Greatest I am

Only those that are presently being hurt by the cavemen. It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists. They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Belief in fantasy is evil. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHaClUCw4&feature=PlayList&p=5123864A5243470E&index=0&playnext=1 They also do much harm to their own. African witches and Jesus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9gXriVI&feature=related Jesus Camp 1of 9 Promoting death to Gays. 　For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing. Fight them when you can. It is your duty to your fellow man. Regards DL I did not say I was an atheist. I call myself a Gnostic Christian naturalist. The Godhead I know is just not a miracle working super absentee God. I try to learn more yes. The best way to learn is to teach. Let me give you my quick story. The Godhead I know in a nutshell. I was a skeptic till the age of 39. I then had an apotheosis and later branded myself a Gnostic Christian naturalist. Gnostic Christian because I exemplify this quote from William Blake. “Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read'st black where I read white.” This refers to how Gnostics tend to reverse, for moral reasons, what Christians see in the Bible. We tend to recognize the evil ways of O T God where literal Christians will see God’s killing as good. Christians are sheeple where Gnostic Christians are goats. This perhaps why we see the use of a Jesus scapegoat as immoral, while theists like to make Jesus their beast of burden. An immoral position. During my apotheosis, something that only lasted 5 or 6 seconds, the only things of note to happen was that my paradigm of reality was confirmed and I was chastised to think more demographically. What I found was what I call a cosmic consciousness. Not a new term but one that is a close but not exact fit. I recognize that I have no proof. That is always the way with apotheosis. This is also why I prefer to stick to issues of morality because no one has yet been able to prove that God is real and I have no more proof than they for the cosmic consciousness. The cosmic consciousness is not a miracle working God. He does not interfere with us save when one of us finds it. Not a common thing from what I can see. It is a part of nature and our next evolutionary step. I tend to have more in common with atheists who ignore what they see as my delusion because our morals are basically identical. Theist tend not to like me much as I have no respect for literalists and fundamentals and think that most Christians have tribal mentalities and poor morals. I am rather between a rock and a hard place but this I cannot help. I am happy to be questioned on what I believe but whether or not God exists is basically irrelevant to this world for all that he does not do, and I prefer to thrash out moral issues that can actually find an end point. The search for God is never ending when you are of the Gnostic persuasion. My apotheosis basically says that I am to discard whatever God I found, God as a set of rules that is, not idol worship, it but instead, raise my bar and seek further. My apotheosis also showed me that God has no need for love, adoration or obedience. He has no needs. Man has dominion here on earth and is to be and is the supreme being. Regards DL

Satan’s plan and the sign of the beast. It is all political. Satan would have man’s wealth and the economy within his control. The sign of the beast would be the coin of the day. Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. We all use coin of some kind. Even paper coin and plastic coin. All numbered and accounted for. We have all taken on and wear the sign of the beast. We just do not acknowledge it in those terms. It is impossible for our socio economic demographic pyramid to collapse. It can only redistribute. It will always have a pyramidal shape of some kind. This means that we can collectively decide what that shape should be and stabilize it if we choose to do so. It would profit the whole common and give greater long term benefits and growth. The stabilizing force is in the hands of the rich and powerful who are presently holding the wealth. The same ones who are just gabbing and not putting their money where their mouths are. We are told by the media; the spread between the rich and the poor continues to be widen. More and more wealthy individuals are giving up their fortunes to show an example; there is profit in spending. Everyone wins; not just the wealthy. I have to ask the rest of the wealthy individuals to do the same. You know when you spend; everyone will profit from it. Don’t hang unto it. You know you can spread the wealth and stabilize our economy situation. In the end you will also profit from it. Since we see government controlling the economy, to a great extent, and knowing that spending is good for the demographic common, and because it has been the poorer sectors ---taking it in the chin; should the rich be legislated into doing the right thing by investing their growing wealth ----so that all may profit? After all, Such laws have been used in the past. Regards DL

You are right in your critique. No argument. I do work hard to change and implement some of the issues you speak to and sometimes succeed and are given kudos. At the same time, for the same post, I am shat on. Further, doing all that you suggest would make the O P TLTR and would be ignored. I have looked for a ghost writer but without success so I live with what is. It is said that those who know more than one language always have a harder time being understood. I find it true. Regards DL It is said that those who know more than one language always have a harder time being understood. I find it true. Or rebel against them. Note the U S. A Christian nation, has some of the highest incarceration rates in the world. Personally, I think religion has little to do with us as the huge majority follow secular laws and not biblical ones. Thank God, so to speak, for that since most religious laws are crap. Regards DL

