Is it foolish to call God, “Father”?

[Gnostic Bishop]

Is it foolish to call God, “Father”?

As above, so below says theLord’s Prayer.

God’s first legal decisionhas him demanding that Jesus be a human sacrifice to rescind God’s owncondemnation of his own creation.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosenbefore the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for yoursake.

Quite good for Christians,--- while quite evil to others who do not condone human sacrifice, --- just becausea God whose reality has yet to be shown demands it.

The main point is; would any fatheror mother who reads this O. P., ever choose such a sacrifice, given that othervenues were available as they were with God?

Your own answer says that youwould expect a Father to find another way and that such a God is not a worthyGod.

Do you agree that to call God,Father, is to insult the word father, --- as no human father would be so evil.

Is it foolish to call God,Father?

Regards
DL

 

[Shrooms00087]

Nope. The Father and I are one. Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." The meaning of the Father is the Ideal fictional mediator.

 

[Thorns Have Roses]

I can see no issue with the use of the term. Have you read the Islamic view on the subject? Their attitude jives with your own [on this particular subject].

For those who have trouble understanding the sacrifice of Christ, examine the Book of Job, keeping an eye out for any problems it brings up regarding man's relationship with The Lord. It may not change your mind, but it should clarify the matter.

 

[Shrooms00087]

Also you cannot think from the perspective of God. As God Himself did not sacrifice Himself. He revealed Himself and His creation through the act of crucifixion, unveiling Original Sin(Which is why Adam's skull was at the feet of the Cross). Free Will from there on out. This is the meaning behind this quote:

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosenbefore the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for yoursake.

Why is it you speak the narrative as God Himself rather than subject to?

 

[Tromps]

The main point is; would any fatheror mother who reads this O. P., ever choose such a sacrifice, given that othervenues were available as they were with God?

What do you mean by other venues?

In Jesus's own words:
This is why my Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it back up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father. John 10:17-18

Jesus willingly and voluntarily gave up his life out of his own free will. He wasn't forced to sacrifice it. Out of his love and mercy he did.

 

[anastasius]

Have you read the Islamic view on the subject? Their attitude jives with your own [on this particular subject].

I do believe this is a new record for Gnostic Bishop for allowing his thread to go so long without responding to it; usually he responds to every single reply he gets!

As for the Islamic rejection of calling God "Father", it is based on the Koranic verse that denies that God has a son. Surah 72:3 says, "exalted is the Majesty of our Lord: He has taken nether a wife nor a son." To call God "Father" is to admit He has a son. However, there are two Arabic words for "son": Walad (the term used in surah 72:3), which is a son born of a physical sexual act, and Ibn, which is a son in a non-physical, non-sexual sence. All Muslims and all Christians (including gnostic Christians) believe God has no son in the Walad sence of the term. But Jesus as the Ibn of God is something that the Bible affirms, and the Koran does not deny.

Gnostic Bishop has also stated in another thread that God predetermines at least some, if not all, events that occur. This too is an Islamic teaching. Surah 7:178 says, "He whom Allah guides,- he is on the right path: whom He rejects from His guidance,- such are the persons who perish." And surah 9:51, "Say: Nothing will ever befall us save what Allah has written for us." Thus according to Islam every act, whether good or evil, is a predetermined event caused directly by God, even before the creation of the universe. The traditional teaching of Christianity is that God predetermined the general outcome of mans choice, not that mans chosen acts themselves are predetermined. So when the Bible states, "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers" (Romans 8:29), it says that all those whom God foreknew He predestines to be conformed to Jesus. Man, not God, determines whether he will be in the class of the foreknown. Thus, all those whom God had foreknowledge of [i.e. all that God foreknew would freely chose Him] God determined that those would be the ones that would be conformed to the nature and character of His Son.

Perhaps it would do Gnostic Bishop some good to step back and reevaluate what he believes about the text and interpretation of the Bible and Koran. If he holds to the non-literal view only, then he must give up his literal view on predeterminism. And if he holds to a literal view only, then he must affirm Jesus as the literal Son of God who gave Himself as a literal sacrifice for mans sin. However, if he maintains that some scripture is to be understood in a literal sence and some in a non-literal sence, then he must have some basis upon which he decides which are literal and which are non-literal. My question to Gnostic Bishop is this: what determines whether a verse of the Bible, or Koran, is literal or non-literal? And have you considered whether or not you are actually a Muslim in gnostic Christian clothing? As Socrates has said, "the unexamined life is not worth living", it is also just as true that the unexamined religion is not worth believing.

