read this and answer the poll. or answer the poll and read this.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2078011/
:h:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2078011/
:h:
IS GOD ON THE SIDE OF AMERICA?
- Thread starter HERESY
- Start date
I dont think God's on our side, but i dont think hes on Saddam or Osamas side either. I hope that hes pissed off at all these crazy people using religion as an excuse to kill. Im not against christians muslims or jews but in all three groups there are insane fundamentalists that are most likely gonna kill all of us. I hope if there is a God he isnt on our side or anyone elses side because ALL SIDES are doing some fucked up shit right now.
God is transcendental to all. He is not concerned with "America" nor "Iraq", or any other NAME given to any piece of land. As far as the people who are running these countries, God is indifferent to them all. Those who act righteous will ascend, and those who sin will descend. God is equal to all.
From God's point of view, our entire universe is but the size of a grain of sand, and that grain of sand is in a huge bag of other grains which are other universes. And that whole bag which is holding all these infinite universes is but another grain of sand in a bigger bag. And so it stretches infinitely back to the source of all emanations, God Himself.
To think that God is sitting up on high, looking down at our puny insignificant planet and "taking sides" in our conflicts is pure lunacy.
I would have checked a 4th option in your poll: "God is transcendental to all sides".
From God's point of view, our entire universe is but the size of a grain of sand, and that grain of sand is in a huge bag of other grains which are other universes. And that whole bag which is holding all these infinite universes is but another grain of sand in a bigger bag. And so it stretches infinitely back to the source of all emanations, God Himself.
To think that God is sitting up on high, looking down at our puny insignificant planet and "taking sides" in our conflicts is pure lunacy.
I would have checked a 4th option in your poll: "God is transcendental to all sides".
@Vyasadeva there is no fourth option. if you feel a fourth option is needed i suggest you make a new poll. the poll was based on the ARTICLE. not MY views. thats why i LISTED the article and suggested that one READS the article and answers the poll.......or one answers the poll and READS the article. you telling me what you would have checked is not relevent to the thread.
please READ the article (im assuming you havent).
:h:
please READ the article (im assuming you havent).
:h:
so that would mean that "god" is not concerned with his own creation.....his own extension.....
im sure if you ask a jew or christian if YHWH is concerned with israel they will tell you yes. if you ask a muslim is allah is concerned about mecca and jerusalem they will tell you yes.
by the way i dont want to turn this into a religious debate on who's god is real, god is transcending etc etc etc. we had a thread for that ("is religion the source of humanity)" so i suggest that you keep things that are NOT relevent to the options provided or to THIS thread to a minimum.
thanx
:h:
im sure if you ask a jew or christian if YHWH is concerned with israel they will tell you yes. if you ask a muslim is allah is concerned about mecca and jerusalem they will tell you yes.
by the way i dont want to turn this into a religious debate on who's god is real, god is transcending etc etc etc. we had a thread for that ("is religion the source of humanity)" so i suggest that you keep things that are NOT relevent to the options provided or to THIS thread to a minimum.
thanx
:h:
I read the article, and I read the list of options. I disagree with alot of the article, and there was no option which I agreed with.
I am not telling you to make a fourth option, and there is no need for a new poll. I simply stated that IF there was a fourth option which said that God exists but is not concerned with taking sides in our fights over the land we occupy, I would have chosen it.
I did read it. And while I disagree with some of the assertions the writer made, he did bring up good points about what exactly is *MEANT* by the religious phrases used by Bush, Reagan, etc.
I am not telling you to make a fourth option, and there is no need for a new poll. I simply stated that IF there was a fourth option which said that God exists but is not concerned with taking sides in our fights over the land we occupy, I would have chosen it.
I did read it. And while I disagree with some of the assertions the writer made, he did bring up good points about what exactly is *MEANT* by the religious phrases used by Bush, Reagan, etc.
ALL THE WORLD is His creation. The entire UNIVERSE is His creation. So no, he is not concerned with "this" part of His creation, and He is not concerned with "that" part of His creation. He is concerned with the whole thing.
