Does God want us to judge him?

[Greatest I am]

Does God want us to judge him?

I think that God wants us to judge him. We are to emulate Jesus. Jesus judged God and found him wanting.

Upon taking the judgement seat, Jesus indicated that it was time to retire Yahweh. Jesus saw Yahweh as no longer fit to rule over or judge man. Man had in essence graduated to his rightful place as the judge of all the Gods.

Christians, who are told by their own scriptures to judge righteously, are not doing so when it comes to Yahweh.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Yahweh is quite a vile God. It is no wonder that Yahweh does not show his face around Christians. They would kill him. Jesus did say that he came to bring War. Perhaps he meant war against God, which would be following Jewish tradition.

If God wants us to judge him, why do most Christians not judge God in a righteous and moral manner?

Place no God above me, means that God wants us to judge all the Gods, including himself, to insure he is the best of the best. How else could we know that Yahweh was the best God to follow?

Do you agree, or are we not supposed to judge God?

Regards
DL

[The Eternal Warrior]

Does God want us to judge him?

I think that God wants us to judge him. We are to emulate Jesus. Jesus judged God and found him wanting.

Upon taking the judgement seat, Jesus indicated that it was time to retire Yahweh. Jesus saw Yahweh as no longer fit to rule over or judge man. Man had in essence graduated to his rightful place as the judge of all the Gods.

Christians, who are told by their own scriptures to judge righteously, are not doing so when it comes to Yahweh.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Yahweh is quite a vile God. It is no wonder that Yahweh does not show his face around Christians. They would kill him. Jesus did say that he came to bring War. Perhaps he meant war against God, which would be following Jewish tradition.

If God wants us to judge him, why do most Christians not judge God in a righteous and moral manner?

Place no God above me, means that God wants us to judge all the Gods, including himself, to insure he is the best of the best. How else could we know that Yahweh was the best God to follow?

Do you agree, or are we not supposed to judge God?

Regards
DL

You're arguing arguments that lead to the answer, not because you believe them to be fully true, but partially true and are reaching for the truth of it.

[Greatest I am]

Does God want us to judge him?

Do you agree, or are we not supposed to judge God?

Regards
DL

You're arguing arguments that lead to the answer, not because you believe them to be fully true, but partially true and are reaching for the truth of it.

If so, you have not helped. Opine if you can reason.

Regards
DL

[Ierrellus]

Righteous judgment is the ability to see a distinction between justice and vengeance so that the punishment fits the crime. Your Yahweh appears to be the nominal Christian deity who espouses everlasting punishment for sins committed by anyone in this fly speck of human existence.

[Greatest I am]

Righteous judgment is the ability to see a distinction between justice and vengeance so that the punishment fits the crime. Your Yahweh appears to be the nominal Christian deity who espouses everlasting punishment for sins committed by anyone in this fly speck of human existence.

Not my Yahweh. I have rejected that prick. That is why Gnostic Christians call him a demiurge.

I agree that a purposeless torture in hell, then death, for a finite sin is quite immoral.

I did not restrict judgement to a legal definition.

We should also judge all other things for their moral worth. Soup to nuts you might say.

Regards
DL

[The Eternal Warrior]

Does God want us to judge him?

Do you agree, or are we not supposed to judge God?

Regards
DL

You're arguing arguments that lead to the answer, not because you believe them to be fully true, but partially true and are reaching for the truth of it.

If so, you have not helped. Opine if you can reason.

Regards
DL

I helped with what I could help with. I didn't feel like getting into the rest of it. Might be because it's not my place to. I'm not entirely sure on that one, but at least it coincides with me not wanting to argue arguments like that anymore.

I will say that it's not a matter of 'want', but a matter of emotional logic. We judge anyways. To thine own self be true. Unless you want to baseline and be a negative bitter prick that judges harshly and improperly. Unless it's a situational nuance where that's acceptable behavior. If we expect God; any God; to judge us, whether fairly or harshly, certainly to some extent, want or not, people should judge their 'God' the same as they expect to be judged by it. It's the same as having an established community leader like a mayor, senator, president. Without people making sure by doing to those established figures what they expect those established figures to do for them... where then goes society?

[Greatest I am]

[

I helped with what I could help with. I didn't feel like getting into the rest of it. Might be because it's not my place to. I'm not entirely sure on that one, but at least it coincides with me not wanting to argue arguments like that anymore.

I will say that it's not a matter of 'want', but a matter of emotional logic. We judge anyways. To thine own self be true. Unless you want to baseline and be a negative bitter prick that judges harshly and improperly. Unless it's a situational nuance where that's acceptable behavior. If we expect God; any God; to judge us, whether fairly or harshly, certainly to some extent, want or not, people should judge their 'God' the same as they expect to be judged by it. It's the same as having an established community leader like a mayor, senator, president. Without people making sure by doing to those established figures what they expect those established figures to do for them... where then goes society?

Thanks for this.

I agree that we should judge with reciprocity in mind.

That would prevent what this clip shows.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2jqT9poLHw

Regards
DL

[Ierrellus]

It occurs to me that I am capable of judging only an anthropomorphic deity. I cannot be aware of plans or desires of the God.
When I was in my early 20s I had certain insights about God regarding justice and the afterlife:
The punishment must fit the crime.
I cannot worship a God who is meaner than I am.
That would indicate universal salvation for all humans.

[Greatest I am]

It occurs to me that I am capable of judging only an anthropomorphic deity. I cannot be aware of plans or desires of the God.
When I was in my early 20s I had certain insights about God regarding justice and the afterlife:
The punishment must fit the crime.
I cannot worship a God who is meaner than I am.
That would indicate universal salvation for all humans.

I am a Gnostic Christian and we are a universalist creed as far as a heaven goes. We all end there as there is no hell.

Your morals seem to match mine in this issue.

I, like you, I hope, believe that a good God would cure instead of kill which is the opposite of what most Christians think as they like that their God has a hell for purposeless torture and death.

You might look at Gnostic Christianity as your thinking matches their ideology.

Regards
DL

[Ierrellus]

I was checking out Wikipedia's definition of gnosticism. The idea that matter is evil turned me off. I am an Earth creature, a natural being. I believe the evolution of DNA constructions is the handiwork of a creative God. We evolve in knowing.

[Greatest I am]

I was checking out Wikipedia's definition of gnosticism. The idea that matter is evil turned me off. I am an Earth creature, a natural being. I believe the evolution of DNA constructions is the handiwork of a creative God. We evolve in knowing.

Ah yes. The distorted idiocy of us not liking matter. The inquisitors needed to try to discredit us and lied about a lot of what we believe.

Tell me is this, which is our beliefs, match the lies and also note who is supposed to see mater as corrupted.

Best to ask a Gnostic Christian what we believe.

I wrote this to refute the false notion that Gnostic Christians do not like matter and reality that the inquisitors propagated to justify their many murders of my religions originators
The Christian reality.
1 John 2:15Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
Gen 3; 17 Thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.
-----------
The Gnostic Christian reality.
Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]"
"If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.
If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.
But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

As you can see from that quote, if we see God's kingdom all around us and inside of us, we cannot think that the world is anything but evolving perfection. Most just don't see it and live in poverty. Let me try to make you see the world the way I do.

Here is a mind exercise. Tell me what you see when you look around. The best that can possibly be, given our past history, or an ugly and imperfect world?

Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

That means that we live in the best of all possible worlds, given all the conditions at hand and the history that got us here. That is an irrefutable statement given entropy and the anthropic principle.

Regards
DL

[Ierrellus]

I would make a distinction between the natural world and the world as mindset. The latter may be the root cause of our woes.

[Greatest I am]

I would make a distinction between the natural world and the world as mindset. The latter may be the root cause of our woes.

So would I but I do not agree that it is directly the root cause of evil. Evolution is.

If you want my presentation on that, comment on my reply to our hating matter.

Regards
DL

[Ierrellus]

You lost me with evolution is the root cause of all evil.

[Greatest I am]

You lost me with evolution is the root cause of all evil.

Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by putting forward their free will argument and placing all the blame on mankind.
That usually sounds like ----God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy. Such statements simply avoid God's culpability as the author and creator of human nature.

Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all do evil/sin by nature then, the evil/sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not do evil/sin. Can we then help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil and sin is all human generated and in this sense, I agree with Christians, but for completely different reasons. Evil is mankind’s responsibility and not some imaginary God’s. Free will is something that can only be taken. Free will cannot be given not even by a God unless it has been forcibly withheld.

Much has been written to explain evil and sin but I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created. Without intent to do evil, no act should be called evil.
In secular courts, this is called mens rea. Latin for an evil mind or intent and without it, the court will not find someone guilty even if they know that they are the perpetrator of the act.

Evil then is only human to human when they know they are doing evil and intend harm.

As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil, at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, you should see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us. Wherever it came from, God or nature, without evolution we would go extinct. We must do good and evil.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

This link speak to theistic evolution.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new ... 66/?no-ist

If theistic evolution is true, then the myth of Eden should be read as a myth and there is not really any original sin.

Doing evil then is actually forced on us by evolution and the need to survive. Our default position is to cooperate or to do good. I offer this clip as proof of this. You will note that we default to good as it is better for survival.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA

Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

Regards
DL

[Venture]

Your fallacy is that you think because something is a myth, it does not bear weight in determining our morality or learning over a long time. As if the age of pagan polytheisms or the creation story, originally passing around an oral tradition of the Eden myth you mentioned, that they hold no value or don't represent anything because it is just a myth. The myth should be read as a myth? Are you undermining its importance? Or did you read the bible and take every line literally?

The problem is time. How old is the earth? 2000 years old? 6000 years old? 6.5 billion years old? 4.5 billion? Our measurement for a year, a day, a month, is all skewered throughout time, as is our language and morals. Scattered throughout time like a disoriented jigsaw puzzle, after a lot of war and disease and interbreeding and greed to loss over certain cycles, how could we not err in our ways? Of course we make mistakes and sin but who's is to say we can't change and improve and forgive?

Some things that seem like "evil" for eternal punishment seem exaggerated at times and questionable, but if you were doing what is best for most people and yourself, with most people in greater importance than yourself, than you wouldn't have to worry about the inevitability of sin because you need to experience and understand it before you can choose to do it differently/better.

[Greatest I am]

Your fallacy is that you think because something is a myth, it does not bear weight in determining our morality or learning over a long time.

Untrue. I use some of the scriptures when presenting my view of the archetypal mystical Jesus.

I have even used this to show it's moral message.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdLPe7XjdKc

Remember how Hitler had Jews wear stars and also how Christians used inquisitions on those they put imaginary stars on?

As if the age of pagan polytheisms or the creation story, originally passing around an oral tradition of the Eden myth you mentioned, that they hold no value or don't represent anything because it is just a myth. The myth should be read as a myth? Are you undermining its importance? Or did you read the bible and take every line literally?

I am not stupid enough to read myths literally and for the Eden story, I just happen to go with what the writers of the myth thought instead of what the usurping Christians changed the moral of the story to. Jews see man's elevation while Christians see a fall, even as they sing that Adam's sin was a happy fault and necessary to God's plan.

Rather stupid and presumptuous of the Christians. Right?

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/ ... -theodicy/

The end of the Eden part of the myth shows man as becoming as Gods in the knowing of good and evil.

Do you see us gaining a moral sense as good or as evil? An elevation or a fall?

The problem is time. How old is the earth? 2000 years old? 6000 years old? 6.5 billion years old? 4.5 billion? Our measurement for a year, a day, a month, is all skewered throughout time, as is our language and morals. Scattered throughout time like a disoriented jigsaw puzzle, after a lot of war and disease and interbreeding and greed to loss over certain cycles, how could we not err in our ways? Of course we make mistakes and sin but who's is to say we can't change and improve and forgive?

What makes you think we have not improved?

Check the stats at the end of this link and recognize that we are at the best levels of good that we have ever enjoyed. You see a half empty glass while I see an overflowing one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLulcfyqrc0

Some things that seem like "evil" for eternal punishment seem exaggerated at times and questionable, but if you were doing what is best for most people and yourself, with most people in greater importance than yourself, than you wouldn't have to worry about the inevitability of sin because you need to experience and understand it before you can choose to do it differently/better.

I showed above that one cannot help but do evil to others to survive and thrive so I will ignore this foolish wish list of yours.

That does not mean we cannot reduce the harm or that we are not always trying to keep it at a minimum, it just says that we must tolerate some or go extinct.

Regards
DL

[Venture]

I hope it doesn't make me morally corrupt to admit that McBean is one groovy dude in that Dr. Suess cartoon, a snake oil salesman on bad days and a technological business genius on good days... as for the sneetches, I'm not a fan, mainly because they seem naive, quick to judge, forgetful, and so emotional sometimes logic and improvement upon the future has no tangible meaning, but damn good singers nonetheless. I think it would be unfair to McBean to compare him to Hitler using stars on the Jews, and I don't remember anything about the Christian inquisition thing you mentioned so I'd be fascinated upon any elaboration.

I'm sorry for assuming that because you briefly considered the possibility of denouncing the truth value of the Eden myth on the premise of theistic evolution that you were taking scripture out of context and taking things literally.

I see us gaining a moral sense as good but not elevating to the point of Gods, only a tool that weighs but never perfectly measures. Like aiming between the extremes of definition, to get to the middle of something is to attain the moral high ground (or the best definition to compensate for the tension between those extreme view points in order to prevent violence, disease, chaos, etc.). The point is that there is never one thing, but God is all, one, and not a thing. His creations were flawed and anything that existed before humans corrupted humans (sex drive, disease, not knowing our own strength, seasonal changes, etc). God created the former angels that rebelled against him and were cast out, therefore those that were cast out knew that God's creations had flaws. Humans have inherent flaws that can be manipulated for other's will powers like the sneetches fell for.

I never said we haven't improved, I know we have. In short, I was trying to say that the problem of scarcity of information and knowledge over time confuses our language and morality. I was saying that when you state that we have to do evil to others to survive that it must be inevitable due to our inherent flaws. Someone like McBean goes around and inflates the price of his machine, eventually there will be a straw that breaks the camel's back so to speak, and some sneetches dumb or smart or rich or poor will harm those who have already done harm to a great extent for selfish and greedy needs whether or not that person or people did it purposely.

Also, whereabouts are the stats you mentioned in that video? Seems interesting, I'll definitely consider watching that series very soon, as I used to be a big fan of Dawkins.

We can reduce harm and try to keep it at a minimum, but just because we tolerate doesn't mean we won't go extinct. And just because we don't tolerate doesn't mean we will go extinct.

If a group of asteroids randomly emerges from the oort cloud at unprecedented, nearly undetectable speeds, what do you think we will all do?
If a disease randomly manifests and has no cure, killing unprecedented numbers at unpredictable speeds, how would we react?

I believe these things have happened in the past and cover up a lot of information about who we are as a species, a group of superior earthlings who go around believing different things for their own perceived good in order to survive, rearing formidable children, and dying quickly in comparison to the age of things we rarely take time to consider.

You assumed earlier that if evil is natural then the evil is dominant. Why can we not unknowingly be doing good for most because most choose to do good for themselves, noticing mistakes and evil to correct as we grow?

[Greatest I am]

I hope it doesn't make me morally corrupt to admit that McBean is one groovy dude in that Dr. Suess cartoon, a snake oil salesman on bad days and a technological business genius on good days... as for the sneetches, I'm not a fan, mainly because they seem naive, quick to judge, forgetful, and so emotional sometimes logic and improvement upon the future has no tangible meaning, but damn good singers nonetheless. I think it would be unfair to McBean to compare him to Hitler using stars on the Jews, and I don't remember anything about the Christian inquisition thing you mentioned so I'd be fascinated upon any elaboration.

I'm sorry for assuming that because you briefly considered the possibility of denouncing the truth value of the Eden myth on the premise of theistic evolution that you were taking scripture out of context and taking things literally.

I see us gaining a moral sense as good but not elevating to the point of Gods, only a tool that weighs but never perfectly measures. Like aiming between the extremes of definition, to get to the middle of something is to attain the moral high ground (or the best definition to compensate for the tension between those extreme view points in order to prevent violence, disease, chaos, etc.). The point is that there is never one thing, but God is all, one, and not a thing. His creations were flawed and anything that existed before humans corrupted humans (sex drive, disease, not knowing our own strength, seasonal changes, etc). God created the former angels that rebelled against him and were cast out, therefore those that were cast out knew that God's creations had flaws. Humans have inherent flaws that can be manipulated for other's will powers like the sneetches fell for.

I never said we haven't improved, I know we have. In short, I was trying to say that the problem of scarcity of information and knowledge over time confuses our language and morality. I was saying that when you state that we have to do evil to others to survive that it must be inevitable due to our inherent flaws. Someone like McBean goes around and inflates the price of his machine, eventually there will be a straw that breaks the camel's back so to speak, and some sneetches dumb or smart or rich or poor will harm those who have already done harm to a great extent for selfish and greedy needs whether or not that person or people did it purposely.

Also, whereabouts are the stats you mentioned in that video? Seems interesting, I'll definitely consider watching that series very soon, as I used to be a big fan of Dawkins.

We can reduce harm and try to keep it at a minimum, but just because we tolerate doesn't mean we won't go extinct. And just because we don't tolerate doesn't mean we will go extinct.

If a group of asteroids randomly emerges from the oort cloud at unprecedented, nearly undetectable speeds, what do you think we will all do?
If a disease randomly manifests and has no cure, killing unprecedented numbers at unpredictable speeds, how would we react?

I believe these things have happened in the past and cover up a lot of information about who we are as a species, a group of superior earthlings who go around believing different things for their own perceived good in order to survive, rearing formidable children, and dying quickly in comparison to the age of things we rarely take time to consider.

You assumed earlier that if evil is natural then the evil is dominant. Why can we not unknowingly be doing good for most because most choose to do good for themselves, noticing mistakes and evil to correct as we grow?

I showed evil is natural. I did not assume it. All human to human evil is caused by competition or insanity.

If evil, as the desire to win competitions is not dominant then we might not fight against those who want to kill us.

That is us unknowingly doing good for us.

"I see us gaining a moral sense as good but not elevating to the point of Gods,"

How do you know how far your moral sense is from God?
Have you not noticed that our secular law has already shown a better moral sense than what the ancient God gave us?

You asked where the stats are and the answer is at the end of the link I gave.

Regards
DL

[lordoflight]

Want is a form of lust, and lust is a sin according to jebus, therefore god is a sinner.

[Greatest I am]

Want is a form of lust, and lust is a sin according to jebus, therefore god is a sinner.

I agree. And when he commands we want him, it shows coveting. He would have had that emotion when looking a Josephs wife as well.

Good thinking and connecting the dots there buddy.

Regards
DL

[Karpel Tunnel]

Want is a form of lust, and lust is a sin according to jebus, therefore god is a sinner.

I agree. And when he commands we want him, it shows coveting. He would have had that emotion when looking a Josephs wife as well.

Good thinking and connecting the dots there buddy.

Regards
DL

Yahweh is a lot like a cranky tribal leader, the chief projected on the heavens. Sure, I'm with you
there and I certainly judge that. But I don't think lordofflight's argument makes much sense.

Want is not a form of lust. Lust is a kind of want. Not all wants are considered bad in Christianity but some are and some when they are extreme. Also the argument assumes but does not explain why we should assume that God must be held to the same morals as humans. Humans allow much more freedom and specific rights - like doctors rights for example - when one has expertise. A deity with infinite knowledge would be judged differently and allowed freedoms not allowed to others.

None of which means I am fond of Yahweh or even the implict though quiet deity of the NT.

[Venture]

God commands we want him but not lust him. Lust is a form of want, want is not a form of lust. Therefore lordoflight's argument is misconstrued.

