Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16929
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Dontaskme »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:38 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:30 pm So now we come back to God knowing he would be tortured while in the flesh, so my point is why would the spirit embodied person want a life of suffering when it doesn't have to. It could just stop incarnating surely?
"Stop incarnating"? That implies that somebody was incarnating, and then "stopped" it. I can't really deal with reincarnation, DAM.

So let's distinguish that from incarnation. Human beings are not "incarnated." They are always made of both flesh and spirit, and the spirit isn't past-eternal. So there is no point at which the human spirit is "put into" the flesh. That doesn't happen.

And we have to distinguish both of those two earlier erroneous ideas from what I'm speaking about as "the Incarnation." The Incarnation (with a capital "i") is that singular world event in which God became man in the person of Jesus Christ.
Yes, I understand this so far.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:38 pmNow, with that all in view, can we frame your question? Perhaps. Do you mean, "Why would God undertake the Incarnation, since He knew His incarnate Son would be crucified?" Is that your question?
Yes that is correct, that's the question. Why Incarnate at all, already knowing what would happen?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27604
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:41 pm What you've mentioned here, is what I believe relates to the human condition, which is the cause and effects of the dream of I - albeit just a dream story, within the illusory dream of separation.
Well, obviously, I can't answer for your beliefs, DAM. So I'm not sure what the question to me is.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27604
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:45 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:38 pmNow, with that all in view, can we frame your question? Perhaps. Do you mean, "Why would God undertake the Incarnation, since He knew His incarnate Son would be crucified?" Is that your question?
Yes that is correct, that's the question. Why Incarnate at all, already knowing what would happen?
Oh. Thanks for the clarification. I'll give the Biblical answer, if I may:

"By this the love of God was revealed in us, that God has sent His only Son into the world so that we may live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." (1 John 4:8-10)
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16929
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Dontaskme »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:43 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:31 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:09 pm
become a parent and you will
This means nothing to me, sorry.
a parent worth his salt will sacrifice himself to preserve his child

man choose poorly...god said suffer the consequence...god sacrificed himself, as a man, to bear that consequence

the father took a bullet for the child, a bullet the child well-earned by way of his own poor choice

get it?
Oh yes I get that now you've been more precise.

But why play the game of life at all, when it involves being rescued from sin, and having to make sacrifices for other people, namely your own child, when none of this stuff doesn't need to happen, is what I'm trying to figure out.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16929
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Dontaskme »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:47 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:41 pm What you've mentioned here, is what I believe relates to the human condition, which is the cause and effects of the dream of I - albeit just a dream story, within the illusory dream of separation.
Well, obviously, I can't answer for your beliefs, DAM. So I'm not sure what the question to me is.
It wasn't a question, it was just my own understanding of what you said, interpreted in my own way. So what you had said made sense to me in the way I replied to you with my own interpretation that makes sense to me of what you had said.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 16379
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: 🔥AMERICA🔥
Contact:

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by henry quirk »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:52 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:43 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:31 pm

This means nothing to me, sorry.
a parent worth his salt will sacrifice himself to preserve his child

man choose poorly...god said suffer the consequence...god sacrificed himself, as a man, to bear that consequence

the father took a bullet for the child, a bullet the child well-earned by way of his own poor choice

get it?
Oh yes I get that now you've been more precise.

But why play the game of life at all, when it involves being rescued from sin, and having to make sacrifices for other people, namely your own child, when none of this stuff doesn't need to happen, is what I'm trying to figure out.
cuz, as I say, god values free will enough to accept the possibility or inevitability of evil, and he loves us enough to give us a hand up, even if we may not deserve it

full disclosure: as a deist, I don't believe man fell...I don't have to agree with christianity to understand it
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16929
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Dontaskme »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:50 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:45 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:38 pmNow, with that all in view, can we frame your question? Perhaps. Do you mean, "Why would God undertake the Incarnation, since He knew His incarnate Son would be crucified?" Is that your question?
Yes that is correct, that's the question. Why Incarnate at all, already knowing what would happen?
Oh. Thanks for the clarification. I'll give the Biblical answer, if I may:

"By this the love of God was revealed in us, that God has sent His only Son into the world so that we may live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." (1 John 4:8-10)
But that kind of love doesn't work in the incarnation, it's impossible to work...the human sentient creature is an animal by nature. It's not a perfect entity called unconditional love. That's just a fantasy idea that's all. When in the incarnation have you ever seen this idea work for real IC?

I'm just reporting my surround and trying to be logical here. I'm not in any way attempting to ridicule or mock religious belief in any way.

