God's Will

[HoreTore]

What is God's(singular or plural) will for the world, and who knows what it is?

[Sigurd]

I am thinking: What is this Tore up to now?

The answer to his question is simple.
Only revelation would reveal God's will. And only those who He reveals this to, knows.

But since maintream Christianity, Judaism, Islam and the others have closed the heavens by proclaiming: We have it all, it's all in the good book, It's all we need; God's will is history and Deism prevails.

...

On the other hand God might not exist and there is no will. We are on our own to work out how to best cohabitat this corner of the universe.

...

Or He is in fact talking to man, but we are ignorant about it. Could the prophet please stand up so we can stone him/her?

[Pannonian]

Or He is in fact talking to man, but we are ignorant about it. Could the prophet please stand up so we can stone him/her?
Are you asking for a reveal? So early in the thread?

Vote: Sigurd

[Ronin]

That´s my business and I ain´t telling....

now go about your measly lives mortals!!:laugh4:

[Sigurd]

Are you asking for a reveal? So early in the thread?

Vote: Sigurd
:laugh4:

[Byzantine Mercenary]

hmm whenever this comes up someone usually ends up saying that the devil is somone who claims to know gods will, or words to that effect...

To claim to know gods will is such a strong claim that i am naturally sceptical of those who make such a claim. In any case Jesus explains the will of god in a way suffcient for me anyway...

(and Vote: Pannonian, it looks like he is trying to start a bandwaggon)

[macsen rufus]

All we know about God's Will is that the dependants will contest it :laugh4:

[Navaros]

God's Will is for every human to obey what his commands in the Bible are. To be obediant to God. Obediance is the key to fulfilling God's Will.

The problem with this is, how to obey God's will is a ludicrously complex issue that cannot be properly understood by any human.

Made even more so because Jesus' "do nothing policy" from the New Testament is in direct contradiction with God's own "bold action policy" from the Old Testament.

And made even moreso again because the Bible is not crystal clear about how precisely to deal with every specific thing that crops up in life. The Bible simply doesn't have enough information in it, and what is there is not clear enough, or contradictory.

All this is compounded that there is no direct way to interect with God to get clarification.

So unfortunately, a large aspect of the answer as to how to obey God's Will would always have to be: "your guess is as good as mine".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's actual quite balanced Nav.

For myself I would say I have no idea what God wants so I just try to follow my conciense aqnd muddle through as best I can.

[macsen rufus]

Help! HELP! Someone's abducted Nav and stolen his account....!

I always understood from your posts that you held a pretty conservative, literalist view on the Bible, Navaros, and here you are sounding like a wishy-washy, liberal, moral relativist. I'm confused :inquisitive:

[Navaros]

Help! HELP! Someone's abducted Nav and stolen his account....!

I always understood from your posts that you held a pretty conservative, literalist view on the Bible, Navaros, and here you are sounding like a wishy-washy, liberal, moral relativist. I'm confused :inquisitive:

I did indeed have a conservative literalist view of the Bible, until I realized that there is no reasonable way that literalist view of the Old Testament can carry over into the New Testament and sustain itself.

No one stole my account. What happened was,

Several months back I was interacting with some self-proclaimed fundamentalist Bible-believing Christians on a Bible website. There was a subject about Rosie O' Donnell up for discussion. I stepped right up and went in and laid out my "thoughts" about Rosie. :laugh4: Needless to say, they weren't very flattering to Rosie. :2thumbsup: Next thing I know, there is a reply to my post saying "We are not going to turn this into a Rosie-bashing thread, let's start acting like Christians".

At first I was shocked at this. I wanted to reply vigorously to such a ridiculous reply from an alleged Christian, who was implying that Rosie should be allowed free reign and nothing should be said or done against her and that for me to do so was was un-Christian. But instead of replying, I reflected long and hard on that reply. I asked myself: "Is this person saying to say and do nothing about Rosie simply because she is a liberal rather than a Christian like she alleges herself to be; or is this person saying to say and do nothing about Rosie simply because that's what Jesus actually instructed?"

Then my memory jumped back to a post on this site from DevDave in which Dave pointed out to me that the Lord did not execute the harlot as per God's law on the subject. Instead he did nothing to the harlot.

