Protestantism

» pink101 - Two Masters?

In response to Controversial posted by paper_turtle:
.
I am so happy that you brought in your perspective on this curiosity.
.
I think you have put our focus on the issue and squarely. And, it's a double header.
.
First, the idea that people have all kinds of gods and, second, the idea that to have a god means to have a master.
.
Which of those two points is the more important? Or, in a significant way, are they both the same game?
.
We cannot serve two masters? Two Masters
.
Why does a bride groom have to be a master? Would you allow your spouse to be the master of your life?
.
That's the point fo my original question. Why can God have as many one on one relationships as He likes; but, we can only have one--Him?
.
Does and intimate one on one relationship automatically make one of the parties to be a master over the other?
.
Here is what seems to be THE question. Why does God have to be your master? Why can't He be the one who leads and helps you in the development of YOUR fullest potential? Isn't that what the word, husbandry, connotes?
.

-- posted by pink101

» paper_turtle - Two Masters?

In response to Two Masters? posted by pink101:

Why does a bride groom have to be a master? Would you allow your spouse to be the master of your life?
.
That's the point fo my original question. Why can God have as many one on one relationships as He likes; but, we can only have one--Him?
.
Does and intimate one on one relationship automatically make one of the parties to be a master over the other?
.
Here is what seems to be THE question. Why does God have to be your master? Why can't He be the one who leads and helps you in the development of YOUR fullest potential? Isn't that what the word, husbandry, connotes?
.
.
Within **any** one-on-one relationship there is *always* give and take. Or, there needs to be if the relationship is to be peaceful, open, and mutually rewarding to each other. Even if one of the persons is in a position of authority (parent, teacher, boss), there is still give and take. Without it there is no actual relating, but only stimulus and response.

Within a relationship sometimes one person leads and the other person follows. We negotiate. We compromise. We accede to the wishes of the other. We do what we know will please him/her. We do these things not because we "have" to but because we want to (we freely choose to), because we value the person and the relationship. This does not make one person master over the other.

And, within peaceful and long-lasting realtionships, both parties agree to follow the rules of common courtesy, and to respect each other and treat each other kindly.

Within our own being we choose one thing or another as our guide. Our perceptions, emotions, and actions are informed by whatever it is we choose as our guide. That's what I think of in relation to that Biblical verse about serving two masters.

In one way or another, something is the master of our lives. It might be ourselves, or our peers, or the belief system with which we identify. If it is ourselves, it can either be our highest self, or the egoic mind. Whatever it is, we choose to allow this thing to to have mastery over our existence in some way.

'I am free do do anything,' you say. Yes, but not everything is for my good. No doubt I an free to do anything, but I for one will not let anything make free with me. (1 Corinthians 6:12)

Paul is saying something very radical here, I believe. We are free to do whatever is good for us--in mind, body, and spirit. This requires self-mastery, a constructive and loving relationship with oneself.

peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» Migisi - Controversial

In response to Controversial posted by paper_turtle:
.
On the other hand, one who studies other faiths with an eye to learning more about his/her own faith, can follow one God better.
.
Would you expand on this idea?

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Amen, PT

In response to Controversial posted by paper_turtle:

A person can't have two priorities to which he devotes equal time, energy, and attention. The Bible says you can't serve two masters--but its true whether or not you read the Bible. If your mind/heart/spirit is divided (in conflict) you can't really accomplish much--except for becoming bitter, hateful, frustrated, neurotic, (and, eventually, downright insane).

Well said. Couldn't have put it better myself!

» pink101 - The Creator

.
"Making Room for the Creator
.
"If you build a desire for the Creator, He will reveal Himself in it. The wisdom of Kabbalah explains how
.
"'If you build it, he will come.' This whisper from beyond the grave in the 1989 film, Field of Dreams, led Kevin Costner's character to rearrange his life so he could build a baseball diamond. By doing so, he enabled deceased baseball players to miraculously appear and play a game of baseball that they had not had a chance to play during their lives. But only Costner's character could see the baseball players; he was the only one who could interact with them.
.
"Somewhat similarly, Kabbalists state that if we build a place for the Creator, He will emerge in this place and fulfill it. But only the person who builds this place will be able to feel Him and interact with Him."
.
Here's the link where more can be read: http://www.kabtoday.com/epaper_eng/conte...

-- posted by pink101

» redback - Controversial

In response to Controversial posted by Migisi:

Because the Bible God is a jealous god.

And if there is in fact no other God, how is this jealousy expended?

I'm underwhelmed with the concept that we take on many gods to worship in our own way. I better understand the concept of a "false" god. A hedonistic, godless way of life seems to me to be just that. Can god be replaced with something we think has god-like features so that we create another god...or do we simply delude ourselves and where does the delusion end?

I know this analogy seems bizarre but I was thinking about my garden shed and what god-like creatures lurk there. Ponder the wheelbarrow and rake. I follow (push) the wheelbarrow but the rake follows me (is pulled) but not both at the same time and only for a set purpose. They don't seem to have a universal god-like aura and rust with improper use.

It seems to me all man-made gods suffer the same fate so don't deserve the 110% commitment.

-- posted by redback

» Migisi - Controversial

In response to Controversial posted by redback:
.
And if there is in fact no other God, how is this jealousy expended?
.
Seems to me that if there indeed was/is no other god, God would know that, and have no valid reason to be jealous??
.
How does a god 'expend' its jealousy? From reading the Bible and other sacred text narrations, it's expended the same destructive way a human expresses jealousy.
.
It seems to me all man-made gods suffer the same fate so don't deserve the 110% commitment.
.
Personally, I think all gods are man-made - since the concept of god originates(ed) from within the human mind.
.
The rake rusts and falls apart over time. It's only replaced IF the man still NEEDS a rake. By then, he may have given up gardening.

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Superficial

In response to Controversial posted by Migisi:

I don't mean this to be offensive, but the idea that God's jealousy is invalid or inexplicable because there were (in fact) "no other gods" is a shallow and superficial understanding of the First Commandment.

God is not acknowledging the existence of other divine entities. He is acknowledging the choice that humans have to place their affections on other things - to make other things (be they people, nature, possessions, idols, etc.) "gods" to them.

» Brian Tubbs - God as Being

If you really want to have a discussion about God's "Being," then we need to understand that there are two ultimate understandings of God.

Either God created the human race....OR...the human race created God.

I realize I'm in the minority (in terms of the active discussion board participants here - not the readers, which comprise a much larger group), but I believe the former. God created the human race. As such, His "Being" and reality is absolute and transcendent - regardless of whether we believe in Him or not.

» pink101 - Superficial

In response to Superficial posted by BrianTubbs:

.
[God] is acknowledging the choice that humans have to place their affections on other things - to make other things (be they people, nature, possessions, idols, etc.) "gods" to them.
.
Like the God of Capitalism for example, right?
.

-- posted by pink101