Do Christians have Stockholm syndrome where one loves his abuser?
Do Christians have Stockholm syndrome where one loves his abuser?
I will not pull my punches on this issue. Christians know that we Gnostic Christians think that their genocidal and infanticidal God is one vile satanic piece of work. Gnostic Christians call evil evil while Christians call evil good. Muslims, who idol worship the same God, do the same thing and suffer from the same condition.
That is why Gnostic Christians call Yahweh a demiurge when discussing our myths. Myths that we do not foolishly read literally the way foolish Christians read theirs.
If these actors were real, they would be showing you how Gnostic Christians think.
https://vimeo.com/7038401
Stockholm syndrome is a condition that causes hostages to develop a psychological alliance with their captors, as a survival strategy during captivity, to the point of loving and protecting their abuser from harm.
Yahweh used genocide on humanity, yet Christians forgive him and even praise him for killing when he could have just cured all. Christians also forgive Yahweh for torturing and murdering innocent babies, with the vilest incident being King David’s baby. Yahweh did the satanic thing instead of the Godly thing.
As a real instead of fictional analogy, I offer that Hitler also used genocidal ways, also tortured children. In his case the world, even some Christians, recognized his satanic ways and condemned him.
The Christian mindset of calling evil good that, Christians are demonstrating, shows that Christians either developed an immoral double moral standard, --- where they praise the genocidal attribute of God, while condemning the same attribute in a man, --- or they collectively have Stockholm syndrome. I do not see a third option.
The analogy shows that Christians adoring Yahweh is like Jews adoring Hitler. Something seems to be wrong with Christian thinking.
Which label do you apply to those who adore a genocidal entity? Good or evil?
Regards
DL
I will not pull my punches on this issue. Christians know that we Gnostic Christians think that their genocidal and infanticidal God is one vile satanic piece of work. Gnostic Christians call evil evil while Christians call evil good. Muslims, who idol worship the same God, do the same thing and suffer from the same condition.
That is why Gnostic Christians call Yahweh a demiurge when discussing our myths. Myths that we do not foolishly read literally the way foolish Christians read theirs.
If these actors were real, they would be showing you how Gnostic Christians think.
https://vimeo.com/7038401
Stockholm syndrome is a condition that causes hostages to develop a psychological alliance with their captors, as a survival strategy during captivity, to the point of loving and protecting their abuser from harm.
Yahweh used genocide on humanity, yet Christians forgive him and even praise him for killing when he could have just cured all. Christians also forgive Yahweh for torturing and murdering innocent babies, with the vilest incident being King David’s baby. Yahweh did the satanic thing instead of the Godly thing.
As a real instead of fictional analogy, I offer that Hitler also used genocidal ways, also tortured children. In his case the world, even some Christians, recognized his satanic ways and condemned him.
The Christian mindset of calling evil good that, Christians are demonstrating, shows that Christians either developed an immoral double moral standard, --- where they praise the genocidal attribute of God, while condemning the same attribute in a man, --- or they collectively have Stockholm syndrome. I do not see a third option.
The analogy shows that Christians adoring Yahweh is like Jews adoring Hitler. Something seems to be wrong with Christian thinking.
Which label do you apply to those who adore a genocidal entity? Good or evil?
Regards
DL
Comments (88)
There is so much in reality to fill me with wonder and amazement and a sense of profundity, that I do not need and actively discourage treating myths as anything other than myths. I am currently reading a book called [I]Reality Is Not What It Seems: The Journey To Quantum Gravity[/I] by Carlo Rovelli, and I would pick that sort of book over any religious fiction, and over [i]Harry Potter and The I Don't Give a Damn[/I].
Such as?
Regards
DL
What can be more specific and evil than mass murder?
Be specific.
Regards
DL
Are the many drowning's of babies and children In Noah's flood just plain od killing and not murder to you?
Regards
DL
Such as all of the religious nonsense. [I]All of it.[/I]
What about Sodom and Gomorrah? God specifies the number 10(why 10). If one can find 10 righteous people(I don't know if this only applies to adults/male adults) in Sodom he will spare the city.
