MyJoe: It's because God is incomprehensible and unknowable. That is the short answer.

When I think of God I pull back. It's hard to take much of the descriptions of him you find in the Bible and Quran seriously. Loving God for me means loving his creation, and nothing more. .

Deep Sight: I reproduce in blue below the post in that thread which sums up my view and the point laboured to be made -

^^^ And what does it take to worship God, if not simply be a good person Viaro?

Are the outward forms and rituals, such as Prayer, Praise, Ceremonies etc really required by a Living God?

In all sincerity, let me ask you what you understand by the injunction that one must worship God is Spirit and in Truth?

In my own understanding, that simply means that dead outward ceremonies are not the substance of worshipping God - that the worship of God rather relates to the inward state of the spirit which corresponds to eternal truth.

This is why I brought up the parable of the good Samaritan, which I thought should be sufficient to show you from your own bible that the worship of God has absolutely nothing to do with outward ceremonies, rituals or dogmatic or doctrinal acknowledgements.

Now to elucidate the point it is critical that we carefully note the context of that parable -

The Gospel of Luke provides the context for the parable as:

One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: “Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?”

So it should be noted that the parable was given within a context of salvation – namely that which would be required for one to be accepted with God.

Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?”

The man answered, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’” “Right!” Jesus told him. “Do this and you will live!”

So it is also clear that the ensuing parable sets forth that which it takes to “love God” and “love one’s neighbour.”

This is all the more emphasized since as you well know Jesus often stated that those who care for their neighbours were actually showing such love to him and to God. “I was hungry, and you fed me . . . whenever you did this for one of those, you did the same for me. . . “

The man wanted to justify his actions, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbour?”

Jesus then replied with a story:

“A Jewish man was travelling on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road. By chance a priest came along. But when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. A Levite walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side.


Now it is instructive that Jesus selects a Priest and a Levite to demonstrate his point – because the Priest and the Levite as you well know symbolize those who expressly acknowledge God, accept all the attendant doctrines about God and morality, and actively execute the outward rituals of “worshipping” God. The Levites as you know were a dedicated tribe of holy priests within the nation of Israel.

However Jesus has just shown what I am trying to say – namely that all the outward forms of acknowledgement of God which these people subscribed to did not in any way mean that they were really worshipping God – because of their action of ignoring the man who was hurt.

Now note carefully the next verses –

“Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him.”

Stop press! Note the words “despised Samaritan?” Why did Jesus not use any other lay Jew or even a non-specified person to elucidate his point? He rather chose to select what? – a DESPISED SAMARITAN!

Now Wikipedia says -



Thus note carefully the context – the Samaritan symbolizes people who are deemed to be “on the wrong side” of correct religious doctrine at the time and people who were accordingly “despised.”

Notwithstanding that, this is what Jesus conveys –

“Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins, telling him, ‘Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I’ll pay you the next time I’m here.’

Jesus concludes –

“Now which of these three would you say was a neighbour to the man who was attacked by bandits?” Jesus asked. The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.” Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same.

In this parable it is critical to note the imagery of the selected individuals –

1. “A Priest and a Levite” – are clearly indicative of people who have formally acknowledged God and are also at the fore-front of all the outward rituals and ceremonies.

2. “A Samaritan” – is considered on the wrong side of doctrine and dogma and is also “generally despised” in religious terms.

However it is easy to see that the man who is supposedly on the wrong side of doctrine – who no indication of God is made about is painted in glowing terms by Jesus because of his kind and merciful deeds.

I need to point out also the Imagery of Brotherly Affiliation. Note this from Wikipedia –



Much may be said – but basically there was this divide existing between the Jews and the Samaritans.

Now In answering the question – “who is your neighbor” – the parable of the Good Samaritan goes the extra step of showing that neighborliness arises not from tribal or religious affiliations but from loving acts of concern for one another.

What this shows is that the “groups” of churches, mosques, or other theists, are useless in determining the question of neighborliness. An Atheist or Buddhist could as well be a better neighbor than your Deacon in Church or your Imam in Mosque.

