Jump to content

Greatest I am

Senior Members
  • Posts

    288
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Greatest I am

  1. [What workes?] Exactly. Heaven and hell actually was dreamt up by somebody before Jesus, so I guess he can't really take credit for it. It was kind of a good idea, but do you really think God created Heaven and Hell just to satisfy someone in the Bible that hardly anyone can name from memory? I think you really need to get off the whole duality trip altogether because that is one of the things that does not work. (Correction: it still works, but its meaning/parameters have changed, so its hard to prop up any single one standard and relate it to the old standard.) I think the number of people in the world that are truly evil is really small, but that's subject to all kinds of semantics and interpretations and conditions, so I pretty much just stick to current secular law, because that's really all that matters. Who cares about what happened in the caveman era? Who cares about debating caveman politics?

     

     

    Only those that are presently being hurt by the cavemen.

     

    It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.

     

    They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Belief in fantasy is evil.

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHaClUCw4&feature=PlayList&p=5123864A5243470E&index=0&playnext=1

     

    They also do much harm to their own.

     

    African witches and Jesus

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9gXriVI&feature=related

     

    Jesus Camp 1of 9

     

     

    Promoting death to Gays.

     

     

     For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.

    Fight them when you can. It is your duty to your fellow man.

     

    Regards

    DL

     

     

     

     

     

    I'm glad to see you are still searching. You stated that you have been a atheist for some time and yet you continue to search for truth.

     

    In a world filled with so much dishonesty. Are you attempting to convert people to your truth?

     

    To have concluded that god does not exist would have taken you a lifetime of research, with all of the variations of religious belief.

     

    You stated that (religious groups cherry pick scripture and beliefs, that there is no universal Christian belief. How true, how many have died in the name of there faith.

     

    There are fundamentals that all religions agree on. There is a higher power that created all things,

     

    A mastermind of our reality. All knowledge of all things that will be. A reward for faith in him/her. And hope, for themselves and those that will come after them.

     

    You are compassionate about this subject. You have posted several threads on the subject of religion.

     

    I would say keep asking questions, keep searching for the answer to everything.

     

    (a·the·ist - unbeliever in God or deities), The definition suggests that the acknowledgment of a god or deities not to believe in. is an acknowledgment of a god or deity? Are you sure you’re an atheist?

     

    I did not say I was an atheist. I call myself a Gnostic Christian naturalist.

     

    The Godhead I know is just not a miracle working super absentee God.

     

    I try to learn more yes. The best way to learn is to teach.

     

    Let me give you my quick story.

     

     

    The Godhead I know in a nutshell.

     

    I was a skeptic till the age of 39.

     

    I then had an apotheosis and later branded myself a Gnostic Christian naturalist.

     

    Gnostic Christian because I exemplify this quote from William Blake.

     

    “Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read'st black where I read white.”

     

    This refers to how Gnostics tend to reverse, for moral reasons, what Christians see in the Bible. We tend to recognize the evil ways of O T God where literal Christians will see God’s killing as good. Christians are sheeple where Gnostic Christians are goats.

     

    This perhaps why we see the use of a Jesus scapegoat as immoral, while theists like to make Jesus their beast of burden. An immoral position.

     

    During my apotheosis, something that only lasted 5 or 6 seconds, the only things of note to happen was that my paradigm of reality was confirmed and I was chastised to think more demographically. What I found was what I call a cosmic consciousness. Not a new term but one that is a close but not exact fit.

     

    I recognize that I have no proof. That is always the way with apotheosis.

     

    This is also why I prefer to stick to issues of morality because no one has yet been able to prove that God is real and I have no more proof than they for the cosmic consciousness.

     

    The cosmic consciousness is not a miracle working God. He does not interfere with us save when one of us finds it. Not a common thing from what I can see. It is a part of nature and our next evolutionary step.

     

    I tend to have more in common with atheists who ignore what they see as my delusion because our morals are basically identical. Theist tend not to like me much as I have no respect for literalists and fundamentals and think that most Christians have tribal mentalities and poor morals.

     

    I am rather between a rock and a hard place but this I cannot help.

     

    I am happy to be questioned on what I believe but whether or not God exists is basically irrelevant to this world for all that he does not do, and I prefer to thrash out moral issues that can actually find an end point. The search for God is never ending when you are of the Gnostic persuasion. My apotheosis basically says that I am to discard whatever God I found, God as a set of rules that is, not idol worship, it but instead, raise my bar and seek further.

     

    My apotheosis also showed me that God has no need for love, adoration or obedience. He has no needs. Man has dominion here on earth and is to be and is the supreme being.

     

    Regards

     

    DL

     

     

  2. Satan’s plan and the sign of the beast.

     

    It is all political.