.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16929
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Dontaskme »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 6:04 pm
cuz, as I say, god values free will enough to accept the possibility or inevitability of evil, and he loves us enough to give us a hand up, even if we may not deserve it

Ok I get that, so if this is true, then it's ok to act out evil actions. 🤷‍♀️

My point is, again, why incarnate to the play of evil when it doesn't have to?

If God is real, and knows his creation, then wouldn't he just look at it and think, that's not a game worth playing, there is too much pain to endure here? wouldn't he just notice that the price is too high to pay?

It's like man is being expected to reach this perfect loving state, and until he does, there's just hell to pay. It seems like a cruel game to play.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27604
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 6:07 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:50 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:45 pm

Yes that is correct, that's the question. Why Incarnate at all, already knowing what would happen?
Oh. Thanks for the clarification. I'll give the Biblical answer, if I may:

"By this the love of God was revealed in us, that God has sent His only Son into the world so that we may live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." (1 John 4:8-10)
But that kind of love doesn't work in the incarnation, it's impossible to work...the human sentient creature is an animal by nature. It's not a perfect entity called unconditional love. That's just a fantasy idea that's all. When in the incarnation have you ever seen this idea work for real IC?
I'm afraid you're still confused on what the Bible is talking about there, DAM. I'm not saying that human beings have this capacity...nor does the Bible say that.

It says God does. :shock:

That's why "salvation" is never mankind saving itself. It's always an action of God, who is alone capable of having both the love and justice necessary to secure the forgiveness of mankind. The Incarnation is the start of that action.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16929
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Dontaskme »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 6:26 pm I'm afraid you're still confused on what the Bible is talking about there, DAM. I'm not saying that human beings have this capacity...nor does the Bible say that.

It says God does. :shock:
But if God does, then his son has the capacity to be like his Father, aka heaven on earth, that's how I understand it.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 6:26 pmThat's why "salvation" is never mankind saving itself. It's always an action of God, who is alone capable of having both the love and justice necessary to secure the forgiveness of mankind. The Incarnation is the start of that action.
But why would God knowing impose the game of salvation and forgiveness for the sake of heaven on earth in the game of Incarnation. Don't you see what I am trying to say to you?

Why does God play the game when God doesn't have to, it doesn't make any rational sense.

If God knows that being alive is painful, stressful and such...why do it, why not just say, it's not worth the pain and effort.

Can't you see what I'm saying?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27604
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 6:35 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 6:26 pm I'm afraid you're still confused on what the Bible is talking about there, DAM. I'm not saying that human beings have this capacity...nor does the Bible say that.

It says God does. :shock:
But if God does, then his son has the capacity to be like his Father,
The Son (notice the capital letter: there is only one such) not only has the capacity to be like the Father, but even to begin making other people more like the Father...and with that, to deal with the problem of their failure and sins committed previously.

He has the power to make many sons (small "s", more than one).

"For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the originator of their salvation through sufferings." (Hebrews 2:10)
But why would God knowing impose the game of salvation and forgiveness for the sake of heaven on earth in the game of Incarnation.

It's not a "game," DAM. And it's not "imposed." It's the rational and moral order of things.

Think of it this way: man has sinned, and fallen short of God. That creates a double-bind for God's situation, one that will be familiar to you from Atheist's cynical objections. Firstly, if God is good, how can He allow sin? For sin creates injustice. People use their free will to harm one another...even to hurt the innocent, and that is unjust.

And isn't this world right now hollering for justice? They're crying out for it, kneeling in the streets and on the football pitches for it, and yelling for it from the public platform, are they not? But what are they hollering for? Only that the unfairness would be ended, the oppression defeated, the right outcomes produced...everybody wants justice.

And that's right. Justice is fair. They should want it. But here's the other side of the problem: how MUCH justice? How much justice should a holy God practice? Should He, say, put an end to big sins like theft and oppression, but give a pass to gossip, slander, sexual exploitation or greed? How far should a truly holy God go with this justice business?

Think about it. Does the answer not have to be "all the way"? Would a God be holy and righteous if He set to right big sins, but just turned a blind eye to other ones? Would He then be just or righteous? Or is that not, in fact what "injustice" means...the giving of favours to some, and the taking of them from others, without just reason?

So in hollering for justice, the world is hollering to be judged. And that terrifying thing is that this world WILL be judged. It must be, if God is who He says He is: the righteous and holy Ruler of this universe.

This gets us to the second problem in the double-bind: if God judges us, then where is mercy? Where is his purported kindness? Where is forgiveness? And where are we?

