I was thinking about this the other day and would appreciate if people could weigh in without bickering because I think I'm going to be doing research on this. So anything anyone could contribute would be appreciated.


I was thinking about the way in which when someone discussing other mythologies, (Like Joseph Campbell discussing Native American mythologies, or someone discussing Greek mythologies) will refer to the stories as though the Gods are pretty much the main characters.


In other words you get the story of the GOD as the main character in the story and the people are supporting roles.

Examples here in Native American Creation myths

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie...2/creation.html

Greek Creation myths

http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths_16.html




Now if you notice, although God in the Hebrew Scriptures, (OT) is a character, we tend to read Genesis for example or the story of Noah, or the Story of Moses, as if the focus of the story is MANKIND. As though the moral tale, is the story of the MEN or WOMEN in the story.


So for example we read the story of Genesis as if God is almost a preamble, and the meat of the story is Adam and Eve's disobedience and fall.


But, what if the point of the story is not this, but rather the story of what happens when one doesn't forgive? What if the story that is supposed to be our moral tale, is the story of what happens to God when he chooses not to forgive Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, and seeks instead to punish them?

The entire story of the OT can be read as a tale of a God that would not forgive and his experiences that show that without forgiveness one's journey will be hard. The moral tale is that God should have forgiven Adam and Eve and all would have been easier.

God tries to force his people to obey but they don't, time and time again in the bible he tries punish them or make them listen and it never works. Jesus on the cross finally learns the lesson as he comes down to earth as man and he says "Forgive them father they know not what they do!" Luke 23:24


What if the point of the bible is not to watch the cautionary stories that happen to mankind but to watch the journey of a God who learns the importance of forgiveness?

It is said that we are created in God's image. What if the character, whose journey we are supposed to learn from is GOD?



What say you?

I say you have seen a revelation of some sorts .

I don't know, I just see more personification of god here, as if attributing human values to storm and sea.

The original poster mentioned Joseph Campbell in passing. Campbell held the view that the gods, all of them, including God, are from us. This is not the trite "people just made this up," but rather that god stories are made by us, for us, because they speak to us of things we know are true.

When I first read the original post this morning, I couldn't help but think that Joe would flash truethat an approving smile from wherever his soul now resides.

Learning form God's journey? This is a refreshing viewpoint. I must admit, I have not met very many Christians that express a compassionate view towards God. ( I've heard some express it towards the sacrifice on the cross but they make me wonder if it's a "bandwagon" mentality especially after Mel Gibson's "Passion" movie. )

I agree with you that, yes, there is a great lesson to be learned from God's standpoint. I think maybe Christians are afraid to put themselves in His shoes.

I like the idea, True, and I've heard similar analyses before. The issue I can see with this is the Christian God is supposedly omniscient. How can He learn anything if this is the case?

I think this is one point that truethat is making. I believe it's the personification of God that God wants us to see. In agreement with the fact that we are made in His image, God experiences emotion and this is necessary in order for him to allow forgiveness.

Truethat also exemplifies one of the main themes of the bible from a refreshing perspective. The theme being the message of forgiveness. Through the hundreds of years the bible was written, the thread of forgiveness points to the main message, which is the Jesus story. We see it through the prophesies fulfilled, Jesus's life and the sacrifice itself. Even the personality of God reflects this. It's not just the process of mankind's journey but also God's reactions to our misgivings that weaves this story of love and forgiveness.

I think our , (humans) definition of omniscience is finite. God is described to us in this way because it is the best word chosen for which we can understand. (I'm no scholar but I would be interested to know what word/meaning was used in the original scriptures )

God's idea of omniscience most likely has a limitless meaning of which we have no clear cut definition for. Therefore the inspired writers may have chosen to use this word if only to keep the message simple.

I could see where it would be easy to see God's reactions to our misgivings as "Him trying different things to redirect us". But then again, aren't we his creation? I could see where it could also have been a learning process for Him but of course on a much grander scale and higher level than our finite minds can readily understand.

Fair enough. I see omniscience with respect to God as Him having all knowledge of everything but, if that's finite, so be it.

I'm doing my graduate thesis on the topic of forgiveness. So this is what brought me to this idea in the first place.

I'm looking through the texts for examples of "forgiveness" in the bible OT and NT and I'm noticing that most of the stories are of man forgiving other man.

Even if you notice with story of Cain and Abel.

What if the story of Cain and Abel was another test to see if God would forgive Cain for murdering his brother. But once again God didn't forgive him but marked him for life?

