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

reply to post by Greatest I am


We can't get half the different churches in Christianity to stick together let alone adding Muslims and Jews into the stewpot together. How could anyone convince all of them that their god needs replacing. I don't see this ever happening.

reply to post by akushla99

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

You made a vague statement of displeasure with my earlier post and I was just asking for some specificity, other that my use of the word "we".

I wasn't implying that you did not believe in Jesus but if you objected to the idea that it makes any difference to God if anyone does or doesn't believe in Jesus.

reply to post by Greatest I am

. . . his forgiveness and divorce policies.

Both are barbaric.

I don't see how the word "barbaric" is very descriptive or informative.

Do you have any specific objection to Jesus' opinion on marriage?
Do you think there is something wrong with Jesus' teaching on forgiveness?

jmdewey60
reply to post by akushla99

 

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

You made a vague statement of displeasure with my earlier post and I was just asking for some specificity, other that my use of the word "we".

I wasn't implying that you did not believe in Jesus but if you objected to the idea that it makes any difference to God if anyone does or doesn't believe in Jesus.

Displeasure?...more puzzlement...

This is what I wrote...
"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?"

Your post I replied to mentioned an 'us & them' construct...the question I posed relates to your next paragraph...and my question followed the quoted text...It seemed to mirror what was being referred to regarding your mention of the OT.

...and, no...God is not an exclusionist, man is...

Å99

reply to post by akushla99

...God is not an exclusionist . . .

So then nothing matters as far as what you do in your life because God never has wrath and no one is ever the subject of that. (or it looks like what you are implying)

I would like to be excluded from that wrath, and that is what the New Testament is about as far as I can tell, and it gives the remedy which is believing in Jesus.

jmdewey60
reply to post by akushla99

 

...God is not an exclusionist . . .

So then nothing matters as far as what you do in your life because God never has wrath and no one is ever the subject of that. (or it looks like what you are implying)

I would like to be excluded from that wrath, and that is what the New Testament is about as far as I can tell, and it gives the remedy which is believing in Jesus.

edit on 22-10-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

No...that'd be the wrong implication to draw...
Everything I do in my life 'matters'...and no, a loving God that confers free will cannot have wrath for the results of a mechanism IT installed for the purpose of choice back to Source/God...ITSELF...that, notion could only come from the mind of a NOT loving God, intent on playing cruel games with ITS children, emanations of ITSELF...does that really make sense?

Here's the Jesus thing...(and a signpost takes you to a destination)...as far as is reasonably attributable (because much of the stories have been in dispute - but, is really irrelevant in the greater scheme)...character Jesus drew attention to a concept that seems to have snowballed into a confused avalanche of INSIGNIFICANT details - remove the details...there is a God, you are not alone, be good to your brothers and sisters - they are my children, as you are...

There is need for autonomous control to negotiate the autonomous negotiations of our brothers and sisters, similarly imbued with free will...that is the path back...it is what Jesus preached fundamentally...other prophets (if you will) essentially say the same.

That's my take...how does it differ to yours?

Å99

rickymouse
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

We can't get half the different churches in Christianity to stick together let alone adding Muslims and Jews into the stewpot together. How could anyone convince all of them that their god needs replacing. I don't see this ever happening.

Vatican II started things off so I think a Vatican III could finish it. New heads may make a difference especially if secularism is making all religions redundant. They all want to get larger, not smaller.

Regards
DL

jmdewey60
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

. . . his forgiveness and divorce policies.

Both are barbaric.

I don't see how the word "barbaric" is very descriptive or informative.

Do you have any specific objection to Jesus' opinion on marriage?
Do you think there is something wrong with Jesus' teaching on forgiveness?

Yes. His let no man put asunder says that if I get beat up twice a week by my wife I have to take it. That is anti-love as it stops us both from finding better mates.

As to forgiveness. There is much health benefits to forgiving and Jesus has usurped that benefit from us.

If you know your Jewish forgiveness tradition, you will know what I speak of. Jesus takes all the love out of forgiveness.

Regards
DL

jmdewey60
reply to post by akushla99

 

...God is not an exclusionist . . .

So then nothing matters as far as what you do in your life because God never has wrath and no one is ever the subject of that. (or it looks like what you are implying)

I would like to be excluded from that wrath, and that is what the New Testament is about as far as I can tell, and it gives the remedy which is believing in Jesus.

edit on 22-10-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Which Jesus?

The one who allows many wives or the one that only allows one?

Regards
DL

reply to post by akushla99

That's my take...how does it differ to yours?

I don't think that God is an "it" or a place to go to or a concept or a "source" that we emanate from.
God is a person, and I don't see the Prophets or other biblical writers saying otherwise.
Jesus I believe is also a person and not an idea.

reply to post by Greatest I am

Which Jesus?

Is that something that you got from the video that you linked to?

I watched it for at least a minute and that was long enough to tell me that he was just going off from some mythology that he had bought into, and not actual facts.
He is probably pushing an Israeli antichristian agenda.

reply to post by Greatest I am

Jesus takes all the love out of forgiveness.

You are probably thinking of a theory promoted by certain evangelical Christians that Jesus somehow "paid" for our sins.

"Jewish forgiveness" is killing the offender and trying to forgive yourself for not doing it sooner.

jmdewey60
reply to post by akushla99

 

That's my take...how does it differ to yours?

I don't think that God is an "it" or a place to go to or a concept or a "source" that we emanate from.
God is a person, and I don't see the Prophets or other biblical writers saying otherwise.
Jesus I believe is also a person and not an idea.

Of course, God is a person...how could the 'prophets or other biblical writers' weave a story of human WRATH in?...because ALMIGHTY GOD, the one who created heaven and earth and everything you can name and not name, is prone to bouts of human emotion...like...frustration, and anger, and wrath, and revenge...and all this from a position of Almightiness, where he *pops* souls into existence for a cosmic test that has only one answer, that must be answered in one lifetime...sounds like a good plan...ON PAPER...unfortunately when you watch a project go from drawing board to completion there are many glitches that need to be ironed out - the more serious anomolies are the ones that make or break the concept, in reality...

'Biblical Writers' is a term that gets thrown about, as if tacking biblical to the front of it has a legitimacy beyond reproach...and if anything, amounts to 'conflict of interest'...

Fortunately, as far as finding a common ground...we have some agreement...

Å99

reply to post by akushla99

'Biblical Writers' is a term that gets thrown about, as if tacking biblical to the front of it has a legitimacy beyond reproach...and if anything, amounts to 'conflict of interest'...

What I meant by that was whoever wrote the Bible.
Not all of them were necessarily prophets.
You might have thought that I meant biblical scholars, which I didn't mean.

jmdewey60
reply to post by akushla99

 

'Biblical Writers' is a term that gets thrown about, as if tacking biblical to the front of it has a legitimacy beyond reproach...and if anything, amounts to 'conflict of interest'...

What I meant by that was whoever wrote the Bible.
Not all of them were necessarily prophets.
You might have thought that I meant biblical scholars, which I didn't mean.

...but, then...that part of your understanding is predicated on 'WHOEVER' wrote the bible? Would that be a fair assessment?

Å99

reply to post by akushla99

...that part of your understanding . . .

Do you think that the Bible was somehow crippled by there not being any higher concepts of God?
That if they were writing today they would have the benefit of evolution of thought to where they could describe a god without human type attributes?

jmdewey60
reply to post by akushla99

 

...that part of your understanding . . .

Do you think that the Bible was somehow crippled by there not being any higher concepts of God?
That if they were writing today they would have the benefit of evolution of thought to where they could describe a god without human type attributes?

What I think is...it would be waaay naive to assume that the adherents to a concept did not write in a way that was a 'promotion' of an idea they believed in...that form of confirmation bias is not a new development...and that confirmation bias can confidently say that God has human attributes, as much as it likes...

Å99

jmdewey60
reply to post by akushla99

 

...that part of your understanding . . .

Do you think that the Bible was somehow crippled by there not being any higher concepts of God?
That if they were writing today they would have the benefit of evolution of thought to where they could describe a god without human type attributes?

...and 'describing' God in that fashion would seem to be pushing the analogy envelope in a direction of diminishment of grandeur...but, best to stay 'on message'...

Å99

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL

jmdewey60
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

Which Jesus?

Is that something that you got from the video that you linked to?

I watched it for at least a minute and that was long enough to tell me that he was just going off from some mythology that he had bought into, and not actual facts.
He is probably pushing an Israeli antichristian agenda.

And here I thought that you had some intelligence. Oh well.

Regards
DL