So we've got God in a real vice, don't we? If he doesn't judge, and judge with perfect righteousness, He's not righteous. If He does judge, then He's not merciful, kind or loving. What is a God to do, if He is both?

This is the answer given by the Incarnation. God sent His son to be both the Judge and the Redeemer of mankind. In love, Christ took the penalty that a holy God must mete out to mankind for what mankind has done in all its abuses of freedom. Justice has been served -- but not served against us, but against the Son of God who stood in for us and took the punishment that was rightfully ours.

As the Bible says in Isaiah:

"...it was our sicknesses that He Himself bore,
And our pains that He carried;
Yet we ourselves assumed that He had been afflicted,
Struck down by God, and humiliated.
But He was pierced for our offenses,
He was crushed for our wrongdoings;
The punishment for our well-being was laid upon Him,
And by His wounds we are healed.
All of us, like sheep, have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the wrongdoing of us all
To fall on Him.
"
(Isaiah 53:4-6)

There's no "game" here. The stakes were as high as the sky. But as many as will accept what God has done for us shall be saved. God Himself has done what we never could. But the deal is this: no price payed for our sins can count unless we, of our own free will, will agree that it counts. That is why it is by faith in Christ that we are saved; faith is believing that God will take the justice meted out against His son in place of the judgment due against us.

His plan is love: that through this, we can be forgiven, healed, and made to be what we could never, of our own nature, be: the sons and daughters of God. The Son of God willingly made Himself our opportunity to be brought to God. But it's up to us whether we accept that bargain or not.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 16379
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: 🔥AMERICA🔥
Contact:

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by henry quirk »

Ok I get that, so if this is true, then it's ok to act out evil actions. 🤷‍♀️

nah, that's not the point...the point: have mercy, show compassion, offer a second chance...wrong-doing is not excused, it can be forgiven


My point is, again, why incarnate to the play of evil when it doesn't have to?

I don't have to protect my kid, but I do...cuz I love him


If God is real, and knows his creation, then wouldn't he just look at it and think, that's not a game worth playing, there is too much pain to endure here? wouldn't he just notice that the price is too high to pay?

if god wanted free wills instead of robots, if he found persons instead of bio-machines to be the superior choice, then he had to accept the cost...me, as one of those free wills, I accept the cost...I like bein' a person, like bein' a free will, like self-directin' and bein' self-responsible...I'm happy I'm not a bio-robot


It's like man is being expected to reach this perfect loving state, and until he does, there's just hell to pay. It seems like a cruel game to play.

it doesn't seem cruel at all, to me...to be a free man, this is a blessing
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16929
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Dontaskme »

IC and Henry...I will study both your responses carefully, and try to understand what you are saying to me. I'll get back to you with my responses tomorrow.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16929
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Dontaskme »

IC and Henry, thanks for your responses, I have read them carefully, but cannot agree with how you see your own personal experience of being. As I see things in a totally different way than how you have described and explained things, but thanks for sharing your views with me. I simply do not understand the Biblical God Message. It does not make any rational sense to me, it just comes across as a fable, it feels like all human communication when attempting to undertsanding their place in the universe is generally about the human condition. But God talk just doesn't resonate with me at all...it's all too contrived and controlling.

I've studied Advaita Vedanta and Nonduality all my life, but even that is contrived and controlling sometimes. Luckily, I found the likes of a guy called Tony Parsons, he's English, has written a few books, and hold many public meetings, but does zoom meetings at the moment due to the pandemic, he talks about there being just nothing, no thing appearing as everything. I personally believe him.
Tony is probably the only person in the entire world that has made any real sense to me, I could literally listen to him 24/7 and never get bored.

Anyway, thanks for showing me how you see things from your own lens of perception and beliefs. I have no argument with anyone regarding how they choose to understand reality, for we can only see and know what is our own unique experience, in what feels right for us personally.

I'm not going to get into anymore discussions about God, there is no point, because as much as I've tried to understand the God incarnate idea, it still comes across as just a wishy washy fable. I prefer the ideas of Tony Parsons.

I'll leave it there now, so thankyou for your time and effort spent on explaining your belief in God.

I just want to share 2 Tony quotes before I go. I think these 2 quotes make absolutely perfect sense...to me anyway.

The dream we are living has absolutely no purpose other than our awakening. ( Awakening is just the collapsing / dying to the illusion of a personal I in which only no thing and everything IS for no reason or purpose except in the dream of separation)

Image
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 16379
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: 🔥AMERICA🔥
Contact:

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by henry quirk »

IC and Henry, thanks for your responses, I have read them carefully, but cannot agree with how you see your own personal experience of being.

you're welcome, DAM
Post Reply