If God had a father, would He be ashamed of his Son?

[Greatest I am]

If God had a father, would He be ashamed of his Son?

Just to make sure you understand the premise. I am asking that we consider a Grand Father to Jesus type of God the Father who would be father to God the Father.


Grandfather God the father to God the father of Son/Jesus.

Son, look what you have wrought?
I gave you a perfect start and universe to mold to a more perfect state and you have let it deteriorate to where most people see imperfection.
What have you done to our family name for God’s sake?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI

Couple that with the fact that God has been labeled, with evidence, as jealous and proud of it, a petty tyrant, unjust, unforgiving, immoral, a control freak, racist, sexist, chauvinistic, vindictive, ethnic cleanser, misogynistic, homophobic, infanticide, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniac and other undesirable character traits and one could build a case that says that God is a God sized A hole.

To me, one of his most disturbing traits is being a total coward by not having the balls to step up himself for the hard task of sacrifice, but instead, sending his young son to die in his stead. Any mother or father would be more responsible than this in our human culture. Most of us believe that we are to bury our fathers and are incensed with the thought of burying our sons.

Take a bow human mothers and fathers and denounce the genocidal coward we call God.

If not, why do you support his religion and promote his policies. That is insane as the women shown in this clip and her husband who sits back and let’s her.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/08/ ... +Recent%29#

I can appreciate the benefits of faith, spirituality and religiosity and recognize the good churches bring to community but surely to God, we should only support churches that preach a common good and not the exclusionary churches who preach the God described above.

People are beginning to change but to me, not quickly enough. Here is an example of inclusive churches against exclusive churches who discriminate without just cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHqwBDVeVTM

"First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me." – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)

If you were God’s father, would you be proud of your son?

Regards
DL

[bloodhoundHermetic]

Think he is too big to make a sacrifice.Do we die for our dogs?maybe If I have a son and he loves the dog,he might.

i,d like to take it that way, the omnipotent is big,infact too big he/she/them cannot be comprehended by any maggi.The maggi might at the max get to his footstool(demons,angels,spirits).Any claims above that would have to be scrutinized;-).

[Greatest I am]

Think he is too big to make a sacrifice.Do we die for our dogs?maybe If I have a son and he loves the dog,he might.

i,d like to take it that way, the omnipotent is big,infact too big he/she/them cannot be comprehended by any maggi.The maggi might at the max get to his footstool(demons,angels,spirits).Any claims above that would have to be scrutinized;-).

Yes. It is quite surprising to hear many telling me how they can fathom the un-fathomable and know the un-knowable.

As to a death sacrifice.
God is said to have set the standards required.

We honor a man who will smother a grenade to save his friends but in the case of Jesus, he deserves no such honor because he himself threw the grenade that he is said to have smothered.

Regards
DL

[bloodhoundHermetic]

What if the architect of the universe threw the grenade? and asked his son to smother it.Would like to remind you of the parable "he(father) sent his workers(prophets) to the vineyard for collecting fruits and bearings from its occupiers(humanity).They killed the workers,then the father sent the son(Jesus).They killed him too.What do you think? Yeshua was always talking about him being sent from his father,so obviously the grenade is not his.Other wise he should have a been a lunatic;-) for claiming all that.And just as his architect of the universe(daddy), he was constantly referring to building the temple,of he being the cornerstone, he was a carpenter(rudimentary /builder or mason) and of him building the temple in three days.Like father like son - father,the divine architect of the universe.Son - the divine architect of the salvation/enlightenment.

Your thoughts?

regards

RT

[Greatest I am]

What if the architect of the universe threw the grenade?

I guess you are not a Trinitarian. They see Jesus as the architect. Sometimes. it depends on how they understand that un-understandable idiocy that Constantine basically forced down Christianitie's throat.

and asked his son to smother it.

Then he would be an insane and cowardly God who stupidly believes that fathers should bury sons.

Would like to remind you of the parable "he(father) sent his workers(prophets) to the vineyard for collecting fruits and bearings from its occupiers(humanity).They killed the workers,then the father sent the son(Jesus).They killed him too.What do you think? Yeshua was always talking about him being sent from his father,so obviously the grenade is not his.Other wise he should have a been a lunatic;-) for claiming all that.And just as his architect of the universe(daddy), he was constantly referring to building the temple,of he being the cornerstone, he was a carpenter(rudimentary /builder or mason) and of him building the temple in three days.Like father like son - father,the divine architect of the universe.Son - the divine architect of the salvation/enlightenment.