Yes, and Krsna is also concerned with Vrndavana. I am not saying that God is not concerned with the land, I am saying that *HE* does not take "sides" in our petty squabbles OVER His land.
Agreed, I am not interested in a religious debate. However, the question was "Is God on the side of America", and my opinion is that God is not taking ANYONE'S side in our conflicts. He transcends all our motivations.
I apologize if the expression of a viewpoint which differs from the narrow options you presented is offensive to you. Your resistance to hearing any views which do not fall into the options presented is surely your prerogative, but it reminds me of the question "Does your mother know you are gay?"
That is a loaded question, just as your poll is loaded. The way you set it up is that one must either agree or disagree with a certain position, with no option to disagree with the premise itself.
I do not mean to derail the thread, I simply wished to express a different view, one which was not represented in your poll options.
Peace.
Yes, and Krsna is also concerned with Vrndavana. I am not saying that God is not concerned with the land, I am saying that *HE* does not take "sides" in our petty squabbles OVER His land.
Agreed, I am not interested in a religious debate. However, the question was "Is God on the side of America", and my opinion is that God is not taking ANYONE'S side in our conflicts. He transcends all our motivations.
I apologize if the expression of a viewpoint which differs from the narrow options you presented is offensive to you. Your resistance to hearing any views which do not fall into the options presented is surely your prerogative, but it reminds me of the question "Does your mother know you are gay?"
That is a loaded question, just as your poll is loaded. The way you set it up is that one must either agree or disagree with a certain position, with no option to disagree with the premise itself.
I do not mean to derail the thread, I simply wished to express a different view, one which was not represented in your poll options.
Peace.
i understand this but the choices were limited based on the article. as i stated before the article dealt with AMERICA the poll was based on that article. it has nothing to do with god being on the side of china, israel,canada or zaire. if you dont agree with anything that is your god given right.
if god exists why would he
a.) NOT be concerned with the land HE created (further extension of himself)?
b.) NOT be concerned with the land that his OTHER creation (mankind,animals plants etc etc etc) inhabited?
according to the bible the god YHWH is VERY concerned with specific people and specific areas of land. from jerusalem to magog he has shown concern.
according to the qu'ran the god ALLAH is VERY concerned with specific people and specific areas of land. especially mecca.
by the way i havent voted yet. im waiting for more replies but so far the second choice is in the lead.
:h:
a.) NOT be concerned with the land HE created (further extension of himself)?
b.) NOT be concerned with the land that his OTHER creation (mankind,animals plants etc etc etc) inhabited?
according to the bible the god YHWH is VERY concerned with specific people and specific areas of land. from jerusalem to magog he has shown concern.
according to the qu'ran the god ALLAH is VERY concerned with specific people and specific areas of land. especially mecca.
by the way i havent voted yet. im waiting for more replies but so far the second choice is in the lead.
:h:
What I am saying is that God is indifferent to all different pieces of land because ALL LAND exists within Him. God loves you the same whether you are standing in Israel or Afghanistan or India.
To say that God favors one piece of the land over another is anthropomorphization of Him. It is saying that God is like man, that He is a person who makes distinctions between "this" and "that".
God is the *combination* of "this" and "that", therefore there is no separation between God and every piece of land in existence. It is only man who experiences separation and favoritism.
And if I HAD to choose between the 2 options, I would go with the second one as well.
To say that God favors one piece of the land over another is anthropomorphization of Him. It is saying that God is like man, that He is a person who makes distinctions between "this" and "that".
God is the *combination* of "this" and "that", therefore there is no separation between God and every piece of land in existence. It is only man who experiences separation and favoritism.
And if I HAD to choose between the 2 options, I would go with the second one as well.
are you saying that vallejo california is INSIDE of god?
i agree.
he does make distinctions between THIS and THAT. just read the ten commandments. ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE AND QURAN YHWH AND ALLAH *DO* HAVE HUMAN ATTRIBUTES. once again i refer you to the ten commandments.
