Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

In reply to the discussion: Concepts of God and Religion [View all]

SarahM32

(270 posts)
84. False assumptions and accusations were predicted, and are according to prophecies.
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:42 PM
Feb 2013

Last edited Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:47 PM - Edit history (1)

All the uproar, confrontation, assumptions and accusations that we've seen on this thread were predictable in a forum infiltrated by those who come here to scoff and sneer at religion and God, not to rationally and reasonably discuss it.

But they are particularly opposed to the article cited on the OP, Concepts of God and Religion, and The Nature of God, because that article is part of a comprehensive message purported to be divinely inspired and declaring prophetic prerogative and divine mandate.

It's no surprise and no wonder, then, that most people question it, and many criticize it, reject it, dismiss it, and deny that is reveals the truth, that it is the "apocalypsis eschaton," the "revelation at the end of the age" that fulfills world prophecies.

Therefore, I expect people to have questions, concerns and even criticism. However, on this thread the critical comments have been shockingly void of legitimate, honest or reasonable critiques of the article in the OP, or of the overall message of which it is a part. Most of the criticism is based on false assumptions that are erroneous, unwarranted and unfounded, and some of the criticisms are just false claims and accusations.

It is probably no coincidence that the criticism of Atheists here is similar, not in content but in attitude and tone, to the criticism of the message whenever it has been promoted or advocated on forums inhabited by right-wing fundamentalist Christian Dominionists, who also hate it. In fact, hypocritical “religious” Theocrats of every stripe hate it just as Atheists hate it, because it expresses a world view that exposes the error of their divisive, antagonistic beliefs.

The Atheist critics on this thread may not always be so bad. I've noticed that on some other threads they are more reasonable. But the more I have stood up to them the more they have become like intellectual bullies, so desperate to try to silence me that they persist in their false assumptions and false accusations even though I have proven them to be wrong. Facts and words of truth do not deter them. They simply ignore them, or misinterpret them or twist them, in rather frenzied blind opposition.

The most persistent false assumption and false accusation is that the author of the message I promote seeks to recruit members to a “cult.” But, as I have repeatedly shown, that is utterly ridiculous to anyone who has read and understands the message.

The very idea of a cult is totally ridiculous if you consider these following questions:

What if I were the Webmaster of the All Faiths Coalition for Peace, Freedom and Justice (AFCPFJ) site? What if I were the only person promoting it, under different user names? And what if the message is designed to BUILD an All Faiths Coalition for Peace, Freedom and Justice, and there IS NO Coalition yet?

That makes the false accusation of it being a cult pretty ridiculous, doesn’t it?

I’m not saying that’s the case, though, because as is stated on the site, it was created to preserve, edit and update message highlights that had been on the author’s own site, which was shut down on December 21, 2011. And even though I could be the person who launched the site to preserve the author’s message, I may merely be an individual who has recognized the truth in the message, studied it very thoroughly, and promotes it because I recognize its potential.

In the final analysis, though, it doesn’t matter. Such concern is irrelevant. The message is not about establishing a “leader” in person, and it’s not about favoring one religion over others, or about creating a new religion or a new religious sect.

The original Coalition site makes that clear as well. It was originally called The Coalition of Jews, Christians and Muslims for Peace (CJCMP) before the author shut down his own site, and after that it was called The All Faiths Coalition for Peace, Freedom and Justice, which opened the new messenger dot cjcmp site.

The original Coalition site says:

The Spirit of truth comes not to condemn, but to educate; not to punish, but to correct; and not to destroy, but to save.

To put an end to the conflict and division, we must face two crucial facts: 1) What passes for democracy in this world is not producing truly representative government, but instead produces conflict and division; and 2) Freedom of religion means that all religions must be regarded as equal by our governments.


Even the simple title and lead paragraphs in the header of the messenger and message site shows what its about.

One World, One Family of United Nations, Races and Religions
A Creative View of the Future Through the Lens of History, Universal Prophecies and Reason

This message serves the Spirit of truth by promoting the general welfare; religious tolerance; peace; freedom and justice; and showing a way for the people to take the ultimate peaceful political action to liberate, empower and unite our selves, once and for all, so that our governments will be of, by and for the people and use the common wealth for the common good, in accordance with universal world prophecies and Divine Providence.


Atheists don’t like it, though, because the header also includes the following paragraph:

In order for the generous, humble, kind, peaceful and meek majority of human beings to inherit the earth, a righteous judgment must intercede on their behalf. This message provides that judgment according to prophetic prerogative and divine mandate, and it exposes and corrects those who have caused the problems and live in extravagant luxury at our expense while we, the people, are denied our divine inheritance and birthright.


Most people, whether they are religious or not, have rejected that premise. They think it is audacious and absurd for anyone to declare “prophetic prerogative and divine mandate.” And that’s why the message is still rejected by the messenger’s generation.

That was predictable, and it was predicted.