Upon reflecting on these points, I had an ephiphany. I realized that Jesus did indeed advocate a "do nothing" policy that I cannot support. Prior to this point I had been trying in my mind to reconcile Jesus' "do nothing" policy with the Old Testament's "bold action" policy. But upon careful analysis is has become evident that this simply isn't possible to do. They are fundamentally contradictory to each other and cannot both be correct. On a side-note, this lack of clarity is precisely why there will always be self-proclaimed Christians with a ludicrously large difference in the spectrum of their beliefs. Because each sect/indvidual is trying to reconcile these issues as best they can. But it cannot be done with the resources and faculties humans have, so there will be no perfect answer. No "correct" answer. And thus, no "one" answer. Instead, there will be answers that lay in direct contradiction to each other, encompassing everything under the sun, as to what a "Christian" and following God's Will means.

I believe in morality and I believe in the commandments laid out by God in the Old Testament for the sake of preserving morality in society. I do not believe in a "do nothing" about immorality policy as Jesus seemingly was an advocate for. At that point I had to make a choice. Do I believe what God said, or do I believe what Jesus said? I chose to believe what God said. Therefore, upon realizing this several months ago, I have at that point renounced the title of "Christian" for myself.

[CrossLOPER]

I did indeed have a conservative literalist view of the Bible, until I realized that there is no reasonable way that literalist view of the Old Testament can carry over into the New Testament and sustain itself.

No one stole my account. What happened was,

Several months back I was interacting with some self-proclaimed fundamentalist Bible-believing Christians on a Bible website. There was a subject about Rosie O' Donnell up for discussion. I stepped right up and went in and laid out my "thoughts" about Rosie. :laugh4: Needless to say, they weren't very flattering to Rosie. :2thumbsup: Next thing I know, there is a reply to my post saying "We are not going to turn this into a Rosie-bashing thread, let's start acting like Christians".

At first I was shocked at this. I wanted to reply vigorously to such a ridiculous reply from an alleged Christian, who was implying that Rosie should be allowed free reign and nothing should be said or done against her and that for me to do so was was un-Christian. But instead of replying, I reflected long and hard on that reply. I asked myself: "Is this person saying to say and do nothing about Rosie simply because she is a liberal rather than a Christian like she alleges herself to be; or is this person saying to say and do nothing about Rosie simply because that's what Jesus actually instructed?"

Then my memory jumped back to a post on this site from DevDave in which Dave pointed out to me that the Lord did not execute the harlot as per God's law on the subject. Instead he did nothing to the harlot.

Upon reflecting on these points, I had an ephiphany. I realized that Jesus did indeed advocate a "do nothing" policy that I cannot support. Prior to this point I had been trying in my mind to reconcile Jesus' "do nothing" policy with the Old Testament's "bold action" policy. But upon careful analysis is has become evident that this simply isn't possible to do. They are fundamentally contradictory to each other and cannot both be correct. On a side-note, this lack of clarity is precisely why there will always be self-proclaimed Christians with a ludicrously large difference in the spectrum of their beliefs. Because each sect/indvidual is trying to reconcile these issues as best they can. But it cannot be done with the resources and faculties humans have, so there will be no perfect answer. No "correct" answer. And thus, no "one" answer. Instead, there will be answers that lay in direct contradiction to each other, encompassing everything under the sun, as to what a "Christian" and following God's Will means.

I believe in morality and I believe in the commandments laid out by God in the Old Testament for the sake of preserving morality in society. I do not believe in a "do nothing" about immorality policy as Jesus seemingly was an advocate for. At that point I had to make a choice. Do I believe what God said, or do I believe what Jesus said? I chose to believe what God said. Therefore, upon realizing this several months ago, I have at that point renounced the title of "Christian" for myself.
Enjoy being Jewish.

[Husar]

So you're closer to being a jew now?

In that case you should also believe that to be forgiven your sins you're required to sacrifice a lamb since that's what God said while Jesus gave another way. Just curious.

[HoreTore]

I am thinking: What is this Tore up to now?

I have a lot of free time with nothing to do at work... :laugh4:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is an arguement I can engage with:


I believe in morality and I believe in the commandments laid out by God in the Old Testament for the sake of preserving morality in society. I do not believe in a "do nothing" about immorality policy as Jesus seemingly was an advocate for. At that point I had to make a choice. Do I believe what God said, or do I believe what Jesus said? I chose to believe what God said. Therefore, upon realizing this several months ago, I have at that point renounced the title of "Christian" for myself.

I don't think Jesus advocated a "do nothing" policy, I think he was more concerned with the spirit of the Law and with the consequences of one's actions.

"Judge not, lest ye be judged."

"Those who live by the sword die by the sword."

"Swear not..... merely let your yes be yes and your no be no."

My personal favourite:

"Forgive them Lord, they know not what they do."

Jesus wasn't saying "Don't live by the sword" so much as he was saying "be prepared for the consequences of your actions." The way I see it you can live by the sword but it will likely be your undoing and your sins may be greater than those of other men at the reckoning.

Jesus' most important message though was about forgiveness, Rosie O' Donnell, may not be your favourite person and if you believe her views are wrong you should oppose them vigorously, and love her regardless.

[Husar]

Didn't he also say something like: "Love your enemies as much as you love yourself."?

That sort of makes it hard to live by the sword IMO.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

I did indeed have a conservative literalist view of the Bible, until I realized that there is no reasonable way that literalist view of the Old Testament can carry over into the New Testament and sustain itself.

No one stole my account. What happened was,

Several months back I was interacting with some self-proclaimed fundamentalist Bible-believing Christians on a Bible website. There was a subject about Rosie O' Donnell up for discussion. I stepped right up and went in and laid out my "thoughts" about Rosie. :laugh4: Needless to say, they weren't very flattering to Rosie. :2thumbsup: Next thing I know, there is a reply to my post saying "We are not going to turn this into a Rosie-bashing thread, let's start acting like Christians".

At first I was shocked at this. I wanted to reply vigorously to such a ridiculous reply from an alleged Christian, who was implying that Rosie should be allowed free reign and nothing should be said or done against her and that for me to do so was was un-Christian. But instead of replying, I reflected long and hard on that reply. I asked myself: "Is this person saying to say and do nothing about Rosie simply because she is a liberal rather than a Christian like she alleges herself to be; or is this person saying to say and do nothing about Rosie simply because that's what Jesus actually instructed?"

Then my memory jumped back to a post on this site from DevDave in which Dave pointed out to me that the Lord did not execute the harlot as per God's law on the subject. Instead he did nothing to the harlot.

Upon reflecting on these points, I had an ephiphany. I realized that Jesus did indeed advocate a "do nothing" policy that I cannot support. Prior to this point I had been trying in my mind to reconcile Jesus' "do nothing" policy with the Old Testament's "bold action" policy. But upon careful analysis is has become evident that this simply isn't possible to do. They are fundamentally contradictory to each other and cannot both be correct. On a side-note, this lack of clarity is precisely why there will always be self-proclaimed Christians with a ludicrously large difference in the spectrum of their beliefs. Because each sect/indvidual is trying to reconcile these issues as best they can. But it cannot be done with the resources and faculties humans have, so there will be no perfect answer. No "correct" answer. And thus, no "one" answer. Instead, there will be answers that lay in direct contradiction to each other, encompassing everything under the sun, as to what a "Christian" and following God's Will means.

I believe in morality and I believe in the commandments laid out by God in the Old Testament for the sake of preserving morality in society. I do not believe in a "do nothing" about immorality policy as Jesus seemingly was an advocate for. At that point I had to make a choice. Do I believe what God said, or do I believe what Jesus said? I chose to believe what God said. Therefore, upon realizing this several months ago, I have at that point renounced the title of "Christian" for myself.
Yeah that would make you a jew surely, but wouldn't you be better off studying the torah than the old testament if thats your line of belief?

However the way i see it is that Jesus's immorality policy was not ''do nothing''. When he stoped the stoning of the adulterous woman he said ''let he who is without sin cast the first stone'' surely this was more showing the hippocracy of a mob of people (who themselves have made mistakes) arbitraryly deciding who to punish. He instead taught that god was to judge but that god will forgive those who repent of what they have done.