*if* man *IS* an extension of god AND made in HIS image these traits come from HIM (god). the distinction between this and that would come from him.
what does the bible say about israel? GOD is NOT oakland california. nor will oakland california ever be god. it is an extension of god meaning he created it however oakland california does NOT have the attributes of a DIETY. why worship what is created? not true. please study judaism and islam before you make that claim.
i dont adhere to the "ALL IN" doctrine. you do.
:h:
*if* man *IS* an extension of god AND made in HIS image these traits come from HIM (god). the distinction between this and that would come from him.
what does the bible say about israel? GOD is NOT oakland california. nor will oakland california ever be god. it is an extension of god meaning he created it however oakland california does NOT have the attributes of a DIETY. why worship what is created? not true. please study judaism and islam before you make that claim.
i dont adhere to the "ALL IN" doctrine. you do.
:h:
Only in one's finite perception does God seem to favor one over another.
God's divine love is all pervading. God does not look amongst us to determine, "that man is from Israel so I'll help him more than the man from America."
Many "human attributes" given to God, especially in the bible, are just that... Given to God, by man might I add. In one's simple understanding of God, looking at world events, one see's favoritism. They acquire this to God because they CANNOT see the big picture.
God's divine love is all pervading. God does not look amongst us to determine, "that man is from Israel so I'll help him more than the man from America."
Many "human attributes" given to God, especially in the bible, are just that... Given to God, by man might I add. In one's simple understanding of God, looking at world events, one see's favoritism. They acquire this to God because they CANNOT see the big picture.
^^^ if anything is biased it would be the article. thats what the thread is based on. the article. the poll is based on the article. none of this is my opinion (i have yet to vote or state how i feel) nor does it have any connection to me.
when you speak of duality i hope you are not doing so in regards to judaism and islam. the reason they were mentioned is because the following statement was made: when one is reading the bible or the qu'ran this is proven to be a falsehood (based on those books)
i advise you to stick to topic also.
@Vyasadeva you said the following: but earlier you said this so after reading this i come to the conclusion that
a.) you have mixed (contradicting) views
OR
b.) you are implying that this "god" is simply not concerned with the "NAME" but IS concerned with the LAND.
if "b" is the case its rather irelevent to the thread. why? because the thread, poll and source article deal with a place named america. the question of a god caring about a paticular NAME isnt valid nor does it present itself in the article. i hope you understand where im goign with this. according to islam and judaism he does. no need to apologize because it isnt offensive. i would simply like for people to read the article and vote or vote and read the article. you may like arguing with a sign post. i dont. now if YOU feel what you did was offensive thats you. i would simply like to stay on point.
yeah i remember that question LOL! once again im trying to stick to a certain format (based on the article).
and you said you read the article......
and i simply wished to make a poll in based on the article. i chose the keep the poll as close to the source as possible.
please read article again.
:h:
when you speak of duality i hope you are not doing so in regards to judaism and islam. the reason they were mentioned is because the following statement was made: when one is reading the bible or the qu'ran this is proven to be a falsehood (based on those books)
i advise you to stick to topic also.
@Vyasadeva you said the following: but earlier you said this so after reading this i come to the conclusion that
a.) you have mixed (contradicting) views
OR
b.) you are implying that this "god" is simply not concerned with the "NAME" but IS concerned with the LAND.
if "b" is the case its rather irelevent to the thread. why? because the thread, poll and source article deal with a place named america. the question of a god caring about a paticular NAME isnt valid nor does it present itself in the article. i hope you understand where im goign with this. according to islam and judaism he does. no need to apologize because it isnt offensive. i would simply like for people to read the article and vote or vote and read the article. you may like arguing with a sign post. i dont. now if YOU feel what you did was offensive thats you. i would simply like to stay on point.
yeah i remember that question LOL! once again im trying to stick to a certain format (based on the article).
and you said you read the article......
and i simply wished to make a poll in based on the article. i chose the keep the poll as close to the source as possible. please read article again.