     

    Satan would have man’s wealth and the economy within his control.

     

    The sign of the beast would be the coin of the day. Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.

     

    We all use coin of some kind. Even paper coin and plastic coin. All numbered and accounted for. We have all taken on and wear the sign of the beast. We just do not acknowledge it in those terms.

     

    It is impossible for our socio economic demographic pyramid to collapse. It can only redistribute. It will always have a pyramidal shape of some kind. This means that we can collectively decide what that shape should be and stabilize it if we choose to do so. It would profit the whole common and give greater long term benefits and growth.

     

    The stabilizing force is in the hands of the rich and powerful who are presently holding the wealth. The same ones who are just gabbing and not putting their money where their mouths are.

     

    We are told by the media; the spread between the rich and the poor continues to be widen. More and more wealthy individuals are giving up their fortunes to show an example; there is profit in spending. Everyone wins; not just the wealthy.

     

    I have to ask the rest of the wealthy individuals to do the same. You know when you spend; everyone will profit from it. Don’t hang unto it. You know you can spread the wealth and stabilize our economy situation. In the end you will also profit from it.

     

    Since we see government controlling the economy, to a great extent, and knowing that spending is good for the demographic common, and because it has been the poorer sectors ---taking it in the chin; should the rich be legislated into doing the right thing by investing their growing wealth ----so that all may profit?

     

    After all, Such laws have been used in the past.

     

    Regards

     

    DL

     

     

     

     

     

  3. If you made all this apparent by your use of language you'd meet less opposition. Even telling people they're 'wasting their time in foolish beliefs' is not consistent with 'offering your views for those who are interested'. This is clearly fighting talk. I can agree with some of what you say but find the extremism distasteful. Many so-say foolish evangelical Christians will live more Christian lives than you or I.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    You are right in your critique. No argument.

     

    I do work hard to change and implement some of the issues you speak to and sometimes succeed and are given kudos. At the same time, for the same post, I am shat on.

     

    Further, doing all that you suggest would make the O P TLTR and would be ignored.

     

    I have looked for a ghost writer but without success so I live with what is.

     

    It is said that those who know more than one language always have a harder time being understood. I find it true.

     

    Regards

    DL

     

     

     

    Yeah, I see a lot of hypercritical-ism with religion, but its also pretty hard to do EVERYTHING according to an ancient religion. There's also lifestyles, so if people are use to a violent lifestyle, they are more desensitized to violence. This also happens with religion though too. People who are generally raised on very strict religios teachings will likely follow those teachings later in life.

     

     

    It is said that those who know more than one language always have a harder time being understood. I find it true.

     

    Or rebel against them.

     

    Note the U S. A Christian nation, has some of the highest incarceration rates in the world.

     

    Personally, I think religion has little to do with us as the huge majority follow secular laws and not biblical ones.

     

    Thank God, so to speak, for that since most religious laws are crap.

     

    Regards

     

    DL

     

     

  4. Your view is surprising to me. You believe in the existence of an anti-Christ and evil,

     

    Hell no.

    I take a literal view of scripture when writing an O P. I do not believe in a literal or historic bible.

    To me it is all myth and fantasy. I do have some respect for it as a book of wisdom but that would be all.

     

    As to evil. Sure there is some about but all man made.

    Natural evils are just that. Natural. For something to be evil, it has to have sentience driving whatever it is therefore naural evil are poorly named.

     

    which are not ideas that have much use outside of the orthodoxy that you so despise. It seems like cheating to believe some of their doctrine just in order to criticise the rest. Then you say that to believe in fantasy is evil, while clearly believing completely in your own, and are so completely sure that in your case it is not a fanmtasy that you feel able to denounce others as evil. Are you suggesting we burn them at the stake?

     

    That’s an idea.

     

    No. I venerate life and that is why I do not like to see literalists waste their mind in foolish belief.

     

    As a religionist with a belief in a cosmic consciousness, some atheists will class me with a supernatural belief though. This, even as I state that what I know of the cosmic consciousness is all natural. It does put me between a rock and a hard place but since 95% of my views match there’s, they eventually forgive me because I have no dogma to sell and do not push for a belief in what I know I cannot prove. I offer my view as an anecdotal rendering only for those who are interested.

     

    Regards

     

    DL

     

     

  5. Didn't you go through the concept of natural demand for happiness and the eternal existence of all three entities referred. It's in the Vedas.

    Even in heavy rains, you can't get a glass filled with rainwater when it's upside down.

     

     

    Calling something eternal is a logical fallacy and un-provable and I reject it out of hand.

     

    As to the Vedas, I have enough of one fantasy to deal with without adding another to the mix.

