“God is not Absolute”

[Pazuzu bin Hanbi]

Anything that creates has potential energy and, therefore, subject to mutability. And if mutable, then it cannot remain absolute but becomes relative. To understand Absolute Reality you must eradicate any concept of a ‘creator god’ that subsists and acts in real time. Absolute Reality, if it exists, must do so as a non agent.

Any thoughts on this?

[Voco]

Christians do believe that God is for them alone. Only through me is often quoted as their pronouncement of faith. To not know their Christ is to go to hell.

They are wrong of course but tell them that.

There are many descriptions for God. Many Bibles. All have some merit.
Some build a flat demographic shape to their philosophy with God on top and all others in one row below.
Some build a demography with Popes and saints and others forming multi levels.
At the end of all of them is one taking the position of power.

There can only be one God or most high in all religions.

God does not share power.

Regards
DL

I'm not sure I understand your statement. Christians believe that God behaves in a certain way, yes. This often includes the belief that people who do not accept Christ as a saviour will go to hell. But that doesn't mean that God "belongs" to the saved, only that he will not punish them.

I fail to see how claiming that there is a powerful being called God who is nice to people who accept his son as a savior is the same as claiming that they "own" that God. It's a hypothesis about the way the world works, and is no more owned by it's adherence than light is only for people who accept photons. Christians do not claim that God only exists for them, only that he will treat them better.

Anyway, you make a lot of claims following this. While I don't contest that there are many religious texts, on what basis do you establish that "all hae some merit?" What is meant by merit? Usefulness in overcoming obstacles? Accuracy to the real manner in which the universe operates? Divine inspiration?

Further, you claim that all religions have a single God taking the position of power. I'm not sure this is true, or if it is true, how important it is. Many ancient polytheistic religions have stories of a "leader" God, yes, but he is often not omnipotent, and is at times overthrown by his inferiors. Can this transient status of authority really be equated to an omnipotent deity? Even if it can, what does this mean?

You also claim that "God does not share Power." As with all the other claims I have to ask, upon what basis do you make this claim?

This all depends on your definition of God.

If God is to be the epitome of all things then He must be at the top of the heap. To be omni this or omni that he must be at the top.

If someone is not at the top, they cannot be God. This is our highest title.
As to merit of other Bibles; I have found wisdom in some degree in all the one‘s that I have read. I read them as works of philosophy and they as well as ordinary works of philosophy have merit.

They all provide a guide to life and action.

If power is one of God’s attributes then the greatest share has to be His. He cannot be overthrown. If He can then He does not match the definition of God.

Regards
DL

Then what has your earlier statement proven?

You claim that "at the end there can only be one God or most high in all religions"
but if you deny any counterexamples the title of God by virtue of being counter examples, of course your statement holds. But what significance does such a declaration have?

I could say that "All bananas are yellow." You might argue that some bananas are green, or brown. I could very easily respond by claiming that bananas that are not yellow don't deserve the title, and there is nothing wrong with this, but in doing so I remove any significance from my observation that all bananas are yellow.

As to the subject of Bibles, if providing a guide to life and action is the measure of merit, I question whether the religious aspect has any merit at all.

Consider a book that takes all the teachings on proper life and action of the Bible, but removed all the stories about supernatural powers and beings. Just a guide to good life, without the explanations of the power of God, his actions, or the nature of the afterlife. A simple book of moral conduct, with all the mythology stripped away.

Compare that to the Bible. Would they not have equal merit? Both provide the same guide to life and action. If so, can we not say that the religious parts of the Bible, those detailing who god is, what he's said and what he's done, have no merit at all?

teachings+myths=X merit
teachings=X merit
teachings+myths-teachings=0 merit.

[Greatest I Am]

Voco

I read all bibles as works of philosophy.
Democracy is thought to be the best political way of life yet none of it's writers including Socrates could get rid of slaves. No book of religion has either.

This indicates that all thinkers have a ways to go.

Books on religion do try to take things further and try to point to a God.

Belief in God may come with wisdom and all the books provide this in varying degrees. Some find the essence of God some do not.

Those like me who do find God have to then try to convey our (wisdom) to those who generally do not have the inclination to accept it the way it is given. They have their own vision of reality and few wish to restart their philosophy building by accepting wisdom from some new source. Too bad for them.

God is evolving along with man and some day we will all probably recognize Him as well as the purity of His philosophy.

Till others catch up with me, it continues.

Regards
DL