People first, God second. Should people put themselves above God?

[Greatest I am]

People first, God second. Should people put themselves above God?

Jesus put people above God and so should we. “Mark 2;27 And he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath: 28Therefore, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

I think that the world would be a better place if people put their wants and needs as well as the wants and needs of other people above God’s.

I look at all the wealth that religions squander on themselves with huge churches and mosques, which are mostly empty, --- while many people still live in poverty and despair, --- and wonder if that wealth would be better spent on the poor. That would conform more to what Jesus taught us to do for the poor.

Governments seem to be of the same mindset as the religions as they spend lavishly on themselves while the poor go with their needs ignored.

I would think that religions would show the better mindset but that does not seem to be the case.

Before religions started thinking of God as a literal and real being, a more peaceful world, religiously speaking, home churches were the order of the day. Archeology has proven this. They were used as feeding stations for the poor and destitute and contributed more to the fellowship that people need more that the mega churches, temples and mosques that we have today.

Should we consider the benefits of the older ways and bring religion back into the homes where it’s expression and help for the poor can be better served?

Seems to me that the religious crave a personal relationship with their God, and that is best expressed from homes and not from the self-aggrandizing mega monstrosities and opulent churches and mosques that advertise their wasted wealth in our cities.

Does charity really begin at home, by putting people first and not God?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

You're thinking about this upside-down and backwards.

A better way to frame it, and my belief, is that Christianity (and most religions) teach the best way to love and serve God is to love and serve others.

Feeding the hungry, giving to the poor, comforting the sick and elderly, etc. is how to love and serve God. Not the rituals of organized religion.

But that is NOT putting people first, God second.

I see what you put as semantics as you are agreeing that the poor should be the recipient of the wealth given to God via his church.

Call it serving God if you like and I will not argue against that notion because to a Gnostic Christian like me, man is God. You just have not gained Gnosis enough to know it yet.

Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.
If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.
But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

You're thinking about this upside-down and backwards.

A better way to frame it, and my belief, is that Christianity (and most religions) teach the best way to love and serve God is to love and serve others.

Feeding the hungry, giving to the poor, comforting the sick and elderly, etc. is how to love and serve God. Not the rituals of organized religion.

But that is NOT putting people first, God second.

I see what you put as semantics as you are agreeing that the poor should be the recipient of the wealth given to God via his church.

Call it serving God if you like and I will not argue against that notion because to a Gnostic Christian like me, man is God. You just have not gained Gnosis enough to know it yet.

Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.
If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.
But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

Regards
DL

I know about Gnosticism, I just don't agree with it because they put more emphasis on salvation being dependent on special knowledge, instead of salvation being dependent on love. I agree that God is within each of us. There's a passage in the Gospel of John that illustrates this well, as well as in one of the epistles of John. About how God lives in us because we love, and we live in God because we love, and Jesus lives in us because we love, and we live in Jesus because we love, and Jesus lives in God because... etc.

It is a very important distinction to me, that I made above, not simply semantics.

God is love. We must love for the sake of God. We must love for the sake of Love itself. It's this conditioning of the mind that breaks you free, and allows you to partake in unconditional love. You love others  because it is good To Love. And therefore all the consequences of that love, such as helping the poor and needy, come from the desire to love simply for the sake of love.

Think of the Bhagavad Gita, and the ideas of jnana yoga, bhakti yoga, and karma yoga. It's all about not being attached to the fruits of your labor. It's all about doing things because they are good, because they are right, and not being attached to the consequences. The same thing with Taoism, it's about being focused on the present, doing for the sake of doing, being in the flow, being in the flow being happiness. Confucianism is also about "ren," compassion, and doing your duty in relationship with each other because it's simply right to do. Buddhism talks about emptying your mind to be free of attachment, greed, fear, and ignorance, which come from being attached to the results and things beyond our control. As the Abrahamic faiths underline, loving service is they key to redemption. Loving for the sake of love allows for true unattached, unconditional love to flourish.