Did fallen angels reproduce with humans during the antediluvian? Does this represent God's creations' corruption, including the angels he cast out? There is a resurgence in popularity and understanding of the Book of Enoch. The scriptures omitted in ancient times have returned due to our want of knowledge and domination. The snake corrupting Eve could represent the bastardized children of Eve, who did Adam and Eve's children have to marry and fight with after all? The omissions and manipulated transliterations of the apocrypha represent religious peoples rejection of the defiling of man by fallen angels mating and manipulating our genetics, along with mysticism and deceptive claims of magic during pre-Christ times. Also, a society forming their belief systems around oral traditions versus peer-reviewed literature has yet to meet an exegesis.

The Jewish Yahweh seems tribal, relentless, natural, omniscient, outside of human conception and will manifest.
The Muslim Allah seems to be especially sensitive against scrutiny and especially reminiscent of a patriarchy.
The Christian God seems anthropomorphized because of works of tolerance, accepted amongst multiple languages and cultures, and has reformations causing divided beliefs.

To what extent are my observations incorrect?

[Greatest I am]

Want is a form of lust, and lust is a sin according to jebus, therefore god is a sinner.

I agree. And when he commands we want him, it shows coveting. He would have had that emotion when looking a Josephs wife as well.

Good thinking and connecting the dots there buddy.

Regards
DL

Yahweh is a lot like a cranky tribal leader, the chief projected on the heavens. Sure, I'm with you
there and I certainly judge that. But I don't think lordofflight's argument makes much sense.

Want is not a form of lust. Lust is a kind of want. Not all wants are considered bad in Christianity but some are and some when they are extreme. Also the argument assumes but does not explain why we should assume that God must be held to the same morals as humans. Humans allow much more freedom and specific rights - like doctors rights for example - when one has expertise. A deity with infinite knowledge would be judged differently and allowed freedoms not allowed to others.

None of which means I am fond of Yahweh or even the implict though quiet deity of the NT.

Only the most immoral thinkers will like Yahweh thanks to his genocidal son murdering ways.

You seem to think God is somehow in possession of moral knowledge that we do not have. I disagree based on scriptures and common sense.

Gen3;22 Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;

That says that God knows nothing of good and evil that we don't. The most important fact being that morals are subjective.

We invent all of the Gods and that means that they cannot be brighter than humans.

"Want is not a form of lust. Lust is a kind of want. "

You break the law of the excluded middle as well as algebra.

If a=b then b must =a

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

God commands we want him but not lust him. Lust is a form of want, want is not a form of lust. Therefore lordoflight's argument is misconstrued.

Did fallen angels reproduce with humans during the antediluvian? Does this represent God's creations' corruption, including the angels he cast out? There is a resurgence in popularity and understanding of the Book of Enoch. The scriptures omitted in ancient times have returned due to our want of knowledge and domination. The snake corrupting Eve could represent the bastardized children of Eve, who did Adam and Eve's children have to marry and fight with after all? The omissions and manipulated transliterations of the apocrypha represent religious peoples rejection of the defiling of man by fallen angels mating and manipulating our genetics, along with mysticism and deceptive claims of magic during pre-Christ times. Also, a society forming their belief systems around oral traditions versus peer-reviewed literature has yet to meet an exegesis.

The Jewish Yahweh seems tribal, relentless, natural, omniscient, outside of human conception and will manifest.
The Muslim Allah seems to be especially sensitive against scrutiny and especially reminiscent of a patriarchy.
The Christian God seems anthropomorphized because of works of tolerance, accepted amongst multiple languages and cultures, and has reformations causing divided beliefs.

To what extent are my observations incorrect?

To your first bit, please see my reply above.

As to your last, you have made some errors.

You say God will manifest. How can you know this as a fact?

You also say God is natural which is silly given his supernatural attributes. Imaginary attributes just like him that is.

That natural is also refuted by the bulk of nature as in it, the predominant theme is that offspring bury or outlive their parents and that most parents want it that way. God did the opposite and chose to bury his offspring which makes him a prick as far as nature would be concerned.

Regards
DL