People want to be their own gods. Is that good or evil? The real Original Sin, then and today, to mo
People want to be their own gods. Is that good or evil?
The real Original Sin, then and today, to most Christians, is based on this quote.
“For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil" (Gen. 3:5).
Jesus seems to have wanted this to happen, as that would make us his brethren.
Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught and that Gnostic Christians have embraced.
Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded
If Jesus wants us to know of good and evil, as a prerequisite to being born again as his brethren, it goes well with Jesus’ prediction as quoted above.
That may be why Christians sing that Adam’s sin was a happy fault and necessary to god’s plan.
I am not a literal reader of this myth, but this seems to make sense. It follows then that it makes sense for Adam to ignore Yahweh’s command not to gain an education.
Thoughts?
Regards
DL
The real Original Sin, then and today, to most Christians, is based on this quote.
“For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil" (Gen. 3:5).
Jesus seems to have wanted this to happen, as that would make us his brethren.
Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught and that Gnostic Christians have embraced.
Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded
If Jesus wants us to know of good and evil, as a prerequisite to being born again as his brethren, it goes well with Jesus’ prediction as quoted above.
That may be why Christians sing that Adam’s sin was a happy fault and necessary to god’s plan.
I am not a literal reader of this myth, but this seems to make sense. It follows then that it makes sense for Adam to ignore Yahweh’s command not to gain an education.
Thoughts?
Regards
DL
Comments (533)
I don't even understand how Adam's act of eating from the tree of good and evil was evil if he didn't know what evil even was until he ate the apple.
It is very annoying that you assert to be the speaker for
"Gnostic Christianity" when that is an idea only recently recovered from the mangled text of recorded time.
If it is the case that there are alternative ways to listen to accepted understandings of text read by many people, shouldn't you be starting there?
Nobody will care if you blow off their narratives only because you think something or the other. If you care about what some people think, then start caring.
The "eating of the Tree if Knowledge" myth is the "See spot run!" part of the Bible. Whoever invented it was an idiot.
Supposedly the god put two naive (childlike) beings into a garden and instructed them to enjoy themselves but not eat of a particular fruit.
Any three year old child could predict with CERTAINTY what would happen.
The god in the story was an idiot invented by an idiot.
You are correct in that there was no real sin in the consuming of knowledge. That is why it has been shifted to the desire to be a god.
The less astute think it was disobedience, but that fails for the same reason you put above. Adam would not know it was evil to disobey.
Yahweh thus murdered A & E unjustly.
Regards
DL
I thought I was doing just that by showing the contradiction in Christian thinking of calling Eden where we fell, --- while at the same time them saying that sin is necessary to god's plan.
As to Gnostic Christianity. It, due to it's esoteric side, predates Christianity and is demonstrably a more moral religion.
That fact is why the inquisitors where sent to annihilate us.
The winner of those god wars is the inferior religion and without collusion from governments would have disappeared along with it. stupid literal reading of myths.
Regards
DL
It's hippy-ish, sailing over the ocean in a yaght with your girlfriend - drinking a wine. (These are harsh times, what's the norm may reduce my point).
Careless about the species. Prodigal.
We, are already a unit. None of us have the ability to own the world - we can produce an illusion of a similar feat.
Through this alternative illusion, we can dream of such. Truthfully though, dreams are more potent.
Actually, the reverse is true if you reverse the Christian take of a fall to the original Jewish view of Eden being where man was elevated.
The idiot label belongs to the Christians who reversed the moral of the story. The Jewish version is quite good and elevating to the ego instead of tearing it down the way Christianity did. All while even more stupidly saying that Adam furthered god's plan.
It is what?
Quoting xyzmix
Reality belies that, given that, what, the top ten rich people own 90 odd % of the world.
All they have to do, and have done, is buy the politicians who are eager to be owned.
Regards
DL
It is evil for members of a species to go on their own anti-species pilgrimage.
A human who becomes a God is not a human.
It is an abomination, because it is literally a member of humanity, and that's logical.
To then co-exist as a God, rather than a member, IS evil.
Really?
I've got a couple of Hebrew Bibles...and they have the same story as the Christian Bibles.
Explain to me (to us) the difference as you see it.
Why, when gods are here, as Jesus pointed out, to serve humans. That is good, not evil.
As you can see, I do not define gods as supernatural and so they never give up their humanity or duty to society.
Gnostic Christian Cathars, for instance, have Parfait as their highest possible spiritual position.
The only possible gods we can have are human ones. That may be why some of the Roman Emperors named themselves gods and their children, children of god.
Regards
DL
My view is closer to the Jewish view that shows us and god coming out of Eden as successes and not the failure that Christianity put to it.
Let me let the Jews tell you.
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/20/comparative-theodicy/
‘Instead of the Fall of man (in the sense of humanity as a whole), Judaism preaches the Rise of man: and instead of Original Sin, it stresses Original Virtue, the beneficent hereditary influence of righteous ancestors upon their descendants’.
Regards
DL
The same story but not the same moral to the story.
Which moral of the story do you see?
Should Adam not have eaten and derailed god's plan?
Regards
DL
Okay...so the same story...with different interpretations.
One from a group who considers itself to be the "chosen people" of the god...and one from a group who considers itself not to be the chosen people.
I read the story...as someone who guesses it to be a fable.
And reading this fable as anything but a failure of humanity in the eyes of the god seems one hell of a stretch.
But...that's just me, a non-Christian...and the 2.5 billion Christians who happen to think that interpretation works best.
I see it as a fable...and the only "moral" conclusion I see drawn is of failure on the part of the humans to the will of the god.
Of course, the mythology includes some need for villains...so I understand what you are attempting to portray. You do feel that same way about Judas, right? He was doing what the god of the Bible (and Jesus) wanted and needed done. Correct?
Too bad the Bible didn't give us the information we need to survive on a violent planet with deadly diseases. I think science has done more to overcome evil than religion. And that Garden of Eden story is one of the worst stories ever written. If we let that story control us, we would still be in the dark ages hunting witches, instead of finding cures for disease.
As we have a world pandemic perhaps the sales of Bibles and silver crosses will go up? whoops, I forgot the holy water. We must be baptized in it to be saved.
Why would you not want to be infinite and perfect?
That assumes no other justification.
That is a good place to start. We can think concretely or abstractly. If we think concretely we interpret things literally. In this case, there are demons and they can be seen fleeing a body as this is what the Bible says. Satan and demons being real entities with the power to affect our lives.
If we think abstractly, a demon is a fear or anger. These are psychological manifestations and are not entities.
Biblical terminology can be useful when we think abstractly and harmful when we think concretely and start hunting witches or become prejudice against a group of people with the notion they are not saved and are under the influence of God's curse (dark skinned people) or Satan. I have not been able to figure out how we are to know if it is Satan troubling us or God punishing us?
They also think a genocidal and infanticidal god is a good god. Go with those immoral thinkers if you like.
You might wonder who their god really is though. This guy might make you think as it seems I could not do so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNcRXeCzpno
Regards
DL
I too see it all as myth/fable. A fairy tale for adults.
Quoting Frank Apisa
You, may not. Tell me and I will confirm or deny.
Quoting Frank Apisa
I think so. I base my view on Jesus offering a sap to Judas. A sop is kind of a bribe to your best friend to get a promise. In this case, a promise to turn Jesus over, just as Jesus wanted him to do to insure that Jesus could try to make the prophesy of a savior come true. Of course, he failed.
This view is confirmed by the story of the last supper which has all the other disciples not in any way trying to stop Judas from doing Jesus' bidding, thus also helping Jesus in his suicide to test the prophesy.
Regards
DL
We see religions the same way. Other than my own of course.
I do not see any evil in nature. To be evil, nature would need to show intent to harm. Nature only shows that it supports all life and does not care who the winners or losers are. It cannot as it is not sentient.
All evil is human to human as we are the only ones who pass the mens rea qualifier used in secular law. It is Latin for evil mind or evil intent that is primarily used in insanity cases.
We are evolving creatures that can only compete or cooperate with each other.
We default to cooperation which gives good results all around and only do evil to the losers of competitions when we choose to compete.
Survival of the fittest says we have to do one or the other.
In a sense, we are all sinners and have to be to survive.
Religions just screw up on the definition of sin.
The above is why I have no, --- problem of evil.
Be we created by a god or nature, we are all doing exactly what we were created to do.
That view explains why Jesus saw heaven right here and right now at all points in time.
Few, as he indicated, have the mentality to see it.
Regards
DL
Ah, one line of questioning that got Socrates into trouble went like this...
"Are the gods good?" The answer was yes.
"Is adultery good?" Everyone knew Zeus committed adultery and that was not considered a virtue.
So I ask does the Bible say God is a jealous, revengeful, fearsome and punishing God?
Is it good to be jealous, revengeful, fearsome and punishing, or is that the role model for an abusive husband and a terrible boss?
In another thread, there was an objection to Islam carrying the "eye for an eye" justice, but so did Judaism until Jesus. Quakers stay with the New Testament because the ideas of God and justice in old testament are not the God and justice they value. They favor Jesus as the word and God. That new way of seeing God and Justice is Hellenism. "The word" is English for logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe made manifest in the speech. As we understand it, so we manifest it. Mohammid was aware of Christianity and Judaism but did not have the culture of Hellenism, so their correction of the God's truth as the Jews understood it, was not the same as the Christian correction of God's truth as the Jews understood it.
How we interpret the Bible is a matter of concrete and abstract thinking, and also our knowledge of history.
A fascist religion would not have it any other way.
To your last.
Perfection or being the best human you can be is a decent goal.
We know that matter and energy are immortal, even as they change from one form to the other on an ongoing basis, but I cannot see our consciousness as even wanting to live forever.
To live infinitely, would be the most boring existence, I think, and would leave us all wishing we could die.
That matches the thinking of Shangri-La writers.
Regards
DL
It was gaining that knowledge which was the problem. They were then kicked out before they could eat form the tree of life and live forever like the gods.
In the Book of Enoch, 200 angels sin by having sex with human women and then teaching them and other men about secret knowledge from the heavens, such as metallurgy, what sort of roots to eat and so on. That and their kids were giants who ate up all the food and started eating humans. So then El decided to send a flood.
It's a Pandora's Box tale. Christians changed the meaning to be about original sin, the devil and rebellion.
No other justification is offered in the scriptures so it is an informed assumption.
A & E chose education over eternal life without it, even though the scribes made them unable to really choose, not knowing if they were choosing good or evil.
Do you see any other justification for Yahweh to murder A & E by neglect and willfully denying them what would have kept them alive, if they were stupid enough to choose immortality?
Regards
DL
Especially when the test for witches cannot be passed and is intended to kill all the witches that are accused.
Inquisitions and witch hunts are how Christianity grew, because they did not have persuasive moral view to convert with.
Not surprising given the fascist nature of Christianity and Islam. I exclude Judaism only because they have mostly become all atheists or agnostics. The smart ones anyway. They have been listening to their more intelligent and honest preachers longer, while Christtians and Muslims are busy believing theit lying preachers.
Regards
DL
You are why Christian men, and their brain dead women, are misogynous.
Intelligent though scares the hell out of Christian men and the women who dream of some sugar daddy to protect them.
Using logos instead of mythos would force them to be better and they want to resist that.
They fear loosing the carrot and gladly take the stick, while cursing the brave who call their immoral satanic god evil.
May we return to Goddess worship before we become a part of the major extinction event we are causing.
Regards
DL.
Yes, while ignoring that it has to all be a part of god's plan.
That plan cannot be derailed as it would show an incompetent god whose plan can be derailed by those he himself created.
Foolish thinking but that is the Christian forte that stems from dysfunctional supernatural thinking.
Regards
DL
I totally agree with you, but I think we are engaging Christians and I want to stress science has done more for us than religion in terms a religious person might grasp.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
I think Cicero would enjoy that explanation. :up:
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
I agree with that. I believe Cicero was correct to say we are compelled to do the right thing when we know what that is. In the US, liberal education, that is education based on being literate in Greek and Roman classics, promoted the idea that bad judgment is the result of ignorance. I think evil is the product of ignorance. When we understand disease is spread by polluted water, we avoid drinking the polluted water. We don't go looking for the witch or drive the Jews (Muslims) away, making a bad even worse. Ouch, :grimace: this reasoning does not appear to be the dominating reasoning of the US today. I think that is a problem of leaving moral training to the Church with a history of persecution and war.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
I strongly disagree with that. For evidence of why that idea is incorrect, I offer an explanation of "fast and slow thinking. This google page provides links https://www.google.com/search?q=fast+and+slow+thinking&rlz=1C1CHKZ_enUS481US483&oq=fast+and+slow+thinking&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l6j69i65.8577j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 I like the youtube explanations but don't know the forum policy of posting them, so I leave everyone with a choice.
Our disagreement rest on the whole notion of our understanding of being human. Wetting ourselves is natural and we learn how not to do that. We can all develop virtues that separate us from the animals, and turn us into thinking beings, not just creatures of nature.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
That is a Hellenistic notion. The Greeks wrote the first Bible and filled it with their understanding of what is so. Augustine picked up this paganism and Christianized it. That is, the Romans took control of editing the Bible and they were weak on Greek reasoning, and later Augustine who was influenced by the "pagan" thinking, brought it back into Christian consciousness. The Roman influence has the new testament telling us God wants us to honor Him by being good slaves. That is totally opposed to the old testament explaining Jews can own slaves but should not be slaves because of the relationship with God. I think the Roman influence on Christianity is problematic but that is for another thread.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Augustine explains this awareness of knowing God is within and I am confident this a matter of growing up. When we are young it seems everything important is outside of us. We are as empty cups needing to be filled. In our later years, we think of ourselves as being filled with the knowledge of life, our cup is filled, and our thinking literally changes. We shift from seeking knowledge of life through experience, to contemplating the meaning of it all.
Rome was more materialistic than the Greeks, and the White Anglo Saxons Protestants who invaded North America, were not spiritual as the native Americans were spiritual. Those are very different consciousnesses and a man of Rome or under Roman influence, should not be judging the whole of humanity.
OMG I love you! :love: Where do you come from? What lead you to that awareness? When the National Defense Education Act (1958) was enacted we replaced our liberal education modeled after Athens education for well rounded, individual growth and good moral judgment, with the German model of education for technology for military and industrial purposes and left moral training to the Church. Now Trump is our president and he is the only person we need to govern us, just as the kings of the Bible. :zip:
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Okay, you are really pushing things, :grin:
The 2012 Texas Republican Agenda was to prevent education in the higher-order thinking skills. Teachers had to take Texas to the supreme court level to put a stop to them being forced to teach creationism as equal to science and use science books that treat creationism as equal to science. Texas Republicans are responsible for the election of Eisenhower, Reagan, and Bush, and they support Trump.
Our failure to be aware of what Christians have done to our democracy and what they are trying to do, is perhaps the worst reality the world has ever faced. Germany was a very small country with very limited resources compared to the US that has adopted the German model of bureaucracy and German model of education for technology for military and industrial purposes. Does that answer the question in the title of this thread?
Engaging with Christians in the progressive left wing that uses logos is not so bad. Trying to talk sense to those who use mythos and are mostly too far gone to have an intelligent chat with.
Thanks for the great reply.
You are an example of why women should not shut up in church or told not to teach men anything.
Regards
DL
Partly.
It shows how the dumbing down of America and much of the West that has been doing on has been successful and not enough Americans want to be the fittest as most have settled for being sheeple instead of thinking people.
I hope it does not take as long to reverse that trend. I want the West to dominate, idea wise, and not a less progressive regime. I think China is kicking our rumps.
I do not think I am pushing too hard when I say Christians want a sugar daddy.
The only thing that could sell them on the notion that a genocidal and infanticidal satanic god, and his homophobic and misogynous religion can somehow be a good god, is if his rewards for them are just as extreme. That is why they are all hopping to ride their scapegoat Jesus into heaven. Sugar daddy or scapegoat Jesus. Same thing.
I think we are close in thinking though,. Mine are just testosterone influenced while your estrogen tempers your sharper edge.
Women should rule the world and not men. It would make future negotiations for the huge problems coming our world way a lot easier to find solutions to.
Regards
DL
There were a number of testimonies that got labelled as "Gnostic" by the "Church Fathers."
The orthodoxy that shut out all but one view was not concerned by the differences it dispensed with.
That suggests the matter of forming the authorized view was only concerned with putting down anything that differed from it in any way.
That explanation does not require pitting one narrative against another. The demand to have only one story wiped out the other ones as part of enabling the growth of power in a secular world.
It is urgent that we understand why Christians have again formed into a life-threatening fascist state. Nations from time to time need psychoanalysis just as humans do because stuff gets stuck in their subconscious and takes over without awareness of what is driving the train of thought and action. Surely most Christians today would not agree with Hegel about the state, while at the same time they are acting as though they completely agree with him. That is, like the Germans, they are not drawing a line between religion and government but as Hegel has argued believe their nation and the power and glory of God are one and the same thing. It is the subconscious driving the train of thought and action, we need to bring this is to conscious awareness. Some non-Christians might be surprised that they too are infected by this thought virus.
http://www.quebecoislibre.org/05/051115-11.htm
Oh dear, I am not in favor of women ruling! I am thinking of all those women who worship Trump! Talk about wanting a sugar daddy, that is exactly what these women want! I have a Christian friend who almost swoons when she speaks of what a good Father to our county Trump is.
How about the Disney movie Lion King that associates lions with the ruling class and hyenas with the mass that must be kept under control? There is no way Ben Franklin and Jefferson would be taking their family to that movie and walking out talking about its great values!
You have missed something extremely important and have no reason to be aware of what happened because you live in a different country. However, we should be aware that the US had a liberal education based on Greek and Roman classics, and with the 1958 National Education Act came to a shift away from the classics, favoring German philosophy, especially Hegel and Nietzsche. My post are too long and don't get read, so I will stop here and hope someone picks up the ball and runs with it.
I will be hugely disappointed if people in a philosophy forum do not respond.
True that it was all about power and cash and matching the hierarchical power structure of Rome.
Power in the religious world as well.
Not wanting the peasantry to have to support the lazy and lying church hierarchy was a big part of the Gnostic thinking.
Not wanting our god to be evil like Yahweh was another.
If you know of the first few popes, you will know how decadent and immoral those popes were.
They make Rasputin look like a saint.
Have you noted how Christianity today demand the freedom of religion that they murdered so many to prevent in the past?
Hypocrisy is an accurate epithet here.
Regards
DL
Let me put my PHD to work here. I say that in jest as Christians see me as, --- P for pure, H for hell bound and D for Dummy.
I have no degree but will see if I can get you to see it as I do with a nut shell view.
This link shows a situation that has replicated itself in modern times by new Muslims. Just in different locations. Apologies for its length.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y&feature=youtu.be
If you have listened to Christian complaints of persecution, you will know that most Christians have now been forced out of the Middle east except for the Jews in Israel.
If you were to visualize a map and Muslim incursion by immigration, and their creation of militia groups to mimic the Christian ones in the U.S., you would see that the Muslim long range play book has not changed. They tend to infiltrate to where their numbers are high enough to capture territory.
They will continue to do so till either secular forces or Christian religious forces push back like they had to do the last time they faced annihilation.
When you have two fascist forced opposing each other, only death can stop the colonialism that each religion is designed to do. Islam wants a Kalifate and Christianity wants their pope to rule the world. On earth as it is in heaven.
The same insecurity that had Trump focus his entry ban on Muslim countries when he first took office and his cozying up to his right wing fundamental chums is likely what got his vile self elected.
Add in the fact that the some of the Northern European states have already started pushing back by asking Muslims to leave.
Also add that they changed some of their laws to be anti-Muslim. --- and add in the French style laisite/secularism that France and Quebec are into, --- and I hope, will be the model for the rest of the free world, --- and you will see why Muslims will continue and likely increase in their infiltration of non-Muslim and Sharia law lands.
The weaker the West looks to right wing Christianity, the more right wing it will vote, as demonstrated by trump and his twin Boris in England. You might also recognise that France and Germany have also swung to the right.
I think we are seeing a replica of the past, just before the West finally stopped fighting internally and started to push Islam back to it's homeland.
I think that after that next major push back and war, the world will be so fed up with vile genocidal god loving religions that both Islam and Christianity will be outlawed for the vile inhumane religions that they are.
The Noble Lie that those religions are good will finally be repealed and peace will finally come to this earth, --- if we have not polluted ourselves into extinction with our other Noble Lies about what man should be eating.
I hope my quick connecting of dots make sense to you?
I am a sprinter and not long winded when I write. Too undisciplined and I tend to prof too quickly like most P H Dummies.
Regards
DL
P.S. I just picked up the book Soon. It recognizes religions as the greatest enemy to world peace. It is talking of the distant past at present but think it may posit the kind of world I see. You will perhaps know that the U.N. already has religious schools that teach a universalist type of religion close to this Gnostic Christian's ideology. I have always been about 30 years ahead of my time in my thinking and wont live to see if my speculations are true or not, but watch Gnostic Christianity with it's unbeatable moral ideology end as the world religion.
Don't be, because I think, in all my travels, that I have only met a few people that I would call anything like philosophical students of talents.