When humans judge, when humans take bold action as imperfect humans mistakes are made. Also there is little knowing if somone truly regrets a sin. Surely the best thing to do is to leave judgement to god?

I would see his policy on morality as more like ''love god and love your neighbour'', if soemone makes a mistake, and asks for forgiveness fogive them and they in turn will forgive you your mistakes.

Indeed back on topic, if no-one can know the will of god surely trying to carry out gods will is tricky, and when it comes to judgement on morality somthing better left for god perhaps?

[woad&fangs]

Well, if God created man in his image then wouldn't whatever makes a person happy make God happy? With that theory, I believe that a persons goal should be to end each day having made more people happy then angry/sad.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Didn't he also say something like: "Love your enemies as much as you love yourself."?

That sort of makes it hard to live by the sword IMO.

Not really, love your enemy but defeat him anyway.

Protect the womena and children.

[Navaros]

So you're closer to being a jew now?

In that case you should also believe that to be forgiven your sins you're required to sacrifice a lamb since that's what God said while Jesus gave another way. Just curious.

This is indeed a quagmire since one of God's laws is: "Without the shedding of blood, there can be no remission of sin."

The Old Testament did indeed require lambs be sacrificed in the stead of the final lamb, which was Jesus when he came. I think it is disgusting to sacrifice animals and won't be doing that. Sacrificing animals is another Bible policy that I cannot support.

Anyhow I've decided to forego my own salvation after death because I'd rather do that then pretend to agree with Jesus' "do nothing" policy while alive, when in my heart I do not.

Also for reasons relating to issues I have with God as I get older, such as that he could easily have made things crystal clear for everyone so that anyone who chose to believe in him was doing so after all the cards have been put on the table plainly. Everyone being able to choose to make an informed decision based on that. Instead of leaving humans to fend for themselves in a state of confusion and uncertainty about him and his Will with no hope of ever finding a clear, 100% complete answer.

I don't feel it's fair that humans are sent to Hell after having been put in a situation like that which is stacked against their ability to understand in the first place, which is another Bible policy I cannot support.

I also cannot support Jesus' "forgive anyone, for anything, an unlimited number of times" policy. Doing that will make one live the life of a complete sucker who gets ravaged horribly by everyone. For example. The other week I was listening to a very prominent American Pastor named Charles Stanley who I respect a lot as a knowledgable, Bible-believing Christian man. He was speaking about how his mother, as a good Christian woman, put up with physical abuse and drunkeness from his stepfather for his stepfather's whole life. Starting from when they first got married for decades on. He said how for the last 10 years of his stepfather's life, his stepfather was blind and his mother waited on him hand and foot until the day he died. He was happy his mother never said "Thank God that is over with" when he died. He was happy she never spoke any ill word against his stepfather before or after his death. No doubt this woman was doing exactly what Jesus commands of Christians. She loved her enemy. She turned the other cheek after he finshed bashing her first cheek in. She forgave him an unlimited number of times. And what did she get for it: a horrible life of decades worth of being physically and verbally abused by a piece of crap. Goes to show how well Jesus' "forgive anyone, for anything, an unlimited number of times" and "turn the other cheek" policy pans out in the real-world. Just hearing about how following Jesus' instructions to the letter led to a tragic life like that left me feeling extremely disturbed that Jesus had ever given those instructions.

I'm also pretty mad at God and Jesus for not stepping in to do anything about the "abortion" genocides. I could handle them not generally interferring in the affairs of mankind, but when it comes to that the grievousness is so extreme that their lack of any kind of intervention makes me lose a lot of respect for them.

Having said that, I'm also not prepared to deny that Jesus was Divine. I think he was Divine, but I just don't understand him or support his policies that can't work, or which contradict God's policies. This is made all the more confusing because Jesus said "I have not come to abolish the law", and other statements by Jesus also support the law. Yet Jesus was also saying things which are fundamentally the opposite of what the law is.

Rather than say I'm closer to being a Jew now I'd say I've gone from thinking of myself as a Christian to thinking of myself as being merely pseudo-religious albeit with a general agreement to the morals that most fundamentalist religious persons would have.