Hell no. I take a literal view of scripture when writing an O P. I do not believe in a literal or historic bible. To me it is all myth and fantasy. I do have some respect for it as a book of wisdom but that would be all. As to evil. Sure there is some about but all man made. Natural evils are just that. Natural. For something to be evil, it has to have sentience driving whatever it is therefore naural evil are poorly named. That’s an idea. No. I venerate life and that is why I do not like to see literalists waste their mind in foolish belief. As a religionist with a belief in a cosmic consciousness, some atheists will class me with a supernatural belief though. This, even as I state that what I know of the cosmic consciousness is all natural. It does put me between a rock and a hard place but since 95% of my views match there’s, they eventually forgive me because I have no dogma to sell and do not push for a belief in what I know I cannot prove. I offer my view as an anecdotal rendering only for those who are interested. Regards DL

Calling something eternal is a logical fallacy and un-provable and I reject it out of hand. As to the Vedas, I have enough of one fantasy to deal with without adding another to the mix. Regards DL

Does this information change your mind? It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists. They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Belief in fantasy is evil. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHaClUCw4&feature=PlayList&p=5123864A5243470E&index=0&playnext=1 They also do much harm to their own. African witches and Jesus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9gXriVI&feature=related Jesus Camp 1of 9 Promoting death to Gays. 　 For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing. Fight them when you can. Regards DL

mooeypoo I appreciate the fact that you would like me to be quite specific but how can I be when there are a myriad of differing Christian beliefs out there. Most Christians cherry pick so badly that there is hardly anything that we can call a universal Christian belief. I agree with what you describe of moral standards set by God but God not being subject to. A ridiculous stand to me as well as most theists who believe in the as above so below theology. Again, theists are all over the map and ignore scriptures that say that God is supposed to be our example and that we are to emulate him. What I have said to the book itself and how it says to judge it by itself is common knowledge and believing this particular bit, I apply it and find the tree of knowledge as I have described it in the O P. Regards DL What workes? All that Jesus offers is unworkable rhetoric. Yet those same people will say that God never changes. Regards DL

The N T is not supposed to have a greatest hate example but it does if you recognize that hell did not exist for the O T writers and was only introduced later. I did try to show Jesus in a better light than the O T God. I agree that my composition and delivery are not to standard for many English. Not being English is not my only excuse but is the main one. If you know of a good ghost writer, I will be quite pleased. Regards DL

Good to see you agree. As to your question on reason and logic, here is the usual place that theists put them. “Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.” Martin Luther I guess we are whores. Regards DL

Found. The tree of knowledge of good and evil. In the only place it could be found. In the Bible. I will assume here that those who compiled the books of the Bible knew what they were doing, in terms of giving us a myth with a moral lesson. God is said to be the Alpha and the Omega. The beginning and the end. Bible God is to be at the top and bottom of any attribute we can think of for God. He is to be our example of the greatest love as well as the greatest hate. After all, he does set the standards of what is good and what is evil. The Bible tells us not to add or subtract from it and to use it as it’s own judge. If we are to do so then we must judge what is in it as good or evil. FMPOV, the O T shows God’s evil side and the N T shows God’s good side. Most recognize this and this is why the emphasis is on following Jesus and not the barbaric God of the O T. IOW, the O T is the evil side of the tree of knowledge while the N T is the good side of the tree of knowledge. Many that follow the Bible God recognize this. Literalists and fundamentals do not. They end up venerating the evil side of God, the O T, as well as the good side, Jesus and the N T, when they are supposed to be rejecting the God of evil in the O T. Literalists and fundamentals can thus be seen as immature thinkers and true sheep. While Christians who recognize the evil in the God of the O T can be seen as better thinkers and able to discern good from evil. Literalist can be seen as poor thinkers who cannot discern evil. They end up with a theology that embraces everything from genocide to infanticide as long as God is doing it. Arguably an immoral position. This is how literalists and fundamentals all end up hurting their parent religions. If, as I stated, that the O T of the Bible should be seen as the evil side of the tree of knowledge and God, then the tree of life should be near. I submit that it is also within the Bible but that it has nothing to do with eternal life. Nowhere in the Bible is the great lose of this tree of immortality bemoaned. Yet to many, it is the most important aspect of the Bible. I think we can trust scriptures, when they speak of a tree of life, and only means a good life and not an eternal one. Literalists and fundamentals thus end up having much work to do on their morals because they are hindered by the notion that they should be embracing and honoring an evil God. In effect, from a biblical standpoint, they are the Anti-Christ, as they continue to venerate evil. Who do you follow, the good God of the N T, or the evil God of the O T? Reading the Bible as I do, and seeing it as containing the tree of knowledge and the tree of life, make this book all inclusive in and of itself and in that way, I am true to the authors and compilers who said not to add or subtract anything from it. It was meant to show a complete story and God and I think that reading it as I do is the only way to understand the full story. God thus become the epitome of both good and evil. As it should be for a God who takes responsibility. Mythically speaking that is. Regards DL

rktpro Thanks for the offer to help me with God but no thanks. I am covered. "r6. He can never be! He remains inside you even if you are against him." He can be whenever we decide to create a new God. God is in man's hands. Not man in Gods. Regards DL If? Do you not know for sure? Regards DL