This suggests a very strange principle if we assume there to be 9 righteous people in the city. God would punish\kill them because of association. Similarly he would spare the sinful people due to being associated by living in the city with 10 righteous people.
This seems rather odd. And just to prevent this kind of response the righteous people (Lot and family) (lets leave aside how righteous of an act it is to offer ones daughter to be raped) are saved by the angles not god. However Lot's wife turns in to a pillar of salt due to reassociating by the act of looking back.
Now I think the entire introduced concept of guilt by association is problematic. Other instances of the same principle would be original sin and the connected concepts f.e. limbo(referring to edge of hell for infant deaths)
In realty he only need to find 6, because he and his family.
Later the number was lowered to 5, so he only need to find one.
As for
As mentioned the punishment for sin is death
That is why God sent his son.
I'll say this thought, what is good and evil is different for everyone, there's not sum universal standard of them.
Quoting hachit
What exactly was the sin she committed in your view? Associating?
Quoting hachit
I agree to the first half but not to the second. Anyhow I would agree with the OP that there are quite a few dubious morals expressed in the bible. I don't think that Christianity can't acknowledge that but I think there's quit a bit of theological overhead to do so.
Anyhow I don't understand how you can claim that there is no universal standard when there seem to be universal categories (Heaven and Hell) that you fall into based on the judgment of your actions by God(in your view?). This is the case even if you assume God to be more forgiving torwards some people since they had it more difficult.
ok this is something I should make clear. In christian theology sin is defined as to disobey God.
Also when I said I was furthing my point that good and evil have no objective meaning.
She disobeyed the angle, not god.
Quoting hachit
How is changing it later justified, isn't this basically stating that god said it wrong? Did gods word change? Isn't 10 like a special number in Jewish fate?
The change also seems problematic since it supposes that the family members where actually righteous people. However from the story itself at least for his wive this case seems not well grounded. Especially in regards to the fact that the principle of righteous or guilty by association is introduced. It therefore could very easily be understood that there being saved results from being associated to a righteous person and not being righteous themselves. This however would again lead to god killing righteous people in the city which only committed the mistake of being in the city.
I am myself aware of possible escape routes a christian could take however all of them seem dodgy in nature. Reframing the picture every time but I think this itself is problematic behavior.
Quoting hachit
How can god do a final categorizing in to good and evil if those terms have no objective meaning?
The problem here is you don't know your angelology. Angles have no will of there own, that speak nothing except what God wants them to say.
Maby but I not Jewish
Well I looked at the story to remind myself. I did make two mistakes the last change is to 10 from 50. He sill only would need to find one it's just that there are more people in this family than I remembered.
And it's not God changing the number, it was Abraham and God simply agrees.
Also yes there is gulit by association but the people he need to find are in absence of that.
It is like this, you have your view of good and evil. Someone somewhere have there view of good and evil. They may not be all the same.
Now (I know all the problems with what I'm about to say) how dose God know what is good and evil? Divine command theory he decides.
By saying that good and evil have no objective meaning I'm really saying, what you call good an evil and what he calls good and evil may not always be the same.
However I should say there is a common ground
Good being it should be done
Evil being it shouldn't be done
I hope I didn't make things to confusing.
When did Yahweh torture innocent babies in the bible? The Amorites were a wicked people and Yahweh chose the jews because he knew they wouldn't listen to him and kill them outright (Jews/Israelites are known for being soft and weak). The Amorites were well known for sacrificing their children to their gods. As to why Yahweh had the Israelites kill the children of the Amorites too i could not give you a great answer other than when you grow up being raised by the people who killed/murdered your mother and father you might reject the religion of your NEW parents. That being said Yahweh for whatever reason believed the religion of Yahweh was important for eternal happiness. People who grow up in bad homes are known to resent their parents and their parent's beliefs. When these children and babies were killed they went to heaven because they were never given the chance to reject the supposed good religion of Yahweh.
So killing without cause when god can cure as well as kill, is not murder to you. This shows how your beliefs have corrupted your moral sense.
If god loved humans, as you say, he would cure instead of kill or murder. Right?
As to his not being in the presence of sin, did he turn his head when he told Satan to do evil and sins against Job's children and friends?
You might want to read Job 3;2 where god admits to being a sinner himself when he sais that Satan moved him to do harm without a just cause.
If the punishment for sin is death, the god is dead. Right?
Regards
DL
IOW, you are too uneducated to know what you are talking about.
That is why you cannot articulate examples of what you are talking about.
Regards
DL
A good point.
Regards
DL
??
If angels have no free will, how is it that Satan and, they say, a third of the angels rebelled against god?
Regards
DL
Read the story of King David's babies death by torture for 7 days before god finally murdered it.
Read of the murders of the first born of Egypt or of the drowning of all the innocent babies and children in Noah's flood.
Tell us after that reading why god kills instead of cures those he believes afflicted with evil.
We are all children of god, according to scriptures and we are to emulate god.
What would you do if you had god's power? Would you kill or would you cure. Remember that Jesus said he came to cure the afflicted and did not come for those who did not need his mentoring.
Regards
DL
I believe in a higher consciousness that created the universe, and this is what I call “God”. I cannot fathom how inanimate matter collects itself and organizes itself so that it can become self-aware without some kind of divine guidance. I have yet to hear a convincing argument how this would be possible as an accident of nature. We are all “gods” in that we are all conscious, and I believe consciousness is of a spiritual nature, being so unexplainable and mysterious. It seems to me our consciousness was purposefully created by a higher consciousness. I find this to be an abductive inference for the existence of God’s consciousness. I find it to be a better inference than that matter accidentally collected and organized itself into conscious beings.
I know the story of David's son dying after 3 or 7 days (i thought it was 3 but that is besides the point). God or Jesus allows suffering and sometimes even inflicts suffering on innocent people to show more corrupt people (David) that sin is serious. David murdered a man which is what caused this. The fact that bad things happen does not make me believe the God of the Bible is not a good God. I could go on and on about why i believe this but i'm not sure it would serve a purpose in this case.
In the case of Egypt those Egyptians were slave drivers and it says it in the story. Sometimes not being given the chance to become our parent's is God's greatest gift to us. The fact that their is evil in the world is due to us having free will. I'm not a calvinist.
You are not a Calvinist, nor are you a moral person.
That is why you do not think a god who punishes the innocent instead of the guilty, including torturing and murdering them, is evil when he obviously is.
That is also why you did not answer my last question.
Thanks for showing all here how your beliefs have corrupted your morals.
Christians are always spouting off about god giving us free will, and here you are saying that god ignoring our free will, that would not want us to be murdered or tortured, is quite ok.
Regards
DL
i disagree. Don't act like anything i said was going to change your opinion anyway. Its your god against my god. Your a gnostic and i consider myself a christian. We'll just have to see what happens after we die.
That being the case, would you like to argue for Jesus and his morals against me as I do not see Jesus as very moral at all.
Just not to blind side you, I will tell you that I particularly dislike his no divorce for women and his substitutional punishment policies.
I have more but those will either scare you away, as it does most Christians or, hopefully, you will engage. Can you take the truth?
Regards
DL
I can be moved by good apologetics but you did not provide any.
Hell, you cannot even answer straight questions.
Regards
DL
"That being the case, would you like to argue for Jesus and his morals against me as I do not see Jesus as very moral at all.
Just not to blind side you, I will tell you that I particularly dislike his no divorce for women and his substitutional punishment policies.
I have more but those will either scare you away, as it does most Christians or, hopefully, you will engage. Can you take the truth?" -Gnostic Christian Bishop
Please enlighten us because the Bible according to you is complete crap. Do you have a website so that i can learn all about Gnostism?
"I can be moved by good apologetics but you did not provide any.
Hell, you cannot even answer straight questions.
Regards
DL " -Gnostic Christian Bishop"
That might be true it might not be true. I've got stuff to do. Get angry Don't get angry i really don't care.
This was way more moral than his local contemporaries.
About the angels
will of there own and no free will are different. In fact the one thing that separates an angel from a demon is the free will. Angles surrender to Gods will thus having no will of there own
Of course it has, all our morals are corrupt by are belive for ""good" or "evil",
Secondly all I'm saying is there's a difference between murder and killing. All murder is killing but not all killing is murder. The one qualifying thing that makes a killing murder is hate, a solders arn't murders because they hold nothing against the enemy. (Note there are times it is murder but it was because hate was involved).
I have no clue what your talking about, in the verse you quote literally it says "he said: " an the verse before it is So the "He" is clear Job.
Also God has many ways to communicate, we don't know how they communicated.
As I said "In christian theology sin is defined as to disobey God. "
He keeps his promises or as far as we know the promises are left open ended (so room for doubt but not broken).
So out side of that it is a little hard to disobey yourself.
I am here for any questions.
The bible is quite a value to me, but not the way you read it.
I keep a bible in the house even though I think this quote quite correct.
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
? Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
Then again, I am a Gnostic Christian and know how to read the filth in it.
Said of Gnostic Christian versus Christian bible reading practices.
“Both read the Bible day and night; but you read black where I read white.”
William Blake.
I would take this further and advise you to read any scriptures from as many POV as is within you. Question everything including yourself.
The bible, if read as a book of wisdom, does have much wisdom though.
You just have to read it the way Gnostics do and revers a lot of the Christian morals.
Christians call evil good while Gnostic Christians call evil, evil.
I E. Gnostic Christians think that bible God, the demiurge to us, is quite immoral for thinking that torturing King David's baby for 6 days before finally killing it is good justice. Gnostic Christians think that evil while Christians think that a good form of justice.
Which group do you think is right?
Regards
DL
I Know.
You do not live by the Golden Rule or follow the moral dictates of Christianity.
Regards
DL
Not really as it goes against natural law, which says the fittest will inherit the earth.
Did you have your children, an assumption I make that you have some, to have them be the fittest or the meekest?
Further, the Golden Rule was around for thousands of years before Jesus was even born.
Regards
DL
If you ask me, the world could use more gentleness. It goes well with living in a community. I would rather my boys be gentle than brutal and unkind. Then they will have a better chance of finding a caring and empathetic wife. These are characteristics that society could use more of, in my view.
That said, I haven’t exactly lived up to my ideals. I’m a product of my environment, which is to say, a brutal society.
Try your idiocy on the young and stupid with both your distortion of meaning here and in god killing or murdering.
Quoting hachit
Thanks for admitting to having corrupt morals, but don't try to put that condition on all of us, especially me. Morals are my specialty.
Quoting hachit
Not to the dead one.
Quoting hachit
My bad. The content should have given you a hint that I chose the wrong verse.
Job 2; 3 And the LORD said unto Satan: 'Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a whole-hearted and an upright man, one that feareth God, and shunneth evil? and he still holdeth fast his integrity, although thou didst move Me against him, to destroy him without cause.'
If god cannot abide or be around sin, he sure shows the opposite and you should really stop trying to speak for god, with lies.
Quoting hachit
In other words, you are saying you are a liar and do not know how god communicates.
Quoting hachit
That is another lie. It is defined as missing the mark.
If all you are going to do is lie and B.S. to me, best to ignore me.
That or keep going so that I can make people se3e the lying fool you are.
Regards
DL
I didn’t get that impression from the way you speak to hachit, who doesn’t seem to have a mean bone in his body.
The gentlest is not the fittest.
You want a loving child. So do I.
Love is our default setting, in terms of evolution, when we are children and babies.
Try to recognize that our love biases, when we create them, automatically form a hate biases against anything that would jeopardize that which is loved.
We, as we get older and find a need for resources, compete for them and the most gentle tend to lose at competitions. How then do you see a way for the gentle to inherit the earth when it is the rich and non-gentle who are inheriting most of the resources on earth?
Regards
DL
Accept my invite to debate morals and see what you think.
I know how I am, an how I think I have to be to deal with belligerent and obtuse religious posters with poor moral as shown by our homophobic ands misogynous friend.
I use tough love when I have to if I am to continue living by the Golden Rule as well as this quote.
Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.
Regards
DL
Have you ever had a job? It’s mostly cooperation with little competition. Living in a community takes WAY more cooperation than competition.
It is the rich and non-gentle who are the most destructive. That doesn’t bode well for the future of humanity, seeing as how they also have the power.
Take “the meek shall inherit the earth” to be a normative statement instead of a descriptive statement. That’s how it should be read.
Once your gain it, sure, but you competed against other in the company for advancement. Right?
Have you ever gotten a job without competing --- somehow --- for it?
Not G D likely.
You and I are animals first and foremost and subject to evolution just as all animals are.
Regards
DL
Once you’re in a role you have to cooperate, otherwise the company won’t function. You’re not so much competing for advancement as applying for a position. The applicants have to cooperate with the hirer and with the rules and regulations of the company in order to be considered. It is usually not the unkind and brutal who advance in a company. The person who brings value to the company through working well within the company (cooperation) gets to advance. Although there are some industrial psychopaths who advance, but they tend to harm the company’s well-being.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
We are social animals living in communities. We’re not lone tigers in the jungle.
That is irrelevant to our evolution.
You are only looking at half the situation and ignoring the other half.
Sure you cooperate with your fellow employees, but you are also competing against your peers so the boss will notice you and advance you before the others.
If you are that (not quite honest) or just looking at the one aspect going on as you work away, it is no wonder you are staying away from moral discussions.
This might help you open your narrow thinking. What I wish to show particularly is in the first few minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T64_El2s7FU
Regards
DL
I probably should ignore you, because it is so obvious to me you are treating me like a straw man. (The straw man fallacy). It clear to me because you don't pay any attention to my word choice, wich I am very careful about.
If you think this is pointless stop reading here. Because I have never told a lie, you simply rote me off by now.
You asked the following
All are morals come from somewhere is all I'm saying. Who is to say wich is right? Nether of us.
Ok let's assume heaven exists for a moment, let's also assume that your 100% guaranteed to go there. What is the point of preserving life beond
1. Saving others
2. Improvement
Now let's say you aren't going to go to heaven. Well living is simply delaying the inevitable, but I could see why it would be a big deal then.
Yes I knew. I was just unsure on the how.
No, I'm saying God has many ways to communicate directly or indirectly (because of the sin thing). There is no way we know how God communicated with saten.
Use my prifrased version, here it the actual one if you looked it up yourself.
"an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.'
The Greek word translated as ‘meek’ does not have the same meaning as the word commonly in use today. What praos means is more along the lines of self-control: a balance between capacity and application. One who is meek is aware of their own strength and capability, but does not need to use it simply because they can. They choose cooperation over coercion, and see a fulfilment of their own potential in helping others to fulfill theirs, rather than in some false ideal of absolute power, independence and accolade.
‘Inheriting the earth’ is also not the same as seizing its resources. The rich and non-gentle will only succeed in destroying the earth - all they will inherit is a wasteland. The meek at least have the opportunity to inherit a rich and resourceful universe by working together - perhaps once all the rich and non-gentle have destroyed each other...
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
You and I are animals, yes - but your evaluation of this as ‘first and foremost’ is based on a limited understanding of your own potential. If you think that we are subject to evolution, that our capacity for abstract thought, for words and actions other than those ruled by instinct serves no purpose except to follow instinct, then I can only conclude that you have shackled your own intelligence to a limited physical existence. Such a waste.
I see no chapter or verse.
The rest of what you put ignored Job 2;3 and god admitting to be an evil sinner. Why?
Regards
DL
I will go with the selection of the compilers of the bible and not yours.
Quoting Possibility
We do not see physical existence the same way. But you ignore that all you are is created by your ind which creates your consciousness and that is all that you are, unless you have gone into intellectual dissonance by belief in the supernatural.
Regards
DL
Thanks for the kudos.
To what I quoted.
No one with a decent moral sense would worship the god described in scriptures, be he the Yahweh god or the Trinity combo Jesus. The ancient standard are garbage by todays standards.
Why do you fear an imaginary construct?
Regards
DL
I will be happy to oblige after you opine on the O.P.
I need to see how you think before deciding on the best answer for you.
Regards
DL
If Gnosticism suggests that matter is bad and spirit is good, but Christianity states that there are bad spirits and that all God's creation is good, there's a contradiction. If Gnosticism suggests that God is unknowable, but Christianity suggests that each individual can have knowledge of and a relationship with God, there's a contradiction. If Gnosticism suggests the "Creator" is a lesser being and Christianity suggests the "Creator" was the "supreme being", there's a contradiction. If Gnosticism suggests there's no "sin" only "ignorance", but Christianity suggests there's "sin", there's a contradiction. If Gnosticism suggests "knowledge" leads to salvation, but Christianity suggests only "Jesus" leads to salvation, there's a contradiction.
As to Stockholm syndrome. Yes, I believe its true Abrhamic religion is significantly seminal to this mental disease. In particular, the type of Christians that have no philosophical or theological backing to their "beliefs," tend to be the type that thinks politics (and otherwise worldly, secularism) and economics can in any way inform religion without turning it evil.
Your comment seems to be intended more as offensive than offended, in a passive aggressive sort of way. I'd like to know what you think "philosophers" have been doing for the past few millennia--if one strips away their terminology. Traditionally, philosophy has been a Yahoo chat room for the children of the wealthy.
I'm still waiting for the OP to define "Gnostic Christianity" for me.
Classical philosophy is not much more refined than Yahoo Answers.
In what way, do you propose, instinct isn't indomitable? Instinct does rule, save for perhaps Buddhas, or otherwise individuals who know how to balance Dionysus with Apollo; actually, modernity, with its increasingly rigid human order lain over the only one, is pissing instinct off quite significantly. No matter if it be secular rationalism or residue of mythological systems (religion), humans construct aggregations of beliefs to help them deny death or inevitability they don't like The most advanced humans don't say death is a disease and look to promissory materialism for an answer, or think we will move to Mars (no doubt it could be a planet of war in the future if humans move there), they figure out how to make a wreath around themselves with it and contemplate death often. Convenience and comfort also stand in the way of alignment with evolution and instinct.
Look at Down syndrome. Is it a flaw of evolution? Should it be gene edited out of existence, if possible? Wouldn't this be admitting we don't like Down syndrome on some level, that humans have become obsessed with efficiency and competence over all else. Why is it for humans to decide? For those who think times are patently getting better, there's a serious ethical dilemma in these sorts of issues. Science can be elegantly savage, which is a message for all people positing it has only helped. In exclusively admitting physical evidence/data and cognitive behaviorism (calling to mind the most ridiculous images like calculable emotion, 3+2=envy), the domain of virtue or morality (belonging to idealism, or proper philosophy/reason), isn't true for scientists. There's no way of proving people with DS aren't aliens or deities behaving the way they do for some bizarre fathomless reason, same with animals. An uncanny image, yet it is so.
Same with evolution. Humans are totally subject to evolution along with all else on Earth. Eventually humanists and their technics will regret tampering with the laws of nature, of this I have little doubt. It is a question to philosophy why this species thinks it is exempt from what other species are exposed to, as though men are gods.
It's hard divining how poisoned we are still from leaded gasoline, or to know if 5G technology will worsen glioblastomas. Pollution and war, or their absence, are indexes of human ability to to either accommodate nature/instinct or ignore it (someone will think war is instinct, though actually human nature is metacognition, it being what we have other animals don't; hesitation is also human nature/instinct). There are parallels of man's destructive repetitions in his emotion, which are a long way to being addressed...avarice, envy, anger, hate, frigidity...ok, here goes since I've always seen the truth in this...gluttony, sloth, pride, and lust (if not emotion, then delusion...delusion tends to be an blanket term, though). Acute neuroses are caused by cognitive behaviorism/materialism, being derived from scientist's irrational perversion over ignoring anything without evidence (honesty needs to take a good hard look at how big of a problem this is, actually; a thread might be forthcoming). Instinct doesn't like it there are those who think the primary process resembles AI or calculation in any way. To the extent h. sapiens live in a virtual reality, they don't live in the truth.
I don't need one, it came out of the dictionary.
Because I have no clue what your talking about. What version did you read.
1. God was praising Job
2. "shuns evil."
3. Apparently in the verse satin was telling God to "incited me against him to ruin him without any reason.". Then God refuse (and yes I know he let's satin. Yes I see how you can make an argument around that).
,
The moment you exempted "Buddhas" from instinct, whatever that means, you made the rest of your monologue just a bunch of blah blah garbage most people would presume is written from a place of incompetence.
Nevermind. After looking at your other comments, it's clear you're a sadist. Good luck.
If god would have refused, then he would not have admitted to being move to do harm without a just cause.
Your twisting the words just shows your lack of reading comprehension.
Regards
DL
It is better for theists to admit they do not know if god exists instead of lying about it.
Regards
DL
Some christians believe that god greatly rewards those who are innocent and suffer for their innocence. Jesus for example is the king of the universe and is worshiped by many according to christians. Not all christians believe that heaven is equal for all christians. Jesus said that there are many mansions in his "house" and some interpret that to mean that some people are more rewarded than others for their conduct here on this earth. I know many people who do to what they believe was God's discipline (US marines are disciplined) have great character.
"That's a comforting thought, but I think God got carried away dishing out the suffering. "
i wish i could say your wrong but at this point in my life i don't have alot of evidence to try to show you otherwise.
Christian beliefs are all over the map and some are even as foolish as believing in the supernatural.
Regards
DL
Indeed, to the point of genocide and infanticide of his own son.
Regards
DL
That and you would have to scrap most of the bible to show the opposite.
What do you find endearing in a god who is infanticide and uses genocide?
What compels you to ignore those traits or see them as somehow good?
Regards
DL
This is what i said earlier and yes there are alot of Christian denominations and they are in many cases all over the map.
"Some christians believe that god greatly rewards those who are innocent and suffer for their innocence. Jesus for example is the king of the universe and is worshiped by many according to christians. Not all christians believe that heaven is equal for all christians. Jesus said that there are many mansions in his "house" and some interpret that to mean that some people are more rewarded than others for their conduct here on this earth. I know many people who do to what they believe was God's discipline (US marines are disciplined) have great character. "
I believe alot of Christians fall into my category. I could be wrong. As to the genocide, i believe a baby born into a wicked family (Amorites sacrificed there own children to their gods) is better off dying and going to heaven then being raised to be wicked himself. As you can tell its been millienia since the Christian God has advocated genocide. I felt that should be added to this conversation. Abortion is a bad thing in my opinion but there are worse things than dying early and going to heaven.
Correct me if i'm wrong but don't Gnostic's believe in the supernatural?
Sounds like it's Christianity as interpreted by an atheist with attachment issues.
No. We hold no supernatural beliefs and that may be why we venerate life while you venerate a god who takes it.
Strange that you seem to prefer a god who kills instead of a god who cures instead of killing. You might wonder why while you forgive him for using genocide instead of curing the afflicted the way Jesus said he came to do.
That god of yours sure flip flops in his morality. It is almost like two different gods instead of the trinity idiocy eh?
Regards
DL
It is a religion of esoteric ecumenists who do not hold any supernatural beliefs and who seek a god, as defined as the best rules and laws to live by.
We, like Buddhists and Karaite Jews put god below man, as he should be, given that all the gods are human inventions.
Regards
DL
So what you're effectively saying is that it isn't Christianity and fits nowhere within or alongside Christianity. So then I'm left wondering why you'd label yourself with a blatant contradiction of terms other than to troll people or to self-deprecate.
That should be obvious given that we have always branded Yahweh as a vile demiurge.
Quoting whollyrolling
Tradition, for one, and it opens the door for me to remind the uninformed, like you, that Christianity is a made up religion that began from Chrestianity that was a lot more intelligent than what Christianity became.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rAt-PAkgqls
Regards
DL
If I was uninformed then you wouldn't be "reminding" me, you'd be "informing" me. I guess this is what you do, you go look on the internet for obscure religious cults very few people know or care about, create a contradiction-of-terms-troll-nickname and "remind" us all of the existence one of likely six thousand forgotten renditions of a forgotten pagan sun god religion, which were all of course based on forgotten religions that predate them. Interesting.
Regards
DL
Bullseye! :grin:
i feel i explained my take on this in a previous post. Perhaps we can argue about the same thing some other day.
Poorly, but as you wish.
Regards
DL