Your thoughts?

regards

RT

My thoughts are that no one should read scriptures literally.
If they were to be meant that way, then the Jewish O T would have been read that way by the Jews. They did not and do not.

http://www.raceandhistory.com/historica ... exodus.htm

Regards
DL

[bloodhoundHermetic]

you have not understood the tiniest piece of cake.,I can tell you frankly.You really need to concentrate more into the OT,I will clue you,twill be too big for me to explain,out here.Daniel 7:13(and parallels in the NT),Zechariah 12:10(read clearly,take your time-Trinitarian concepts and Israels return),Isaiah 42,john 8:58,john 10:30..Ezekiel book(islamic empire,how the name was corrupted to make him mortal,read in line with 1john2:22)(this is the least to show,will teach you more if you pick up this verses in full context and go through prophecy).I,m surprised,you jumped to occult without going through basic scripture.Its going to beat your mind anyways,since you stick on the the muslim position of constantine and christianity,wannabe scholars who have a farts value of history,research your dates,read the scripture-I suggest you grow out the Kgs before even attemtping occult.And as for Jews,I am of Jewish descent!!.Who said,anything depends on them?,nope.They too are puppets in a set up,so are the muslims.And so is everyone else.You are seriously unprepared for a debate out here,its like you have come here out of curiosity.Brush it up,we might think about it then.

regards

RT

[Cleft]

When you say "Father of God" you're basicly refering to the actual creator God's opinion of the demiurge, right?

In that case, i'd have to say that this mighty actual creator would be incapable of both pride and shame. If you veto that, then I think the actual creator would be pretty... pissed.

[Greatest I am]

When you say "Father of God" you're basicly refering to the actual creator God's opinion of the demiurge, right?

In that case, i'd have to say that this mighty actual creator would be incapable of both pride and shame. If you veto that, then I think the actual creator would be pretty... pissed.

If pissed, that would show that he has pride. Right?

As to pride itself. bible God showed he had some when he showed his pleasure with his son.
I am well pleased is what scripture has him saying of his son. That is taking pride. Right?

As to my Gnostic take, Gnostic writings and the Bible are fiction and only there to stimulate thought.

Regards
DL

[Cleft]

When you say "Father of God" you're basicly refering to the actual creator God's opinion of the demiurge, right?

In that case, i'd have to say that this mighty actual creator would be incapable of both pride and shame. If you veto that, then I think the actual creator would be pretty... pissed.

If pissed, that would show that he has pride. Right?

As to pride itself. bible God showed he had some when he showed his pleasure with his son.
I am well pleased is what scripture has him saying of his son. That is taking pride. Right?

As to my Gnostic take, Gnostic writings and the Bible are fiction and only there to stimulate thought.

Regards
DL

You seem to have entirely misunderstood my post. When I talk about the 'actual creator God' I am referring to the gnostic understanding of an infinitely perfect God, seperate from the demiurge which is worshiped in the bible. The demiurge created the physical world with perfection as it's source, however the physical world has limitations so despite the perfection of the original God, a perfect material world was immpossible.

Great appeared to be reffering to how the biblical God's father would feel towards the biblical God. I thought the relationship similar to that of the true creator and the demiurge, of course the gnostic true creator is actually perfect, and as pride is a form of vanity along with shame to an extent the actual creator would be incapable of both. Of course this is a bit of a stale response so I offered a more humerous alternative. A vulgar joke but perhaps still too subtle...

[Greatest I am]

You are correct. I was in more of a Gnostic Christian mode than a Gnostic one.
The O P was speaking only of the bible God and not of the Gnostic view.

Remembering that Gnostic did not take their scriptures any more literally than the older Christian sects, let me restart.

To me, the demiurge is just the Gnostic equivalent to the Christian Satan. People do not want to blame God so they invented someone else to blame for what they saw as imperfections.

If I would have been phrasing the question to Gnostics, I would have asked if the father of the true creator God would be proud of him. The Gnostic answer should also be no, as the creator God started in or with a perfect system and allowed it to fall out of imperfection.

You should know that I do not see imperfections here. I see a perfectly evolving system. I am in a minority for this for sure but no one has ever refuted what I offer as proof.

Candide

"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPClzIsYxvA

You may try to refute that if you like.
Now, back to pride.

I was playing around with an idle speculation of how God’s father or indeed people or tribe would have seen his degenerating reality go from perfect to imperfect.
If as you speculate, and the true creator God does not have pride and shame, then as our God and human example, he becomes a rather useless appendage and no man should even want to follow such.