"The days will come when people will want to see one of the days of the son of man, and they shall not see it. So they will look here and there, but do not follow them. For as the lightning lightens all parts under heaven, so shall also the [work of the] son of man be in his day. But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected by his generation." – Jesus, according to Luke 17:20-25

Jesus was not speaking of himself in that instance, because Jesus suffered only on the last day of his life, not first or beforehand, but only after he had completed his mission. Furthermore, Jesus was accepted by multitudes of Jews, Greeks and others in his generation. (And by the way, the "lightning" refers to electronic communications on the Internet.)

The fact, believe it or not, is that God has sent a man to deliver a righteous judgment to intercede on behalf of the humble, gentle, kind, generous, peaceful and “meek” people of the world, and especially the poor and the working poor, by exposing and rebuking the religious and political leadership of the world and all others who think that their wealth or religion or nationality or race entitles them to rule.
.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Concepts of God and Religion [View all] SarahM32 Feb 2013 OP
Insulting and pathetic. trotsky Feb 2013 #1
I like most of this. Do you have some sources for the Einstein quotes? patrice Feb 2013 #2
Not for those, but I know a good one. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #7
I have tried to say the same thing WAAAAY less elegantly, and with way more words, here on DU. patrice Feb 2013 #9
You're welcome. And thank you! SarahM32 Feb 2013 #10
And what exactly do rationalists skepticscott Feb 2013 #13
I don't feel a need to prove anything to you. I'm tired & need to go look for work so here's a riff: patrice Feb 2013 #14
In other words skepticscott Feb 2013 #15
No, it's a general observation of the state of discourse on the topic, not an analysis, and words patrice Feb 2013 #16
Well said. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #32
Thank you, SarahM32, it's not easy sticking my head up like this and at least trying to do patrice Feb 2013 #35
When you get the OP skepticscott Feb 2013 #46
Agree about how one decides what's, more or less, true. But it's not my job to "get" OP or you patrice Feb 2013 #48
If it's not "your job" skepticscott Feb 2013 #49
CHOOSE that or don't. Let others do the same. None of that means anyone should not stand patrice Feb 2013 #51
I've posted many times here skepticscott Feb 2013 #52
Here's a source for, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Jim__ Feb 2013 #11
Thank you very much for that, Jim, I especially like this: patrice Feb 2013 #12
interesting read madrchsod Feb 2013 #3
Thank you. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #8
Well, it would help if the site had the correct translation of the Tetragamaton intaglio Feb 2013 #4
Word Salad. mr blur Feb 2013 #5
It's "Joseph Adamson" - what can you expect? muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #6
Really? SarahM32 Feb 2013 #17
"the realization of the divine reality" trotsky Feb 2013 #18
No. That's your assumption, and it couldn't be more wrong. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #19
The author is a fundie. trotsky Feb 2013 #20
No, the author is not a fundamentalist. The message makes that abundantly clear. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #21
Yeah, he is. trotsky Feb 2013 #22
Again, I should correct you. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #23
So how is saying skepticscott Feb 2013 #24
Well you'd like to, but you can't, because the facts are on my side. trotsky Feb 2013 #25
i don't think he's a fundie. Phillip McCleod Feb 2013 #27
Not a fundie, nor a cult leader. Quite the opposite. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #29
Oh, like a...Pope? mr blur Feb 2013 #61
"...to empower them so that they may truly be free and independent." trotsky Feb 2013 #67
Do you subscribe to his "teachings"? cleanhippie Feb 2013 #78
Here's some questions for you. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #94
Allow me to try again, perhaps I wasn't clear. cleanhippie Feb 2013 #96
To answer your question ... SarahM32 Feb 2013 #99
Ok. Good luck. cleanhippie Feb 2013 #105
You mean skepticscott Feb 2013 #108
"not the god of Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham and other fundamentalists, but the real God..." mr blur Feb 2013 #60
God SarahM32 Feb 2013 #100
This is just even more feel-good, meaningless Woo-drivel! mr blur Feb 2013 #115
I hate posts like this that get basic facts wrong or make erroneous assumptions... Humanist_Activist Feb 2013 #26
yeah the guy seems like an other-ways-of-know-it-all Phillip McCleod Feb 2013 #28
Well, you're right a couple of things, but as for the rest ... SarahM32 Feb 2013 #30
You said... Meshuga Feb 2013 #38
Okay. I'll do that. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #40
Again, it's all about connecting the dots closely and not unlike... Meshuga Feb 2013 #56
It's easy. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #101
I am not sure how to respond Meshuga Feb 2013 #107
Considering the anachronistic nature of so many religious texts, to think prophecy... Humanist_Activist Feb 2013 #57
Not again ... intaglio Feb 2013 #31
Not again. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #33
OK, so what is "Truth"? intaglio Feb 2013 #34
Hmmm ... Well, okay. I'll answer that. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #36
Please read what you have written intaglio Feb 2013 #37
Bravo! cleanhippie Feb 2013 #39
Truth is in the eye of the beholder. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #41
What is truth? Now you pretend that truth is relative to the observer intaglio Feb 2013 #42
Oh my. I am amazed. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #43