     

    Regards

     

    DL

     

     

  6. Yes. If Luther meant what I presume you think he meant, then this is a damning indictment of his religion. And perhaps many of his readers interpret his words to mean that we should never examine our religious beliefs with our God-given brains and minds. We must have been given them for some other purpose. But let's face it, there would be no religion without our brains and minds, and the idea is just plain daft.

     

    I prefer to read these words in such a way that they are not a crtiticsm of reason per se, but of the way it can so easily confuse us, especially if we are clever, and not a dismissal of reason as a useful and effective guide to truth, but a warning that reason has its limits as a means of acquiring knowledge, which is only what Aristotle and Kant tell us. If these were the words of a Zen master then this would be the only plausible interpretation.

     

    My feeling is that use the phrase 'anti-christ' in the question is not helpful, to put it mildly. Any chance of an edit?

     

    My answer to it would be that the idea of an anti-Christ is ad hoc. If you're asking whether the evangelical movement in the USA is helping the Christian cause, then I'd have to say I can't be sure. The relationship between religion and politics seems to distort and muddle the issues beyond all understanding. But I don't think they're trying to do the opposite, so my answer would have to be no.

     

    Does this information change your mind?

     

    It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.

     

    They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Belief in fantasy is evil.

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHaClUCw4&feature=PlayList&p=5123864A5243470E&index=0&playnext=1

     

    They also do much harm to their own.

     

    African witches and Jesus

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9gXriVI&feature=related

     

    Jesus Camp 1of 9

     

     

    Promoting death to Gays.

     

     

     

     

    For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.

    Fight them when you can.

     

    Regards

     

    DL

     

     

  7. mooeypoo

     

    I appreciate the fact that you would like me to be quite specific but how can I be when there are a myriad of differing Christian beliefs out there.

     

    Most Christians cherry pick so badly that there is hardly anything that we can call a universal Christian belief.

     

    I agree with what you describe of moral standards set by God but God not being subject to. A ridiculous stand to me as well as most theists who believe in the as above so below theology. Again, theists are all over the map and ignore scriptures that say that God is supposed to be our example and that we are to emulate him.

     

    What I have said to the book itself and how it says to judge it by itself is common knowledge and believing this particular bit, I apply it and find the tree of knowledge as I have described it in the O P.

     

    Regards

     

    DL

     

     

     

    It only makes sense that the NT is going to be more refined because mankind has had more time to organize a bunch of ideas and philosophies into a summation of what works and what is right (depending on who you talk to). Where the OT is more of a collection of histories, the NT is more focused on content, especially since only one person's opinions are considered, so it's not exactly comparing apples to apples.

     

    What workes?

    All that Jesus offers is unworkable rhetoric.

    Yet those same people will say that God never changes.

     

    Regards

     

    DL

     

     

  8. GIA

     

    I am a life long atheist ( ie as soon as it was my choice I decided i did not believe) - but you make me feel sympathetic towards those who have faith in god because your arguments are so flawed.

     

    Do you re-read and understand what you are posting? To deconstruct your post sentence by sentence

     

    1. Found. - meaningless without context

    2, The tree of knowledge of good and evil. - again pretty meaningless - ie no main verb etc

    3. In the only place it could be found. - a pattern is emerging

    4. In the Bible. - another non-sentence

    5. I will assume... a moral lesson. Possibly a good point - but ignores the main fact that the bible is a "living" document with contributors spread over many thousands of years; to bypass this fact demonstrates a lack of understanding of the growth and history of Xnty

    6-9 God is said to be the Alpha and the Omega. The beginning and the end. Bible God is to be at the top and bottom of any attribute we can think of for God. - That is your exegesis and no one else's - I don't even know what you mean by the top and bottom of any attribute

    10. He is to be our example of the greatest love as well as the greatest hate. - you might like to give a NT example of the greatest hate - cos in my limited view of Xian dogma this is nonsense.

     

    etc...

     

    I think, from reading your posts, that I might agree with you - but you assume so much and interpret so wildly that all of the real message is lost.

     

     

    The N T is not supposed to have a greatest hate example but it does if you recognize that hell did not exist for the O T writers and was only introduced later.

     

    I did try to show Jesus in a better light than the O T God.

     

     

     

    I agree that my composition and delivery are not to standard for many English.

     

    Not being English is not my only excuse but is the main one.

     

    If you know of a good ghost writer, I will be quite pleased.

     

    Regards

     

    DL

     

     

  9. I'm with you all the way on this one. It is impossible to make a sensible argument for religion when there is so much nonsense spoken about it to confuse the issues. It's embarrassing that so many people are prepared to evangelicise vigorously for a view they do not know is true, and for which thay have no supporting arguments other than to refer to a book. It is profoundly dishonest, however well motivated. Whatever happened to logic and reason?