Thank God my apotheosis showed that he does have those emotions or I would have rejected what I found within and without when I made my connection.

Imagine a God tribe or even a human tribe without emotion or the knowledge of good and evil and you end up with people as in this clip. The river scene is what you should analyze.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=the ... ORM=LKVR38#

Regards
DL

[Cleft]

You should know that I do not see imperfections here. I see a perfectly evolving system. I am in a minority for this for sure but no one has ever refuted what I offer as proof.

Candide

"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPClzIsYxvA

You may try to refute that if you like.
Now, back to pride.

I was playing around with an idle speculation of how God’s father or indeed people or tribe would have seen his degenerating reality go from perfect to imperfect.
If as you speculate, and the true creator God does not have pride and shame, then as our God and human example, he becomes a rather useless appendage and no man should even want to follow such.

Thank God my apotheosis showed that he does have those emotions or I would have rejected what I found within and without when I made my connection.

Imagine a God tribe or even a human tribe without emotion or the knowledge of good and evil and you end up with people as in this clip. The river scene is what you should analyze.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=the ... ORM=LKVR38#

Regards
DL

Sorry about this, but I disagreed with just about everything you just posted...

Whoever said anything about knowledge? Also 'God' is not necessarily without emotion, there are emotions that can be judged to be clearly either positive or negative, and a perfect being of course is incapable of negative emotion.

The demiurge is not necessarily evil either. There are definite limits to the material world. The demiurge could well have had the highest of intentions when creating the material world. Not all gnostic beliefs view the demiurge as evil. The demiurge really doesn't play a similar role to that of the devils.

I believe I can also refute that the world is perfect. People suffer. Peaple die meaninglessly. You can redefine perfect to be whatever you want, but in the end your own delusions mean nothing.

You also claimed that the system of evolution is perfect. Evolution is another word for trial and error. Weak species die out for no reason. Strong species live for no reason. Also as any can tell from the acts of human beings, the last stage of evolution is most certainly self-destruction. Either every last human will be killed and the world can go on for a while once more, or we will survive long enough to cause nuclear armaggedon and destroy everything.

My apolagies for ranting but I think I'm struggling to find any common ground.

[Greatest I am]

I am sorry that I could not get the program here to accept the quote function or stop it from bouncing all over the place or not accepting my first post to you.
I will make this one more readable.



“Sorry about this, but I disagreed with just about everything you just posted...

Whoever said anything about knowledge?”

Without knowledge of something, like emotions, a perfect God could not be perfect.

-----------------------------------------------------

“Also 'God' is not necessarily without emotion, there are emotions that can be judged to be clearly either positive or negative, and a perfect being of course is incapable of negative emotion.”

And you know this how?

-------------------------------------------------

“The demiurge is not necessarily evil either. There are definite limits to the material world.”

Natural limits are not evil in a natural world. They are perfect for that world.

---------------------------------------------------

“ The demiurge could well have had the highest of intentions when creating the material world. Not all Gnostic beliefs view the demiurge as evil. The demiurge really doesn't play a similar role to that of the devils.”

Yes. There are many Gnostic cults.

-----------------------------------------------

“I believe I can also refute that the world is perfect. People suffer. People die meaninglessly. You can redefine perfect to be whatever you want, but in the end your own delusions mean nothing.”

Are we part of this natural world?
Do you know of anything else in it that does not suffer and die?
If not, why then do you think that a defect?

----------------------------------------------

“You also claimed that the system of evolution is perfect. Evolution is another word for trial and error.”

Evolution is a process that includes trial and error.

------------------------------------------------

“ Weak species die out for no reason.”

There are reasons for a species dying out. Usually environmental.

-----------------------------------------------

Strong species live for no reason.

There are reasons for a species doing well. Usually environmental.

------------------------------------------------

“Also as any can tell from the acts of human beings, the last stage of evolution is most certainly self-destruction.”

?? When did any species, including man ever intentionally self destruct?

-----------------------------------------------

“ Either every last human will be killed and the world can go on for a while once more, or we will survive long enough to cause nuclear Armageddon and destroy everything.”

Man. I have to look for a crystal ball comparable to yours.

---------------------------------------------------------

“My apologies for ranting but I think I'm struggling to find any common ground.”

No problem but you did not refute much of anything.

--------------------------------------------------------

On perfection. Evolving perfection is the term I use.