:h:
I see where you're going, and I should have been more clear in what I was trying to say.
To summarize, this is what I meant. God is in His abode, doing His thing. We are down here doing ours. God is perfect, transcendental, and impartial to all. Man is imperfect, dualistic, and HIGHLY partial.
When it comes to our conflicts, God is not concerned with WHERE the land is, or WHAT it's name is. All He is concerned with, is are we carrying forth His will or not? God is not concerned with the patch of land called "America", nor is He concerned with the patch of land called "Iraq". ALL He is concerned with, is WHAT the people of those lands are doing. Are we acting in accordance with His desires or not?
I know very well about the importance Muslims and Jews place on particular pieces of land. I understand completely because I have visited many holy lands and they are special places. If a person is in tune with the spiritual reality then they will undeniably understand the importance of such places.
Where I differ from the Jews and Muslims is that I know God sees all land equally. They think that God "favors" this land and "despises" another land. According to certain Muslims God hates America. This is dualistic thinking and anthropomorphization of God. They are making God out to be a man like them who likes and dislikes things and who is partial like they are. God does not play favorites because ALL LAND IS HIS LAND.
Although I disagree with them on this issue, they are entitled to their opinions. *I* however do not view life through that kind of materialistic vision. I know that on other planets in other galaxies, there are beings who are on lands with names I cannot pronounce, and they are worshipping God. These beings do not receive "less" love from God because they are not in "Israel" or "Mecca", just as God does not hate us because we live in "America".
I understand the view of the article, but as I said, I disagree with much of what the author said. Although he did not say that God is with or against us, the point he was making is the contradiction in GW's logic concerning God being "on our side". On one hand he presents God to be a passive onlooker, sympathetic to all our tragedies, and on the other he says that God will take action, that He "will not remain neutral".
GW's description of God is as flawed as the Muslim extremists. Since I disagree with them both, and with the author of the article, my point was just that there is a 3rd option, which is that God is not dualistic like we are, and His concerns are not correllated to pieces of land but rather the motivations of the people ON that land.
That is because they see God as anthropormorphized, they see Him as a "Super" MAN, who gets angry when we oppose Him and who is pleased when we do His will.
This is the elementary level of God-realization. They view God as a person who has desires, and when His desires are not fullfilled He becomes angry. Such people do not recognize that God's will is eternally fullfilled because there is NOTHING which can IMPEDE His will from being done.
No, I do not feel that I was offensive to you, but I wanted to make clear that it was not my intention. What does a sign post have to do with anything?
I understand.
I did read the article. And while the writer's viewpoint was ambiguous, the poll options you gave are dualistic. Since my opinion does not fit into any of the options, I just wanted to express a different view on the subject.
I did, and this caught my eye.
Today in Baghdad many people are cheering Columbia's destruction. "God wants to show that his might is greater than the Americans," Abdul Jabbar al-Quraishi, an Iraqi government employee, told Reuters. That statement is certainly false and despicable.
Notice that the statement is called "false and despicable" by the writer. Unfortunately, the underlying sentiment of the statement is ACCURATE. God's might *IS* greater than Americans. His might is greater than any living being in all existence.
Here is the rub: God is not "wanting to show that His might is greater than the Americans". The superiority of His will is simply the fact of the matter.
God is not sitting up High waiting for us "Americans" to fly around, rubbing his hands together in anticipation of striking us down. That is simply the delusion of a person who views God as a dualistic person. Similarly, God does not approve of the behavior of Muslim extremists just because they happen to reside in a particular area.
To summarize, this is what I meant. God is in His abode, doing His thing. We are down here doing ours. God is perfect, transcendental, and impartial to all. Man is imperfect, dualistic, and HIGHLY partial.
