Do you think it odd that your God never acknowledges you? Is that rude?

[SweetSue92]

Do you think it odd that your God never acknowledges you? Is that rude?

We all have a God. I say that in the broader sense of the word, as God is an ideal you have created for yourself. From atheism to fundamental, you will, in that sense, have a God/Ideal, be God your God natural or supernatural.

God/ideals can only be exhibited or expressed through a person.

We all give plenty to our Gods and their human mouth pieces, --- mostly false prophets if the bible speaks the truth, --- yet God never acknowledges what you do for him or her.

I, as a Gnostic Christian clergy, self-appointed (as is fit), has been acknowledged and do not include myself in the “you” of the opening question.

Why does God not acknowledge all but the few?

Why are you, of the supernatural God type, a cash cow and devoted slave to what amounts to a deadbeat parent and absentee God and his less than moral religion thanks to lying clergy?

You love God but the lack of acknowledgement from God shows that God does not love you back. That means that it is not a true love. This is in accordance to the standard that Jesus set. It is a shame that the Jesus followers, Christians and Muslims, will not do as he bids them do, as was the Jewish tradition of archetypal prophets, and elect a new God that might return your love.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YB4J-keW3A

Can you forgive a rude God?

Regards
DL

So sorry to hear that you are ignoring god.

I follow the dictates of my God more than you do yours.

Not too surprising as your God wants to be emulated and he is a baby torturer and murderer.

You do not want to face that fact and thus call evil good.

Regards
DL

Wow an internet theist who made up his own God!

Raise your hands all y'all who NEVER EVER saw an internet theist make up his own God and then, for some unknown reason, attempt to pound Christians to dust. (extra points for "baby torturer and murderer").

For some reason these folks never ask themselves why they aren't so eager to confront, say, Islam with the same charge

View attachment 206597

First. What is almost a signature for me these days.

Both Christianity and Islam, slave holding ideologies, have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.

Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.

Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.

The Theft of Our Values - Top Documentary Films



Humanity centered religions, good? Yes.

Supernaturally based religions, evil? Yes.

Do you agree?

Second.

Do you really need me to point to all the baby murdering and torturing cases. I easily can.

So tell us what you find so adorable in your genocidal son murderer that has you ignoring all of his crimes against humanity?

Please, as most of you Christians just run away from telling us.

Regards
DL

This is boring. The "genocidal son murderer" does not in the least offend me, I've just read it a thousand times if I've read it once. Insert every single rolled eye GIF you can imagine here; I won't go to the trouble.

Be original. Also, the self-righteousness is quite off-putting. For example, how you sneeringly imagine I've never read the Bible and couldn't POSSIBLY imagine what you mean by God being, you know, God. And taking life whenever He sees fit, however He sees fit, which is absolutely His right.

 

[SweetSue92]

This does not establish a secular state

Of course it does.

"No law respecting religion" also includes laws that give religion speacial status, to a degree.

If there was one thing the founding fathers agreed upon, it was secular government.

100% wrong. They did not establish a "secular government". That's a government that has secularism as a preferred stance. The gov't is neutral; it HAS no preferred stance. If the people elect all Christians who want to vote on their faith--well, there it is then.

 

[SweetSue92]

Nope. Listen for yourself

Haha....let me guess: the people that don't hear anything are just doing it wrong.

Oh no. Sadly--and I mean that--it's much worse than that. It's like the story with Moses and Pharoah. You harden your heart and then eventually, God gives over to your choice. You don't want to hear? He will stop listening too. He won't even hear your prayers then. It's in the Bible:

If one turns away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination.--Proverbs 28:9

If I had cherished iniquity in my heart, the Lord would not have listened.--Psalm 66:18

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They did not establish a "secular government". That's a government that has secularism as a preferred stance.

Wrong. It is a government with no state or preferred religion which finds its laws and policies based in evidence and reason.

And it is what the founding fathers intended, and it is what we have. And thank goodness for that.

 

[jillian]

Pretty sure he's busy.

Given the damage his homophobic and misogynous religions are doing to society, you would think he would want to clean up his vile genocidal son murdering reputation.

Regards
DL

He isn’t responsible for what hate filled loons do in his name

I agree as he did not create the loons. Lying clergy did that.

Regards
DL

and people who wanted power so thought they'd use the masses and their fears

Indeed.

That would have included the politicians who colluded with the lying clergy.