When you were born, can it be said that you were born as perfect as nature could produce with the DNA and conditions at hand?
Even if you were born with what you might see or call defects.

Regards
DL

[Cleft]

I will add my responses to the quote in bold.

I am sorry that I could not get the program here to accept the quote function or stop it from bouncing all over the place or not accepting my first post to you.
I will make this one more readable.



“Sorry about this, but I disagreed with just about everything you just posted...

Whoever said anything about knowledge?”

Without knowledge of something, like emotions, a perfect God could not be perfect.

My statement clearly refers to the fact that in my prior post I had never mentioned anything about the knowledge such a God may possess. I was not stating that the knowledge a God may possess was unimportant. I thought it unreasonable to offer a counter-argument involving a critisicm against something I hadn't even included.

-----------------------------------------------------

“Also 'God' is not necessarily without emotion, there are emotions that can be judged to be clearly either positive or negative, and a perfect being of course is incapable of negative emotion.”

And you know this how?

Perhaps 'incapable' was the wrong word. A perfect being is 'capable' of anything. However that does not mean God is obligated to do so just because God is capable of it. May I also point out that this whole segment was conditional.

-------------------------------------------------

“The demiurge is not necessarily evil either. There are definite limits to the material world.”

Natural limits are not evil in a natural world. They are perfect for that world.

What...? So you accept that there are limits; your term 'perfect for that world' seems a little meaningless. you mean that it is not perfection as such but for what the world is it is as perfect as possible. By adding 'Perfect for...' to anything I can make it perfect through that use of the phrase. Of course this works grammatically however as you have nothing to compare the world to, your statement means nothing. A good use for this would be if you were to disscuss a number of flower pots with an ideal flowerpot in mind. Hypotheticaly let us say that this envisioned flowerpot IS PERFECT for a flowerpot. We can then measure the perfection of other flowerpots. even then though the envisioned flowerpot is not perfect. It is bound by the limitations of being a flowerpot. However your use of the word is meaningless as 'that world' is unique as far as we know, so it being perfect for what it is fails to make it 'perfect' regardless of whether it actualy is as perfect as a world can be.

Also Natural limits of the material world are not evil, they are merely imperfect.

---------------------------------------------------

“ The demiurge could well have had the highest of intentions when creating the material world. Not all Gnostic beliefs view the demiurge as evil. The demiurge really doesn't play a similar role to that of the devils.”

Yes. There are many Gnostic cults.

Your point...? So you accept that earlier when you compared the demiurge to the devil unconditionaly that you were wrong?

-----------------------------------------------

“I believe I can also refute that the world is perfect. People suffer. People die meaninglessly. You can redefine perfect to be whatever you want, but in the end your own delusions mean nothing.”

Are we part of this natural world?
Do you know of anything else in it that does not suffer and die?
If not, why then do you think that a defect?

Umm... Nothing in the world is perfect. Therefore refering to other things in the imperferct world in order to justify something else in the imperfect world as perfect is illogical. I think it a defect because pain hurts. Even if that is better than feeling no pain at all and if dying is better than living forever they are still unpleasent. These are limits of the material world. There is no perfect solution. You can't call the nect best thing 'perfect' just because actual perfection is immpossible.

----------------------------------------------

“You also claimed that the system of evolution is perfect. Evolution is another word for trial and error.”

Evolution is a process that includes trial and error.

Evolution IS trial and error. So yes. Your point?

------------------------------------------------

“ Weak species die out for no reason.”

There are reasons for a species dying out. Usually environmental.

I am well aware that the dodos didn't just go *poof* and disappear. That is not what I was trying to state. What I refer to is the pointlessness of it. A small change occurs in an individual animal and if it is marginaly more helpfull to it's survival then it lives to pass on it's genes. Otherwise if born with a detrimental abnormality it will result in a meaningless death or passing on genes to doom the next generation before the gene finaly vanishes. What is the point of something being born if it's most productive purpose is to die? Surely in a perfect system such a messy and unnecessary aspect would not be required.

-----------------------------------------------

Strong species live for no reason.

There are reasons for a species doing well. Usually environmental.

Same problem here.

------------------------------------------------

“Also as any can tell from the acts of human beings, the last stage of evolution is most certainly self-destruction.”

?? When did any species, including man ever intentionally self destruct?

