Many ancient religions, the Celts and native Americans believed in the Earth Mother, Gaia, the goddess of all life on Earth. The Earth based religions made a whole lot more sense because they were about tangibles, living things, not intangible imaginary things. They viewed the Earth as a living organism, the source that imbues life to all that dwell upon her. To me, if people feel a need for religion I would recommend an Earth based one simply because it is about respect for all life.
The devotion to God alone
- Thread starter eanassir
- Start date
"Well, yes. But which God has those traits? God of Koran? God of Bible? Both of them come across as angry, vindictive "- That's not the way, God comes across to me, that is simply the picture portrayed by the Bible thumpers. YOu question Compassion, understanding wisdom - that's fair enough but what traits would you pick for your God?
Since there is nothing new under the sun there can be no original thought, to think otherwise is delusion I think. What was here first us or all that within which resides thoughts? I can say honestly that I don't think I could ever have had an original thought. All is borrowed. All has been prepared in advance for our consideration in perpetuity. Why originate a whole bunch of new ideas when they're only going to be drowned, crushed, burned and electrocutred, cyclically, as per the big transmission. Why not just use the standardized set over and over again, how the hell would we know if a thought was original even if one happened our way? Just in case you say to yourself, (it isn't true just the other day I had a new thought),don't believe it unless you have excavated everywhere and everywhen. There is more chance of it (the supposed original thought) lying burried somewhere under the rubble of some bastion of original thought, I think.
Last edited:
HI MHZ enjoyin the new I hope. New to you but are you new? What if you've been recycled? And much of you and I definitely has like in star dust and the other raw materials. Maybe find or aquire would have been a better word than original. I don't really know just trying to make conversation between hits.:lol:
It's not at all hard to be devoted to god alone when you have built the holy one with your damned thinking.
So if we purposely caused the star to explode that made us star dust (in the hopes of a 'better life') would you say we succeeded either as a group or even just as individuals. This is this just another randomly unique adventure while the lights are still on.
Happy New Year to you and Yours also.
Since you are bored .... in 2012 when that alignment takes place I heard the is a 'dark band' that is in-line with the galactic center. We would observe a 'dark object' that could be viewed by the naked eye. Why wouldn't there be a very, very, very bright light as on that narrow plane exists the most stars, all emitting light. Radiation should also be much more abundant at that very small point. Should people be warned?
Niflmir said that "God isn't a person. Your god is imaginary"; so I said: God is a person, which I mean He is an identity and a real being: a True Being, not a man or to the image of man, as is it written in the Torah of Ezra (the present available Torah) neither is He imaginary or only an idea in the minds as do some allege.
God is the Creator of the Arab and the non-Arab.
Darkbeaver, what most of them repeat and regurgitate other than some ideas of Hitchins and Dawkins; and these latter adopted from others.
Actually, I haven't said anything. I have parodied your words or pointed out where you are indicting yourself.
This is what you are saying, boiled down.
Because of 3, 1 is the same as saying:
1. Anyone who does good deeds so that a human or a god can see that they are performing good deeds is a hypocrite.
You do not believe that anyone can do deeds without wanting something, so you must not do good deeds without wanting anything: every time eanassir does a good deed, it is because he wants something. If you performed good deeds without wanting anything you would have proof that it is possible and so you wouldn't believe it to be impossible.
If you do good deeds you must do so because you want something from someone: you admit it, you want something from your god. But in your eyes, this makes you a hypocrite, because god is a person and doing a good deed so that a person will see you are good is hypocritical, in your opinion.
If you do no good deeds, you are not a hypocrite but you do not do good deeds.
These are the logical conclusions of your statements not anything that I necessarily believe: either you are a hypocrite or you never do good deeds. Your words, not mine.
By extension of this hypothesis, since man is created in god's image and god is a person, then god is a hypocrite. The logical flaws in the Quran Or perhaps, eanassir's version of it, are blatantly obvious.
Books are man's invention. Although they are useful objects, they are, non the less, subject to the bias and prejudice of the author and therefore inaccurate and incomplete by definition and subject to interpretation by the reader. If there is a god then it would not rely on such flawed documents or understanding to disseminate it's word. I would think that direct contact with the source would be much more accurate and therefore this god would leave the channels open for communication. Therefore I would conclude that books would not be the prefered method of communication for any god with half an intelligence. The Quran, like the bible, is just a bunch of ink on paper. If you want to know the truth, go to the source.
Actually it is the other way round, Cliffy. Well, maybe that is how it is written in the Bible and perhaps in Koran (though I don’t know Koran that well). But man was not created in God’s image, man created God in his own image.
I think somebody famous once said, ‘God created man in his image, and man returned the favor’.
Indeed, it is not a coincidence that all the imagery of God in Christianity, Islam is masculine imagery. Father, Son, Holy Ghost these are all male images. And rightly, properly so. In a religion invented by man, man will definitely reign supreme over everybody else (including woman).
I think that the male god was a retaliation of the goddess religions that preceded them as the practitioners of those religions were abusing men at the time. It is time that the divine not have a sex and religion be abandoned as a divisive element no longer required because it has long outlived its usefulness.
What I said is very clear and obvious:
The righteous acts done on intention to show to people; then this is hypocrisy: it means they did not do such righteous work for God's sake, but only to show to people: in this case they will not be rewarded for such show act.
On the other hand, not every public act is hypocrisy: if man for example expends for God's sake but that act was in public, then it is not hypocrisy: if his intention within himself is to seek God's good pleasure;
but if he intends only to show people, then it is the hypocrisy. It means: he is not a believer in fact, he only shows to people , and not for God's sake.
So if he does his righteous act only to show to people then he will not be rewarded; because he will have received his reward: people will admire him and plaude him.
Moreover, man has to do his act for God's sake in order to receive his reward, and no wise man may deserve any reward if he does not do his work for God's sake.
In addition, God is All-Seeing and All-Hearing and All-Kowing of man everywhere and every time; so any act, whether good or bad, is seen and known by God Almighty.
So to show God is non-sense expression: because God is All-Seeing every good and bad work.
Last edited: