Philotic Web

Scott's post in the Fundies thread made me think about this. This of course is directed toward Christians, but I'm interested to hear from anyone who is familiarized with Christianity.

Can any Christians, or Jews, or anyone who believes in God really have "different views" of Him?

We can disagree on predestination, but that's doctrine. Abortion and homosexuality, but those are more social and humane issues. Fundamentalism (literal or symbolic messages in the Bible), but that's a Biblical issue. Even Jesus, but that's not necessarily a 100 % God issue either.

Does it seem like we (Christians) tend to think that instead of focusing on our beliefs being of God, we instead focus on God being of our beliefs? Does it seem like that's where the trouble comes in among the different religions and denominations that believe in the exact same God but get tangled up in details? Can any of us really have different views on God?

Well, i do have a peculiar view of God, probably affected by my own kind of work.

In one side, i have always had trouble with the theology of God's omnipotence. Having things done just by willing them. Even defying logics.

In the other side, i have always found extremely attractive the idea of Pantheism. You know, that the whole Universe is God. A part of God developed unto Itself.

I often wonder about the anthropic principle. You know, the fact that the physical constants are adequate for the appearance of heavy nuclei (what implies of course, that life is possible at all). Surely, it might be possible that multiple Universe existed "somewhere else" (i.e. not in our universe), all of them with their own set of values for the physical constants. But that would be an awful waste of time.

Also, how can God be omniscient? I think that one of the divine attributes has to be "being the perfect computer machine". That would mean that he could make simulation runs on what would happen given any initial circumstance, and learn what would happen. This would include too what would happen should a universe with a certain set of constants be created. Of course, It could have good guesses, but it's foolish not making sure. Especially if you are going to create the Universe.

And here a thought stroke me. A "revelation" if you will. Would it be at all impossible that we were part of such simulation run? That we were simply a construct of the computational body of God, whatever that might be?
And i wondered: would it be any different than the real thing? And i realized: not really. A perfect simulation would not be at all different from the real thing: of course, God knows the equations of the physics the universe will be based on, and he knows the starting conditions perfectly. Our brain couldn't tell the difference as our brain is part of the simulation too, of course. And even a simulated free will would be indistinguishable from true free will, given that the universe laws allow free will.

This conception would be a true Pantheism. It would easily explain away how miracles can happen. Any miracle.

Of course, this idea is not really originally mine. If i am not wrong, many people in the past have already imagined that the Universe could be nothing but a dream of God. And there isn't a better description for a simulation run than a dream.

Scott's post in the Fundies thread made me think about this.

I said "I accept your different views on God" meaning I accept the right to have any view on God.

You can believe God does not exist.
You can believe in Allah.
I accept your different beliefs, but I may not agree with them.

Were I an atheist, I don't think I'd want my opinion to be seen as a "different view of God" because the wording makes it sound like I'm wrong. But I'm not an atheist, so I can't be wrong

But I'm not an atheist, so I can't be wrong

Umm. I know that I'm probably mis-reading your intent with this statement, but as it is, I find it offensive.

But I'm not an atheist, so I can't be wrong

Umm. I know that I'm probably mis-reading your intent with this statement, but as it is, I find it offensive.

Well you read the content correctly, but my intent was to be ironical (that's not something I'd ever say in seriousness).

I'm glad, but I don't think the eye roll smiley makes that clear...

Glad I could clear it up with words then friend!

Btw, I've had a thought. Do you think it makes it any less offensive to believe something but not saying it allowed? Let's be honest. You think I'm wrong to believe in God. You've got no choice. If you really believe what you believe, then you think you're right, and you think I'm wrong. So I have to think you're wrong to not believe in God, because if I truly believe in Him, then I have to believe I'm right and you're not. So yeah, not saying it aloud to one another avoids offending, but is it any less offensive? Is a racist person not offensive even if he doesn't say racist things aloud?

Were I an atheist, I don't think I'd want my opinion to be seen as a "different view of God" because the wording makes it sound like I'm wrong.

"different view on 'anything'" sounds neutral to me so I fail to see how that particular wording implies anything.
Believing in no God is one view on God, just like my view on God, your view, they are all different views.

So yeah, not saying it aloud to one another avoids offending, but is it any less offensive? Is a racist person not offensive even if he doesn't say racist things aloud?

People themselves aren't offensive, their thoughts or opinions may be though. Your racist example, just because you find racism offensive doesn't mean you think everything about them is offensive, at least I don't.

You can believe that you are right and someone else is wrong, but that doesn't mean you are offended by a different belief.

