The true God

[johnreeves]

Look at the world around you and ask yourself if God is with us?
I don't belive in any God of this world, I am Gnostic.

[star]

Hmm, the poll is too short hun, not enough options x

[bujin]

The poll is a strange one. I think the religious wouldn't claim that their God is "of this world".

I think both of the current bottom options are true - the world is ruled by "false gods" (in the sense that in many countries, the countries are ruled by people who are religious), and of course, these people pray to the "false gods".

But calling them "false gods" implies that there must be some "true gods". I don't think there is one single good reason to claim that there are any gods of any sort.

[SoundLad]

Reason ive chosen false gods is the fact theres so many stupid relgions out theredamn i can right a book and say ive been told things from my uncontious mind... If a god existed why does he or she let so much sh** happen.. My view is goverments, relgions are put there in place to keep us from the truth... The truth being a big ? Anyway i wont go on about it as so many people have different views on the matter..

[bobdezon]

[bujin]

^^^

Good book!

[hyppydylan]

Your poll question implies a belief in a supernatural being or beings and that one of them is the True God.
People who Believe will all tell you that their God is the One True God and everyone else is worshipping false idols. This could prove confusing as all three of the main religions worship the same one by different names and all three adhere (loosely) to the laws of Moses. The main prophet/proponent of each claims direct lineage back to Abraham. The only difference is that the Christians have had their Messiah and are hanging around waiting for him to come back.

Your use of two questions with the word false suggests a belief there somewhere and your post :

Look at the world around you and ask yourself if God is with us?
I don't belive in any God of this world, I am Gnostic.

further enfoces this view.

A true Gnostic wouldn't have asked this type of question.

Definition of Gnostic

Gnosticism (from Greek gnosis, knowledge) refers to a diverse, syncretistic religious movement consisting of various belief systems generally united in the teaching that humans are divine souls trapped in a material world created by an imperfect spirit, the demiurge, who is frequently identified with the Abrahamic God. The demiurge, who is often depicted as an embodiment of evil, at other times as simply imperfect and as benevolent as its inadequacy allows, exists alongside another remote and unknowable supreme being that embodies good. In order to free oneself from the inferior material world, one needs gnosis, or esoteric spiritual knowledge available only to a learned elite. Jesus of Nazareth is identified by some (though not all) Gnostic sects as an embodiment of the supreme being who became incarnate to bring gnosis to the Earth.

Gnosticism was popular in the Mediterranean and middle eastern regions in the first centuries of the common era, but it was suppressed[citation needed] as a dualistic heresy in areas controlled by the Roman Empire when Christianity became its official religion in the fourth century. Conversion to Islam greatly reduced the remaining number of Gnostics throughout the middle ages, though a few isolated communities continue to exist to the present. Gnostic ideas became influential in the philosophies of various esoteric mystical movements of the late 19th and 20th centuries in Europe and North America, including some that explicitly identify themselves as revivals or even continuations of earlier gnostic groups.

'dylan

PS
I couldn't vote in your poll as I don't believe in any God and there wasn't a button for that

[antmania]

Except its not god who lets all the s*it happen like wars etc. We have free will to do what is right or what is wrong.

[bujin]

antmania said:

Except its not god who lets all the sh*t happen like wars etc. We have free will to do what is right or what is wrong.

And yet you get idiots like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, and now this bishop claiming that the "natural" disasters at New Orleans, the tsunami and now these floods in the UK are an act of God, giving his "judgment on society".

If people really have "free will", then surely they have the freedom to choose to be gay. Yet God doesn't want their free will to be THAT free, so he decides to kill vast numbers of people?

And not only that, saying that these disasters are God's judgment on society leads to a logical decision to make, both outcomes of which are damaging to religion:

As "imperfect" humans, we (that is, the so-called "civilised" humans) stopped carpet bombing whole cities to achieve an aim many years ago. We now use precision bombing to take out a defined target. Ok, there may well be innocents killed as "collateral damage", but there will be far fewer of them.

Now, are they saying that God, the omnipotent one up there, the "perfect" being is unable to simply strike down the gays, so he has to carpet bomb and ruin the lives of many thousands of non-gay people in order to get to the few gays? Or does God take pleasure in inflicting this damage to get his point across?

It leads to the options:
a) God is NOT omnipotent, or
b) God is sadistic, and not the loving, caring God these people claim him to be.

Which is it?

[bone]

Which is it?

Simply (a) god(/s) do not exist...

[bujin]

bone said:

Which is it?

Simply (a) god(/s) do not exist...

You know that. I know that. But you'll never get religious people acknowledging that...

They've (i.e. the bishop and people like Falwell and Robertson) painted themselves into a corner with those sort of claims.

[hyppydylan]

What has happened to the originator of this post / poll / thread?
They've posted and abandoned without taking any further part in the discussion or indicating what prompted the idea.
Just like the kid who drops a stink-bomb and runs.