Who, other than a man, ever put voice to the will of God?

We are told that we will be judged at the end of our lives. Judged by a God who will torture us forever in hell if we happen to not believe properly and follow his rules. This judgement will come even as we never get full disclosure by a God who hides from us. We are as some say, to choose heaven or hell, God or Satan, without having full knowledge of the conditions.

We are to believe that bible God is our real God yet that God is arguably a genocidal son murdering God. He is more akin to Satan than what any moral God would be.

All that we have in the way of information has been written by men.

Who other than a man ever put voice to the will of God?

For peace and stability, within religions, and possibly the world, a new man must be found to represent God within the various religions. Let us thank God that man has forsaken the Christian God as a lawmaker and ignore his barbaric laws.

That being the case as all believers have ignored or scrapped the Abrahamic bible God’s laws, since they do not live by them, should believers not elect a new God as scriptures indicate is supposed to happen at end times?

God was a human invention to begin with.

Should we not seek a new modern God who does not have the evil baggage that the current God has?

Our laws are certainly better than any God’s so it seems to me that we should elect a new God based on current law and not the draconian immoral laws of the old Gods. God has always been represented by a man. We should return to that system while recognizing that God has always been a myth.

Regards
DL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M114bK4q ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/user/TurpisHaere ... ny-CDU4EFs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9FKn4rK ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKg4HLsu ... re=related

Greatest I am wrote:
Should we not seek a new modern God who does not have the evil baggage that the current God has?

Why would that give us any improvement?

Zwaarddijk wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:
Should we not seek a new modern God who does not have the evil baggage that the current God has?

Why would that give us any improvement?

It brought order in the past even as it had a price.

That is what happened when Christianity consolidated many of the other religions into itself.
Almost nothing in the bible is original or cannot be found in older religions and myths.

It basically killed off a bunch of older Gods and consolidated power through the new.

It might work again to bring peace after the scriptures are finished hitting the fan.

At the least, we can get rid of the fools that think that Genocide of mankind is a good thing.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:
Should we not seek a new modern God who does not have the evil baggage that the current God has?

Why would that give us any improvement?

It brought order in the past even as it had a price.

That is what happened when Christianity consolidated many of the other religions into itself.
Almost nothing in the bible is original or cannot be found in older religions and myths.

It basically killed off a bunch of older Gods and consolidated power through the new.

It might work again to bring peace after the scriptures are finished hitting the fan.

At the least, we can get rid of the fools that think that Genocide of mankind is a good thing.

Regards
DL

Or it might create just as many surprisingly similar problems as the ones it tried solving!

Better to sidestep the whole issue: emancipate ourselves from the need to invent gods to worship.

orpheus wrote:Better to sidestep the whole issue: emancipate ourselves from the need to invent gods to worship.

The point I was trying to approach step by step. Alas, I fear divulging that destination too early might put the OP off from the idea.

Zwaarddijk wrote:

orpheus wrote:Better to sidestep the whole issue: emancipate ourselves from the need to invent gods to worship.

The point I was trying to approach step by step. Alas, I fear divulging that destination too early might put the OP off from the idea.

Oops. Sorry.

The problem with the idea is that people tend to assume that the gods, being perfect, must necessarily share all the same opinions as them. And the people's whose beliefs about the nature of the gods will have the most impact are those in positions of power. For the most part, people don't get into power by being nice; people who are prepared to be ruthless and treacherous in order to get what they want are far more likely to get into positions of power than those who aren't. Thus, those who have the greatest influence on the character of the gods will most likely not have the highest of ethical standards.

Arcanyn wrote:The problem with the idea is that people tend to assume that the gods, being perfect, must necessarily share all the same opinions as them. And the people's whose beliefs about the nature of the gods will have the most impact are those in positions of power. For the most part, people don't get into power by being nice; people who are prepared to be ruthless and treacherous in order to get what they want are far more likely to get into positions of power than those who aren't. Thus, those who have the greatest influence on the character of the gods will most likely not have the highest of ethical standards.

Ah, but often God is created in times of unrest, by people on the bottom rungs of society, to address their needs and to, so to speak, speak for them. Alas, in modern America, the white middle class has developed this kind of delusion about being persecuted and the bottom rung, this is sponsored by people who are just as delusional and even more well of, and so shape God in a rather unusual mold.

It is not now nor never was a problem of gods voice. It is gods representatives that do all the talking. Actually, I wish that was all they did. Pull aside the curtain and there isn't a god and there never was and there never will be. That is not the problem. It is those meddling representatives and the stupid laws they want to impose.

Zwaarddijk wrote:[At the least, we can get rid of the fools that think that Genocide of mankind is a good thing.

Regards
DL

Or it might create just as many surprisingly similar problems as the ones it tried solving![/quote]

Ah, but then we would have a God whose law can be debated and challenged with a living man and not some invisible super miracle worker who never does any miracles.

Better the devil you know than the devil that hides.

Regards
DL

orpheus wrote:Better to sidestep the whole issue: emancipate ourselves from the need to invent gods to worship.

We are evolving to that I hope.
We will realize that God has no need for love and worship and that we are a world of laws and not imaginary Gods.

Regards
DL

Arcanyn wrote:The problem with the idea is that people tend to assume that the gods, being perfect, must necessarily share all the same opinions as them. And the people's whose beliefs about the nature of the gods will have the most impact are those in positions of power. For the most part, people don't get into power by being nice; people who are prepared to be ruthless and treacherous in order to get what they want are far more likely to get into positions of power than those who aren't. Thus, those who have the greatest influence on the character of the gods will most likely not have the highest of ethical standards.

As Plato said, roughly, as long as they can fool us into thinking they are moral, then he or they may be the best choice. The unjust man may be the best because he will know when he is being unjust whereas the just man may not.

You probably have noted that we tend to elect people who will break the law as long as it is a law we want broken. Good old pork barrel politics.

Regards
DL

Steve wrote:It is not now nor never was a problem of gods voice. It is gods representatives that do all the talking. Actually, I wish that was all they did. Pull aside the curtain and there isn't a god and there never was and there never will be. That is not the problem. It is those meddling representatives and the stupid laws they want to impose.

Exactly why I want a human God to challenge and not middle men who quote 3,000 year old sayings that no one can honestly explain.

Better the devil you know than the devil you do not know.
Call it keeping your enemy closer than your friend.

Regards
DL

The whole question of competing interpretations, who speaks for god, etc. could easily be solved be a very loud deep voice early in the morning.

Greatest I am wrote:

orpheus wrote:Better to sidestep the whole issue: emancipate ourselves from the need to invent gods to worship.

We are evolving to that I hope.
We will realize that God has no need for love and worship and that we are a world of laws and not imaginary Gods.

Regards
DL

Why have any Gods at all?

Zwaarddijk wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

orpheus wrote:Better to sidestep the whole issue: emancipate ourselves from the need to invent gods to worship.

We are evolving to that I hope.
We will realize that God has no need for love and worship and that we are a world of laws and not imaginary Gods.

Regards
DL

Why have any Gods at all?

Tradition.

You are of course correct.
We do not need a God and if push came to shove, this clip shows how people are not really following a God today but only tradition and culture and if pressed, most would deny their God and his laws.
The fact that most governments are secular and that the East is moving West ideologically show this I think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYigmGyN ... e=youtu.be

Regards
DL

orpheus wrote:The whole question of competing interpretations, who speaks for god, etc. could easily be solved be a very loud deep voice early in the morning.

You mean like a sound cannon?

Steve wrote:

orpheus wrote:The whole question of competing interpretations, who speaks for god, etc. could easily be solved be a very loud deep voice early in the morning.

You mean like a sound cannon?

Well, something more dignified and theatrical than that. Shakespearian, you know.

If someone tomorrow, tried to get a law passed in the UK parliament, due to them having a "revelation" from their god, would we pass that law? Lock them up? Or point and laugh at them, uncontrollably?

Why are bishops in the house of lords here? Why do the majority of European governments still respect concordats, signed between fascist, historical governments and the Vatican?