Locke_, you say you directed your question to Christians, but I'm not sure why... Is God limited to Christianity, the Christian interpretation of Him? Hardly... if He is in fact half of what He is so frequently interpreted to be. So can't you consider all people who believe in a single higher power, responsible for creation and stimulating human thought and conscience, as believing in God? In essence, isn't that what Christians attribute to Him, before you delve into the nitty gritties? (Although, I grew up Catholic, and barely that, so I don't really know... I just hear things and make assumptions and behave so as not to get myself into trouble.)

If that's true, then I think we share the view of His purpose in our lives, right? The void He fills, the role He plays, that sort of thing- that's pretty clear. No different views there. But we can certainly have different views as to the nature of God, the disposition of God, and the will of God. Vengeful or benevolent? Laissez-faire or meddling? Those sorts of views are shaped by our exposure, I think... to history, to rhetoric, to trauma and grace.

So... in short: No. But really Yes.

Just thinking over what Jotabe said...

I have thought for a long time now that, in there being a God, you would not need more that one God for surely one God is enough to maintain all things and provide all things. This leads me to my Monotheistic view.

From there I think if there is indeed (which I firmly believe) a one God then, such a God would never anything close to 'a backup plan' for the universe. To second guess is a human trait and so is imperfection, which leads to needing back up plans in the first place.

Thirdly, my own thinking of the three-in-one nature of God is actually quite simple for me to understand. The bible tells me I am created in the image of God. Maybe you've read or heard the mirror comparison. An Image of something is always similar to the original but also always less than the original, never a perfect copy. So if humans are similar to God in various ways I think given that God in the Bible is Father, Son, and Spirit then I can confirm this by looking at myself.

Humans are physical, God became physical when he became Jesus to grow up as a man to experience what all humans experience. That is, Joy, Love, Pain, Life, Death, Sadness, Compassion, Anger etc...

Humans are Spiritual, this forum alone is filled with questions of a spiritual nature and people questioning the world around them and matters of the soul. I don't need to go on about this one too much because millions of people are aware of spirituality. Even Hello! Magazine is aware of 'mind, body & spirit'.

Humans are Creative, it is explained that God created the world and the life within it in Genesis, and when paired up in males and females, humans create life also which in turn becomes a new being resembling both parents in various ways.

So as I said, it doesn't get more complicated in my head than that and I don't think it needs to be. No majorly long clever words (not an insult to people who know big words by the way) just simple reflection on my own life and the lives around me.

---

Jews see God differently to Christians because they only revere what Christians call 'The Old Testament'. But in saying that, they view Him all that differently.

Muslims view God differently again because they have a different holy text altogether, shaped by the events they deem true.

Technically, this is the same God we're all believing in, but with different approaches. I will continue below...

In the Bible (a part that both Jews and Christians would agree on) there is the account of Abraham and Sarah...

- Abraham is married to Sarah.
- Marriage is a holy covenant between a man and a woman.
- A covenant is a two way agreement in which both parties can make demands on each other.
- God makes a covenant with Abraham, telling him his child will begin a long line of people (12 tribes of Jews) chosen by God and for this to happen he must have a child with his wife Sarah
- Sarah and Abraham doubt this can happen as they are old.
- Sarah tells Abraham to sleep with Hagar, her servant.
- Abraham gets Hagar pregnant, God gets a little annoyed by this.
- Hagar prays to God for her baby to be blessed, God agrees to bless her child with 12 tribes of his own but also states that they will fight amongst themselves "...his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers" (Genesis 16:11-12)
- Hagar has a baby boy called Ishmael (meaning 'He has heard') after praying to God
- Abraham finally does as God asks and has a child called Isaac (meaning 'he laughs') with Sarah and Isaac fathers the 12 tribes

...Now, as I have read into this account, I come to the following conclusion. This, if you will is beginning of the 'Family of God' if you will, and as such I will simplify it and place family roles on the characters.

Abraham/God = Father
Sarah = Mother
Hagar = Maidservant/An unwise affair/mistress
Isaac = Planned and chosen Son & next Father of the Jews
Ishmael = Unplanned Son and origin of Arabs and therefore Stepson if you think about it, the half-brother of the Jews.
Non-Jewish people everywhere (Father by Noah in the early times after the flood) = Adopted 'son' of the family as indicated by the fact that Jesus said he came to save everyone and told his disciples to make disciples of every nation.

As you can imagine, if there were a family like that in existence, One child from parents, one child from an affair and one adopted child (there must be one like that somewhere) then it would silly to think that each child would have the exact same view of the Father or in this case, God.

That's what I believe anyway.