"God is love."

Love, as described in scriptures is certainly not the same as how God is described.

How do you equate Love with a God who is shown to torture and kill innocent children because of anger toward their parents?

Think of King David's son and the killing of the first born of Egypt.

Does Love torture and kill innocent children to you?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

"God is love."

Love, as described in scriptures is certainly not the same as how God is described.

How do you equate Love with a God who is shown to torture and kill innocent children because of anger toward their parents?

Think of King David's son and the killing of the first born of Egypt.

Does Love torture and kill innocent children to you?

Regards
DL

You know these are literally the "questions" edgy 18-year old fedora-tippers ask, right? Are you an edgy 18-year old?

Regards
David

I see you cannot back up your words and turn to insult to deflect from your inadequacies.

So will everyone else.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

You're thinking about this upside-down and backwards.

A better way to frame it, and my belief, is that Christianity (and most religions) teach the best way to love and serve God is to love and serve others.

Feeding the hungry, giving to the poor, comforting the sick and elderly, etc. is how to love and serve God. Not the rituals of organized religion.

But that is NOT putting people first, God second.

I see what you put as semantics as you are agreeing that the poor should be the recipient of the wealth given to God via his church.

Call it serving God if you like and I will not argue against that notion because to a Gnostic Christian like me, man is God. You just have not gained Gnosis enough to know it yet.

Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.
If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.
But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

Regards
DL

I know about Gnosticism, I just don't agree with it because they put more emphasis on salvation being dependent on special knowledge, instead of salvation being dependent on love. I agree that God is within each of us. There's a passage in the Gospel of John that illustrates this well, as well as in one of the epistles of John. About how God lives in us because we love, and we live in God because we love, and Jesus lives in us because we love, and we live in Jesus because we love, and Jesus lives in God because... etc.

It is a very important distinction to me, that I made above, not simply semantics.

God is love. We must love for the sake of God. We must love for the sake of Love itself. It's this conditioning of the mind that breaks you free, and allows you to partake in unconditional love. You love others  because it is good To Love. And therefore all the consequences of that love, such as helping the poor and needy, come from the desire to love simply for the sake of love.

Think of the Bhagavad Gita, and the ideas of jnana yoga, bhakti yoga, and karma yoga. It's all about not being attached to the fruits of your labor. It's all about doing things because they are good, because they are right, and not being attached to the consequences. The same thing with Taoism, it's about being focused on the present, doing for the sake of doing, being in the flow, being in the flow being happiness. Confucianism is also about "ren," compassion, and doing your duty in relationship with each other because it's simply right to do. Buddhism talks about emptying your mind to be free of attachment, greed, fear, and ignorance, which come from being attached to the results and things beyond our control. As the Abrahamic faiths underline, loving service is they key to redemption. Loving for the sake of love allows for true unattached, unconditional love to flourish.

"God is love."

Love, as described in scriptures is certainly not the same as how God is described.

How do you equate Love with a God who is shown to torture and kill innocent children because of anger toward their parents?

Think of King David's son and the killing of the first born of Egypt.

Does Love torture and kill innocent children to you?

Regards
DL

A lot in the Bible isn't true, or really out of context.

I agree. Such is the way with works of fiction.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One of it's better attributes. Right?

By that I mean that the pains we get when thinking of losing it is what makes it more apparent and desirable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True but that is what makes the here and now so desirable. Each moment becomes precious.

I think that only the foolish would want eternal life as all the moments would be mundane.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not according to scriptures. It does not recommend harshness in it's correcting but then it did not likely have to deal with indoctrinated or brainwashed idol worshiping theists who believe the lies of their priests and imams.

 Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

If I can get a theist to actually test his belief, then harshness is not required as logic and reason do not contain harshness.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Seems that no God is omnipotent as none are popping up.

All the Omni characteristics attributed to any God are fiction.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I certainly put myself as well as other people above something I don't believe exists.