Are you familiar with how Constantine pushed the Trinity concept down Christian throats? Originally Posted by animefan48 Well, the reality is most Christians do buy into the trinity doctrine because of persecution of the early Gnostics and non-Trinitarians, and the religious councils were dissenters were forced to agree to a Trinitarian theology. Many Unitarian and Universalist theologies argue that when Jesus said he was the way, he meant that he was an example of how to live to be united/reunited with God. As for the name, God does give other names for himself including the Alpha and Omega, as well as some believe a name that should not be written (or even spoken I believe). Honestly, I think using the name I Am That I Am would just be confusing and convoluted, seriously. I seriously do not believe that it is a continuation of Gnostic/mystical/Unitarian suppression. Even the Gnostic and mystical traditions within Islam and Christianity do not tend to use that name, and among the 99 Names of Allah, I did not find that one. Also, many Rastafarians believe that the Holy Spirit lives in humans and will sometimes say I and I instead of we, yet they don't seem to use the name I Am for God/Jah either, so I really don't think it can be related to suppressing mystical and Gnostic interpretations. I think that originally oppressing those ideas and decreeing them heretical are quite enough, the early Church did such a good job that after the split many Protestant groups continued to condemn mystical and later Gnostic sects and theologies. 　Yup, the bishops voted and it was settled for all time!!1 (Some say the preliminary votes were 150 something to 140 something in favor of the trinity) But then Constantine stepped in: After a prolonged and inconclusive debate, the impatient Constantine intervened to force an end to the conflict by demanding the adoption of the creed. The vote was taken under threat of exile for any who did not support the decision favored by Constantine. (And later, they fully endorsed the trinity idea when it all happened again at the council of Constantinople in AD 381, where only Trinitarians were invited to attend. Surprise! They also managed to carry a vote in favor of the Trinity.) http://home.pacific.net.au/~amaxwell/bdigest/bd12bbs.tx Regards DL You are getting quite predictable in trying to deflect whatever the O P is about to some other issue. Get on topic or get lost. Regards DL

LOL. You provide not one but two logical fallacies for me to refute. Seriously? It is to the one who cries wolf to show the tracks or the shit. Not for others to show that the wolf was never there. Regards DL

You got me. Nit picker. I should have said the only thing that can know that they are greater than God. Humans. How is that? Not as catchy but more accurate. Regards DL That depends on the POV. The Jews see Eden as man's elevation and not his fall. They would perhaps say that Satan helped man be all that he can be. Scripture also show God doing a lot more killing than Satan. Evil is as evil does. Regards DL

Impossible to know what animals know at this point in time. Except in the Bible, they are not talking. We know they can discern what is profitable or not and in a human sense that is knowing good or evil but we cannot know if they recognize it as such mentally or just instinctively. I know. Instincts are a mental function but you know what I mean. Regards DL Is man exercising dominion here not good enough evidence for any thinking man? For God, is absence of evidence not evidence that he is a human construct. It is more proof against his existence than any believer has ever come up for his view. Regards DL

Well put. Thanks for that. FMPOV, the above is irrifutable facts. As to the definition or how we should view the word God, I would say that we should think of it as rules. At the end of the day, there is no representative of God to follow but only the rules that he set out. Regards DL

The only thing greater than God. Man. Religion and God were invented to free man. Not enslave him. This man is showing God the only thing greater than God. A human being. Man is God's evolutionary Master. We brought him from barbarism to civilization. Without Us, there is no God. Man is who gives God life. The concept, the reality, the imaginary reality, useless and useful speculation of God, all will have been like they never here without man. God is man’s creation, be it the word itself or the concept or WORD as some believers say it. To our knowledge, there are no other intelligences able to speculate or have any kind of notion of God as a concept, reality or myth. Animals know their God. God as their perfect example and role model that is. It is always one of their own. I do not think that they have the ability to assign moral values to it. Only Mankind can do such with our higher intellect. God is in our image and we in his. Without man, God dies because he can only live within the consciousness of man. This is irrefutable at this point in time. God may be the one we put as head but without the body Man, he ceases to be. Him and all notions of a God. Religions have denied Man his heritage by having us forget that we choose God. He does not choose us. When will you people recognize that you are WsIP--WorksInProgress-- junior gods and part of your duty to yourself and mankind is to elect yourselves a new and true God. How will you know he is a true God ? You will name him so and give him power and dominion over the only thing greater than himself. Yourself. God is dead. Long live God. A man. Regards DL P. S. First step.

