The Old Testament God is a Bumbling, Primitive, Idiot?

So...did we figure out if God is a primitive bumbling idiot or not? I know what my vote is, but what about the rest of you?

AfterInfinity
reply to post by charles1952

charles1952
So it is with God. He doesn't "need" people to pray, or follow Him. It's not for His benefit, it's for ours. He knows it will be better for us to align ourselves with Him than with the Deceiver. He love us and wants what's best for us. But with all that, He still leaves the choice to us. He loves us too much to make us slaves.

AfterInfinity
God loves us so much, he made hell in case we didnt love him back.
Or how about...
"Its Jesus! Let me in!"
"Why?"
"So I can save you from what I'll do to you if you don't let me in!"

I thought Charles1952 answered you in the form of 'sarcastic content' *disregarded* by not answering you directly but through others in a sneaky "kinder manner manouver" to spare you needless discomfort. I could be wrong.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Please, if you owe me any favors at all, don't tell us what your vote is. Right now, it's between you and God. You two can work it out over time. Putting it on the internet for the world to see won't do you or your reputation any good.

First problem, definitional. He can't be God and a bumbler both, by the very definition of God. It was a silly proposition to begin with and I'm surprised Cogito, Ergo Sum mentioned it. It was so surprising that I wanted to start the thread to see if I had missed something. Apparently, not.

Second problem. If the Creator of the Universe is a bumbler, then our creation was bumbled, our bodies are bumbled, our brains and thoughts are bumbled. That includes your brain and thoughts. You're going to rely on a fouled up brain to make a decision?

Third, AfterInfinity contra mundum. You and a small handful of others have learned the true, deep, mystical essence of God, when millenia of thinkers, mystics, and researchers reach different conclusions? There is, statistically, a chance (although so small that only you can see it) that you are right and they aren't, but don't tell us you're betting that way.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by vethumanbeing

AfterInfinity
First, you didn't ask or tell me squat. Second, my confusion was pretty damn clear. Third, I'd prefer an answer from the guy who actually posted, given that he knows more about what he meant.

Confusion regarding what? SyphonNexis responded to your post, and I suppose you missed it; the answer was there. Sometimes a leader with a fishhook is cast; and what IT thinks it knows is just a door it wants re-openned by anothers thoughts (reason for casting ideas about--to recieve an answer by someone somewhere). You insert yourself as a destructive element and I am having a very difficult time believing you were actually the author of the thread "Love Vs Tyranny".

reply to posts by vethumanbeing and AfterInfinity

Dear vethumanbeing (and AfterInfinity),

Let me take one more quick stab at this question of need, and God's punishment for not letting Him in. I was trying to be kind, but not sarcastic. I'm not going to try to defend my belief in this particular post, just explain it as cleanly as I can.

God created us.

We are happiest when we are in His presence, or "aligned" with Him in our deepest beliefs or thoughts.

He prefers that we are in His presence, because He knows we'll be happiest that way.

He wants us to be happy because he loves us and wants the best for us.

We are free to choose whether we align with Him or not.

If we choose not to be with Him, it's like an adult deciding that he will eat dirt. It's not the best choice, but it's his choice.

If we spend our lives saying that we don't want to be with Him, in effect saying we want to eat dirt, He will allow us to live our choice eternally.

The condition of being without God, or even hope of Him, eternally, is commonly known as "Hell."

You wanted to eat dirt? OK. Here's an infinitely large pile of dirt for you, get started.


I know that doesn't cover issues like Grace, the Atoning Sacrifice, or tons of other important stuff. But I didn't want to be misunderstood on such a basic issue.

With respect,
Charles1952

charles1952
reply to posts by vethumanbeing and AfterInfinity

charles1952
Let me take one more quick stab at this question of need, and God's punishment for not letting Him in. I was trying to be kind, but not sarcastic. I'm not going to try to defend my belief in this particular post, just explain it as cleanly as I can.

God created us.
We are happiest when we are in His presence, or "aligned" with Him in our deepest beliefs or thoughts.
He prefers that we are in His presence, because He knows we'll be happiest that way.

