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

[Greatest I am]

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.

If Christians were in their religions for the morals then they, like you and I would seek a more moral God to follow.

All Christians care about is their savior, the same God who condemned them in the first place, and his free pass into heaven. Morals are not a Christian forte.

Here is a bit of history and a method of seeking a moral God.

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

 

[Greatest I am]

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

That is how must designate him.

I did not want to confuse the issue and have people think I was talking of some God other than bible God.

Regards
DL

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

There can't be any reciprocation between a god and an mortal being. The Golden Rule is for interaction between equals.

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

Morality has nothing to do with it. Morality is a framework for a society of beings. God is alone. God is amoral, i.e. independent of moral code. (God as in the sense of the Christian-traditional one at least.)

 

[Desert Snake]

That is how must designate him.

I did not want to confuse the issue and have people think I was talking of some God other than bible God.

Regards
DL

So you think that there is 'one' deity being portrayed in the Bible? I'm not so sure about that. Differing characteristics, and the timeline, and multi-grouped nature of Israel, and the surrounding area, create a possibility of different deity ideas, being presented. Even if you take the Jesus narrative 'literally', as you seem to, many people associate Jesus with God, this is actually not the ''middleman'' concept that you are presenting as Chrisitianity. Yes, some xians do have this odd middleman concept, but it in no way defines Xians. It's merely a branch of xianity that has many churches. If we look at the OT, we are also faced with the possibility, of different 'gods' being represented, and lumped into one category, or 'name'. I think that an indication of this mish=mash might be indicated by the difference in OT adherence, from Judaism, and, we'll say ''Christianity'', which really means the borrowing of traditions from Xians, by the ''church''.
Anyways, not so clear in my book.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

"Advanced person" as in for setting the stage for the argument. If the argument is that God is some advanced person, then God is older, wiser, yada yada, and still not relating to a reciprocal system.

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.

Sure. That describes God as a person, or an advanced person (in the sense of skill, not morality), but still being above the rule simple because that God isn't a human. Person but not human.

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

I can agree on that. If humans can learn to be moral because it benefits humanity instead of following morals dictated by an external mystical force, we might would be able to move forward in some aspects.

 

[Greatest I am]

There can't be any reciprocation between a god and an mortal being. The Golden Rule is for interaction between equals.


Morality has nothing to do with it. Morality is a framework for a society of beings. God is alone. God is amoral, i.e. independent of moral code. (God as in the sense of the Christian-traditional one at least.)

You are talking sense. Sense is not what Christianity is all about.

Christians look to God for their morals without recognizing that it would not have been possible for him to develop them because, as you say, he was alone.

Social rules and morals are only useful to groups.

As to reciprocity, none of us are fully equal but reciprocity is still our best moral choice.

You do not have to be my equal for me to treat you as I wish to be treated and if you cannot treat me the same as you wish to be treated because I am beneath your level, then you are not a moral man.

Do you return your children's love, for instance?

You likely do but likely do not consider them your equal.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

So you think that there is 'one' deity being portrayed in the Bible? I'm not so sure about that. Differing characteristics, and the timeline, and multi-grouped nature of Israel, and the surrounding area, create a possibility of different deity ideas, being presented. Even if you take the Jesus narrative 'literally', as you seem to, many people associate Jesus with God, this is actually not the ''middleman'' concept that you are presenting as Chrisitianity. Yes, some xians do have this odd middleman concept, but it in no way defines Xians. It's merely a branch of xianity that has many churches. If we look at the OT, we are also faced with the possibility, of different 'gods' being represented, and lumped into one category, or 'name'. I think that an indication of this mish=mash might be indicated by the difference in OT adherence, from Judaism, and, we'll say ''Christianity'', which really means the borrowing of traditions from Xians, by the ''church''.
Anyways, not so clear in my book.

I agree that there is more than one Jesus and God represented in scriptures.

Not to most who fly the cross though. They are all idol worshipers of Jesus and the Trinity. They have to be if they follow their creed.

You and I see more in the bible than they do because of our lack of faith. Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship.

Faith is a way to quit using, "God given" power of Reason and Logic, and cause the faithful to embrace doctrines that moral people reject.

The God of the OT says, “Come now, and let us reason together,” [Isaiah 1:18]

How can literalists reason with God when they must ignore reason and logic and discard them when turning into literalist?

Those who are literalists can only reply somewhat in the fashion that Martin Luther did.
"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

This attitude effectively kills all worthy communication that non-theists can have with theist. Faith closes the mind as it is pure idol worship.

Literalism is an evil practice that hides the true messages of myths. We cannot show our faith based friends that they are wrong through their faith colored glasses. Their faith also plugs their ears.

Regards
DL

 

[Ouroboros]

You are talking sense. Sense is not what Christianity is all about.

True. It doesn't make any sense anymore. It used to make sense in the old world, but today, it doesn't. It has to change or go away. And many theologians and Christians see this too and are changing their views of what God is.

Christians look to God for their morals without recognizing that it would not have been possible for him to develop them because, as you say, he was alone.

Agree. He could not be part of a moral community. He could however dictate or invent them, but that's as far as he could go.

Social rules and morals are only useful to groups.

Exactly.

As to reciprocity, none of us are fully equal but reciprocity is still our best moral choice.

Correct. We are however equal in our humanity, of being part of the same community of humans, that's what I mean equal. We don't have a Thor superhuman in our midst that we have to include in our system of reciprocation. Also, we don't include ants in our system either, simply because we know we and them can't share experience or thoughts about these things.

You do not have to be my equal for me to treat you as I wish to be treated and if you cannot treat me the same as you wish to be treated because I am beneath your level, then you are not a moral man.

We're like ants to God. If he likes to stamp down our anthill, it only shows his superior power, but it doesn't show his superior benevolence, since a superior benevolence wouldn't let him hurt us, but do whatever he can to avoid it. And since this God supposedly can do anything that he puts his mind to, there's no reason to think that he couldn't solve problems without violence, sickness, and death. All those things would be unnecessary for an all powerful, yet benevolent God.

Do you return your children's love, for instance?

Of course. I do consider myself having a higher moral standard that God, but on the other hand, I also consider myself to be part of the whole, of God, so I'm part of raising the benevolence and love of God by being who I am.

You likely do but likely do not consider them your equal.

Agree. Some things we can give them, other things we can't (like a box of matches).

 

[Greatest I am]

"Advanced person" as in for setting the stage for the argument. If the argument is that God is some advanced person, then God is older, wiser, yada yada, and still not relating to a reciprocal system.


Sure. That describes God as a person, or an advanced person (in the sense of skill, not morality), but still being above the rule simple because that God isn't a human. Person but not human.


I can agree on that. If humans can learn to be moral because it benefits humanity instead of following morals dictated by an external mystical force, we might would be able to move forward in some aspects.

That is what Gnostic Christianity was well on it's way to doing before Christianity decimated us and burned our scriptures. Constantine was not interested in society moving forward and chose the Christianity that shared the same mindset. Note how Christianity is still homophobic and misogynous and is still trying, along with Islam, to stifle our forward motion to a just world.

The West has forced Christianity to heel. We might have to do the same to Islam.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

True. It doesn't make any sense anymore. It used to make sense in the old world, but today, it doesn't. It has to change or go away. And many theologians and Christians see this too and are changing their views of what God is.


Agree. He could not be part of a moral community. He could however dictate or invent them, but that's as far as he could go.


Exactly.


Correct. We are however equal in our humanity, of being part of the same community of humans, that's what I mean equal. We don't have a Thor superhuman in our midst that we have to include in our system of reciprocation. Also, we don't include ants in our system either, simply because we know we and them can't share experience or thoughts about these things.


We're like ants to God. If he likes to stamp down our anthill, it only shows his superior power, but it doesn't show his superior benevolence, since a superior benevolence wouldn't let him hurt us, but do whatever he can to avoid it. And since this God supposedly can do anything that he puts his mind to, there's no reason to think that he couldn't solve problems without violence, sickness, and death. All those things would be unnecessary for an all powerful, yet benevolent God.


Of course. I do consider myself having a higher moral standard that God, but on the other hand, I also consider myself to be part of the whole, of God, so I'm part of raising the benevolence and love of God by being who I am.


Agree. Some things we can give them, other things we can't (like a box of matches).

No argument.

Nice to have a non-abrasive conversation for a change.

You seem bright enough to be a Gnostic Christian.

Just kidding my friend. But true.

Regards
DL

 

[Ouroboros]

That is what Gnostic Christianity was well on it's way to doing before Christianity decimated us and burned our scriptures. Constantine was not interested in society moving forward and chose the Christianity that shared the same mindset. Note how Christianity is still homophobic and misogynous and is still trying, along with Islam, to stifle our forward motion to a just world.

The West has forced Christianity to heel. We might have to do the same to Islam.

Regards
DL

Or just give people better options to choose from.

 

[Awoon]

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

Alan Watts simple teaching and to the point. One either has the Religion OF Jesus or the Religion ABOUT Jesus.

I been asking Christian people that question for years. They get mad when asked.

 

[Ouroboros]

No argument.

Nice to have a non-abrasive conversation for a change.

You seem bright enough to be a Gnostic Christian.

Just kidding my friend. But true.

Regards
DL

I can empathize with the gnostic tradition (kind of even went that direction myself for a while). Now, I'm of the mystic/naturalistic pantheistic/panentheistic/atheistic mix. I don't believe labels really can pinpoint exactly anyone's exact views.

 

[Greatest I am]

Or just give people better options to choose from.

That will work in the long run but I doubt it will in the short term.

If people actually believed in their Gods then for sure a better God might interest them but if this link is an indicator of belief, few really believe as they say they do and are only following whatever religion their tradition and culture has handed down.

Ask any theist if he believes in his inherited God and 99.9 will say yes. Very few actually choose a God or consider the morality of their inherited Gods. When they do, they become atheists.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Alan Watts simple teaching and to the point. One either has the Religion OF Jesus or the Religion ABOUT Jesus.

I been asking Christian people that question for years. They get mad when asked.

Christianity claims to have all the answers but they always get upset when we ask anything.

That is how we can know that their religion is not worthy of respect.

Jesus said he came for the sick and not the well but instead of treating us and trying to correct us, Christians turn to abuse because they know they do not have what ails us. They, in fact, are the sick ones.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

I can empathize with the gnostic tradition (kind of even went that direction myself for a while). Now, I'm of the mystic/naturalistic pantheistic/panentheistic/atheistic mix. I don't believe labels really can pinpoint exactly anyone's exact views.

No argument here. That is why my long title is gnostic Christian and esoteric ecumenist naturalist.

Gnostics have always been hard to pin down. That is one of our fortes.

It is also why we can embrace all religions and traditions that are not idol worshipers the way Christians and Muslims have become.

Gnostic Christians recognize that we all have a God within and that we all understand God differently and change him or her as we evolve our thinking.

Regards
DL

 

[Ouroboros]

That will work in the long run but I doubt it will in the short term.

Well, you found a better option, and it helped you. Hopefully, that's also helping us to a better world as well. We can't undo or unmake Christianity or Islam unless people have an option to replace it with, something better.

If people actually believed in their Gods then for sure a better God might interest them but if this link is an indicator of belief, few really believe as they say they do and are only following whatever religion their tradition and culture has handed down.

Ask any theist if he believes in his inherited God and 99.9 will say yes. Very few actually choose a God or consider the morality of their inherited Gods. When they do, they become atheists.

That's why people need something new to give to the generations to come.

 

[Greatest I am]

Well, you found a better option, and it helped you. Hopefully, that's also helping us to a better world as well. We can't undo or unmake Christianity or Islam unless people have an option to replace it with, something better.


That's why people need something new to give to the generations to come.

I hear you but from what I see, people are so turned off by the garbage mainstream religions that they are going atheist.

I cannot blame them.

Consider that Christianity has some sects that are Universalist and some that are liberal enough to give women and gays full equality, --- yet Christian men and women stay in their traditional homophobic and misogynous sects and are not moved by the better morals of those other Christian traditions.

As I say, I do not see many who actually believe or care about the immorality of their religions.

My kingdom for the words to have them elevate morality as a part of their religiosity.

Regards
DL

 

[Ouroboros]

I hear you but from what I see, people are so turned off by the garbage mainstream religions that they are going atheist.

Because they're garbage.

I stopped eating garbage fast food after having the real, tasty, delicious, quality foods. To stop eating all together might not be the best option for a lot of people.

I cannot blame them.

Neither can I.

 

[metis]

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.

Pretty much correct. Einstein even hypothesized that God may be the energy of creation itself, and he referred to the concept of divinely-taught morality as being a "childish" belief. His terminology, not mine.

BTW, what makes you think we are "special"?

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

Regards
DL

It's not the dictionary that needs scraping off-- just our assumptions.