When it comes to our conflicts, God is not concerned with WHERE the land is, or WHAT it's name is. All He is concerned with, is are we carrying forth His will or not? God is not concerned with the patch of land called "America", nor is He concerned with the patch of land called "Iraq". ALL He is concerned with, is WHAT the people of those lands are doing. Are we acting in accordance with His desires or not?
I know very well about the importance Muslims and Jews place on particular pieces of land. I understand completely because I have visited many holy lands and they are special places. If a person is in tune with the spiritual reality then they will undeniably understand the importance of such places.
Where I differ from the Jews and Muslims is that I know God sees all land equally. They think that God "favors" this land and "despises" another land. According to certain Muslims God hates America. This is dualistic thinking and anthropomorphization of God. They are making God out to be a man like them who likes and dislikes things and who is partial like they are. God does not play favorites because ALL LAND IS HIS LAND.
Although I disagree with them on this issue, they are entitled to their opinions. *I* however do not view life through that kind of materialistic vision. I know that on other planets in other galaxies, there are beings who are on lands with names I cannot pronounce, and they are worshipping God. These beings do not receive "less" love from God because they are not in "Israel" or "Mecca", just as God does not hate us because we live in "America".
I understand the view of the article, but as I said, I disagree with much of what the author said. Although he did not say that God is with or against us, the point he was making is the contradiction in GW's logic concerning God being "on our side". On one hand he presents God to be a passive onlooker, sympathetic to all our tragedies, and on the other he says that God will take action, that He "will not remain neutral".
GW's description of God is as flawed as the Muslim extremists. Since I disagree with them both, and with the author of the article, my point was just that there is a 3rd option, which is that God is not dualistic like we are, and His concerns are not correllated to pieces of land but rather the motivations of the people ON that land.
That is because they see God as anthropormorphized, they see Him as a "Super" MAN, who gets angry when we oppose Him and who is pleased when we do His will.
This is the elementary level of God-realization. They view God as a person who has desires, and when His desires are not fullfilled He becomes angry. Such people do not recognize that God's will is eternally fullfilled because there is NOTHING which can IMPEDE His will from being done.
No, I do not feel that I was offensive to you, but I wanted to make clear that it was not my intention. What does a sign post have to do with anything?
I understand.
I did read the article. And while the writer's viewpoint was ambiguous, the poll options you gave are dualistic. Since my opinion does not fit into any of the options, I just wanted to express a different view on the subject.
I did, and this caught my eye.
Today in Baghdad many people are cheering Columbia's destruction. "God wants to show that his might is greater than the Americans," Abdul Jabbar al-Quraishi, an Iraqi government employee, told Reuters. That statement is certainly false and despicable.
Notice that the statement is called "false and despicable" by the writer. Unfortunately, the underlying sentiment of the statement is ACCURATE. God's might *IS* greater than Americans. His might is greater than any living being in all existence.
Here is the rub: God is not "wanting to show that His might is greater than the Americans". The superiority of His will is simply the fact of the matter.
God is not sitting up High waiting for us "Americans" to fly around, rubbing his hands together in anticipation of striking us down. That is simply the delusion of a person who views God as a dualistic person. Similarly, God does not approve of the behavior of Muslim extremists just because they happen to reside in a particular area.
im gonna keep this short
once again its based on the ARTICLE.
1.where are these beings and planets?
2.have you been to these planets and talked to these beings?
3.have scientist identified these planets and beings?
which is why i suggested you make another poll.
as i said before i saw no need for a 4th poll. we are dealing with america and god being on the side of america. not france,england,russia, rio or turkey. if one does not believe in a god that option is provided. other nations/places of land etc etc etc are not relevent.
its very simple. the article itself should be considered dualistic.
:H:
2.have you been to these planets and talked to these beings?
3.have scientist identified these planets and beings?
which is why i suggested you make another poll.
as i said before i saw no need for a 4th poll. we are dealing with america and god being on the side of america. not france,england,russia, rio or turkey. if one does not believe in a god that option is provided. other nations/places of land etc etc etc are not relevent.
its very simple. the article itself should be considered dualistic.
:H:
