APPRECIATION - The Holiest Vibe! (God is Appreciation, God is Gratitude, God is Thankfulness, God is

reply to post by jmdewey60


I'm talking about appreciation and what that bible verses said about appreciation. That is what I am talking about here.

reply to post by arpgme


You did no such thing, sir! You claimed the universe is God, and God is supernatural. But you also said the universe is natural, of which God is not, and cannot be. That's my point! You're claim makes no sense.

Why must you insist of saying that God is such a great entity? If you're quoting verses from the bible that say he is a good entity, you cannot ignore those that speak of the evils he can, and will do.

Do you really want the God of the Christian faith to exist? Is that what you want? A God that wants unbelievers killed in most terrible ways? Such as in Hosea 13:16? Or a God that encourages slavery? Such as in Exodus 21:1-11? Maybe a God of revenge? Such as in Nahum 1:2-8?

Let me ask you this: if a man raped a woman, what should his punishment be? I bet it's something radically different than God's command: if he is caught raping the woman, he is to pay the woman's father 50 pieces of silver, and marry his daughter. Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

What a loving God.

So yes, you can cherry-pick bible verses that talk about appreciation. But is the God of the Bible really what you want to be in ultimate power?

I am not trying to get you to get rid of the appreciation you have found for the universe, that's not what I'm trying to do at all. As a matter of fact, I couldn't agree with you more that this universe is a most marvelous place. But the fact that you associate this wonderful universe with a most terrible entity simply confounds me.

reply to post by restrain

Why must you insist of saying that God is such a great entity?

I think he is just quoting Bible verses he finds that sounds like ones in the Koran and imagines he can persuade Christians to fall in line with that type of thinking, in other words, he is not promoting Christianity but luring them into his own cult.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by restrain

 

Why must you insist of saying that God is such a great entity?

I think he is just quoting Bible verses he finds that sounds like ones in the Koran and imagines he can persuade Christians to fall in line with that type of thinking, in other words, he is not promoting Christianity but luring them into his own cult.

And what makes you believe that? Regardless, there is no need for ad hominem, libelous attacks by saying he is the leader of a cult.

In any case, I would have to side with arpgme and his ideals over those of Christianity, for the simple reason of his ideals being the lesser of two evils.

reply to post by restrain


I apologize if my terminology caused any confusion. Like I said in my other post, I use the word God interchangeable with Universe. They are one in the same for me, so God is not supernatural but as natural as it get since God is everything that exists - the universe.

As for The Bible, there are pieces of wisdom in there...

reply to post by restrain

. . . there is no need for ad hominem, libelous attacks . . .

The wonderful thing about this forum format is that everyone has opportunity to defend themselves if they feel wrongfully slandered.
I was not calling him a cult leader, what I meant was that I see the Muslim religion as a cult. I may be a bit paranoid but I could imagine someone against the theology of the majority of Christians but not against Jesus himself and promoting some vague belief in a God from whom everything comes, could in fact be an evangelical Muslim.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Duly noted.

And I agree that Jesus of Nazareth is a character to look up to.

reply to post by jmdewey60


It doesn't matter who I am or where I am from. It's written in a book which you say you follow. The source doesn't matter it is the wisdom that does.

reply to post by arpgme

I'm not tying to get down on you for what you are trying to do and I'm sure you are right according to your own beliefs and it is not my business what those are, being something up to you.
The thing is that you are presenting this in a forum of ideas where other people can present counter ideas, so I am happy to interject with mine. I think if you take isolated verses out of context they can seem to be saying something which goes along with your philosophy but it is at the end of the day, an exercise in pretending.
Piety would be in the old days what you did and a general attitude where you did not curse the gods and you would do things out of your way which showed respect for those gods, seeing the gods as a necessary component to social functioning where without them it would break down to an animal level. Seeing how everything is not so wonderful as you would like it, all the time, then humans have to use reason to be able to maintain the proper attitude of piety. There are different ways to do that, one would be to say that your god or gods of your society created everything and provide everything so you have the choice of taking what they hand out, or you have no life at all. A second way of thinking about the situation of evil in the world, including your own society which maintains a proper pious attitude towards all the right gods, is to do like the Stoics of ancient Greece and come to an understanding that the universe is a really big thing and supports many functions besides providing a nice habitat for your particular society. So this universe came into being so as to be the best thing for every purpose but was a compromise and inherent in that would be things that would be barriers to the full potential of your own society. Then the role of your gods is to intervene on your behalf to assist in your society's overcoming those barriers the best they can, and there is only good that comes from them and only love but you have to always give them the benefit of assuming they are doing the best they can with what they have to work with.

reply to post by jmdewey60


It's possible to appreciate the evil because it helps define the good.

It's possible to appreciate the sadness because it helps define the joy.


Regardless of where anything comes from, appreciation is the key to happiness now.

reply to post by arpgme

. . . appreciation is the key to happiness now . . .

Which is more important, A) being happy, or B) loving God?
If B, then how do you love a God who is by logic, evil?

reply to post by jmdewey60


By living in appreciation you ARE loving God because God is ALL that exist.

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

By living in appreciation you ARE loving God because God is ALL that exist.

I'm curious:

This is going back to the original meaning of God, not your meaning. And I'm not saying this necessarily applies to you either, but I am wondering:

Which idea do you find is more comforting?

1. That there is a supreme entity, God, that exists and does nothing to aid in your troubles? The exact opposite of omnibenevolence.

OR

2. That the universe (according to it's true meaning) is a completely natural concept, devoid of a God, and is indifferent to our existence -- it's not intentionally damning us in anyway.

This is not intended to critique anyone, it's merely a question that I pose to anyone. Logically, to me at least, the second option is the most comforting. What about you?

reply to post by restrain

1. That there is a supreme entity, God, that exists and does nothing to aid in your troubles? The exact opposite of omnibenevolence.

OR

2. That the universe (according to it's true meaning) is a completely natural concept, devoid of a God, and is indifferent to our existence -- it's not intentionally damning us in anyway.

OR

3. That the universe (according to it's true meaning) is a completely natural concept, devoid of an entity: "The Creator", so is morally neutral though there is a mixture of good and bad, depending on who you are and your perspective. While the universe is that way, the now nowhere-to-be-seen (as a distinct entity) Creator was morally positive by making sure there was a god in the universe.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by restrain

 

1. That there is a supreme entity, God, that exists and does nothing to aid in your troubles? The exact opposite of omnibenevolence.

OR

2. That the universe (according to it's true meaning) is a completely natural concept, devoid of a God, and is indifferent to our existence -- it's not intentionally damning us in anyway.

OR

3. That the universe (according to it's true meaning) is a completely natural concept, devoid of an entity: "The Creator", so is morally neutral though there is a mixture of good and bad, depending on who you are and your perspective. While the universe is that way, the now nowhere-to-be-seen (as a distinct entity) Creator was morally positive by making sure there was a god in the universe.

edit on 23-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Interesting. Though logically wouldn't this mean then that this Creator could be nothing more than omnipotent?

reply to post by arpgme


Catholics receive the "Real Presence" which mean we are eating and drinking the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the external appearance of the bread and the wine. The term used for this is Eucharist. (Greek eucharistia, thanksgiving).

So yes indeed, God is thanksgiving. Life only gets better as better as we give thanks to Him for all he has given us.
Appreciation is fundamental to a good relationship with God.

I believe St. John, described God as Love which certainly encompasses everything you list in your title.

Nice positive vibe you're sharing here OP!

reply to post by restrain

Interesting. Though logically wouldn't this mean then that this Creator could be nothing more than omnipotent?

What is that paradox, the irresistible force vs the immovable object?
In this case, the immovable object is just that and has the irresistible force the thing that caused the object to be immovable, and so had to cease to exist (meaning the irresistible force was no longer irresistible), except the reality is the complete opposite, where the object was immovable then got set in motion by the irresistible force, but once set in motion, is now unstoppable.

What is that paradox, the irresistible force vs the immovable object?
In this case, the immovable object is just that and has the irresistible force the thing that caused the object to be immovable, and so had to cease to exist (meaning the irresistible force was no longer irresistible), except the reality is the complete opposite, where the object was immovable then got set in motion by the irresistible force, but once set in motion, is now unstoppable.

edit on 23-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Ah, sorry, not what I was going for. I was assuming that to create this universe God would have to be omnipotent. And from there, I was merely asking what this God could be, besides omnipotent.

Logically, it could not be omnibenevolent, as there are limitless examples of actions that a truly loving God would stop, which it does not. And, actually, I cede, if God is omnipotent, logically he could also be omniscient. However, he could, in no way, be considered morally positive. Knowing everything that will happen, having the power to change all of it, but doing nothing to do so, would make this God nothing short of omnimalevolent.

reply to post by restrain


None of the above.
I'm not saying God created the universe.
And skip any word starting with, omni.
The universe is populated with various entities, God being one of them.
People are similar but more attached to the physical so in a manner of speaking, of the earth.
What created the universe is cancelled out by the existence of the universe.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by restrain

 

1. That there is a supreme entity, God, that exists and does nothing to aid in your troubles? The exact opposite of omnibenevolence.

OR

2. That the universe (according to it's true meaning) is a completely natural concept, devoid of a God, and is indifferent to our existence -- it's not intentionally damning us in anyway.

OR

3. That the universe (according to it's true meaning) is a completely natural concept, devoid of an entity: "The Creator", so is morally neutral though there is a mixture of good and bad, depending on who you are and your perspective. While the universe is that way, the now nowhere-to-be-seen (as a distinct entity) Creator was morally positive by making sure there was a god in the universe.

edit on 23-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Or

The universe and everything in it is God... And everything is a part of him...