     

    Why do so many people suppose that we must abandon our rationality when it comes to religion, as if religion is somehow unable to defend itself from rational scepticism? When the Europeans arrived in the Americas the natives were astonished to discover that they took their religion from a book and argued about like lawyers, and it's not much less astonishing today. If a person thinks religion is nonsense then I will disagree with them, but I will sympathise completely with the temptation to reach this conclusion, given the way so many of its proponents attempt to pass off book-learning as knowledge.

     

    Rant over...

     

    Good to see you agree.

    As to your question on reason and logic, here is the usual place that theists put them.

     

     

    “Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.

     

     

    Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

    Martin Luther

     

    I guess we are whores.

     

    Regards

    DL

     

     

     

  10. Found. The tree of knowledge of good and evil.

     

    In the only place it could be found. In the Bible.

     

    I will assume here that those who compiled the books of the Bible knew what they were doing, in terms of giving us a myth with a moral lesson.

     

    God is said to be the Alpha and the Omega. The beginning and the end. Bible God is to be at the top and bottom of any attribute we can think of for God. He is to be our example of the greatest love as well as the greatest hate. After all, he does set the standards of what is good and what is evil.

     

    The Bible tells us not to add or subtract from it and to use it as it’s own judge. If we are to do so then we must judge what is in it as good or evil. FMPOV, the O T shows God’s evil side and the N T shows God’s good side. Most recognize this and this is why the emphasis is on following Jesus and not the barbaric God of the O T. IOW, the O T is the evil side of the tree of knowledge while the N T is the good side of the tree of knowledge.

     

    Many that follow the Bible God recognize this. Literalists and fundamentals do not. They end up venerating the evil side of God, the O T, as well as the good side, Jesus and the N T, when they are supposed to be rejecting the God of evil in the O T.

     

    Literalists and fundamentals can thus be seen as immature thinkers and true sheep. While Christians who recognize the evil in the God of the O T can be seen as better thinkers and able to discern good from evil. Literalist can be seen as poor thinkers who cannot discern evil. They end up with a theology that embraces everything from genocide to infanticide as long as God is doing it. Arguably an immoral position.

     

    This is how literalists and fundamentals all end up hurting their parent religions.

     

    If, as I stated, that the O T of the Bible should be seen as the evil side of the tree of knowledge and God, then the tree of life should be near. I submit that it is also within the Bible but that it has nothing to do with eternal life. Nowhere in the Bible is the great lose of this tree of immortality bemoaned. Yet to many, it is the most important aspect of the Bible. I think we can trust scriptures, when they speak of a tree of life, and only means a good life and not an eternal one.

     

    Literalists and fundamentals thus end up having much work to do on their morals because they are hindered by the notion that they should be embracing and honoring an evil God.

     

    In effect, from a biblical standpoint, they are the Anti-Christ, as they continue to venerate evil.

     

    Who do you follow, the good God of the N T, or the evil God of the O T?

     

    Reading the Bible as I do, and seeing it as containing the tree of knowledge and the tree of life, make this book all inclusive in and of itself and in that way, I am true to the authors and compilers who said not to add or subtract anything from it. It was meant to show a complete story and God and I think that reading it as I do is the only way to understand the full story. God thus become the epitome of both good and evil. As it should be for a God who takes responsibility. Mythically speaking that is.

     

    Regards

     

    DL

     

     

  11. rktpro

     

    Thanks for the offer to help me with God but no thanks. I am covered.

     

    "r6. He can never be! He remains inside you even if you are against him."

     

     

     

    He can be whenever we decide to create a new God.

     

    God is in man's hands. Not man in Gods.

     

    Regards

     

    DL

     

    If I am Alpha/Omega= I am the first and last. I am the father, and son. God is not solely the father, or solely the son. He is the manifestation of both father & son, the relationship of the two.

     

    This idea is exactly the same as the trinity.

     

    Same concept, different quantity.

     

    If?

     

    Do you not know for sure?

     

    Regards

     

    DL

     

     

  12. Well I think we confuse different aspects of the trinity, with God. He is all three coexisting.

     

    He is the beautiful symphony created when 3 different instruments come together.

     

     

    We see the trinity everywhere in religious texts, stories, mythology, etc.

     

    You might be able to transfer this symbolism to nature.

     

    The stellar, lunar, and solar influences are similar, but differing. But all equally important.

     

    Each portion of the trinity is equally important, but the combination of all three is defined as God.

     

     

     

     

    Father: Sphere, Stellar, Spirit, Air, Mercury, El, Saturn, Creative

     

    Holy Ghost/Mother: Cube, Lunar, Body, Water, Salt, Is, Asherah, Wisdom, Sophia, Feminine, Ruling

     

    Son: Pyramid, Solar, Soul, Fire, Sulphur, Ra, Word

     

    Are you familiar with how Constantine pushed the Trinity concept down Christian throats?

     

     

     

     

    Originally Posted by animefan48 Well, the reality is most Christians do buy into the trinity doctrine because of persecution of the early Gnostics and non-Trinitarians, and the religious councils were dissenters were forced to agree to a Trinitarian theology. Many Unitarian and Universalist theologies argue that when Jesus said he was the way, he meant that he was an example of how to live to be united/reunited with God. As for the name, God does give other names for himself including the Alpha and Omega, as well as some believe a name that should not be written (or even spoken I believe). Honestly, I think using the name I Am That I Am would just be confusing and convoluted, seriously. I seriously do not believe that it is a continuation of Gnostic/mystical/Unitarian suppression. Even the Gnostic and mystical traditions within Islam and Christianity do not tend to use that name, and among the 99 Names of Allah, I did not find that one. Also, many Rastafarians believe that the Holy Spirit lives in humans and will sometimes say I and I instead of we, yet they don't seem to use the name I Am for God/Jah either, so I really don't think it can be related to suppressing mystical and Gnostic interpretations. I think that originally oppressing those ideas and decreeing them heretical are quite enough, the early Church did such a good job that after the split many Protestant groups continued to condemn mystical and later Gnostic sects and theologies.

     

     Yup, the bishops voted and it was settled for all time!!1 (Some say the preliminary votes were 150 something to 140 something in favor of the trinity)

     

    But then Constantine stepped in: After a prolonged and inconclusive debate, the impatient Constantine intervened to force an end to the conflict by demanding the adoption of the creed. The vote was taken under threat of exile for any who did not support the decision favored by Constantine. (And later, they fully endorsed the trinity idea when it all happened again at the council of Constantinople in AD 381, where only Trinitarians were invited to attend. Surprise! They also managed to carry a vote in favor of the Trinity.)

     

    http://home.pacific.net.au/~amaxwell/bdigest/bd12bbs.tx

     

    Regards

     

    DL

     

     

     

    Name them. I simply pointed out that your premise only works if God isn't real and we define this imaginary God according to your terms. That's wholly irrational.

     

    You are getting quite predictable in trying to deflect whatever the O P is about to some other issue.

     

    Get on topic or get lost.

     

    Regards

     

    DL

     

     

  13. This is only true if you abide by your narrow, strict, and wholly unorthodox view of what a God-like entity would be.

     

     

     

    You are using circular reasoning to support your own beliefs. This is a fallacy. This logic only works if we all agree that God is an imaginary concept. If there is some higher deity that transcends humanity's understanding, then it would be perfectly capable of existing without us. I challenge you to refute that statement.

     

     

     

    Again. An assertion that you can't prove is true.

     

    LOL.

     

    You provide not one but two logical fallacies for me to refute.

     

    Seriously?

     

    It is to the one who cries wolf to show the tracks or the shit.

    Not for others to show that the wolf was never there.

     

    Regards

    DL

  14. I disagree with the initial assertion made in the title.

    I think many things are greater than God, for example my dinner is greater than God.

     

    My dinner exists.

     

    You got me. Nit picker. :)

     

    I should have said the only thing that can know that they are greater than God. Humans.

     

    How is that?

    Not as catchy but more accurate.

     

    Regards

    DL

     

    Good and evil are relative though, other animals have a perfect sense of it. If something's trying to kill them, them that thing is evil. If something's trying to help them, that thing is good. That exact principal is basically how humans have defined good and evil, by what is good and bad for humans. Although in the bible, I suppose it's what's good and bad for God's will, although in the bible, something that is bad for humans, like Satan, is still evil.

     

    That depends on the POV.

     

    The Jews see Eden as man's elevation and not his fall. They would perhaps say that Satan helped man be all that he can be.

     

    Scripture also show God doing a lot more killing than Satan.

     

    Evil is as evil does.

     

    Regards

    DL

  15. That makes sense, and I think even Douglas Adams in one of his smart-alic tangents in his hitchhiker's series wrote "God: Proof denies faith and without faith, I am nothing.

    Other person: Ah, but the bable fish is proof of your existence, so QED, your not really here."

     

    Although, couldn't other intelligent animals have thought of a concept of some greater being? I mean if they've ran into humans who can either destroy their entire enviornment or help them greatly, there's probably room for interpretation.

     

    Impossible to know what animals know at this point in time.

     

    Except in the Bible, they are not talking.

     

    We know they can discern what is profitable or not and in a human sense that is knowing good or evil but we cannot know if they recognize it as such mentally or just instinctively.

     

    I know. Instincts are a mental function but you know what I mean.

     

    Regards

     

    DL

     

     

     

    The problem is that you'd have to back up those claims with irrefutable evidence.