And given the parable of the Good Samaritan, in such an event, we can clearly see WHOM has done the will of God. . . .

So my dear friend, while you edify nobody by talking endlessly about definitions (define this, define that), I assert to you today that which was the living essence of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ – namely that love trumps all things and is the very essence of Christianity.

And if an Atheist or a Buddhist will show such love, then he has certainly met the requirements of the God that Jesus preached about – regardless of whether he accepts that such a God exists or not.

This is so simple and so pure – and should come so naturally to the Christian who is steeped in the ideas of Christ – which ideas tended towards love and doctrinal flexibility: and not towards iron cast “definitions” which you regrettably seem adamantly attached to – at the expense of the simple beauty of the gospel of Jesus. Jesus statements on the observance of the Sabbath and other such – just show the flexibility I speak about – which tends towards –spirit and truth – and not outward forms.

At all events since it is a given that you will yet dispute this simple and lucid example; for the objective reader – I state in simplicity – An Atheist or a Buddhist, if he lives a life of love and charity - certainly does the will of the God that Jesus preached about.

Deep Sight: Jesoul. Please do not worry about dear old viaro. In terms of our discourses i am sure there are absurdities enough to fill the entire universe. Such as physical bodies dwelling in spiritual heavens and the like. We leave that to himself and myself.

Let us focus our discussion on the matter for today. Before i proceed, I sense a sense of futility about you: namely that you believe i am deliberately playing the Ostrich. Let me just try to assure you that this is not so. Whatever may be your misgivings about me and my antics either past or present, i hope over time it is at least obvious that i sincerely believe that which i try to discuss. If there is no sincerity there is no purpose in these discussions. So please accept my assurances in that regard, for i would very sincerely love to have an open discussion of this, regardless that it has been discussed from other perspectives in the past.

Now you have pointed out two things to me which i will address. The two things you pointed out to me are as follows-

1. That the first requirement is to love God, and i have ignored this by focusing only on the second requirement - love of fellow man.

2. That Jesus spoke severally about salvation and i have ignored his other injunctions on the requirements, focusing only on the parable of the good Samaritan. And that another of his injunctions wa sthat one may only get to the Father through him.

In response to your first contention i say as follows -

- - - That the transcendental nature of God is not so concerned with an egoistic receipt of human praise or human acknowledgment as that would belittle the very nature of God.

- - - That the worship of God in spirit and in truth, the love of God, is manifested through a love of life. By this i do not mean a hedonistic love of worldly pleasures, but a love of that which is living - a love for that which emanates from God - namely, LIFE and LIVING THINGS. In the immediate sense this connotes the whole wonder of existence and the living beings about us, with whom we share our experience, but in the deeper sense this connotes love for such truly living things in an abstract sense such as love for love itself. I hope you get my meaning.

- - - I say to you that the bible itself is replete with many suggestions to this effect.

- That way to love God is not by any acknowledgment of doctrine or dogma, for that would be an empty and dead love.

There is no way that we can conceive of a transcendental God whose obsession is with egoistic praise and acknowledgement of doctrines such as thie identity of this or that person.

Rather i am persuaded that the gospel of Jesus affirms that the acknowledgment of God is in itself empty and quite useless in spiritual terms beside the simple practice of love. He also made it clear that acknowledging his name by itself would profit no man - even going so far as to corroborate his message in the parable of the good Samaritan by saying that what it would take to love him and to love God would be to show love to fellow men.

Here is relevant scripture in this regard -

Matthew 7:23 - Jesus made it clear that there would be many who believed in his name even to the extent of successfully working miracles and casting out demons in his name. Yet he states that of these people he would say "Depart from me, i never knew ye". . . What this connotes is that their acknowledgment of his name, acceptance of him as lord, and even investiture with miraculous powers from his name, were all empty and dead in his view if these people could not practice love.

This simply shows that the practice of love is what is far more important and relevant as opposed to merely acknowledging his name, however fervently believed or acknowledged.

Again, here is another scripture which i believe hammers home the point -

Matthew 25:35  - In this scripture Jesus specifically said that even people who did not know him but did loving deeds to other humans were actually doing those deeds to him! Thus this affirms my view that one loves God by loving one's fellow man, for how else will you explain this quote from that scripture -

". . .For i was hungry, and you gave me something to eat, i was thirstily, and you gave me something to drink, i was a stranger, and you invited me in, unclothed and you clothed me, i was sick and you visited me, i was in prison, and you came to me. Then the righteous will answer him and when did we do these things. . . And he responded " truly, to the extent that you did these for even the least of my brothers, you did it for me. . ."

I hope that this scripture is more than enough to show you what i am trying to say. It is not by acknowledging him and praising him, etc, but by living acts of love to one another that you actually worship and love God.

There is a deep spiritual reason why this is the truth. And that is simply because we are all a reflection, and minute part each of the totality of the being that exists as ONE. This is the reason for the command of love: it is an adjuration of oneness which trumps all things and goes to the gut of who we are and and what God is.

Without having to separately address your second contention where you said that Jesus stated that no man comeS to the father except through him,  i hope you can already see in the scripture quoted above what it really means to " come  through" Jesus. He has made it clear already both in the parable of the Good Samritan and where he describes love shown to fellow men as love shown to him.

You must therefore see that the first command of love of God, is, in Jesus' view, only fulfilled by exhibiting love TO fellow man in the truest sense.

m_nwankwo: God is love. One can also say that God is the source of love. All creatures of God irrespective of race, religion, sex, nationality etc can absorb of this love of God and dispense it accordingly. In the case of human beings, what absorbs this love from God is the human spirit. This love will permeate the spirit, its clocks including the outermost shell, the physical body. Thus he who absorbs the rays of love will manifest love including love for all creations of God. Now, the recognition of this love as coming from God depends on the various radiation connection between the spirit and the various shells surrounding the spirit, the last shell being the physical body and its coordinating center, the human brain. In many of us, this radiation connections are not straight, thus the shells enveloping the spirit are not conscious of the impressions that vibrates in the spirit. Thus a man may believe himself to be an atheist because that is what his brain tells him and yet his spirit is in the recognition of God. Irrespective of his brain telling him that God does not exist, the emanations of the spirit including love still permeates his mind and body resulting in expressions of genuine love. Thus although from a human standpoint, such a man is considered by himself and others to be atheist, spiritually the man is a theist.


In a similar vein the brain and the mind may be trained or indoctrinated or programmed to believe in God but their spirit has no recognition of God. In this case, this believer is actually an atheist even though he believes himself to be a theist. However because he, that is, the spirit has no connection with God, he cannot absorb the rays of love and manifest it. Thus, in spite of his intellectual believe in God, he still manifests the works of the flesh including hatred, anger, lust, gossip, avarice, fear, etc. The species of a seed determines the fruits that it will bear. Thus all genuine love and human beings who indulge in it believe in God even when they are unconscious of it while on earth.

Thus, all human beings who indulge in genuine love are of God and all those who indulge in hatred are not of God. By there works or fruits, you shall know those who stand in the will of God and those that oppose it or do not recognize it. This is an infallible yardstick to know who belongs to God and those who are not.

Therefore the love of God manifests in the love of all creations of God. On earth, it is possible for an atheist to love God without being spiritually conscious of it. However if such atheist continues in the manifestation of the love of God, either later in this earthly life or in the beyond on in another earthly life the emanations of the love of God that vibrates in his spirit will also permeate his earthly brain such that he also becomes conscious of the existence of God while in the physical body. What counts is how our spirit is close or far away from the will of God. Religion, nationality, sex, class and similar things that we think are very important while on earth are worthless once we drop this physical body.

In my view, there is no difference between the pope, the Christian, the mystic or an atheists when it concerns the will of God. Murder is murder whether perpetrated by a pope, a theist or an atheist. Genuine love is genuine love whether it came from an atheist, a pastor or an agnostic. Sometimes we think too much and thus think nothing. If we look around even on earth, we should find that the natural laws which are the manifestation of the will of God in nature does not give a hoot about all these artificial constructs. If a bud-hist sows yam in a fertile soil, he will reap yam. The same goes for an atheist and the theist. In an earthquake or epidemic or accident, both theists and atheists are saved and killed. A deeper look on why these things are the way they are may open our eyes to the working of God. Best wishes.

Deep Sight:
O, don't soft pedal now, or outrightly LIE, or seek escape hatches with general issues of prejudice. Or try to pretend you did not directly attack and ridicule "love your neighbour". The thread, as the title discloses, is about the commandment to love your neighbour, not about the commandment to love God. You attacked BOTH commandments, and the fact remains that there is nothing wrong with the "love your neighbour" commandment, period. In the bolded above, you dishonestly try to aver or insinuate that you only had an issue with the commandment to love God.

MyJoe: It's because God is incomprehensible and unknowable. That is the short answer.

MyJoe: When I think of God I pull back. It's hard to take much of the descriptions of him you find in the Bible and Quran seriously. Loving God for me means loving his creation, and nothing more. Making the God entity an object of love is what I'm not sure I have the rudiments of. No, I don't do Jewish myths or any myths. Belief in God is not all about any particular concept of him. It's about recognising the necessity of God and apprehending the evidence from, not just the amount of order you see around you, but the pattern - now, that is subjective in my view.

MyJoe: When I read that verse I see a commandment to love God and my neighbour. I don't bother about the Israel bit. Whether Jesus lived at the time and place alleged does not matter. What is is that statement attributed to him which is useful.

Martian:

Whatever you say.

Martian:

You say you don't believe in Jewish myths, but, forgive me if I'm wrong, it seems your concept of "Him" is the Judeo Christian one based on the jewish myth of Yahweh,even though you claim it's hard to take it seriously.
You mentioned the bible and the quran as examples of what god is and made no mention of indigenous African ideas of "Him".

Anyway, about the necessity of God

and the pattern. What pattern exactly proves God?

Why is God a necessity?

Why invoke a supernatural cause to explain natural occurences when there is no evidence of the supernatural? If the supernatural exists, is there any way to show that it interacts with this natural world?

You talk about order but you ignore the mounting evidence from research that the universe isn't "ordered" and some parts are what humans will find chaotic and even "hellish". What do you mean by order? Our planet being habitable for humans?

Deep Sight:

Yeah, duck, when ratted out in an outright lie.

Martian:

Check the first page.

Deep Sight:
Stop being pedantic, you know what he meant there.
Is there any point taking this up with you? Where you are shown logical arguments that render God necessary - would you accept such arguments, or simply stomp off in a sulky huff, maintaining its all gibberish, without arguing coherently back?
Well you can start with the patterns of living things. Especially the patterns of the make up of advanced living things such as yourself.
As an aside, reflect also on some of the attributes of these living things which have no evolutionary necessity. Such as music and dance. Poetry. Philosophy.
Are there not parts of our consciousness that evolution would forever remain insufficient to explain?
Because ex nihilo nihil fit.
Actually, everything, even God, is natural. We conveniently use the word "supernatural" simply to refer to something that transcends the closed system we live in - and as such a thing we can only have limited understanding of.
We have seen way too little of the universe to conclude that it is largely chaotic. You have to be high up in the stands, in a stadium, to appreciate the patterns of a parade display.
The procession of the universes may perhaps only be viewed by one with a bird's eye view of them. Do you have such?

Deep Sight:
Come on, stop stretching your dishonesty to the point of ridicule. You know very well your initial comments which inspired this thread were not on the first page here, but on another preceding thread.

Martian:

Okay then, Inspector gadget, go dig it up.

Anyway, there is still nothing profound about "love your neighbor"

Deep Sight:

Why should I do that task? We all know what you said.

Anyway, there is still nothing profound about "love your neighbor"

Scaling down are we? You initially described it as fo.olish and s.illy.

Deep Sight:
Scaling down are we? You initially described it as fo.olish and s.illy.

Martian:

And your logical arguments from god are all arguments from ignorance based on whatever monotheist faith you belonged to.

The last time you concluded that god was "infinite apace" and "infinite time" and admitted that you were just separating the space time continuum to fit your ideas.

What are the patterns of living things that point to design by god?

What about music, dance,poetry and philosophy point to design by a god?

Conciousness not being fully understood points to god?

If god is natural, how do you go about discovering it using the scientific method?

I didnt conclude that it's largely chaotic, it's you and MyJoe that infer design and pattern using arguments from ignorance. I only pointed out that what you term " orderly" isn't universal.

So have you been high up in the stands to "appreciate the patterns" of the universal order, or are using using your sentiments as evidence...as usual.

Martian:

And so what if I describe it as foolish and silly? Do you score some kind of psychological victory because I don't agree with Jesus? Lol, ever since your ancient alien idiocy,you've been quick to always try to find fault in anything I say.

Deep Sight:
No it is not. I had first rejected those ideas completely before starting again. Please stop writing my biography for me, when it is time I may do an autobiography - that is only if my life turns out to be relevant enough to warrant an interesting read.
Yes indeed, God at its intrinsic self-existent level is the "cynosure" or the combination of these.
Many. But how about try your brain for size. It's a marvel you know?
Have you ever taken time to really read about its working?
They evince a side to our consciousness that is not accounted for by evolution or natural selection alone.
Consciousness points to God.
It is not an animal you may take to the lab: it is rather all things, so simply study all things and you will see God.
Yeah, you will stare God face to face.
And your definite assertion that it is NOT orderly is not an argument from ignorance? I simply pointed out to you that only one with a bird's eye view of the universes can make this call. Is this a lie?
As for me, I make the design argument from the one's i see around me - including my own fearfully constructed brain which at least we have a view of.

Deep Sight:

Ad hominem.

It doesn't take ancient aliens to see how nonsensical your attack on that teaching was. The person who opened this thread - has he ever said anything about ancient aliens?

Abeg stop getting desperate simply because your duplicity and shallowness is being exposed.

Don't worry, you are still one of my favorite posters. I also sense in your reticence on the ex nihilo issue that you are contemplating the possible existence of God. I encourage you in that regard. Incidentally, that was the only line in my other revert toy you, that you stayed away from. Good, Good. Good, God.

Martian:

The person who opened the thread already stopped talking about it.So who's obsessed?

You are not my favorite anything. Even if I knew you in real life.

I've just noticed your behavior since that ancient aliens thread, but I may be wrong.

But never mind, I've been "exposed" because I find the Jewish carpenter silly.

Deep Sight:
Do you really think he has the time? I just happen to have the time because as y'all know, brick-batting is my thing.
And yes, if being obsessed with an attack on "love your neighbour" is what you accuse me of, believe me, it is a horrendous enough attack for any sensible person to be obsessed with rebutting. So i plead guilty, sir.
Lol. You take words too seriously. I suspect that this is the bitter effect of being caught in an open attempt at a lie. Don't worry, it has happened to many, myself inclusive. Calm down there and don't become the next bitter anti-deepsightist.
You are wrong: my debating style is well known and notorious on this forum. It did not start with you or with ancient aliens. I am not ashamed of that discussion. The subject still intrigues me, so kill yourself if that amuses you.
No: you were exposed sneakily trying to withdraw from your earlier statements and insinuate that you did not make them. That is falsehood.

Deep Sight:
Ol boy, go siddon. Mr "the commandment i attacked is the one about loving God". Even after viciously attacking the commandment to love fellow men.
You no get shame o.
Good afternoon. Gotta go. Lawyer don turn to trader.

Martian:

I hold the same opinion......if there is anything like gods.