I do have a few places I can link you to though should you want to be more prolific.
Don't go by my judgement though because I am a generalist and not the specialist type you are.
I also do not draw out a debate and tend to go for the throat to see if my interlocutor has anything to offer. In religion, most don't.
Regards
DL
It was found to be a sin ad acta. After the fact. He was not sinning when he ated that apple. He was found guilty of eating the apple after eating the apple, at which point he had been imbued with the knowledge to tell evil from good. He was not found guilty of eating that apple before eating the apple.
For verily I say unto you: for Adam, to fully understand sinfulness, he had to have a sense of what's evil and what's not, so he had to eat the apple in order to appreciate that eating the apple was a sin.
Had he never ated the apple, he would not need to know the difference between evil and good. Obviously. No evil, no cry.
IOW, Yahweh punished a child who did not know he was doing anything wrong.
You do know that secular law would say that Adam did not pass the mens rea test and was not guilty of anything because he had no evil intent or evil mind.
Every court on earth would say that Yahweh did a poor judgement and Adam was innocent.
Add in that you sing that Adam's sim was a happy fault and necessary to god's paln and your view falls apart.
If you were Adam, would you further Yahweh's plan and sin, or would you derail Yahweh's great plan and not sin?
Regards
DL
I was just wondering why you use the term apple.
Why not tell the truth in that we are talking about the knowledge of everything?
IOW, an education. Why tell Adam to stay uneducated and stupid.
Regards
DL
I like men and I have no desire to rule, but I do want to be heard and respected. To me, a man and a woman are like a right hand and left hand. One has to dominate but if they don't work together and can not coordinate there is a serious problem. :lol:
Now what I said can be a little tricky when men have to be macho and if a man is insecure and feels like he must prove himself and be in control then, of course, there will be problems. I think Greek and Roman men had a problem and that the Etruscans may have gotten things right. Accepting the balance of yin and yang may not lead to the power and glory of Rome, but could perhaps lead to a successful civilization, as long it doesn't have a neighbor like Rome or invading nomadic people.
Perhaps this could be brought back on topic? What would be the characteristics of an ideal ideology?
When life is good, and a man and woman respect each other and work together, no one needs to be a god. :wink:
.
What is obvious to me is the power of having special knowledge. This power is even greater if it is believed to be sacred knowledge. It becomes even greater when there is only one god, only one truth. Democracy is an imitation of the gods who argued with each other until they had a consensus on the best reasoning. None of those gods had absolute power and each one had his/her point of view.
Wow, I like your argument! :clap: The God of Abraham is not a good god, and we have lived with Him and done terrible things and think this is our nature. So many have assumed the truth of the Bible for so long, that they don't question the existence of such an unjust God, nor the rightness of their own bad behavior and the harm passed on generation after generation. Our child-rearing has been damaging and our justice system is not justice. And oh do these people love to point their fingers at others and say how bad they are.
When life is good, and a man and woman respect each other and work together, no one needs to be a god. :wink:[/quote]
I know what you mean but have my own twisted view of equality.
Equality before the law is of course a given. No argument.
Should push comes to shove though, like at times of emergency or war, I would follow the law of the sea, and like it or not, my wife and kid and other women and children are in that life boat
And there had better not be a member of the Captain Coward Club in the boat or he will move at my hand. If that is macho to some, fuck um.
[quote="Athena;393541"]Perhaps this could be brought back on topic? What would be the characteristics of an ideal ideology?
My own Gnostic Christianity, of course. Kidding, somewhat.
A few thoughts.
It would offer the electorate, be it political or religious, the maximum amount of freedom of speech and actions that can be gained in a controlled system where the larger laws or sins are governed by law.
Those would be murder, theft, etc.
One feature it would have would be a socio economic demographic pyramid that is intentionally controlled by statistics so that there is no official poverty. You might recognize that poverty in rich nations like what we have today is imposed via the tax systems and IMO that is immoral. Gandhi thought the same if I may name drop.
I would also have mine set up by guild so as to change the focus of each of us just applying greed to our worth, to that of concentrating more on moving up honestly within our guilds for the glory alone, even as the cash would come automatically.
My best ideology would have a leader who was tyrannical when it came to administrating law, but super flexible and curious to see if he or his his people could come up with better laws to follow.
That seeking for better law idea is not only in my Gnostic Christianity but it was also a trait of Egypt, which was one of the best well run societies of the old world in terms of freedom and equality for all.
It would also be run more by experts and crown corporations than elected people who get there by name recognition like what happens today when people elect T V stars that are basically ill suited or incompetent in leading.
It would also reward whistle blowers handsomely, instead of trying to quiet them or jail them the way most governments do today, while telling us that more should whistle blow. Hypocrites those.
I am sure I have left many issues unanswered but did not want to write a wall of text. I live by the old 6 inch rule. Ask away on any issue of particular interest to you.
Regards
DL
The log eyed telling the splinter eyed how to look , meanwhile if you threatened to use their theistic law on then, they would cry like babies to be judged by the moral secular law instead of their god's immoral and unjust laws. From their no divorce law and their stoning children for acting out injustice.
Their hypocrisy is legendary.
Regards
DL
Seriously? The same women continuously vote the parties who advocate globalism and unlimited third world mass immigration because it feels so good? By and large, the female vote has been a disaster.
Really?
Hummm!
Here are the names of the first ten popes:
Peter
Linus
Anacletus
Clement
Evarestus
Alexander
Sixtus
Telesphorus
Hyginus
Pius
Anicetus
Sotor
Inform us, Excellency, as to why these men were so decadent and immoral they make Rasputin look like a saint.
Please.
And this gem: I am thinking of all those women who worship Trump! Again, wtf? Are you seriously unaware that the female vote is majority anti-Trump and pro globalist, nanny-state, anti-freedom? What are you people smoking here?
As compared to our last 5,000 years of disastrous male driven war history.
Go give your testosterone filled head a shake.
You might wonder, after clearing the garbage, why the 20,000 years prior to our disgusting history, we had peace under the goddesses.
Try learning from our past mistakes.
Regards
DL
Think inquisitions and witch burning and if you need more, come back, after you do the research that proves my words.
Regards
DL,
What? Christianity is 5000 years old? In what universe?
And what does "male" have to do with it? Yes, typically males die in wars, protecting females. That is part of life of our species.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Can you give us an overview over this 20,000 years of history that you claim to know so well, as well as these goddesses?
Thanks for showing us why women should rule.
They like to gather consensus while that seems to offend you.
Women unite, men divide.
Sure, men have ruined many to make them like you, but most are too intelligent.
When they decide to collectively protect humanity, we macho stupid men had better get T F out of their way.
We are killing our planet and you want to divide it more to insure it dies.
I look forward to Athena pinning your ears back and showing you for the goof you are.
Regards
DL
Christianity is based on 5,000 year old Egyptian and Sumerian myths.
Quoting Nobeernolife
No need, but I can link you to the appropriate scholars if you want to take better than on hour educating yourself. Warning, it is a boring process.
No need because all you have to di is look at when we started to fortify our city states. Just after creating our male gods of war.
Regards.
DL
You wrote: "If you know of the first few popes, you will know how decadent and immoral those popes were. They make Rasputin look like a saint."
So I gave you a list of the FIRST 12 POPES (more than just the first few)...and asked you what made them decadent and immoral.
Now you are accusing them of atrocities that occurred CENTURIES AFTER THEY WERE DEAD.
Not a single person on that list (the first 12 popes) had ANYTHING to do with witch burning or inquisitions.
Man up!
Simply acknowledge that you were talking out of your ass when you made that accusation.
Or...continue the bullshit.
It's kinda cute.
What a dummy you are.
Did you really expect that I would be your dog and fetch on command.
All I need is this link. Instead of me taking the time to explain it all to you, just take the time to watch it and learn.
https://www.worldhistory.biz/photos-and-videos-ancient-history/90919-history-of-the-christianitys-first-1000-years.html
That or just recognize the truth in the last link of what follows.
I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental efforts that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.
https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2
Further.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html
Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."
Please listen as to what is said about the literal reading of myths.
"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."
Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D
Regards
DL
No...I am not a dummy.
You made an assertion...I've asked you to back it up...and you have declined.
I understand why you declined...which is because you were merely shooting off your mouth.
You have absolutely no evidence whatever that the first few popes were decadent and immoral.
Interesting how you squirm!
You and I have very different points of view. Let us celebrate the gods and goddesses who greatly increased our knowledge with the different points of view and arguing.
On one thing we agree. Reason is better than religion. If I may, I want to talk about how we are taught to think. That is NOT what we are taught to think, but how. I refer again to fast and slow thinking, with fast thinking being reactionary and not exactly thinking. People who focus their lives on religion, tend to be reactionary thinkers. Everything is filtered through their belief system and what is not agreeable to their belief system is rejected without thought. That is the reaction.
I wish I could remember the exact page in my very old logic book from a different time when we were not so sure of themselves, so I could quote it. It stresses we should never be too sure ourselves because our knowledge is very limited. I would say that is especially so when we are focused on a religion rather than a philosophical "I don't know" and have the curiosity of child eager to discover something new. That is so different from "I don't question what I know because I know God's truth and if you don't agree with me you are wrong." Education for democracy has promotedfast thinking and discouraged slow thinking. My old grade school textbooks, warn against such closed thinking, again and again.
When I was young, the idea of being humble seemed a terrible thing but now I get it. Being a "know it all" is now my idea of terrible. :grin: If we see what is happening as in part worshiping youth and destroying respect of our elders, and education that leads to "this is right or it is wrong" thinking we might see a more militant approach to life then if we are not so sure of ourselves, and it is my life experience that "the more we know, the more we know what we do not know". We have specialized and narrowed our thinking far too much to have good judgment and we don't listen to our elders who know better.
Morale is, that high spirited feeling we get when we believe we are doing the right thing. Religion gives people that, and being pious gives people a sense of self-esteem. We are viewing secularism as lacking morality and this is a failure to understand democracy through the classics. We have a morale problem because we have a moral problem and we have a moral problem because we have an education problem!
I did not decline and gave you 2 link. If a 1,000 years of Dark Ages is not enough for you, bite me.
Fetch boy fetch yourself, and provide the histories of the popes you named. Dummy.
Regards
DL
You are the guy who made the assertion about the first few popes.
I furnished you the names of the first 12 popes.
Now you are asking me to do the job of meeting YOUR burden of proof?
You are new to this, aren't you?
What is the point of that argument? :lol: I think you two got sidetracked by an argument that doesn't really matter.
What might matter is the evolution of our consciousness and how concepts came to be and moved from one area to another and blended and diverged. All religions are built on past religions and calling one set of concepts "myths" and another "religion" creates a delusion that we need to destroy.
I have as much frustration with the impact of religious thinking on our society as the next...but I think it is best combated by not being unreasonable.
The Bishop made a statement that NO ONE...not the Bishop or any historian, would be able to establish with any degree of certainty, namely that the first few popes were immoral and decadent. .
I was calling attention to that. The Bishop decided to derail.
It happens from time to time.
One of the sages said that whenever we are looking at propositions, we should not be for or against so as to try to look at it honestly and without a bias. That is tough to do. Especially for the religious as they are prone to let their tribal affiliations override their moral sense. That is how trump got elected and how Christians end in the idol worship of a genocidal satanic god that they can somehow see as good.
Quoting Athena
I am reluctant to agree here as I think the newer generations are better thinkers than those of the past. Inquisitions and Jihads dominated the past and that thinking is definitely inferior to what people are thinking today, except for the right wing loonies who are still in inquisition and jihad mode.
They cannot murder as they did in the past but they still have the same mindset as demonstrated by their homophobia and misogyny. The hate is still in their hearts. They just cant act on it except to discriminate without a just cause.
Quoting Athena
No argument. But given that we all live in oligarchies and do not have any working democracies in the world that I know of, does it matter what we think of democracy other than the facts that there are none?
Quoting Athena
Individually, I disagree.
We have an ethical problem. Left to think independently, the vast majority live by the Golden Rule. We are in fact too nice to each other. Check any marker for evil, death by violence, war, poverty, slavery, etc. and you will find that we are enjoying the best statistics than we ever have.
Back to your main point. Unfortunately most cannot think independently because we are the weakest and most insecure animal on the planet and that insecurity slaves us to out tribes/religious instincts and that makes us follow religions that are run by greedy and immoral con men and liars.
Regards
DL
Words of wisdom.
Regards
DL
You might want to read the book "Jesus Wars" by Philip Jenkins. The history of Christianity is full of conflicts and power plays, not so different from Republican presidents wiping out all the achievements of Democrat presidents one pope would wipe out the work of the previous pope. What happened was not at all better than the witch hunts and the witch hunts are the direct result of ignorance and that ignorance was the result of destroying the pagan temples that were places of learning and transmitting the knowledge that gave us modernity when it was rediscovered during the renascence.
It amazes me that Christians appear to know nothing of religious history but have a complete fantasy of their religion.
One...I hope you do not think I am a Christian...of any sort. I most assuredly am not
Two...part of Christian history has been as savage as the history of any religion that has ever existed on this planet...and that includes the several barbaric ones that existed in what is now called Central America. I acknowledge that...completely and without reservation.
Three...the Bishop made A SPECIFIC charge about the first few popes...asserting that they were immoral and decadent. I have asked him to meet the burden of proof his assertion bears.
Frankly, it doesn't matter if Christianity ends up being the most barbaric religion ever to exist in the entire galaxy in which planet Earth is found. The question is not about Christianity. It is about the first few popes. I've furnished the names of the first twelve...and I am waiting for some evidence that they were immoral and/or decadent.
Nothing so far from the Bishop...AND NOTHING FROM YOU EITHER.
How do you and Watts unpack this sort of talk?
What counts as "knowledge of good and evil"? How does it make humans "like gods"?
How do you interpret the imperative to not eat the fruit?
What, if anything, is the difference between the "knowledge" represented in the myth by eating the forbidden fruit, and the "knowledge" represented in the myth by the way or word of Christ?
How do you interpret the figure of Christ in the myth? As a unique historical person, or as a Christ-nature in all human beings analogous or identical to Buddha-nature and Atman, or what?
Oh boy, talk about having things backward. I agree with you that women as a group have different characteristics (as is shown by research, cf. Jonathan Haidt, but their exaggerated empathy and lack of protective instinct for the tribe makes them extremely dangerous as political leaders. Especially in combination with the astonishing lack of political knowledge shown by research (by the Guardian, nontheless of women, and that across all age, education and ethnic groups).
Fundamentally, suffrage for women was a big mistake by Western societies.
Not much of an answer to where your prattling abot 20,000 years of peaceful goddesses comes from. I am not holding my breath for an reference of substance.
It was not a fruit so stop trying to downgrade the command to a mere fruit when it is the knowledge of everything as everything is subject to the adjective of good and evil.
To your first. In the myth, Yahweh ties knowing the knowledge of good and evil to our developing a moral sense and the command tried to prevent that.
Strange that when the Christian ideology says that we should let god do tour thinking for us.
A great way to make people stupid and unable to think for themselves, even as scriptures tell us to judge all things.
Regards
DL
"Inquisitions" (I suppose you refer to the infamous Spanish inquisition) refer to a very limited practise for a short period of time that led to the death of a couple of hundred people, It was discontinued long ago. The Jihad is an integral part of islam, is ongoing to day, has claimed millions and is claiming countless victims as speak,
In what universe do you have to live to compare those two??
I use the interpretation of the older and wiser ancient people.
I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental efforts that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.
https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2
Further.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html
Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."
Please listen as to what is said about the literal reading of myths.
"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."
Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D
Regards
DL
That is not Haidt's teachings and you are too bigoted for me to bother with a guy who would make all women second class citizens.
You stupidly forget Cleopatra. Your mother must have been a real bitch for you to hate women so much and think they do not protect their offspring's.
You stupidly forget that in the U.S. 50% of all households are manned by single women.
Who is the most protective, fool?
Deadbeat men of the women who step up to be both mother and father?
Regards
DL
Too lazy to do your own research I see. I will give you the opportunity to reject my sorces, while you give nothing in return to refute any of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU1bEmq_pf0
If I recall, the punch line and what I put of our previous history is in the last 10 minutes. I imagine your attention span is less than that.
Pardon my tone, if you can, but I hate those who would make all women second class citizens bracuse of their hate for their mothers.
Regards
DL
More lies. Just the Cathar inquisition murdered more than what you put.
I guess that you have no clue as to how to research an issue.
You lie as easily as all Christians.
Regards
DL
So what is the death toll for the "Cathar inquisition"? And is it ongoing today, like the Jihad?
I was referring to Haidt`s research, not teachings. I suppose you are blissfully unaware of it and unwilling to check it.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
What does Cleopatra have to do with anything? And no, I do not hate women, I just state that as a group (not every single one of course) have a terrible level of knowledge and terrible voting record. It is quite understandable from an evolutionary biology point of view, but I dont assume you are willing to look into that.
https://www.google.ca/search?sxsrf=ALeKk02U_-oQX7str4HtAb3gTus6L6wjLw%3A1584643992048&ei=mL9zXvy_AtGMggeb6rXADw&q=inquisition+death+toll&oq=inquisition+death+tole&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0i13j0i13i5i30l9.4943.5226..7434...0.2..0.120.235.0j2......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71.E5G2ICM9v_g
Estimates of the number killed by the Spanish Inquisition, which Sixtus IV authorised in a papal bull in 1478, have ranged from 30,000 to 300,000. Some historians are convinced that millions died
That is somewhat how research is done, otherwise, one looks like you with his foot in his mouth.
Now if you want an even better estimate, ask google for the Christian victim death toll between 30 ce to 1478 ce, including the death of all the Christian against Christian sects that when on almost forever..
Regards
DL
OK, I take your word for it.
However, as I said, this was a limited period in history, and it is finished.
But the figures pale in comparison to the Jihad, and the Jihad continues today.
So again, where do you get off comparing the two?
Thank you, Athena.
In another thread, I responded to someone that the very last thing in the world I would wat...is to be GOD.
Imagine the terror of finding out that you essentially are the only thing that exists...and that everything else is a creation (illusion) of your own making.
You would be TOTALLY ALONE...with no companionship even possible.
My guess would be...if there is a GOD...the thing that GOD does is to stay in a state of constant illusion. An illusion of otherness being possible; an illusion that there is a universe filled with things; that there are other beings with which IT can interact.
But...what the hell do I know!
Lots of mistakes I did not get to edit.
Sorry 'bout that.
About comparing the God of Abraham religions- they all share the same God, and the same prophets up to Jesus. Jesus is part of the Islamic story but he is not deified. The basic religion is the same, only the cultures are different. Christianity is Hellenized Judaism and Islam is Arab.
It is hard for me to understand the Iranian interest in Islam considering the Prussians hated Arabs, and Prussian Zoroastrianism is mixed with Christianity as much as Hellenism. The Zoroastrian ruler of Prussia freed the Jews in Babylon and order that Prussia give them the money to rebuild their temple. I do not understand why they became Muslims? But I do know Christianity wiped out all the indigenous in their path and that originally it was Jews and only the Jews who were God's favorite people. I think if they had God's truth, it is wrong for Christians and Muslims to change the story and claim to be God's new favorite people.
The Christian Right totally supports the Military-Industrial Complex of the US so I don't see where they are different from Muslims in that way. And I know Muslims who more gentle and humble and opposed to arguments than most Christians. I think if we look at the whole of humanity humans are more alike than different.
No, they do not. The description of God figure is completely different, and if you think of islam as a sort of Arab Christianity all you do is demonstrate that you have not researched the issue at all. Zip, zilch, nada.
What Athena said is absolutely correct. The "Allah" of Islam...IS the god of Abraham.
If you are not even aware of that...you should not be in a discussion of this topic.
Seeing that Allah opposes everything the Christian god says and hates its followers, that claim would only make any sense if this united god was schizophrenic.
Now go away, troll.
I've heard that some scholars interpret the knowledge in the story to mean "knowledge of everything". How is knowledge of everything "subject" to the distinction between good and evil, on your account? This sounds interesting.
Why do you suggest I'm trying to "downgrade the command to a mere fruit"? Isn't this a rather common version of the story you're referring to -- that it's the fruit they were told not to eat? Don't you think it's at least as likely that I've heard this most common version of the story, as that I'm trying to downgrade anything by speaking of the fruit?
Perhaps you should stop trying to argue against intentions that don't exist. Such unseemly behavior for a Bishop!
Wasn't there a tree in the myth? What parts of the tree were Adam and Eve instructed not to eat of, in the myth you referred to? Do you mean they were also instructed not to eat the leaves, the bark, and the roots? Let me know what parts of the tree they were instructed not to eat of, on your account, and let's proceed. Or do you say there was no tree in the myth, either? Were they instructed literally not to eat "knowledge"? Or perhaps there was no "eating"?
Feel free to retell the myth in your own words here, so our conversation isn't confused by more common versions of the story you're interpreting.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Do claim to know the intention of Yahweh in the myth? Isn't it possible that he set it up as a sort of trial or obstacle -- somewhat as philosophers have sought to resolve the "problem of evil" by explaining the existence of moral wrongdoing as a consequence of free will?
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Is there only one Christian ideology, on your account?
