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

[Blue3]

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.

[Blue3]

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.

[Blue3]

(with allowances made for the fact that the faith-works causal relationship is understood somewhat differently in Catholicism).

Could you elaborate on this? Based on my very basic knowledge of this issue, I think I have a preference for the Protestant (mainly, Lutheran) doctrine, but it might be because I don't understand the Catholic one very well.

I don't think there's a true difference, it's more semantic.


Protestants say the intention is what saves you, and good actions come from a good intention.

Catholics say good intention is accompanied by good action.


Protestants misunderstand Catholics, thinking Catholics mean you have to perform good actions to be saved (which hurts the idea of a deathbed conversion, I think is the big argument about that).

Catholics misunderstand Protestants, thinking Protestants mean you don't need to actually do anything good, just say "I believe."

[Blue3]

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.

[Blue3]

Wrong.

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Blue3]

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.

An atheist can do all those things.

Yes, definitely!

(I believe all Atheists will go to Heaven)

[Blue3]

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.

[Blue3]

Can you tone down the condescending arrogance?

[Blue3]

How very Un-Christian of you.

So similar to this perception of God you hate.

[Blue3]

How very Un-Christian of you.

So similar to this perception of God you hate.

Any who do not hate a genocidal son murdering God are showing just what kind of God they like.

More of a Satan than a God.

Regards
DL

You make a lot of assumptions, and like to attack strawmen.

I've given my personal views.

I bet others don't think of God as actually being genocidal, or son-murdering.

[Blue3]

1. There aren't as many Biblical literalists as you assume. This is the biggest reason.

2. God is God, to completely understand God is beyond the limits of human understanding.

3. Literalists make the case that God isn't human, he gives life and can take it, all life belongs to God and murder/suicide are only wrong because it's humans taking what is God's, and God is simply bringing them to the afterlife with God. Not saying this is my position, but it is one.