It is said that not forgiving someone is like taking poison and expecting the other person to die.

I've spoken with a woman named Eva Kor who is going to work with me a little on the thesis and topic of forgiveness.

Here's a bit of her story
http://www.theforgivenessproject.com/stories/evakor


But the concept of forgiveness is a fascinating part of the human condition. What does it mean?

This is the problem, True, with trying to ascribe human traits, such as forgiveness, to an entity which is completely beyond our comprehension. The Christian fall-back to this is "It is God's unfathomable plan" and that seems the only way to square the behaviour of God with how He apparently treats His creation.

Leonardo you are still missing the point. You are still assessing the biblical stories as if the books are stories about MAN and mankind's moral stories.


I am suggesting that the stories are parables about forgiveness. The stories of Genesis are the stories of a God who wouldn't forgive. It is a lesson in forgiveness where the main character is God and it shows his path to learning that forgiveness is his own freedom.

The characters of Adam or Moses, or David or Cain are all just minor characters. GOD is the main character. His lesson is our lesson.

Human condition? I don't know. Maybe it isn't a part of our condition. It seems to me that forgiveness is an imposition on us. It can often be a struggle. I think we rise above ourselves when we forgive. For me it is a very personal practice. I believe it's looking beyond the person and the cause of harm they imposed. It's looking at the bigger picture and knowing we all are part of the process of inward and outer growth, allowing ones' self to be part of it, and maybe , for some, knowing God has something greater in mind for all involved.

Experiencing both the divine and healing nature of forgiveness are the fruits of its' endeavor.

Sorry, I meant "omniscient" and not "omniscience" (as in omnipotent). Probably not a huge difference. My TYPO.

So...
What are you saying? That God's omniscience is finite or your perception of it is finite?

Even if you consider the bible to be fable and parable, the character of God is an omnipotent, omniscient (and all the other omni's) being. How can such a being learn what He already knows???

That is my point. I think you could do what you are attempting with your treatment of the bible, but you have to rewrite the God character to be flawed and not perfect. Then you are not really representing the bible, nor the biblical God, in your thesis, are you?

No, my point was that God's omniscience is infinite, therefore He cannot learn forgiveness as True is attempting to make Him, because He already knows it.

But he doesn't. If you look in Genesis you see that God does not forgive in many instances that he could. He calls himself a vengeful God and a jealous God. He punishes over and over again.

Only when he comes to earth as a man does he learn about forgiveness in a sublime way.


Letting someone away with something is not at all the same as forgiveness.

Well I'm representing the biblical God as he is written. So in that regard yes I am representing the biblical God and the bible.

What I'm not representing is the Christian interpretation of this God.

In other words if the Judeo Christian Muslim doctrine has been to read Genesis as a morality tale about man and his disobedience, then this is just one way of reading the text.

For the story of God has been there all along. His actions have been written and described all along. That JCM's chose to regulate God to a supporting role, rather than having the story be about God, when it clearly is about God, then its their loss.

I'm not rewriting anything. Just rereading it.

Then you suggest recasting the biblical God as a flawed, imperfect being then, rather than the omni-everything, perfect being He is in Christian theology? Personally I have no issue with that, I just assumed you wanted to write your thesis on the Christian God.

Would Christians say this behaviour of God is not unforgiving, nor vengeful, but part of His plan and the actions of humans against each other is down to Him giving us free-will, rather than any oversight on His part?

I'm not trying to knock your attempt to portray the bible as parable, I think it's worthy. I'm trying to see possible problems with the premise, that's all. If you can find your way past all this and still not change the characters as written then I hope your thesis is successful, True.

Just read your last post. Are you stopping your analysis at the end of the OT then? Otherwise I foresee issues with the introduction of Jesus and the concept of the Christ being God. In the NT God's portrayal as the perfect being leaves no scope for his imperfection in the OT.

Curious, it would be helpful if you could point out where it says the God is omniscient in the bible. I'm going to check it out myself. But a God saying I am a jealous God when jealousy and pride are some of the additional attributes given to God and are considered capital vices?

Is it biblically written these things you are saying? Or are they interpretations?

Found this


http://www.parentcompany.com/awareness_of_god/aog12.htm


Now to say that God knows all things about MAN is not the same as saying God knows all things about himself is it?


Another interesting article
http://www.founders.org/FJ46/article1_fr.html

which states




I mean I understand what you are saying Leonardo but you seem to be playing with the definitions here.

