Oh, this is good!

Submitted by kman (United States), Nov 30, 2008 at 21:35

You quote so many verses that prove all my own points and then take one out of context - Jesus assertion that God is one. Note a little thing that Jesus and the others in his following said - "..If you are able to see it".

Let me connect some dots for you. Look at the scene of a barnyard, surrounding lands , and various animals. How do you suppose the animals "see" the family that addresses their needs and runs their lives? The existence of animals is so below that of men. They have a collective consciousness of the "family" that runs the place and sees to the animals basic and very simple needs. Their consciousness of "humans" is vastly outside our own. The animals haven't the capacity to "see" humans as anyhing other than a collective presence - one - the seeing is limited to the incredibly "simplistic" reaches of their own imaginations.

The Tri-une God is much the same in comparison to us. Man reads that we are made in God's image but, always tries to define him in ways that meet his limited ability to see the collective presence of "God". Man always tries to define God within his own understanding of "man". God is as far above, at least, us as we are above animals. Simplistic definitions of God have always been man's proclivity. I see Islam as higher than just about iany in ideology - Hinduism, Buddism, witchcraft, voodoo, etc. It has stolen from the Christianity that existed before it. It has twisted it to meet the demands of the weak and those who have to hate and need god to give permission to hate in whatever way they see fit. The easy way.

God is the triune God as he exists, and the One as we only are able to simplistically imagine him. I have said before, that our highly exalted brains are a hindrance. It is not the incredibly worshipped organ that we think it is. Don't ever limit God's reality by yours or my ablity to grasp God.

God says to Moses, just tell them "I AM" sent you. Jesus identifies himself as "I AM" and was attacked for it. Which side are you on? The attackers or the attackee? You claim Jesus as a great prophet on the one hand, and on the other seemingly infer from various verses you quote out of context that he is - what, defective? His words are not true? How do you see this as a man who was a great prophet?

Do you see that you are failing to see the whole picture? You draw isolated conclusions from selective verses and quote them out of context. Yes, I am familiar with all of them. As Jesus was wont to say, "...if you can see it".

It is hard to wrap one's mind around the whole concept of God. Some are able to "see" the triune nature and others just accept God's word. God's "triuneness" is actually beside the point. I wrestled with it for a long time until I got more familiar with the Bible and its "whole" context. I didn't stress over concepts my own little pea brain could not grasp. God is what he claims he is. Very often, because, he is so much higher, he tantalizes us to stetch our "intelligence" and grasp his always higher and lofty thoughts. That purpose is to make men and women of any height see that before God, we cannot connect all the dots. We are an "image", a mere shadow. If you can't grasp triune, then just focus on "I AM". God doesn't like the narrowing confines of human definition, so he says simply - "I AM", don't try to arrange and arrange something that is to far above you. I don't claim to have the whole picture wrapped up in a nice, neat,and tidy little bow either. I still have to reach a little to put triune and One together. I will never get there perfectly and don't obsess over it.

When you arrive at the place where you think God is easy and the road to paradise is a simple buy-in to sloppy/easy logic then you have proved to God how small you/I/we are.

I'll indulge you a little further. You quote various translations of John 8:58 which basically say the same thing. You don't see that? Where are you going?

I too am interested that the Jews couldn't pull together what Jesus was saying in what you quote out of Mathew 20: 41-45. Further, you don't pull it together either. Jesus referred to himself with many different labels. They all apply. Any one verse quoted out of context is misleading. He is both God and subservient to Father God. This is elementary Christianity.

I'm familiar with King Jame's English and other dialectic translations. If you want to make a point(s), kindly skip the convoluted route of jumping from one to another. An ability to read different versions is one I share, but I don't need to put it on display, so let's take the non-convoluted approach, and talk in modern day english. NIV is fine. There are a few others. There is nothing holy about King James English. King James printed a Bible in the language of his day's commoners. Some people have grown up with it. That's fine. They all say the same thing but, let's keep it less contorted by sticking to one.

You still haven't answered any of my issues with Islam's very clearly laid out history. We really only have to go back a few weeks (or in India, a few days), but can stretch it as far as you like. Again, I grew up in a nation where information was freely published. Minor corrections have taken place that never really affect the over-all picture so let's not quibble over whether or not George Washington actually did some little thing or not. How about we stick to basics. I know Islam has isolated itself with its own version which differs from that of just about every non-Islamic nation on earth. So, what do you buy into as truth - Islam's little narrow version & distortion or the one once known by all free nations where history was reported without a gun at its head?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".