If you compare the old testament god to the new testament god in the form of his son jesus christ, the difference is almost night and day. The old testament god was primitive, hateful, prejudiced and mostly amoral. The chip off the old block jesus christ (interpretation) is much more sensitive, thoughtful and ethical. I see this as a non-recognized metaphor that god does indeed evolve. If god just is and can never change, it is worthless or unrealistic. In other words, god must work through us good, bad or indifferent. That quality is dependent on our continuing level of growth and enlightenment. As our consciousness improves so does god in essence. If we are a mirror in some ways of a maker, it can only express itself through us in either help or harm. I dont believe any living entity is perfect. It may be as in exist in a certain state but infallible and never needing to change or wanting to is pretty dull or really a non-entity. God as a metaphor must change, improve and evolve. Even changes in religions attest to that. What hampers it is them going into the past to validate what is or should no longer be applicable. By all means remember and study the past but it is misguided to apply outdated mores or even validate them on a mistaken assumption it must be right simply because its'god'. It was a start with potential and only that.
Christianity is presented, via the New Testament, as a contrast to the Old, effectively a modernisation of Judaism. The idea of God in Christianity is quite a bit different from that of the OT. It seems quite natural that people's idea of God should evolve, as society becomes more sophisticated. Christianity embodies Greek (or Hellenistic) ideas as well as Judaic ones - and I have even heard it said that there may also be an influence of Buddhism in it too.
You could say that the countless religions out there evolve and grow much like a tree throwing out branches all over. Think about the number of versions of each religion, take christianity for example there are so many versions. To suggest that God must evolve makes an assumption that there is in fact a God and at this point we run into difficulty because the fact is humans know nothing about God, and that is if we assume there may be a God, we know nothing because all descriptions and all accounts are descriptions constructed by humans using their, often delussional ideas, to describe something they know absolutely nothing about. Oh folk present their bible as authority but fail to realise that it was written by men, edited by men, printed by men and sold by men. I suspect if we find that there is a God he, she, it or them, will not be as our fantacies describe. The Universe is much much older than humans, and we occupy such a very small part of the Universe such that one could conclude that if there is a God we would be less than a microbe is to us. I doubt there would be a case for evolving and certainly not to suit humans made up notions of the unknowable. Alex
The metaphor in the representation that jesus christ is god in human form is that god is within us or part of us. God is not showing up in any other way. And even if it did, would make little difference. Whether god out there exists is of little to no consequence to us. It only matters as how we continue to develop and evolve, becoming. To understand god is a seeking to understand ourselves. The amateurish and literal interpretation of most religionists is what obfuscates the issue of the concept of god. Also the idea its perfect which is in direct contradiction to its faulty creation which further inanely motivates them to come up with more inane made-up excuses, going on a completely imaginary tangent. It'is' what it is (god/universe/whatever) is not the same as perfection or ideal which is what the usual interpretation is. And in the end, practically/realistically speaking, god can only be as good/compassionate/ intelligent/wise/ethical etc as we can be or become; good, bad or indifferent
Why would anyone worship such a flawed creature? He can't be both omniscient and changing. Maybe it's just humans that evolved socially?
Thats the point. It must be flawed as we are. You cant be perfect and omniscient creating flawed. Even the bible says u will know by ones fruits. Should apply to any creator or god or even universe too. But a representation of god as being perfectly ideal is a great personal goal to reach for/emulate.
That would make him less than perfect, wouldn't it? Or maybe evolution is perfection, even for gods. Honestly, I am not certain.
Does God evolve or does man's perception of God evolve? I think it's the latter. Assuming God does exist, and is omniscient and omnipotent as perceived by man, then he would be beyond time. And since change is contingent upon time, he would be timeless and as such unchanging. Can you imagine living in a place where time has no meaning? It blows the mind.