Unless it STATES these things in the bible, as I said, I am not changing the biblical interpretation of God but instead the RELIGIOUS application of God.

Difference, difference.

1 Samuel 2



There are other passages, but they are more interpretive...

1 Sam. 16:7; Acts 1:24; 15:8; Rom. 8:27; 1 Cor. 3:20; 1 Ch. 28:9; Matt. 6:4, 18; Heb. 4:13; Matt. 6:32; Matt. 10:29; Acts 2:23; Matt. 24:36

source

Sorry but that just says he's of knowledge. There is nothing in the bible that says God is omniscient.

There are only interpretation of phrases to make it so.


If I for example am a child and I go to school and learn about Science, to me the science teacher knows all there is to know about science. They are the expert.

But that doesn't mean that they truly know all things, that means simply they know all the things that I can comprehend.

To a child of science, quantum physics is off the radar, and the Science teacher probably doesn't know that.

Now I know my example is of a person and a person. But where does it clearly state that God is omniscient.

Where is it set up clearly to explain this, not throw away catch phrases of devoted worshipers.

If the child in my example says "My science teacher knows everything there is to know about Science" they are not a valid assessor. Only God saying I AM Omniscient would prove it to me.

In addition I'd like to see him say it in the Old Testament because my interpretation states that God was improved by his understanding of forgiveness.

True, like many modern words, omniscience did not exist back when the bible was written. Your argument based on syntax doesn't take into account the language that was available to the authors nor the context in which they put this language down on paper (or papyrus).

If you wish to view the bible, and the biblical God, with an unbiased eye you must abandon your modern thinking and imagine the historical context of the times in which all this was created.

I understand that but once again you missed my point. Where does God say I am omniscient in any sort of syntax?

And if the word didn't exist then how can you ascribe this to God BIBLICALLY if it didn't exist as a concept when the bible was written?

That's like me saying God is "internet savvy", it says so in the bible.
If it mattered that much God would have found a way to say it. The fact that he doesn't clearly shows that it seems to matter to people much more than it mattered to him.

Actually you are the one that needs to do that because the concept of Omniscience didn't exist when the bible was written so you are trying to lay a modern concept on this when it doesn't fit.

Well, I would have thought that a "God of Knowledge" would qualify as an ancient version of omniscience. Perhaps I'm wrong, but perhaps you need to look at the historical context of those words. Look at other deities who were also ascribed this epithet and review their apparent ability vis-a-vis omniscience.

I'm talking biblical text, not interpretation

For example


Genesis 6:6 states





If God is omniscient based on your description of this, how would he repent making mankind? Its impossible? If he is omniscient he would have known how it turned out.

If he says HIMSELF that he regrets his decision that its clear that God felt he had made a mistake. So I'm not attributing anything to God that he has not already in his own words.

I believe it is more likely that our definition of what we believe God's omnipotence is, doesn't reach His reality of it. Do you think it's possible that there are so many variables to His omnipotence that what you are mistaking for His inability to learn could be a misperception? Maybe God's initiation of his "forgiveness plan" is a creation he deemed necessary at the time. Throughout the ages, he had been "fine tuning" our destiny and forgiveness is a tool he invented out of love for us. Who can say it wasn't a learning process?

As a Christian, I must admit, the concept of God learning something new seems contradictory to my beliefs but I must remain open minded. I have to realize he is much wiser than me and with Him all things are possible. Especially things that are beyond my comfort zone of knowledge.

It's either this, or I'm way off base and God and a host of angels are laughing at me right now.

True, I'm not defending the biblical interpretation of God. However, if you wish to write that God is imperfect, you'll have to show He is first!!!

That passage could be interpreted as being that God knew all the choices of Man, but because He had given Mankind free-will He could only watch while Man made the wrong choice. The passage does not imply ignorance or a mistake...or it can be interpreted that way, at least, and that interpretation is as correct as the one you are putting on it.

You have to show God's imperfection in a way that cannot be misinterpreted.

Good luck!

FF,

I am putting no interpretation on omniscience, simply allowing that trait to be God's. You are interpreting it. How can omniscience (not omnipotence) imply that the omniscient being cannot know anything?

Excellent Point! Who are we to impose on God a limitation?

Now you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. There is no question that regardless of what God's plan potential was, he felt that HE had made a mistake.

So its dead on what FF is saying. You say that God is perfect and yet you place limits on his character. To me God never says he is FINITE he says he is Infinite which means all possibilites are possible for God, including the possibility of deciding to withhold forgiveness to see how it would pan out.