Yeppers, now we're back to the skepticscott Feb 2013 #44
Yes you do have to define "a truth" if you are going to spout about it intaglio Feb 2013 #47
Now that's funny. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #54
Just curious skepticscott Feb 2013 #64
"It's the man who fulfills prophecies by declaring it" mr blur Feb 2013 #63
double that..+100 skepticscott Feb 2013 #45
Nice thread, All! Bookmarking & I promise to explore later. MUST get on the treadmill now & patrice Feb 2013 #50
In response to the critics and skeptics: SarahM32 Feb 2013 #53
Let's look at the evidence intaglio Feb 2013 #55
Well done skepticscott Feb 2013 #58
Brilliant post. trotsky Feb 2013 #66
That's not "evidence." Let's look at Intaglio's deception. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #69
The way you keep repeating the phrase skepticscott Feb 2013 #59
You could go on Oprah! mr blur Feb 2013 #62
In response to the critics and skeptics, part 2 SarahM32 Feb 2013 #65
I counted 11 uses skepticscott Feb 2013 #68
You don't understand my motivation. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #70
"How can an All Faiths Coalition be a cult?" How can a Unification Church be a cult? (nt) muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #76
Thanks, beat me to it skepticscott Feb 2013 #82
"As the messenger says, it's the message that's important, not the messenger." cleanhippie Feb 2013 #80
You deceiver, I do not even think you are a self deceiver intaglio Feb 2013 #71
Here we go again. Okay, if you insist on putting us both through this ... SarahM32 Feb 2013 #77
Sorry, the world does not revolve round you and your petty cult intaglio Feb 2013 #83
Just a couple of points ... SarahM32 Feb 2013 #85
Why not call your cult "The Redefinition Project"? intaglio Feb 2013 #89
To correct you (Intaglio) about Proverbs and Isaiah SarahM32 Feb 2013 #97
More deceit intaglio Feb 2013 #104
I'm not going to let you get away with that. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #109
Not one fragment of text or archaeloogy supports the existence of Solomon intaglio Feb 2013 #112
To answer your question ... SarahM32 Feb 2013 #116
I made no claims about the Messianic prophecies intaglio Feb 2013 #122
And I answered your question. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #128
You provided a content free generalisation intaglio Feb 2013 #132
I'm sorry your fundie cult isn't taking off like you had hoped. trotsky Feb 2013 #72
Very insightful, indeed nonoyes Feb 2013 #73
There you go again. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #74
Yup, there I go again... trotsky Feb 2013 #75
With absolutely nothing to back it up. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #79
Nothing but that, and of course your incessant referral to "the message." Yes, cultish, indeed. cleanhippie Feb 2013 #81
False assumptions and accusations were predicted, and are according to prophecies. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #84
Wow, I was wrong skepticscott Feb 2013 #86
So ,the dude you're following is the current Son of Man? Adsos Letter Feb 2013 #87
I follow no man, but the son of man is the author of the message I promote. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #88
Your prophet is a man intaglio Feb 2013 #90
You fail to understand the author's mission. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #91
You fail to understand the nature of cults intaglio Feb 2013 #92
You didn't answer my questions. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #93
They are his "suggestions" intaglio Feb 2013 #95
Here we go again. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #98
More lies intaglio Feb 2013 #111
Well, we'll see about that. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #117
Your errors are laughable intaglio Feb 2013 #123
You would think so, but it's not so. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #129
No, most people would call what you emit "sophistry" which defined is intaglio Feb 2013 #134
Perhaps this will help. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #136
And you call me blind? intaglio Feb 2013 #138
Jesus saw the internet coming? And you know this, how? mr blur Feb 2013 #124
Good grief. gcomeau Feb 2013 #102
That's an understandable reaction. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #103
Actually... gcomeau Feb 2013 #106
Whatever floats your boat. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #110
It's not experiences that people find themselves skepticscott Feb 2013 #114
Not even that, it's like the sort of stuff L Ron Hubbard manufactured intaglio Feb 2013 #113
No, it's not. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #118
How can something that calls itself a "Church" skepticscott Feb 2013 #119
No, that's not accurate. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #120
You mean like skepticscott Feb 2013 #121
The definition of a cult proves my case. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #125
Too funny skepticscott Feb 2013 #127
So, you just ignore the facts? Okay, but at least say you ignored them. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #130
Except that you offered no "facts" skepticscott Feb 2013 #135
The definition of cult proves our case intaglio Feb 2013 #139
Your goal (and Adamson's) is/was to post his message, everywhere, right? Blue4Texas Feb 2013 #126
No. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #131
Not to post his message but to spread the word about his message - ok Blue4Texas Feb 2013 #133
To answer your question ... SarahM32 Feb 2013 #137
You have had valid and legitimate criticism intaglio Feb 2013 #140
MY FINAL RESPONSE ADDRESSING CRITICISM AND SKEPTICISM SarahM32 Feb 2013 #141
Promises, promises skepticscott Feb 2013 #142
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Concepts of God and Relig...»Reply #84