Abrahamic cult members only. It is demonstrable that God has to be one of us.

reply to post by arpgme

. . . and I agree we should have a new God.

I think the problem is with the "we", if you mean it as an institution.

I think that Christianity started out as small groups of individuals who did not buy into the predominant religions of the day.

I think as long as we have religion by 'group think', we are never going to be better off no matter what the God is, since it will always devolve into a form of hierarchy where certain people want to be 'in charge' and looking for others to point out as being 'not as good'.

reply to post by jmdewey60


If they are trying to control and condemn others and make a hierarchy with them being highest, then they are not following love, they are following control


When god is given a simple meaning (love) then it can't be distorted once there is a holy book saying the god is a spirit being who does things and be angry or pleased, then anything can be justified

reply to post by arpgme

. . . distorted once there is a holy book . . .

Like the Old Testament.
The whole idea was creating an "us and them".
The New Testament, if read correctly, is about accepting others even if they don't believe exactly as you.
We are accepted by God as His children by our belief in Jesus.
So we are already "in", and don't have to point out others as "out" in order to establish our own place.

jmdewey60
reply to post by arpgme

 

. . . distorted once there is a holy book . . .

Like the Old Testament.
The whole idea was creating an "us and them".
The New Testament, if read correctly, is about accepting others even if they don't believe exactly as you.
We are accepted by God as His children by our belief in Jesus.
So we are already "in", and don't have to point out others as "out" in order to establish our own place.

I usually like reading your posts jmdewey60...this caught mine eye...

How is "WE are accepted by God as HIS children by OUR belief in Jesus", and, "So WE are already IN, and don't have to point out OTHERS as OUT in order to establish OUR OWN place", any less of an US & THEM stance?

Respectfully

Å99

reply to post by arpgme



"When god is given a simple meaning (love) then it can't be distorted once there is a holy book saying the god is a spirit being who does things and be angry or pleased, then anything can be justified."

Your words elicit a roar of approval which, had I got one, would have startled the cat.
I think I even saw the Aspidistra quiver.

Now I know this is presumptuous, but I would like to suggest a modification ....

It's about the word "love."
Have you ever felt the rough edge of that word ?
It can be used to deceive, blackmail, subvert and disempower, (Spellcheck offers "disembowel" but that's a bit extreme).
In short, it's a beautiful word with signs of misuse all over it.

I see the word I want just below your avatar -- kindness.
Kindness is love in action.
God is kindness, kindness is god.

We don't need to worship it, make pilgrimages in search of it, or refer to ancient texts to understand it.
We don't need a priesthood to explain it, nor need we fear it.
Talking to it is a one-sided conversation, self-delusion.
And talking about it gets us nowhere.
We just need to do it.

mistersmith.

reply to post by akushla99

. . . any less of an US & THEM stance?

Do you have a problem with believing in Jesus?
You can make that decision yourself, and you don't need me to tell you what you decided.

rickymouse
Huh? Elect a new god? I didn't know we could elect god.

I am not quite sure what you are talking about....????

I am talking about the fact that all that we know about all the Gods came from the mouths of a men and if we elected a new one for the Abrahamic cults, --- then we could forge a new world piece and a stable economy.

Do you think it would be worth doing?

Regards
DL

Bleeeeep
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

It is not insignificant differences which separate sects and religions.

That's all I have to say about that.

That is because you cannot back up your statement.

Their root is Abraham and all other differences are insignificant to the big picture.

Regards
DL

supermarket2012

rickymouse
Huh? Elect a new god? I didn't know we could elect god.

I am not quite sure what you are talking about....????

I second this. I'm lost. Was the post supposed to be a form of poetry or something?

A thinking exercise. What is the elect spoken of in scriptures?

How do you think you are supposed to chose a God?

Let your Daddy chose for you?

Regards
DL

WarminIndy
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

Did you know that God does touch us?

Joseph found that out when God cuckolded him after coveting his woman and using her to reproduce.
Just before he chose to become a deadbeat dad.

Thanks for showing us all what a delusional mind thinks like.

You do my side a lot of good. Keep posting all you like.

Tone it down just a touch though. People will think you are an atheist trying to discredit Christians. Wink.

Regards
DL

FreeMason
A God that relies upon His creation for His own existence is a false God.

With all his pathetic grovelling for love adoration and on and on. Or he will hut us forever.

Such a dick must be false or without pride.

Regards
DL

mistersmith
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

Here's the deal Greatest I Am :-
You get all the cult members to agree with each other; and I'll buy them all a beer.

mistersmith.

I wish I could send you that bill my friend.

They would all have to walk their talk for that to happen and I have a hard time seeing their hypocrisy ever stopping.

Regards
DL

reply to post by FreeMason

A God that relies upon His creation for His own existence is a false God.