     

    Is man exercising dominion here not good enough evidence for any thinking man?

     

    For God, is absence of evidence not evidence that he is a human construct.

    It is more proof against his existence than any believer has ever come up for his view.

     

    Regards

    DL

  16. Well put. Thanks for that.

     

    FMPOV, the above is irrifutable facts.

     

    As to the definition or how we should view the word God, I would say that we should think of it as rules.

    At the end of the day, there is no representative of God to follow but only the rules that he set out.

     

    Regards

    DL

  17. The only thing greater than God.

     

    Man.

     

    Religion and God were invented to free man. Not enslave him.

     

     

    This man is showing God the only thing greater than God. A human being.

     

    Man is God's evolutionary Master. We brought him from barbarism to civilization.

     

    Without Us, there is no God. Man is who gives God life. The concept, the reality, the imaginary reality, useless and useful speculation of God, all will have been like they never here without man.

     

    God is man’s creation, be it the word itself or the concept or WORD as some believers say it.

     

    To our knowledge, there are no other intelligences able to speculate or have any kind of notion of God as a concept, reality or myth.

     

    Animals know their God. God as their perfect example and role model that is.

     

    It is always one of their own. I do not think that they have the ability to assign moral values to it. Only Mankind can do such with our higher intellect.

     

    God is in our image and we in his.

     

    Without man, God dies because he can only live within the consciousness of man.

     

    This is irrefutable at this point in time. God may be the one we put as head but without the body Man, he ceases to be. Him and all notions of a God.

     

    Religions have denied Man his heritage by having us forget that we choose God. He does not choose us. When will you people recognize that you are WsIP--WorksInProgress-- junior gods and part of your duty to yourself and mankind is to elect yourselves a new and true God.

     

    How will you know he is a true God ?

     

    You will name him so and give him power and dominion over the only thing greater than himself. Yourself.

     

    God is dead. Long live God.

     

    A man.

     

    Regards

     

    DL

     

    P. S.

     

    First step.

     

     

     

  18. Even though I'm not currently religious, I still find many of Jesus's and other religious figure's moral teachings good.

     

    Certainly. You have to be careful of unworkable rhetoric though.

     

    Turn the other cheek. ------ Great for inconsequential. What are you to do if a man rapes your wife? Offer your daughter.

     

    Divorce. Let no man put asunder.------Even if a woman gets beat twice a week?

     

    The greatest command. Love your neighbor as yourself.-----Can you be commanded to draw out emotions like love and hate. No.

     

    Love, to be true love has to be shared and must have deeds attached to be true love.

     

    You cannot love who you do not know. I love Shania Twain. She does not know me so that love is not true love.

     

    Rhetoric is great as long as you do not analyze it.

     

    See what I mean?

     

    Regards

     

    DL

     

     

  19. moo

     

    I agree with your view of the Bible as a book of wisdom.

    It is to help us seek God. Not give us a God in a book.

     

    You are also correct on literalists being way out there.

     

    To me, any literalist or fundamental hurts their parent religion regardless of the flavor.

     

    I am a religionist myself and do not mind, and indeed urge, that people seek God.

     

    God being defined more as a good set of rules to live by, and not some invisible sky daddy that demand that we think his way or he will send us to hell.

     

    Regards

    DL

  20. According to Judaism, he didn't.

     

     

    According to the Old Testament there is only ONE god. He has messengers that do his bidding, and sometimes the stories use these messengers as a sounding-board for god to "discuss" and "consider" his course of action. Angels do not have superpowers, they do not have godly power, and they don't have free will. They do God's work because God himself rarely speaks to human beings directly.

     

    [/size]

    Can you supply the bit of text that literally says that Satan has rebelled against God, or is this a believe Christians have without actual biblical text?

     

    I don't intend this question as mockery, I'm asking because I really don't know. I always assumed there's some actual text in the new testament saying what Satan is... I'm not so sure anymore, though, and I'd like to see context. As far as I remember, there's no such sentence/statement in the old testament.

     

     

     

    ~mooey

     

     

    I think we both know that Christians are all over the map with their beliefs.

     

    Literalists believe in Satan and hell while some liberal or universalists cults will not.

     

     

     

    Let me also give you this.

     

     

    The rebellion of Satan is standard Christian fare.

     

    If we cannot agree on this from the get go, then we cannot debate the notions of his deception which is found in Rev 12 9.

     

    Regards

     

    DL

     

     

     

     

  21. Lol dude, if angels have (apparently) shown themselves in the past why did you specifically say they hadn't in your opening post?

     

    That aside it only requires a minor change to the point I was making, essentially your whole argument rests on the premise that if an angel does exist, and it does have free will it would want to pose as god. I don't see how you can make such a claim, and your entire argument folds after that.

     

    I just do not think that hear say or Bible say, all hear say, is good testimony but you are essentially correct.

    my bad and I would have to recant.

     

    As to my specculation of what a deceiving Satan would do, impersonate God, going for the most impact seems like what a great deceiver would do.

    The greatest coup, so to speak. Regards

     

    DL

     

     

     

    Angels in the old testament are the messengers of god. They come to speak, they don't do miracles -- God does. They don't have "free will" because they're not human. Only human beings have free will.

     

    Even in Judges 6, if you keep reading, the speech turns from "And the angel told him [god says..]" to "and god told him". This is an abbreviation; Gideon speaks to the angel of god as a conduit to speaking to God.

     

    I'm not sure how this makes your point..? How is this an anti-christ or a 'god like prophet'? The text, at least in this case, is fairly clear. The angel speaks. When actions are done, they're done by god. Just read that chapter completely, and you can see.

     

    ~mooey

     

     

    If angels have no free will, then how could Satan, an angel, possibly have rebelled against God?

    Is deceiving the whole world not a miracle done by Satan or is it really God in drag doing it?

     

    God does say that Satan has the power.

     

    Regards

     

    DL

  22. I would concur with the OP, that there is no real economic crisis. It's more a case that the current financial/monetary system has demonstratively reached it's inevitable end.

    Actual wealth hasn't decreased significantly. There is still approximately the same amount of crops to be harvested, minerals to be dug from the ground, services offered and workforce to employ as there was a few years ago. It's just that nowadays, a bunch of numbers on various computer screens means the actual wealth is transferred, usually from the many to the few.

     

    And those transfers will continue till we get our reproduction unders some kind of control.

    It may be that that one condition will make or break our system.

    We do not necessarily need to shrink the population. Only stabilize it.

     

    Well put BTW.

     

    Regards

    DL

  23. Well I'm not sure that they do, but even assuming that is true and we assume that one of those beings is an angel we only have evidence to show that they will reveal themselves at the end of days. Doesn't help the foundation of your argument.

     

    That is one instance.

    There are some from the past as well.

     

    Judges 6

    11 The angel of the LORD came and sat down under the oak in Ophrah that belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, where his son Gideon was threshing wheat in a winepress to keep it from the Midianites. 12 When the angel of the LORD appeared to Gideon, he said, “The LORD is with you, mighty warrior.”

     

    Regards

    DL

     

    If the whole world puts their faith in a book that's telling them the whole world will be deceived...

     

    Sounds a little contradictory, no?

     

    laugh.gif

     

    No.

     

    I would finish your statement with------then they would all have to believe that they will also be deceived.

     

    A contradiction reverses some premise. that is not happening here.

     

    Regards

    DL

  24. Yea, Try watching any one of the financial news networks for, say, an hour. The news is dominated by worries about lenders. The crisis in Europe is about Greece failing and then taking down the rest of the European banking system. If Greece failed in isolation it would be much less of a concern; the austerity the Greeks need would them be forced upon them. the worry is about taking outFrench and German banks, with impacts even reaching US banks. In US colleges many economics students were written economic crisis essays for solving future US economic crisis. I think they did great job. Because that will helps to realizing the future US economic condition.

     

     

     

     

    I find it droll how we all turn to the economic experts for advice when it is the economic experts who have created the problem that we face.

     

    I also think it droll that we would be worried about the lenders when statistics show the spread between rich and poor widening.

     

    Regards

     

    DL

     

     

  25. holding... myself... from answering.... too easy... too easy.... ;)

     

     

    Wait, why do we assume angels have free will? I don't remember anywhere in the bible it saying that. The free will issue is given to *man*. Not to angels.

     

    In fact, if you've seen Dogma (GREAT movie, albeit hardly a good source), they are talking about how unfair that is.

     

    How could Satan have rebelled without a free will?

    Impossible. Right?

     

     

    I might take issue on that as well, unless this is something I don't know of from the "New testament". In the old one, there are no real "demons"... if you have a quote in mind, please share it.

     

    Just dogma. The demons are supposed to be working for Satan. That is what jesus was casting out of people.

    So the myth states.

     

     

    I see where you're going with this, but your logic is flawed. The fact you don't know how god LOOKS like does not mean you can't know what he isn't.

     

    This logic is flawed. Not mine. We cannot know what he is nor what he isn't.

     

     

    You know that I'm not God, even though you've never seen God and, for that matter, you've never seen me.

    Correct. So how can I know that you are not God?

    I cannot.

     

     

    You know that because I don't have God's qualities; I'm not omnipotent, for one.

     

    You say so but again, I have no way to confirm it so can only state that I have hear say evidence. No proof.

     

     

    Clearly. So even without knowing what God looks like you know I'm not it.

     

    I have no such knowledge. Only your say so.

     

    We could make the same judgment to other 'creatures' like the angels.

     

    You could perhaps, but I like to know I speak truth and would need to confirm it somehow.

     

    That said, in the old testament the angels are "Seraphim"; they are described in the text, so we will not only know what they look like, we will know they are not god immediately by that statement alone.

     

    Scipture calls Satan a snake and a dragon and the story of Sodom has angels looking like men so we see that angels are shape shifters.

     

     

    They also do not have special powers or anything like that,

     

    Satan does. To be able to deceive all men.

     

    they can only "deliver god's words" and ask God to do his miracles. They are usually used as messengers. Even if we go by the text alone, we should be able to identify them and know they're not god.

     

    Here again you take away free will yet Satan's rebellion shows that he has it.

     

     

    Where? Can you bring a quote?

     

    Rev 12 9And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

     

    Taht'sa completely different question than the one you raise in the beginning of this post. Many believers seem to have a rather logical answer to it: Anyone who is not of my particular flavor of religion and my particular flavor of reading the bible, is being deceived by satan.

     

    You and I could point out that this makes things very hard to note who's right seeing as *everyone* claims the same thing -- but that doesn't mean the answer itself is not logical on its own. If, indeed, there is one God, and if, indeed, there is only ONE way of following that god, then, indeed, there is only ONE religion (and flavor of it) that is true, and everyone else is deceived.

     

    The fact no one can be sure in your view (and mine) doesn't mean that each of them ARE sure that THEY're right.

     

    It's insufficient to cause a major problem.

     

    You see the problem here?

     

    No. As it all revolves around being deceived and the problems of recognizing that deception..

     

     

    Whenever you say "scripture indicates", I will want a quote. I don't just say that to be annoying, I want to (a) see the context and (b) read the original hebrew in case it's the old testament. You'd be surprised how many of those "statements" are mistranslations or pre-interpreted translations.

     

     

    See Rev 12 above.

     

    Why? This is a fallacy; there's no "white and black" in deception. Atheists can be deceived in their belief and still there won't be a god. For instance, if there is, in fact, a multitude of lesser demons and angels controlling the world without a central "God" authority, atheists would still be deceived, and yet there is still not God. That's more or less what Scientologists claim ("xenu" is no god), and scientologists are far from atheists.

     

    Logic is lovely.

     

    Yes it is.

     

    It is not a fallacy.

    If there is a God and Satan at all, which is the assumption of the O P, then Satan can make us beleive whatever he wants.

    If he is at wok on believers as well as non believers, then it would be to the opposite of truth.

    Same as above. Your statements are generalized and strict; too strict. There IS a middle ground here logically speaking. You're ignoring it.

     

    What is the middle ground?

    Maybe yes, maybe no.

    Thus I ignore it.

     

    You're jumping to a completely different subject here, I'm not clear on how morals have to do with any of this. Let's try to stick to the topic you proposed initially. You can open another thread about questionable morality if you want (though I think we have a few of those).

     

    True, but that does not take away the fact that morals would likely be what is used to decide if we are deceived or not.

    They tend to have a logic trail to follow.

    Then again, Satan can screw with us in that as well so there may not be a way out. Catch 22.

     

    Not sure what that has anything to do with it either. Explain? Seems out of topic too.

     

     

    What? That makes no sense. Since when is the truth decided by "majority"? Since when does morality stated by majority? Even at the face of it, I disagree.

     

    As you should FYPOV. I would as well if I shared it.

     

    I am viewing it from the notion that Satan would go for the majority as the larger part of the whole world which he is suppoed to be able to deceive. That is what I would do.

     

     

    This seems to be just a little "trap" you set to get people to say God is immoral. nice, but insufficient to what you claim. It's also not quite clear how it relates to Satan's deception at all..? I think you should explain it better, I'm a bit confused.

     

    ~mooey

     

     

    It is kinda.

    It is there to give me a quick view of what kind of mind I am speaking to.

    One up God's ass or one breathing fresh air and able to think properly.

     

    Regards

    DL

     

    Regardless of any contradictions you find in any religion, there will still be people to believe in them at least for a long time as they still provide an explanation for things.

     

    True. In a sence.

    They follow a tradition and culture. Not a God.

     

    That is why most follow flawed theologies.

     

    Regards

     

    DL

     

     

     

    Your whole argument seems to be based on the assumption that if angels are real and that they can infact reveal themselves without consequence they would have the desire to do so. I don't think you can make any such claim.

     

    I think I can since scriptures show some kind of God like prophet and an anti-Christ at end times.

     

    Just who is who will be the discussion at that point in time.

     

     

     

    Regards

     

    DL

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.