Why does God not follow the Golden Rule? His best rule?

[metis]

When I seek God, I know where to look.


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."

As to your reference to human attributes, if God does not have human attributes then why would anyone think his is fit to rule mankind?

We are not aliens and should not follow an alien God.

Regards
DL

I respect your opinion, but this is not where I'm coming from.

All religions have a concept of God(s), and they tend to differ significantly, so which one is right-- or are they all right or all wrong? The reality is that even though one may have a believe of what God(s) characteristics is/are, the term "belief" is not synonymous with "truth".

I don't know if there's a God or Gods, nor do I know what the characteristics may be, but if there is a God I have to lean in the direction of Spinoza's concept, namely that God is so intrinsic with creation that there's not likely to be a separation. Spinoza went so far as to call God by another name-- "Nature", used in the absolute broadest implication of the word. Einstein, who wasn't exactly the village idiot by any means, said he believed in "Spinoza's God".

Was Spinoza correct? I don't know. So, my position in brief has become this: whatever caused this universe/multiverse I'll call "God", and then pretty much leave it at that.

 

[Greatest I am]

I do not have a reading problem.
Nor do I have a reading comprehension problem.

The problem here is your denial.

Apologies for not fitting the mold you are trying to put me in.

I guess we are done here. Thanks for the comments.

Regards
DL

 

[Tumah]

There is no such verse, as far as I know, and I am just looking at what the bible says he did and will do.

Regards
DL

OK. Well then how do you know that what He said and will do is not a fulfillment of the golden rule? I mean, I know that I personally would want someone to surgically remove a cancerous growth despite the suffering that the surgery would cause me. How are you determining that those verses are not ultimately beneficial, even if temporarily they seem not to be?

 

[Greatest I am]

I respect your opinion, but this is not where I'm coming from.

All religions have a concept of God(s), and they tend to differ significantly, so which one is right-- or are they all right or all wrong? The reality is that even though one may have a believe of what God(s) characteristics is/are, the term "belief" is not synonymous with "truth".

I don't know if there's a God or Gods, nor do I know what the characteristics may be, but if there is a God I have to lean in the direction of Spinoza's concept, namely that God is so intrinsic with creation that there's not likely to be a separation. Spinoza went so far as to call God by another name-- "Nature", used in the absolute broadest implication of the word. Einstein, who wasn't exactly the village idiot by any means, said he believed in "Spinoza's God".

Was Spinoza correct? I don't know. So, my position in brief has become this: whatever caused this universe/multiverse I'll call "God", and then pretty much leave it at that.

In terms of a miracle working God, we are on the same page.

In terms of God and or man as an ideal, I do not agree.

Please read on the Father Comples and note how we all seek the highest or fittest form of mankind. Our instincts are what push us to invent Gods.

Father complex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



There is a God within all of us when we see God as an ideal and the best rules and laws to live by.

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

"All religions have a concept of God(s), and they tend to differ significantly, so which one is right-- or are they all right or all wrong?

As a Gnostic Christian and Universalist, I have to have my theology accept all worthy Gods as right to the one who can internalise him or her and emulate him or her by following the ideal rules found.

I use what Jesus taught to show this acceptance of all internalised Gods.

The thinking shown below is the Gnostic Christian’s goal as taught by Jesus but know that any belief can be internalized to activate your higher mind.

This method and mind set is how you become I am and brethren to Jesus, in the esoteric sense.

When you can name your God, I am, and mean yourself, you will begin to know the only God you will ever find. Becoming a God is to become more fully human and a brethren to Jesus.

Regards
DL

 

[metis]

In terms of a miracle working God, we are on the same page.

In terms of God and man as an ideal, I do not agree.

There is a God within all of us when we see God as an ideal and the best rules and laws to live by.

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

"All religions have a concept of God(s), and they tend to differ significantly, so which one is right-- or are they all right or all wrong?

As a Gnostic Christian and Universalist, I have to have my theology accept all worthy Gods as right to the one who can internalise him or her and emulate him or her by following the ideal rules found.

I use what Jesus taught to show this acceptance of all internalised Gods.

The thinking shown below is the Gnostic Christian’s goal as taught by Jesus but know that any belief can be internalized to activate your higher mind.

This method and mind set is how you become I am and brethren to Jesus, in the esoteric sense.

When you can name your God, I am, and mean yourself, you will begin to know the only God you will ever find. Becoming a God is to become more fully human and a brethren to Jesus.
Regards
DL

I really don't believe in magic words or mystical names, but I do tend to lean in the direction of God possibly being literally All, as I previously expressed. With this approach, everything is a part of God or Gods. Since you mention Jesus, he would under this scenario be pretty much the same as you and I, although obviously not all of us impact the world in the same way.

 

[Greatest I am]

OK. Well then how do you know that what He said and will do is not a fulfillment of the golden rule? I mean, I know that I personally would want someone to surgically remove a cancerous growth despite the suffering that the surgery would cause me. How are you determining that those verses are not ultimately beneficial, even if temporarily they seem not to be?

If temporary then I would have a different opinion.

Scriptures say that the death that we get in the lake of fire is permanent and not temporary.

Doing unto others would mean curing the affliction. Not killing the soul.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

I really don't believe in magic words or mystical names, but I do tend to lean in the direction of God possibly being literally All, as I previously expressed. With this approach, everything is a part of God or Gods. Since you mention Jesus, he would under this scenario be pretty much the same as you and I, although obviously not all of us impact the world in the same way.

I hear you but why bother calling nature God?

God has always been described as a sentient being and nature ids not sentient.

Some people say God is really Truth or Love, but the same applied to those terms.

If God is those, why bother distorting the definition and meaning of those words by saying they are God?

Regards
DL

 

[Tumah]

If temporary then I would have a different opinion.

Scriptures say that the death that we get in the lake of fire is permanent and not temporary.

Doing unto others would mean curing the affliction. Not killing the soul.

Regards
DL

Ok.

 

[metis]

I hear you but why bother calling nature God?

God has always been described as a sentient being and nature ids not sentient.

Which is why on post #10 I wrote this: "maybe we're looking for God too far away and then attributing human attributes to Him?".

Some people say God is really Truth or Love, but the same applied to those terms.

If God is those, why bother distorting the definition and meaning of those words by saying they are God?

Regards
DL

Where's the supposed "distorting"? Can't concepts interrelate to the point whereas the only way to differentiate between them is to draw some rather arbitrary lines and assign names? "Truth", "Love", and "God" are only words that we have devised to separate out items that really may not exist as stand-alone entities. If God is All, then these all interrelate to the point whereas differentiating between them can actually be misleading.

Is this the case? I don't profess to know.

 

[Greatest I am]

Which is why on post #10 I wrote this: "maybe we're looking for God too far away and then attributing human attributes to Him?".



Where's the supposed "distorting"? Can't concepts interrelate to the point whereas the only way to differentiate between them is to draw some rather arbitrary lines and assign names? "Truth", "Love", and "God" are only words that we have devised to separate out items that really may not exist as stand-alone entities. If God is All, then these all interrelate to the point whereas differentiating between them can actually be misleading.

Is this the case? I don't profess to know.

If that were the way to go, then lets all call everything God as all is interrelated including all humans.

We would no longer have a need for terms to differentiate anything as it is all God.

That would mean of course that nothing and no one would be special to anyone as all those everyone loves would be God.

No thinks. I am not interested is scraping half of the Webster dictionary.

Regards
DL

 

[Ouroboros]

Why does God not follow the Golden Rule? His best rule?

The golden rule is a reciprocal rule, meaning what A does to B, B will do to A. Now, God can do many things we can't. And we can do many things God can't (unless we believe we're the outreach of God). So reciprocation is uneven or incompatible. We can't do to God what we want God do to us. And God can't do to us what he wants us do to him. In other words, the Golden Rule can't apply in that interaction.

 

[Ouroboros]

"When there were contradictions I simply explained the age related difference."

Then think of that the difference between the Bible God and humans is a size (infinite vs a few hundred pounds(, age (eternal vs finite of maybe 70-100 years), power, knowledge, and so forth. God of the Bible is portrayed as a person, but a far more advanced person than any human, which would separate God from humans the same way as parents from children.

(Disclaimer: I don't believe in the Bible God like that, so don't take my defense of such a God as a sign that I'm a believer of it. I'm arguing the concepts here.)

 

[Ouroboros]

I hear you but why bother calling nature God?

Why bother calling anything anything. Why bother calling a banana a banana instead of bent-yellow-fruit?

We do have alternative and synonymous names for things. Why do you call yourself "Greatest I am" when your real name is ... (whatever name it is)?

There are a trillion reasons calling nature God, but very few understand them.

God has always been described as a sentient being and nature ids not sentient.

God has not always been described as sentient. There are many non-sentient descriptions of God throughout history.

The sentient God image mostly comes from the Judeo-Christian line of thinking, of which we are heavily indoctrinated by in society. Our culture is steeped in the thinking of such God, and most people have a very difficult time thinking otherwise.

Some people say God is really Truth or Love, but the same applied to those terms.

If God is those, why bother distorting the definition and meaning of those words by saying they are God?

Why bother calling the physiological chemical reactions in our body that produces anger, love, happiness, or any other emotion for those names? We use nouns to describe things. We don't say "I have a rush of melantonins" or "My body is right now flooding with cortisol and epinephrin." No, we have words like "I'm feeling sleepy" or "I'm stressed". Words can summarize and they can carry more meaning than just the physical truth behind what they represent. "I'm painting" for instance doesn't mean that I'm just splashing paint on a canvas, it's a process of thinking, feeling, being, becoming, and more. The same for the word God. Technically, it's (to me) just a representation of all things that exist, but emotionally, philosophically, or for the purpose of meditation, it is something that gathers a sense of a "more than just the world". Or put it this way, does a sunset stir emotions in you? If not, then I feel sorry for you. If it does, does it mean that it's just a sunset or does it carry a connection for you of you being there, with the sunset, realizing and experiencing life, eternity, and such? There's a depth to things, beyond words, and God is just another description of those things.

 

[Ouroboros]

No thinks. I am not interested is scraping half of the Webster dictionary.

At least you wouldn't have to scrape this part of the Webster's dictionary:
"Definition of PANTHEISM
1
: a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe"

If Webster is your source of truth and objective absolutism of word definitions, then just read that again.

The problem is that many people don't realize that words are very vague in general. Also, language is tautological. Every definition is based on words that are defined elsewhere, that are defined elsewhere, and then it eventually comes back to the first word. It's an endless circle. There's no objective or absolute definition of words. They are the summary of current state of culture, society, beliefs, etc. But it constantly changes.

 

[Greatest I am]

The golden rule is a reciprocal rule, meaning what A does to B, B will do to A. Now, God can do many things we can't. And we can do many things God can't (unless we believe we're the outreach of God). So reciprocation is uneven or incompatible. We can't do to God what we want God do to us. And God can't do to us what he wants us do to him. In other words, the Golden Rule can't apply in that interaction.

Capability is one thing but the desire for reciprocity is what should guide us. Not the capability.

In the case of the lake of fire, God is well within the reciprocal position yet does not take it. He could cure instead of kill but says he will kill. Men in the same position would cure, not kill.

Seems that God is not quite as moral or forgiving as mankind is.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Then think of that the difference between the Bible God and humans is a size (infinite vs a few hundred pounds(, age (eternal vs finite of maybe 70-100 years), power, knowledge, and so forth. God of the Bible is portrayed as a person, but a far more advanced person than any human, which would separate God from humans the same way as parents from children.

(Disclaimer: I don't believe in the Bible God like that, so don't take my defense of such a God as a sign that I'm a believer of it. I'm arguing the concepts here.)

I do not see God as being portrayed as an advanced person. I see him as beneath contempt as he should exceed whatever we are yet shows himself to be inferior to us.

If you read Job 2;3 you see God admitting to having been moved to do evil and sin yet most Christians and God himself do not seem to see that evil.

Christians and their God are definitely inferior at recognizing decent morals.

Regards
DL

 

[Underhill]

I came to the conclusion by the 8th grade that if the god of the bible exist he's pond skum. I know that is offensive to some but look at the facts as portrayed in the bible.

He creates us, knowing we will sin. Sets in place rules he knows we cannot follow. Then makes the punishment for breaking those rules the harshest imaginable.

It's like laying a steak in front of your dog and telling him to stay and when he inevitably gets up and eats the steak you shoot him in the head. Clearly in that case the dog is the problem...

A voice from the sky tells a man to kill his son then just when he is about to do it tells him, 'good job'. And send them on their way.

Anyone who is willing to kill his son, regardless of who is telling you to do it, should be locked up. Any god who would ask that of a man, should be shot in the head.

But the ultimate bible story (paraphrased). Some guest stop by. A biker gang shows up and tells you to send those fine hunks of man meat out so they can rape them. But being the good host, you tell the bikers, 'sorry but they are guest'. 'Have my daughters instead.' The people of the city where all this happens are deemed evil and god decides to wipe them off the map, but god deems you, who took these guest in, as 'holy' and takes you up into the mountains before he destroys the city. And don't even ask about the idiocy that results in a woman made of salt.

Nothing about fighting off the bad people. The assumption is that the daughters are of little value but that the defense of these guest is all important. It's completely disgusting. And then people try to pretend the bible isn't sexist from cover to cover.

There is so much more. Wiping out dozens of cities of men, women and children because god told them to. Kill kids who are disrespectful to their parents. Stone adulterous women while slapping the mens hands. Slaves obey your masters. And for those of you who are pro life, if a man hits a woman and causes her to lose her child, he should pay a fine set by the woman's husband.

These stories are all in the Old Testament bible. When people speak of the Korans brutality I chuckle. The only way you can claim Christianity is better is if you write off the first few thousand years of bible history.

I don't believe in this god or any other. But even if for some reason I did, I would have to stand on my principles and tell him where to go and how to get there.

 

[Greatest I am]

Why bother calling anything anything. Why bother calling a banana a banana instead of bent-yellow-fruit?

We do have alternative and synonymous names for things. Why do you call yourself "Greatest I am" when your real name is ... (whatever name it is)?

There are a trillion reasons calling nature God, but very few understand them.


God has not always been described as sentient. There are many non-sentient descriptions of God throughout history.

The sentient God image mostly comes from the Judeo-Christian line of thinking, of which we are heavily indoctrinated by in society. Our culture is steeped in the thinking of such God, and most people have a very difficult time thinking otherwise.


Why bother calling the physiological chemical reactions in our body that produces anger, love, happiness, or any other emotion for those names? We use nouns to describe things. We don't say "I have a rush of melantonins" or "My body is right now flooding with cortisol and epinephrin." No, we have words like "I'm feeling sleepy" or "I'm stressed". Words can summarize and they can carry more meaning than just the physical truth behind what they represent. "I'm painting" for instance doesn't mean that I'm just splashing paint on a canvas, it's a process of thinking, feeling, being, becoming, and more. The same for the word God. Technically, it's (to me) just a representation of all things that exist, but emotionally, philosophically, or for the purpose of meditation, it is something that gathers a sense of a "more than just the world". Or put it this way, does a sunset stir emotions in you? If not, then I feel sorry for you. If it does, does it mean that it's just a sunset or does it carry a connection for you of you being there, with the sunset, realizing and experiencing life, eternity, and such? There's a depth to things, beyond words, and God is just another description of those things.

"There are a trillion reasons calling nature God, but very few understand them."

Correct. That is why I use language and names for things that are generally understood.

Most mainstream religions have a sentient God and I was speaking of those.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

At least you wouldn't have to scrape this part of the Webster's dictionary:
"Definition of PANTHEISM
1
: a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe"

If Webster is your source of truth and objective absolutism of word definitions, then just read that again.

The problem is that many people don't realize that words are very vague in general. Also, language is tautological. Every definition is based on words that are defined elsewhere, that are defined elsewhere, and then it eventually comes back to the first word. It's an endless circle. There's no objective or absolute definition of words. They are the summary of current state of culture, society, beliefs, etc. But it constantly changes.

It has been said that at the end of a philosophical discussion, the only thing left to discuss is the definition of words.

If definitions have to be done first, with people who generally speak the same language and belong to the same culture, then I suggest that no fruitful discussion will likely follow.

Religious discussion usually end poorly to begin with and to complicate them further is to just debate for the sake of debate without really wanting to accomplish any learning.

Regards
DL

 

[Desert Snake]

I have chosen a God that makes sense and is not a vile demiurge with satanic morals.

Regards
DL

Why did you write ''God'', in the OP, then, and not ''Demiurge''?