I wouldn't say a god would rely on its creation for its own existence. I would however say that a god may very well find that its existence is validated by said creation. It suddenly finds that existing is much more worthwhile now that it has something to admire besides itself. The problem you guys have with imagining such a being is that you have never been in that sort of position before, nor any sort of position that would give you anything even remotely resembling a perspective that would give you some indication of what being such a powerful being must be like. So you use your limited imagination to conjure up a shallow rendition of something you've never experienced. Is it any surprise you miss the mark by miles?

jmdewey60
reply to post by akushla99

 

. . . any less of an US & THEM stance?

Do you have a problem with believing in Jesus?
You can make that decision yourself, and you don't need me to tell you what you decided.

Whose determination is it that I don't?...you obviously think it's yours...

Interestingly you've prevaricated on a reply to an honest question...that's a tell beyond value...

Cheers

Å99

FlyersFan

Greatest I am
I think it is time for all within the Abrahamic cults who bother with the churches and mosques should try to move them to modernity and unity to give what is required to challenge the huge Governments, --- with an equally huge Religion.

Sorry Greatest I am .. I am of the opposite opinion. The last thing this world needs is yet another organized religion with a bunch of men in it telling everyone else what they should think or how they should act ... and claiming that power in the name of God makes it even worse.

There is no way that the Abrahamic religions can come together on anything .. heck, they can't even agree with each other in their own little sub-cults.

Muslims kill muslims (and Jews and Christians) because they don't worship exactly like them.
Jews have different sects within their ranks, each seriously badmouthing the others.
Lots of Christian groups think they are the only ones to 'get it right' and everyone else, other Christians included, will end up in hell because they don't worship exactly like them.

I wouldn't want any of them running the world.

World piece and a stabilized economy would not be worth it eh?

You are right that there is a lot of in fighting.
So why not have one huge Vatican III fight and end all the infighting?

Remember that separation of church and state is a farce and that if the Abrahamic cults had a united front, it would be like a U N with the teeth that the present U N does not have and should have.

Regards
DL

jmdewey60
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

Do you agree?

No.

I think that we should have government "by the people" as it says in the US Constitution.

The people who moved out of Europe and the UK to come to America had had enough of ecclesiastical government run by literal or virtual Popes.

edit on 20-10-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Can you name one country that is not an Oligarchy?

I can't.

Sure, none of us like to admit the truth but no government is immune to the money that buys them.

Regards
DL

vethumanbeing

FreeMason
A God that relies upon His creation for His own existence is a false God.

A God that expects us to describe itself to itself is overthinking our abilities to communicate with it, or neglected those crucial heavenly earbuds (in our initial matterform construct).

A God that thinks (as a no show parent) we could believe in a creator understands the terrible mental stress/faith place Mankind lives and so is either psyhopathic, sadistic or to be kind, an egomaniac.

A God that relies upon Its own existance (to live through its creations is not paying attention at all) and is negligent.

A False God/no God probably; just a grand system that is grinding away at itself and we are only a part of the grand design entropy/decay--stasis/growth, both as unwilling spectators and unfortunate participants.

It should have given us more skills, to enable us to OUTSMART IT.

edit on 20-10-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)

God did give us the intelligence.
He just did not know that both religions and governments would work so hard and succeed in dumbing us down.

Don't even mention the Nobler Lie. We would not want to wake the dumb.

Regards
DL

arpgme
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

I was raised to believe in the bible, now I left the faith becausr it was too controlling and judgmental, and I agree we should have a new God. A God called "love" who is patient and kind and holds no record of wrongdoings.

Looking up to such a God we can learn to care for and respect each other.

edit on 20-10-2013 by arpgme because: (no reason given)

If we could keep his attribute list that small then all religions could call themselves successful.

But they don't and their pissing contests are what kills many of us.

Regards
DL

jmdewey60
reply to post by arpgme

 

. . . and I agree we should have a new God.

I think the problem is with the "we", if you mean it as an institution.

I think that Christianity started out as small groups of individuals who did not buy into the predominant religions of the day.

I think as long as we have religion by 'group think', we are never going to be better off no matter what the God is, since it will always devolve into a form of hierarchy where certain people want to be 'in charge' and looking for others to point out as being 'not as good'.

edit on 20-10-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

You are correct about the hierarchy and at present we have sore than 4,000 of them.

I suggest that only one is what is required so that we can at least have the same official rules and beliefs.

I think it time to see which of the 4,000 versions of God is worthy of the majority.

The words Christianity, Jew or Muslim means nothing today with all the various cults.

Regards
DL

jmdewey60
reply to post by akushla99

 

. . . any less of an US & THEM stance?

Do you have a problem with believing in Jesus?
You can make that decision yourself, and you don't need me to tell you what you decided.

Our friend may or may not have a problem with Jesus but I do. Way too many of his policies are anti-love. Like his forgiveness and divorce policies.

Both are barbaric.

This clip speaks of other immoral garbage that the Roman scribes put in his archetypal mouth.

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL