It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

God cannot love or be Love.

page: 6
1
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone-Jesus




posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by I Want To Believe
 

. . . a very bad case of God-hating. . .
Maybe I think I know something, whether I actually do or not, based on following this person on another forum for years.
He has a belief in God but it is of another sort and does not put his version out for criticism.
It is not much use to get frustrated. It is a sort of behavior modification class so I don't mind it and I usually learn something from it by being challenged.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 

jmdewey60, those Bible verses says that there is only ONE God and the others are non-existent and when they pray they only pray to ONE God. If you still want to believe that there are others that is your choice in belief.

It has nothing to do with belief. It is accepting facts in black and white.
You may want to think about your own belief and how central this theme is in it of there only being one god, while in mine it is auxiliary to the main corpus.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


You say it is not belief but black and white facts. And now I want to ask, what ARE those black and white so-called "facts"?



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 
I think it is forty something different gods mentioned in the OT.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by arpgme
 
I think it is forty something different gods mentioned in the OT.


Are they different Gods or just different titles to the same God?

There is a habit amongst scribes to try to one up one another in their flower depictions of God. So rather than say God, they use something like "The Magnificent", "The Most Glorious", "The Most High". It's as if these fancy labels can win a scribe favor. LOL

Jesus said it best.

Our father, who art in heaven, HALLOWED be thy name...

God's name in it's most humblest form, is too sacred to conceive.

Don't be like the scribes.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 
Here's a few of them:
Adrammelech
Anammelech
Arpad
Ashima II
Asherah
Ashtoreth
Astroloth
Baal
Baal-berith
Baal-peor
Baal-zebub
Baalim
Bel
Chemosh
Dagon
Diana of the Ephesians
Gozan
Hadad-rimmon
Hamoth
Haran
Hena
Ishtar
Ivvah
Jupiter
Kaiwan
Lucifer
Mercurius
Milcom
Molech
Nebo
Nehushtan - actually the brazen serpent, but worshiped as a god
Nergal
Nibhaz
Nisroch
Rezeph
Rimmon
Sepharvaim
Succoth-benoth
sun, and the moon, and the planets, and all the host of heaven
Tammuz
Tartak
Telassa
This is just a list from names I found on a few web sites. There are more names, but I might have to wait a while until I get the dictionary I want that has all the entities mentioned in the bible but it is like $95 if I remember right, and I just ordered $132+ worth tonight on books which eats up all my discretionary spending for the month.

edit on 26-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by MoeSantana
See if you can find the thread were someone asked about the whole idea of original sin and God sending his son to atone for our sins. By the way I detest the idea that 'ask jesus for forgiveness and you will go to heaven', the born again christian thing.


edit on 25-1-2012 by MoeSantana because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-1-2012 by MoeSantana because: trying to insert that thread somehow


I prefer to have you wonder why Christianity invented the notion of original sin and the fall, when the Jews who have more right to interpret Genesis, It their scriptures, say Eden as man's elevation without original sin.

www.mrrena.com...

Regards
DL



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


I'm not talking about The Bible, I'm talking about GOD! GOD does NOT kill.


So much for 3/4 of the bible that you have just scrapped.

Not much of a Christian I see.

I agree with you though. Imaginary Gods cannot do much of anything.

Regards
DL



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by MoeSantana
I believe we are all immortal. I got this idea from reading william walker atkinsons books. If your interested i could point out some of these books if you would like to study them. They are very logical, and harmonize religion and science.




edit on 25-1-2012 by MoeSantana because: (no reason given)


Immortality, like discussions of God, are speculative nonsense as neither can be proven to be true or real.

Both are just a part of man's wish list.

Regards
DL



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by I Want To Believe
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


Yet Biblical Scripture clearly states "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but shall have eternal life." I do believe this Scripture states that God can in fact love so therefore your conclusion is wrong if you base your conclusion entirely on Biblical Scripture. That's the funny thing about Scripture either you accept it all as Truth or you don't but there really isnt any picking and choosing which ones you like or dont like or which ones suit you to prove your point.

Christianity isn't founded on human sacrifice. Jesus had a choice just as Adam and Eve did and they made their choices. Jesus chose to love and forgive and to die so that we could be redeemed. Perhaps God created man to make choices --- to choose to love Him and each other. Perhaps that was and has been the plan all along. We cannot know the mind of God. All we can do is speculate. From what I have observed that seems to be the track record for most of your threads --- speculation. Truth is truth, it is neither right nor wrong nor good nor evil. Truth just is and it is something you have failed to produce just wild speculation.


It was God's plan from the beginning to have Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or God damned sin.

If God had not intended humans to sin from the beginning, why did he build into the Creation this "solution" for sin? Why create a solution for a problem you do not anticipate?

God knew that the moment he said "don't eat from that tree," the die was cast. The eating was inevitable. Eve was merely following the plan.

What kind of God would plan and execute the murder of his own son when there was absolutely no need to?

Only an insane God. That’s who.

The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice, thus showing it‘s immorality.

The wage of sin is death. What sin did Jesus do to earn his wage?

------------------------

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

As to sciptures.

Only fools would believe them with all the evidence against them. Even the O T is not literal or historic to their writers, the Jews.

Educate yourself.

www.raceandhistory.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by MoeSantana
I dont believe God desires praise, I was just trying to answer your twisted questions. As for 'OP' read this about born again christianity, and make up your mind about God and love. )


I have made up my mind on both counts.

Love is as love does.
God is not doing at all.

As to being born again, this bishop speaks for me.

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by I Want To Believe
 


I think the OP author is asking you how you would justify these apparent inconsistencies.
Your solution is a form of picking and choosing by emphasizing a verse which you like and downplaying ones you don't. So the whole thread, and a lot of others by him is this exercise to make people see that they are doing exactly what they accuse others of.
edit on 25-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


+ 1

I tend to let you go on your own tangents but do respect your ability to think.

Regards
DL



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by I Want To Believe
[ I always defer to my conscience for my church is my conscience. I am by nature a very skeptical person as my username would suggest and I hardly take things by blind faith. However the teachings of Christ to me seem good and right which is why I am a believer.


I do see you use the church as your conscience and would remind you of the words of Jesus. The law is written on your heart. You are to grow up and look to your own good judgement and not a book you say you disagree with on points of justice.

You say you do not take anything on blind faith and rely on the teachings of Christ.

Try this belief that he holds on divorce. Let no man put asunder. No divorce IOW.

What would you tell a wife who is beat twice a week if she asked you, if a judge, for a divorce?

Do try to recognize that the biblical writers put much in the way of unworkable rhetoric in the mouth of archetypal mythical Jesus .

Regards
DL



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by MoeSantana
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone-Jesus


The wages of sin is death.--------Jesus died.

Regards
DL



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by I Want To Believe
 

. . . a very bad case of God-hating. . .
Maybe I think I know something, whether I actually do or not, based on following this person on another forum for years.
He has a belief in God but it is of another sort and does not put his version out for criticism.
It is not much use to get frustrated. It is a sort of behavior modification class so I don't mind it and I usually learn something from it by being challenged.


I am always ready and have, whenever asked to, to show what I know of my God.

The thing about apotheosis is that even though most of what is written in scriptures is said to come from people who have went through it, even Paul, most people do not believe it happens. Further, my apotheosis frees man from God while most who believe, want to be slaves to God. Even as Jesus said----Have ye forgotten that ye are Gods?

Let me give the following in case any here want to believe that a man can go through apotheosis.

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



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 
I'm looking at books by Markus N. A. Bockmuehl and I actually thought I had ordered a book by him last night but it turns out I was holding off on that to combine that order with another one I had not quite decided on yet, in order to get free shipping.
Anyway, I am looking at a few books he wrote, and he is a full Cambridge professor on biblical studies so he is not just someone who sits around writing books as a book writer but this springs from studies and classes he is already engaged in.
What he seems to be concentrating on is this idea of how much reliance is appropriate on these written documents and should we rather be looking at them as a sort of how-to for having our own divine revelations or whatever, if I can boil it down to the level where the rubber meets the road, so this is not some trivial momentary musing on a warm afternoon but something that seems like a life study for a very serious person with the highest academic credentials.


edit on 26-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Greatest I am
 
I'm looking at books by Markus N. A. Bockmuehl and I actually thought I had ordered a book by him last night but it turns out I was holding off on that to combine that order with another one I had not quite decided on yet, in order to get free shipping.
Anyway, I am looking at a few books he wrote, and he is a full Cambridge professor on biblical studies so he is not just someone who sits around writing books as a book writer but this springs from studies and classes he is already engaged in.
What he seems to be concentrating on is this idea of how much reliance is appropriate on these written documents and should we rather be looking at them as a sort of how-to for having our own divine revelations or whatever, if I can boil it down to the level where the rubber meets the road, so this is not some trivial momentary musing on a warm afternoon but something that seems like a life study for a very serious person with the highest academic credentials.


edit on 26-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


He sounds Gnostic. They seek knowledge and wisdom in its own rite to help in apotheosis while Christianity never speaks of theosis or apotheosis and only concentrate on obedience creating guilt.

Regards
DL



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 

He sounds Gnostic. They seek knowledge and wisdom in its own rite to help in apotheosis while Christianity never speaks of theosis or apotheosis and only concentrate on obedience creating guilt.
The fact that people do not talk about it does not mean it is not there. The book by this author I thought I had ordered last night is, Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity, and I am looking at it, meaning a preview of it in Google Books, but I am having doubts about being able to afford actually buying it right now, but you can get an idea of it by doing what I just said.

edit on 26-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Greatest I am
 

He sounds Gnostic. They seek knowledge and wisdom in its own rite to help in apotheosis while Christianity never speaks of theosis or apotheosis and only concentrate on obedience creating guilt.
The fact that people do not talk about it does not mean it is not there. The book by this author I thought I had ordered last night is, Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity, and I am looking at it, meaning a preview of it in Google Books, but I am having doubts about being able to afford actually buying it right now, but you can get an idea of it by doing what I just said.

edit on 26-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


Thanks for this.

Regards
DL



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
1
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join