Smart move.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I don't know about the question that the OP asked but I'm instinctively going to answer no, because I have an irrational hatred of everyone who signs their posts on an internet forum when its totally pointless

Nice that you recognize how irrational you can be.

Who or what God are you putting above yourself?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Never.

Thanks for showing us your intelligence level.

All you deserve is what this link ends with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjxZ6MrBl9E&feature=related

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjxZ6MrBl9E&feature=related

That was an extremely weak argument Dawkins made against creationism, combined with a great deal of vitriol.

The weird thing is that he falls into the exact same fallacy that the intelligent design people do. Intelligent designer's argument is that evolution couldn't possibly create the diversity of life we see because they don't see how it could, and since they can't see it, it can't possibly be true.  Dawkin's argument is that a truthful benevolent God couldn't possibly create the web of genetic relationships we see because he can't see how such a God could, and since he can't see it, it can't possibly be true. What's especially laughable about his argument is he bases it on the presence of so-called junk DNA, but since he gave that talk in 2009, we've come to understand that a good deal of so-called junk DNA actually has a function that we hadn't yet discovered.  Oops.

So what is your explanation for a God creating the abominations you see in this link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_-nHw0_Fos&feature=player_embedded

Does your oops apply to a creator God or do you just ignore what is said of God creating perfectly.

Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect:

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and this physical life we experience is not all we will experience. Moreover, I am not one who holds any text to be inerrant or infallible, be that the text of the Bible, or the text of the genetic code. As painful as it can be at times, the chaos that is life is to me infinitely more beautiful and wonderful than the sterile order some ascribe to God. We live in reality, not Lake Wobegon, and we cannot all have children who are above average.

So you found beauty in those abominations. Wow.

"and this physical life we experience is not all we will experience."

I do not disagree but cannot prove that and would not state it as you have without explaining how I could know of such a thing.

You base this statement on what if you do not holds any text to be inerrant or infallible?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I put people first because I have no idea whether God exists, let alone any accurate information about how to properly serve them.

But if I had clear evidence that God exists, I'd consider them equal to any person in terms of importance, at least from a moral standpoint.

A wise position and one that matches what we Gnostic Christian and Jews who follow their oral traditions think.

Seems that your Father Complex is well in tune with reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_complex

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

You base this statement on what if you do not holds any text to be inerrant or infallible?

While religious and philosophical texts are neither inerrant not infallible, such texts are a valuable insight into the important questions that bear on the meaning of life.  I come these questions from the perspective of a Christian Universalist who finds much support for the answers I have reached from both the Abrahamic and Daoist traditions.  My equanimity concerning our physical existence comes principally from Daoism but I also find much support for it in the teachings of the Abrahamic traditions, tho I find they don't place the same degree of emphasis upon it as the Daoist traditions.

Incidentally, Babylon 5 was quite the philosophical and spiritual TV show, and much of its main story arc centered around how various people four key questions:

•     Who are you? (The Vorlon Question)
•     What do you want? (The Shadow Question)
•     Why are you here? (Emperor Turhan's Question)
•     Where are you going? (The Techno Mage Question)

Personally I'd split the last one into two questions:

•     Where are your attachments?
•     When are you?

I'm very much a person of now and later with little thought given to the past. The past is valuable to me only insofar as it gives insights into the present and future.

One cannot be a Christian Universalist.

Christianity has a heaven and hell and that means that Universalism is not a part of Christianity.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Wrong.

I'm a Christian Universalist, in that I believe everyone goes to heaven, because everyone has good in them.

Indeed but Christian dogma says that we are also all sinners.

Yours is a healthier view than most Christians hold.

You do not believe in a hell or Satan either then. Right?

What else of Christian dogma have you deemed to be false and why do you call yourself a Christian if you do not believe a large part of their dogma?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Blue3

Thanks for the post.

Not bad except for your view od Jesus first condemning you and then foolishly turning around and teaching that it took a barbaric human sacrifice to forgive you.

Have you ever looked at that notion from a moral POV?

If not, which is likely, then please listen to this Bishop and opine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKNup9gEBdg&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs
 
My view is encapsulated in this quote.

As Ingersoll said; 'no man would be fit for heaven who would consent that an innocent person should suffer for his sin.'

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Blue3

Go easy on your un-provable garbage my friend. Hiding behind a supernatural screen is hardly a good way to debate.

God is defined one way and love another.

To call Yahweh and Jesus love is to insult the word love.

Love does not genocide the whole earth. Love cures instead of killing. Right?

As to Jesus, his no divorce policy is anti-love so you might start talking sense instead of throwing your supernatural garbage at me.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Blue3

Go easy on your un-provable garbage my friend. Hiding behind a supernatural screen is hardly a good way to debate.

God is defined one way and love another.

To call Yahweh and Jesus love is to insult the word love.

Love does not genocide the whole earth. Love cures instead of killing. Right?

As to Jesus, his no divorce policy is anti-love so you might start talking sense instead of throwing your supernatural garbage at me.

Regards
DL

"Un-provable garbage"? "Hiding behind a supernatural screen"?

?

?

Oh, and I thought I clarified that I don't believe God or Jesus "genocided" anybody.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I did note that you ignore most of the bible and only cherry pick the parts you like.

Love has one definition and God another.

To say that those definitions describe the same thing is quite foolish and an act of linguistic desperation of one who cannot justify what his God is.

If your God was Love, then Christians would not have grown their religion by the sword instead of good deeds.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Go easy on your un-provable garbage my friend.

Delete your account.

As Ingersoll said; 'no man would be fit for heaven who would consent that an innocent person should suffer for his sin.'

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

[

Of course I'm not fit for heaven.  I have sinned against a holy God and have no standing to merit favor with my own works, which are like filthy rags in God's sight.  Thank God that I can lean solely on Christ's righteousness, not my own.

So you can sin and make a victim of an all powerful God.

Wow. You are one powerful sinner.

Christian righteousness includes being homophobic and misogynous and following poor moral tenets like a no divorce policy and a sacrifice/justice policy that says it is somehow good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

You go ahead and promote such immoral tenets all you like. After all, Jesus said we would recognize his people by their works and deeds and you are showing all of us just who you are following.

It is not a moral God.

Regards
DL


 

[Greatest I am]

Yes, but I don't claim the Bible is the Word of God. That "cherry-picking" critique only works on the fundamentalist hypocrites.

And people are imperfect, and as I've said, I disagree with more traditional Christians on many things.
[/quote]

Any person with a decent moral sense will disagree with many of the Christian moral tenets.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

People should put their community, society, and their fellow human being above anything else.

If they are following good principles, for sure, but if not then we should all scrap the phrase, my group, right or wrong and follow the right principles.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

The Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles have some contradictions, but seem to agree on basic points about the life and teachings of Jesus. Some of the other books of the New Testament, and a few passages of the Old Testament, definitely seem inspired by God and match the message of Jesus.

Yahweh has been describes as follows.

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

That is a fairly accurate rendering.

Are you saying that Jesus and his prick of a father are close in their thinking?

For instance, Yahweh is shown to torture and murder babies and children for what their parents have done. Read the King David story as well as the Egyptian story of the first born murdered by Yahweh.

Do you really see Jesus as able to do such monstrous things?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

The Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles have some contradictions, but seem to agree on basic points about the life and teachings of Jesus. Some of the other books of the New Testament, and a few passages of the Old Testament, definitely seem inspired by God and match the message of Jesus.

Do you really see Jesus as able to do such monstrous things?

Regards
DL

Well, have you ever read Matthew 10:15, Matthew 13:42, and Luke 12:5?

And the idea that we mortal humans can stand in judgment of the God who knows everything is laughable.  He is sovereign, not us, and he is worthy of all glory, honor, and praise.

