• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What of God is manifest in us?

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Romans 1:19

because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.


I can show scripture from different religions that say essentially the same. My query is what is manifest in us that is of God and that has been revealed to all, including the disbelievers?

How believers and disbelievers understand Romans 1:19?

...
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Romans 1:19

because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.


I can show scripture from different religions that say essentially the same. My query is what is manifest in us that is of God and that has been revealed to all, including the disbelievers?

How believers and disbelievers understand Romans 1:19?

...

This scripture, context, and definition doesn't apply to anyone who does not accept and know that it is true to them. Many religions, religious, and other people regardless severely disagree.

My question is why can't scripture be true for its own sake without needing to find a thread of simairity and unity from other religious truths that are against or disagree with it?
 
Last edited:

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Romans 1:19

because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.


I can show scripture from different religions that say essentially the same. My query is what is manifest in us that is of God and that has been revealed to all, including the disbelievers?

How believers and disbelievers understand Romans 1:19?

...
loving spirit = pure consciousness = compassionate mind


???????
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
@atanu ,

If you don't mind, I'll ignore the OP because it doesn't apply to me.

However, I would still like to respectfully answer your question without it.

You asked: "What of God is manifest in us?"

My submission/answer is: Everything and Nothing.

If the God in your question is the Abrahamic G-d, then I would refer you to Genesis 1:27 where the masculine component represents "Everything" and the feminine symbolizes "Nothing".

If the God in your question is Brahman, then my submission/answer is the same based purely on the definition ( as I understand it) of Brahman in Hinduism.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
loving spirit = pure consciousness = compassionate mind


???????
It seems to me that your answer is incomplete. The infinite G-d of Abraham manifests more than loving spirit. And so does Brahman.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
It seems to me that your answer is incomplete. The infinite G-d of Abraham manifests more than loving spirit. And so does Brahman.
nope,

what do you think is being describe as pure and brahman? only love is pure. there is no anthropomorphic being somewhere out there working their magic.

only love is perfect is perfect per proverbs


some nde's have described their otherworldly experience as this all pervading loving energy.


the mystery is love. the infinite is unfathomable; so love is.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
only love is pure
no. Only Truth is pure. Love can be pure or impure in an infinite number of ways.
only love is perfect is perfect per proverbs
please cite the verse?

I'm guessing you won't find the word "only" in it. Nor will it be implied by context.

Your claims about Love are true but incomplete. It's a consistent pattern that I've noticed. Incomplete truth is even more venomous than a simple lie.
 
Last edited:

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
the mystery is love. the infinite is unfathomable; so love is.
Agreed. But your statement is incomplete.

Love is not the *only* mystery. It is only one of a whole host of mysteries.
 

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain
Staff member
Premium Member
Romans 1:19

because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.


I can show scripture from different religions that say essentially the same. My query is what is manifest in us that is of God and that has been revealed to all, including the disbelievers?

How believers and disbelievers understand Romans 1:19?

...
When the verse says "what may be known of God is manifest" it is speaking of levels of revelation which occur over time. I must digress a little to fix the context of the verse, and you'd benefit from reconsidering this. Its not saying what you seem to have been told.

The letter called Romans is Christian, which means it assumes a creation other than what we see -- nonphysical. Creation can be internal, social and political. Also try to adopt the following understanding of what he means by 'Wrath': When he says "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven," first understand that heaven is not exactly a place in the sense that you and I think of a place and secondly to him wrath is purification not destruction.

Wrath is making earth more like heaven a little at a time. Originally this is Jewish and about their stuff, but its been adopted by Christians in these writings. To the writer, heaven is where perfection is as opposed to Earth, so the wrath revealed from heaven is positive. It is a positive thing and is not supposed to be punishment , and its not supposed to give you scary feelings. To understand this you'll need to ignore the centuries of hellfire preaching by various moochers and just try to ignore their slander. Wrath is purification to the writer. Heaven is to the writer a sort of ideal. The heading added in the NIV and some other translations is also confusing, because it asserts that this is wrath against all of humanity, confusing the context of the verses therein and suggesting its a punishment. Its almost certain that the writer is referring to the times in canon describing stories of the people of God (the Jews to this writer) taken captive to other countries in order to purify them, and this occurs in cycles of purification as if silver is being refined through multiple sessions in a furnace.

'Wrath' and 'Fire' are part of the language that Jewish prophets use which the NT writers are familiar with and allude to freely without telling you explicitly. Don't take the view that this means God wants to burn everyone into ash. Instead look at it as the fire of the famous burning bush, which burns and is not consumed. Its not consumed implying it is perfect. The concept of wrath is purification rather than destruction. It is iniquity which destroys -- not wrath. Complete destruction comes from iniquity, however purification/judgment/wrath destroys that iniquity to 'Save' or 'Preserve' a people. In the Christian view of Judaism's history the next level of purification is revealed after a previous one level by level until an incorrupt state is finally reached. Rather than speaking of the destruction of the human race (as suggested by section heading) its talking about purification of people who are Christian. Period, and the verse of the next chapter helps support this.