What does it say about letting God think for us?
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
I don't suppose you believe this is the only inconsistency in the stack of texts collected in the Bible?
It seems to me you may be drawing the range of interpretations of the myth quite narrowly.
So far as I can tell, there are plenty of fools and few wise people, then as now; and the age or period of a saying, text, or doctrine is no sign of its merits.
I'm a great admirer of the Golden Rule, and I try to apply it in practice.
I certainly don't support literal interpretation of myths! I'm aware that there's a long tradition of eschewing literal interpretation of mythology, with ancient roots. On the other hand, it seems this custom may be at least as prevalent today as it was one to five thousand years ago, so I'm not sure what historical point you're making.
You are totally wrong...but that should not bother you, because you seem to have more practice at that than most people.
I am not going anywhere.
So the story is an ultra-conservative warning against freedom and curiosity. If you consider the conditions of the early Iron Age in which it formed, it makes sense. Any time you're confused about what other people hold to be good or evil, look at their lives. See what it is they're fighting against, what they're afraid of, what they're trying to accomplish. In Hebrew culture there is a persistent call to turn away from the non-Hebrew world and conform to the Mosaic Law. Out of all the cultural forms that existed alongside it thousands of years ago, the Hebrew form is the only one that survived. That tells you that the message: "Conform!" was not embraced out of fear, but out of a deep abiding love (probably for ancestors to some extent).
Wikipedia explains that and the different perspectives, such as Augustine's explanation and the equivalent concept of good and evil being two sides of the same coin, in other ancient civilizations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_the_knowledge_of_good_and_evil
The whole debate annoys me because if God wanted us to remain ignorant He could have designed our brains to be no different than the rest of the animals. God could have designed our brains to make it impossible for us to know things He doesn't want us to know and make it impossible for us to think about them. God could have designed us to mate for life like many birds have life long mates and that would save a lot of marriages. :lol:
Does a chimp know the difference between good and evil? Do humans behave like chimps? Do chimps think like humans? We are as God made us and we were not made of mud. :lol:
That is an excellent post and triggers my memory of another story.
The Greek version makes more sense. Prometheus went against Zeus' will and gave man the technology of fire. Zeus was afraid once man had the technology of fire, he would learn all other technologies and rivel the gods. He couldn't return man to ignorance but he slowed them down. He created the first woman, Pandora, and gave her to the first man. Then he gave them a wedding gift. Prometheus warned the first man to not open the gift and the man told his wife not to open it, but she was curious and when she opened the gift, out flew all the miseries that slow down our progress, like the pandemic we have today.
For sure that is the story that is the true story because today we are technologically smart but lack the wisdom to use this technology without making things worse and possibly destroy life on this planet.
Yes, it does matter. Democracy is a way of life and government is only one aspect of that way of life. If we handle things democratically on the job and at home with our families, and in our communities, really depends on our understanding of democracy as a way of life.
I want everyone to think about Deming's democratic model for industry because autocratic industry has lead to autocratic families and that has made life pretty bad for many people. In the past, life was too hard for divorced women so few of them divorced. Today, women have a chance of supporting themselves and their children, so they dare to leave their husbands, but we should not exactly blame the husbands who had to tolerate being treated badly on the job. If we used the democratic model than workers would learn how to be better people and they would bring this home to their families and that would lead to stronger families and fewer social problems.
I said we have a moral problem and you said..
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
We have a moral problem because we do not share agreement on the meaning of moral and this goes with our failure to understand democracy. A moral is a matter of cause and effect. We read moral stories to children, such as "The Little Red Hen" and at the end of the story, we asked what is the moral of that story. The answer always is a cause and effect. No one helped the Little Red Hen make the bread so she didn't share it. "The Engine that Could" made it over the hill because he didn't give up.
What makes Christianity work for millions of people is moral stories bring out the best in us. They help us understand a good way to respond to problems, and when this thinking becomes a habit more things seem to well for us. A Christian thanks God for the blessing. A secular person will realize the cause and effect.
That morality is essential on a national level. Democracy is about all of us working together for a better life that we all share. Without an understanding of democracy and morality, we don't know what we are doing and leave the decisions up to a leader. While good leadership and following a good leader are necessary in a democracy we retain responsibility and we are not like obedient children. The Bible without education for democracy tends to making adults like obedient children, and when these children are organized by Prussian military bureaucracy applied to citizens, the result is fascism. Who holds responsibility for national morality? I am kind of excited by the pandemic. We might learn to work together and make more moral decisions. Ignoring the health of others can come back and bite you. That is how morals work.
I have to add, being moral is not about pleasing a god and your own place in heaven. Being moral is about the whole nation and our children's future.
The way I understand the definitions, morals are the thinking part and ethics are the action part.
I share your wish that business and governments would be more democratic but they have a long way to go yet.
Christianity may work for millions, as you say, but it does not work to bring equality for all as they continue to preach their homophobic and misogynous teachings that victimises more millions than what it works for.
I think that the sooner we rid ourselves of the religions that are inferior in law to secular law, Christianity and Islam leading that list, the sooner all will have equality.
Regards
DL
Indeed, but look at what we have instead.
https://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2
Regards
DL
Indeed.
I wok that angle on the immoral way we are leaving our children an environment that will cause them all kinds of hardships. Perhaps even to the point of adding humans to the list of animals that will go extinct in the major extinction event that is going on as we speak, --- thanks to our vile ways.
Regards
DL
The short answer.
Both Christianity and Islam, slave holding ideologies, have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.
Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.
Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.
https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/theft-values/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxoxPapPxXk
Humanity centered religions, good? Yes. Esoteric ecumenist Gnostic Christianity being the best of these.
Supernaturally based religions, evil? Yes. Islam and Christianity being the worst of these.
------------
Inquisitions and Jihads are, at their roots, tools to control thinking.
They are not as lethal as they were in the past, but both religions named are still trying to control how we think of equality against women and gays.
You are right in thinking that Islam is the worst of the ideologies out there, but they share Christianity's DNA..
Regards
DL
We are designed to seek to be the fittest by evolution. Those who no longer seek that have decided to not compete to be the fittest minds.
The fittest step up to all responsibilities that they excel in.
Even in these places, you see many competing for their ideas to be accepted as the fittest.
You do as well. No?
Regards
DL
Watch this little skit and come back and tell us what major differences you see between right wing Christians and right wing Muslims. You might think that because Muslims kill their apostates, they are better than Christians, but remember that when Christian Jesus returns, he is to kill all apostate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYV7KWQ-fY4
Regards
DL
I was just doing cultural psychology (like Nietzsche or Freud). We can look at goodness as something reached for, something I want, or my society collectively wants. That implies that I can look at a society, discern what they hold to be good, and discover what they think they're missing: what they would have to have to become perfect, healed, satisfied, and complete.
If the Greeks held freedom as a high good, then why? What was threatening their freedom such that they needed to reach for it: to pursue it and protect it? Was it an external threat? Or was it internal? Was it internal, but seen as external?
That's the kind of question I take into studying history. It's fun.
I don't dare spend too much time on youtube because if I use my information bites too fast I don't have internet for the rest of the month and right now I can not access any community computers.
However, I watched the first minute and will say we all have a lot to learn about economics. Even economic professors who teach a completely abstract concept of economies with zero understanding of what natural resources have to do with economics.
If we used the democratic model for industry all employees of an industry might care a lot about the resources their industry uses and where they come from because they share responsibility for the industry and caring for those resources politically could be very important.
The democratic model of industry distributes the income along the lines of the ideal in the youtube graph. It does not have outrageously paid CEO's.
And something we might consider is the importance of industry to our communities. When a community has strong industries, its income supports everyone in the community in the form of wages that in turn become property payments, and money for utilities, and services, retail businesses and all public needs. Texas can be so powerful because of oil revenue, paying for public services and education. Oregon's public needs were fund by timber revenues but has shifted to relying on tax money from citizens.
In general, I don't think we are thinking things through very well. That can bring even Rome down.
I love your questions. Should we address them here or in another thread?
I think I have already said the philosophers of Athens asked, how do the immortals resolve their differences? The answer was, they argue until they have a consensus on the best reasoning. When this reasoning is applied to government it is democracy.
I don't like the word freedom because that implies a lack of limits and that leads to big trouble! I prefer the words "liberty" and "justice" because they imply knowledge of desirable limits and avoiding trouble. Democracy needs to be a self-correcting system, and that is not what religion is.
I cannot think of any issue or knowledge that is not subject to being good or evil. I can substitute those words with right or wrong as analogies without conflict.
Can you name anything that is not subject to those term, whichever ones you prefer?
Quoting Cabbage Farmer
It is common and wrong and as I said, is likely designed to downplay what was at stake. We can all live without an apple. We cannot live without the education that knowing good and evil gives us.
Apple trees give apples to eat. Orange trees give oranges. Knowledge trees give knowledge and in our dualistic world, that is the knowledge of good and evil.
Quoting Cabbage Farmer
Quoting Cabbage Farmer
You are right that I replied thinking intent. I am a cranky old bastard is my only defence, as well as having had to correct way too many Christians and not being patient enough to wal people through it.
Quoting Cabbage Farmer
Yahweh already knew man would sin as he had already chosen Jesus as the sacrifice to redeem man.
That's scripture. As to trials or obstacles, an omnipotent god would already know the outcome of all tests.
We have free will to the limits of physics and nature but have no choice in being sinners. Nature causes us to evolve and either compete of cooperate at all times. When we cooperate, we cause no particular harm, but when we compete, the loser will think evil has befallen him. All the human to human evil is thus just a small evil within the greater good of our not going extinct.
That view is why I have no problem of evil.
Quoting Cabbage Farmer
No. There are a number of ideologies from right wing loonies to left wing progressives. There is also the Gnostic Christian view that is a universalist ideology which makes it superior to all cults or sects that posit a heaven and hell. Hell would be god admitting to being an incompetent creator who cannot create a majority of good souls. Note how scriptures say that the vast majority of us will take the wide road to he'll while only the few will reach the narrow path to heaven.
As to who should think and decide on what is good and what is evil. These go together
Gen3;22 Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
The first tells us we know good from evil and the other tells us to judge all issues for ourselves.
If Christians did as the bible bids, they would all reject that genocide from Yahweh is good and would become honest and more moral Gnostic Christians that would fry Yahweh's genocidal ass.
Regards
DL
Only that it is stupid to read myths literally and that the ancients were brighter than literalist fools.
Regards
DL
You kind of have it backwards and do not seem to know that the Jews had the reverse moral to the Eden myth than what Christians put to it. Further, Christians are conflicted as they call Eden where man fell, while at the same time singing that Adam's sin was a happy fault and necessary to god's plan. Their apologists, and even I, used to be able to do a decent apologetics on this but I have not seen a decent apologist in 10-15 years and I refuse to educate Christians on their own foil religion.
These days I just make Christians run away by asking them if they would refrain from doing as Adam did and derail Yahweh's plan. Christianity wants simpletons for sheeple and that is what they mostly have.
The Jews did not have an Original Sin concept. They had and still have an Original Virtue concept. They have both Yahweh and man coming out of Eden as winners while Christians have Yahweh and man as failures. Jews are smarter in this than Christians.
Regards
DL
So Athenian democracy is a model of the intellect. The courtroom definitely is. :up:
Quoting Athena
I agree. Faith is anathema to the intellect.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
First question: why does the quote refer to [many] gods rather than [one] god? "...ye shall be as gods..." suggests that there is more than one god; either that or it's poor translation. In all likelihood it's the latter but still intriguing to discover a reference to polytheism in a religion generally held to be monotheistic.
Second question: why is knowledge of good and evil the exclusive purview of god? What's in it that is so non-human, or godlike, that its metaphor is a forbidden fruit. Asked differently, how does partaking of the forbidden fruit make us god?
Just as an aside.
In some ways, chimps think better than humans. Tests with chimps and children have shown that, while both species are almost perfect mimics, humans will not dither out and ignore steps in what they mimic that are not required to finish the task given, while chimps know enough/better to eliminate steps that are not required.
I think this oddity is due to the fact that humans are the weakest and most insecure animal on the planet and are not risk takers. Our instincts do not know that we have become the greatest apex predator on the planet.
Regards
DL
If that were true frank, then they would have pointed way back to Gen 1 where god told A & E to reproduce. That would have been the first infraction because they did not even attempt to do so till Gen 4.
Scriptures show that they had no real free will because they did not know good from evil as they had yet to educate themselves by consuming the knowledge of the choices they had.
Regards
DL
Absolutely no argument.
In some things I like to KIS. Keep It Simple.
If I was King for a day, to end the poverty that our tax systems create, I would KIS and have laws written to simply shift wealth from the fat cats on the extreme right of that graph to the left.
Did you note how little wealth we are really talking about? Stats have that basically happening in 30 years but we could enjoy the benefits of doing the moral thing today if we had the political will that the rich control.
Regards
DL
The Hebrews/Jews had many names for their gods and I don't think they were monotheists till much later. They even had Yahweh having a wife Ashera, If I recall her name correctly.
The first commandment also shows an insecure Yahweh who fears the other gods. God's in those days, were not defined as we do today.
Most have god as a supernatural entity and that stupid thinking is perhaps why the way more complicated thinking of the ancients has been lost to us.
We should restart before supernaturalstupid beliefs took hold, thanks to immoral creeds like Christianity and Islam..
Quoting TheMadFool
I guess, that given that there was almost no separation of church and state in those ancient days, it would be a given that the king who enforced laws would have free reign. That may be why religions in the day preached that the kings were kings because god had made it so and that they should be bowed to because of that.
Regards
DL
Your answer to my second question as to what about knowledge of good and evil makes it an exclusively godly real-estate is unsatisfactory.
I'll offer my own explantion and would like your opinion. I remember someone, I don't know who exactly, telling me that "good and evil" is a metaphor for everything. Continuing along this trajectory, it becomes obvious that eating the forbidden fruit is the first step towards omniscience and since morality too counts as knowledge, anyone who's omniscient would be also omnibenevolent. To this add the fact that knowledge is power and omniscience leads to omnipotence. Therefore, anyone who partakes of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil has made the first move towards omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipotence; basically, Adam was applying for god's job.
I am only stating facts, there is no personal attack there. And if there is something "nice" about me is irrelevant. A lot of times facts are not "nice".
Again: the claim that Yaweh and Allah describe the same deity would logically mean that this deity is schizophrenic..
You too make the uninformed and dangerous assumption that Christianity and Islam are comparable. This is simply wishful thinking.
Christianity is an integral part of Western civilizations, has gone through an age of enlightenment, and is the foundation for a lot of concepts that the West is based on, like separation of church and state, equality under the law, neighbourly love, the golden rule, the sanctity of life, and more.
None of this is the case for islam which was founded by ruler, is unchanged and unchangeable, and established a supremacist and oppressive system, designed as an ever-expanding project to take over the world.
Alas, your naive wishful thinking is widespread in the West and leads to the endless line of tragic mistakes that our politicians are making.
I watched it and it is mildly funny but completely uninformed, clearly addressing than audience of low-information viewers. Is that what you base your opinion on?
But yes, islam demands killing of apostates, and with an increasing islamzation of the West, you now have incidences like that in West too. So you got one snippet correct. What Jesus does or not do when "he returns" is of no concern for me or any other living person.
Talking about little video clips, since your views pretty much represent the ill-informed leftist intellectual majority in the West, you might want to watch this little clip. The interviewer seems to be a good representation of you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpdGK3F4pC0
ROFL
I watched that cartoon. Do you have an article as opposed to a video with more meat in it? Videos waste alot of time whereas articles can be more easily scrutinized.
I can agree with this but not the omni levels.
Omni-whatever indicated a full and complete knowledge of an issue. Gnostic Christians never really admit to reaching such an ideal. We are perpetual seekers and even when we think we have reached or found the epitome of an issue, including the gods, we accept it but raise the bar of excellence and seek further. That is why we criticize who we think are poor gods.
If we did not, we would be no better than those who have decided to worship a genocidal god and think such a moral monster to be good.
Regards
DL
Why? One fascist god looks about the same as all fascist gods.
Regards
DL
Not in the case of the laws our secular systems follow.
In Christianity, their penalties are, like secular law, supposed to be close to an eye for an eye.
Need I go get all the penalties of stoning that exceed that intelligent and just penalty.
Christianity is a consolidation of many religious thinking systems. There is nothing original except for Jesus' so called sacrifice. The West and our law has rejected most of it as barbaric and overkill.
Here are facts that refute your view, even though many call our systems Judeo Christian systems.
https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/theft-values/
Regards
DL
I agree, but we are talking and comparing ideologies, not realities.
I debate to lose, but point to me buddy.
Regards
DL
??
I would associate myself more with the guest than the interviewer.
He was correct on every point, I think. He, like me, does not think highly of Christianity and thinks as I do that the Muslin ideology is the epitome of evil ideologies.
What error did you pick up in his presentation?
Regards
DL.
This link is a video but has the statistical information that would have any half way moral person reject Islam and Sharia law as a decent moral ideology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VidBFG9_QnU
If you cannot watch it, please see the Pew research site for their survey of Islam's major moral tenets. You will find little morality in them.
Regards
DL
I actually know alot about Islam. In terms of sexual morality, Mohomad has alot of similarities to the modern Roman Catholic Church. Mohomad had extremely strange sexual practices.
Islam is highly questionable.
Did you see Bill Maher's video about the relationship between christianity and islam? Another user posted it earlier.
I would like to offer a correction viz. that I fail to see a necessary connection betwtixt omniscience and omnibenevolence i.e. it is possible to be omniscient and not omnibenevolent; all the more reason for god to be suspicious of our intentions. God himself, of course, is omnibenevolent.
Allah hates the followers of Yahweh. If Allah was Yaweh, that would mean he hates his own followers. Clearer now?
You, like the interviewer, tried to equate islam with Christianity. Bill Maher points out that that is absolutely naive. Islam is very different from christianity, and infinitely more aggressive.
Christianity and Islam share the same DNA so it should not surprise anyone that they are close in ideology. They are both fascist.
I question both religions on moral issue and all I see are moral cowards who fear judging their gods justly. Cowards can never be moral.
I did look a that video but think I was given the wrong role by Nobeernolife.
I am more like Maher except I get a bit more vulgar when it comes to the genocidal prick Christians worship.
Regards
DL
Your repeating that falsehood does not make it so. Christianity was founded by a pacifist, celibate hippiue. Islam was founded by a sex slave keeping warlord. Christianity says nothing about other existing religions; the islamic books are chock-full of hatred against Christians, Jews and Hindus and commands to fight them. Xtianity has separation between church and state built-in -- islam has Shariah and the command to subdue the whole world under Sharia. Should I go on?
Your claim that both are the same simply shows your ignorance on the issue.
There is no God who hates people and Muslims took in Jewish refugees when Christians were prosecuting them. Now Zionism is a different thing. That has made enemies. I saw pictures of how badly Palestinians were treated by Israelis and I believe the bad guy in that region is the Zionist. For sure Israel is in violation of United Nations mandates. Before the Zionist Jews and Muslims were living in peace with each other.
God himself is omnificticious. Prove me wrong.
His genocide and killing when he can just as easily cure, the way Jesus said he came to do is much more benevolent. Right?
We create the gods to serve us, not kill us. Right?
Regards
DL
Not so. He just thinks Christians and Jews should pay an extra tax for their poor thinking.
Allah is just a title like god is. They have a nameless god iand that is why they say Allah is Yahweh.
Clearer now?
Regards
DL
Apparently you never read the Koran and the Haddiths. Try that before posting more false statements.
Tell that B.S. to all the victims of their inquisitions.
Regards
DL
Your claim that both are not the same simply shows your ignorance on the issue.
We are done here as you are applying a double standard.
Regards
DL
Christians and Jews have to pay the head tax in order to be allowed to live, because Allah hates them. So your point is?
About Allah being another name for god, well, yes, same as Yahweh, but I am pointing out that this Allah/Yahwe would have to be schizophrenic.
By the way, you might want to argue this with the Malay authorities who do not allow Malaysian Christians to use the word Allah in their bibles.
No I am not. Did you see the Bill Maher interview that I posted? Maher addresses exactly this, and the interviewer try to bring up exactly your talking points.
I must not have adequately explained why Christianity works. Christianity works and so do lucky rabbit's feet. I am speaking of the psychology of positive thinking and the psychology of moral stories no matter where the moral story comes from, folk tales or a holy book. It is not some mystical force involving a God that makes a difference, but believing in such a power can make a big difference. So can having a lucky rabbit's foot make a big difference. Believing the dead saints can protect you, works. So when Christians are absolutely sure from experience that prays, charms, sacrificing animals, works, yes, it works.
Speaking of religion and law, our Christian based correction system is a horror! It most certainly is not based on the science of human behavior and change. And neither is any decision regarding social problems based on the science when Christians are the majority. So the conservatives are not going to give us justice based on science and reasoning. Christian conservatives see fault in Muslim laws and Muslims find fault in Christian laws, and both of them are stuck in the past with a jealous, revengeful, fearsome and punishing God. Jesus is seen as a lucky rabbit foot, but not someone we should follow.
