God cannot love or be Love.

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

If God would have loved Adam and Eve, he would have corrected them. He would not have punished them for becoming as Gods. Punishment without correction is evil and just done for cruelties sake. By immorally withholding eternal life, he could be described as a murderer.

We know from scriptures that ha-adam, Jewish for society, was never given full disclosure by any of the Gods. Indeed, the snake gave more of the facts than God did. God’s first sin perhaps. One of omission.

To Adam’s sin being passed down.
Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Strange that God ignores this good advice and have Jesus bear his iniquity. Again, no ability to love is shown.

Would you do that to your child?
Would that be acting in a loving way?

Psalm 49:7
None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

What does a God need with setting and receiving a ransom called Jesus?
We could phrase the question to suggest that only an insane God would give humankind such a poor example.

If Christianity chooses to embrace human sacrifice, then they clearly show their immorality.

A theology that says that it is good to punish the innocent and allow the guilty to walk is immoral and un-ethical. Not a loving thing to do at all.
If Adam and Eve should have been corrected and not punished, and they are archetypes of all of us, then God cannot love us either or he would be correcting our behavior.

God did not exhibit love in punishing all of his systems instead of correcting them in Eden.

Love is as love does. ---- Faith without works is dead. James. ---- Love is expressed by works and deeds.

Love without its expression in works and deeds is dead.

God is not doing love and thus cannot love or be Love.
Only ha-adam, humankind, can know love. We cry. God cannot.
Poor loser is not human enough to share human emotion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP7SP...5C60AF4D91B50A

Regards
DL

God can be anybody he wants to be and God has been giving birth to the human race since time began.

I think you should read someone who knows religion a lot better than you.

Start with Karen Armstrong's The History of God.

Btw you don't define God.

If God says "God is love" then that is who He is.

If you say you're GIA then who am I to say you're not.

People can help determine who they are by what they identify with. It's called self-determination.

Now if you keep mixing God up with the Devil...it is any wonder if he decides to cut you off?

This should be interesting...get the theists to argue against each other, and let them do the work of pointing out all of the logical fallacies, contradictions, and gaping holes in each others' arguments.

He's not a theist.

Correct.

I believe in God, in a sense, but not the fool of a God that scriptures try to sell.

Now any time you wish to speak to the issue instead of preaching what you cannot in any way prove, I am here for you.

Regards
DL

I can hardly ever read a whole op of your's because there's always a glaring mis-step right at the outset.

Look at this statement:

"Indeed, the snake gave more of the facts than God did. God’s first sin perhaps. One of omission."

How could the snake have given more facts than God when man is made in the image of God?

The only omission I see is that people forget that fact and fail to live up to being made in the image of God.

Originally Posted by Splendour
He's not a theist.

Sorry, I hate to have to keep correcting you guys. It seems a lot of the confusion on these forums stems from a misunderstanding of definitions. A theist is someone who believes in a god. It does not only mean Christians, or people who believe in a personal god. Any belief in a deity qualifies you as a theist. So, you cannot say "Correct, I am not a theist" and then have your next sentence be "I believe in God".

I am with you on the fact that people are making claims that they cannot prove. I would be interested to hear your proof of your god, since you did claim that you believe in one in an attempt to not be labeled as a theist...

Thanks for the kindergarten lesson. Most people on this board know what the word theist means.

GIA is not a theist. He thinks he's beyond theism. He claims to have experienced apotheosis.

Again, I apologize that the kindergarten lesson was needed, seeing the obviously ironic (unknowingly, perhaps) and wrong statement that was made by the OP

Then you are showing your blindness.

I count about 6 conditions attached to eating of the tree of knowledge.
I see God giving the one consequence and all the others coming from other sources.

How many consequences do you read and who told A & E about them?

Start with them having their eyes opened.
Who told them this would happen? God or the talking snake?

How about becoming as God's.
Who mentions that tidbit first?

Regards
DL

Definition of THEISM
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

The Godhead I believe in is from personal experience and not some dogma.
It is not the creator of nature. It is the product of nature.


The Godhead I know in a nutshell.
I was a skeptic till the age of 39.
I then had an apotheosis and later branded myself a Gnostic Christian naturalist.
Gnostic Christian because I exemplify this quote from William Blake.

“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read'st black where I read white.”

This refers to how Gnostics tend to reverse, for moral reasons, what Christians see in the Bible. We tend to recognize the evil ways of O T God where literal Christians will see God’s killing as good. Christians are sheeple where Gnostic Christians are goats.
This perhaps why we see the use of a Jesus scapegoat as immoral, while theists like to make Jesus their beast of burden. An immoral position.

During my apotheosis, something that only lasted 5 or 6 seconds, the only things of note to happen was that my paradigm of reality was confirmed and I was chastised to think more demographically. What I found was what I call a cosmic consciousness. Not a new term but one that is a close but not exact fit.

I recognize that I have no proof. That is always the way with apotheosis.
This is also why I prefer to stick to issues of morality because no one has yet been able to prove that God is real and I have no more proof than they for the cosmic consciousness.

The cosmic consciousness is not a miracle working God. He does not interfere with us save when one of us finds it. Not a common thing from what I can see. It is a part of nature and our next evolutionary step.

I tend to have more in common with atheists who ignore what they see as my delusion because our morals are basically identical. Theist tend not to like me much as I have no respect for literalists and fundamentals and think that most Christians have tribal mentalities and poor morals.

I am rather between a rock and a hard place but this I cannot help.

I am happy to be questioned on what I believe but whether or not God exists is basically irrelevant to this world for all that he does not do, and I prefer to thrash out moral issues that can actually find an end point. The search for God is never ending when you are of the Gnostic persuasion. My apotheosis basically says that I am to discard whatever God I found, God as a set of rules that is, not idol worship, it but instead, raise my bar and seek further.

My apotheosis also showed me that God has no need for love, adoration or obedience. He has no needs. Man has dominion here on earth and is to be and is the supreme being.

Regards
DL

No, it qualifies you as a deist.

Yes, you can.

LOL this gets worse and worse.

Regardless, labels aren't important here. It is the assertions and claims from both deists and theists that are important.

I'm not following.

Genesis is highly allegorical imo.

You could consider them opening their eyes as the ability to perceive evil in their own actions.

There's still quite a bit of moral and spiritual growth steps for them to go through.

God could have taken them out of the physical jungle to the Garden and then they end up in the spiritual jungle.

God is not dispensable.

People have been enhancing their chances of survival with spiritual skills for ages.

Use Spirituality for Stress Relief:
http://stress.about.com/od/optimisms.../spiritual.htm

The Benefits of Optimism:
http://stress.about.com/od/optimisms...ismbenefit.htm

Internal locus of control improvement:
http://stress.about.com/od/psycholog...s/ht/locus.htm

If labels aren't important then you should spend less time making erroneous attempts at correcting them.

You ignore the question and then take the opportunity to preach.
As usual.

We are done here.
Please go away.

Regards
DL

GIA you're the one preaching itt.

I'm just giving you an alternate interpretation.

Now why do you bother expounding from biblical texts if you don't think God exists or that the bible is inspired?

What's the point?

They are important in the sense that we cannot productively have a discussion if we aren't on the same page as to what certain things mean. His misunderstanding of the term theist were important to clear up. While deism relates specifically to a non-personal god who does not intervene, theism is more of an umbrella term, from the Greek "theos" meaning god, meaning to believe in any god, at least it is used colloquially that way. You are correct that in his case, deist applies more accurately, so we can go with that.

To reduce the damage your ilk does.

It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.
They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Belief in fantasy is evil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHa...x=0&playnext=1

They also do much harm to their own.

African witches and Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9...eature=related

Jesus Camp 1of 9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBv8tv62yGM

Promoting death to Gays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMw2Z...eature=related

For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.
Fight them when you can. It is your duty to your fellow man.

Regards
DL

I'm a literal fundamentalist?

I gave you an allegorical interpretation...hint, hint....

Yes I know. You are part of and contribute to the problems I showed above.

Regards
DL

What problem?

You're still expounding on the bible fraudulently.

If you don't believe the bible then throw it out and create your own material that sets forth your views not your criticisms.

There's nothing original in debasing a holy text. It just looks like you couldn't understand it.

i dont entirely understand your beliefs but respect you for agreeing that there is no evidence of god

When you are saying "if you question my old book you can't understand it properly", there is a problem. Do you see it?

No problem at all.

Some people grasp that there is a categorical difference between being a Creator god and being a person He created.

If God is still doing a creative work in restoring their spirits then some people are going to jump into his repair line instead of hanging out with the cracked pots.

Read the bible: God is a potter. Paul says people are jars of clay.

Imagine objecting to God from your imperfect condition when He's intent on restoring you. There's some really evil thinking prompting that one.