God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?

[Greatest I am]

citizens don't order military assaults
children don't drink or drive vehicles
people aren't allowed to serve out the death penalty

there are plenty of cases where some people have greater power or responsibility, and that is not a logical complaint.

We do have to think about an interpretation of a God who doesn't seem to care about most people, and wonder why people want to love that particular being, but asking that we be made equal to a God and be put under exactly the same rules does not seem very effective to me.

I agree.
I do not promote the notion that we be put under God's rules as ours are more moral than his.
I propose that we all-------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU

and put the S O B God's on offer under our rules.

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

Only I can judge God. I, is you, if you choose to be.

Using the term --- I am here means you. I do not mean me unless I am referring to myself and all I say applies to all of us. You are ( I ) to you as I am I to me. Only you then can judge the God construct that you see as you evaluate what you know of God.

Jesus said that at the end of days he would return. He meant in spirit only. Not a physical manifestation. He also said that the time of the end was at hand and that the temple of God was within each of us. The tern spirit represents, the spirit of the law, what is written in the hearts, ---- God in other words, ---- is defined as laws and rules and such as they are the only thing you can follow at all times, ---- and these are set by you and you are in effect ruling yourself in terms of following the God construct you have developed.

Jesus is telling you that you and your heart are the only things of importance in terms of leadership as it is the rules you have accepted as worthy of following. Jesus warned that at end times there would be a number of Jesus’ to choose from and morality is what you will have to choose from.

That is why I think it important to evaluate what Jesus said and determine if it is worthy and moral or not.

Jesus Christ. Madman or something worse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4QXOgVfY9k&feature=player_embedded

Below, Bishop Spong speaks of basically redefining Christianity. Going from a church or religious thinking, to a more spiritual or heart felt thinking. I also urge Christianity to change because it is now too immoral to ignore with today’s mentality. It’s overall policies are immoral in my view. The God of war must die and Jesus declared the full and only God that is required and that the noble lie of politics should be revoked to let all know that the God you likely know was always a myth. This may be a good time for you to contemplate such a move as many Christians haves rejected the O.T. God and only focus on Jesus and loving policies.

Bishop Spong speaks well to this issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AfFcAmx-Ro&feature=relmfu

Apotheosis means just recognizing that you are on a journey of being your own God. Some few will have help from God on this through a real apotheosis but only the very few it seems. You cannot get away from that fact so you may as well forget about fantasy, miracles and magic. They were never real and you are the strongest force you will ever know. After all, who but you can make you want to do anything voluntarily? There is no other force that can do this and therefore you are God in the real sense of being master of yourself. If that does not compute with you then remember that A & E became as Gods, God’s own words, and yours is the same birth rite. Throw it away if you wish. You cannot reject the knowledge of good and evil so I cannot fathom why you would throw away the fact that you as well can become as Gods.

The moral of Jesus and his sacrifice is that we should accept being God, and ruling ourselves even against a government if needs be. Become archetypal Moses and face government and declare that it faces one as great as itself. That is what being a free man is all about.

The time of the end is when Jesus becomes your God on earth, ---- again this is you, --- who takes the place of the mythical heavenly God of war. Jesus/you, as the way, the man’s way of judging first, not some absentee God’s unknown standard. Your covenant with yourself is to be the new covenant. Man answering to man and himself. Not to some unknown God.

This clip from J. Haidt shows that we instinctively share God’s morals. In this we are truly Gods and children of God.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

I am God because I am the only one who is capable of judging the God I know.
You are a God in your own rite as you are the only one who is capable of judging the God you know.

The noble lie is firmly in place and manipulating your thinking. Discard it. In this day and age we do not need it the way we may have in the past.

The Noble Lie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDNHM84lBA0

As a Gnostic Christian, this theology/philosophy is quite natural to me and can be for all people.

Try thinking as the God that you are. Stop being a sheep and rise to your true inheritance as a shepherd. That is the message Jesus wants you to recognize.

Regards
DL

P.S.
Listen to Jesus and hear for the first time in your life.
Ps 82:6 I said, "You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High.
Hosea 1:10 Ye are the sons of the living God.
Do you think that sons of God are destined to be sheep or shepherds?
Jesus was here to empower us. Not enslave us. Do not waste what he gave.



Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

ha ha ha. quite so.
yes. the issue is what we know, what we think, how we agree to merge those understandings into a social system, whether there are ideas for which our systems are not explanatory. Perhaps, in the oft used description of the light wave or particle problem, in which the experiment determines the outcome of what is seen. Although the instruments of our perception are obviously very limited, they are what we have. This instrument must be trusted to some degree to allow for our perceptions to be to turned into symbols that can be transmitted to each other. As you point out, my symbology and your symbology may be totally different and cause a lot of confusion in our communication.
i believe, contrary to christian fundamentalist opinion, that we do in fact have a duty to think about what kind of God a person should worship. I don't imagine it is of any value for us to be given any revelation that is purposefully misleading, unless at some point it can be figured out. Calling evil "good" and good "evil" is just going to lead to followers of the bible that are evil, according to human values, as GIA proposes. I guess there is always the possibility that the revelation was time specific, but the bible is understood as the "word of God" which endures forever. I personally believe that we have a responsibility to interpret the bible in a way that keeps up with modern human ideas. If we don't christianity will just be a cult filled with the people who are best at ignoring and probably demonizing (to use Wynn's sometimes accurate interpretation) the vast sea of humanity that doesn't understand any of their symbology enough to have a conversation with them.

Well put.

Do you know this bishop? I think he speaks you language and wants to change Christianity from a religio to a spiritual movement.
I think he sees 20/20.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AfFcAmx-Ro&feature=relmfu

Regards
DL

 

[cole grey]

Do you know this bishop?

I saw some of that guy when you posted before.
I am not a proponent of secular christianity. That just sounds like a philosophy to me, not a religion, but that of course is using my personally preferred definition of "religion".
I am still going for a devotional path, although it is a rationalistic mind's method of devotion, which seems to me the correct way to keep moving forward.

 

[wynn]

yes. the issue is what we know, what we think, how we agree to merge those understandings into a social system, whether there are ideas for which our systems are not explanatory. Perhaps, in the oft used description of the light wave or particle problem, in which the experiment determines the outcome of what is seen. Although the instruments of our perception are obviously very limited, they are what we have. This instrument must be trusted to some degree to allow for our perceptions to be to turned into symbols that can be transmitted to each other. As you point out, my symbology and your symbology may be totally different and cause a lot of confusion in our communication.

I think it comes down to what relevance we ascribe to eachother and the outcomes of our communications.
I think this communication aspect is often overlooked in these discussions.
Some religious topics gain relevance only in the sense that there exists conflict over them, and the parties involved are trying to indirectly solve the conflict by addressing those topics. (Usually, that doesn't seem to work.)

For example, is it relevant whether Jesus was born of a virgin or not or what the specifics of virgin birth are or would be? I don't think these things are relevant per se; they are only relevant inasmuch as one is faced with the anger of people who believe that, say, there was no virgin birth, and on the other hand, with people who believe there was. And if both parties are adamantly angry and there are socio-economic strings attached (such as them being your parents or your boss), then the topic of virgin birth will be relevant.
Otherwise, without those negative emotions and strings attached, how much would it matter whether Jesus was born of a virgin or not, or whether he even existed or not?

i believe, contrary to christian fundamentalist opinion, that we do in fact have a duty to think about what kind of God a person should worship.

Given that those Christian fundamentalists reject many other notions of God, it appears they have in fact given thought to what kind of GOD a person should worship.
They just came to different conclusions than some other people.
For example, "God doesn't coddle people," one self-appointed Christian said.

I guess there is always the possibility that the revelation was time specific, but the bible is understood as the "word of God" which endures forever.

But is it to be understood as being obligatory for everyone, at all times and places?

I can easily imagine that the Bible be obligatory for people with a particular background or a particular character, while not for others (of course, KJV-like translations don't support that).

I personally believe that we have a responsibility to interpret the bible in a way that keeps up with modern human ideas.

But with that, where is there any guarantee that acting on the instruction as given in the Bible will still produce the promised results?

If we don't christianity will just be a cult filled with the people who are best at ignoring and probably demonizing (to use Wynn's sometimes accurate interpretation) the vast sea of humanity that doesn't understand any of their symbology enough to have a conversation with them.

What if Christianity in fact is such a cult that ignores and demonizes everyone else?
What if doing so is actually a good thing, an evolutionary advantage?
What if ignoring and demonizing the outgroup is the only way for sustainable, long-term survival of the ingroup?

 

[Balerion]

I personally believe that we have a responsibility to interpret the bible in a way that keeps up with modern human ideas.

How exactly does one interpret Exodus 21:1-11 in a way that keeps up with modern human ideas?

I've never understood this attempt to guise one's faith as some sort of intellectual pursuit. If you were genuinely interested in being a sound moral person, you wouldn't be married to the idea of making the bible more accessible and more relevant to people.

