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

[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

[Enduro]

Never.

[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

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[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

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[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

[Figueira]

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.

[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

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[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

[Blue3]

Wrong.

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

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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

Now you're adjudicating who is and isn't Christian?! Don't make me laugh.

I'll spare you my regards,
NT

[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

[Blue3]

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

If there is a hell
-it's a temporary feeling (perhaps the only "burning" is metaphorical burning embarrassment/shame at your entire life being exposed to God and everyone, naked before the Lord)
-it's not fiery painful punishment as much as it's choosing not to be in close harmony with God, or choosing to not forgive yourself/others (but eventually everyone would choose to)
-it's a case of heaven/hell being the same "place"/state but more selfless-oriented people find it blissful (again, eventually everyone would become more selfless-oriented instead of self-centered)
-And these temporary things will be overcome by our own love and forgiveness, towards others as well as ourselves, which can also be helped by accepting the love of Jesus

As for Satan, it's possible he exists in some form, perhaps just a representation of the imperfection in each person, but Satan's existence isn't relevant with this worldview.

Also, sin literally means to "miss the mark." It means anything less than pure perfection.

There is no universally-held "Christian dogma," different branches of Christianity disagree all the time. I also believe in full equality of men and women, of races/bloodlines/nations/families, don't believe homosexuality is sinful in any way, don't believe science is irreconcilable with religion, the Bible is imperfect and God's truth can be found in other places too, that priests and rituals aren't necessary although some people might be better with guidance from them, it's good to learn different points of view (religious and secular), love is the supreme virtue and following Jesus doesn't mean required belief in his divinity or resurrection but rather following his life's example of love (which can be done without ever knowing about Jesus the person).

But I do believe in the Incarnation, the Trinity, the Resurrection, and that Jesus' sacrifice is the reason why all are saved.

Basically the same as my thoughts on this a few years ago that I also posted here:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=195573.msg4241273#msg4241273

[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

[Blue3]

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

There is no Jesus condemning anyone.

I believe punishment is never justice, and retributive justice is an oxymoron.

Nor does it take a sacrifice to be forgiven. The sacrifice wasn't about God forgiving us.

Jesus' sacrifice (his entire life) opened the bridge to God, the first and possibly only time someone was in perfect harmony and oneness with God as a result of perfectly loving... but again, the result was timeless, so it made God present and universal throughout all time and for every person.   
I think, in the timeless sense, someone could even say Jesus' sacrifice created God. God is love, perfect love, eternal and infinite and unconditional and beyond time while also present in it. Jesus' sacrifice (which includes his entire life) finally led to someone (Jesus) achieving perfect love, thereby "causing" God. But since God is timeless, God always existed. Jesus' love allowed love to first reach beyond time and become divine.

[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

[DavidB.]

Go easy on your un-provable garbage my friend.

Delete your account.

[Blue3]

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.

[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

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Go easy on your un-provable garbage my friend.

Delete your account.

[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

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

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

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.

[Blue3]

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

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.