Is needing or wanting to worship a God a human defect or benefit?

Is needing or wanting to worship a God a human defect or benefit?
 
Gods have no needs or wants that man can assuage. Gods are said to be so high above us that for any God to have such a need would be like man craving the adoration of germs.
 
I see us as just as foolish as germs and the creatures shown in this clip as we act the same way.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4a_uwyY_H4
 
I can see where at one time it would have been profitable to bend the knee to King/Gods as in the original archetype city states, as used in the original Eden myth written by the Jews, but not today.
 
That myth I think was written of the following reality.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ9cvYB7Tes
 
Our present secular systems of governance have bested the Gods in the moral and legal senses and only the really right wing theists would want to live under the laws of the old barbaric Gods.
 
I am not an atheist and seek God to appease what I recognize as my spiritual side. But not to bend the knee or adore; just to improve any defect in my thinking; if I have one.  
 
I know that there are way more followers out there than leaders but cannot fathom why someone would want to lower themselves to adore even a God unless it is strictly as a self-serving action that we hope God will recognize and reward.
 
That is hardly being good for goodness sake. God would know and send such hypocrites to hell. Which scriptures say is where the vast majority of us will end up regardless.
 
That means that you, even if you pray daily and hard, are likely going to hell along with most of those you know. In a sense, you should feel sorry for those few who make it to heaven as they must spend eternity watching their loved ones in purposeless torture. That would drive any moral person insane.
 
Gods have no needs or wants and has no rewards to give in exchange for what Gods have no need or want of.
 
The Godhead I know certainly disavows such a need or want.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkT1-N0VqUc
 
 
Why then, if you are a believer, do you need or want to worship a God if not for the reward you think it will bring you?
 
Is your need to adore a God a defect or benefit?
 
Regards
DL

As far as I am concerned, all that God requires of us at this stage is a belief in Jesus and all that, that entails.

There is no demand to worship anyone.

Everything before the birth of Jesus is totally irrelevant to today.

If you believe in Jesus then you will automatically lead a decent life and ignore that which you know to be wrong, just as you would avoid putting your hand in a fire knowing the consequences of doing so, the choice is ours.

polyglide wrote:As far as I am concerned, all that God requires of us at this stage is a belief in Jesus and all that, that entails.

There is no demand to worship anyone.

Everything before the birth of Jesus is totally irrelevant to today.

If you believe in Jesus then you will automatically lead a decent life and ignore that which you know to be wrong, just as you would avoid putting your hand in a fire knowing the consequences of doing so, the choice is ours.

John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

What are you waiting for?

Or don't you really believe?

If you can and do not act then you are not a moral man.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:
Is needing or wanting to worship a God a human defect or benefit?
 
Gods have no needs or wants that man can assuage. Gods are said to be so high above us that for any God to have such a need would be like man craving the adoration of germs.

My finding is that God needs and wants every person very much, and both the need and want of God is super huge and demanding. 

Human beings do not really need or want God, and if any person truly seeks after God (and very few do) then we find out things which are very unsettling.

Greatest I am wrote:

I am not an atheist and seek God to appease what I recognize as my spiritual side. But not to bend the knee or adore; just to improve any defect in my thinking; if I have one.  

 I see that as wise, and my finding is that God does not want or need anyone to bow down or to adore Him.

All religions have been confused, so we can not base our own knowledge off of anyone else without using a lot of discretion.

Greatest I am wrote:
God would know and send such hypocrites to hell. Which scriptures say is where the vast majority of us will end up regardless.

There is no such thing as "Hell" except in the frightened imagination, and in the Bible the word for Hell only meant a grave, and of course the Greek word "Hades" which has the meaning of burning people in the old Greek religion, but Jesus did not teach the Greek religion.  

Just because religions teach about a Hell and many people believe in a Hell - it still is a bunch of nonsense.

 

Greatest I am wrote:
Gods have no needs or wants and has no rewards to give in exchange for what Gods have no need or want of.
 
The Godhead I know certainly disavows such a need or want.

 God wants reconciliation, and that is a big want.

And God will get it whether anyone likes it or not.

Greatest I am wrote: 
Why then, if you are a believer, do you need or want to worship a God if not for the reward you think it will bring you?
 
Is your need to adore a God a defect or benefit?

A lot of people of every religion has low and ulterior and selfish motives, but that is better than nothing.

They are not any more wrong than are the rest of humanity.

Just saying.

"A lot of people of every religion has low and ulterior and selfish motives, but that is better than nothing."

So selfish and self-serving motivation is better than nothing.

If you say so. Shows rather poor morals though.


"My finding is that God needs and wants every person very much, and both the need and want of God is super huge and demanding."

Strange that he lived for untold billions of years before suddenly finding he desired something he did not have.

Where can I find these findings of yours that show there is even a God around to want anything from us?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:"A lot of people of every religion has low and ulterior and selfish motives, but that is better than nothing."

So selfish and self-serving motivation is better than nothing.

If you say so. Shows rather poor morals though.

I agree.

But I see it as more than simply poor morals, as it is shallow life, and lack of enlightenment, human defect.

That sad human reality does not mean that anyone approves of it.

The Bible words it like this: Having eyes which fail to see, having ears and fails to hear, having a heart which can not understand. Matthew 13:14-17

Greatest I am wrote:
"My finding is that God needs and wants every person very much, and both the need and want of God is super huge and demanding."

Strange that he lived for untold billions of years before suddenly finding he desired something he did not have.

Your statement above is severely heavy speculation, as that is a thing that we do not know about, and that the day came when God did want it does not mean anything was lacking before that day.

My understanding is that even God must wait for the right time, as even God is limited.

What the Bible tells us (and I am not saying this is true or not but only that it is told) that before the universe (or before humans) God created another race of beings called "Angels" and they lived with God for a long time (maybe billions of years but "years" are a human calculation) and then the Bible declares a war happened in the heavens where a third of the Angels rebelled and caused a war in the heavens, so whether that is true or not the Bible is telling us that we humans are the last or the latest but we were not the first.

And science tells us about other forms of humans who came, lived and went, died off long before our own "modern" humans appeared, so again we were not the first.

Greatest I am wrote:
Where can I find these findings of yours that show there is even a God around to want anything from us?

That is a tough questions for many people so I do not know where you stand on such things and the answer needs to fit the person.

For myself I did not find God in religions or in any Holy Book, as for me I saw the ghost and spirits as there were haunted houses and places where I found there to be Demons in this world, and based on that then I deducted that since there was a spirit life form then the existence of God was logical and provable, and then I went to the Bible and to other revelations books from every religion as I wanted to find out what I was dealing with, so that was how I found out about the God thing for myself.

JP Cusick wrote:and then I went to the Bible and to other revelations books from every religion

That's where you made the mistake. The existence of ghosts and spirits (which I'm very open-minded about) only provides evidence of some sort of afterlife - and perhaps not even that as these spectres could be the result of dimensional shifts, temporal anomalies, and a myriad of other esoteric reasons. Ghosts and spirits do not, in any way, provide any evidence that a) there's a God and b) that any particular religion is true.

Going to "holy books" for answers is like walking into a den of vipers and trying to untangle the snakes without getting bitten. Those people who wrote those holy books have no better a clue as to what ghosts and spirits and demons are than you or I. All one can do is speculate and offer up conjecture, which can be quite enjoyable, I admit. The problem I have with holy books is that they muddy the waters with fear mongering, threats, horrific laws, twisted morals, rigid hierarchies, etc. They claim to have the Truth when they don't. Yet, by attaching religion to real paranormal phenomenon like ghosts, it makes the religion seem truthful.

I'd recommend visiting your local bookstore and/or library and pick up some non-religious books about ghosts, et al., because these authors have some pretty remarkable theories that make a lot of sense minus the baggage of religion.

Shirina wrote: That's where you made the mistake. The existence of ghosts and spirits (which I'm very open-minded about) only provides evidence of some sort of afterlife - and perhaps not even that as these spectres could be the result of dimensional shifts, temporal anomalies, and a myriad of other esoteric reasons. Ghosts and spirits do not, in any way, provide any evidence that a) there's a God and b) that any particular religion is true.

I disagree that spirits or ghost show any sort of "afterlife" as all it shows me is a parallel life form which happens to co-exist with us here.

There is very little evidence which is highly speculation that we humans will turn into spirits or ghost after we die, as that is a different story.

Also I do not claim the some spirit life proves a God or any religion, but experiencing spirits does demonstrate that there is something, and it is possible for them to communicate so it adds a lot of weight to there being a real God.

For myself since I was already knowledgeable about the spirit or ghost life then I went to the Holy books with a far different perspective, as I went to the Holy books to help explain things to me about things for which I had already experienced.

Shirina wrote:
Going to "holy books" for answers is like walking into a den of vipers and trying to untangle the snakes without getting bitten. Those people who wrote those holy books have no better a clue as to what ghosts and spirits and demons are than you or I. All one can do is speculate and offer up conjecture, which can be quite enjoyable, I admit. The problem I have with holy books is that they muddy the waters with fear mongering, threats, horrific laws, twisted morals, rigid hierarchies, etc. They claim to have the Truth when they don't. Yet, by attaching religion to real paranormal phenomenon like ghosts, it makes the religion seem truthful.

I agree with what you are saying here except that I view that in a positive and not negative way as you describe it.

You say = "Those people who wrote those holy books have no better a clue as to what ghosts and spirits and demons are than you or I."
That is a point of value, that other people have insight as like you or I do, because that makes them as beneficial.

You say = "The problem I have with holy books is that they muddy the waters with ...."
What I say is that since we do know that the books have been "muddied" then we can separate the mud from the better parts. The very best parts of each of the world's holy books are left completely out of each of their orthodox religions. We (or I) do not want to throw out the precious fruit along with the nasty mud.

Shirina wrote:I'd recommend visiting your local bookstore and/or library and pick up some non-religious books about ghosts, et al., because these authors have some pretty remarkable theories that make a lot of sense minus the baggage of religion.

I read a lot, and I am not stuck into any religious trap, so I agree with this advice, and I do that.

I am very much impressed with the new science of parallel-universes as I believe they found something profound in that.

JP Cusick wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:"A lot of people of every religion has low and ulterior and selfish motives, but that is better than nothing."

So selfish and self-serving motivation is better than nothing.

If you say so. Shows rather poor morals though.

I agree.

But I see it as more than simply poor morals, as it is shallow life, and lack of enlightenment, human defect.

That sad human reality does not mean that anyone approves of it.

The Bible words it like this: Having eyes which fail to see, having ears and fails to hear, having a heart which can not understand. Matthew 13:14-17

Greatest I am wrote:
"My finding is that God needs and wants every person very much, and both the need and want of God is super huge and demanding."

Strange that he lived for untold billions of years before suddenly finding he desired something he did not have.

Your statement above is severely heavy speculation, as that is a thing that we do not know about, and that the day came when God did want it does not mean anything was lacking before that day.

My understanding is that even God must wait for the right time, as even God is limited.

What the Bible tells us (and I am not saying this is true or not but only that it is told) that before the universe (or before humans) God created another race of beings called "Angels" and they lived with God for a long time (maybe billions of years but "years" are a human calculation) and then the Bible declares a war happened in the heavens where a third of the Angels rebelled and caused a war in the heavens, so whether that is true or not the Bible is telling us that we humans are the last or the latest but we were not the first.

And science tells us about other forms of humans who came, lived and went, died off long before our own "modern" humans appeared, so again we were not the first.

Greatest I am wrote:
Where can I find these findings of yours that show there is even a God around to want anything from us?

That is a tough questions for many people so I do not know where you stand on such things and the answer needs to fit the person.

For myself I did not find God in religions or in any Holy Book, as for me I saw the ghost and spirits as there were haunted houses and places where I found there to be Demons in this world, and based on that then I deducted that since there was a spirit life form then the existence of God was logical and provable, and then I went to the Bible and to other revelations books from every religion as I wanted to find out what I was dealing with, so that was how I found out about the God thing for myself.

What can I say.

"Your statements above are severely heavy speculations, as those are things that we do not know about,"

If a spirit or ghost lives, how does that make God logical and provable?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:
If a spirit or ghost lives, how does that make God logical and provable?

What I do say is that the awareness of the spirit-life is a very powerful piece of evidence in the possibility of a God, and I see that as evidence in the probability of God too.

But that is NOT the only evidence, because the assorted Holy Books throughout humanity are more pieces of evidence, including the fantastic depth of some of the information and knowledge giving in the Holy Books, as some parts simply could not come from a human source - the words are human but parts of the message(s) are divine.

Plus there are other ways (evidence) for people to know about God, as in meditation and revelation and feelings and through the controversial ESP too.

My own research tells me that those who deny the existence of God and of spirits have to deny very many of their own feelings and visions and deny their own senses in order to deny the God and spirits.

So ancient books, all hears say is evidence to you.

Let me know if you ever have anything personal. That is what God is all about.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:So ancient books, all hears say is evidence to you.

Let me know if you ever have anything personal. That is what God is all about.

Regards
DL

This is actually your thread that you started and I am the one visiting here.

As such if you want to continue any discussion then you your self have to participate your self.

I have given you quite a bit here, and if you fail to appreciate it - then so be it.

Just FYI.

JP Cusick wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:So ancient books, all hears say is evidence to you.

Let me know if you ever have anything personal. That is what God is all about.

Regards
DL

This is actually your thread that you started and I am the one visiting here.

As such if you want to continue any discussion then you your self have to participate your self.

I have given you quite a bit here, and if you fail to appreciate it - then so be it.

Just FYI.

I do appreciate your input but you offer nothing for proof of your belief except for document that have mostly been found to be plagiarized form other older belief systems.

You talk of your research yet have gone to the side that requires that you believe in fantasy, miracles and magic as well as a genocidal son murdering God.

Why do you not seek a God with decent morals?

Are morals and ethics not the most important part of life for us to learn?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:
I do appreciate your input but you offer nothing for proof of your belief except for document that have mostly been found to be plagiarized form other older belief systems.

Well I am not trying to prove any such thing to you or to anyone.

My understanding from your opening is that you already believe in a "Godhead" (as you put it) and you asked the question = Is needing or wanting to worship a God a human defect or benefit?

That is what I was sticking to, as I do try to be very precise.

If you view the ancient holy books as unreliable then I see that as your own human defect, because they are a great human benefit to me.

Greatest I am wrote:
You talk of your research yet have gone to the side that requires that you believe in fantasy, miracles and magic as well as a genocidal son murdering God.

I say you are presuming way too much about me, as I have my own individual personal religion and faith and I am super far away from any orthodoxy.

For me I reject the vast majority of so-called miracles, and my understanding of the Gospels is that Jesus did not die on the cross because the soldier pierced His side and drained the fluid off of His lung which thereby saved His life, per John 19:33-35, and then Jesus lived for a short time longer and later He died from the severe wounds.

Greatest I am wrote:
Why do you not seek a God with decent morals?

Are morals and ethics not the most important part of life for us to learn?

It depends on what you (or anyone) means by morals and ethics?

In my view those are not enough, as there must be a virtuous integrity based on a realistic faith.

Many people who we refer to as "hypocrites" can fake the morals and ethics, so it must be more - IMO.

I do believe in a Godhead but that is not your immoral genocidal son murdering God.

“If you view the ancient holy books as unreliable then I see that as your own human defect, because they are a great human benefit to me.”

I see some wisdom in the bible but tell me, how reliable is a book that begins with a talking snake and ends with a seven headed monster?

How literally should you and I read this book?


How can one have realistic faith when faith is in what cannot be shown to be realistic or real?

If it did point to something real then faith would not be required as belief would crowd it out.


“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
Martin Luther “

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:
I do believe in a Godhead but that is not your immoral genocidal son murdering God.

If you just want to criticize Christianity then I am not the person to do that with, as again - I am not orthodox.

So how do you know that your Godhead is not really that same immoral genocidal son murdering God? Perhaps your Godhead simply has not yet explained that to you?

That is one reason why my God has many names, as like Brahma, Ram, Yahweh, Elohim, Allah, Buddha, Jesus, Jehovah, Nature, Ra, and any name works for the one and only God thing.

In fact the old English name "God" is far less accurate then those named above, because the word "God" really refers to an idol.  

Greatest I am wrote:
I see some wisdom in the bible but tell me, how reliable is a book that begins with a talking snake and ends with a seven headed monster?

How literally should you and I read this book?

Some few parts of the Bible can be taken literally, but most of the Bible is just nonsense or meaningless.

The first chapter of the Bible Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2:4a was written by a different author (or more than 1 author as that is unknown), while Genesis 2:4b starts another author, along with a few more authors mixed in, and anyone can know this through a process called "Biblical Criticism", and it works.

So things like the book of Jonah being swallowed by a big fish was never meant to be taken literally as it was a childish nursery story, much like today telling unreal stories about King Arthur or Robin Hood, so it is other people who view the Bible as some infallible word of God which it is not.

Greatest I am wrote:
How can one have realistic faith when faith is in what cannot be shown to be realistic or real?

If it did point to something real then faith would not be required as belief would crowd it out.

Sorry, but I have a different and unique interpretation of very many words, while you keep jumping to conclusions.

Faith is meant to be the extra distance above and beyond what we know to be real and established truth.

That does NOT mean that faith overrules or oversteps the reality or the truth, but that those are to be the firm foundation for a healthy faith.

Other people talk about ridiculous things as like "blind-faith" as being faith based on nothing real or no established truth - but that is not mine.

Greatest I am wrote:
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
Martin Luther “

I really do like Martin Luther a lot, and what he did was fantastic, but he was a bit vulgar and uncouth and not always right.

I figure that he meant something different then those words appear to mean to us today, as he was a really smart Man.

JP Cusick wrote:as some parts simply could not come from a human source - the words are human but parts of the message(s) are divine.

Hmm ... such as?

JP Cusick wrote:My own research tells me that those who deny the existence of God and of spirits have to deny very many of their own feelings and visions and deny their own senses in order to deny the God and spirits.

In the brain of most people it would seem there is some sort of need for God. That doesn't mean there is one. I think one can be spiritual without the need for a deity of some sort presiding over all.

Shirina wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:as some parts simply could not come from a human source - the words are human but parts of the message(s) are divine.

Hmm ... such as?

There really are lots of such things.

So here is a link to one of many = The United States and Britain in Prophecy.

Shirina wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:My own research tells me that those who deny the existence of God and of spirits have to deny very many of their own feelings and visions and deny their own senses in order to deny the God and spirits.

In the brain of most people it would seem there is some sort of need for God. That doesn't mean there is one. I think one can be spiritual without the need for a deity of some sort presiding over all.

We people only need God if and when we truly decide that we want to stop doing wrong.

Unfortunately when we people want to do right then we usually do it our own way or by the ways of this world.

And I see it as fine to be spiritual, but if you accept just that because you do not need a Deity then you are just denying your self from the bigger truth.

God or the Deity is not dependent on whether we people need Him or not, or whether we like it or not.

JP Cusick

You have made up your own religion with it's own vocabulary.

Sorry my friend, I do not have the time to learn a new language nor scrap Webster.

“If a woman grows weary and, at last, dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing - she is there to do it.”
- Martin Luther

I do not agree that M L was a smart man.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:JP Cusick

You have made up your own religion with it's own vocabulary.

Sorry my friend, I do not have the time to learn a new language nor scrap Webster.

Again you are simply shutting the door on your self, and locking your self inside, as I am happily outside of that door.

Having my own religion means having my own personal relationship with God, and if you or anyone ever want to find the truth then that is the first and foremost step to take.

Plus the definition and interpretation of words is a very common thing to do for every language and throughout humanity, because the words do have different meanings to different people.

We find it everywhere in any legal documents, just as this forum has its own definition of its "rules" because the "rules" have a totally different meaning in other places.

There is a very old Greek document written by Aristotle (circa 323 BCE) who was the teacher to Alexander the Great, and Aristotle wrote a paper (called a dialog and he wrote many papers) and it was about this same subject of giving the proper and agreed definition of the words used, and Aristotle went on and on about why this was necessary and required to do, so ever after that the Caesars read that paper, as did every other important person from Kings and Dictators and national leaders of every nation and State because the teacher of Alexander could not be ignored, and that is why I read it too.    

I do not recommend reading the entire thing as the "dialogs" are mind numbing, but this is it online = On Interpretation / eBook.

So when I say that we must define our words so each other can understand - then I am following a very long established principle.

J P Cusick said:
 "and my understanding of the Gospels is that Jesus did not die on the cross because the soldier pierced His side and drained the fluid off of His lung which thereby saved His life, [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 19:33-35&version=KJV]per John 19:33-35[/url], and then Jesus lived for a short time longer and later He died from the severe wounds."

Crucifixion was a particularly cruel way of execution, 



The victim was nailed to a cross/beam by placing the nails through the wrists and ankles, the tendency for the victim was to hang forwards which made breathing very difficult, so would try to pull himself up to enable breathing, this caused excruciating pain in both wrists and ankles forcing him to let go and hang, after a short while he would need to breath so the whole thing would happen over and over until he could not pull himself up anymore and would die of asphyxia. Death could take a matter of days.



When someone speared the victim it most certainly wasn’t to prolong life, it was in fact an act of mercy by shortening the time suffering. This happened when Julius Caesar captured the pirates who held him for ransom, because he had built up a certain rapport with his captors Caesar promised he would capture and execute them. After making the promise he went out with some mercenary soldiers and captured the pirates. Because he said he would execute them he felt honour bound to do just that so they where crucified. Each one was stabbed with a spear under Caesars orders for no other reason than to lessen their suffering, certainly not to prolong their lives. This can be verified in many books about Julius Caesar and was well before the crucifixion of the Man Jesus.



A similar thing would happen when people where burned at the stake, a small bag of gun powder would be hung round the victims neck in the hope of shortening their suffering, only in many cases the powder would only flair up instead of exploding making the suffering worse.

JP Cusick wrote:So here is a link to one of many = The United States and Britain in Prophecy.

I remember when a certain theologian whose name escapes me at the moment said, "The Bible is like a prisoner. Torture it long enough and you can get it to say anything."

Such is the way of prophecy -- too often they are "interpreted" (because they are indeed interpretations) to suit a particular belief system or even political agenda. I don't see that as being divine but rather a brilliant case of political spin doctoring. The evidence for things such as America being Manasseh, for instance, is entirely circumstantial and could have just as easily referred to Rome.

JP Cusick wrote:We people only need God if and when we truly decide that we want to stop doing wrong.

Well this is certainly opening up a can of worms. First of all, this is essentially saying that we can only do good by believing in a deity -- which is, of course, utterly nonsensical. In fact, I see the opposite occurring in the real world. All too often, atheists are far more moral than religious adherents because atheism does not hand us a list of people to hate.

Secondly, how does God determine for you what is good and evil, right and wrong? Does he come into your bedroom at night and give you a list of 'dos' and 'don'ts'? Now, if you're going to look to holy books and such to find out what God actually wants, well, our society would be coated in blood if we followed those barbaric ways. So how do we know what is truly "good" and what is truly "evil," what is "right" and what is "wrong" from a generic, aloof, and silent God? It just sounds like a convenient way to lend credence to stuff people invent.

JP Cusick wrote: Unfortunately when we people want to do right then we usually do it our own way or by the ways of this world.

No, that should read "Fortunately when we people want to do right ... " Why? Because, as I said, the vast majority of people on the planet believe in religion and their holy books. If we turned to God, and his supposed books, the whole world would look like the Middle East with terrorism rampant, fights between religious factions, morality police roaming the streets enforcing oppressive and tyrannical laws, women would becoming third class citizens, and fascism ruling with an iron fist.

Fortunately, most of us realize that we HAVE to do it our own way and by the ways of the world lest we find ourselves murdering rebellious children and non-virgin brides on their wedding nights. And let us not forget the ever-present fear of witches that has given license to kill in excrutiating ways whomever simply annoys us. God's laws and religious laws have always been exceptionally brutal and barbaric. Fortunately, the Western world, at least, has evolved.

JP Cusick wrote:but if you accept just that because you do not need a Deity then you are just denying your self from the bigger truth.

I don't need a deity -- and believing in one does not grant anyone access to a "bigger truth." Once you place a third party in charge of "truth," then you essentially have a religion. Whenever there is an all-powerful and perfect entity acting as the gatekeeper for morality, truth, and spirituality, you essentially have a cult. What happens then is that, suddenly, everyone has to believe as you do or else they are considered immoral, unclean, and heretical -- and worse still comes the belief that this all-powerful gatekeeper will only unlock that gate for those who believe precisely what you believe. Whether you believe in the God of an organized religion or a God that applies only to yourself, it still comes down to serving as the mouthpiece for this God -- somehow God always wants what you want.

bobby wrote:
When someone speared the victim it most certainly wasn’t to prolong life, it was in fact an act of mercy by shortening the time suffering.
Each one was stabbed with a spear under Caesars orders for no other reason than to lessen their suffering, certainly not to prolong their lives. This can be verified in many books about Julius Caesar and was well before the crucifixion of the Man Jesus.

I did not mean to imply that the Roman soldier stabbed Jesus as a way to say His life, or to prolong His life - certainly not.

The draining of fluid from His lung is told in John 19:33-35 and that is a medical thing we can figure out today, but back then they thought He was dead.

Surely it could be called a lucky spear puncture, or call it a miracle, but that was the turning point.

The Bible goes on to say that Jesus laid sore for three days before He got up, and He showed His wounds to the Disciples so He was still wounded, and it says 40 days later He died (or taken up to heaven - as the saying goes), so that is realistic.  

Shirina wrote:I remember when a certain theologian whose name escapes me at the moment said, [i]"The Bible is like a prisoner. Torture it long enough and you can get it to say anything."

Again you say things as a negative when I view it as a positive.

The true beauty of the Bible is that it can be tortured and interpreted and flexible.

Churches and religions are troubled indeed by such things, but the Bible lives through the complexities of humanity - which is no small task.

Shirina wrote:
Such is the way of prophecy -- too often they are "interpreted" (because they are indeed interpretations) to suit a particular belief system or even political agenda. I don't see that as being divine but rather a brilliant case of political spin doctoring. The evidence for things such as America being Manasseh, for instance, is entirely circumstantial and could have just as easily referred to Rome.

No, not that one.

Lots of other claims and such are debunked, but not that one.

That one is super far from being circumstantial or superficial, as that one is a powerful message.

Those that say the Bible is a story and nothing more are correct.

IT IS A VERY TRUE STORY.

polyglide wrote:Those that say the Bible is a story and nothing more are correct.

IT IS A VERY TRUE STORY.

To fools, yes.

http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/doubtingexodus.htm

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:

polyglide wrote:Those that say the Bible is a story and nothing more are correct.

IT IS A VERY TRUE STORY.

To fools, yes.

http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/doubtingexodus.htm

Regards
DL

I agree that huge parts of the Bible are not accurate or reliable.

Much of it came from the old religion of ancient Egypt as like the 10 commandments came from the Egyptian book of the dead, and other parts of the Bible come from Babylon and from Sumeria.

From my view then I still see a value in that because the Bible points us in the way to learn the greater truths if we follow its leading instead of idolizing the Bible.

I view it as foolish to think that the very ancient peoples were uninformed or unknowing, when those qualities are more of a characteristic of people today than of old.

It seems only reasonable that the very old cultures knew things at those times which are not known to us today. An example is that they built the giant Pyramids with virtually no machinery while today we would have huge complication if we wanted to built the same pyramid today with all of our so called advancements.

JP Cusick wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

polyglide wrote:Those that say the Bible is a story and nothing more are correct.

IT IS A VERY TRUE STORY.

To fools, yes.

http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/doubtingexodus.htm

Regards
DL

I agree that huge parts of the Bible are not accurate or reliable.

Much of it came from the old religion of ancient Egypt as like the 10 commandments came from the Egyptian book of the dead, and other parts of the Bible come from Babylon and from Sumeria.

From my view then I still see a value in that because the Bible points us in the way to learn the greater truths if we follow its leading instead of idolizing the Bible.

I view it as foolish to think that the very ancient peoples were uninformed or unknowing, when those qualities are more of a characteristic of people today than of old.

It seems only reasonable that the very old cultures knew things at those times which are not known to us today. An example is that they built the giant Pyramids with virtually no machinery while today we would have huge complication if we wanted to built the same pyramid today with all of our so called advancements.

There is a lot of wisdom in the bible but it has been corrupted by Christian dogma that reverses much of that wisdom. Now for us to get it, we have to reverse it back to it's original Jewish view.

Like Eden being man's elevation and not his fall.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:There is a lot of wisdom in the bible but it has been corrupted by Christian dogma that reverses much of that wisdom. Now for us to get it, we have to reverse it back to it's original Jewish view.

Like Eden being man's elevation and not his fall.

Regards
DL

I find the Jewish view to be as distorted and corrupt as is the Christian view.

We really need a view which is independent, and thereby separate from any sect or dogma.

JP Cusick wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:There is a lot of wisdom in the bible but it has been corrupted by Christian dogma that reverses much of that wisdom. Now for us to get it, we have to reverse it back to it's original Jewish view.

Like Eden being man's elevation and not his fall.

Regards
DL

I find the Jewish view to be as distorted and corrupt as is the Christian view.

We really need a view which is independent, and thereby separate from any sect or dogma.

We have that. It is called atheism.

Strange that you would not think the Christian view of a Jewish story would be inferior to what the Jews thought. You are as closed minded as any Christian believer.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:We have that. It is called atheism.

Strange that you would not think the Christian view of a Jewish story would be inferior to what the Jews thought. You are as closed minded as any Christian believer.

I just do not view any of it as a competition.

It does not matter if one view is more wrong than the other, or if one is more correct than the other, since both are wrong then there is no competition.

You are the one who posted the link (HERE) about the Moses story being untrue, so that means everyone who preached that were all wrong - and I figure they are all equally wrong.

The only ones who are not equally wrong are those who admit the truth and move onward.

And I like a lot of truths from the Atheist too, but they have lots of errors just like every other religion does.

So Atheist are not my idea of being independent or unbiased.

JP Cusick wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:We have that. It is called atheism.

Strange that you would not think the Christian view of a Jewish story would be inferior to what the Jews thought. You are as closed minded as any Christian believer.

I just do not view any of it as a competition.

It does not matter if one view is more wrong than the other, or if one is more correct than the other, since both are wrong then there is no competition.

You are the one who posted the link (HERE) about the Moses story being untrue, so that means everyone who preached that were all wrong - and I figure they are all equally wrong.

The only ones who are not equally wrong are those who admit the truth and move onward.

And I like a lot of truths from the Atheist too, but they have lots of errors just like every other religion does.

So Atheist are not my idea of being independent or unbiased.

I think women have a different view of Eden than you have and it is quite important to them as the Christian version has been used to subjugate them forever.

You show a piss poor attitude my friend. If it does not touch you then it is not important.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqN8EYIIR3g&feature=related

If you would not trust non-believers and atheists to evaluate religions, then who is left?

I am not an atheist but see more mistakes from theists than from the theist camp.

Can I see what you mean by atheist mistakes?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote: I think women have a different view of Eden than you have and it is quite important to them as the Christian version has been used to subjugate them forever.

I agree that the female view is different from the male view, but it is not a wall which we can not see over if one takes a look.

My finding is that Women persecute themselves and then blame it onto the Men and that is a huge distinction.

The Muslim Women wear a covering or veil because they the Women decided to do that them selves, and it is mostly done by those Women because those Women do not want any Man to look at them with lust, so the Men get blamed for that female doctrine.

It is like females blaming Men for not putting down the toilet seat - like they fall in or sit on a wet seat because the Man did not prepare the seat for their royal hiness - well no.

In the West the Ladies claim to use high heels and to wear makeup for the Men but it is the Ladies who do those things even if their Men beg and plead with them to stop it.

So too in the Bible story of Eden - the Women after hearing it made their own conclusions and blamed themselves for the "Fall of Man" and the Men did not put that onto our Women, but we Men still get the blame.

There is even very convincing evidence that the very first and original book of the Bible known as the "J source" was written by a female, because it repeatedly gives a female perspective and references. See it HERE and it is authored by two (2) Jewish men and see text HERE.

So Women might have subjugated themselves to their religions based on their own faith, but that was not done by the Men to the Women.

Greatest I am wrote: You show a piss poor attitude my friend. If it does not touch you then it is not important.

I regret when people do not like my attitude, but in my own view then I have done years of hard research and self studying, along with years (decades) of experimentation and experience, so I say that when people are interested in learning more for them self then my attitude will help to give anyone the real and authoritative direction to find out for their self, so I see my way as the strong way which works.

If you tell me a thing which I am doing wrong then that will get to me, but if you just do not like my attitude or personality then that is not my concern.

From my experience then when some thing does not touch me and my reservoir then it is usually not very deep of a thing for me to consider.

As like an adult who has never read the Bible but wants to debate religion - that person will find my attitude as a problem to their self, and rightly so.

Greatest I am wrote: If you would not trust non-believers and atheists to evaluate religions, then who is left?

Actually I do try to trust everyone and I take everything into consideration, including all religions of all kinds, along with any individual of any kind.

But trust does not mean that I embrace anything said as being factual truth without error.

My complaint is that I find it near impossible to get anyone to do their own personal evaluation of any real or deep subject, and most people just shoot off the popular opinions or Party-line without any substance.

So I really do want to trust anyone, but then I discover that most people do not trust their self or their own judgments, and that leaves me with nothing to trust in that person.

Greatest I am wrote: Can I see what you mean by atheist mistakes?

The Atheist are correct that the so-called "God" of popular religion is just superstitious nonsense, while the real thing which is not accurately called as "God" is wrong or a mistake for Atheist to reject.

Plus for Atheist in their field of science then they fail to give credence to the real miracles, as like the earth being a round ball floating perfectly on nothing in space along with the sun and stars being held by invisible forces - THAT is a far grander miracle than anything told in the Bible.

Einstein said it best with this = "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

So your bottom line is that women wrote the bible and subjugated themselves to man.

Loonier than a tune you are.

And after all that study too.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:So your bottom line is that women wrote the bible and subjugated themselves to man.

Loonier than a tune you are.

And after all that study too.

It is loony to you because you jump to the wrong conclusion or else you simply did not take the time to understand what was said.

What I said was that Women subjugated themselves to God and to their faith and to their own beliefs, while people simply blame Men for what the females do.

I have discussed such things before, and IMO one great example is that there are usually more Women in the Churches then there are Men, at least that appears true in Christian Churches in the USA, and I have been in attendance at many denominations, and it is usually a Man as the preacher or Priest or Minister while most people blame that on the Apostle Paul telling a Woman is not to teach, and I find that the Women really want a Man as the leader, and no Priest or Pastor or Minister can stand very long unless the Ladies approve of the Man. When the Ladies do not approve of the leader then he is doomed and will soon be gone.

This is NOT an insult to the Women, as in fact the Ladies have always had far more influence and power then they ever care to admit.

 

Yep. Loonier than a tune with Christian morals and twisted thinking.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:Yep. Loonier than a tune with Christian morals and twisted thinking.

Regards
DL

My view is that when you started this thread that you did not expect some one like myself to give you a real answer.

And I do not expect a real answer from you for this but I want to ask it anyway - as in - why is it that you and other people do not really want to know about God? That knowledge of God is the most important and most interesting information in all of life and yet most people do not really seek after it at all.

For me I know that God exist and that God exercises real and great power, so mine is a knowledge and not a belief, while so many people seem to accept that if they do not believe then God is not real, or that without their belief then there is no God, as if their "belief" has some power over God, and I say that is about as mentally blind as a person can be.

The Bible tells me the reason being that since long ago people are just too deathly afraid of God, Exodus 20:19 = "... let not God speak with us, lest we die."

So I wonder if it is just that I have faced down death myself so I am just one (1) who is no longer afraid? or is it something else?

JP Cusick wrote:What I said was that Women subjugated themselves to God and to their faith and to their own beliefs, while people simply blame Men for what the females do.

Complete, unadulterated, unmitigated, unequivocal, nonsensical tripe, Mr. Cusick. I cannot even BEGIN to emphasize how utterly contrived and over-rationalized your opinion on this matter actually is.

Let me put it to you this way:

Name me one, just one culture that is matriarchal. Yeah, I'll wait right here while you scour the internet looking for one. You might even find one in the distant past or in some remote corner of the world, but by and large -- in all the major cultures and civilzations, the system was, is, and always will be patriarchal.

Why is that important to understand? Because second class citizens do not make the rules, and all the rules from Tokyo to London to Cairo to Chicago have unilaterally placed women in a second class status. You yourself have talked quite ferverently about how racist America still is ... yet former male slaves received the right to vote over 50 years before women, black or white, received that right. What does that tell you? Did women choose to deny themselves the right to vote and, if so, by what legal mechanism? Maybe they voted not to have the right to vote? Oh wait ...

You claim in your statement that "women subjugated themselves to God and to their faith ..."

Well, if that's true, then aren't you admitting, perhaps inadvertantly, that God, religion and indeed ALL major faiths are inherently misogynistic? Because they are.

First there's God himself. Yep, himself. Over half of the world's population worships a male deity. Not a duality between male and female, but a distinctly male deity. In fact, all monotheistic gods have been male from Egypt to Israel. That's because the men of the time, who wrote the rules (remember what I said about patriarchal societies) felt that women were too inferior to be worshiped, goddess or not. That attitude, concocted by a misogynistic male deity, has unfortunately reverberated on through the ages right into the 21st Century. Hence why it was that even black men were given the vote (without even having to fight for it) over half a century before women were allowed.

Secondly, there's the clergy. Hmmm ... how many female priests do you suppose there are? How many female pastors and reverends? How many female imams? How many female rabbis? How many female Buddhist monks? How many female purohitas and archakas? Even when a particular religion doesn't outright ban women from becoming members of the clergy, positions within the church hierarchy are so predominatly and traditionally held by men that women have a very steep uphill climb to ever preach. This means that ... wait for it, wait for it ... yep, it means that males write the rules. All interpretation of scripture, including things like wearing veils and hijabs, comes from the male clergy. There simply is no "female spin" to religion; it is one big sausage fest.

Thirdly, there are the holy books. The Bible makes itself clear on what it thinks of women right from the start. In the first place, from Greek mythology to Hebrew scripture, the woman is blamed for bringing sin into the world. Whether by opening up a box (Pandora) or eating a fruit (Eve), the female has been villified as the bringer of suffering, pain, and misery. The Torah, Quran, and the Bible all blame the female.

But wait, there's more! Just a few more pages into the Bible and we start to see the lengthy genealogy of Adam and Eve laid out in exquisite detail ... well, at least the males are detailed. The women, not so much. The Bible only details the male lineage and wives aren't even mentioned much less named. Here's what I mean:

[5:6] When Seth had lived one hundred five years, he became the father of Enosh.
[5:7] Seth lived after the birth of Enosh eight hundred seven years, and had other sons and daughters.
[5:9] When Enosh had lived ninety years, he became the father of Kenan.
[5:10] Enosh lived after the birth of Kenan eight hundred fifteen years, and had other sons and daughters.
[5:12] When Kenan had lived seventy years, he became the father of Mahalalel.
[5:13] Kenan lived after the birth of Mahalalel eight hundred and forty years, and had other sons and daughters.
[5:15] When Mahalalel had lived sixty-five years, he became the father of Jared.

And it goes on like this for quite some time. Apparently, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, etc. etc. gave birth to their sons and "other daughters" through asexual reproduction because ... where are the wives? Who were they? Pah! Who cares, right? Only the sons and fathers are important ... and you don't even see the lineage of the daughters (whoever they are.) Their wives should at least get a mention, especially considering THEY are the ones who risk their lives birthing these kids. Giving birth was a dangerous business back then.

Moving right along, the Bible eventually gets into the wonderful topic of women as war booty -- right along with the livestock. Yep, if you conquer a city, just throw the gold, the cows, and the women into the back of a wagon and leave. Never mind what the woman wants, just take her by the hair and drag her off because she has NO say-so at all. These fine examples of women "choosing" to be trophies of war *coughsarcasmcough* can be found in Deuteronomy 20:11-14.

And as another disgusting insult by a misogynistic religion invented and written by misogynistic males, Leviticus 12:2-5 states that if a woman gives birth to a boy, she is unclean for seven days, but if she gives birth to a girl, the mother is unclean for two weeks. Yep, girls are so disgusting that moms have to spend double the amount of time being "unclean" for having a female baby. Wow, nothing like a Bronze Age religion to make a girl feel special, eh? Because, well, we women "chose" to be unclean twice as long for bearing a daughter because, I dunnae, we all have inferiority complexes? Perhaps we do because we are TAUGHT to feel that way by a patriarchal society that deems women and femininity as weak.

Hell, we see that in modern times, we hear it all the time, too. Every time one man ribs another by saying, "You throw, hit, run, etc. like a girl."  Well, you get the idea. As a woman, it's pretty hard to get out from underneath thousands of years of being looked down upon. However, I digress ...  

Since all inheritance was passed from father to son to grandson to great grandson (and not to daughters and wives), women right on up into the 20th Century have largely been perceived as baby factories resposible for churning out male heirs. This sort of nonsense is what caused the alarming rate of horrendous infanticide of Chinese girl-babies once population control was instituted in that country. Once again, it comes down to ... yeah, you guessed it: Men making the rules. And they can make the rules when they own all the land, all the livestock, all the wealth, and women are a dime a dozen (hence the high frequency of polygamy while its opposite, polyandry, is almost unheard of. In fact only four (4) societies are known to practice polyandry and most of them are in the Himalayan Mountains.

I suppose I could pick on Islam and the Quran by pointing out how that religion views women (which is actually better than the Bible), but the cultural aspects are quite readily apparent and shouldn't require me to even comment on them. I suppose the story of the 15 girls who were allowed to burn to death in a fire because they tried escaping the blaze without their proper head covering is, well, a pretty good indicator of just how ridiculous it is. Because I'm pretty certain those girls did not CHOOSE to die in that fire. Saudi Arabian morality police (all men, of course) made that choice for them. Firefighters were even tackled to the ground by the morality police when they tried to rescue the girls.

Yes, I know that some women make a choice to be subjugated by their societies and their religion. But in all reality, what choice do they really have when born into a rigidly patriarchal society where the punishment for not knowing your place can be rather severe. I think a lot of girls and women would be hard pressed to launch any kind of counter-revolution when they can be buried up to their necks and stoned to death for something as trivial as falling in love with a member of the wrong tribe or religious sect -- or when you can be given 20 lashes for having your cousin deliver some milk to your door, an incident that occurred to an elderly woman who was punished for being in the company of a non-immediate male family member. Yes, some women choose to wear veils or the hijab and some women in Saudi Arabia would undoubtedly choose not to drive, a moot point when women drivers are banned.

But I sincerely doubt that women all over the globe are choosing to have their genitals mutilated or gleefully accept lashings for being in public with men or happily burn to death in fires for having their hair showing. I doubt that girls gratefully climb into holes so they can be properly stoned to death and I doubt they celebrate the day their husbands throw acid in their faces. Do you really think women choose these things, choose this kind of patriarchal nonsense?

Because at the end of the day, women are not writing the rules in these benighted societies and, quite often, they don't write the rules here, either. The clergy even in the West is still dominated by males with male interpretations of scripture, male opinions, male perspectives, and male rules. The only thing a devoutly religious female can do is bow down and submit because, well, that's what these male deities seem to want.

JP Cusick wrote:And I do not expect a real answer from you for this but I want to ask it anyway - as in - why is it that you and other people do not really want to know about God?

What is there to know, aside from the despicable creature called "God" in our various holy books? Outside of that, "God" is just a "feeling," and I can just as readily claim that Bugs Bunny is responsible for that feeling. The moment someone starts claiming to "know" God is the moment I start slowly moving out of the room because what usually follows such a declarative statement is tyranny, oppression, and fascism.

JP Cusick wrote:That knowledge of God is the most important and most interesting information in all of life and yet most people do not really seek after it at all.

What precisely do you know about God, and what is the source of this knowledge? How do you even know it was God ... and which God do you think you know?

JP Cusick wrote:so mine is a knowledge and not a belief

I'm sure the guy in Bellvue who thinks he's Napoleon says the same thing. I believe there is an objective reality, and thus far, there are no gods in it. You cannot claim to know that God exists while, at the same time, calling it faith. And it IS faith.

Alas, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet ... thus faith is still faith regardless of whether you call it "knowledge."

JP Cusick wrote:while so many people seem to accept that if they do not believe then God is not real

There are two sides to that coin as most atheists wonder why religious devotees think they can "believe" a god into existence. We often wonder why said devotees think that believing in God makes him real. It reminds me of one of my first Christmases living in the West. After hearing the story of Santa, I laid in my bed that Christmas Eve until I heard the sleigh land on my rooftop. Yep, I heard it. I know what I heard and it was the clearly audible sound of that sleigh and all the required hooves of the reindeer. Even to this very day, I can hear that sound in my mind. So what am I to do then? Should I still believe in Santa because I know I heard sounds on my rooftop that night? Should I ignore all of the evidence that counters Santa such as the Wal-Mart price tags my parents accidentally left on some of my gifts marked as being from Santa ... or the fact that none of the snow on my roof that morning had been disturbed? No, the logical thing to do is to admit that I wanted to believe in Santa so strongly that I manifested those sounds in my own head. They were never real sounds, just figments of my imagination born of a very strong desire. I never "believed" Santa into existence, and even with tens of millions of other boys and girls believing as strongly as I, there is still no Santa.

And there you have it -- religion in a nutshell.

JP Cusick wrote:The Bible tells me the reason being that since long ago people are just too deathly afraid of God, Exodus 20:19

I'm curious. Just what makes you think that a 3,000 year-old story about Hebrews applies to modern day non-Hebrew atheists?

JP Cusick wrote:So I wonder if it is just that I have faced down death myself so I am just one (1) who is no longer afraid? or is it something else?

I would say it's something else ... well, at least for most non-believers. For atheists, there is nothing to be afraid of, like a monster in the closet or a boogyman under the bed.

JP Cusick wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:Yep. Loonier than a tune with Christian morals and twisted thinking.

Regards
DL

My view is that when you started this thread that you did not expect some one like myself to give you a real answer.

And I do not expect a real answer from you for this but I want to ask it anyway - as in - why is it that you and other people do not really want to know about God? That knowledge of God is the most important and most interesting information in all of life and yet most people do not really seek after it at all.

For me I know that God exist and that God exercises real and great power, so mine is a knowledge and not a belief, while so many people seem to accept that if they do not believe then God is not real, or that without their belief then there is no God, as if their "belief" has some power over God, and I say that is about as mentally blind as a person can be.

The Bible tells me the reason being that since long ago people are just too deathly afraid of God, Exodus 20:19 = "... let not God speak with us, lest we die."

So I wonder if it is just that I have faced down death myself so I am just one (1) who is no longer afraid? or is it something else?

You seem to think I am an atheist. I am not. I am a Gnostic Christian.

You say you have knowledge of God yet all you can point to is a corrupted bible and "God exercises real and great power".

If that is the case and you can see it then you should be able to point to it so that we too can see it.

If only you can see it then you know what that means. Right?

I have had my apotheosis and likely know our real Godhead better than you so if you want to compare then throw your immoral bible away and let's compare.

Try to sell me on your genocidal son murdering prick of a God and we will get nowhere.

Regards
DL