I appreciate your devotion and individual truth (that is all that matters) however you must realize others have a different truth. Perhaps we question the validity of a God, or we have an intirely different 'concept' of what we think God is in its successes or monumental failures regarding its explanation of ITSELF to us ITS creations (this you cannot deny). That brings in the 'belief in faith of' factor. Some of us are not quite there yet or are not going to follow that line of thought for whatever the individual soul path determines as true or not true. I have never thought of 'my creator as loving' more of a task master testing and re-testing my potencial devotion. I cannot do it. I question its integrity because of so many witnessed cruelties. I am not saying I am an atheist, I just wonder if a psychopath is in charge.

charles1952
He wants us to be happy because he loves us and wants the best for us. We are free to choose whether we align with Him or not. If we choose not to be with Him, it's like an adult deciding that he will eat dirt. It's not the best choice, but it's his choice.

In saying we are free to choose (we the human having freewill) that means if we chose NOT/NO there should be no penalty or foul of residing in a hell damned for eternity. We have the choice of something else I would imagine. I cant speak for AfterInfinity but I do understand Its viewpoints regarding its own threads (very eloquent).

charles1952
If we spend our lives saying that we don't want to be with Him, in effect saying we want to eat dirt, He will allow us to live our choice eternally. The condition of being without God, or even hope of Him, eternally, is commonly known as "Hell."
You wanted to eat dirt? OK. Here's an infinitely large pile of dirt for you, get started.

Its the where to get started to find it in the first place. Scripture doesnt work for many people; its designed for the the eras 1500 years ago, it doesnt translate through time. Im not one without God, I just have a different interpretation of it as I believe we are all part and parcel of its expression living here.
That being said I am a part of God and so are YOU and I have no idea what Im trying to achieve here on earth in this timeframe OTHER THAN AN ATTEMPT TO RECOGNISE MYSELF WITHIN IT. Ive achieved it so no worries here regarding myself (not lost or eating a dirt sandwich). "Id rather eat a dirt sandwich than ever date Dwight Yoakum again" Sharon Stone.

reply to post by charles1952


Charles,

First problem, definitional. He can't be God and a bumbler both, by the very definition of God. It was a silly proposition to begin with and I'm surprised Cogito, Ergo Sum mentioned it. It was so surprising that I wanted to start the thread to see if I had missed something. Apparently, not.

I think you DID miss something Charles, and you did so within your "first problem". I can't speak for Cogito, Ergo Sum, but as far I'm concerned, The God of the Old Testament is a bumbler, and therefore, by definition can't be God. But, that's not to say that there is no God.

The Old Testament God has enemies, loses his temper, displays human characteristics and weaknesses, has regrets, contradicts himself and doesn't display any of the kind of love or morality that Jesus preached, in my opinion.

In my viewpoint, God is so compelling that it can't be resisted. God's law can't be broken. We can't be separated from God. The Old Testament God isn't compelling, his law is constantly being broken and the Biblical doctrine teaches us of separation from the get go.

windword
reply to post by charles1952

charles1952
First problem, definitional. He can't be God and a bumbler both, by the very definition of God. It was a silly proposition to begin with and I'm surprised Cogito, Ergo Sum mentioned it. It was so surprising that I wanted to start the thread to see if I had missed something. Apparently, not.

windword
I think you DID miss something Charles, and you did so within your "first problem". I can't speak for Cogito, Ergo Sum, but as far I'm concerned, The God of the Old Testament is a bumbler, and therefore, by definition can't be God. But, that's not to say that there is no God.

I think that God is not a demi-god but certainly not the Absolutum that created it (its boss God) more of a CEO uppermanagement style God that took the reigns of this Universe as in was in charge of.

windword
The Old Testament God has enemies, loses his temper, displays human characteristics and weaknesses, has regrets, contradicts himself and doesn't display any of the kind of love or morality that Jesus preached, in my opinion. In my viewpoint, God is so compelling that it can't be resisted. God's law can't be broken. We can't be separated from God. The Old Testament God isn't compelling, his law is constantly being broken and the Biblical doctrine teaches us of separation from the get go.

Too many human characteristics to be ignored, a jealous God, one that innerbred with the human. This was not the plan initially but the seductive qualities of man all apparent. Ive always thought the Adam and Eve Fairytale was referencing that aspect/the fall was actually God percieved as Satan procreating with the human specie. The old testament God is unloving and fearful. Jesus had a different idea of God and it certainly wasnt Abrahamic; as you say, ITs Own laws are broken even by (time immemorial) church elders that attempt to define themselves and the laws as pure; equating in hypocracy and eventual abuse of their constituants; why? Ego driven powermongering. Its all allowed as definition of and for the Source Being (our God of this Universe).

reply to post by vethumanbeing


Indeed, the Old Testament pantheon does seen to be some kind of corporate endeavor, and El Elyon seems to be the CEO, considering the Song Of Moses, from the Dead Sea Scrolls, Deuteronomy 32

8 "When El Elyon gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he separated the sons of men,
he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.
For Yahweh's portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted inheritance."
fuzzyquark.comxa.com...

windword
reply to post by vethumanbeing

windword
Indeed, the Old Testament pantheon does seen to be some kind of corporate endeavor, and El Elyon seems to be the CEO, considering the Song Of Moses, from the Dead Sea Scroll, Deuteronomy 32

8 "When El Elyon gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he separated the sons of men,
he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.

It is indeed a Corporate structure (we are indicative of these behaviorisms mimic it, mirror what was before in the higher realm forms); there was a template set and we as humans duplicate it in exactitude.

windword
For Yahweh's portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted inheritance."
fuzzyquark.comxa.com...

Yahweh at this point would be a demigod; its people being the 'chosen ones' and no other as it bred with them. This is very curious; as Ive always felt the sumarian Anu was actually Yahweh (beside the point) the inheritance is the god/human combined bloodline (the actual holy grail); so no one else matters other than the 'chosen'; the alloted ones to be concerned with holding the bloodline.

reply to post by vethumanbeing

Dear vethumanbeing,

I'm so grateful for your lengthy and thoughtful post. I appreciate the effort.

I also recognize that there are various scriptures and conceptions of God. That is how it should be. I would be astonished and disappointed if we could say "Of course, everyone comprehends the mystery and complexity of the source of the Universe perfectly well, and we are in unanimous agreement."

If anything could get me to deny the existence of God, it would be that.

But please allow me to defend myself on one charge at least:

I'm not going to try to defend my belief in this particular post, just explain it as cleanly as I can.

My purpose, in my most recent post, was to explain my thinking. I, as well as some others, get into the habit of seeing a stated position as a challenge. This time it was not. If we don't understand each other, we certainly don't have a hope of understanding God. I wanted to try to clear up any confusion I might have been creating with my words, not try to persuade anyone that I was right.

Dear vethumanbeing, I find fascinating your idea that the Old Testament God is an inferior sort of god, an intern or probationary god. That is not an easy concept to understand or accept. It seems to imply that Jehovah was a beginner god, Jesus was a skilled veteran god, and there is a real, honest-to-goodness, worthy-to-be-praised god at the top of the hierarchy.

I think this requires a change in what I have always considered the word "God" to mean.

You know, I've just had about four or five thoughts about this hit me all at once. Now I find both your proposition and my understanding of it, to be confused in my head. I think I'll go get a drink.

Oh, by the way, who decides which god is the bumbler and which is the good one? Us? We, with our fouled up lives thoughts and morals, get to judge the morality of God? That's infinitely more foolish than asking me to judge a rap contest. (If someone would care to explain to me what "rap" is, I'd be grateful.)

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by windword

Dear windword,

You know that I admire you, but I really need that drink I was talking about. I'm not a really brilliant guy, and with you and vethumanbeing bringing back, in effect, the idea of Mt. Olympus and committee meetings of the gods, I've got to clear my head.

Some of what I just wrote to vethumanbeing might apply to your post as well.

Hey! Just hit me. So, who is the right god, or the boss god, or whatever we're talking about? Is Jesus the standard against which all other gods must be measured? Is it neither the Old Testament God, the New Testament Father, or Jesus? Somebody else? Throw me something solid I can hold on to before I get swept aside. I know that I'm known as Mr. Confusion, but new records are being set here today, folks.

With respect,
Charles1952

Those odd passages in the OP are codes for other things. It has something to do with mystery school knowledge and what they perceive is empowerment/psi, the part about hair and beards.

If you consider the bible as one thing, God and this is all One God/Goodness/Consciousness interacting with humanity, its a bit hard to fathom...but that isn't what the bible is. Its a collection of gnostic writings, metaphors and allegories, with astrology, earth cycles and even some dark codes from mesopatamia thrown in, ie the sensitive women who's foot can't touch the ground, and cannabilism or rituals to lay seige to israel, at least that's how I see that passage. And it pertains to royalty.

But for a non fundamentalist Christian, most Christians in other words, who don't take all things literally, they usually get along just fine accepting its a collage of things, and that God/Goodness/Love isn't the same Being behind the more negative aspects. Before I was more aware, and going to Church regularly, I just put it down to alot of warring leaders putting their 2 cents into the bible, knew there was more man than God in the old testament

charles1952
reply to post by vethumanbeing

charles1952
I'm so grateful for your lengthy and thoughtful post. I appreciate the effort. I also recognize that there are various scriptures and conceptions of God. That is how it should be. I would be astonished and disappointed if we could say "Of course, everyone comprehends the mystery and complexity of the source of the Universe perfectly well, and we are in unanimous agreement."

We unfortunately as expressions of the divine creator are OBLIGED to ARGUE and DISAGREE as to its substance and ultimate purpose. We are in fact in charge of its 'occupation' we can ultimately FIRE IT; if enough decide its fate in the negative thoughtform (possible and terrible), thats why Im a defender of its missteps, Im IT and in the trenches fighting the theocratric theosophy totally misunderstood. This is the most misunderstood God of Gods ever. The one in charge of this universe was fired in April 2012. Its name is Source Entity.

charles1952
If anything could get me to deny the existence of God, it would be that. But please allow me to defend myself on one charge at least:
I'm not going to try to defend my belief in this particular post, just explain it as cleanly as I can. My purpose, in my most recent post, was to explain my thinking. I, as well as some others, get into the habit of seeing a stated position as a challenge. This time it was not. If we don't understand each other, we certainly don't have a hope of understanding God. I wanted to try to clear up any confusion I might have been creating with my words, not try to persuade anyone that I was right.

You have nothing to defend. I admire you because you dig in your heels (just as I do) to explain a viewpoint. Its a beautiful thing to behold. We have to understand each other as parts of the same God having a conversation; its just play, or offering opinions regarding the same ideaform and in truth fantastic to connect upon the same thing (just from a different perspective).

charles1952
Dear vethumanbeing, I find fascinating your idea that the Old Testament God is an inferior sort of god, an intern or probationary god. That is not an easy concept to understand or accept. It seems to imply that Jehovah was a beginner god, Jesus was a skilled veteran god, and there is a real, honest-to-goodness, worthy-to-be-praised god at the top of the hierarchy.
I think this requires a change in what I have always considered the word "God" to mean.

I am fairly certain that the Old Testament God was not exactly 'inferior' but a probationary God that did not live up to its requirements. It was FIRED (already gave you its name). Beginner Gods, lower management style HAVE TO BE VETTED. You should meet "Origin" its very funny and holds all human traditions as sacred in the most bizarre way (it claims them Comedy Irony as its own creation). This being is the creator of the 12 universes, we of which live within are only one of. Who is in charge here now?

charles1952
You know, I've just had about four or five thoughts about this hit me all at once. Now I find both your proposition and my understanding of it, to be confused in my head. I think I'll go get a drink.

Me too at the dive hardcore venue music bar.

charles1952
Oh, by the way, who decides which god is the bumbler and which is the good one? Us? We, with our fouled up lives thoughts and morals, get to judge the morality of God? That's infinitely more foolish than asking me to judge a rap contest. (If someone would care to explain to me what "rap" is, I'd be grateful.