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

Nope. The Father and I are one. Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." The meaning of the Father is the Ideal fictional mediator.

Mediator?

Between whom?

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

I can see no issue with the use of the term.

So do you think that fathers would usually have their sons murdered and that would be a part of the definition of father?
OK.

Have you read the Islamic view on the subject? Their attitude jives with your own [on this particular subject].

I di not but if true then I would have to give them some respect but cannot thanks to their and the Christian stance on forcing the inequality of women and gays.

For those who have trouble understanding the sacrifice of Christ, examine the Book of Job, keeping an eye out for any problems it brings up regarding man's relationship with The Lord. It may not change your mind, but it should clarify the matter.

Ah yes. Where God admits to Satan moving him to destroy without cause.

Your God even calls himself a sinner and you just can't see it through your conditioning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeOfzN8ZTAM

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

Also you cannot think from the perspective of God.

B. S.

They have become as Gods says that we can think from God's perspective. If we could not then he could not make himself understood.

As God Himself did not sacrifice Himself. He revealed Himself and His creation through the act of crucifixion, unveiling Original Sin(Which is why Adam's skull was at the feet of the Cross). Free Will from there on out. This is the meaning behind this quote:

Why is it you speak the narrative as God Himself rather than subject to?

Now you let art teach you instead of words. Hmm.

What do you think the Vatican was telling us when it paid Michal Angelo to paint Satan as a female?

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

What do you mean by other venues?

In Jesus's own words:
This is why my Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it back up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father. John 10:17-18

Jesus willingly and voluntarily gave up his life out of his own free will. He wasn't forced to sacrifice it. Out of his love and mercy he did.

Other venues means that God had choices.

As to your focus.
I do my fathers will and not my own.
Why have you forsaken me.

Shall we quote at each other and get nowhere, --- or chat on the morality of a God having his son needlessly murdered?

Why do you promote barbaric human sacrifice and the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty?

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

I do believe this is a new record for Gnostic Bishop for allowing his thread to go so long without responding to it; usually he responds to every single reply he gets!

As for the Islamic rejection of calling God "Father", it is based on the Koranic verse that denies that God has a son. Surah 72:3 says, "exalted is the Majesty of our Lord: He has taken nether a wife nor a son." To call God "Father" is to admit He has a son. However, there are two Arabic words for "son": Walad (the term used in surah 72:3), which is a son born of a physical sexual act, and Ibn, which is a son in a non-physical, non-sexual sence. All Muslims and all Christians (including gnostic Christians) believe God has no son in the Walad sence of the term. But Jesus as the Ibn of God is something that the Bible affirms, and the Koran does not deny.

Gnostic Bishop has also stated in another thread that God predetermines at least some, if not all, events that occur. This too is an Islamic teaching. Surah 7:178 says, "He whom Allah guides,- he is on the right path: whom He rejects from His guidance,- such are the persons who perish." And surah 9:51, "Say: Nothing will ever befall us save what Allah has written for us." Thus according to Islam every act, whether good or evil, is a predetermined event caused directly by God, even before the creation of the universe. The traditional teaching of Christianity is that God predetermined the general outcome of mans choice, not that mans chosen acts themselves are predetermined. So when the Bible states, "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers" (Romans 8:29), it says that all those whom God foreknew He predestines to be conformed to Jesus. Man, not God, determines whether he will be in the class of the foreknown. Thus, all those whom God had foreknowledge of [i.e. all that God foreknew would freely chose Him] God determined that those would be the ones that would be conformed to the nature and character of His Son.

Perhaps it would do Gnostic Bishop some good to step back and reevaluate what he believes about the text and interpretation of the Bible and Koran. If he holds to the non-literal view only, then he must give up his literal view on predeterminism. And if he holds to a literal view only, then he must affirm Jesus as the literal Son of God who gave Himself as a literal sacrifice for mans sin. However, if he maintains that some scripture is to be understood in a literal sence and some in a non-literal sence, then he must have some basis upon which he decides which are literal and which are non-literal. My question to Gnostic Bishop is this: what determines whether a verse of the Bible, or Koran, is literal or non-literal? And have you considered whether or not you are actually a Muslim in gnostic Christian clothing? As Socrates has said, "the unexamined life is not worth living", it is also just as true that the unexamined religion is not worth believing.

Both worthy sayings.

All Gods and scriptures are myth based and none should be taken literally.

Can some sayings be taken literally? Sure.
How does one decide if a saying can be taken that way? I guess one would have to see if it fit reality.

I think we should all remember that it was a common practice in the past to alter scriptures to try to see them from a different perspective. That is part of why we cannot trust them literally.

Karen Armstrong speaks of that here.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Regards
DL

 

[Shrooms00087]

B. S.
They have become as Gods says that we can think from God's perspective. If we could not then he could not make himself understood.

Because you can only think of Job when phenomena strikes, only the devil asks "did he lose his faith". In other words God is higher than our own conception. We will never know why things happen but keep being a good person, etc, etc. The story of Job doesn't work if you're God.

Now you let art teach you instead of words. Hmm.

What do you think the Vatican was telling us when it paid Michal Angelo to paint Satan as a female?

Regards
DL

Things work as opposites. But behind that symbol I would probably say Desire. This is of course a male perspective but it wouldn't be so different from the Yin-Yang.

Mediator?

Between whom?

It goes back to the other thread where I speak of the child dreaming about "What would God think of this action". God the Father is not the Subject but rather who the Subject confesses to. Which is what is meant behind "No one comes to the Father except through me". Meaning, I, the Subject, am a vessel of God.


Don't get me wrong I am an atheist. But I do believe you are reading it wrong.

 

[Tromps]

Other venues means that God had choices.

That's my point. God has the choice to do as he pleases. Jesus and God are One. God = Jesus and that is what he choose.

As to your focus.
I do my fathers will and not my own.
Why have you forsaken me.

Of course Jesus does his Father's will. God can only do God's will.

Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.
If you really know me you will know the Father.

Jesus's flesh cries out "Why have you forsaken me?" because it was at that moment the 'divine exchange' happened where the barbaric sins of the world were put on Jesus and he became sin to put to death the flesh/sin. Jesus's God-nature couldn't associate with sin, being fully man and fully God, it was his flesh crying out and was forsaken. An event the human mind can hardly understand.

Shall we quote at each other and get nowhere, --- or chat on the morality of a God having his son needlessly murdered?

Why do you promote barbaric human sacrifice and the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty?

Regards
DL

The morality of God taking the form of human flesh to be the atonement for our sins and restoring our broken relationship with him speaks of forgiveness, mercy, compassion, and greatest of all unconditional love. Even though time and time again since the beginning of creation God's people rejected him, he came to earth knowing he would be rejected and scorned by the ones he came to save. If you believe it's only right for the punishment to be executed on the guilty, we would all fall under the wrath of God and be forever separated from him. It's a punishment that only Jesus (God) has the power to take and endure. Our sins, our beatings, our own spite, all the demonic powers of evil wagged battle against God yet he was victorious. His human body killed, but he has the power to be raised back to life in triumph. It's by God's grace that we are made righteous, innocent, and blameless in Christ. Thanks be to God for Jesus, Hallelujah!

In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things came to be through him,
and without him nothing came to be.
What came to be through him was life,
and this life was the light of the human race;
the light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness can not comprehend or overcome it.

The Word became flesh
and made his dwelling among us,
and we saw his glory,
the glory as of the Father’s only Son,
full of grace and truth.

So when the Bible states, "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers" (Romans 8:29), it says that all those whom God foreknew He predestines to be conformed to Jesus. Man, not God, determines whether he will be in the class of the foreknown. Thus, all those whom God had foreknowledge of [i.e. all that God foreknew would freely chose Him] God determined that those would be the ones that would be conformed to the nature and character of His Son.

Great point. Right on.


To answer the question of the OP:
Is it foolish to call God, "Father"?
Biblically speaking, no.

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

Because you can only think of Job when phenomena strikes, only the devil asks "did he lose his faith". In other words God is higher than our own conception. We will never know why things happen but keep being a good person, etc, etc. The story of Job doesn't work if you're God.



Things work as opposites. But behind that symbol I would probably say Desire. This is of course a male perspective but it wouldn't be so different from the Yin-Yang.



It goes back to the other thread where I speak of the child dreaming about "What would God think of this action". God the Father is not the Subject but rather who the Subject confesses to. Which is what is meant behind "No one comes to the Father except through me". Meaning, I, the Subject, am a vessel of God.


Don't get me wrong I am an atheist. But I do believe you are reading it wrong.

Of course God is higher than what we perceive. That is why the myths have him as Omni-everything.

As to myths, there is more than one way to read them. That is part of their beauty. They are myths with messages and literalists never see the messages.

For an atheist you show decent esoteric thinking. Rather rare that.

Have a look at this Jewish Rabbi. She speak to desire as you did but thinks God wanted to create it and not the snake.

I think Rome just hated women forever and that is why they showed her as female. They screwed up what was a decent Jesish myth with their God Damned literalism.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

That's my point. God has the choice to do as he pleases. Jesus and God are One. God = Jesus and that is what he choose.



Of course Jesus does his Father's will. God can only do God's will.

Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.
If you really know me you will know the Father.

Jesus's flesh cries out "Why have you forsaken me?" because it was at that moment the 'divine exchange' happened where the barbaric sins of the world were put on Jesus and he became sin to put to death the flesh/sin. Jesus's God-nature couldn't associate with sin, being fully man and fully God, it was his flesh crying out and was forsaken. An event the human mind can hardly understand.



The morality of God taking the form of human flesh to be the atonement for our sins and restoring our broken relationship with him speaks of forgiveness, mercy, compassion, and greatest of all unconditional love. Even though time and time again since the beginning of creation God's people rejected him, he came to earth knowing he would be rejected and scorned by the ones he came to save. If you believe it's only right for the punishment to be executed on the guilty, we would all fall under the wrath of God and be forever separated from him. It's a punishment that only Jesus (God) has the power to take and endure. Our sins, our beatings, our own spite, all the demonic powers of evil wagged battle against God yet he was victorious. His human body killed, but he has the power to be raised back to life in triumph. It's by God's grace that we are made righteous, innocent, and blameless in Christ. Thanks be to God for Jesus, Hallelujah!

In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things came to be through him,
and without him nothing came to be.
What came to be through him was life,
and this life was the light of the human race;
the light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness can not comprehend or overcome it.

The Word became flesh
and made his dwelling among us,
and we saw his glory,
the glory as of the Father’s only Son,
full of grace and truth.

Great point. Right on.


To answer the question of the OP:
Is it foolish to call God, "Father"?
Biblically speaking, no.

Let me understand this. You say Jesus and God are the same.

That would mean that it was a suicide and not a sacrifice. Right?

Why would God having himself killed appease his own wrath against humans?
What is the connection?

Why then go through that charade? Why did God not just forgive without punishing the innocent instead of the guilty?

Regards
DL

 

[Tromps]

I have said all I can say. It's pointless trying to completely figure out God's ways. Don't expect me or anyone to tell you exactly how God works. The trinity is the most profound mystery in the faith. Anyone who calls himself wise is the one who is foolish. I'll never fully understand and I'm ok with that, but I can read the scriptures and ask the Spirit to teach me as I'm constantly learning. All I can do is surrender and give up control, instead of trying to grasp it all, let go and just enjoy Jesus's presence and love in my life. Walking by faith and walking in the guidance of the Spirit to the best of my ability.

"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts higher than your thoughts."

"Who has known the mind or thoughts of the Lord? Who knows enough to be his counselor or adviser?"

"Let this mind be in you, which is also in Christ Jesus:
Who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.
Rather, he emptied himself,
taking the form of a servant,
coming in human likeness;
and found human in appearance,
he humbled himself,
becoming obedient to death,
even death on a cross.
Because of this, God greatly exalted him
and bestowed on him the name
that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend,
of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that
Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father."

Peace

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

IOW, you will not seek God the way Jesus said you should.

You look everywhere but within while making excuses for not being able to understand what is unintelligible.

Stop believing your churches lies and things become clear.

Regards
DL

 

[Shrooms00087]

For the last time it was only a sacrifice in the sense that Man had Origin Sin. So in short, Christ was "doomed from the start". Predestination...Sure, but it's more likely good old fashioned Jewish pessimism. Then God proved his point and we were "redeemed". Zizek questions our ability to cope with the responsibility of the death of a God. To accept our Free Will as such. Global Warming am I right?

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

For the last time it was only a sacrifice in the sense that Man had Origin Sin. So in short, Christ was "doomed from the start". Predestination...Sure, but it's more likely good old fashioned Jewish pessimism. Then God proved his point and we were "redeemed". Zizek questions our ability to cope with the responsibility of the death of a God. To accept our Free Will as such. Global Warming am I right?

Yes.

Not surprising that religions are full of sheep. That is what they draw and look for. The weak minded in terms of stepping up to be the best they can be.

Aberrant conditioning does the rest.

Regards
DL

 

[Shrooms00087]

I'm with Zizek on this. Christianity is an egalitarian religion. Sheep is a powerful symbol. The mythology is very deep and rich with meaning. "To be a proper atheist...A better atheist one must go through Christianity" Zizek. “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.” G.K. Chesterton.