Who mentioned anything about it being intentional? On Earth so spcies has ever come close to the dominion of humanity. After eliminating all major preditors humanities only real enemy is itself. There is not enough food or space on the Earth for a spcies so plentiful, so safe and so hungry, almost like an emergency mechanism built into the nature of evolution they are forced to destry themselves in order to preserve the planet. In order to protect themselves they build increasingly dangerous weapons to wipe out their enemies. So far the nuclear bomb is the most major. We have already used most of Earth's natural recources. Demand grows as recources diminish. Soon we will be almost completely out of oil and when that happens all the powerful countries will do whatever it takes to gather as much of it as possible. Use your imagination for the rest it isn't hard.

-----------------------------------------------

“ Either every last human will be killed and the world can go on for a while once more, or we will survive long enough to cause nuclear Armageddon and destroy everything.”

Man. I have to look for a crystal ball comparable to yours.

You don't need a crystal ball to see where this is going. If a nuclear bomb is ever dispatched over the USA it is almost certain that M.A.D will be instigated. The alternatives seem pretty bleak too. I was being melodramatic sorry, but my point is still valid.

---------------------------------------------------------

“My apologies for ranting but I think I'm struggling to find any common ground.”

No problem but you did not refute much of anything.

Please reconsider

--------------------------------------------------------

On perfection. Evolving perfection is the term I use.

When you were born, can it be said that you were born as perfect as nature could produce with the DNA and conditions at hand?
Even if you were born with what you might see or call defects.

Regards
DL

I like to argue. I am probably taking this too far, and to be honest I am pretty convinced of my own reasoning however your ardent though frustrating obstinance leads me to believe that it is worth having this discussion.

I know I can get emotive at times, and as I have noticed so can you, but please don't take it the wrong way. I just enjoy arguing, I am interested in your view though so please reply, but please try to understand what I am saying before you tread on it- you might end up missing completely if you don't know where to land your foot.

[Greatest I am]

Yes. I see you like to argue for the sake of argument.
Not my style. I argue to show MPOV and to see if it can be refuted. If not, or if it is, I expect and or give acknowledgment.

We are going all over the map though.
Too many issues will just confuse.
Please give an answer to the question of your birth which you ignored above and we can see if some kind of consensus can be reached.

We have been using the word perfect.
The way I use it is the U S form where things can go to a more perfect state over time.
Most see perfect as a finished and unimprovable thing.
If that is the way you use it then perhaps using good and getting better would be better for you.
I like the term evolving perfection and that may be throwing you off.

So, were you as perfect or as good as possible when you were born? FMPOV, you were as perfect as your DNA and conditions could create?

Regards
DL

[Cleft]

Yes. I see you like to argue for the sake of argument.
Not my style. I argue to show MPOV and to see if it can be refuted. If not, or if it is, I expect and or give acknowledgment.

We are going all over the map though.
Too many issues will just confuse.
Please give an answer to the question of your birth which you ignored above and we can see if some kind of consensus can be reached.

We have been using the word perfect.
The way I use it is the U S form where things can go to a more perfect state over time.
Most see perfect as a finished and unimprovable thing.
If that is the way you use it then perhaps using good and getting better would be better for you.
I like the term evolving perfection and that may be throwing you off.

So, were you as perfect or as good as possible when you were born? FMPOV, you were as perfect as your DNA and conditions could create?

Regards
DL

I enjoy argument because it brings us closer to the truth.

When you say "more perfect" you immediatly contradict yourself. No matter what version you think you're using, in philosophy perfection is what it says. Something perfect is by definition impossible to improve. When speaking casualy I guess you could say "This is more perfect than that" for example. However that is not the kind of way you should use it in an intellectual debate. Instead of "more perfect" you can say "closer to perfection". This is accurate and will not provoke misunderstandings or confusion.

I mention this because this whole disagreement started because I thought you were using the word "perfection" literaly.

By Evolutionary Perfection, though I thought it strangely worded, I assumed you meant that evolution was a perfect system. This perspective caught my attention, to be honest I thought it quite interesting. However when going over it I became certain that it was most certainly a dysfunctional kind of system.

I then got a little irritated when, as should be obvious, your responses seemed weird and illogical. Of course with hindsight I can tell it must have been the same for you.

Sorry about all the aggro. Seriously, though, you will confuse people if you use "perfection" that way! >_<

I'm neutral regarding your actual point of view, though I think you should think up a more accurate term for it...

No hard feeling, sorry for my half of the confusion.


Come to think of it we got majorly off-topic.

[Greatest I am]

We did get off a bit.

Did you not care to have a go at the question of your birth?

Regards
DL