Certainly. You have to be careful of unworkable rhetoric though. Turn the other cheek. ------ Great for inconsequential. What are you to do if a man rapes your wife? Offer your daughter. Divorce. Let no man put asunder.------Even if a woman gets beat twice a week? The greatest command. Love your neighbor as yourself.-----Can you be commanded to draw out emotions like love and hate. No. Love, to be true love has to be shared and must have deeds attached to be true love. You cannot love who you do not know. I love Shania Twain. She does not know me so that love is not true love. Rhetoric is great as long as you do not analyze it. See what I mean? Regards DL

moo I agree with your view of the Bible as a book of wisdom. It is to help us seek God. Not give us a God in a book. You are also correct on literalists being way out there. To me, any literalist or fundamental hurts their parent religion regardless of the flavor. I am a religionist myself and do not mind, and indeed urge, that people seek God. God being defined more as a good set of rules to live by, and not some invisible sky daddy that demand that we think his way or he will send us to hell. Regards DL

I think we both know that Christians are all over the map with their beliefs. Literalists believe in Satan and hell while some liberal or universalists cults will not. Let me also give you this. The rebellion of Satan is standard Christian fare. If we cannot agree on this from the get go, then we cannot debate the notions of his deception which is found in Rev 12 9. Regards DL

I just do not think that hear say or Bible say, all hear say, is good testimony but you are essentially correct. my bad and I would have to recant. As to my specculation of what a deceiving Satan would do, impersonate God, going for the most impact seems like what a great deceiver would do. The greatest coup, so to speak. Regards DL If angels have no free will, then how could Satan, an angel, possibly have rebelled against God? Is deceiving the whole world not a miracle done by Satan or is it really God in drag doing it? God does say that Satan has the power. Regards DL

And those transfers will continue till we get our reproduction unders some kind of control. It may be that that one condition will make or break our system. We do not necessarily need to shrink the population. Only stabilize it. Well put BTW. Regards DL

That is one instance. There are some from the past as well. Judges 6 11 The angel of the LORD came and sat down under the oak in Ophrah that belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, where his son Gideon was threshing wheat in a winepress to keep it from the Midianites. 12 When the angel of the LORD appeared to Gideon, he said, “The LORD is with you, mighty warrior.” Regards DL No. I would finish your statement with------then they would all have to believe that they will also be deceived. A contradiction reverses some premise. that is not happening here. Regards DL

I find it droll how we all turn to the economic experts for advice when it is the economic experts who have created the problem that we face. I also think it droll that we would be worried about the lenders when statistics show the spread between rich and poor widening. Regards DL

How could Satan have rebelled without a free will? Impossible. Right? Just dogma. The demons are supposed to be working for Satan. That is what jesus was casting out of people. So the myth states. This logic is flawed. Not mine. We cannot know what he is nor what he isn't. Correct. So how can I know that you are not God? I cannot. You say so but again, I have no way to confirm it so can only state that I have hear say evidence. No proof. I have no such knowledge. Only your say so. You could perhaps, but I like to know I speak truth and would need to confirm it somehow. Scipture calls Satan a snake and a dragon and the story of Sodom has angels looking like men so we see that angels are shape shifters. Satan does. To be able to deceive all men. Here again you take away free will yet Satan's rebellion shows that he has it. Rev 12 9And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. No. As it all revolves around being deceived and the problems of recognizing that deception.. See Rev 12 above. Yes it is. It is not a fallacy. If there is a God and Satan at all, which is the assumption of the O P, then Satan can make us beleive whatever he wants. If he is at wok on believers as well as non believers, then it would be to the opposite of truth. What is the middle ground? Maybe yes, maybe no. Thus I ignore it. True, but that does not take away the fact that morals would likely be what is used to decide if we are deceived or not. They tend to have a logic trail to follow. Then again, Satan can screw with us in that as well so there may not be a way out. Catch 22. Not sure what that has anything to do with it either. Explain? Seems out of topic too. As you should FYPOV. I would as well if I shared it. I am viewing it from the notion that Satan would go for the majority as the larger part of the whole world which he is suppoed to be able to deceive. That is what I would do. It is kinda. It is there to give me a quick view of what kind of mind I am speaking to. One up God's ass or one breathing fresh air and able to think properly. Regards DL True. In a sence. They follow a tradition and culture. Not a God. That is why most follow flawed theologies. Regards DL I think I can since scriptures show some kind of God like prophet and an anti-Christ at end times. Just who is who will be the discussion at that point in time. Regards DL