cause of the fall.

We are called elohiym. Angels are called elohiym. Satan and his angels were drove out of heaven and thrown down to the earth, just as mankind was drove out of paradise thrown down to till the earth. Jesus tells us that he will separate his sheep from the goats, "Then he will say to those (Goats) on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. I personally see a parallel, a correlation between Satan, angels, and mankind -- You apparently do not --

No, I'm saying I see a greater correlation between the words of the serpent and way in which you claim 'we are gods'.

I believe we were created to be gods (elohiym), but when we defied God (Pursued evil), He drove us out of paradise whereby we became lower than the angels (elohiym) and inherited death.

The bandwagon argument, eh? Of course! General Christian teaching MUST be correct, right?

Actually, it's the logical argument. Who is likely to understand the text betterm, those who wrote it, or those who pick it up and come to it without formation?

I mean look at church history! Surely they have it right, right?

This is a specious argument, and typical. You can't make a point, so you straw-man your opponent.

Do I think the Church perfect? No. Do i think the Church properly understands the way to perfection? Yes.

I search matters out and do not rely on the fallibility of the Church to develop my views. You do, which is your choice, but don't criticize me for searching beyond the forced doctrines of the RCC --

Then don't search our Scriptures, that's the point. It's fundamentally dishonest. "I don't like you, but I'll have off you what I like."

.... and you rely on the church to shape and mold your views

Your assumption, of course, which you rely on, is that I never look or looked elsewhere ... which is wrong.

You're also resting on your own infallibility, whereas i have come to suspect mine.

None of your ideas are original, GK, as much as you claim you came to them, you didn't. I know who moulds my views ... I'm not sure you do.

God bless.

Thomas