people first

[cuchulain]

Have you ever wondered how much better things might be if we started placing people before religion?  I am not saying we should eliminate religion altogether, after all it's another part of the puzzle that makes us all different.  But what if those churches out there that like to decorate with fancy stained glass windows and nice new chairs and pews on a regular basis, what if they spent that money as needed, but then helped those in need with it?  What if those who are so against all religion in general took a little of the time they used to bash religion at a food bank instead, or some other charitable good cause?

[Dan56]

On 8/4/2016 at 4:24 PM, cuchulain said:

 But what if those churches out there that like to decorate with fancy stained glass windows and nice new chairs and pews on a regular basis, what if they spent that money as needed, but then helped those in need with it? 

I wholeheartedly agree with that.. And I believe its essentially what Jesus taught. The first churches met in peoples homes, they didn't waste money building fancy churches because Jesus didn't tell them to do that.  Although he did teach; God first, people second.

 

Edited August 6, 2016 by Dan56

[cuchulain]

Appreciate the insights, Dan.  I can see the point of having a church, after all it does make a very handy place to store the food for those programs, and a lot of people understand they can get help at a church without the church having to advertise it.  But I am in complete agreement about the fancy decorations.  I think a simple building would do just as well.

[emalpaiz]

I have to agree... the goal of the church should always be people.  I used to go to a Catholic Church in San Juan, Puerto Rico that was open at all hours of the day.  When I was younger I used to go there and sit in the silence of the church.  There were always some elderly ladies saying the Catholic Rosary in a very gentle way.  You could sit in said church for hours in meditational silence.  I would do that often.  I felt then that I was going on a pilgrimage to said church just to sit in the silence away from the noise of the city.  As I grew older and took on the responsibilities of the world my visits to said temple diminished.  I have not gone there in years.  After reading your post I was reminded of the many visits I had there in my younger years.  I should visit there again.  The serenity felt in that church was a gift for everyone.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 8/6/2016 at 6:40 PM, emalpaiz said:

I have to agree... the goal of the church should always be people.  I used to go to a Catholic Church in San Juan, Puerto Rico that was open at all hours of the day.  When I was younger I used to go there and sit in the silence of the church.  There were always some elderly ladies saying the Catholic Rosary in a very gentle way.  You could sit in said church for hours in meditational silence.  I would do that often.  I felt then that I was going on a pilgrimage to said church just to sit in the silence away from the noise of the city.  As I grew older and took on the responsibilities of the world my visits to said temple diminished.  I have not gone there in years.  After reading your post I was reminded of the many visits I had there in my younger years.  I should visit there again.  The serenity felt in that church was a gift for everyone.

I have heard way to many religious people talk about putting God first.  It almost defines the Abrahamic religions. 

[Gnostic Bishop]

On ‎04‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 5:24 PM, cuchulain said:

Have you ever wondered how much better things might be if we started placing people before religion?  I am not saying we should eliminate religion altogether, after all it's another part of the puzzle that makes us all different.  But what if those churches out there that like to decorate with fancy stained glass windows and nice new chairs and pews on a regular basis, what if they spent that money as needed, but then helped those in need with it?  What if those who are so against all religion in general took a little of the time they used to bash religion at a food bank instead, or some other charitable good cause?

Gnostic Christianity has always put man ahead of god.

It seems that without the lie of a supernatural god, people are not willing to have a man be god the way the ancients used to do.

The Jews have that view as well as their oral tradition can overrule the written Torah and god himself.

One of the Jesus' that the church did not silence tells us that that is the right way to think when he said, instead of stoning people on the Sabbath, that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.

 

I read that as Jesus also saying that religions and gods were made for man and not man for religions as well.

 

Man has forgotten his rightful place as gods master.

 

Regards

DL

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

18 hours ago, Gnostic Bishop said:

Gnostic Christianity has always put man ahead of god.

It seems that without the lie of a supernatural god, people are not willing to have a man be god the way the ancients used to do.

The Jews have that view as well as their oral tradition can overrule the written Torah and god himself.

One of the Jesus' that the church did not silence tells us that that is the right way to think when he said, instead of stoning people on the Sabbath, that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.

 

I read that as Jesus also saying that religions and gods were made for man and not man for religions as well.

 

Man has forgotten his rightful place as gods master.

 

Regards

DL

 

 

What an odd turn of phrase.  "God's Master."  It brings to mind the old joke of Jewish Atheism.  "There is no God and we are his people."

 

    

[Gnostic Bishop]

11 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

What an odd turn of phrase.  "God's Master."  It brings to mind the old joke of Jewish Atheism.  "There is no God and we are his people."

 

    

That is odd only if you forget the term as above so below.

Who is said to be the stronger? Man or god?

Who in your family works for who? Do the strong work for the weak or do the weak work for the strong?

In my family the strong serve the weak and the weakest of us expect the strongest to work for them.

That is as it should be here below so if god does not follow that good moral position and would expect the weaker to serve the stronger, or us to serve him, then that shows just how immoral god is.

Do you agree?

 

Regards

DL

Edited August 15, 2016 by Gnostic Bishop

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

20 hours ago, Gnostic Bishop said:

Gnostic Christianity has always put man ahead of god.

It seems that without the lie of a supernatural god, people are not willing to have a man be god the way the ancients used to do.

The Jews have that view as well as their oral tradition can overrule the written Torah and god himself.

One of the Jesus' that the church did not silence tells us that that is the right way to think when he said, instead of stoning people on the Sabbath, that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.

 

I read that as Jesus also saying that religions and gods were made for man and not man for religions as well.

 

Man has forgotten his rightful place as gods master.

 

Regards

DL

 

 

What an odd turn of phrase.  "God's Master."  It brings to mind the old joke of Jewish Atheism.  "There is no God and we are his people."

 

    

[Gnostic Bishop]

Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Having a hiccup day my friend?

Regards

DL 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

You are asking me if I believe that God is immoral.  That seems a trick question.  I would first need to believe that God is real.

[Gnostic Bishop]

1 minute ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

You are asking me if I believe that God is immoral.  That seems a trick question.  I would first need to believe that God is real.

I was mostly asking if the strong should serve and work for the weak or if the strong should expect the weak to sustain and work for them.

 

Regards

DL

[cuchulain]

I believe we are all strong and weak in different areas, that those with strong minds should use those minds to help their communities, that those with strong backs should use those backs to help, that those with strong leadership ideas should use that, and so forth...to help their communities and each other.  Because some people have weak minds, weak backs, weak leadership abilities, etc... I guess I view it much like a puzzle, where every piece has some part to play, even if that part is merely allowing themselves to be taken care of and increase someone else's empathy.

[mererdog]

Many people from many different faiths claim there is no difference between putting people first and putting God first.

I think that art is an important resource and that funding from religious groups has made that resource available to a lot of people who would otherwise do without. My grandmother's explanation for why people should dress up for church was that people need to treat some things as special in order to feel that they are special themselves. I always liked that. While things like stained glass and walnut benches may seem frivolous, I think they help pull people out emotional ruts and inspire them to greater personal achievement. Things like the Sistine Chapel may be of no use to a starving man, but I think we need them if we want to build a world where no one starves...

Edited August 19, 2016 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

There is no virtue in putting the needs of real people behind the needs of God.  Putting aside the question of God's existence; what needs does God have that God should come first?  Aside from jealousy, pettiness, spite, etc.

[cuchulain]

Agreed Johnathan.  I would add, if God is truly all knowing and all powerful, he is perfectly capable of fulfilling his own needs instead of having us place his needs before our own.  And isn't it in the bible somewhere that God helps those who helps themselves?  What about helping those who help others as well?

[mererdog]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

 And isn't it in the bible somewhere that God helps those who helps themselves? 

No. And please note that no one said anything about God having needs except in order to attack the notion. It is a simple strawman.

My understanding is that putting God first means putting God's desires and commands (or at least assumed desires and commands) first.

One example would be someone who is starving but does not steal food because they believe God forbids stealing. In that sense, putting God first is basically just putting principle before expedience, which is something I try to do. Another example would be professing to be a Christian when doing so can get you killed. In that sense, it is a matter of having the courage of one's convictions- which I have trouble seeing as a flaw, in and of itself.

[cuchulain]

I see the straw man now that you point it out mererdog.  I suppose I got the idea that it must be in the bible because I hear it so often from various preachers.  So far as principle, sometimes it is useful.  Sometimes it is misguided.  I think it's like a lot of other things, dependent upon the people involved.  I guess Christianity is clearly not for me(seems somewhat obvious, with some of my thoughts), but that's alright.  We all of us have different ideas about reality, some of which coincide, and my basic premise is that we should work together for a better now regardless of what we believe is coming after life.

[mererdog]

2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

my basic premise is that we should work together for a better now regardless of what we believe is coming after life.

The problem with that is that what we think is coming after life is part of what shapes what we think qualifies as a better now- not only for ourselves, but for others. After all, if you are weighing temporary pains versus eternal torments, it may seem way more important to keep a man from sinning than to keep him from starving. Similarly, a man who worries about how he will be remembered might see a life without heroic risk as unworthy, while a man concerned he will never see his wife again after death may be averse to any risk to his life. And how many people can never be happy unless they think that, long after they have died, the children they raised will be happy?

 

Edited August 22, 2016 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 8/4/2016 at 5:24 PM, cuchulain said:

Have you ever wondered how much better things might be if we started placing people before religion?  I am not saying we should eliminate religion altogether, after all it's another part of the puzzle that makes us all different.  But what if those churches out there that like to decorate with fancy stained glass windows and nice new chairs and pews on a regular basis, what if they spent that money as needed, but then helped those in need with it?  What if those who are so against all religion in general took a little of the time they used to bash religion at a food bank instead, or some other charitable good cause?

The Atheists of my acquaintance are already inclined to charity and good works.  Why assume otherwise?