Pericles,
That you prefer not to have an incarnation of the character you aspire to, leaves you without a model and teachable vision. God is incarnate in human character.

That you constantly prefer to paint god for me as a warring vicious ogre, is not my vision of God, in whose pure character we were designed.

Philo,

<<Do you have a vision of a character to which you; and you would hope your children aspire?>>

Sorry, I still don’t know why the “middle man” (as Pericles has put it) needs to be there.

You claim that we should/must “have an incarnation of the character [we] aspire to”, but you can’t seem to justify why this incarnation is absolutely essential.

But do I have any such character? Not any one particular one. I see good in many different people and sometimes the good I see inspires me to do the same if it’s in an area that I feel I’m lacking.

Having and an incarnation of a character is one thing, but to convince your children that this character is real and train them to believe, not only without evidence, but in the face of evidence to the contrary, is wrong in my books. So too is treating/teaching children as though they need the carrot-and-stick (Heaven and Hell) method.

I think a lot more of people in general than that.

Speaking of which, one aspect you’ve conveniently missed here is the 'original sin' aspect. Oh sure, it’s usually sugar-coated with talk of being special to Jesus ‘n’ all that, but no one can use the Christian form of the carrot-and-stick method of moral guidance without at least implicitly making their child feel as though they're filthy scum worthy of eternal torment and in need - yet undeserving - of god’s grace.

Just ask runner.

Another point is that this incarnated character can be whatever we want it to be - particularly if we use the Bible as a starting point. Why, I could raise a bunch of children that would make the Phelps children blush so long as I base my incarnated character of the right parts of the Bible. Every Christian builds their own slightly unique and customized version of god while finding Bible passages to support it.

It begs the question though: How can so many people have a personal relationship with god and yet disagree so often in regards to what he actually wants?

Nope Still not quite there, Philo.

>>That you prefer not to have an incarnation of the character you aspire to, leaves you without a model...<<

Only in the sense that a bunch of other people have already given some shape your "model". But realistically, absolutely any model you or I choose will have some jagged edges, some faults that you would need to either gloss over, or explain away.

As indeed you have done, with your own vision of your Christian God.

>>...and teachable vision.<<

No teachable vision? Certainly I have.

In fact, I'm in exactly the same situation as yourself. You have gussied up the image of your own God, in order to arrive at the Platonic Ideal. I can refer to the same virtues and characteristics, without the additional burden of explaining i) why you need to ignore the nasty bits and ii) why I chose that particular religious role model, over the multiplicity on offer.

>>That you constantly prefer to paint god for me as a warring vicious ogre, is not my vision of God, in whose pure character we were designed<<

Hey, hold on there.

I didn't write all that stuff in the Bible about God's wrathful vengeance.

Nor was it I who insisted that Jesus was in fact "one-and-the-same" with God, along with the Holy Ghost.

If the three are indeed "one", then you can't really get away with just picking the one of the trio example, without explaining away the actions, threats of violence and destruction etc. of one of the other two.

Just where the Holy Ghost fits, I haven't a clue.

Pericles,
God is spirit, and man is designed in the expression of that Spirit. God is not a physical entity. The Holy Spirit is the character and image of God that is manifest to and through the person living in the image of God. From the Holy Spirit we gain assurance, conviction, understanding of what attitude and action is like Christ.

The Old Testament is how God was revealed previously to Israel in their history. The New Testament states; that today that God is fully revealed in Christ, and the message is to all persons. For character and morality we are to follow Christ.

That doesn't solve the "if I'm talking to one, I'm talking to all three" position, does it Philo.

Or, more appropriately, the "who am I listening to right now" problem.

>>The New Testament states; that today that God is fully revealed in Christ, and the message is to all persons. For character and morality we are to follow Christ.<<

But is it, or is it not exactly the same God who appears in the Old Testament? If it is a different God, or the same God but in a different guise, which one should you believe in?

Obviously, you'd choose the one with the "nice guy" image.

But how does that decision differ, in any principle or detail, from an individual making his own ethical and behavioural choices, without the need to decide upon a specific "someone else" to make those choices for him?

Pericles,
The human mind is part of the created universe and reflects the mind behind the created universe. It is the best gauge we have of creative intelligence and design and moral and ethical behaviour in the universe. The history of the man Christ Jesus has demonstrated that the best image of God incarnate is found in him. God is not three persons - God is one spirit. That spirit is found in Christ Jesus.

That you prefer to have no God is your choice there is no absolute moral standard, no intelligent purpose or design in the universe. That some propose God is violent and vengeful may come from their view of life as warriers and their reactive natural instincts. That others see the human mind is just the result of pure evolutionary chance.

I prefer to have demonstrated values in character we can admire and emulate. One who by his actions to bring human unity can demonstrate forgiveness and grace even to enemies and to his detractors and enemies.