The entire story could be God's experiment with not forgiving his creature. He creates us and gives us everything except forgiveness and allows it to unfold, to show that withholding forgiveness leads to eternal suffering.

It is only with forgiveness that mankind can achieve his full potential.

True, I am opposing your viewpoint to show you how difficult it will be to show what you intend in your thesis. If you can't see that then I'm sorry I tried to help.

Please, no more insults about 'talking out of both sides of my mouth'. I can take a side in a debate without having any vested interest in proving that side.

You seem awfully certain about a book that was written 2,000 years ago, in a language that has been translated into different versions throughout those intervening years - often via one or more intermediary language. Did you look upon the interpretation I wrote dispassionately, or were you incensed and so biased to not accept the possibility that the interpretation was as valid as your own?



Let's look at this closely, shall we???

Here is the ONLY passage in the bible (KJV) where the word infinite is associated with God.

Psalms 147



So, his understanding is infinite...sounds like omniscience to me, wouldn't you say?

Doesn't say He is infinite though, does it? You can check if you like.

quite simply, a person has no future, because of free will, it can not be predicted, even if you know and see everything,
there is nothing to see in his future, because he hasn't decided it yet

True, True...I would add to this experiment theory that God created us because he was lonely. He just wanted to be loved by his creation. We couldn't love him out of the selfishness of our hearts so he implemented his "forgiveness plan" which was the ultimate sacrifice.

He gave us two lessons:

1) Life without forgiveness

2)Life with forgiveness

Ok so you are flipping back and forth in the Bible Leonardo and suggesting that what it says in PSALMS is what it means in Genesis.

Not true.


In the book of Genesis the last part of the book deals with the concept of Forgiveness.

If you read the book of Genesis (which is what I was alluding to in the beginning when I stated the Creation Myths) you will see that all throughout Genesis it contradicts BIBLICALLY everything you are saying.

You are of course entitled to your opinion but when you suggest that I'm not falling back on Biblical canon when YOU are the one who is side stepping the actual words in the bible, I'm going to argue that point.

Based on what it says in Genesis God has regret. You just dismiss this like it doesn't matter and jump all the way down to Psalms as if that erases what God says in Genesis.

God says he repented making mankind. It grieved his heart. So how can you sit here and continue to argue that God doesn't experience a form of learning or development in the bible from a CANON point of view????

You are placing limits on God, just as Frank is saying.

Where does it say that God can not learn or change his mind? Because your INTERPRETATION of God requires him to be perfect, you focus only on the lessons in the bible that appear in the parables of man.

Whereas I suggest that God, who made man in his image, requires us to pay attention to the parables regarding him as well.






Exactly!

Leo, Do you think that in God's all knowing omnipotence that he can also be all learning?
Just curious.

True,

You were the one who stressed that the WORD had to be found in the bible for it to be useful as a description for God. You refused to accept 'omniscience' on this basis. Are you now saying you accept 'infinite' even though it it only used to describe God's understanding, not His nature? Do you see how this is you picking and choosing what you want the bible to say?



Where does it say (specifically) that He does? Aren't you, by suggesting He has to learn, saying He is limited?

The bible was written by Man. While it is allegedly inspired by God, the words are Man's so how are we not to use those lessons. They are the only one's of which the meaning is clear, being written by Man about Man and not about some unfathomable being.

I never placed a limit on God, and if you had read truly the words I wrote you would see that.

Frank,

As I has suggested to True. Isn't believing that God has to learn limiting Him? I place no limits on Him, simply ascribe Him the omni-traits that Christianity believes Him to possess. When I say he cannot learn, I am not limiting Him because He already knows everything there is to know - past, present and future. How is that a limit?

It seems to me that God (in the OT) didn't give 'man' free-will...but humans exercised free-will
when they listened more to the 'serpent' than they did 'God'. God told them/us not to eat of the tree
of knowledge, but they/we went ahead and did it anyway....so God banished them/us. The consequencies
of exercising free-will and not doing as we were told brought not very nice consequencies.

Maybe we exercised free-will against the wishes of God and then had to suffer the consequences?




Maybe he wasn't that lonely.....he was maybe just one of a group....

*** Genesis 4:22....And the Lord God said, behold the man is become as one of us, to know good
and evil.***

There was (according to the OT) a PROBLEM with man because having used free-will and eaten of the
tree of knowledge of good and evil....