Especially in the U.S. where if you are not a Christian of some stripe, you will likely not get elected.

Separation of church and state is a farce in the U.S.

Regards
DL

Hmmm.... I live in NY, that isn't quite true, but it probably is in most other parts of the country.

it's not a farce. we just have to be better at enforcing the separation than the loony right is now. Also, the separation of church and state can't affect the choices people make about who they want to vote for. just the way it is. our constitution is religion neutral. that doesn't mean people are.

 

[jillian]

This does not establish a secular state

Of course it does.

"No law respecting religion" also includes laws that give religion speacial status, to a degree.

If there was one thing the founding fathers agreed upon, it was secular government.

100% wrong. They did not establish a "secular government". That's a government that has secularism as a preferred stance. The gov't is neutral; it HAS no preferred stance. If the people elect all Christians who want to vote on their faith--well, there it is then.

they absolutely created a secular government. by religion neutral, they intended both that government should keep out of religion, but also that religion should keep out of government.

and no... the point is that the majority CAN'T impose their faith on the rest of us. that's why it's up to the court to stop that garbage. of course, with this admin, they're perverting the court. but time goes quickly and that's temporary in the greater scheme of things.

 

[SweetSue92]

They did not establish a "secular government". That's a government that has secularism as a preferred stance.

Wrong. It is a government with no state or preferred religion which finds its laws and policies based in evidence and reason.

And it is what the founding fathers intended, and it is what we have. And thank goodness for that.

It can find its laws and policies based on whatever the voters decide. That's the way it's supposed to be.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It can find its laws and policies based on whatever the voters decide.

Also 100% wrong, as the legislature passes the laws, the executive branch signs them, and the SCOTUS decides the constitutionality of them.

 

[SweetSue92]

This does not establish a secular state

Of course it does.

"No law respecting religion" also includes laws that give religion speacial status, to a degree.

If there was one thing the founding fathers agreed upon, it was secular government.

100% wrong. They did not establish a "secular government". That's a government that has secularism as a preferred stance. The gov't is neutral; it HAS no preferred stance. If the people elect all Christians who want to vote on their faith--well, there it is then.

they absolutely created a secular government. by religion neutral, they intended both that government should keep out of religion, but also that religion should keep out of government.

and no... the point is that the majority CAN'T impose their faith on the rest of us. that's why it's up to the court to stop that garbage. of course, with this admin, they're perverting the court. but time goes quickly and that's temporary in the greater scheme of things.

If by "imposing their faith on the rest of us" you mean setting up a theocracy, you're right. If you mean that gov't workers have to check their faith and principles at the door when they're elected, you're wrong. We are not and cannot be a theocracy, and that includes a secularist "theocracy". But the gov't cannot also stop elected officials from voting based on their religious ideals, as long as they are not forcing a theocracy on America.

Or, in short--neutral, not scrubbed of religion

 

[SweetSue92]

It can find its laws and policies based on whatever the voters decide.

Also 100% wrong, as the legislature passes the laws, the executive branch signs them, and the SCOTUS decides the constitutionality of them.

Yes--the voters choose the legislature, choose the executive branch, and the executive chooses the SCOTUS. Gov't "of the people, by the people and for the people". That's the idea.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It can find its laws and policies based on whatever the voters decide.

Also 100% wrong, as the legislature passes the laws, the executive branch signs them, and the SCOTUS decides the constitutionality of them.

Yes--the voters choose the legislature, choose the executive branch, and the executive chooses the SCOTUS. Gov't "of the people, by the people and for the people". That's the idea.

But they do not write or choose the laws. And that's tue idea behind a republic. A secular, democtratic republic is what we have. And again...thank goodness.

 

[SweetSue92]

It can find its laws and policies based on whatever the voters decide.

Also 100% wrong, as the legislature passes the laws, the executive branch signs them, and the SCOTUS decides the constitutionality of them.

Yes--the voters choose the legislature, choose the executive branch, and the executive chooses the SCOTUS. Gov't "of the people, by the people and for the people". That's the idea.

But they do not write or choose the laws. And that's tue idea behind a republic. A secular, democtratic republic is what we have. And again...thank goodness.

They choose the representatives however. And if, say, the representatives want to vote with their moral consciences in mind, the Constitution cannot require them to check it at the door. That's the First Amendment right to freedom.

 

[fncceo]

and people who wanted power so thought they'd use the masses and their fears

Does this look like a guy who wants power?

 

[GreatestIam]

Do you think it odd that your God never acknowledges you? Is that rude?

We all have a God. I say that in the broader sense of the word, as God is an ideal you have created for yourself. From atheism to fundamental, you will, in that sense, have a God/Ideal, be God your God natural or supernatural.

God/ideals can only be exhibited or expressed through a person.

We all give plenty to our Gods and their human mouth pieces, --- mostly false prophets if the bible speaks the truth, --- yet God never acknowledges what you do for him or her.

I, as a Gnostic Christian clergy, self-appointed (as is fit), has been acknowledged and do not include myself in the “you” of the opening question.

Why does God not acknowledge all but the few?

Why are you, of the supernatural God type, a cash cow and devoted slave to what amounts to a deadbeat parent and absentee God and his less than moral religion thanks to lying clergy?

You love God but the lack of acknowledgement from God shows that God does not love you back. That means that it is not a true love. This is in accordance to the standard that Jesus set. It is a shame that the Jesus followers, Christians and Muslims, will not do as he bids them do, as was the Jewish tradition of archetypal prophets, and elect a new God that might return your love.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YB4J-keW3A

Can you forgive a rude God?

Regards
DL

So sorry to hear that you are ignoring god.

I follow the dictates of my God more than you do yours.

Not too surprising as your God wants to be emulated and he is a baby torturer and murderer.

You do not want to face that fact and thus call evil good.

Regards
DL

Wow an internet theist who made up his own God!

Raise your hands all y'all who NEVER EVER saw an internet theist make up his own God and then, for some unknown reason, attempt to pound Christians to dust. (extra points for "baby torturer and murderer").

For some reason these folks never ask themselves why they aren't so eager to confront, say, Islam with the same charge

View attachment 206597

First. What is almost a signature for me these days.

Both Christianity and Islam, slave holding ideologies, have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.

Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.

Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.

The Theft of Our Values - Top Documentary Films



Humanity centered religions, good? Yes.

Supernaturally based religions, evil? Yes.

Do you agree?

Second.

Do you really need me to point to all the baby murdering and torturing cases. I easily can.

So tell us what you find so adorable in your genocidal son murderer that has you ignoring all of his crimes against humanity?

Please, as most of you Christians just run away from telling us.

Regards
DL

This is boring. The "genocidal son murderer" does not in the least offend me, I've just read it a thousand times if I've read it once. Insert every single rolled eye GIF you can imagine here; I won't go to the trouble.

Be original. Also, the self-righteousness is quite off-putting. For example, how you sneeringly imagine I've never read the Bible and couldn't POSSIBLY imagine what you mean by God being, you know, God. And taking life whenever He sees fit, however He sees fit, which is absolutely His right.

God is right, right or wrong, to those whose moral sense has been corrupted.

You are the boring one since you cannot answer simple question.

Tell us what you find so adorable in your genocidal son murderer that has you ignoring all of his crimes against humanity?

Regards
DL

 

[jillian]

This does not establish a secular state

Of course it does.

"No law respecting religion" also includes laws that give religion speacial status, to a degree.

If there was one thing the founding fathers agreed upon, it was secular government.

100% wrong. They did not establish a "secular government". That's a government that has secularism as a preferred stance. The gov't is neutral; it HAS no preferred stance. If the people elect all Christians who want to vote on their faith--well, there it is then.

they absolutely created a secular government. by religion neutral, they intended both that government should keep out of religion, but also that religion should keep out of government.

and no... the point is that the majority CAN'T impose their faith on the rest of us. that's why it's up to the court to stop that garbage. of course, with this admin, they're perverting the court. but time goes quickly and that's temporary in the greater scheme of things.

If by "imposing their faith on the rest of us" you mean setting up a theocracy, you're right. If you mean that gov't workers have to check their faith and principles at the door when they're elected, you're wrong. We are not and cannot be a theocracy, and that includes a secularist "theocracy". But the gov't cannot also stop elected officials from voting based on their religious ideals, as long as they are not forcing a theocracy on America.

Or, in short--neutral, not scrubbed of religion

No I’m not wrong. No one gets to make laws forcing their dogma on me. That is the purpose of the court.

Scrubbed of religion is not the same as forcing anti choice insanity on people whose religious beliefs allow it. Is it?

It isn’t the same as a corporation pretending a legal entity has a “religious character”, is it?

If isn’t the same as making women beg their misogynist employer to allow their insurance company, which has already been paid to cover prescription drugs, to cover birth control pills, is it?

Because THAT is what we’re talking about. And whatever some religious zealot legislator does, the Supreme Court is supposed to stop that garbage. And has - until now.

So let’s talk reality mmkay?

 

[Unkotare]

Do you think it odd that your God never acknowledges you? ......

You are mistaken. Probably because you don't know how to listen.

Ah. Tell us what you hear then ...

Nope. Listen for yourself.

Thanks for backpedaling and showing you were just being a bully with nothing to contribute.

Regards
DL

You are using words but you don’t seem to understand what they mean.

 

[Unkotare]

Nope. Listen for yourself

Haha....let me guess: the people that don't hear anything are just doing it wrong.

Did you say something?

 

[Nia88]

Busy doing what? So many cancers, people going hungry, kids being abused. Sounds like to me God isn’t doing much.

No. Cancers, hunger, child abuse . . . all human acts or causalities of human behavior, not divine ones. Mankind must take responsibility for his own actions, and the subsequent consequences--not blame them on God. Do you blame your parents for the consequences of your own actions?

Then what is the purpose of worshipping God if ain't doing shit for humanity?

Stop worshiping the Gods of smart devices, social media and purely intellectual moral relativism--they are all graven images created by and proselytized to men by men. Stop blaming God for the consequences of human behavior, and submit your outrage over human darkness to the Son who always forgives. God has done much for humanity simply in giving him a place at the starting line of life. What we do after beginning the race is on us. Personal responsibility is the only path to the Logos within and without.

I worship no one or nothing.

What you're saying, goes against religious ideology. According to all three Abrahamic faiths, everything is decreed for us before we're even born, by God. So how can we have personal responsibility for something that was decreed for us already?

You would love to ride that wave of no consequence for action wouldn't you. Why, you could commit any crime against self or society with that philosophy, without tear if guilt. Personal responsibility is all we have. That and the consequences of our own actions. What you're referring to is the recent God of moral relativism. Something entirely different. Try not to be such a nihilist; their lives almost always grind down to a halt . . . like the Tin man run out of oil.

I take full responsibility for my actions. I don't believe in a sky daddy so I believe human beings are 100% responsible for their actions.

But if you believe in a God and faith, you aren't 100% in control of actions. Especially if you believe in one or the Abramhamic fictional trilogy

 

[Gracie]

Unkotare said it perfectly. God speaks to me all the time IF I listen hard enough. Sometimes I don't.
Most times..I do.

 

[SweetSue92]

This does not establish a secular state

Of course it does.

"No law respecting religion" also includes laws that give religion speacial status, to a degree.

If there was one thing the founding fathers agreed upon, it was secular government.

100% wrong. They did not establish a "secular government". That's a government that has secularism as a preferred stance. The gov't is neutral; it HAS no preferred stance. If the people elect all Christians who want to vote on their faith--well, there it is then.

they absolutely created a secular government. by religion neutral, they intended both that government should keep out of religion, but also that religion should keep out of government.

and no... the point is that the majority CAN'T impose their faith on the rest of us. that's why it's up to the court to stop that garbage. of course, with this admin, they're perverting the court. but time goes quickly and that's temporary in the greater scheme of things.

If by "imposing their faith on the rest of us" you mean setting up a theocracy, you're right. If you mean that gov't workers have to check their faith and principles at the door when they're elected, you're wrong. We are not and cannot be a theocracy, and that includes a secularist "theocracy". But the gov't cannot also stop elected officials from voting based on their religious ideals, as long as they are not forcing a theocracy on America.

Or, in short--neutral, not scrubbed of religion

No I’m not wrong. No one gets to make laws forcing their dogma on me. That is the purpose of the court.

Scrubbed of religion is not the same as forcing anti choice insanity on people whose religious beliefs allow it. Is it?

It isn’t the same as a corporation pretending a legal entity has a “religious character”, is it?

If isn’t the same as making women beg their misogynist employer to allow their insurance company, which has already been paid to cover prescription drugs, to cover birth control pills, is it?

Because THAT is what we’re talking about. And whatever some religious zealot legislator does, the Supreme Court is supposed to stop that garbage. And has - until now.

So let’s talk reality mmkay?

I don't know what you're talking about. You seem to be ranting about something or other.