Yes Charles, it is us that decides, we as humans. There has to be a progenitor to think the firing is possible and that is the spark of an idea to 'get rid of this paradigm' that HOLDS OLD ARCHETYPE VIBRATIONS of Sloth, Lust, Gluttony, etc..the OVERLAY of Gods sins upon Mankind. Rap is a street language poetry from either east or west coast America set to a beat rhythm, not needing instruments, the voice cadences are the beat, the words are the overlay music tones expressing personal experiences in dire/bleak environments. South Central, the Hill, Compton, Englewood California; its an African American Yelp for help. The East and West wound up murdering each other anyway, Biggy Smalls "Death Row Records" Two Pack Shakure; nothing changes. Would it surprise you if I gave you this thought: Jesus was "Origin ITSELF" planted as a human to see what the demigod would do with its fate and destiny? Why do you think it was ultimately fired? You will have a hard time with this, in the future 'another' had to recognise this occurance and do the firing.

reply to post by charles1952


Heres my Vote

Gnosticism presents a distinction between the highest, unknowable God and the demiurgic “creator” of the material. Several systems of Gnostic thought present the Demiurge as antagonistic to the will of the Supreme Being: his act of creation occurs in unconscious semblance of the divine model, and thus is fundamentally flawed, or else is formed with the malevolent intention of entrapping aspects of the divine in materiality. Thus, in such systems, the Demiurge acts as a solution to the problem of evil.

In the most radical form of Christian Gnosticism, the Demiurge is the "jealous God" of the Old Testament

Thus... OT God is not the true Father of creation but a false God... Likely not the creator either...

and a bumbling idiot

reply to post by charles1952

I think I'll go get a drink.

Sounds good! I think I'll join you.


CHEERS!

On topic, no, I don't think that God is a CEO who serves at the pleasure of a board of directors, but the OT God seems to fit that description, to me.

Hey! Just hit me. So, who is the right god, or the boss god, or whatever we're talking about? Is Jesus the standard against which all other gods must be measured?

The God that speaks to your heart, the one that makes you feel whole and gives you comfort, is the one to follow. Men may interpret their experience with God through "holy books" but God doesn't need paper and ink to speak to you and be your moral compass.

windword
reply to post by charles1952

charles1952
I think I'll go get a drink.

windword
Sounds good! I think I'll join you.

CHEERS!

On topic, no, I don't think that God is a CEO who serves at the pleasure of a board of directors, but the OT God seems to fit that description, to me.
Hey! Just hit me. So, who is the right god, or the boss god, or whatever we're talking about? Is Jesus the standard against which all other gods must be measured?

Jesus is the standard because it was Origin in the flesh and bone testing the mettle of the rest of its lower creations and accompaning religious rhetoric by its own middle managers. No one is to blame it WAS A SETTUP in the first place, no harm done.

windword
The God that speaks to your heart, the one that makes you feel whole and gives you comfort, is the one to follow. Men may interpret their experience with God through "holy books" but God doesn't need paper and ink to speak to you and be your moral compass.

The God that speaks to you directly are your posse; your higher selves that have experienced this planet as YOU as a SOUL GROUP ENTITY (many lives experienced define your soul progession that eventually will define you as a whole and able to move along). The process is one of recombining with God Aspect (your home).

reply to post by vethumanbeing


I'm not familiar with "Origin". Is that a mythological character that I don't know about? Or, just a word like "Source"?

windword
reply to post by vethumanbeing

windword
I'm not familiar with "Origin". Is that a mythological character that I don't know about? Or, just a word like "Source"?

Its the Creator of the 12 existing universes its the mysterious number defined as the thirteenth, the Origin of the 12. It is misunderstood or FEARED. It is not mythological it is fact and has been tried to be hidden by demigods since time immemoral. Why would it allow this; for the same reason to see what it had created could potencially LIE to it. The point of this Universe was Source Entity (as managing) report back its findings regarding the status of this one to its creator "Origin". Never happenned; the communication was fouled or incomplete, meaning something was happening with the human untoward or un-natural acts occured between the Demi-God "Source" and Mankind. Big problems; Source was a major player, not what you would think as minor Anu, or Yahweh but as are its creations has the responsibility of ownership of actions by them. The problem was always one of communication and a discordinant resulting in silence.

reply to post by vethumanbeing


The universe, our universe, is pretty old, and the earth is pretty old too. Humanity represents the tiniest blip of time, in comparison to the age of the universe. Perhaps the message has been sent, but hasn't yet arrived, or the message arrived, but the answer isn't forthcoming.