You say you don't believe in Jewish myths, but, forgive me if I'm wrong, it seems your concept of "Him" is the Judeo Christian one based on the jewish myth of Yahweh,even though you claim it's hard to take it seriously.
You mentioned the bible and the quran as examples of what god is and made no mention of indigenous African ideas of "Him".

Anyway, about the necessity of God and the pattern. What pattern exactly proves God? Why is God a necessity? Why invoke a supernatural cause to explain natural occurences when there is no evidence of the supernatural? If the supernatural exists, is there any way to show that it interacts with this natural world?

You talk about order but you ignore the mounting evidence from research that the universe isn't "ordered" and some parts are what humans will find chaotic and even "hellish". What do you mean by order? Our planet being habitable for humans?

Martian:

Can you fully love god and treat your neighbor fair? What if your neighbors beliefs goes against your god's?

How do you go about loving a god?

MyJoe:
The plant being habitable is order – bring the earth a little closer to the sun and we turn to steak, if not ashes; take it a little further away and we freeze. I have heard the counterargument – the deviations and aberrations we see; for example, birth defects. But these are merely deviations from the order, so rather than defeat the argument that there is order, they reinforce it. When you talk of order you have to look at the whole.

Martian:

The earth's orbit is perfect for us to survive and it just happens to be "orderly" from our viewpoint. You say I have to look at the whole but you are not. You're infering for the whole universe based on the habitability of this planet but ignore the other planets that are devoid of life. You are implying that the purpose of the universe is to contain life instead of life being one of the possibilities or probabilities.

We have eight planets in this solar system but only one contains life as we know it. Does this point to design or just the laws of nature as described by physics?

Birth defects are deviation of what a human looks like but does the existence of the human point to a particular orderly plan?

Does human physiology suggest purposeful and orderly design,

or does it align with scientific theories that don't need the existence of a designer?

Deep Sight:
Fair comment, but life could not spontaneously arise ANYWHERE in this universe without pre-existent life. This is science, y'konw?
Spontaneous generation, as an idea, was debunked by Louis Pasteur eons ago.
It is surprising that people who imagine that they have a tendency to science (I say "imagine" because its obvious they actually have an aversion to clear science) ignore this is arriving at voodooistic and nonsensical postulations and assumptions.
Reality works with logic. If you were going to create a planet with life, you could not do so in a void. You would need a star to circulate it about. That star in coming to existence would have other satellites. Same star could not exist in a void. It would need a galaxy. Same galaxy would have to be attached to clusters in a universe. In short, yes, you would need an entire universe to create life even on one physical planet.
Ehen? Ehen? So ya brain doesn't disclose order? I repeat: you have not read nada about the human brain. If you have, you will not say these things.
I repeat: YET AGAIN: you have not read nada about the human brain. If you have, you will not say these things.
or does it align with scientific theories that don't need the existence of a designer?
And in your mind, all those "scientific" laws that make such possible spring from where? Nothingness? Do you remember ex nihilo nihil fit?
I really really wonder if you think about the things you say. The fact that you can hold such notions for years is particularly distressing. At no point do you pause to see the inherent absurdities.

Martian:
The earth's orbit is perfect for us to survive and it just happens to be "orderly" from our viewpoint.

Martian:
You say I have to look at the whole but you are not.

MyJoe:
I mean, you say there is disorder somewhere in the universe, but have those disorders brought about any disorder to the whole?

Martian:
You're infering for the whole universe based on the habitability of this planet but ignore the other planets that are devoid of life.

Martian:
You are implying that the purpose of the universe is to contain life instead of life being one of the possibilities or probabilities.

Martian:
We have eight planets in this solar system but only one contains life as we know it. Does this point to design or just the laws of nature as described by physics? Birth defects are deviation of what a human looks like but does the existence of the human point to a particular orderly plan? Does human physiology suggest purposeful and orderly design,

Martian:
or does it align with scientific theories that don't need the existence of a designer?