Was our first God a man? Should our last be as well?

[Greatest I am]

Was our first God a man? Should our last be as well?

 

In reading a bit of history, you will find that the ancient men of power labeled themselves as Gods. Their progeny were called sons of God. I am not clear as to why Emperors and Kings did this. Either to compete with the other Gods or to displace past older Gods. I am not sure. Perhaps people had already started to think of God and laws as the same thing.

 

Scriptures tell us in John 1 that. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word was made flesh.

 

To me, this means that the notion of the word/law was replaced by a leader/God and the consensus required to formalize the laws/God/word. Many thing that the word/flesh was Jesus but this obviously cannot be because Jesus is the N T God and this is way in the beginning of the O T.

 

My conclusion, based on nature and how the ancients would have perhaps seen it, follows this logic trail.

 

The God of any animal is one of it’s own.

 

The God of ants is an ant.

 

The God of lions is a lion.

 

It follows then that the God of men should be a man.

 

No other animal, other than man, has taken the notion that it’s God should be some alien or an entity of other than it‘s own kind.

 

In terms of society, we have always followed men. Be they men of wealth, politics or religion, men have always been the ones to decide policies and the laws we follow. Today, most recognize that the laws in scripture are man made.

 

There are always the mentally lazy, literalists and fundamentals, who will foolishly believe that the word of God, the Bible was actually written or inspired by God. Most of intelligence will know otherwise. God would not start his word with a talking serpent and his cursing the earth that he just created. God is not that stupid. Only his literalist sheeple are.

 

Why we ever decided to chase after some invisible, absentee, super, miracle working God we may never know. The past hides it’s secrets well. Most Eastern religions recognize the myth base of their beliefs. Mostly, it is the Western Abrahamic religions, including Islam, that for some reason decided to literalize scripture and give historicity to it’s God and Jesus even as the originators of the Bible, the Jews and Hebrews. Any who have studied the older religious traditions will know that the Bible is a plagiarized account of many of the older religions. This is well documented.

 

Genesis tells us that A & E became as Gods. History tells us that many ancient men of power took that same title. Islam has Allah as a tile meaning God, a title. We have always followed the laws written by men and if I stretch my imagination I could even wonder if these men were inspired somehow.

 

Is it likely that we have misinterpreted the meaning in our ancient books and that the ideal God is supposed to be an abstract entity who we are not ever supposed to find. Is God, the word, just supposed to be a set of rules. I believe so. As interpreted by one man. Remember that that is all Moses came down the mountain with . Words and rules.

 

 

 

We are heading towards a new world order. This is being let by the U N and the World Monetary Fund. The political world will have it’s God/man but if the religious world remains fractured, it will be sucked up by secular forces. This is inevitable to my mind unless religionists unite somehow under a new God.

 

Recognizing that A & E and thus all of mankind can be as Gods, is it not likely that our first God was a man of power?

 

Should we not now, since it looks like the world is on some kind of brink, consider doing what revelation indicates is to happen at end time, and elect ourselves a new God and give him power?

 

Was our first God a man?

 

Should we have a new man, as God, in this time?

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Scriptures tell us in John 1 that. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word was made flesh.

 

To me, this means that the notion of the word/law was replaced by a leader/God and the consensus required to formalize the laws/God/word. Many thing that the word/flesh was Jesus but this obviously cannot be because Jesus is the N T God and this is way in the beginning of the O T.

Could you clarify this? I'm having difficulty understanding your reasoning here.

[ydoaPs]

I am your new GOD. Bow before the almighty ydoaPs!

[mississippichem]

I am your new GOD. Bow before the almighty ydoaPs!

 

And I am his high priest. All future SFN rules violations must be pennanced by bowing down and saying ten hail ydoaPs's. Lest ye experience the wrath of his mighty pogo-stick. Amen

[Marat]

In older Antiquity, gods were theriomorphic rather than anthropomorphic, as you can see with the gods of the Ancient Egyptians who often had the shape of birds or alligators, and the gods of the Hindus who still sometimes have the shape of elephants and other animals. Many cultural historians consider it an advance of the human spirit that gods eventually came to be presented in human shape, since this indicated that human values had come to be recognized as superior to natural forces, since the deity was now identified with us and our ethical intutions, rather than brute nature and its contingent power being above us, as was affirmed by animal gods.

 

But as gods became humanized, this process became rapidly over-extended, and soon nearly every prominent individual was credited with being a god. In Greek Antiquity one great physician was deified, and in the Roman period almost evey Emperor came to be called a god or a son of god, unless he was truly awful. Emperor Hadrian even issued a special edict to suppress his being worshipped as a god in the eastern part of the Roman Empire, where this universal deification process was most exaggerated.

 

So now we come to the supposed status of Christ as the son of God. Seen in its proper historical context in a world where every non-awful political leader was being worshipped as a god, the fact of Christ in the deification-obsessed eastern Roman Empire being called a kind seems nothing special. We should hardly feel any more compelled to take this antique assertion any more seriously than the contemporary assertion that the Roman Emperors were also gods.

[Fuzzwood]

I do not have a first god, so which "our" are you refering to?

[ydoaPs]

I do not have a first god, so which "our" are you refering to?

You do now! KNEEL before ZOD! err, ydoaPs!

[A Tripolation]

Scriptures tell us in John 1 that. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word was made flesh.