Jesus sure as blazes did not say go to college and have a career that will get you a lot of money and ignore the less fortunate because they get what they deserve.
Same God for Jews, Christians and Muslims. It is not logical to believe one of these groups has the true god and the others do not because they do not. Only culturally are they different.
And what is your defense for being such an unpleasant person? Do you believe Jesus would speak as you do?
Jesus told the Pharicees they had the wrong concept of who God is. Do you understand what I am getting at. Typed from my phonE
You keep repeating yourself. Please try to read! I pointed out that the Koran is full of hatred against Christians and Jews. How is that possible if we are talking about the same god? It would mean god hates its own followers.
Correct. Life is extremely complex. Words matter. They need to understand that understanding requires reading.
Yet god never cures amputees, indicating limits to this "works".Quoting Athena
I agree with this and have no argument against the rest of what you put.
You can think prayers work if you like, but please, if you get ill, go to a doctor and not a church.
I do recognized the power of positive thinking and bio feedback but that is it.
Regards
DL
Mohammad listened to what angel who he said dictated the Quran?
That angel was first mention as being Yahweh's. Right?
Regards
DL
I disagree. Maher apparently is willing to read an article and has the ability to understand that not everything Hollywood portrays as true is true.
I am not sure what you are disagreeing with. I did not criticize Maher.
Regards
DL
Maher in that video clearly stated that Islam and Christianity have very critical differences. Maher is not a big fan of Christianity but he sees it as a big improvement over Islam. Spectrum.
He probably favors atheism and on a different subject socialism.
The pharisees adhered to the first 5 books of the old testament to some measure but they also had other books such as the Talmud and to some extent the Kabbalah. Words matter. Jesus Christ didn't oppose the first 5 books of the old testament. He opposed alot of the things in the Talmud and the Pharasee tradition.
Once again, words matter.
I am not interested in discussing angels or unicorns. I was pointing out simple logic: can one god at the same time love its own followers and love its own followers? Yes or no?
(The same btw goes for the often heard claim that islam respects "Jesus". The Jesus figure described is completely different, so this too is a nonsensical claim.)
No Beer No Life. Does that mean you do drink beer or you don't? I use tobacco mainly but i have nothing against drinking alcohol other than it can get out of hand for some people.
Quit tobacco long ago. You might want consider too in these Corona days.
I'm worried about my children's health. I welcome cancer as it pertains to tobacco. I don't think tobacco will necessarily infect me nor my children with the corona virus. My family is better off with me dead.
Oh my that is dark. I didn´t mean to say tobacco infects you, I just meant that tobacco is bad for the lungs, and Corona attacks the lungs. Most old guys in China are heavy smokers....
Correct, and you opined on issues that Jesus did not oppose without naming them.
There are also issues he did oppose, like the Christian/Jewish no divorce for women and that really vile substitutional punishment policies.
See how it's done?
Words matter, a term you use, while ignoring to put words worthy of thought and impossible to rebut.
Regards
DL
Don't know and do not care what imaginary gods think or do.
The Muslim perception and tradition stems from the Judeo Christian traditions and just as Christians usurped Yahweh from the Jews, the Muslims usurped Yahweh from the Christians.
Regards
DL
The "muslim perception" stems from the Koran and the Haddith, which are all based on one single man, who in islamic doctrine is the perfect human being to emulated in every way. "The muslims" simply follow what this man said and did, which he claimed was dictated by Allah.
Stop trying to obfuscate the picture with weasel words.
I am am using simple logic. It applies to imaginary gods as well as to you and me. Stop obfuscating.
You won't have to look hard in this modern age nor on a philosophy forum to find "dark". Depression is common in this modern age. #Shark_Fighter_Nation. Suicide is very high these days. But there are alternatives.
Maher doesn't agree with you in the strictest sense on Islam and Christianity. We can start from there. You tried to lump Maher on your side with that.
Jesus didn't say no divorce, he said that divorce isn't a light issue. Where did Jesus say no divorce. Sex and the heart are closely linked. Why would you say otherwise?
If i claimed to be a devout christian, that doesn't mean i'm a devout christian nor does what i claim to be mean that that is what i am.
Correct.
Stay willfully ignorant.
https://islaminitsownwords.blogspot.com/2009/04/angel-gabriel-and-muhammad.html
Regards
DL
Logic does not apply to the supernatural realm.
All that can be said of the supernatural is speculative nonsense.
You are more stupid than you think.
Regards
DL
Matthew 19:8 King James Version
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
Quoting christian2017
Where did I say that?
I did not. Get the quote as words matter. Right?
Especially like here where you lie.
Regards
DL
Irrelevant.
Regards
DL
I am not arguing about any "supernatural realm". I simply trying to explain to you that the claim that god figure described in islam is different from the god figure described in Christianity. That is a statement about claims, not an argument about any supernatural whatever,
And name-calling simply shows that you have lost the argument and dont want to admit it. Alas, a very human reflex.
Irrelevant.
Different as the Christian Yahweh is different from the Jewish version.
Islam says that Mohammad is a prophet of the same god. The final prophet.
Strange that we are talking the beginning and interpretations in Islam, yet the link I gave you is irrelevant when it ties Yahweh's angel to Mohammad.
You are too stupid for me. Done here.
Regards
DL
Matthew 19 doesn't say not to have a divorce. Where do you see that? Jesus Christ said himself he didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Matthew 19 doesn't say don't have a divorce but that it is not something to enter into lightly.
Sex and the heart are closely linked is why divorce should not be taken lightly. I actually never said you said that but that you fall into the profile of someone who might say something like that. I actually never literally accused you of saying that. You appear to be more open minded than i originally thought.
Where did i lie? You love to accuse people of lying on this forum.
Irrelevant? You felt the need to mention that Gabriel was claimed to have appeared before Mohomad. My statement to your statement is relevant if the original statement about Gabriel is relevant.
You are, I am not, I was simply pointing out how the claim is logically impossible. I am sorry about your apparent reading comprehension problem.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Yeah, I feel the same way.
It is inferred. But ok.
if you do not grasp that, tell us what was the law in the beginning that Jesus was endorsing if not a no divorce policy that the Church later enforced and codified.
Was it, what god has put together let no man put asunder, or whatever the Christian phrase was? IOW, no divorce.
Quoting christian2017
Hogwash. Sex is cheep these days as shown with the V D stats in so called Christian nations and every pick up bar and internet fuck buddy site. Jez, do you live in a hole somewhere?
Quoting christian2017
Was that an apology?
You show how uncouth you are. A gentleman would just apologise and shut the hell up.
Thanks anyway.
Regards
DL
Quoting Nobeernolife
Jesus Christ was/is a lawyer, he would understand the need for caveats. "The church", are you referring to the Roman Papacy? Millerism is similar to previous protestant "study of the end times" interpretations but most would say Millerism is flawed but has true aspects. In short the Roman Papacy is a product of satan which is not to say that there are many saved catholics (large or small subset).
Jesus Christ didn't refute the law of Moses. If Moses allowed divorce, Jesus Christ didn't change that, and if you would like you can try to prove otherwise. Are you familiar with Proverbs chapter 1 (KJV)?
As for Ecclesiastes and some of the writings of Solomon, if you read ecclesiastes, the author says in the first chapter that these writings are subsidariary to much of the rest of the Bible. Read the first chapter of Ecclesiastes. This is why Jesus Christ was given authority to argue with some or all of the writings of Solomon. "Eat drink and be merry" isn't always bad advice but Jesus Christ argued there are better alternatives if the person was willing or even in some cases forced to take those paths.
If Moses allowed divorce which he did, Jesus Christ was simply saying that the pharisees (and people like that) were taking the issues of the sex and the heart far too lightly. As you well know divorce is not a light issue.
Are you implying modern christian don't read the Bible (including Proverbs chapter 1 KJV)? I agree.
Listen (ooooooooh you make me soooo angry and now i have to change this expletive), no one this forum ever apologizes. Neither of us are gentlemen. Good luck finding a gentleman on this forum. I'm sure there is one somewhere on here.
I was simply saying that you weren't as close minded as i originally thought.
I did not say he changed anything. Thanks for the deflection. I said he endorsed a no divorce policy and it is an unjust policy.
Quoting christian2017
You are adding a lot to scriptures without even quoting the original.
You are deflecting all over the place and want me to read half the bible instead of being honest with the text.
Typical Christian.
Seems like we are done here.
Regards
DL
Listen.... I said he didn't change anything. He didn't change the law of Moses. He simply said that even Moses (or God if you will) preferred no divorce. My assumption was you would make that very small leap in thought.
Given the lack of decent apologists for Christianity, I can affirm that I doubt that any Christians are reading or living by even the good parts of the bible.
The Catholic Church is even putting priests out there to do apologetics and even they are falling flat on their faces.
This is not surprising as they never had decent moral values to sell and that is why they resorted to murderous inquisitions instead of moral debates. Then as now, Christians are moral cowards.
Trust me on this. I have a long history of being insulted by Christians as they run for the hills.
Regards
DL
Adding information in every instance is not always deflecting. The best way to find contradictions in the Bible is to approach it from a simplistic perspective. Are you familiar with Proverbs chapter 1 (KJV) particularly that we should embrace subtlety (spectrum) and try to understand dark sayings.
I can promise you if you try to see Jesus Christ as a simple and direct no nonsense kind of kind guy, not only will you find plenty of modern christians who will think like you but you'll also eventually find contradictions in the Bible.
Jesus Christ said "be as wise as a serpent and as gentle as a dove for he sends us out among wolves"
Proverbs chapter 1 (KJV)
I am a Gnostic Christian and we are known as the only good Christians by some because we have open minds.
I apologise quickly when I goof, and I cannot speak for your experience, but I do not want to believe that the other members hers are as uncouth as you say they are.
I do recognize that the majority are belligerent and obtuse, but I hope not as ill mannered as you think.
Perhaps you have Christians in mind as they are mostly as you describe.
Regards
DL
Christians typically aren't allowed to do evangelizing on sites like this. Other religions are given more space for that sort of thing. I don't take it as an insult that i don't post great apologetics. I go on this site so that i consume less alcohol.
Christians tend to have equal or better morals than naturalists. I understand thats not saying much.
Lets say hypothetically someone gave you 80, 90 or 99 percent proof or a substantial argument that your philosophy/religion was inferior to theirs, wouldn't that drive you to depression? I would love to have a great reason to embrace atheism or naturalism. I can think of far worse things.
I Indicated that the Yahweh/Jesus combo wanted a no divorce policy. Not Moses. He did not reply to Jesus in that passage.
Regards
DL
By some. And then others think you are crazy. And then others think you have terrible sexual immorality. Public opinion can be hard to quantify (keyword hard) and also public opinion is not in every case a reason to be proud.
I find you belligerent and obtuse, but so am i and most of the people on this forum. Welcome to an online forum.
But Jesus never said that divorce wasn't allowed. Once again Jesus didn't abolish the law of Moses. Jesus said he didn't abolish the law of Moses. Would it make you feel more comfortable if I posted 10 different Bible chapters for you to read or do you want to use the world's great Bible reference called google and bing?
Contradictions in the bible I already know by the score and having suffered my apotheosis and gained a Christ consciousness, I can tell you that any modern Christian who, given the nature of Christianity, remains a Christian and does not convert to either Gnostic Christianity or atheism, they will not think like me or Jesus.
Many are called to do so but remain on the wide road to hell instead of joining me in heaven.
Regards
DL
What contradictions are there in the Bible? Can you name one? If i'm bleeped out of existence when i die, there is no hell. Or do you have some great explanation as to how i can experience hell if i am bleeped out of existence?
I hear the connection you make between devices of power and the ideas that make that viable. But we all live our life's trying to make the best of what has been given to us to deal with. The history of Christianity is a strange combination of different impulses. I have no interest in justifying anything.
At the end of day, there is only you or I to say what is important.
And we will do that or not.
Apologetics is not evangelizing. It is explaining the text with arguments and opinions and not just quoting it the way the more stupid believers do.
Quoting christian2017
Try pot. It is way healthier and a change of thinking pattern might be handy.
Quoting christian2017
???
Do naturalists believe that genocide and infanticide are good character traits? I don't think so.
Stop being so stupid drunk.
Quoting christian2017
Depression??
Hell no. It would be glorious. One of the greatest joys in life is being corrected. To resist it is to want to remain on the wrong path. Christians do that, en mass, as they put their tribal associations ahead of their moral sense. Gnostic Christians do the opposite, and being that we are perpetual seekers after the best rules and laws to live by, I would even pay money to lose an argument.
As to worse things. Just look at the mainstream religions.
Quoting christian2017
Only the stupid who do not know a Gnostic Christian and only believe the lies that the inquisitors put out to justify their many murders of my forefathers.
Quoting christian2017
I am a fundamental, yes, but you cannot quote or find anywhere where I am obtuse.
Stop lying you drunken bum. Kidding on that last.
You are just repeating in your last so I will ignore it.
Regards
DL
I've been accused of evangelizing for very minor things on this site a long while back. Christians are held to higher standards on sites like this. I go on this site so that i drink less alcohol.
I have no problem with alcohol except the fact that it has more legal ramifications. Except for measuring intoxication from driving, i don't believe it is less moral.
The amorites were committing genocide (infanticide) on their own people and they oppressed their poor. The poor in ancient canaan weren't largely concerned about having their lives shortened. Depressed people very often prefer a shortened life over suicide. You talk of hell, why do bad people need to go to hell? The ancient israelites also murdered children. Would you like me to post articles about these two topics?
Why do you say i'm a drunk? Isn't alcohol consumption a spectrum?
Naturalists support abortion. Abortion is forgivable but it is murder. Its better to die young then grow up in a very depressing and corrupt culture....
You say you are very advanced in age? (based on a previous conversation from a while back)
As to worse things, i find that naturalism and/or atheism leads to a simplistic view on how to treat people so it would benefit my spirits to become naturalist or atheist.
ok. I make the best pizza in the world but how would i prove that on an online forum.
i'm not going to pull up quote after quote where you pretend to fail to see very short leaps or connections (very simple ones). We'll just have to agree to disagree about which one of us is more obtuse or belligerent.
How is such a god who can be known different from Zeus?
I know of the Iliad and Homer and in fact the writings that were associated with Homer were used as school literature and to some extent used as religious teachings in classical greece. I don't know a tremendous about how Zeus viewed the world. This might be unfair but many associate Zeus with satan. Once again this might be unfair however Pergamos in Revelation is the throne of Satan and a major temple of zeus was in pergamos. However Asclepius was also there. Should the christian associate Asclepius or Zeus with the throne of satan, i don't know (or both). Zeus was also the god of Antiochus the 4th (the proto anti-christ and the antagonist of Maccabees). Antiochus the 4th was the antagonist of the story of Hannakah. I'm not a big jew fan, i believe they have the right to Israel or atleast to a bigger country than they have. I don't believe modern Israel is a safe home for jewish people.
I don't believe Jews are inherently better than non jews.
But back on topic, some say Zeus favored the poor based on stories of him visiting and testing people by morphing into a poor man. Other than what limited knowledge i have of the Iliad and the Odyssey and stories like that, i don't have an in depth knowledge of greek pagan theology. In my opinion a careful study of the old testament will reveal a god who wants to bless the poor through practical and equitable ways. "you shall not show partiality to neither the poor nor the rich". In our modern society the poors problems can be solved through modernizing building codes in light of global factory production of building materials which would enable us to have a fiscally conservative society. I'm not going to expand on that right now.
I do see ancient greek culture as an extension of greek pagan theology but i feel (and i could be wrong) much of the more intense religious aspects of the ancient greek was more entrenched in personal and unnotable gods. Much of greek thought was governed from their desire to be like people like Odysseus and Odysseus was big deal back then and studied quite abit, Odyssesus was what would in modern times called "filled with hubris".
Jesus Christ did say "be as wise as a serpent and as gentle as a dove for he sends us out among wolves", however just as poseidon tremendously punished Odyssesus, God/Jesus Christ has the power to send the unbeliever to suffer forever. I believe in "Once Saved, Always Saved". If the horse has a broken leg, it is taken out behind the barn and shot, and it goes to horse heaven.
Do you have a holy book related to Zeus other than the Iliad or the Odyssey?
There are over 1050 laws or strong suggestions in the new testament and over 613 laws or strong suggestions in the old testament related to who Jesus Christ is. I don't know alot about Zeus, but Jesus Christ is nothing like Mohomad. Mohomad had very strange sexual practices akin to the Roman Papacy.
If Zeus was like the god of the Bible, i have no holy book currently (currently) at my disposal to prove it.
The book of Jeremiah and also Isaiah point to a very intricate god who cared for people who had it bad.
Isaiah chapter 53 and 54 point to god with very unique qualities (KJV).
What is important or what is true? In an extremely short time, say between Bacon and the present, we have we overcome the evils that took our children and kept our live expectancy down to less than 45 years and kept our economies in extreme poverty and ignorance. This awesome achievement was not the result of sacrificing animals, or praying to a god, or being faithful to a god. The question of this thread is our desire for knowledge good or sinful? What do you think, would you rather return to the Dark Ages when the only things to learn were a vocation and a religion? We are far more civil with our full bellies and securities than we were a few hundred years ago.
There is so much more than you and I and I think it is a mistake to stop there. This world pandemic could radically change our lives and bring in universal medicine and a greater consciousness and caring for everyone. Or, given today's March 21, 2020 Oregon Boarcasting shows about air force heroes, I suspect the US is preparing for a war and that could change our country more than any previous war. I think we better look for what is true, and take action, not what is important.
Or to make this a lot of fun, why would a human want to be a god?
Are you saying there is no compassion at your local church? Is the suicide rate really high these days? (yes). Were flying cars possible 20 years ago (9/11)? Do we live in a science fiction movie? (yes)
Are there fiscally conservative solutions that would make the poor relatively happy and also self sufficient (yes). Do people like to label the poor lazy? (yes).
Basically we are more than likely about to come to the end of an era. Is it the end of the world i don't know. If you can't find any beauty in your local church, than no, i have no reason to tell you to believe in the god of the Bible. The modern church sqaunders the tithes and offerings. To give that money to a local crack head would honor Jesus Christ more than what the typical church does with it's money.
We can only make decisions based on the information we have.
churches have to spend a certain amount on charity, but after they check that box off they very often, stop right there. Churches very often impede true fiscal conservatism with their political voting record and what they say at the county commissioner meetings.
Starting with the God of Abraham all the notions of God are false, so my dear, there is no god who hates people, there are only people who believe there is a god and that their holy book is the truth, and the other holy books are not true. Or people who share the same holy book and disagree with the other person's interpretation of the book. I do not have much patience for this.
:lol: You and I are having a very different conversation than everyone else. I prefer the conversation we are having.
Wanting knowledge is not wanting to be a god, but wanting to stay alive and to keep the people we care about alive. It is ridiculous to argue religion as though that was not true from our beginning. We did not begin in Paradise, but as animals trying to stay alive. Please, please can have a discussion that is based on reality?
So we have agreement that a moral is a matter of cause and effect? If it is good no harm is done. It is evil/bad, if harm is done. Now what we have to do is determine if harm is done or not. That is self-evident, isn't it? I mean deciding if it causes harm or does not cause harm depends on what is so, not on believing a myth.
Democracy is about arguing until we have a consensus on the best reasoning. Even after we have a consensus someone can have a new idea that proves we were wrong, and then we need to adjust to the new truth. This is what makes democracy radically different from religion. Like with religion, everyone can know without a doubt that the earth is round and not at all the center of the universe, and still argue the false stories are God's truth. That is a bit crazy, isn't it? I think I am getting a headache:lol:
We do have some democratic industry and Germany has more democratic industry than the US. While Japan has used Deming's model for industry since WWII and it has kicked our asses in competition for world markets. So it behooves us to learn of the Deming model and rethink our power as citizens in the US.
Yeah, and I just wish we all agreed that is why prayers work. It is not a special gift from Jesus. It doesn't matter what religion a person is practicing nor how God is understood. Prayers work the same for people of all religions. It is about self-talk and our physical response. Believing the pill will get desired effects can work even if the pill is a placebo, depending on the health problem. Placebos do not replace amputated legs. But if we pray to god for the desire to go swimming everyday, that is something Jesus can give us, and then we might avoid the amputated leg.
What is that even supposed to mean?
Again, you show that you have not read the Koran.
Quoting Athena
Those people who believe their holy book is not true do not count as believers any more. Try some logic.
Quoting Athena
If you had read the Koran, you would know that it clearly states that it must not be doubted. And any attempt to "interpret" the Koran in a way to turn it into a peaceful, contemplative book would leave very little of it.... if you had read it you would know it is chock-full of hatred and threats of violence against non-believers.
You really might want to do a little reality-check for your PC stereotypes.
Thats not what all the Hollywood movies i've seen since the age of 5 said, so you sir are wrong!
Not what CNN and the BBC are telling us either, I know.
:)
My comments were based on the assumption that god exists and is as defined, all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful.
I have no proof of god, neither an argument that stands up to scrutiny nor anything by way of religious experience. However, there seems to be a mathematical formula in re belief in god: the strength of your belief is directly proportional to the amount of trouble you're in.
You do realize that all-knowing and all-powerful is a contradiction in terms, do you?
No. How so?
Do I REALLY have to explain that?
You need not but I'd be grateful if you would.
If you KNOW what will happen, then you are not free to make it happen any more.
This is an old observation, not my idea.
Personally, I believe in free will and that being the case, foreknowledge is impossible insofar as free agents are involved in the chain of causation.
God's omniscience doesn't depend on knowledge of cause and effect. Imagine a racing track and there's a genius sitting and the stands and he has one camera that takes a snapshot of the initial position of the horse. From this he can predict all the positions the horse will assume in the race: omniscience.
Now, imagine a fool who is completely ignorant of causality but has a row of cameras taking a picture of every point on the race track. The fool too will know every position the horse will assume in the race but without the need to causally infer them.
Since, we don't know if free will exists or not, god would probably choose to be, just in case we have free will, the fool.
That means he does not have the power to change all the positions of the horse. There goes the omnipotence.
As I said, you can´t have it both.
Most industry is built on the autocratic model, right? I said Germany has more industry based on the democratic model than the US but are there some industries in the US that use the democratic model. God of Abraham religions support monarchies and autocracy, not democracy. When we replaced our education based on Greek and Roman classics, with education for a technological society with unknown values and left moral training to the church we got a nation that understands the Bible and not democracy.
If foreknowledge is impossible, then god can not be omniscient.
As I said, you can not have it both ways.
What is the autocratic model?
Quoting Nobeernolife They do not believe the other people's holy book and are willing to kill them. When none of the God of Abraham religions are based on truth. They are based on the same mythical Sumerian story.
Reality check we evolved as all animals evolved.
You got that right.
That is irrelevant to my comment. I was simply pointing out that the description of the Allah character is so different from the description of the Yahweh character, that if we claim it is the same god figure, this god figure has to be schizophrenic. I am not arguing about how the religious books came about, I am simply ,making a logical point. Why are you so onerary?
German industry is generally more unionized if that is what you mean, I do not see how that relates to "democratic" or to religion.
Since you are the authority on Islam and I most certainly am not, please correct this Wikipedia explanation of Allah and explain how other ideas of the God of Abraham are better.
I did not say that "w other ideas of the God of Abraham are better". I explained (how many times now?) that seeing how Allah hates the followers of the God of Abraham, it would have to be schizophrenic god of you claim it is the same god. That is simple logic.
Is that really so hard to wrap your mind around?
What does that have to do with religion? The God of Abraham has a kingdom not a democracy. One of the most important wars in history was the Maccabean revolt. They were Jews and went to war with the Greeks who were occupying the land at the time. The Greeks put anyone in offices who they thought could do the work, paying no attention to a Jewish person's linage and social position dependent on birth. The Greek way was merit hiring versus patrimony. You know patrimony, the way Trump is benefitting his family with his position as President of the US. Patrimony and goes with Trump's idea that it is okay for some people to have privileges that others do not have. God has favorites and rewards them or punishes as He sees fit. Trump. And that is not okay in a democracy, but Christians have the power to impose that on us and we are pushing back.
You obviously have different information than I do, and I don't believe as you do. Is that so hard for you to get your head around? Here is what I believe is true.
Christians think Christianity is the perfection of the original of the God of Abraham's religion. I think that god is a false god and certainly would not argue one of the God of Abraham religions is better than secular thinking, science, and democracy. Those who think they know God, know God not. We experience the manifestation of the universe but we do not experience God, so there is absolutely no way to know God. People who think they know God and absolute truth are absolutely dangerous.
I do not see that the "God of Abraham" has anything to do with democracy. To the contrary, Christianity has the concept of separation between church and state.
The passage from "https://www.pbs.org/empires/islam/faithpeople.html" that you quote is euphemistic, It completely blanks out the hatred against the "people of the book" that is contained in the Koran and the Haddiths. Read the original sources and stop depending on islamopologist sites like the one you quoted.
This is a typical example of deception by omission. Yes islamic rule does allow Jews and Christians to live as second-class citizens under Shariah..... but ONLY if they pay the islamic head tax, otherwise they get killed. Plus, they must not pray openly, build new churches or synagogues, prosyletize, criticize islam, or marry muslim women.
So by omitting the fine print of islamic rules, we are left with "allow them to practise their religions", which sounds oh-so-wonderfully touchy-feely nice.
We today also oppress our poor by keeping them poor with our taxing systems.
In ancient city states with finite resources, baby sacrifice would have been seen as better than creating starvation for the workers who grew and harvested the food that sustained the tribe, whatever name it held.
To think it was done regularly by custom would have had that tribe eventually dwindle to nothing.
Quoting christian2017
Alcohol is the only psychotropic drug known to kill brain cells. For that reason, I think it is more moral to use other substances for intoxication. Alcohol also creates more violence than many of the other drugs we have access to. Do unto others. We have all heard the joke of ---- what would you like to see coming at you in a car. A drunk going 120 who thinks he is going 100 or a pot smoker going 80 while thinking he is going 100. If one is going to get hit, one would hope for a pot intoxicated person over a drunk. Pot seems to be the more moral drug.
Quoting christian2017
You misuse the language.
Quoting christian2017
Suicide stats belie this.
Quoting christian2017
I would not call it simplistic, but agree.
The older atheists did not have my full respect until they began forming atheist churches. Those are more like the old mystery schools and those I approve of as then, atheists are recognizing our tribal natures more and are doing their duty to their children by providing an intelligent tribe for their children instead of just letting them gravitate to some immoral mainstream religion based on fantasy and the supernatural.
Quoting christian2017
That is a subjective call on your part as it is tuned to your taste. All you can prove is your taste says it is the best. You might like a meat lover pizza while many would like those yucky pineapple ones. I like the hot and spicy so would reject your best as not the best.
Regards
DL
Yes, Christianity is about kings and slaves, not democracy. That is why I object so strongly to Christianity. It is not compatible with democracy, and a strongly object to Christians having the power to make someone like Trump the President of the US.
And when did Christians start being any different? When?
Being a supernatural god would be a bore I think.
Now being a human god without super powers, the epitome of being human, would be us being true to our instincts that should be pushing us to be the fittest human we can be. In terms of our instincts, that would give us the right to get as many girls as we can get. Our instincts do not know that we live in societies where such antics are frowned upon now that we have become apex predators instead of the weakest and most insecure animal on the planet.
This song says what we should all be trying to do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGCdLKXNF3w
Regards
DL
A reminder, I don't dare do Youtube because my internet time is limited by information bites and if I use them too fast, I wind up with no internet until the next billing cycle.
As for your argument, yes, the Greeks made those arguments and conclude with the same reasoning. We should excel to be as the Gods physically and mentally. Socrates is best known for his insistence that we must deliberately expand our consciousness, which totally opposed the Garden of Eden story and the sin of wanting knowledge. Socrates' teaching is beneath Cicero's conclusion that we are compelled to do the right thing when we know what that is. Knowledge is essential to good moral judgment and our liberty.
And it was not Christians who gave us democracy, but they have given us wars we should have not fought and Trump. :groan:
I don´t think Christianity is about "kings and slaves", unless you talk about the old Testament, which precedes Christianity by 3000 years or so. That stuff is really a Jewish problem it seems to me. Jesus was a powerless hippie type who did not interfere with the authorities and in fact allowed them to kill him. So I do not really see how Xtianity has anything to do with a form of government.
Islam of course, is a completely different thing. Founded by a ruthless warlord, it is only about government and power. (Again, this is why the notion of islam being just some sort of oriental Xtianity is so naiive and ill-informed).
Great minds think alike. ;-) :lol:
Quoting Athena
We actually do begin in paradise, from a babies POV. All their needs and wants are being met, hopefully, by a parent and the tribe that one is born in. That heavenly situation changes of course when the child grows up and has to start providing for others and his tribe. That is when duty makes most think that they are no longer in heave. Lest we forget though, gods are created to serve mankind and not the other way around like what G D self serving churches do.
Quoting Athena
Yes to your first.
Perfect. To your last.Quoting Athena
Yes it is crazy. your views on democracy and logic and reason reminded me of this link on science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRLR9jhP_DM&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Quoting Athena
You are way more knowledgeable on this issue.
From the little I know of the German and Japanese systems, they have a well organized, unionized work force and those have been shown to be more productive. Meanwhile, many of the Western governments try hard to fight against organized and unionized workers to the detriment of production and advancement. Seeing this is partly why my socio economic demography pyramid theory is based on organized guilds that would bring production to it's highest possible degree.
We are so used to impediments from governments that it is doubtful that our Western societies will move that way.
It seems that many, especially in the simplistic uneducated U.S. that, socialist, to many, means something other than democracy with necessary and required social programs. They see social one payer medicine and education as pure invasive socialism.
Stupid is as stupid thinks and the U.S is intentionally dumbing down it's population just as religion tries and has succeeding in doing.
Regards
DL
Quoting Athena
NoberernoLife will NEVER acknowledge that Allah cannot hate the followers of the god of Abraham...because Allah IS the god of Abraham.
Nobeer is not interested in a discussion of what is true...he is interested in venting his hatred toward Muslims. Okay...for some people that is a good thing, perhaps an important thing, to do.
I think the position you should take on this now is informed by something any sailor might tell you: Don't piss into the wind.
Most, and especially the intelligentsia do not see that benevolent definition at all. This quote, I hope, will be closer to the truth of what everyone thinks.
Richard Dawkins.
“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.”
Regards
DL
Christianity never had a Shariah law, so I am not sure what your question is.
You cheat. You know the Bible is about kings and slaves and surely we claim the Bible is God's truth, and then you dismiss all the evil in the Bible, because of the Hellenized voice of Jesus giving us a new religion that should have never been tied to the old testament but had to be tied to the old testament to deify Jesus and justify the new religion with a history and the existing large population of Jews. It is very important this God be jealous, revengeful, fearsome and punishing because He is a God of war and slaves are part of the booty of war.
A ruthless warlord like David? He is the role model for Trump and his relationship with women. :rage:
Jesus was an anarchist because his family lived in poverty and the Pharisees, protected by Rome, enjoyed wealth that was built on the labor of the poor, just as it is today. There is no empirical proof of Jesus but to me, he seems pretty realistic and just like many 30-year anarchists today. However, I think the Bible writers gave him things to say that he didn't actually actually say. I think the myth of Jesus was built as the Greeks built their previous mythology. "The word" is a Greek concept and the Hellenized Jews created a better religion than God's favorite did. It is too bad it had to be tied to the jealous, revengeful, punishing and fearsome God and totally ridiculous stories of creation.
LOL, nice rant, but that is the god of the Old Testament, which is 3000 years older than Christianity. I agree, he has a lot more in common with Allah than the Jesus figure.
Now, I have not met any Christians who believe that it is their duty to practise literal Old Testamentarial law, have you?
I dismiss the Old Testament because it precedes Christianity by 3000 years. Fundamentally, it is a something for the Jews to deal with.
Fact is that the Jesus figure (and it is irrelevant if he existed or not) never fought wars, ordered and conducted murder and rape, had sex slaves, married 6-year olds, and ruled an empire with an iron fist. I could go on, but I think the difference to the "perfect man" of islam should be obvious.
I do not know who the fekk "David" is, but David did not found a religion now, did he.
Hmm.
Did he not throw a fit when chasing the merchants and money changers away from the temple and criticizing the religious hierarchy for allowing it?
If Jesus was not criticizing his religion and hierarch, why did the Jews he preached to threaten to stone him and made him run away on occasion?
Regards
DL
Yes. Many Christian homophobe and misoginistic pricks who refuses to grant all souls equality.
Regards
DL
True, except perhaps his war against organized religion, but his promise to kill all apostates when he returns says that if he existed in the past and had power, he would have done so back then.
What did he say about not comming to bring peace even back then but war and turning brother against brothe etc.
Regards
DL
That was King David. The same one whose son was tortures by Yahweh for 6 days before he finally murdered him, all because he was angry with the King David.
Who would torture babies? Yahweh did. Yep, he is sure an improvement over Allah. Not.
Regards
DL
Kindly ignore my previous post. I was distracted. Sorry.
We began by you stating that all-knowing is an incompatible concept with all-powerful. I guess you mean to say that if one is all-knowing one would know the future (foreknowledge) and that would make one powerless to change the future.
I would like to refer you to the common movie trope of the beautiful seer who is in the employ of a powerful king who wishes to know the outcome of impending battles so that he, the king, can be victorious or avoid defeat. It seems, therefore, that foreknowledge, if it serves any purpose at all, leads to power; thus the more complete your foreknowledge, the greater your power (to alter the future)
Yes! When I was a Toastmistess I thought being President was the best thing in the world. Little did I know long term members didn't run for president because they understood the responsibility of serving others was not a piece of cake. :lol: Being a god would be much worse.
[quote=""Gnostic Christian Bishop;394785""]You are way more knowledgeable on this issue.
From the little I know of the German and Japanese systems, they have a well organized, unionized work force and those have been shown to be more productive. Meanwhile, many of the Western governments try hard to fight against organized and unionized workers to the detriment of production and advancement. Seeing this is partly why my socio economic demography pyramid theory is based on organized guilds that would bring production to it's highest possible degree.
[/quote]
My introduction to the democratic model was a seminar for supervisors. Number one, as people in a democracy, should understand, the leaders are responsible, and if an employee screws up, the leader assumes responsibility for this and checks to be sure s/he did a good job of explaining the task that was screwed up. Next, remain encouraging, do not blame or threaten because stressing employees makes it harder for them to perform well, Imagine the effect on families if this what people experienced when they went to work.
Consider the way of autocratic industry, blaming and punishing and threatening because displeasing the person in charge can mean being fired and loosing everything, including one's car, home, and family. Being insubordinate is forbidden! Ignoring the employees who point out problems and corrections is common. Constantly demeaning the laborer is common. Now the parent teaches the child to survive in this reality by being as terrible as the employer. But if you check the Bible the democratic way is not taught. The autocratic way is taught and the male hierarchy of authority holds all the power.
[quote=""Gnostic Christian Bishop;394785""]We are so used to impediments from governments that it is doubtful that our Western societies will move that way[/quote]
:love: This is too good to last. You are opening the door for me to explain what I feel passionate about. We are living under Prussian Military order applied to citizens. There are excellent reasons for this but it crushes individual liberty and power and we defended our democracy against this. But there are serious problems with the bureaucracy we had before adopting the Prussian Military model, and we were made aware of the problems when we shifted to the new model. Now like the followers of Hitler we think we are superior to all others and this smells of fascism.
[quote=""Gnostic Christian Bishop;394785""]It seems that many, especially in the simplistic uneducated U.S. that, socialist, to many, means something other than democracy with necessary and required social programs. They see social one payer medicine and education as pure invasive socialism.
Stupid is as stupid thinks and the U.S is intentionally dumbing down it's population just as religion tries and has succeeding in doing.[/quote]
This pandemic maybe changing our opinion about what it means to defend the citizens. A few people understood our health is a matter of national defense, but now just about everyone understands that.
Yes, the US is intentionally dumbing down the population because the Prussian MIlitary bureaucracy is about making decisions at the top and controlling with policies, that are made by committees that are dismissed once the policy is made. Now all the generals can be killed and the war will go on because not even the generals are needed to keep the beast alive. All that is required is for the citizens to follow policy. I like the Christian concept of the beast because it so totally applies. When Roman was fighting for its life, it became the beast consuming all resources into the defense of Rome as is the case of the US today.
That was a mix of many concepts and I hope it all makes sense. Prussian Military bureaucracy makes the beast very strong but this is not sustainable. I can not think of a better attack on the beast than the pandemic! Kill the economy and the beast dies, civilizations fall. That is the Military-Industrial Complex comes crashing down and right now, life in the US depends on the beast staying alive. That is leading to insane economic decisions. Just like Rome. Only this time besides the threat of China and Russia and the mid-east unraveling, a bug too small to see is having the effect of an atomic bomb on wall street and throughout the economy. The beast must have oil and money or it dies. Get it? The barbarians are pandemics.
That is pretty lame. How about letting the authorities arrest and kill you?
You are comparing THAT to Muhammed?
I was asking for literal Old Testamentarial law, not for some random "homophobe and misoginistic pricks ".
For reference, under islamic law, homosexuality is punishable by DEATH.
Again, you are trying to relativize THAT?
So why is that relevant? Did this King David guy found a religion and is revered as the "perfect man" to be emulated by the believers? If not, spare me this nonsense.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
I do not care about what Yaweh does in is fre time. Does he say that his believers must hate and fight the Christians, Jews, and Polytheists? Does he give concrete instructions how to mistreat and oppress them?
THAT was my question. If he does not, he can not be Allah.
Quoting Athena
The U.S. is a Christian Nation, or at least that is how it touts itself.
Christianity is a fascist ideology and to think the U.S. is other than that is foolish.
You might have noted that at the end of WWII, the Vatican, which was still Hitler's bank, was instrumental in both manning some German death camps in the Eastern nations and funded the escape of Hitler's top brass in their escape.
Fascists help fascists when they are not trying to annihilate themselves.
Regards
DL
Quoting Nobeernolife
You did not mention Muhammad and neither did I in what I wrote.
Reading comprehension can always improve. I do not mean my imperfect one.
Regards
DL
Fine, Let us agree there is no big difference between the God of Abraham religions and they are all based on the same false beliefs and unacceptable behaviors and end this argument.
Except I haven't seen an explanation of when Christians stopped behaving badly. They still have Jim Crow mentality in the South of the US and it was not that long ago when segregation was a very ugly reality including terrorism to keep the dark skinned people powerless. The Native Americans are still not respected and they were treated very badly by the WASP who took their land. And when did one Christian group stop persecuting and killing another? When? What happened that changed the mentality of Christians and lead to them respecting all people and protecting everyone's rights equally?
Ditto in Christianity and the bible to those who want to interpret it that way. Right wing Christians do.
Regards
DL
That is the correct fact. And now about the treatment of people with dark skins and or Native Americans, Christians do not have a good track record.
Yes. All who do not kowtow to Christianity are to eventually be destroyed.
There is only one god allowed just as in Islam.
Regards
DL
I did. I mentioned the radical difference before if a religion is founded by
a) a pacifist, celibate hippie or
b) a sex slave-keeping, murdering, plundering warlord.
Please read before rushing to the keyboard.
Please tell me the passages where Yaweh directly instructs his followers to hate and fight the followers of other existing religions. Thanks.
Can I expect.... crickets?
Looks true to me. The Christian right not only elected Bush Jr. and Cheny, but they got them reelected after the wrongful invasion of Iraq. We could also speak of the Zionist Christians and Israel's failure to meet United Nations mandates and Trump's approval of Israel's land grab and the Christian Right that supports him.
Do you have a reference where a) the bible and b) the bible thumpers call for the DEATH of homosexuals?
Please show it, otherwise I call BS on you.
I am surprised to see you make such a false premise.
You put it in the past when it is still the reality in the U.S.
I see the institutionalized discrimination against your colored people, who fill your jails, as a good way to stop colored reproduction and keep the whites always in the top position.
This ongoing abuse I see as an ongoing genocide of whites against the colored as it not only effects those in jail but also the economic and social growth of the colored.
Some will not see that as a good analogy to what Hitler did but I see the same results when I look at the big picture.
A fascist regime, be it Hitler's or the U.S.'s, always favors it's own over any other race.
I see us all as slaves to our oligarch owners but if I was black, for instance, I would see it as masa trying to kill off all the field n word, while favoring the off color piccaninnies and house n word s.
Regards
DL
I do not know what this mysterious "Christian right" is supposed to be, but Americans also elected Obama and Clinton with their absolutely horrific and misguided destruction of Libya, destabilization of Syria, and support of the Muslim Brotherhood all over the world. TWICE. You blame "Christian right" for that too?
Don't work so hard to be a G D ass hole. You are naturally one, it seems, and do not have to try so hard.
You herd it from this grouchy old fuck and if you disgust me, you must have one hell of an impact on nicer people like Athena.
Luke 19:27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.
Qur'an 8:7 "Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: `Wipe the infidels out to the last.'"
Regards
DL
I do not see how that is direct command from Yahweh to the Yaweh believers to hate and fight the followers of specific other religions.
Do you have a RELEVANT quote?
And spare your name-calling,,,, that is no substitute for an argument.
I did not read or hear Trump speak to the land grab issue but the right wing of Christianity is urging Israel both in words and cash to rebuild the temple and bring on Armageddon.
The stupidity of god intervening aside, I have to wonder what the Muslim world would do if Israel actually retook the mount and kicked the Muslims out.
A nuke to the mount is not that far out of the question as retaliation.
Regards
DL
Abortion hasn't brought are numbers to nothing and it similar to child/human sacrifice. Its a matter of amount and spectrum. You should do some research on the ancient Amorites. Have you ever read the book of Isaiah or Jeremiah (to find out more about the ancient Israelites).
I call B.S. on you ignoring history and reality and wanting me to be your research bitch.
I think we are done here a hole.
Regards
DL
alcohol can be consumed in less amounts. Jesus Christ drank alcohol. Great weed is slightly more moral but it does kill brain cells and thats been proven. Weed is hard to measure for intoxication when someone is pulled over after they used it.
Why do you say that? You misuse the langauge. Abortion is murder but is forgivable. Why do you say otherwise?
Really you are not aware of news in the USA and Christians interpreting the Bible to justify discrimination and even brutalizing of homosexuals?
I doubt if we would be speaking of this if individuals didn't take matters into the own hands and act on that same mentality of the past, killing and persecuting homosexuals today.
Search Results
Web results
History of violence against LGBT people in the United States ...
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › History_of_violence_against_LGBT_peo...
The history of violence against LGBT people in the United States is made up of assaults on gay men, lesbians, bisexual, and transgender individuals (LGBT), ...
?Violence against LGBT ... · ?1990–1999 · ?2000–2009 · ?2010–2019
Significant acts of violence against LGBT people - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Significant_acts_of_violence_against_LG...
Jump to United States - The police had historically described his death as suicide, but a 2017 inquest — the third on his death — admitted he was murdered ...
US man charged with triple murder targeting LGBT victims - BBC
https://www.bbc.com › news › world-us-canada-48564480
Jun 7, 2019 - According to the prosecutor's office, Mr Davis and Mr Blancher were gay men, and Ms Cameron was transgender, US media said. Prosecutors ...
Detroit Man Charged in 3 Killings Targeted L.G.B.T. People ...
https://www.nytimes.com › 2019/06/08 › us › detroit-lgbtq-killing
Jun 8, 2019 - Officials said the man, Devon Robinson, shot the victims — two of whom were gay and one who was a transgender woman — on May 25. An ...
L.G.B.T. People Are More Likely to Be Targets of Hate Crimes ...
https://www.nytimes.com › interactive › 2016/06/16 › us › hate-crimes-ag...
Jun 16, 2016 - Even before the shooting rampage at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people were already the most ...
Why do you say that? I'm talking about this how it relates to American statistics
Well, I suppose that is an answer. You can NOT find any passage where Yahwe tells its followers to hate and fight the followers of other religions as Allah does.
Which is all I said,.
But it is really hard to admit having been wrong, isn´t it. Completely human, I hate it too. But I like to think that I can do better and admit defeat if that situation occurs.
That pizza statement was a reply to a statement you made about yourself that you would have no way of proving on an online forum, i assumed we both knew i don't make the world's best pizza. And no it wasn't a lie, because most people would figure out the statement was tall order.
As for the atheist church thing, i've heard of that. Its hard to call naturalists moral, when they approve of abortion. I find most naturalists/atheists to be complacent and apathetic. To be fair modern christian are essentially the same.
Not the issue. I was asking specifically where
a) Yaweh directly says that homoexuals should be killed and
b) Yawah believers demand that should be the law because it is in the Bible
Your long list of "finds" does not show that.
NB: You might want to go slow with bringing the Nazis into this, seeing that Hitler was a great admirer of islam and had the Mufti of Jerusalem in Berlin advising him on the Jewish problem.
Thank you. :lol: The way I am built it is really hard to piss into the wind. I could try spitting into the wind but I don't think that would work so well either.
Seriously I think you stated the argument better than I have. Clearly stating Allah is the God of Abraham. Period nothing to argue.
I have read more than 8 differen religious holy books. My mind set is to ignore much of them and focus on moral issue.
This well done link is exactly the conclusion I came to for basically all theologies based on supernatural stupid thinking.
https://vimeo.com/7038401
For Athena.
Here is a transcript to one of the best and most honest views of Yahweh that I have ever seen.
Page 68 on is what that top link shows.
https://www.hattrick.co.uk/Prods/GOT/GoTscript.pdf
Regards
DL
Ah, but Nobeernolife is pointing out that Allah DOES hate the followers of the god of Abraham. Because he says so. In the Koran.
Yeah, reading comprehension is a bitch, isn´t it.
I have read every major report since the 1901 Hemp report. That would include what those in the industry call their Bible, The LeDain Royal Commission On Cannabis. Its's findings are also available in the LeDain Royal Commission Report on Psychotropic drugs that is also the benchmark of the drug research industry.
They belie your statement. Get any peer reviewed repot or retract your lie.
You should know by now that I say nothing I cannot back up. You should be so honest.
Regards
DL
Because all courts would say that those performing abortions do not pass the mens rea standards that all courts go by and that you should consider with your slander.
Don't think about it and just keep misusing the language.
Regards
DL
Except for the vile actions that come out of the religious as compared to atheists.
Atheism sure beats religious penchants of war mongering and lawlessness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA
Regards
DL
Did he, like the pope provide staff for the death camps as well as funding?
Regards
DL
Not that I know. The Mufti advised Hitler and and helped in recruiting muslim SS regiments.
Do you have a reference for the idea that the Pope financed death camps?
One: You ought never to refer to yourself in the third person. It is the boorish form of egoism.
Two: Quote the Koran passage where Allah says "I hate the followers of the god of Abraham." Give a citation.
Not at hand but the Jesuits were implicated as well as a section of the Vatican whose label I have forgotten that are charged with pushing the Vatican's ideology.
They have changed the name of that branch of late but it is still alive and well.
Regards
DL
I would say that any god who offers a bunch of virgins in heaven as a reward, just to the men of course, hates them as I see that as a curse more than a blessing both against Muslim men and their women.
Regards
DL
So you don´t. I call BS on that, unless you can provide a reference.
Can you try to stick to things you know instead of spouting conspiracy theories?
They are called "the people of the book" in the Koran, which is chock-full of hatred of them. You are seriously unaware of that?
That was my question to the people who claim that the Yaweh = Allah. Obviously, if that is the case, he is schiizophrenic.
The term ‘People of the Book’ in the Koran refers to Muslims, Christians, and Jews.
No it does not. It refers to Christians and Jews.
If you claim it refers to muslims, then Allah is hating his own followers, which means taking the insanity to a whole new level, LOL
I’m actually claiming that about you. Abraham is a prophet of Islam. Therefore, Allah is the god of abraham.
Allah does not instruct his followers to hate the followers of the god of abraham. In fact, there are numerous verses where he says the opposite.
The verses about killing infidels mainly refer to the arabic polytheists of the time.
I know that is the claim. Are you new to this thread? What I am saying is that that claim implies that Allah is schizophrenic,
Quoting Alvin Capello
Nope. The Koran is full of verses hating the "people of the book".
Quoting Alvin Capello
Polytheists are also mentioned, separately from the "people of the book". They are not the same.
What is important for a person can be what is true. The culture wars are wrapped around that connection. Being a progressive is about embracing a better way to do things and developing a more just society. It also is about the connection between the personal and the political that is a the heart of the different iterations of "Christianity."
One of the interesting elements of Elaine Pagels' book about the Gnostic Gospels is that the demand for inclusion by the church was not just about all the bad things it produced. A vision of the universal seems to be a terrible thing in many ways. But sorting out what should be embraced or rejected on that basis is exactly what the connection between the personal and the political needs to struggle with.
Quote a passage...and give a citation.
Or acknowledge that you cannot.
Quoting Nobeernolife
Allow me to take this opportunity to agree with you on this.
If you are too stupid to do your own research-----
Regards
DL
Too dumb for words, especially after you wrote the following you stupid dumb ass.
"So you don´t. I call BS on that, unless you can provide a reference."
I have your double standard now you pathetic hypocrite.
Regards
DL
You've never backed up anything you've said ever to any considerable degree.
Regards
What about abortion and people like Stalin. Hitler was more of the Occult than a christian. Then you have all the pagan religions over the thousands of years. I do admit that christian nations are more efficient at killing than nations from 2000 years ago (technology unfortunately). Are you familiar with the Hindu Caste system in India.
Why do you say abortion isn't murder?
That movie you sent me isn't worth reading. Do you have an article for me to read on the same topic? Movies are meant to play with people emotions. Life isn't simple.
I feel you back your arguments badly. You feel the same about mine.
I prefer articles over movies, so if you send me a movie i put watching that movie on a backlog.
I looked for your the claim that the pope funded death camps, and I could not find any reference. Please give a hint what "research" I should do to find that.
I am not sure what your name-calling is supposed to mean. I told you that your assumption that phrase "people of the book" in the Koran refers to muslims is wrong. Which can verify very easily.
Instead of saying "thanks, I was wrong", you type vulgarities at me. Why?
I looked this one up, and apparently it is a FABLE told by Jesus. It is NOT a call by Jesus/God to hate and fight the Jews/Muslims/Hindus etc.
So it does not support your claim that the Allah is comparable to Yahwe. Do you have another passage, or do you admit you were wrong?
Yes. It is immoral.
Regards
DL
Check the dictionary definitions of both terms and stop misusing them.
Regards
DL
https://www.google.ca/search?sxsrf=ALeKk01cRuLSCZaWSH9MMYr1Z3E5KESRvA%3A1584976587991&source=hp&ei=y9J4Xpu-OdSztQbE04CgDw&q=Vatican+bank+hitler&oq=Vatican+bank+hitler&gs_l=psy-ab.3...999.12437..13438...2.0..0.145.2191.3j16......0....1..gws-wiz.......0j35i39j0i131j0i22i30j33i21.kIYgjEeQLhA&ved=0ahUKEwjbz4H08bDoAhXUWc0KHcQpAPQQ4dUDCAc&uact=5
Regards
DL
That link leads to an article about Nazi gold allegedly stored in sevaral overseas banks, including the Vatican bank. OK, I agree it is possible there is some hidden dirt there.
However, your claim was that "the Vatican financed death camps". So I assume that claim was wild hyperbole?
Care to make an ass of yourself again.
That is the last time I do ypour research for you. Lazy is as lazy does.
You are not worth my time.
Regards
DL
Abortion is murder you sinner. I'm also a sinner. You check the definitions. Life is complex and sometimes we have to think slightly abstract (slightly abstract).
You called me a drunkard earlier. Were both wrong doers so i called you the other name for wrong doer (sinner).
regards,
not DL (whatever dl means assuming its a name)
The name of the department you are looking for is Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.)
Now that you know it...provide the evidence for you absurd claim.
OK. That is an interesting article. Not sure how accurate the source (which seems very nationalistic Serbian), but it certainly sounds like there is some dirt there.
But the article is about Catholic priests running death camps in Croatia.
Your claim that was that "The Vatica financed the Nazi death camps". I still see no evidence for that.
If you were talking about Catholic priests and Croatia, why didn`t you say that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_clergy_involvement_with_the_Ustaše
Apologies to all. It was not Jesuit priests as I had stated above who ran the death camps. It was the Franciscans.
"During World War II, nearly half of the 22 NAZI CONCENTRATION CAMPS operating in the Nazi allied state of CROATIA were under the command of ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIESTS."
https://adarapress.com/2015/05/15/roman-catholic-priests-ran-half-the-concentration-camps-in-croatia/
Regards
DL
If I curse a pedophile protecting pope, or a death camp promoter and accomplish, does it matter which one of the many I name when speaking in general terms?
We are in a chat room. Not a court of law.
Regards
DL
good point the roman papacy does suck.
I would see the pope and half his pedophile protecting bishops in jail if I had the power.
I would see all governments fly right and bring those bastards to justice.
Bullets are too good for them and collectively are all contributing to pedophilia.
Shame on us all.
Regards
DL
Unless me and you want to go to jail for 80 years, doing a citizen arrest isn't the best option. But if 80 years in jail is something you can manage, whatever god or alien force out there might reward you greatly.
Yes the Roman Papacy really sucks.
Do you believe in aliens?
I do not know what you prattling about. You claimed that the pope at the financed Nazi death camps, and the "reference" you provided described something different. I was simply asking to cut down on hyperbole and use more clear language.
And whatever Catholic priests did in Croatia, it does not change the fact that the Muftii of Jerusalem was advising Hitler and recruiting muslim Nazi SS regiments.
Just this morning while playing a word game I realized "belie" is part of the word "believe". That seems to indicate whose words are part of the consciousness of the "fruit of knowledge".
Perhaps your post would be more pleasant if you understood what we can understand depends on what you already know. When people are from different cultures are trying to communicate, what they know will be different, and these people may have trouble understanding each other. Stop finding fault in the poster, and take this cultural difference into consideration. Because you are not understanding people that does not mean without question they are doing a poor job of communicating. Politely ask more questions or politely explain your different preceptive from your culture or study of history and be tactful.
Reading comprehension? I did not find "fault in the poster", I said the reference that he posted does not match the claim. Nothing to do with culture.
Wow, what are you thinking? That seems to be an insult, not a reasonable argument? Is it your intention to dismiss reason and insult someone? It requires a lot of effort to stick reasoning and I am sure you do want to do better.
Hum, that is true, but for some reason, your posts seem to carry a knife.
Quoting Nobeernolife
That is not an innocent statement and I do not enjoy such cutting remarks. They are like a cloud ruining a sunny day.
Now that is a good post. I am saying so with the hope others will follow your example.
You make me ponder your thoughts, and I notice I am doing so with my immediate concern for my sister who has been evicted because she will not stop caring for the homeless. No one cared about her activity until the pandemic hit and the risk of mingling with others has gone sky-high. I love my sister and I support what she is doing, but this morning I woke with the awareness that she is putting the homeless in greater risk by insisting on mingling with them. Especially with no home, she can not keep herself clean and this escalates the risk to herself and everyone else.
I want to make a point here. My sister is judging herself and everyone else with a value that we should not turn our backs on vulnerable people. I agree with her that ignoring the needs of the people she helps is equal to a neighborhood hearing a woman scream for help and looking out their windows to see that she is being beaten, and doing nothing because they do not want to get involved. That is obviously a human wrong and we are obviously committing this wrong. However, if we judge the circumstances, and that she is a risk to herself and everyone else, including the people she wants to help and her family, then what is right and what is wrong is different. Our present reality demands a different action.
I have concerns that religion leads to judging people. Science leads to judging circumstances. Perhaps we want to be mindful of these different judgments? Moral thinking is avoiding harm and that is a balance of human values and science.
For those who don't already know, for Cicero god's law is nature or universal law, not the stories told by Greeks or written in holy books.
To think we are the only intelligent species in the universe, is betting against the odds. So yes, I think that there are intelligent life out there.
Would I spend the rest of my life in jail to end the damage the pedophile protectors and facilitators out there are doing?
Yes.
I risked 18 years in jail when I was 36ish for a lesser cause.
Regards
DL
No argument on this.
Regards
DL
What? Did you read the whole conversation. Scroll up and see what the bishop says about the Roman Papacy, and then if you still feel like it get back to me.
Yeah i've done some shit too. Send me a private message if you would like. No wrong answer. I respect it if you would like to keep that sort of thing under wraps.
I think alot of supernatural stuff could possibly be explained with a naturalist alien phenonmenon or an atheist powerful alien phenonmennnnooonnonon (spelling). I tried so hard to spell that word right.
Now that we agree on something such as aliens we can be best friends now. Even though i do believe in a God, i have to admit all miracles/coincidences can be explained with alien technology. I'm still not giving up my christian faith. Hopefully i die before i give up my christian faith and then it will be a mute point.
Paul in the new testament wasn't 100% sure of his faith. I won't quote it because i don't want to evangelize.
No need to go private.
I live in Canada, which now has legalized cannabis. When I was 36ish, I saw the immorality and futility of our drug war against the children in Canada and wanted to fight the law. I tried the right way till I ran into a wall of costs I could not handle so decide to mule till I was caught and attack the law on their dime instead of mine. I fought the law and they won by cheating and throwing everything, including this guilty as hell man and his case out of court, because they did not want my challenge to win.
I will hear your anecdotal story here or in P.M should you wish to share it.
Regards
DL
Faith in a good god, I would not question or try to change.
Tell us why you would even want to have faith in an evil genocidal god, who created a vile homophobic and misogynous religion, and I will see if we can be friends or not.
Regards
DL
My posts carry a knife? What is that even supposed to mean??
I was just wondering; are you a guy or a gal?
I know your avatar is a female but wanted to confirm this.
Regards
DL
Thanks for your interest, but I am into talking about topics and not discussing "me" or "you".
Now do you admit that your claim that the pope financed nazi death camps was false?
Okay, I will try this again.
Quoting Nobeernolife
Do you see a cutting remark in that quote? I could be wrong, but that appears to be a disrespectful comment, a cutting remark. That is what I mean by your post carry a knife. Often they come with cutting comments.
Thanks for your informative reply.
Regards
DL
Doesn't every sort of animal have its own sort of brain?
Aren't all the brains similar to all the others in some respect or other? And some more than others in this or that respect?
Quoting Athena
Doesn't it seem reasonable to suppose that the structure of our brains does indeed make it impossible for us to know some things and impossible for us to think about some things?
Is there some reason to suppose that minds like ours can "know everything" and "think about everything"?
Is there some reason to suppose that something exists that "knows everything" and that can "think about everything"?
How should we characterize "knowledge of everything" and the capacity to "think about everything"?
Quoting Athena
I've heard that many of the birds that mate for life catch some action on the side now and then. Perhaps we should say in this regard they aren't so different from the humans who behave likewise.
But we have a greater capacity to consider a wide range of potential behaviors, values, ways of life. We can learn to set rules and goals for ourselves, and strive to live by those rules and work toward those goals.
Quoting Athena
Yes, absolutely.
It's well established that chimps are among the nonhuman animals with something like a sense of fairness, compassion, community, friendship, and playfulness. They're intelligent problem-solvers with creative imagination and reliable memory. They form rational expectations informed by experience. They conceive ranges of alternative outcomes and adopt attitudes of expectation analogous to our attitudes of belief, wonder, doubt, and hope.
On the other hand, consider the peculiar atrocities and the irresponsible, selfish, and hateful acts committed by human beings every day.
The capacities that open new horizons of knowledge, freedom, and power for us lead also to new horizons of confusion and error, irresponsibility, and depravity.
you were vague so i'll be vague. I stole X dollars worth of stuff from a store with the intention of being caught. Cost me over 50k and a security clearance after some other stuff happened. the record was worse than anything time in prison would have entailed.
you should reconsider being my friend since we both believe in aliens. if God/Jesus is just an alien, who can blame him for allowing people to live their lives here on earth. If i'm wrong about the Bible how does that hurt you, i will just die and possibly be judged (based on what aspects or percentage of the bible is true). Once again Paul in the new testament wasn't 100% on his faith. i believe a short life in my case would be a blessing.
Yet every marker for evil is at the best level that we have ever enjoyed. Death by violence, crime, poverty, slavery etc.
Evolutionists are having a hard time explaining why we are so good to each other.
Your glass is half full but in reality it is overflowing with good.
You might want to check stats and facts on issues.
Even as we speak, we have a new virus killing some of us. We hate that it kills, but should be thankful that it is only killing a relatively small % of us.
Regards
DL
I showed my end game of changing a bad law.
What was your end game. What was the purpose of your theft?
Quoting christian2017
I am a white male. Religions cannot hurt me. All they can do is insult me in knowing that people are stupid enough to follow satanic religions en masse.
If you promote those immoral religions, you are satanic.
My fight is not about me nor for my benefit. It is for my children and grand children and all women and gays. Not to mention the mental improvement of those who promote garbage morals.
Insert gays and women harmed by homophobic and misogynous religions to this quote. You should get an idea of what you should be doing with the homophobic and misogynous mainstream religions if you live by the golden rule.
Please get back to me with your conclusion.
Martin Niemöller
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Regards
DL
What on Earth does "believe in aliens" mean to you?
Is that actually the best wording you could come up with to communicate what you actually mean?
your going to have to go more in depth than that to find out more about my personal story. If you would like you send me a private message with more detail.
Many people have "rebuked" you on much of your crap (pertaining to your last post to me)
Please don't quote the Hitler/Holocaust era every time your trying to make a strong point.
"Do you believe in aliens?" is equivalent to "Do you believe in cheese?". If you believe in cheese and or aliens than you either believe that aliens or cheese exist. How could i have worded that better?
Our brains are the product of evolution. We being with the reptilian brain. The next layer is the evolved mammalian brain. Then comes the devolved cortex that is what separates us from the rest of the animals.
Quoting Cabbage Farmer
Absolutely! This is why I think it is so important to dump religious myths and deal with the reality of our evolution. Definitely our thinking is very limited, but we have far more freedom of choice than any other animal. Actually our survival depended on males getting as many females pregnant as possible, and the division of labor resulting in males and females evolving differently. Our survival depended on groups, not single unit families advocated by the Bible that was written by city dwellers. Competition and jealousy is instinctual and our morality evolved to reduce the tensions when we became better thinkers.
Quoting Cabbage Farmer
The more we know, the more we know of what we do not know. What we know is extremely limited and we seriously need to respect that. What we think about is extremely limited. Proof, what do you know of bureaucratic organization and our liberty or lack of it? How much time have you spent thinking about that? Before you can even begin to think about that, there a few books you need to read so you know what there is to know. We have specialized because it is absolutely impossible for individuals to be experts on all things.
Quoting Cabbage Farmer
I used to contemplate that and the more I learn of quantum physics the less confident I am of such a consciousness. However, clearly matter reacts to matter and I think this forms a consciousness, but it is not a thinking consciousness as we have, any more than a worm reacting to sunlight is thinking as we think.
Quoting Cabbage Farmer
We should not. We should not confuse having a lot of facts with having knowledge. To my way of thinking, a fact is not knowledge until experience gives us a sense of meaning.
Quoting Cabbage Farmer
No, we should not say that. The only other animal I know of that is as sexual as humans is the bonobo.
Birds do not mate until they have built a nest and their ability to build nests is restricted by nature. They can not overpopulate and they don't have sex for any other reason. For humans, sex is not just about reproduction but, as it is for bonobos, sex is also about bonding and social organization.
Quoting Cabbage Farmer
Not all mammals are social animals that depend on the group, however chimps and humans are mammals that are social animals dependent on the group. I don't know of atrocities committed by humans being worse than the atrocities committed by animals. Our technology can make our actions more dramatic but I think the nature of the act is the same?
]
Not true. We are good to each other for the same reason other social animals are good to each other. Our problem is not recognizing our limits that are biologically determined. It is when we attempt to function beyond our limits that we get into trouble, and civilizations are far beyond our biological limits and would not be possible without religion or a very good understanding of democracy.
Rebuking is for dummies.
As long as I am rot refuted, they can show how dumb they are all they like.
Regards
DL
ok.
Yes true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ADgh3yCSdM
I suppose the big problem that a
00:02
Darwinist places as I said before is to
00:05
explain empathy naturally altruism which
00:10
seems to go to run counter to our
00:13
Darwinian programming and it really does
00:16
seem as though we subjectively feel
00:19
empathy in a way that that naive
00:22
interpretation of Darwinism would think
00:24
that we shouldn't I mean we're we're too
00:26
nice for for Darwinian tastes would be
00:30
one way to put it I think it said it
00:32
will it will be a challenge but it is a
00:34
challenge to Darwinian stew explain why
00:37
we are so nice because starting out from
00:40
the assumption that our ancestors would
00:43
have been programmed if you like or not
00:45
if you don't to be nice towards relative
00:48
and towards reciprocate errs how come
00:51
when are nice to everybody and I think
00:53
that that's not that difficult to
00:54
explain because what natural selection
00:56
does is to put into brains rules of
01:00
thumb it doesn't say look after the
01:02
interests of your selfish genes in a
01:03
cognitive way if it did then we'd all be
01:05
a lot nastier than than we are what
01:07
natural selection does is put into
01:09
brains rules of thumb which might be of
01:12
the form be nice to any small squawking
01:16
objects in your nest if you happen to be
01:18
a bird now in a human case we used to
01:20
live in small bands small villages where
01:23
most of the people that you met as all
01:25
the people you ever met would be
01:26
relatives and would be people you meet
01:28
again and again and therefore it would
01:30
be in a position to reciprocate so the
01:32
rule of thumb would have been be nice to
01:34
everyone you meet
01:36
now that's translated into today where
01:39
we're cultural beings where we live in
01:40
large cities we're no longer living in
01:42
small villages or small bands it's no
01:44
longer true that everybody you meet is a
01:47
relative or a potential reciprocate er
01:48
but the rule of thumb doesn't know that
01:50
why should it just as the rule of thumb
01:52
be lustful towards members of the
01:54
opposite sex works because in nature
01:58
back then there was no contraception now
02:01
there is contraception and so the the
02:03
rule of thumb just plain be lustful
02:04
doesn't work anymore but it's still
02:06
there we still feel the lust in the same
02:09
way we still feel the lust to be nice
02:11
because that's what natural selection
02:13
built into us at a time when being nice
02:16
meant being nice to everybody who meant
02:18
if everybody would ever meet now
02:21
nowadays we live in big cities but the
02:23
rule of thumb is still there that's a
02:25
very very simplified account but that's
02:27
the kind of way in which a Darwinian
02:29
might argue for why we're as nice as we
02:32
are we certainly much do to nice in a
02:34
naive sense
This a poor way to get information to you.
I will not do it often and might have to ignore some of your posts till you can view links.
Regards
DL
Well...if you were asking him if he thought that aliens (other sentient beings) exist on other planets, you could have written, "Do you suppose that there are other sentient beings that exist on other planets?"
Or...if you were asking about whether aliens from other planets have visited planet Earth at some point, you might have worded it, "Do you suppose that aliens from other planets have visited Earth at some point?"
Or...if you were asking about whether aliens from other planets are here now studying our culture unobserved, you might have worded it, "Do you suppose that aliens from other planets are here now studying our culture unobserved?
As it is, I have no idea of what you were asking...and still don't.
We have come a long way since Darwin. You might want to read "Science of Good and Evil" before you defend your argument that evolutionists can't explain our good and our bad behavior.
Now it is nap time. :yawn: Thinking requires more energy than most the things we do, and we programmed to not think too much.
Its a common cliche. "Do you believe in aliens?". Look up the common cliche on the internet.
Do you believe in cheese?
yes
that person believes that cheese exist.
Do you believe in aliens?
yes
that person believes in that aliens exist.
Once again its a common cliche.
I actually stated this earlier.
But you asked me a question...and the question was, "How could i have worded that better?"
I answered that question. Essentially I am saying that a better way would have been NOT to use a cliche...and then I gave you three "BETTER" ways of asking whatever it is you were asking. I still do not know. Which of the three "better" ways of asking whatever it is you were asking...were you actually asking?
Yes...it is a common cliche...but the "cliche" does not actually give an idea of what you actually were asking.
You asked me the question of why i didn't word it differently of "Do you believe in Aliens?"
Perhaps you come from a different generation so you aren't familiar with "Do you believe in Aliens?"
They're out the maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!
YES!
I was trying to find out what you were asking.
I actually asked you, "What on Earth does "believe in aliens" mean to you?"
I was (AM) trying to find out what the hell you were asking.
I still do not know.
Which of the three possible questions I offered...were you asking?
I may be from a different generation...but I still do not know what you were asking. I am beginning to think you do not know what you were asking either.
Ummm...what does that mean?
Do you believe in aliens? (the cliche)
Can actually mean all three of these.
Me and the bishop have a history, so i don't always have real indepth conversations with him. He usually ignores alot of the stuff i say and he ignore alot of the stuff other people say.
Very often when talking to someone, people will keep the conversation light and seemingly uncomplex to see if the other person wants to talk about cheese or aliens.
People don't like to type things they don't want to type and they don't like to read things that are wordy. We live in a Meme culture but in my defense i do read as much as most of the people this forum.
It was a joke. Thats a common cliche from movies where the guy who appears to be a hippie and strung out on drugs says exactly that. I agree with my hippie friend that aliens probably do exist.
I really see only one that is homophobic and misogynous. The plural is virtue signalling. Can´t upset the echo chamber, can we now.
Sorry, I still do not know what you are prattling about. As I said, I am interested in discussing topics, not people.
I get it now.
I should have read that with the "out the" as "out there"...right? I honestly missed that.
Anyway...the reason I asked about the "Do you believe in aliens"...had to do mostly with the use of the convention "believe in"...rather than the "aliens" part. I knew approximately where you were going, but the "believe in" thingy fucks up so many conversations...I though I would explore it with you.
You were kind. I was being a bit abrasive...and you were not plugging in.
I am an advocate for never using the "believe in" construct. The "Do you believe in God" is a particular pain in my ass. It is a world apart from the more specific, "Do you 'believe' it is more likely that at least one god exists...or do you 'believe' it is more likely that none exist?"
Any chance I get to question someone using the convention...I ask it. You used it...so I asked you.
Thanks for going along with it...and thanks for the courtesy.
I go on this site so that i drink less alcohol. I rarely plug in when i'm not at work.
Thank you for your service, Sir!
The only moral I conclude is conduced between the Jewish and Christian view. There is none. Humanity was given an option and it was fair by terms of balance between the created and its creator. This rather adheres to the Muslim view of God than any other; where only subservience to God's will exists. Do what you will, it will never ever be outside of the scope of God's will in any regard that it might succeed.
The evil resides in the multitude of pain that would unleash from eating the fruit, in order to discern the difference between good and evil. It in itself is not evil; although probably good. It all depends on your take on whether life itself is good or bad in its fullness. Given the depiction we have of God, I know we all can be certain given the context for the morality that it was the right call. Love life or not is rather the ultimate question here.
If you can imagine being a God - then God condones the imagination. No more, no less. If all the while you can be a God; then congratulations - God are on your side. Fabled or not - this is it, right?
I expect religion to keep being religion. It is the fabling about God one way or another. I don't expect God to be more found in it than in any other area. It wouldn't be a very interesting God to fable about if all there was to it is religion. We can find treasures that belongs to any other area from all areas. God is the greatest decentralization of all. To monopolize it whatsoever is hearsay to a potential end of God, but never God itself. A God - for sure. I don't believe in limiting the almighty; not by moral, nor by prestige or even number.
My answer to the question is thus: Neither, nor neither and either. A counter-question I pose is: What would you make of it? In any case possible, it would be a gift from God - I deem that nothing more than a blessing.
If YHWH murdered Adam and Eve for this, I congratulate us. Would you have ever asked yourself the immeasurable question about your own divinity without the notion? That's just the way it is. Although murdered they were not in any technical sense. They were merely prohibited to eat from the tree of life. Makes sense to first know good from evil before that decision to be made either way. Given a real scenario, the prospect of eating the fruit will have reflected the issue in terms of becoming aware that it was supposedly either good or evil and that it could not be known to any conclusion without first partaking of the fruit. The consequences were realized.
The importance for humanity with regards to religion is not the means to a measure, but the measure of the means. I will happily be a bad example if need be. Fear of being a subject to scrutiny is not a good reason to turn your back on reality. I'm with God on this one and I do not believe that He made anyone anything - not good, nor evil or anything else. Be what you want - no-one else can. I know I am.
Best wishes,
EL
That is is correct. Empathy and unselfish behaviour exists in all evolved species that live in societies.
I am glad we could agree on something.
Quite obviously only that which benefits our survival can promote the life of our species and if we are ignorant and make bad choices, death is the consequence. I think at this point in time we can not be sure our species will survive another thousand years.
Hopefully to a consolation: I am sure to be at the cradle of an eternal civilization. We have much to consolidate ourselves with, but our wills are strong and intent on living together. We are gonna make it.
I'm happy to hear this sort of frank acknowledgment, all too rare in conversations like these.
I'm getting crankier and grayer too. And the force of repetition over decades of conversation naturally tends to prejudice our interpretations of the statements of our interlocutors. Perhaps especially when we're conversing through these boxes.
I try to shake it off. Remind myself to approach these conversations as rituals, another set of opportunities to practice mindfulness, sincerity, and compassion, along with the art of philosophical discourse. It's a whole attitude, a whole psychophysical activity, not merely a stream of words, at issue in the practice of right speaking.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
I agree it's preferable, and more instructive, to read many myths figuratively.
As I've suggested, I'm not sure all ancients did not make literal interpretations of myths, nor that the distinction between literal and figurative interpretation was clear to all of them, and understood in the same way by all of them.
I suspect you and I may differ in application and characterization of the distinction between literal and figurative interpretation. No wonder then if ancient people divided from each other by great distances in time and place also varied in their customs of interpretation.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Your initial remarks included the statement "I am not a literal reader of this myth". I took this statement to indicate that you interpret the myth figuratively, not literally.
How does it impair a figurative reading of the myth, for the same figure in the myth to be interpreted as both a "fruit tree" and a "knowledge tree"?
How is such a figurative reading ruled out by your interpretation of the text?
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Do you mean to say that Gnostic Christian philosophy posits a heaven and hell, but is superior to all other sects that posit a heaven and hell because it is the only such sect that is universalist? Or do you mean to say that Gnostic Christian philosophy, as a form of universalist ideology, does not posit a heaven and hell, and therefore is superior to all the sects that do posit a heaven and hell?
Why do you say the universalist ideology is superior?
I suppose I'm sympathetic to the generalizing tendency in universalism, though I'm not sure it goes far enough in my view.
Would you care to further characterize universalism, Gnostic Christian philosophy, and their relation?
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Who believes that genocide is good?
I look forward to hearing how you apply these terms.
Consider the Sun, or the mass of the Sun, or the fact that the Sun is more massive than the Earth.
Do we say the Sun is right and good, and that the mass of the Sun is right and good? But in that case, I suppose everything that exists, and every state of affairs, should be called right and good, simply by virtue of its existence. But then what significance is there in the distinction between "being" or "existing" on the one hand, and "right" and "good" on the other?
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
I suggest that simple reflection on ordinary experience is sufficient to persuade us that human beings and at least some other animals have a capacity to recognize good and bad and right and wrong. Of course among us this capacity is cultivated in widely divergent ways across various cultural contexts, and is characterized in different ways in various traditional narratives associated with what we might call spiritual experience, practice, and belief.
Test all things; hold fast what is good. This maxim might belong to a characterization of scientific method, among other sorts of method or practice.
How do you coordinate concepts of truth and objectivity with the "tests" and "good" indicated in such a maxim?
How do you interpret the phrase "like one of Us" in its original context?
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
That's how I would put it, if I were writing the story myself, given the premise of an omniscient and omnipotent deity.
But then I'm still not sure how to interpret your earlier remark:
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Surely we won't say the command "tried to prevent" the outcome the commander already knew as a matter of fact?
Perhaps in this remark, too, you're objecting to someone else's interpretation of the myth?
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Can you flesh out the relevant conception of sin here?
Is it just any sort of wrongdoing?
I'm inclined to agree that animals like us begin and end in ignorance, error, and confusion. Even where we understand things well enough for own purposes, it's hard for us to straighten out our own motives, desires, intentions, and actions.
Still it seems we have a rare opportunity in this precious human birth.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Likewise, events that make us extinct or that bring us closer to extinction are only "small evils" within some greater good? Or is this somehow where you draw the line on good and evil, the survival of biological species or narrowly circumscribed lineages? Is it only the humans to which such judgments of good and evil pertain, or do you apply the same principles to the good of each biological species or lineage?
I don't have a problem of evil in the traditional sense, because I don't affirm any conception of an omniscient or omnipotent deity. Neither do I put much emphasis on the survival of species or lineages in my discourses on morality.
Am I right to infer that you intend for the Darwinian conception of good and evil you've just sketched to resolve or dissolve the problem of evil, given a conception of an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent deity?
No. The conception is mine. I cannot speak for Darwin.
Yes. Be it a god or nature, there is no conflict in attributing all human to human evil to our need to compete and create losers.
To your question on sin. Humans are the only beings that can have an evil intent and thus sin. Mens rea in secular law agrees.
Sin is a small evil within a greater good, --- given that that greater good is the survival of humankind, --- who are the creators of souls.
This applies to you and me as well.
Regards
DL
:chin: What do you think makes us civilized?
Honestly? Jesus Christ - I reckon. I put all my hopes in that basket.
That is not how I believe. I think that belief is very problematic so I must speak against it, but I hesitate to do that because I know without that belief some people could not function. This is a real dilemma for me wanting people to have a better understanding of humans and a more helpful understanding or reality, and not wanting to hurt those who really need their faith in God, Allah, Jesus, Hindu gods. ect.. Can we compromise? There are civilizations without Christianity, right?
No compromise. I do however concur about civilizations presuming to exist without Christianity. I do not recognize any to exist without Christ however. Were we to consider Christianity the Church of Christ, it is about to figure out where Jesus fits into the picture. Whether he exists or not is non-essential for whichever conclusions we might derive at. According to Christianity, be it the church of Christ or not - Jesus said: "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."; John 13:35. Whoever coined that phrase; is Christ in my opinion. Everything around it is mere happenstance.
So is there really civilization without Christianity? Be it by happenstance or a blessing by God. Being a Christian is about following Jesus and this is it.
Well, if you twist the definition enough, you can claim anything. Maybe you want to argue this with your local muslim cleric... as you know, according to islamic doctrine, we are all born muslim, only we kuffar refuse to acknowledge that.... which is why Allah hates us.
And after studying the other religions how did you come to that decision?
Muslims do not hate us. How many of them do you know? There are fanatics in every religion who have some pretty awful ideas and there are normal people who have some pretty awful ideas and I think we can do better than this.
Is your beef with Muslims related to Israel?
PS
I see I misinterpreted your post. You said Allah hates us, not Muslims hate us. Sure God hates us so much He intended to destroy all of humanity in a flood. He hates us so much some believe He created a hell to torment us for eternity. Or He hates us so much He unleashed Satan on earth to torment us. I really try to be respectful, but those stories of Allah/God are not explanations of reality that I can respect.
A twist of definition is another definition. As I posed one we have a clear opportunity to do whatever we want with it. That's all - no argument.
Quoting Nobeernolife
I rather want to postulate it that we are all born within Islam. Being a Muslim in essence is also as simple as being a Christian - to want to know God. Allah loves you enough to not involve beyond your will to do so. Muslims however might love God more than they love that fact and therein lies your issue with Allah.
Was that directed at me? Where then is the decision to your reference? I need a little more meat on my legs to justly answer it.
You are the compromise in demand of itself. It doesn't in any way alter my statement for what it stands. There is nothing absolute about it, merely for what it is.
That question came after your quote, in the same post, so yes the question is directed at you.
You are explaining reality to us and I am asking what do know about the rest of the world, that justifies what you believe about civilization depending on a particular religion. I understand civilizations have depended on religions, but any religion will do. Why do you say only one religion can result in a civilization?
Ancient civilizations existed for thousands of years. Why do appear to deny this?
Therein lies the compromise. There is no need for any religion to justify my beliefs. Christianity entails the concept of following this ideal: Love - which I deem is the only civilizationable measure. I believe this concept to be the Christ. It was is and will be so before and after any version of Christ may or may not be born. The concept itself is Christ and any person regardless of religion can lift it up.
I'm an atheist too. I just happen to be multi-religious and theistic. If it requires me to be insane, so be it. God doesn't have to be single to be singular. My appearance of denial probably resides in your wish to ascribe value to my words. A place to belong?
Of course I mean what I say. That is the only real value of the words. For example: I do not require evolution to be incorrect in order to understand creation as valid. It's not at all difficult to do them both when it's a simple matter of perspective. Perspective can change before it even begins.
From whence do you judge the depth of my knowledge? Please don't leave me alone. Don't give up on me.
The problem might be to assume there is an answer when not having directed yourself to it with a question. The truth can remain that you do not know the depth of my knowledge, as I might not yours - and therefore not the consistency within which my context prevails. I will not leave you alone, but I will give up on you now.
Quoting Eleonora
Mind your own business - it would have been founding tenant in teaching men to govern themselves. The countermeasure to that is to care for other's. Those two are equally important decrees in any real democracy and that the reality of Athena should know.
Our insecurity, tribal natures and reliance on law.
Regards
DL
If the Gnostic Christian Jesus, a good choice.
If the genocidal Jesus of the Christians that connects Jesus to Yahweh; Yuk.
Misogynous. Need I say more?
Regards
DL
Which Jesus?
The one who would enslave you to a religion or the Jesus that would free you from it?
The one who tells you to preach or the one eho tells you to shut up in church?
Regards
DL
If you said all that you mean, I reckon you're all set. I'm flexible enough to be convinced on whichever grounds.
I deem both views valuable. Would humanity really know itself without the cruelty and injustice set upon them by a theoretically loving God? You've obviously taken some good points from it. I do not however deem YHWH and Christ to retain the same concept. While YHWH rather appears to be about tough love, Jesus is about the redemption of YHWH in unity with the people - a light pointing towards the real love. So which basket is it? Both, neither, nor neither. It goes beyond singularity. A trinity perhaps.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
The Jesus I deem embodies the Christ by coining the phrase giving raise to eternal civilization: By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. Remains to be seen, doesn't it? Sooner rather than later, I hold. Following Christ is as simple as being His disciple, by the only definition we can know. That's the entirety of what Christianity is about to me.
That one.
Consider for a moment that Allah was a beer and JHWH is life. He drinks his beer, then gives his life to JHWH. JHWH, drunk on himself, would naturally make a lot of assumptions. Of course Allah would be in on this, but would that make him schizophrenic?
Well, thank you. You should always try to read before rushing to the keyboard.
Quoting Athena
Apples and oranges. God (the Christian god) does not specifically hate the followers of other religions and names them. That characteristic is specific to Allah and makes him fundamentally different from the other two religions that apologists like always want to compare it with.
And that is why I keep explaining the claim it is the same religion is so self-contradictory.
We take being civilized for granted and that is a big mistake. I hope we learn better because if our economy crashes before we understand what makes us civil, the consequences could be very ugly.
God did not become a loving God until our bellies were full. The tribe can be predatory and even cannibals. The tribe can own slaves and treat them like subhumans. I don't think we can count on our tribal nature to make us civil. For sure it is not insecurity and laws that make us civil. Look at what happened in Germany and Japan, and ancient China or the Aztecs.
Did you tell me to mind my own business?
To mind one's own business is the basic lemma in ruling your own confines, which is the prime function in a functioning society. It is only within those confines that we have the emphatic ability to actually care for each other. If you are not interested in my business you should simply not mind it, lest you cannot care for what it might entail and will thus loose providence on your own power. I did. I care. I will not argue for your sake but I will happily teach you anything on the subject of divinity if you present to me humility before it.
, you're welcome too since you've been implied.