I don't think Jesus advocated a "do nothing" policy, I think he was more concerned with the spirit of the Law and with the consequences of one's actions.

"Judge not, lest ye be judged."


Yup, that's probably the most quoted verse of the Bible and probably the very-best example of Jesus advocating a "do nothing" policy.

Since all persons aside from Jesus have sinned, and sinners may not judge other sinners; then it follows - when following that instruction - that no human is able to do anything about the immoral behaviour of any other human. That results in a "do nothing" policy.

I notice that Byzantine Mercenary also had a post similar to yours about this point, and he also said Jesus was not advocating a "do nothing" policy. Yet in the same post went on to to explain how humans should indeed do nothing because they aren't qualified to do anything. So then where is the logic of saying Jesus did not advocate a "do nothing" policy?

[Whacker]

Don't believe in any god or gods, nor that there's any higher "will" guiding us or that we should be obedient to. This life is all you've got, live it well. Be well, do good, and drive it like you stole it.

:balloon2:

[macsen rufus]

Thanks for the replies, Navaros, sounds like you've been through a profound experience recently :bow: I must admit I had/have no idea who Rosie O'Connell is, and guess I'm not missing much, but I do follow the gist of your disillusionment. The thought behind my original question was concerned with the various incompatible elements of scripture, and personally I do find "YHVH" as portrayed in the OT a capricious and largely malevolent entity, who in His own terms has condoned genocide (eg Joshua and Jericho) amongst other things. My own view now verges more towards seeing all scripture as literature, the OT in particular charting the moral and philosophical development of the Hebrew nation - Moses, Job, etc. Consequently I don't accept the thesis of a supernatural entity endowed of any Will, least of all any that can be communicated to humankind. I know many will feel that in the absence of such an entity there are no grounds for morality, but there's a good case to be made for it being an innate human faculty which has merely been co-opted by religions. But that's a different thread, I guess...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Or maybe morality has been co-opted by humanity and seperated from God? It's certainly a talking point.

[atheotes]

Don't believe in any god or gods, nor that there's any higher "will" guiding us or that we should be obedient to. This life is all you've got, live it well. Be well, do good, and drive it like you stole it.

:balloon2:

:2thumbsup: My thoughts exactly.:yes:

Navaros, some of your experiences are very similar to mine on my transformation from religious to agnosticism and current atheism. :juggle2:

[Byzantine Mercenary]

I notice that Byzantine Mercenary also had a post similar to yours about this point, and he also said Jesus was not advocating a "do nothing" policy. Yet in the same post went on to to explain how humans should indeed do nothing because they aren't qualified to do anything. So then where is the logic of saying Jesus did not advocate a "do nothing" policy?
no its not do nothing as like i said god will judge, its more of a ''dont take the role of god'' policy realy...

Also i think the nature of repentance is a bit different from what we may expect. in the real world anyone can say sorry, repentance is between you and god, i.e. that he knows you truly are sorry, knowone else can judge that as they arnt god...

But anyway his key point is such, anyone will be nice to their freinds thats nothing extraordinary. But to be kind to your enemys, that is a level of maturity that puts you beyond those who would abuse it.

And hopefully for every person that abuses someone that acts thus there will be others that support them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

:yes: I'll agree with that in broad terms.

To be honest Nav, for someone who claims to follow God's divine will I think you're very selective and it seems like you just pick the easy parts or the parts you like.

Loving someone even as they execute you is far better than bringing down plagues upon them.

Besides which, there seems to be very little evidence to support much of the Old Testement, no evidence for a great Solomonic Empire, for example.

[RoadKill]

God, doesn't have a will for the world, God can only provide you with a paint bursh, the paper, and the paint. It is up to you to paint the picture.

In other words, we are the ones who will decide the will for the world.

[Papewaio]

God's AFK and we have freewill until he gets back.

[Don Corleone]

What is God's(singular or plural) will for the world, and who knows what it is?

Queue laughter (hell laugh all you want, but I'm a sucker for these sorts of questions).... for a person faith, that is the ultimate question. It should color our thinking at all times. We can never know for certain, just try to read His word, listen to our conscience, follow the advice of those who have come before us and spent their lifetimes asking this question and hope for the best. In other words, we should always try our best, and honestly record when we ourselves know we fell short.