The finality of that statement is upheld by the first sentence of the next chapter "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." (NIV Romans 2:1) Its specifically about purification in the community of Christ.

How believers and disbelievers understand Romans 1:19?
Returning from that digression to your question....
Given the above and that this early Christian writer is speaking in his own nadsat what does it mean when he says that "...What may be known of God is manifest and made plain from the creation of the world so they are without excuse...?" He's speaking about the cycles of revelation that come of which the Christian creation is the latest. You could read it as "Since the foundation of the Church such and such has been made obvious to Christians..." He is not speaking about a judgment or a destruction coming for all of humanity. Not.

Therefore absolutely a 'No' to your question.
 
Last edited:

epronovost

Well-Known Member
Romans 1:19

because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.


I can show scripture from different religions that say essentially the same. My query is what is manifest in us that is of God and that has been revealed to all, including the disbelievers?

How believers and disbelievers understand Romans 1:19?

...

Absolutely nothing. There is nothing mystical or divine, whatever that might be, in us. Romans 1:19 is just a "feel good" "you'll know it when you'll believe it" type of non-sense.
 

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain
Staff member
Premium Member
I can show scripture from different religions that say essentially the same. My query is what is manifest in us that is of God and that has been revealed to all, including the disbelievers?
I do not think Christianity is saying exactly the same thing. Rather, it acknowledges that that revelation of God doesn't come all at once to anyone.
 

February-Saturday

Devil Worshiper
Theism in general likely has origins in over-active agency detection and personification. It became the language for a lot of ancient wisdom, which would be lost to time as scriptural literalism took hold and the retelling of stories would dilute their origins.

Which is a way to say that "God" is merely an allegorical personification draped in psychological language. In chapters like this, God is a metaphor for reality, the universe, the root of all being, or however you want to put it. That's why God is manifest in all of us.

In my opinion, though, by the time Romans was canonized they probably no longer understood this facet of God, for the most part. Other early Christians, like the Gnostics, did. The understanding was never lost. It's just been constantly distorted. That's why you see the same (or very similar) attributes recur, and later mystics (like the Rosicrucians or the Sufis) often clean up the distorted texts.

This is probably one of the most truly Godly verses in the New Testament, I think you have a good eye to hone in on it.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
... Love, forgiveness, kindness, and generosity. Because these produce the greatest good, while their antitheses produce the greatest evil (needless suffering and death).
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
The grandeur of the creator can be shown in the creation; the same goes for us directly.
That is, in essence, totally meaningless.

If you wish to make such a statement meaningful, you first need to describe "what that creation is," followed by "what makes it grand," and then follow that up with your demonstration that it was created so -- rather than just is.

You have a lot of work ahead of you.

But of course, most people would just prefer to make grand, unverifiable statements such as you did. It's a lot easier -- andsince you've provided no date, who can prove you wrong?


However, let's see what we can do with another such grand statement: this one taken from a book called "The Food of France" by NY Times writer Waverley Root, which he wrote in 1958. At one point, he makes the claim (and I am sadly paraphrasing, as I don't have the book in front of me), that "there are those who say anyone who would add lobster to bouillabaisse would poison wells, while others claim that anyone who would leave lobster out, would starve their grandmothers."

Please prove one or the other of those true. And I ask this as a lover of bouillabaisse, especially sitting on the edge of the Mediterranean waiting for the boats of fresh fish to arrive...
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
That is, in essence, totally meaningless.

If you wish to make such a statement meaningful, you first need to describe "what that creation is," followed by "what makes it grand," and then follow that up with your demonstration that it was created so -- rather than just is.

You have a lot of work ahead of you.

But of course, most people would just prefer to make grand, unverifiable statements such as you did. It's a lot easier -- andsince you've provided no date, who can prove you wrong?


However, let's see what we can do with another such grand statement: this one taken from a book called "The Food of France" by NY Times writer Waverley Root, which he wrote in 1958. At one point, he makes the claim (and I am sadly paraphrasing, as I don't have the book in front of me), that "there are those who say anyone who would add lobster to bouillabaisse would poison wells, while others claim that anyone who would leave lobster out, would starve their grandmothers."

Please prove one or the other of those true. And I ask this as a lover of bouillabaisse, especially sitting on the edge of the Mediterranean waiting for the boats of fresh fish to arrive...
Sorry dude but I see you as a hopeless dummy.
 
Top