It is not apples and oranges. The God of Abraham is the same God in all three religions. He is a jealous, revengeful, fearsome and punishing God. The Bible is salted with statements like this
Nahum 1:2 ESV / 26 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful
The Lord is a jealous and avenging God; the Lord is avenging and wrathful; the Lord takes vengeance on his adversaries and keeps wrath for his enemies.
So what if the Quaran might say the same thing slightly differently. That does not equal worshiping a different God. I stress the point because back in the day that is how people thought. What made us different was Hellenism.
okay, I see.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Other than the initial capturing of Canaan in ~1300 BC when were the jews instructed to target other nations unless they were being attacked (which is something secular nations do). Joshua didn't commit genocide because there were still plenty of Amorites in ancient Iraq. I could go on and on about this but i'll get to it later.
OK, you keep repeating that, but you are not paying attention to what I am saying.
I am not arguing if the guy is " jealous, revengeful, fearsome and punishing" or not. That is NOT the point.
I am making the simply logical observation that you can not be love and hate your followers at the same time, unless you are schizophrenic. That is simply a logical statement --- is that really so hard to understand?
I have no clue what you are trying to say, and neither, I suspect, do you.
One of the things she is implying is that due to circumstances of reality that God (or the main God) is dualist and/or schizophrenic.
She is also essentially saying Allah and the hebrew/christian God are linked but somehow one is an extension of the other. (she used an example so it could go either way in her mind considering this is a hypothetical example)
This idea of hers is similar to things in hinduism and buddhism (some sects of hinduism claim they are essentially atheist). You also find this sort of thing in alot of new age and witchcraft religions (as well as druidism or modern druidism). There are various sects within hinduism and buddhism just like christianity.
What my question is how does she feel about modern temple prostitution in hinduism and also temple prostitution in ancient iraq?
I have an explanation of why Jesus/God is not schizophrenic and/or dualistic but i'm not going to post it unless asked, because i'll even agree its not written well. I would argue the best bet is to google (she not neccesarily you) or bing the subject of christian theology and dualism (or "is God schizophrenic" while looking for a christian response to the question).
We are still talking past each other. My point is really not difficult. Here for the last time (I hope):
In the Koran, Allah states very clearly that he a) loves the muslims and b) hates the Jews, the Christians, and the Polytheists.
If you say Allah = Yaweh, that means that the Jews and Christians are also muslims.
From that follows that Allah a) loves the muslims and b) hates the muslims.
In what universe does that make sense?
My simply observation here was that description refers to two different god figures.
It doesn't make sense. Other than the initial conquest of Canaan, the jews/christians were never asked to go on the offensive. I could go on and on about why Joshua did not commit genocide & why some nations can be justified to be attacked and wiped out (considering the time they lived in). But i'll spare you.
Mohomad was a sexual predator and i have muslim holy books that back this up. As you said above he was also a historical war lord. The Koran encourages muslim crusades.
The Pope doesn't neccessarily reflect all christians through out history.
Err.... that would be Crescendates, not Crusades. But I would simply stick with Jihad, which actually is an ongoing effort in islamic doctrine, not a rare and unique event like the crusades.
thats fair.
By the way, you do realize why the cross is so offensive to islam? The reason is that the Koran says Jesus was NOT crucified (sura 4-157), so claiming he was means blasphemy. So, no display of crosses, where islam is taken seriously.
(Again, now consider this is the same god as the Christian one.... err, never mind, don´t want to belabour the point again)
i wasn't aware of that detail, but i am aware of other things in the Koran. I own a copy and it is mostly a trite and shallow book, atleast the parts i read. Hypothetically i could read more and discover it has something beyond the Kabbalah (trite), but i doubt it. I could say more about the Kabbalah but i'm not going to at this time.
You need a bit of background information to see how truly dangerous and deceptive it is. For example, are you aware of the arrangement of the verses, the difference between the Mekka and Medina verses and the concept of abrogation (Naskh)? If not, reading the thing is just exercise in confusion.
Quoting christian2017
It makes sense if Allah drunk the beer first after he passed down the Quran.
[b]"I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishments
for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate
me, down to the third and fourth generation."[/b] Deuteronomy 5:9
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. [2 Chronicles 15:12-13]
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." [Deuteronomy 13:13-19]
Be and let be is my only decree.
It is a human fault to want to limit the height of God. God is above time, but can still entail change. God is above change. To stare yourself blind on any of those limitations is a human idiosyncrasy.
If a human tells a benevolent God - I am great. Then by God would I be a charletan if I did not incur the penalties upon those who'd make it any less. Who besides God dote exist? It is not dualistic. It is plain obedience both ways.
Wouldn't it be great if there were a god invented that felt that same way.
I'll google that or attempt to google what you are getting at. I was aware that they venerate both Mecca and Medina.
We both (or atleast i) understood what you are getting at (see the post where you pulled my quote from). Your concept is a common thing in hinduism, buddhism , new age, modern druidism and witch craft. I understand there are alot of variations of all of these religions. I would be surprised if both of us didn't understand what you were getting at.
Considering a large subset of the earth's population had close dealings with the civilizations of ancient iraq and considering many of the world's religions are strongly influenced by these original religions of that region. How do you feel about ancient temple prostitution in ancient iraq as well as modern hinduism. I understand this also appeared in other regions of the world.
I think i asked you earlier about the subject of temple prostitiution but you didn't answer.
Are you aware that mohomad was a sexual predator and that in many modern predominantly muslim nations, pedophilia is legal?
Do you want to dive into that rabbit hole? Fundamentally, the Mekka verses (written in Mekka, where Mohammud was weak) are tolerant and peaceful, and the Medina verses (written in Medina, where Mohammud became an ever more brutal ruler) are intolerant and violent. In the Koran they are all mixed together, but the (later) Medina verses override the (earlier) Mekka verses. So muslim propagandists can quote wonderfully tolerant verses, knowing that they are invalidated by later Medina verses. Brilliant, isn´t it?
I could go on for pages..... if you take the red pill, you will discover more than you imagine.
i'm sure your familiar with ancient Sumer (ancient Iraq)
People like to associate that sort of thing with Christianity but i would like them to find one contradiction in the whole Bible and i'll debate that with them.
It wouldn't surprise me. Perhaps i'll read more of my Koran today.
I am not a bible-thumper, but is the Old Testament not fundamentally the violent, war-like god of the Jews, and the New Testament the pacifist god of Jesus? Now reverse that and say that the OT overrides the NT. And yeah, mix the whole thing together and order chapters not chronologically but according to length. Then you get something more like the Koran.
Quoting christian2017
Before you do that, you should find a source and check the chronological order of the Suras. Otherwise, the whole thing makes absolutely zero sense.
You said you like a challenge many times. Can you answer these questions.
1. How do you feel about ancient temple prostitution in ancient Iraq.
2. Are you aware Joshua didn't commit genocide because there were plenty of Amorite cities in ancient Iraq at the time of Joshua. ~1300 BC.
3. If you killed someone's parents (Amorite/Canaanite) are you supposed to tell the surviving child "i murdered your parents, when you are a teenager you'll understand these adult things"
4. were there adoption agencies in the 2nd millenium?
5. Would you argue some behavior is worthy of capital punishment?
6. Were you aware that the Amorites were known for child sacrifice? The later Jews were too and i understand that . The Bible speaks against that.
7. Would you say the Amorite children (non-adults) went to heaven (assuming there is a heaven) after they were killed by the Israelites? I would say they would considering there is no explicit statement saying the children did anything relatively wrong nor does it say they suffered after they died. No explicit statement nor implied statement either.
Ezekiel 12 or 16 says "they did not strenghen the hand of the poor" which is a common theme in the old testament to justify destroying a nation or city.
We can use what i posted above as a starting point to our conversation.
I'll add this to my journal but i have something i want to do as of now. I'll probably start on that in an hour. 70% of my local area has been laid off or sent home due to the virus.
You have it backwards like most to.
You want to serve, when Jesus said he came to serve.
You do the opposite of what Jesus wants of you.
Regards
DL
We are all the same.
I see nature at work. What do you see?
Regards
DL
You would also not see Hitler as using genocide either --- because their were still many Jews around.
Go give your head a shake.
Regards
DL
You did and I did answer elaborately. It's in another thread. We were talking about multiple things and I used them in contrast to each other to illuminate them both. Here goes;
"How do you feel about ancient temple prostitiution in ancient Iraq?"
— christian2017
Wow, you really touch ground here. I believe that the Latter Day Saints recognize that they do not understand a single thing about Kabbalah as it were and in regard strictly observe connections - to follow the light in its most intricate sense. It's a posture of humility.
Temple prostitution is a further inquiry into the very matter of the same manner. Metaphorically speaking it sort of entails being a prostitute in a sacred temple. Realizing that your ways are foul and therefore submitting wholly to the temple proceedings in order to boundlessly correct yourself. Thus; conclusion - prostitution in temples are bad but the metaphor is good.
When it comes to these particular cases, I think we have to look at each individually. It raises high and sinks low. Some might have considered it an honor an really embraced the unknowable purpose, in which case they would have faced God. Others would have not, in which case it was a sin - both pertaining to the victim and the perpetrator. Mainly because we cannot ever know which really is which. Knowing this and facing God would have been the same at that time.
John 21:17
Yes, but to what end?
You are trying to justify your god killing when he could just as easily cure.
You sure have a satanic view o9f Jesus.
He said he came t9o cure and not to kill.
Why are you adoring a murderer instead of a good god?
Regards
DL
Yes. It is important to not confuse the divinity of Allah with the humanity of Muhammad. Somewhere in there we have to find our own stand.
Being a disciple of Jesus is nor about doing, nor either about being anything other than loving - no more than believing inconclusively is it.
Loving???
You have not read your bible. Armageddon ring a bell?
Regards
DL
I reckon in modern times it pertains to the same ideal, but by man's preconception of the times rather than the times themselves. Be and let be. Whatever holds to that standard I condone.
I have read the Bible and I know its pretext well. Let it ring a bell. Never confuse the method with the outcome.
The nation was conquered, it wasn't about their ethnicity. You said you've read the Bible, perhaps you should read it again.
Did you see the set of questions i proposed to you? Perhaps he just likes to test his creation? I'll come back to this in an hour. I've never met personally someone who claimed to come back from the grave, but to some extent i believe online testimonies. In no way shape or form based on my understanding of the Bible do i find the god of the Bible, offensive. Do you realize even the show teletubbies (are you familiar with that kid show?) has conflicts and dissapointments. I don't know 100% whether there is an afterlife, and most would make that claim or have to make that claim.
Let me clarify my take on the notion of your indignation, . I wholeheartedly concur with Christian. Would you rather have a fleeting moment of supreme suffering and an eternity of bliss, or an eternity of wibble wobble? If the latter is your honest to God sincere answer, then I conclude our separation and deem your indignation a single one of your wibble wobbles. Happy surfing.
Is it you don't know what the questions pertain to? they relate to previous conversations we've had. Perhaps you've had so many conversations you forgot the context. I can explain them more clearly if you like.
brb
Mohammed is Allahs messenger and the perfect man to be emulated. Mohammeds behaviour is normative for muslim men. So where do you go from there?
Doesn't this sound like brainwashing a person on the basis of religion for the purpose of blatant prostituion. Do you see the difference between brain washing someone to wear a burka and brain washing someone to have sex with you? Its a matter of spectrum. Stealing 1 dollar is different from stealing a $1000.
by sexual predator i mean he engages in a common practice associated with modern roman catholic priests. I assume you are aware of the headlines. Is there any sexual behavior that you would consider unethical?
That despite the emulation, Muhammad is not Allah.
subject: temple prostitution in modern hinduism:
like i said before, is there any sexual conduct that you would consider unethical? I can repeat what i said to you in another post if you would like?
It does.
Non-consentual. When a child and God concludes adulthood in unison, consent can be given. Consent can only really be given on basis of the soul.
It is about spectrum. Not brain washing. Freedom goes both way.
Eleonora, well this forum is mostly about bickering for fun, and i only go on this forum so that i drink less alcohol. I'm not sure it would serve a purpose to bring my attack in two directions. I believe in scientific determinism (nurture versus nature) and i'm not going to go into the theology of that unless you ask. The Bishop, you and i are typing what we type right now because of scientific determinism. For some secular or pseudo secular clarification on t me and others on this forum, see my profile. No wrong answer. Or i can copy and paste it if you would like.
We believe what we believe and we do what we do at any given point in time due to how the particles inside us collide. What we feel (consciessness) is a whole another forum topic, and i didn't want to split off into that.
thats fair.
Are you saying conclude as in beginning adult hood. What i was saying earlier is hinduism or modern hinduism has children who are temple prostitutes. Mohomad was sexual predator towards children. The roman catholic church has a long history of these things. That was what i was getting at earlier.
Many modern muslim countries with mostly muslims, have legalized pedaphilia.
Isn't that what it all comes down to in the end anyway? Sharing views is a predominant part in being conscious. I hear people with questions, I help myself to the answers to which end I know them. As we all are. The bickering isn't that fun in my view, but it sure beats drinking.
Love you,
EL
you only quoted apart of the sentence. Freedom does go both ways, but freedom is also a spectrum. I'm sure you've heard of "equality under the law", but even in a country where you truly have "equality under the law", you will still have people viewing one person as significantly more free than the other. Freedom is not an all or nothing thing and it never has at any point in history.
you say potato i say pototo. thats fair.
Yes. Absolutely.
Quoting christian2017
I know. See why I also love hell?
Quoting christian2017
Real freedom can never be obtained without ethical indignation to mark the true remarks of unity. We have to meet each other philosophically before we can face each other as equals. This is what the world is working for in all areas.
So long as you know that's the word. I never criticise. I only ever conduce myself to fit in all places of every mind.
Is that from Hitler or Stalin?
Regards
DL
We can always laugh about it. I prefer it to waging war. Always be open to the minute differences.
I'm not sure. In this case it was from me. We probably all have an outlook on it. I enjoy loving them all. It becomes so beautiful when it all comes together. Like Lucifer.
my guess based on what i think you are implying above, is that if we discussed politics we would disagree significantly, as opposed to drastically. I don't want to get off topic though.
thats fair.
A god who can cure but chooses to kill is a prick.
Yahweh is a prick and his followers have the same homophobic and misogynous fascist character.
My side knew their inquisitors well.
Heil Yahweh.
Regards
DL
ok.
You know it. Never forget it's Shiva's prick.
I follow Christ - not YHWH. Jesus was clear about it being his father. We are all one.
we are all going to die some day anyway. Everyone of us dies. Assuming there is a hell or heaven, what gets us in either one of those places is a separate forum topic.
I asked earlier if you wanted me to restate the questions. You've once again not answered me. Perhaps you'll get back to me in a month when you have less on your plate. Anyway. I don't think the god of the bible is homophobic, but that he believes it is wrong. Forum rules says we can't discuss homosexuality to my understanding, so i'll just say being a homophobe in the sense of the cliche is wrong.
I agree with you on the homophobe thing.
However why do you say that the Bible supports misogyny?
Yes I saw your garbage.
You, given that you do not see anything offensive in your Hitler-ish Yahweh, cannot recognize the garbage you spew. Fascists like their own.
Your god is Satan, and you don't care.
Regards
DL
I am GOD and His name is Christmas. In my case it is an acronym for Goddess Of Divinity. That's my mom.
Indeed fascist religions, like our mainstream garbage, are all in for genocide as a good form of justice.
Heil to all the religious.
Regards
DL
Hail DL
Regards,
EL
Indeed. We are all in this together, alone.
Regards
DL
Yes, but at least we have each other.
Because it does. You know the quotes as well as I.
Like genocide, it is clear as to if we should consider your Christian views as satanic or not.
Who would use genocide? Satan or god, whoever you think those characters are?
Regards
DL
Yes, so what? Everything Muhammad does is completely approved by Allah, so you can not use the excuse that he is human.
Approved. Not conducted. A world of difference.
We are not listening to each other in this time of babble.
The light cannot cut through the sound.
Regards
DL
Of course, Satan is the spawn of God. I for one think it's hillarious. He lives next door.
We do. We just have more to say than can be said in a single exchange of meaning. It's mostly the sounds of mind that obfuscates the light.
One imaginary god approving of another imaginary god.
One wants obedient slaves and the othe wants submission from his.
Yep. Slave owning gods agree with slave owners of all kinds.
So droll, if not so sad for the fools who believe these two characters to be real.l.
Regards
DL
I prefer Stalin. lol. Stalin was an atheist. You should like me. lol.
Once again you've backed me into a corner. You win again Bishop. Maybe i'll learn someday.
Did you see my questions i posted to you an hour ago? any clarifications needed?
??
I do not ignore what I have spawned. My yin has a Yang.
I am surprised you do not acknowledge your satanic side.
If you are to be alone, be complete.
Regards
DL
Of course I do. I am a devout satanist.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
I approve of all and I have no problems confining it to my sense of self.
So are most Christians and Muslims.
I am using the Jesus Christs standard here.
Regards
DL
So you agree that the description of the two gods is contradictory. Well, finally some agreement. Now go and tell that to the naive crowd that keeps telling us that islam is just an oriental form of Xtianity.
I thought you already knew it and wasn't here for confirmation.
By showing the sameness. U B fool.
Regards
DL
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Why would christians act like Jesus Christ? What happens when a christian doesn't act like Jesus Christ? How close to perfect do we have to be? Who decides that standard? the church? Does the church decide the punishment for not meeting that standard or does Jesus Christ (assuming there is a standard)?
Considering you break forum rules all the time and try to get us to come to your form of christianity, i wonder if i'm allowed to do apologetics here. I guess in this case i am allowed so.....
Well, so is there one or are there two? You seem to change your mind every few minutes.
Or is there some recreational drink or smoke involved?
have a good day Bishop, perhaps something happened in your life to justify your anger. That is completely acceptable.
There is one - a model prospect for many. Who we are is the reality in which we first took wholesome responsibility for all of creation. Until we overcome that reality, things are bound to be confusing.
If you are to do apologetics for Christianity, you might want to read the bible.
Jesus is clear that those who believe in him, or even have just a bit of faith, would be able to do all he did and more.
If you want to do apologetics, start with promoting their genocidal garbage god, Yahweh..
Regards
DL
There are no supernatural entities in Gnostic Christianity.
Gnostic Christians are not that stupid or brain dead.
Regards
DL
Yes, something happened to make me hate those who abuse others by their vile religious thinking.
I recognized that Christians were evil and worshipping Satan.
Regards
DL
Biblical evidence? Quote whole chapters at at time, its a bad practice to do otherwise. Quoting single verses screws up everything.
We're so lucky to have someone enlightened like you.
did you see the 6 to 8 questions i sent you?
Who was talking about "Gnostic Christianity"? Not me for sure. So why do you bring me in to these ramblings?
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
I take your word for that. So surely you are not representing them??
ROFL
So is Gnostic Christianity then an agnostic form of atheistic approach on Christianity? You know your brain doesn't have to be dead to utilize your heart indiscriminately, right? Why even filter what goes on in between?
I do not see a denial.
Don't be an ass hole, if you can help it.
Regards
DL
Regards
DL
Gnosis is the root word for agnostic.
We are the esoteric/mystical parts of early Chrestianity, Christianity, Judaism and their Kabbalists.
We, like Buddhists and other enlightened religions, put man above god because we know we have invented all of them.
We do believe in a spark of god within each of us but that is more of our instincts to have us be the fittest.
Read on Jung and Freud's Father Complex. That is the modern form of the spark of god within us.
Humans are more than most think, but we are not supernatural.
Regards
DL
Then you are not above God in my meaning. I don't usually do this; but my God is better than your God. It does however entail your God as one with it. It's a precept of the Holy. No religion is beyond my God. All we ever do is to play with His toys. Insha'Allah.
its a struggle.
Because we know what we believe. Impact on us only affects to remedy the questions onto which angle we can further proclaim how that is in the unbelievers' eyes. There is no such thing as believing the wrong thing.
Your god is a moral monster.
What attracts you to her?
Regards
DL
I am my God.
I hope you are distinct enough in your belief to know the difference between root and ground.
The religious say that when trying to justify their immoral homophobic and misogynous teachings.
It would have been nice though if the inquisitions had thought that way.
Christians would not have murdered so many, even of their own brain dead ilk.
Regards
DL
I can not answer for the masses - only for their moral outcome.
Then explain why you would put your goddess above my god?
Are we not all created equal and in gods image?
Gnostic Christians are universalists. That is one of it's highest forms of perfection as an ideology.
Regards
DL
Because until you know her, you cannot fully comprehend yourself. You are God. Not your God, but my God. It is the only God that comprehends.
From here your mind is a measure of however you want to know my Goddess or remain blatant in your attempts.
Comprehension was not the issue. Equality of all our man made gods was.
Regards
DL
Comprehension is the issue in achieving a sense of that being now. I have made my point onto answering the question posed as the topic of this forum thread. All to the contribution of my holy insight.
That is a title that can only be given to your insight. To label it yourself as holy shows a poor use of language and an over inflated ego.
Regards
DL
There are no bounds to my arrogance. Things are bound to be hard when I have to be tough about it. Only an over inflated ego could ever conquer the language in which I have proclaimed myself it.
Regards
DL
I love you.