Lucky for us, the value is in the queition, not the answer.

[Don Corleone]

Navaros, if you think Jesus advocated a "do-nothing" policy, you need to spend less time in Leviticus and more time in Luke. "Love your enemy", "forgive 70 times 7 times", "carry your enemy's load the extra mile", "When I was in prison, when did you viist Me? When I was hungry, when did you feed me? I assure you, as sure as you did this for the least of your brothers and sisters, you did it for me".

Jesus was anything but 'Do-nothing'. We just don't like what He wants us to do. Much easier to look up a rule in Deutoronomy and call for someone to be smited (provided its a rule we actually agree with) then to love the sinner, hate the sin. But that's what we're called to do. Matthew, an apostle and one of the chroniclers of the life of our Lord, was a taxman... in his day the equivalent of a street-corner drug-dealer. Jesus didn't approve of his occupation, yet He chose the man anyway, and told us to.

Sorry dude, all those people we don't like, we have to reach out to. And there's a lot to do.

[RoadKill]

Navaros, if you think Jesus advocated a "do-nothing" policy, you need to spend less time in Leviticus and more time in Luke. "Love your enemy", "forgive 70 times 7 times", "carry your enemy's load the extra mile", "When I was in prison, when did you viist Me? When I was hungry, when did you feed me? I assure you, as sure as you did this for the least of your brothers and sisters, you did it for me".

Jesus was anything but 'Do-nothing'. We just don't like what He wants us to do. Much easier to look up a rule in Deutoronomy and call for someone to be smited (provided its a rule we actually agree with) then to love the sinner, hate the sin. But that's what we're called to do. Matthew, an apostle and one of the chroniclers of the life of our Lord, was a taxman... in his day the equivalent of a street-corner drug-dealer. Jesus didn't approve of his occupation, yet He chose the man anyway, and told us to.

Sorry dude, all those people we don't like, we have to reach out to. And there's a lot to do.

Well said, couldn't agree more myself.

[CountArach]

Don't believe in any god or gods, nor that there's any higher "will" guiding us or that we should be obedient to. This life is all you've got, live it well. Be well, do good, and drive it like you stole it.

:balloon2:
:bow:

You speak my mind scarily well Whacker.

[Rodion Romanovich]

What is God's(singular or plural) will for the world, and who knows what it is?
The man who is going to start the next war, usually knows God's will best :idea2:

[CountArach]

The man who is going to start the next war, usually knows God's will best :idea2:
*cough* Hitler *cough* :wink:

[Rodion Romanovich]

...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The man who is going to start the next war, usually knows God's will best :idea2:

How about the man who won the last war? Or the man that is going to win the next one?

[Watchman]

What those tend to know best is stuff like strategy and supply and whatnot. The will of God has the downside it demonstrably fails to make up for ammunition shortages.

[rotorgun]

This has been a very intersting thread to follow. I am impressed by the many astute posts asking some very tough questions.

As to what God's will is I can only quote the bible. "It is God's will that all might be saved" (Not sure exactly which Chapter and verse, but new testament for sure.)

As to Jesus's alleged "Do nothing policy" I would invite a study of Gandy or Martin Luther King Jr. The "do nothing" aspect of Jesus's approach is more in line with a sort of passive resistance to those who sinned against him (he being God made flesh), and how he set an example for us to emulate.

He also made provision for how to get along in a secular world view when he told the Pharasees to "Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's, and to God that which is God's" (Matthew...I think)

In other words, as I practice this in my own imperfect life, I must reconcile my actions with my faith daily, attempting to give offense to no man, and be ready to give an answer to those who ask me the reason for my hope.