 

To me, this means that the notion of the word/law was replaced by a leader/God and the consensus required to formalize the laws/God/word. Many thing that the word/flesh was Jesus but this obviously cannot be because Jesus is the N T God and this is way in the beginning of the O T.

 

I, along with many other Christians, think verses like this support Christ's existence as equal in duration as God's.

[Phi for All]

My conclusion, based on nature and how the ancients would have perhaps seen it, follows this logic trail.

 

The God of any animal is one of it’s own.

 

The God of ants is an ant.

 

The God of lions is a lion.

 

It follows then that the God of men should be a man.

It's doubtful that any animal, much less an insect, has the kind of neural complexity to need spiritual solace.

 

No other animal, other than man, has taken the notion that it’s God should be some alien or an entity of other than it‘s own kind.

How could you know such a thing?

 

We are heading towards a new world order. This is being let by the U N and the World Monetary Fund. The political world will have it’s God/man but if the religious world remains fractured, it will be sucked up by secular forces. This is inevitable to my mind unless religionists unite somehow under a new God.

We're ALWAYS headed towards some new world order. I think the one thing we know is true is that religion can't be "sucked up by secular forces". The more you try to force it down, the more fervent the believers get. If there is a way to get rid of a religion, I think it would be to make it "unvaluable" somehow.

 

Recognizing that A & E and thus all of mankind can be as Gods, is it not likely that our first God was a man of power?

I really don't understand what you mean by all this. I have never heard of Adam and Eve being thought of as gods. Some modern religions, like the church of the science of mind, preach that God is inside each person. Is that what you mean?

 

 

 

Oh, and I don't think our new man-god should be ydoaPs. He art evil unto me and thee.

[michel123456]

Oh, and I don't think our new man-god should be ydoaPs. He art evil unto me and thee.

 

This will not be a democratic procedure anyway. No one will ask for your opinion.

[Greatest I am]

Could you clarify this? I'm having difficulty understanding your reasoning here.

 

 

I believe that the ancients knew that there was something---out there--- that was live yet unseen. They called it God.

Words/ideas/laws were given to these men and in a sense, the word became flesh. These men/flesh interpreted what they had heard. The words/ideas and laws.

I believe this because of my apotheosis but even knowing that there is ----something out there, a cosmic consciousness, this does not take away that any leadership of men should be a man and not some absentee God who cannot speak or clarify the laws he would have us follow. To rely on a 2000 year old book of myths is insane.

 

God, word, flesh, all point to a man who speaks for God and is given power.

 

Who but man can put words to the will of God or of a coalition of men.

 

There is only man.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

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

 

Marat

 

Well put.

 

The word God and sons of God does lose it's power when they are all over the place.

 

Regards

DL

 

I do not have a first god, so which "our" are you refering to?

 

If God can be thought of as a set of rules then you definitely follow a God.

 

It could be a God of nature and physics or a political God or a religious God.

 

I follow a bit of all three while you follow a natural and a political God.

 

Have no fear, I will not try to convince you that there is something unseen out there.

 

Unfortunately, apotheosis does not come with proof.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

I, along with many other Christians, think verses like this support Christ's existence as equal in duration as God's.

 

So I hear but to believe it, you have to ignore the laws of physics and nature and have Jesus born before his mother was.

 

That means a full immersion into magical and fantasy thinking.

 

Is that where you are and if so, we will not have much to discuss.

 

I do not believe in fantasy, magic and miracles.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

Edited April 1, 2011 by Greatest I am

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I believe that the ancients knew that there was something---out there--- that was live yet unseen. They called it God.

Words/ideas/laws were given to these men and in a sense, the word became flesh. These men/flesh interpreted what they had heard. The words/ideas and laws.

I believe this because of my apotheosis but even knowing that there is ----something out there, a cosmic consciousness, this does not take away that any leadership of men should be a man and not some absentee God who cannot speak or clarify the laws he would have us follow. To rely on a 2000 year old book of myths is insane.

 

God, word, flesh, all point to a man who speaks for God and is given power.

 

Who but man can put words to the will of God or of a coalition of men.

 

There is only man.

I meant for you to clarify specifically the part I quoted, about the introduction to John. I found it interesting.

[Greatest I am]

Phi for All

 

Quote

 

Recognizing that A & E and thus all of mankind can be as Gods, is it not likely that our first God was a man of power?

 

Your reply--

I really don't understand what you mean by all this. I have never heard of Adam and Eve being thought of as gods. Some modern religions, like the church of the science of mind, preach that God is inside each person. Is that what you mean?

 

 

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

 

That is why God evicted A & E from Eden.

 

Gen 3; 22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

 

I call myself a Gnostic Christian with some Deist thrown in so yes, I believe that there is a God within all of us. In the sense that we can all gain access to the cosmic consciousness or Godhead.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

[A Tripolation]

So I hear but to believe it, you have to ignore the laws of physics and nature and have Jesus born before his mother was.

 

That means a full immersion into magical and fantasy thinking.

 

Is that where you are and if so, we will not have much to discuss.

 

I do not believe in fantasy, magic and miracles.

 

...You realize that to believe in ANY omnipotent deity, you pretty much have to suspend your logic about such things, correct? I thought you were discussing the implications of that verse, which comes from a Holy Book, which is chock full of miracles and magic.

 

Do you not see the irony in this?