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

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

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

Jesus put people above God and so should we. “Mark 2;27 Andhe 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 puttheir wants and needs as well as the wants and needs of other people aboveGod’s.

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

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

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

Before religions started thinking of God as a literal andreal being, a more peaceful world, religiously speaking, home churches were theorder of the day. Archeology has proven this. They were used as feedingstations for the poor and destitute and contributed more to the fellowship thatpeople need more that the mega churches, temples and mosques that we havetoday.

Should we consider the benefits of the older ways and bringreligion back into the homes where it’s expression and help for the poor can bebetter served?

Seems to me that the religious crave a personal relationshipwith their God, and that is best expressed from homes and not from the self-aggrandizingmega monstrosities and opulent churches and mosques that advertise their wastedwealth in our cities.

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

Regards
DL

[clone]

I think that the world would be a better place if people puttheir wants and needs as well as the wants and needs of other people aboveGod’s.

depends on the case. as long as some moderation exist i dont thing God would have problem with that sentence ,specialy the christian god

[fkizz]

I know "Socialist Jesus lets sell Churches to give to the poor" mindset started in the 60s, but lets not take it more seriously than it should be:

If you want to go by Jesus example, then one shouldn't oppose bearing a Cross and going through a Crucifixition Capital Punishment rather than abandon your ideas.

Or not minding using physical violence against tax collectors or business/profiteering done inside a Church/Temple.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

depends on the case. as long as some moderation exist

What moderation to charity do you have in mind?

i dont thing God would have problem with that sentence ,specialy the christian god

It does break the first commandment but I would say that if God would object then he is the vile demiurge that we Gnostic Christians think he is.

I know "Socialist Jesus lets sell Churches to give to the poor" mindset started in the 60s, but lets not take it more seriously than it should be:

You say the weirdest .

If you want to go by Jesus example, then one shouldn't oppose bearing a Cross and going through a Crucifixition Capital Punishment rather than abandon your ideas.

Giving to the poor is part of carrying our cross.

Or not minding using physical violence against tax collectors or business/profiteering done inside a Church/Temple.

More of your weird .

You might try speaking to the issue in the O.P. on occasion. And try doing it while sober or change your meds.

Regards
DL

[fkizz]

Why come to debate sections if one gets upset by different opinions or different points of view?

That said, someone who was willing to let himself be crucified and tortured so as to not abandon his Religious movement is not exactly the best example for a "lets put man and mundane things first". What's enraging in this?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Why come to debate sections if one gets upset by different opinions or different points of view?

That said, someone who was willing to let himself be crucified and tortured so as to not abandon his Religious movement is not exactly the best example for a "lets put man and mundane things first". What's enraging in this?

I like to debate different points of view when I can understand what is being said.

Man, mundane, not when we are the crown of creation.

Jesus did abandon his religion. He never came back to live and rule the way the Jews saw their savior doing. That absence is why most Jews of that day and later did not switch to Christianity.

Regards
DL

[fkizz]

Jesus did abandon his religion. He never came back to live and rule the way the Jews saw their savior doing. That absence is why most Jews of that day and later did not switch to Christianity.

Jesus literally prefered being tortured to Death rather than renounce his Religious Ideas. What's so weird about this? Abandoning his Religion would've been escaping while he had the chance and accept Orthodox ideas of his community instead, rather than his widely accepted new ones.

You know a "messiah" who abandoned his religion? Sabattai Zevi. Was seen a legit Messiah by Jewish movements, abandoned it all in 1666 to serve to Ottoman Sultan in exchange for a comfortable salary and good home. Ended up abandoning possibly the highest rank in Judaism in exchange for converting to Islam and living a confortable life.

Do you even want to compare?

[pacifism]

Isn't sin when Man puts himself above God? Biblically speaking, isn't the root of sin when somebody attempts to remove God from His proper place?

[fkizz]

Biblically speaking, isn't the root of sin when somebody attempts to remove God from His proper place?

Root of Sin comes from Original Sin that led to Fall of Men, that for people such as myself is described in a sort symbolic/codified way like the old divine misteries of pre-christianity often did. Hence why Literalism is limiting in possibilities IMO, but to each its own.

But given said Sin was born out of disobedience towards God, not too long after Creation, you're not that far away.

[Inhuman One]

If christians put people above god in in their life, then they would not reject their children if they turn out to be gay, atheist, or come home with a partner of a different religion. So yes, I'm all for that. Would remove a lot of hate and intolerance from this world.

[fkizz]

If christians put people above god in in their life, then they would not reject their children if they turn out to be gay, atheist, or come home with a partner of a different religion. So yes, I'm all for that. Would remove a lot of hate and intolerance from this world.

How do you deal with non religious people who do exactly the same?

[Inhuman One]

You ask them about the problems they have, and whatever issues they have with someone would be because of themselves. Not because an imaginary friend tells them to hate this or that. It tends to be easier to discuss it and get to the root of someone's hate when they are not shifting blame to their religion.

I do know that for example some fathers would reject their gay son because they'd think hes a sissy, not a "real man" so to speak. But I think it would be easier for such a father to learn to accept their son as he is, than a father who would condemn his son to hell, saying its sinfull and all that garbage. By cutting away the excuse, its easier to get to the core of the problem.

[pacifism]

Root of Sin comes from Original Sin that led to Fall of Men, that for people such as myself is described in a sort symbolic/codified way like the old divine misteries of pre-christianity often did. Hence why Literalism is limiting in possibilities IMO, but to each its own.

But given said Sin was born out of disobedience towards God, not too long after Creation, you're not that far away.

Well, I guess root was the wrong word.

Isn't the essence of sin when somebody attempts to remove God from His proper place?

[Sir Adrian]

God's only want and need is to treat those in need better than you treat yourself.

[athanaric]

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

God doesn't exist. Don't expect any rational person to answer to another person's imaginary friend.

[Sir Adrian]

And I suppose you can prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[athanaric]

And I suppose you can prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Are you serious?
If he exists, he can come forward and prove it himself. Also, the proof is on the believers anyway. Or have you forgotten how science and logical thinking work? Might as well ask you to disprove the existence of Elves, who have been described in the holy book written by the prophet JRR Tolkien.
Meanwhile, Occam's Razor indicates that God is just a scam that exists for the profit of a select few.

[fkizz]

Are you serious?
If he exists, he can come forward and prove it himself.

"If said hierarchical superior being exists why doesn't he act as my Servant?"

Meanwhile, Occam's Razor indicates that God is just a scam that exists for the profit of a select few.

Occam was a Christian Franciscan Monk. Not an average believer, but a Monk, someone who chooses to abandon pleasures of the world to live in high austerity as a way of showing devotion to a higher being. And a Franciscan to add to that. They give austere lifestyle an extra push.

Could you choose a worse character to back up a proud Atheist point of view?

[Sir Adrian]

Are you serious?
If he exists, he can come forward and prove it himself. Also, the proof is on the believers anyway. Or have you forgotten how science and logical thinking work? Might as well ask you to disprove the existence of Elves, who have been described in the holy book written by the prophet JRR Tolkien.
Meanwhile, Occam's Razor indicates that God is just a scam that exists for the profit of a select few.

So your self-titled rational and certain statement is actually baseless and therefore completely irrational and uncertain.


Advice for the future: When you make an absolute claim have something to back it up. Arguments like "the moon is made of cheese, prove me wrong" don't fly anywhere outside youtube and rational wiki.

PS: believers don't have to prove anything as belief requires a lack of physical proof. In the presence of proof belief becomes knowledge. Example you believe god does not exist. If you could prove you would know god does not exist.

[athanaric]

"If said hierarchical superior being exists why doesn't he act as my Servant?"

Phenomenal logic there.

Occam was a Christian Franciscan Monk. Not an average believer, but a Monk, someone who chooses to abandon pleasures of the world to live in high austerity as a way of showing devotion to a higher being. And a Franciscan to add to that. They give austere lifestyle an extra push.

Could you choose a worse character to back up a proud Atheist point of view?

Well, I'm sorry to tell you this, but all that has zero bearing on my argument.

So your self-titled rational and certain statement is actually baseless and therefore completely irrational and uncertain.

Come again?

Advice for the future: When you make an absolute claim have something to back it up. Arguments like "the moon is made of cheese, prove me wrong" don't fly anywhere outside youtube and rational wiki.

Why are you so desperately trying to pigeonhole me as a leftie SJW, of all things?

PS: believers don't have to prove anything as belief requires a lack of physical proof. In the presence of proof belief becomes knowledge.

No, but you can call them out on believing in silly things. Especially if they also demand that others acknowledge said belief and its implications for society, just to come back to the OP.
Example: Jack is born as a man, but dresses up as a woman and expects everybody to treat him as one. Is that grown-up behaviour?

Example you believe god does not exist. If you could prove you would know god does not exist.

Like I said, that is not how burden of proof works. I (probably) cannot prove that God doesn't exist, but then again it's not my job. It's your job to prove or disprove his existence, if you claim he exists. "God doesn't exist" isn't an absolute claim as much as it is a refutation of another absolute claim which is implausible, flies in the face of everything we know about the world, and has never been proven.