Do We all need a new God to bring peace and prosperity to the world?
Posted on: 03/11/2010 15:23
John 10:34
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
I think you would agree that things could be better in this world.
It is my belief that the only way to make things better in all areas of life is through rapprochement. As this happens, there will be both pain and pleasure.
We must all concede some of our thinking and that will hurt. So let us be gentle with each other.
As I see the Vatican and Islam forming a rapprochement, it kindles a hope that rules will change. It is natural that it will be the East that shows the way for the West.
We are all ruled by the rules that we are following.
Rules of nature, of Politics, of Free men, physics and God/Man and Goddess/Woman.
These rules are us .
Political rules and Religious rules are what man is.
God is rules, man is rules, therefore we are Gods.
God, like any good father, would not have His Sons to be less than what He is.
We are all in this together alone.
Our first God was a man, our last shall be as well.
What is our collective name and God’s new name?
More importantly, who is the Anti-Christ?
Will the new name come from the Vatican or Islam or will God come from some other source?
If we are all Sons of God, then what is our name?
Regards
DL
Do We all need a new God to bring peace and prosperity to the world?
Name this person for both of the Gods you follow.
Political God, and a Religious God.
- Login or register to post comments
- Add new comment
Comments
joejack
My god is a hockey god. The
Posted on: 03/11/2010 17:08
My god is a hockey god. The only kind, eh? Don Cherry for God! (Hey, it's no more ridiculous than this crazy thread.) There is no antichrist because DON CHERRY RULES, EH? What do you say, G.I.A., EH?
joejack
To all the wussies out there
Posted on: 03/11/2010 17:12
To all the wussies out there accusing me of not discussing, well, I'm discussing, eh? Am I attacking G.I.eh? In that vein, Sidney Crosby for the messiah who defeated the evil hockey anti-christ, Team U.S.eh? Discussing is fun, discussing is fun. GIA, thanks for this wonderful thread. Wow oh wow oh wow. I'm so happy I could just crap.
joejack
Oh, come one people,
Posted on: 03/11/2010 18:52
Oh, come one people, discuss! I've been accused of not discussing, so let's get it on. I'm not attacking GIA, he's got enough problems already. Now, if we could genetically clone Don Cherry and alter his DNA to make him ten feet tall and invincible like the Terminator and dynamite with a hockey stick. Of course, for the sake of an every man commanlity, let's rename him "Fred". Omnipotence and omniscience might be a problem, but we're being progressive. After all, this is the United Church, eh?
Marzo
I will try to address this
Posted on: 03/11/2010 20:40
I will try to address this question seriously.
We don't need new "gods" to bring peace and prosperity to the world. The human collectivity in this world needs to wake up and realize that if we want to have a future and a world that's worth living in, the economic system has to change, cultural practices need to change, and our sense of 'who we are' will have to change.
Prosperity in the form of secure supplies of food, water, shelter and other necessities will be found by creating new food-producing lands in deserts irrigated by water harvested from the Antarctic ice cap. Genetic engineering can be used to create new high-nutrient food crops that can grow in the new conditions of the changing global climate. Principles of capitalist economics and private ownership of the means of production would have to be subordinate to the common good.
The Vatican and Islam are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem. Islam cannot be a force for peace and the rulers of the Catholic church define moral philosophy in abstract terms while turning a blind eye to reality. I am in favour of free thought, expression, and assembly in religion, I am intolerant of totalitarian systems that claim the mandate of Heaven.
No, we don't need a new god, we need to pull together for the collective good and for future generations. We need a future where the religious and political movements emphasize benevolence, compassion, and social resposibility. We need economic systems that honour and love the biosphere and that serve the common need, not private greed.
airclean33
---g-i-a---Are you looking
Posted on: 03/11/2010 21:13
---g-i-a---Are you looking for a new job? --Better watch out the last guy try to steal God's Place, was shot out of heaven like a lightning bolt. He's still bouncing around earth here somewhere.
joejack
airclean33
Posted on: 03/12/2010 00:39
---g-i-a---Are you looking for a new job? --Better watch out the last guy try to steal God's Place, was shot out of heaven like a lightning bolt. He's still bouncing around earth here somewhere.
That's right, and I'm STILL smarting from it! Not fun! LOL
joejack
Okay, seriously, the passage
Posted on: 03/12/2010 09:05
Okay, seriously, the passage quoted referred to old Testament judges who were called gods because they exercised godlike judicial sovereignty. (In its proper context, it assumes a whole different meaning that DL has indicated.)
Jesus is quoting Psalm 82:6. He quoted this in his exchange with the religious authorities who wanted to stone Him for declaring Himself to be the Son of God (John 10:31-35). The word translated 'gods' here is the same word translated 'rulers' in verse 1. This word, elohim, is used to refer to the one true God, to false gods, to angels, or to 'mighty ones' that is, the judges.
Your interpretation of that passage is a flagrant misuse/abuse of the text within its proper context. When studied within its proper context, the rest of your opening remarks are meaningless and academically dishonest and inaccurate. You can't have a proper discussion that is founded on a fallacy or twisted interpretation. Are you a 'god', DL/GIA, then you must be an Old Testament Judge. Are you? No, you're not, I'm not, and anyone on this thread are not old Testament judges. With these facts before us, your thread disintegrates.
Now, DL, you were complaining that we weren't 'discussing'. Well, now you have something to discuss. Will you do so, or will you revert to your previous bullying tactics of avoiding, ignoring, name-calling, etc.? I doubt you have the capacity to do so. I'll be watching and insist that you discuss in a proper context.
Greatest I am
Marzo wrote: I will try to
Posted on: 03/14/2010 16:41
I will try to address this question seriously.
We don't need new "gods" to bring peace and prosperity to the world. The human collectivity in this world needs to wake up and realize that if we want to have a future and a world that's worth living in, the economic system has to change, cultural practices need to change, and our sense of 'who we are' will have to change.
Prosperity in the form of secure supplies of food, water, shelter and other necessities will be found by creating new food-producing lands in deserts irrigated by water harvested from the Antarctic ice cap. Genetic engineering can be used to create new high-nutrient food crops that can grow in the new conditions of the changing global climate. Principles of capitalist economics and private ownership of the means of production would have to be subordinate to the common good.
The Vatican and Islam are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem. Islam cannot be a force for peace and the rulers of the Catholic church define moral philosophy in abstract terms while turning a blind eye to reality. I am in favour of free thought, expression, and assembly in religion, I am intolerant of totalitarian systems that claim the mandate of Heaven.
No, we don't need a new god, we need to pull together for the collective good and for future generations. We need a future where the religious and political movements emphasize benevolence, compassion, and social resposibility. We need economic systems that honour and love the biosphere and that serve the common need, not private greed.
Not much to disagree with here. Thanks for that. Good thinking.
You might note that for what you want, we would need a new political God as opposed to a religious one. I agree.
The problem as I see it is that to do as you would like, we would have to change the socio economic demographic pyramids of all countries to gain the cooperation that would be required to do the things you mention.
This would take that dreaded new world order, under basically, one government.
The world of today is quite far from that type of cooperation.
I actually did an O P on sumptuary laws designed to change our socio economic demographic pyramid and most did not go for it. Greed is to widespread it seems.
Regards
DL
Greatest I am
joejack wrote: Okay,
Posted on: 03/14/2010 17:05
Okay, seriously, the passage quoted referred to old Testament judges who were called gods because they exercised godlike judicial sovereignty. (In its proper context, it assumes a whole different meaning that DL has indicated.)
Jesus is quoting Psalm 82:6. He quoted this in his exchange with the religious authorities who wanted to stone Him for declaring Himself to be the Son of God (John 10:31-35). The word translated 'gods' here is the same word translated 'rulers' in verse 1. This word, elohim, is used to refer to the one true God, to false gods, to angels, or to 'mighty ones' that is, the judges.
Your interpretation of that passage is a flagrant misuse/abuse of the text within its proper context. When studied within its proper context, the rest of your opening remarks are meaningless and academically dishonest and inaccurate. You can't have a proper discussion that is founded on a fallacy or twisted interpretation. Are you a 'god', DL/GIA, then you must be an Old Testament Judge. Are you? No, you're not, I'm not, and anyone on this thread are not old Testament judges. With these facts before us, your thread disintegrates.
Now, DL, you were complaining that we weren't 'discussing'. Well, now you have something to discuss. Will you do so, or will you revert to your previous bullying tactics of avoiding, ignoring, name-calling, etc.? I doubt you have the capacity to do so. I'll be watching and insist that you discuss in a proper context.
Well, you say that you want to discuss the topic and out of all that you wrote there is perhaps one line that was not an attack or insult.
I have ignore the plethora of posts that you have sent my way for the same reason.
I will give you this one try.
You will note that I do not quote scripture that much because it is just a myth to me so your condition for proper context will be hard to comply with when dealing with a book that is a translated version of languages translated from an older language that experts are still arguing about. The God in it is understandable from literal reading but when I point it out to literal readers, they will not read it literally.
They work hard to maintain their position of slaves to God.
Just so you know, I am a Deist and the K j Bible helped lead me to the Godhead.
Now as to you not liking my use of----Do ye not know that ye are Gods.
So far, I have 0 respect for one of your ilk so let’s see if I can gain a bit.
As a father, I want my children to meet or preferably exceed whatever I am.
I think all fathers should think the same way.
Do you?
If you do, then why would you think that your heavenly father would want less for His children.
He would not and thus, as Jesus insinuated, we are all Sons of God and thus Gods WIPs.
Now I know that many Christians will say that God can do anything to ys that He likes because He owns us.
This makes God a slave owner and the rest of us slaves.
Hardly what a father would want for His children.
Just to muddy things up a bit more, if you read revelation you will see that at end time, it is the son of man that is to rule.
Our first God was a man and our last shall be as well.
Who but man can put words to the will of God or man?
Thoughts.
Regard
DL
joejack
If telling you the truth
Posted on: 03/14/2010 22:17
If telling you the truth about yourself and your posts is considered an 'attack', you must be a joy at tax time. I suppose the government is persecuting you as well. I haven't said anything any professor would not say to a student who wrote a substandard paper. (I've said worse to some of mine.) You quote scripture in your posts when it suits your purposes, so stating you don't quote scripture is inaccurate. You avoid serious scholarship especially if it counters your thesis. Again avoidance and ignoring information not supportive of your presuppositions is an evasive tactic used by serial bullies. You can't quote scripture then not quote scripture because it violates the principle of (non)-contradiction. You can't muddy anything up because your posts are about as clear as mud. Oh, dear, was that an attack, or just the plain truth? Go back to school, get a real education, then come back and we can discuss. I grow weary of your peurile behaviour.
Greatest I am
So much for our
Posted on: 03/17/2010 14:45
So much for our discussion.
Regards
DL
joejack
DL's definition of
Posted on: 03/17/2010 15:03
DL's definition of discussion: "Agree with me or there'll be consequences because you're definitely wrong. Don't confuse me with research, scholarship or the facts."