So you will honor and praise a genocidal son murdering God.

Who is your second choice for good morals, Hitler or Stalin?

Your own God or WORD tells you to judge yet you give such a vile satanic God a pass.

Shame on you.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

The Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles have some contradictions, but seem to agree on basic points about the life and teachings of Jesus. Some of the other books of the New Testament, and a few passages of the Old Testament, definitely seem inspired by God and match the message of Jesus.

Do you really see Jesus as able to do such monstrous things?

Regards
DL

Well, have you ever read Matthew 10:15, Matthew 13:42, and Luke 12:5?

And the idea that we mortal humans can stand in judgment of the God who knows everything is laughable.  He is sovereign, not us, and he is worthy of all glory, honor, and praise.

So you will honor and praise a genocidal son murdering God.

Who is your second choice for good morals, Hitler or Stalin?

Your own God or WORD tells you to judge yet you give such a vile satanic God a pass.

Shame on you.

Regards
DL

I don't think you quite understand Christianity. 

For one:

Jesus is God.  So it's not a "son murdering God"... in that case God murdered himself.  God knew and felt the pain as did Jesus.  But he also knew (better than you) what it was all for.  Jesus is God and could easily have slipped away and avoided it.  But he walked that cross right onto Calvary anyway.

The rest is just blithering blather.  You obviously have a problem with this God you profess not to believe in.  Why don't you work that out with him rather than trying to drag people into this.

Because it is the people that are perpetuating the Christian immoral teaching as moral.

If your God murdered himself, it is still murder even though your own dogma says that God cannot die.

Lie to yourself all you like though. Christians have to to maintain their views of morality and to continue to respect a God who does not deserve it.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

The Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles have some contradictions, but seem to agree on basic points about the life and teachings of Jesus. Some of the other books of the New Testament, and a few passages of the Old Testament, definitely seem inspired by God and match the message of Jesus.

Do you really see Jesus as able to do such monstrous things?

Regards
DL

Well, have you ever read Matthew 10:15, Matthew 13:42, and Luke 12:5?

And the idea that we mortal humans can stand in judgment of the God who knows everything is laughable.  He is sovereign, not us, and he is worthy of all glory, honor, and praise.

So you will honor and praise a genocidal son murdering God.

Who is your second choice for good morals, Hitler or Stalin?

Your own God or WORD tells you to judge yet you give such a vile satanic God a pass.

Shame on you.

Regards
DL

I don't think you quite understand Christianity. 

For one:

Jesus is God.  So it's not a "son murdering God"... in that case God murdered himself.  God knew and felt the pain as did Jesus.  But he also knew (better than you) what it was all for.  Jesus is God and could easily have slipped away and avoided it.  But he walked that cross right onto Calvary anyway.

The rest is just blithering blather.  You obviously have a problem with this God you profess not to believe in.  Why don't you work that out with him rather than trying to drag people into this.

Because it is the people that are perpetuating the Christian immoral teaching as moral.

If your God murdered himself, it is still murder even though your own dogma says that God cannot die.

Lie to yourself all you like though. Christians have to to maintain their views of morality and to continue to respect a God who does not deserve it.

Regards
DL

Jesus volunteered to take the death for our sins.  Murder is unlawful killing, but what we saw at the cross was perfect mercy combined with perfect justice - all the punishment we deserve for our sins was instead taken in our place by a merciful and loving God.  Praise be to the lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world! 

You can call it murder or evil, but in reality it's the greatest love story every told:  Jesus died for your sins, and he offers eternal life to all those who repent and believe in his glorious Gospel.

If you want to chat, do not start with a lie.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

Being chosen is not volunteering and only the most immoral will see the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty as perfect justice.

Ask any judge anywhere.

As Ingersoll said; 'no man would be fit for heaven who would consent that an innocent person should suffer for his sin.'

Regards
DL