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

[Greatest I am]

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

Jesus put people above God and so should we. “Mark 2;27 And he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath: 28Therefore, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

I think that the world would be a better place if people put their wants and needs as well as the wants and needs of other people above God’s.

I look at all the wealth that religions squander on themselves with huge churches and mosques, which are mostly empty, --- while many people still live in poverty and despair, --- and wonder if that wealth would be better spent on the poor. That would conform more to what Jesus taught us to do for the poor.

Governments seem to be of the same mindset as the religions as they spend lavishly on themselves while the poor go with their needs ignored.

I would think that religions would show the better mindset but that does not seem to be the case.

Before religions started thinking of God as a literal and real being, a more peaceful world, religiously speaking, home churches were the order of the day. Archeology has proven this. They were used as feeding stations for the poor and destitute and contributed more to the fellowship that people need more that the mega churches, temples and mosques that we have today.

Should we consider the benefits of the older ways and bring religion back into the homes where it’s expression and help for the poor can be better served?

Seems to me that the religious crave a personal relationship with their God, and that is best expressed from homes and not from the self-aggrandizing mega monstrosities and opulent churches and mosques that advertise their wasted wealth in our cities.

Does charity really begin at home, by putting people first and not God?

Regards
DL

[DavidB.]

lol

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

AMDG

[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.

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

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.

¿Por que no los dos?

[Greatest I am]

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

[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.

[RFayette]

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.

¿Por que no los dos?

And more important than any of that, of course, at least in the Protestant Christian tradition, is repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.  Those are the things one's salvation is conditional upon, and the rest should be the fruit of a regenerate heart.

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

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.

¿Por que no los dos?

And more important than any of that, of course, at least in the Protestant Christian tradition, is repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.  Those are the thing's one's salvation is conditional upon, and the rest should be the fruit of a regenerate heart.

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

[Antonio the Sixth]

(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.

[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."

[Greatest I am]

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

[DavidB.]

"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

You know these are literally the "questions" edgy 18-year old fedora-tippers ask, right? Are you an edgy 18-year old?

Regards
David

[Greatest I am]

"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

You know these are literally the "questions" edgy 18-year old fedora-tippers ask, right? Are you an edgy 18-year old?

Regards
David

I see you cannot back up your words and turn to insult to deflect from your inadequacies.

So will everyone else.

Regards
DL

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

Univocity of being is wack, kids.

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Love is seldom painless. Compared to eternity, this life is brief. If harsh correction to a few inspires many to repent and/or avoid sin, is that not a loving act of a loving god? Many of the problems of theodicy are due to a misunderstanding of omnipotence. Omnipotence is not the ability to do everything. It is the ability to do anything that can be done.

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

Love is seldom painless. Compared to eternity, this life is brief. If harsh correction to a few inspires many to repent and/or avoid sin, is that not a loving act of a loving god? Many of the problems of theodicy are due to a misunderstanding of omnipotence. Omnipotence is not the ability to do everything. It is the ability to do anything that can be done.

Obviously I'm substantially 'on your side' here, but considering that God precedes logic, this has never struck me as an especially good excuse.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I certainly put myself as well as other people above something I don't believe exists.

[IceAgeComing]

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

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

I certainly put myself as well as other people above something I don't believe exists.

this



Hi!
A.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Love is seldom painless. Compared to eternity, this life is brief. If harsh correction to a few inspires many to repent and/or avoid sin, is that not a loving act of a loving god? Many of the problems of theodicy are due to a misunderstanding of omnipotence. Omnipotence is not the ability to do everything. It is the ability to do anything that can be done.

Obviously I'm substantially 'on your side' here, but considering that God precedes logic, this has never struck me as an especially good excuse.

Even if one doesn't believe in God, one should believe in Gödel. It's trivial to show there are things no-one, not even God could do.

I'd have to go into much more depth concerning my conception of evil than I have time for right now, but it ties into why God must have limits. It's inherent in how I view the nature of evil.

[Greatest I am]

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.

I agree. Such is the way with works of fiction.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One of it's better attributes. Right?

By that I mean that the pains we get when thinking of losing it is what makes it more apparent and desirable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True but that is what makes the here and now so desirable. Each moment becomes precious.

I think that only the foolish would want eternal life as all the moments would be mundane.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not according to scriptures. It does not recommend harshness in it's correcting but then it did not likely have to deal with indoctrinated or brainwashed idol worshiping theists who believe the lies of their priests and imams.

 Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

If I can get a theist to actually test his belief, then harshness is not required as logic and reason do not contain harshness.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Seems that no God is omnipotent as none are popping up.

All the Omni characteristics attributed to any God are fiction.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I certainly put myself as well as other people above something I don't believe exists.

Smart move.

Regards
DL