Humans comprehend and explain God based on their own level of understanding. God does not evolve, rather human perception evolves. As an analogy, if science, found a very advanced space ship with technology that we may not seen for 10,000 years, we would not be able to understand the ship for what it is. We would use our own present day, best understanding, to explain how all its subsystems work. This may not be very accurate but it will make us feel better. As the millennium pass and our understanding of science and technology evolve, so will our explanations of the ship evolve. The space ship does not change. It only appears to change due to a projection affect. The God of the Old Testament was morally neutral; amoral. This image of God, from the prism of the mind, more than likely came from a projection of natural instinct. Nature can be sweet or brutal and may change tomorrow. The God was like nature and natural instinct and not moral choice. The ocean can bring food and beauty or a tide wave. The lion does not kill because of choice. This early perception of God tells me something about the prisms of their minds. It can still work today, if you use that prism. Jesus is no longer similar to a lion; king of the jungle, but rather he is the lamb of God. The lamb is not wild and dominant, but is gentile and domesticated. This tells me human instincts were no as natural by the time of Jesus, due to willpower and choice, but had become more domesticated; hybrid. We still need to eat and drink but we can do this to excess with human made things. Willpower and choice, had altered the old instincts, so now willpower and choice needed to be used to optimize the instinct; hybrid; choose love. At the time of Jesus, doctrines of man, became a problem. This is where the leaders of the people would make up law, in the name of God, while making themselves exempt or with the intent to gain/consolidate power and advantage. Sort of like they do in Washington. If natural instinct was still in affect, this would be true to nature; human nature. But this was no longer the case, since natural instinct was corrupt; hybrid. A new image of God had to appear to that made a less corrupt hybrid. .
This is what i mean. Perception of god evolving is our own evolution. God as a detached being has no relevance itself as it does not affect our lives or step into fix anything. We must do it, therefore we must evolve. This is what jesus christ was saying. Faith without works is dead and big daddy in the sky isnt or cant do shit. We must and correct ourselves and grow. The magical formula is within us and possibly limited by some laws of the universe in what we may become or be able to know. We probably cant know all or be all but have a glimpse. The compassion that drives missionary work, the doctor who heals the sick, the good samaritan who stops to help change your tire etc. How can god express itself good, bad or indifferent except through us? It cant. Furthermore, even if there was a god, it may also be evolving if its a'living' entity even beyond our grasp of understanding.
Then the purpose of humans is a means for God to express hisself... but what is the purpose of God.???
why do religions say God must be worshipped, how do men know this? ...or should the question be a new thread? Alex
Men don't know this or anything else regarding the specifics brought to us by religion. I agree with the concept posted by Birch above. It does away with the need to believe or not believe. There is no need for "faith". There is nothing to disagree with if the concept of God is just that which is good in Man. Man at his best so to speak. Call that the God in each one of us and there is nothing to worship, fight for or against, just an acknowledgement that our more noble aspects are God. Nothing needs to exist apart from that.
I see your point but why identify any thing as God. This seems a sneaky way to say there is some sort of God and you can think about it whichever way you like. I don't believe there is a God so why should I take a fall back position that its nothing more than the good in me. It seems a very misleading approach and certainly a long way from being honest and realistic. We are asked if God does evolve, and this shifts to man evolves in his understanding of God but we are left with God. This seems like cresting something from nothing then using statements that flow from there to say the original nothing is something and that we can then interpret the nothing to fit any view we form so long as we treat our created nothing as something. Seems like a trick of illusion, now we don't see it, now we do, now we hide it where ever you want to look. I am sorry I have no axe to grind but I can't find where the nothing becomes something.I suppose you have to believe there is something rather than believe there is nothing. I can't believe in stuff that is just made up by folk from centuries ago ruled by superstition. I guess religion has its social benefits but if we are to believe should we not have something tangible and real to use as foundation and not just made up stuff. Alex
I agree with you in my personal views. There is no evidence for God. Since so many seem wired for such a belief and seem to feel a void in their life without some such belief an evolved way to look at it (rather than the traditional way) seems to be to just regard the concept of God as the good that is in us and then call it a day. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I don't personally think or talk this way. I see no evidence for God and therefore treat the whole subject the way I treat every other subject for which I see no evidence.