***Genesis 4:22..and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and
live forever...***

So God drove out the man. He wasn't very forgiving...it was as if his creation had 'gone off the rails'
and he was peeved because of the dangers posed by a knowledable man who could not be trusted
with the tree of life.

.......................................................................

I have enjoyed reading this topic, because it questions the perfection of a God who behaves
imperfectly. Maybe the God of the OT is a creator of sorts...but not in the same league as the
forces of life and creation that remain 'unknowable' to us in the physical body.

And perhaps this is why we were chucked out of the Garden of Eden...before we could get
our hands on the tree of life...because we're just not up to the task...perhaps the OT God/s has
not forgiven us or themselves for a flawed creation.


edit... to correct flawed grammar!!

Ah, but this is the one of many mysteries of God, now isn't it? As George Carlin once said, "Can God create a rock so big that he himself can't lift it?"

Ha!, but I digress....What I'm suggesting is: just because it isn't in the bible, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Yes, God is all knowing about His creation, but is it possible that through God's creation, He transpired something about Himself that was not yet in existence? (i.e. forgiveness) Maybe not so much "learning" on his part but more of an "evolving". I think TRUE's point was that we can learn through God's standpoint, albeit through his learning, him evolving or otherwise.

Actually it is the story of God, as he's the guy who goes around killing everyone or telling people to Kill, he's the schizophrenic vision

Whoop-de-do! God(?) has forgiven?

So Jesus is punished by his own dad for being a bad boy and then God(?) forgives? It's laughable!

The fact that Eve and then Adam was able to exercise free will proves that God had granted it to them.




Many Christians believe he was speaking with the Trinity. Others believe He was speaking to the angels, which is unlikely. The belief that he was speaking to his son since Jesus was with him before being born a man, is more likely. All explanations are worthy of exploration. He created us for one reason. To be loved by us. That sounds "lonely" enough for me.







This statement is contradictory. How can the "forces of life and creation that remain 'unknowable' to us in the physical body" not be in the same league as God when God was the one who created them?




ummmm, but we DID get our hands on the tree of life. This is what got us in trouble in the first place.



Actually He has granted us forgiveness. It is up to us to exercise our free will and accept it with repentance and obedience.

The point you are missing is that during the OT times when God withheld forgiveness, we made sacrifices unto Him out of love.
During the NT times, He supplied the ULTIMATE sacrifice for US out of love, thus providing our forgiveness.

So he's bipolar?

I think you need to read, understand, and accept the Bible before you make assertions that are blatanlty false about it. I suggest this due to your mention of this being used for research, and I garantee you will have a big backlash of criticism if you use the Bible the way you are describing.
The OT is made of 27 individual books. Thousands of stories, hundreds of prophecies, hundreds of poems, songs, and chants, and it is untrue that all these are directly referring to forgiveness...
Examples, Hannah, Debra, Elijah, Elisha, Enoch, Mordecai, Esther, Nehemiah, Micah, and the list goes on...

Good luck with your research... maybe consider researching the parts of the Bible OT and NT that dirrectly reference forgiveness and compare them to one another to form your stance on the bible and forgiveness.

You have this wrong... God is unchanging according to the Bible Hebrews 13:8 says God is "... the same yesterday, today, and forever." it is because of this that it is perfectly sensible that God would change His response to fit our changing attitudes. If He remains the same, then as He punishes sin, He also forgives sin and when humanity repents, His choice to punish responds with mercy. As RA Torrey says "His character remains ever the same, but His dealings with men change as they change from the position that is hateful to His unchanging hatred of sin, to one that is pleasing to His unchanging love of righteousness." "The very fact that God does not repent (change His mind), that He remains always the same in His attitude toward sin, makes it necessary that God would repent in His conduct (change His dealings with man) as they turn from sin to righteousness."

God responds to us for our sakes. It is a common misconception that after Ninevah responded to God sending Jonah, that everything stayed rosey. Later we learn that they returned to their previous wickedness, and God utterly destroyed the nation. He responded with mercy when they responded with repentance, but when they scorned His forgiveness and returned to their evil ways, He responded with punishment.

No Not at all. So you need to explain this better.

What I see is you stringing together piecemeal throughout the bible, statements that support what you want them to.

What I don't see you doing is reading Genesis from start to finish and seeing that the parable has a lot more to do with God dealing with his creation.

It's plain to see.


You don't leap out of Genesis to run down to Psalms or any other part of the bible for that matter, to justify the behavior of God in GENESIS.

Its simple reading comprehension.