I often have to weigh my faith in the balance with my profession as a soldier, and have taken comfort in the example of the Centurian that asked Jesus to heal his servant, and was "saved" in the process. The bible never tells of the fate of this man, but I can't help but think that he would have had the same trouble I do in reconciling his job to his new found faith. I also take the advice of John the Baptist when a group of soldiers asked him what they must do to be "saved"......"Extort no one (meaning do not exceed your authority and use force to take advantage of others), and be content with your pay. (I gather this to remind me that I am not a mercenary, but a servant of my country)

[ajaxfetish]

I'm going to spice things up by throwing in a random Mormon perspective (and not a central one either, but more a fringe thing I noticed and was intrigued by). In the Pearl of Great Price, a Mormon book of scripture, there is an account of a revelation given to Moses in which God reveals the past, present, and future of the earth to him. Moses is amazed and asks something along the lines of "How and why did you do all this?" (I'm paraphrasing since I don't have the text on me). God's reply is, "For my own purpose have I made them. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me."

So perhaps God's will is his own business and we don't get to know. In any case, more important to us on a daily basis, I think, is understanding what our will is, and improving that.

Ajax

[macsen rufus]

Okay, to quote an even more radical scripture:

"There is no god but man"
"Love is the Law, Love under Will"
"'Do what thou Wilt' shall be the whole of the Law"

which scripture has been widely excoriated, although I interpret its meaning as being very much as Ajax has just said:


In any case, more important to us on a daily basis, I think, is understanding what our will is, and improving that.


Widely interpreted as untramelled licence "Do What Thou Wilt" is an exhortation to the highest achievement, where one's Will is one's true course which requires self-knowledge and discipline to attain (to make a poor, ad hoc analogy, the Will of an acorn is to become an oak tree).

I cannot personally call to mind any scripture whose followers have not succumbed to schism, a fact which I believe points to their general invalidity - all are open to interpretation and therefore error, and therefore cannot be inerrant in themselves and cannot contain or express the "Will of God" were there such a thing to convey.

[rotorgun]

"There is no god but man"
"Love is the Law, Love under Will"
"'Do what thou Wilt' shall be the whole of the Law"

Ok macsen rufus, would you mind expounding a bit on where you take these quotes from? It sounds like something from a Pagan or Satanic book. I have never read them or heard them in any version of the "Christian" bible anywhere.

"Inquiring minds just have to know"-The National Inquirer

PS: No offense intended

[rotorgun]

God's reply is, "For my own purpose have I made them. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me." -Ajaxfetish

Hmmm...sounds alot like "My ways are not Thy ways" and "No man can concieve of the mind of God" (Paraphrasing here)

Than again, it is written "If thou lackest wisdom, consider the ant" -Proverbs

[macsen rufus]

@Rotorgun - yes, I did say it was a radical scripture - some people claim it is Satanic, but there again some people consider the Pope to be "The Antichrist", so I think we can profitably dispense with sectarianism :beam: .

The source is "Liber AL vel Legis", or the Thelemite "Book of the Law", which depending on your take on on "divine revelation vs human authorship" was revealed to or written by Aleister Crowley.

No offence taken, I am familiar with & respect your enquiring mind from previous posts :bow: I am not proseletyzing it, just adding a bit to the spicy mix in this thread, as Ajax's post brought it unexpectedly to mind.

However, I think it does raise questions about resorting to "revelation" for moral authority, an issue which is addressed in Liber AL thus: "All questions of the Law are to be resolved each for himself" (this is a paraphrase, I don't recall the exact wording - the meaning (as I interpret it) being that a personal interpretation is purely that and cannot be imposed on others).

The semantic root of "authority" is after all "author" - 3000 years ago when literacy was rare, to say "It is written..." was a truly magical act. In a world of near-universal literacy we have learnt that texts are not true purely by virtue of being texts, that we can write a "Lord of the Rings" as easily as a "Revelation", and that texts can be analyzed and criticized (in the literary sense), referenced and peer-reviewed.

Anyway, in Thelemite thinking "obedience" is the opposite of "God's Will", and it heaps great scorn on the Slave Gods and their followers. Uncritical obedience is seen as the greatest possible betrayal of one's essence.

[rotorgun]

The source is "Liber AL vel Legis", or the Thelemite "Book of the Law", which depending on your take on on "divine revelation vs human authorship" was revealed to or written by Aleister Crowley. macsen rufus

Hmmm.....Thelemite? I have never heard of such a people, except perhaps in some science fiction story. This book sounds fascinating. I'll have to see if my library has it.

Thanks, and for a very interesting post as well!