 

[cole grey]

How exactly does one interpret Exodus 21:1-11 in a way that keeps up with modern human ideas?

I've never understood this attempt to guise one's faith as some sort of intellectual pursuit. If you were genuinely interested in being a sound moral person, you wouldn't be married to the idea of making the bible more accessible and more relevant to people.

Firstly try adding in the new testament. That should help out quite a bit. I am not jewish, Jesus clearly taught that the law consists of loving god and your neighbor #1, so anything that isn't loving your neighbor that is in the law is out.

I love how people like you have these polemics against pure literalist interpretations of the bible that aren't even used by fundamentalist christians of the most extreme kind, and love to point out how the bible when read a certain way gets science wrong, which means (in your mind) we should (in terms of spiritual, not just scientific, value) throw the bible away. It is the exact same thing religious people do who get up and say the earth is 9,000 years old and science has no answers, just from the other side. It isn't a conversation at all, it is a demand that someone else think like you do. And i personally have confidence that my cognitive functions are pretty sound, even if i am still only learning how to rise above my personal moral issues.
I challenge you to bring me a single way in which my understanding is not an intellectual pursuit, and also give me one good reason to say my interpretations of the bible are immoral. I do appreciate you having taken the time to engage on the subject, with your last post, because your ideas are a valuable (very tiny, but valuable) input into the general understanding of what needs to happen to keep moving forward in the study of religion. You should really check out some of the liberal christianity that has been around for at least 50 years, which clearly has moral value, before you jump on the wagon with the semi-current "anti-theists" who are basically fundamentalists with different dogma.

I have an important question for you - what books do you use to get your ethics from? You certainly can't get them from a science book, you must have philosophers you think make sense. Who are they? Or do you just go on some purported "common sense", or even worse, what you and your buddies or your government agrees upon? I agree that the bible is not a standalone all-inclusive guide to all thought, but what would you recommend to replace it, if (as it seems) you think it is basically worthless.

 

[wynn]

I have an important question for you - what books do you use to get your ethics from? You certainly can't get them from a science book, you must have philosophers you think make sense. Who are they? Or do you just go on some purported "common sense", or even worse, what you and your buddies or your government agrees upon? I agree that the bible is not a standalone all-inclusive guide to all thought, but what would you recommend to replace it, if (as it seems) you think it is basically worthless.

It's not clear how anyone is getting their ethics from the Bible to begin with, given that the Bible says all kinds of things, and people who consider themselves "Christians" pick and choose verses that suit them (or their neuroses) to explain and justify their ethics principles.

It is only the individual Christian traditions that propose particular systems of how to interpret the Bible and who unify believers (of course, Catholics have a different system than the Methodists, etc.).

A lone-ranger Christian (that's a googleable term) is likely to be hopelessly lost in the sea of confusion as to which Bible verse to turn to.

 

[cole grey]

For example, is it relevant whether Jesus was born of a virgin or not or what the specifics of virgin birth are or would be?

yes. very much so. Can we know the facts about this in the same concrete way we know the facts about many other things? Highly doubtful. If you mean they are irrelevant because we cannot know, that is excellent pragmatism, but I don't think the idea is more or less important based on whether we can do a clinical trial on it. I guess i actually understand you aren't talking about the pragmatic value, but other than that aspect, i don't see how a non-virgin birth wouldn't have some effect on christian thought.

Otherwise, without those negative emotions and strings attached, how much would it matter whether Jesus was born of a virgin or not, or whether he even existed or not?

i think Jesus' non-existence would matter a lot to my personal interpretation, the virgin birth thing seems to be a koan to me since there is no answer, besides "couldn't happen", or "never mind, it's magic", and neither of these answers fit my question.

Given that those Christian fundamentalists reject many other notions of God, it appears they have in fact given thought to what kind of GOD a person should worship.

a lot of them just worship the biggest gorilla in the forest, or some irrational conflation of conflicting ideas they think is perfectly logical. Neither of those makes sense to me.

For example, "God doesn't coddle people," one self-appointed Christian said.

i think it would be better to say, "god doesn't seem to coddle some people", but nobody likes to talk sensibly, they want to have a great "quote".

But is it to be understood as being obligatory for everyone, at all times and places?

it seems like the bible can't make sense unless it is "the one and only way" to heaven for some people, but not all people, otherwise it has already failed a lot of people.

I can easily imagine that the Bible be obligatory for people with a particular background or a particular character, while not for others (of course, KJV-like translations don't support that).

that is exactly how i see it, and what i think allows me to treat people on other paths with respect.

But with that, where is there any guarantee that acting on the instruction as given in the Bible will still produce the promised results?

guarantees? You sometimes get those when you buy a product at a store. Other than that you won't find many in life. Also, everyone WILL interpret the bible, even if it is by accepting some church leader's interpretation (or secularist, or attacker)- they will accept the interpretation and call it their understanding of the bible. There is no getting around the fact that humans "filter" everything.

What if Christianity in fact is such a cult that ignores and demonizes everyone else?

there are some sects that fit that description and some that don't, so an overarching judgement is not sensible.

What if doing so is actually a good thing, an evolutionary advantage?
What if ignoring and demonizing the outgroup is the only way for sustainable, long-term survival of the ingroup?

well that is basically what many people propose about the world and it's inevitable over-population. I think it is sad that people would consider war a better answer to population control than becoming a functional society.

 

[cole grey]

A lone-ranger Christian (that's a googleable term) is likely to be hopelessly lost in the sea of confusion as to which Bible verse to turn to.

and that is different from people who are hopelessly lost in every other answer to the questions of life, how? I mean people who aren't following a tradition, anyone who doesn't fit the traditions.

 

[Greatest I am]

I saw some of that guy when you posted before.
I am not a proponent of secular christianity. That just sounds like a philosophy to me, not a religion, but that of course is using my personally preferred definition of "religion".
I am still going for a devotional path, although it is a rationalistic mind's method of devotion, which seems to me the correct way to keep moving forward.

God should be devoted to man, not man devoted to God.

What kind of shepherd leaves his flck at the mercy of Satan to whom the shepherd gave the power to deceive the whole flock?

Only an insane shepherd.

Should the weak be devoted to the strong or the strong be devoted to the weak?

Regards
DL

 

[wynn]

yes. very much so. Can we know the facts about this in the same concrete way we know the facts about many other things? Highly doubtful. If you mean they are irrelevant because we cannot know, that is excellent pragmatism, but I don't think the idea is more or less important based on whether we can do a clinical trial on it. I guess i actually understand you aren't talking about the pragmatic value, but other than that aspect, i don't see how a non-virgin birth wouldn't have some effect on christian thought.

For one, a non-virgin birth would mean that Jesus was born of a defiled woman.
In all major theistic cultures, there is the dictate that a woman needs to be a virgin before entering marriage, and that a woman who is not a virgin anymore, is defiled, less worth as a person.

For two, a non-virgin birth would suggest that Jesus was actually a mere human, not God incarnate.

it seems like the bible can't make sense unless it is "the one and only way" to heaven for some people, but not all people, otherwise it has already failed a lot of people.

I think this extreme exclusivism is inherent to the Bible as such, and isn't merely a matter of interpretation.

But with that, where is there any guarantee that acting on the instruction as given in the Bible will still produce the promised results?

guarantees? You sometimes get those when you buy a product at a store. Other than that you won't find many in life.

We are talking about religion, that one thing that one is supposed to build one's life on and around.

Introducing a "And if that doesn't work out, I will do something else" attitude suggests that the speaker doesn't have much faith and doesn't know what he is actually talking about.
And that kind of attitude is allright - as long as we aren't talking about GOD. One really should not indulge oneself in being all hocus-pocus, wishy-washy about GOD.

well that is basically what many people propose about the world and it's inevitable over-population. I think it is sad that people would consider war a better answer to population control than becoming a functional society.

Do you have an actionable plan for how to produce enough food for everyone, and to do so in a way that is sustainable in the long term?

A lone-ranger Christian (that's a googleable term) is likely to be hopelessly lost in the sea of confusion as to which Bible verse to turn to.

and that is different from people who are hopelessly lost in every other answer to the questions of life, how? I mean people who aren't following a tradition, anyone who doesn't fit the traditions.

It's different in the sense that one person is making claims about God and doing so on nothing but their own personal authority; and the other is not making claims about God.

As far as definitions go, no other claims have such an impact on one's life as the claims one makes about God.
Which is why claims about God are of such crucial importance, so one better make correct one.

 

[cole grey]

For one, a non-virgin birth would mean that Jesus was born of a defiled woman.
In all major theistic cultures, there is the dictate that a woman needs to be a virgin before entering marriage, and that a woman who is not a virgin anymore, is defiled, less worth as a person.
For two, a non-virgin birth would suggest that Jesus was actually a mere human, not God incarnate.

that is why i said, "i don't see how a non-virgin birth wouldn't have some effect on christian thought". I was responding to this question you asked, "is it relevant whether Jesus was born of a virgin or not or what the specifics of virgin birth are or would be?"

I think this extreme exclusivism is inherent to the Bible as such, and isn't merely a matter of interpretation.

you are entitled to your interpretation of course. In your interpretation, this exclusivism cannot be interpreted away. I don't see how that means it cannot be read differently from how you read it. Perhaps this a subject we will explore further at some point.

We are talking about religion, that one thing that one is supposed to build one's life on and around.Introducing a "And if that doesn't work out, I will do something else" attitude suggests that the speaker doesn't have much faith and doesn't know what he is actually talking about.And that kind of attitude is allright - as long as we aren't talking about GOD. One really should not indulge oneself in being all hocus-pocus, wishy-washy about GOD.

i really appreciate your ideas that some things should be able to be conducted in a more sacred manner than normal human life. I guess it is just something in me that logically assumes that since we are humans, we can only do things as capably as humans can do them, which is to say haphazardly.

Do you have an actionable plan for how to produce enough food for everyone, and to do so in a way that is sustainable in the long term?

if our emphasis was on providing food, that might necessitate curtailing the freedom of people to own islands where two people go to relax, getting there on a boat that cost the equivalent of million pound of food to make. The problem we have is a freedom problem. Perhaps if given the choice between war and a large family, few would choose war. Of course that doesn't account for the localization of wars. Americans can sit back unafraid of soldiers dying while robot planes kill the enemies, so it is hard to say whether Americans will be able to even understand what war is after a certain number of years has passed. It is clearly quite complicated, but i see this more as a compassion problem than a technology problem.

It's different in the sense that one person is making claims about God and doing so on nothing but their own personal authority; and the other is not making claims about God.

i see very few people who haven't cherry picked through the religious traditions promoting their personal ideas about God. It seems that most people are dependent on some traditional input, so "nothing but their own personal authority" is inaccurate.

As far as definitions go, no other claims have such an impact on one's life as the claims one makes about God.
Which is why claims about God are of such crucial importance, so one better make correct one.

I agree that ideas you once had will have an effect on you forever, but i don't see how you can think that ideas you once had must always be the ideas you claim as truth.

 

[river]

How can god follow the first principle of morality if he doesn't have a female as an equal?

 

[Greatest I am]

How can god follow the first principle of morality if he doesn't have a female as an equal?

One does not need a mate to do unto others but you make a good point.

Morals are born from the cooperative needs of a group.

God, never being part of a group had no need to develop morals.
All the morals given in scriptures are then created by men and it is not surprising that our main five tenets are close to what is given in the old books of wisdom and since Christianity was created as a form of social control and manipulation, it is not surprising that Rome put God and thus themselves above the moral principles. They demanded that the population be sheep and not goats.


I will add these clips to the mix for your consideration. The first which is part of the second speaks to my Gnostic Christian label and the second shows my view of religions overall and the Noble Lie that I think we and our governments should rescind. The third clip speaks to the reason that religions were invented in the first place as it shows why social control was required for city states that had to deal with the reality of finite resources. I see these city states as led by a timocratic king who through the religion that he would have created, also realized that there had to be a tyrannical part to his benevolent duty and created a religion to be just that
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D134B912A5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrMtRm3b8MU&feature=autoplay&list=PLCBF574D134B912A5&playnext=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne1wIEGnPWo

I see the King/God as having to have the morals shown in the Haigt clip.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

He would have to create his religion as expressed through his high priest/tyrant who would live by the first commandment of God, place no one above me as the enforcer of his King/God's rules and laws while still obeying his King. The larger Roman system would later assume the same system through the Noble Lie. First through the Flavians and later through Constantine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD0eSqFJ7J4

Regards
DL

 

[cole grey]

God should be devoted to man, not man devoted to God.

What kind of shepherd leaves his flck at the mercy of Satan to whom the shepherd gave the power to deceive the whole flock?

Only an insane shepherd.

Should the weak be devoted to the strong or the strong be devoted to the weak?

Regards
DL

i don't hear stories about man dying to save God, so i would say that in the final analysis God would be described as devoted to man, at least according to some christian ideas.

 

[Greatest I am]

i don't hear stories about man dying to save God, so i would say that in the final analysis God would be described as devoted to man, at least according to some christian ideas.

Yes but then they have to explain how a God who is devoted to man ends up sending the vast majority to hell or death when he could do otherwise.

Regards
DL

 

[cole grey]

Yes but then they have to explain how a God who is devoted to man ends up sending the vast majority to hell or death when he could do otherwise.

Regards
DL

I agree wholeheartedly with that.

 

[Greatest I am]

Thanks.

Regards
DL