Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

[Taz]

Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

Depends on the country and where it's located. ...

"religions that preach inequality for women and gays" are all found in muslim countries, aren't they skinhead?

Women in Islam had more rights than their European sisters until 1950.

Um... no. And for sure not anymore, mooselimbs are going backwards.

You're just ignorant. Women had the right to buy, sell, inherit property, own property... the right to divorce and child custody.. the right to an education and the right to write their own marriage contract.

How much does the Ayatollah pay you for this disinformation, 2 camel turds a day?

You really are obnoxious and too stupid to look up women's rights in Islam for yourself.

Don't they teach you how to link your point at the madrasa?

 

[Blues Man]

Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

Our first allegiance is to our countries.

Our laws and political leanings are moving us towards laïcité, a rather rigid form of the best religious freedoms/ideology, quirky or not, for all. Keep it to yourself will be the order of the day. Happy days. All within a Western style of freedom seeking governance.

Should our backwards thinking mainstream religions be asked to be more representative of good law?

Negative discrimination without a just cause is what Yahweh admits to doing in Job 2;3., when he allowed Satan to move him to sin against Job.

Christians should admit their sin and stop preaching that it is a good to be homophobic and misogynous, contradicting the law of the land.

Regards
DL

Our first allegiance is to ourselves then our families. the country is a bit further down on the list for me

There are logical reasons the sequence is God, country and family.

I don't think a belief is gods is logical.

That's because you don't have a perception of God beyond magical fairytales, bro. So of course you don't believe belief in God is logical. I wouldn't believe in God either if I had your perception of God.

Interesting,

Do I have to believe before my perception changes or do I believe after I see something that changes my perception?

I think you have to have an open mind and objectively look at all sides before arriving at objective truth on any issue.

I do have an open mind.

I just like to have some sort of empirical evidence. There have been many times I have changed my opinion when I was presented with sufficient evidence that contradicted my original stance on a subject.

Maybe the problem is looking at the Bible as if was history and science.

I never thought the Bible was either of those.

 

[Taz]

Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

Depends on the country and where it's located. ...

"religions that preach inequality for women and gays" are all found in muslim countries, aren't they skinhead?

Just look at what your vile lying preachers are preaching.

Are they any different from the right wing Muslims?

No. To an honest observer.

Regards
DL

I'm an agnostic, I don't follow pedophiles spouting garbage. Like you do.

You misspelled militant atheist, taz.

I see that you haven't stopped being jealous of my position and that it still burns you up. Good.

 

[ding]

Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

Depends on the country and where it's located. ...

"religions that preach inequality for women and gays" are all found in muslim countries, aren't they skinhead?

Just look at what your vile lying preachers are preaching.

Are they any different from the right wing Muslims?

No. To an honest observer.

Regards
DL

I'm an agnostic, I don't follow pedophiles spouting garbage. Like you do.

You misspelled militant atheist, taz.

I see that you haven't stopped being jealous of my position and that it still burns you up. Good.

If you need to see it that way, Taz, be my guest. But you are defined by your actions, not your perception of yourself.

 

[Blues Man]

Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

Our first allegiance is to our countries.

Our laws and political leanings are moving us towards laïcité, a rather rigid form of the best religious freedoms/ideology, quirky or not, for all. Keep it to yourself will be the order of the day. Happy days. All within a Western style of freedom seeking governance.

Should our backwards thinking mainstream religions be asked to be more representative of good law?

Negative discrimination without a just cause is what Yahweh admits to doing in Job 2;3., when he allowed Satan to move him to sin against Job.

Christians should admit their sin and stop preaching that it is a good to be homophobic and misogynous, contradicting the law of the land.

Regards
DL

Our first allegiance is to ourselves then our families. the country is a bit further down on the list for me

There are logical reasons the sequence is God, country and family.

I don't think a belief is gods is logical.

That's because you don't have a perception of God beyond magical fairytales, bro. So of course you don't believe belief in God is logical. I wouldn't believe in God either if I had your perception of God.

Interesting,

Do I have to believe before my perception changes or do I believe after I see something that changes my perception?

I think you have to have an open mind and objectively look at all sides before arriving at objective truth on any issue.

I do have an open mind.

I just like to have some sort of empirical evidence. There have been many times I have changed my opinion when I was presented with sufficient evidence that contradicted my original stance on a subject.

The universe and everything that has transpired since it was created from nothing being hardwired to produce intelligence is the evidence.

Not really.

The absence of scientific evidence is not in itself proof of a god being the creator of the universe.

It is just as possible that we do not yet have the technology or the mental capacity to see or understand the process of the inception of the universe.

 

[Taz]

Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

Depends on the country and where it's located. ...

"religions that preach inequality for women and gays" are all found in muslim countries, aren't they skinhead?

Just look at what your vile lying preachers are preaching.

Are they any different from the right wing Muslims?

No. To an honest observer.

Regards
DL

I'm an agnostic, I don't follow pedophiles spouting garbage. Like you do.

You misspelled militant atheist, taz.

I see that you haven't stopped being jealous of my position and that it still burns you up. Good.

If you need to see it that way, Taz, be my guest. But you are defined by your actions, not your perception of yourself.

It's my perception of the universe, not myself.

 

[ding]

Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

Our first allegiance is to our countries.

Our laws and political leanings are moving us towards laïcité, a rather rigid form of the best religious freedoms/ideology, quirky or not, for all. Keep it to yourself will be the order of the day. Happy days. All within a Western style of freedom seeking governance.

Should our backwards thinking mainstream religions be asked to be more representative of good law?

Negative discrimination without a just cause is what Yahweh admits to doing in Job 2;3., when he allowed Satan to move him to sin against Job.

Christians should admit their sin and stop preaching that it is a good to be homophobic and misogynous, contradicting the law of the land.

Regards
DL

Our first allegiance is to ourselves then our families. the country is a bit further down on the list for me

There are logical reasons the sequence is God, country and family.

I don't think a belief is gods is logical.

That's because you don't have a perception of God beyond magical fairytales, bro. So of course you don't believe belief in God is logical. I wouldn't believe in God either if I had your perception of God.

Interesting,

Do I have to believe before my perception changes or do I believe after I see something that changes my perception?

I think you have to have an open mind and objectively look at all sides before arriving at objective truth on any issue.

I do have an open mind.

I just like to have some sort of empirical evidence. There have been many times I have changed my opinion when I was presented with sufficient evidence that contradicted my original stance on a subject.

The universe and everything that has transpired since it was created from nothing being hardwired to produce intelligence is the evidence.

Not really.

The absence of scientific evidence is not in itself proof of a god being the creator of the universe.

It is just as possible that we do not yet have the technology or the mental capacity to see or understand the process of the inception of the universe.

There's no absence of evidence.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God. If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept.

There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[ding]

Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

Depends on the country and where it's located. ...

"religions that preach inequality for women and gays" are all found in muslim countries, aren't they skinhead?

Just look at what your vile lying preachers are preaching.

Are they any different from the right wing Muslims?

No. To an honest observer.

Regards
DL

I'm an agnostic, I don't follow pedophiles spouting garbage. Like you do.

You misspelled militant atheist, taz.

I see that you haven't stopped being jealous of my position and that it still burns you up. Good.

If you need to see it that way, Taz, be my guest. But you are defined by your actions, not your perception of yourself.

It's my perception of the universe, not myself.

If that were the case then you could explain your perception of the universe and explain why there is no God just as I have done showing that logically God must exist as the first cause.

See?

Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country? Depends on the country and where it's located. ... :cool: "religions that preach inequality for women and gays" are all found in muslim countries, aren't they skinhead? Women in Islam had more rights than...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[GreatestIam]

I believe men and women are equal but in different ways. Each has his or her own qualities that compliment each other.

Then you are not in a mainstream religious as the mainstream religions are homophobic and misogynous.

IMO, women ands children should always be put above men.

Men should act like men, regardless of what their religion asks of them.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

I know of no Christian Church that relegates nonbelievers to second rate status.

You know squat.

Think Armageddon and retract your foolish thinking.

Regards
DL

"Nuh-Uh" is the best you've got?
I know of no Christian Church that relegates nonbelievers to second rate status.

How soon you forget that Christianity grew threw inquisitions and murder because they had no decent moral tenets to convert with.

Regards
DL

LOL, is that the best you've got? No Christian Church is teaching what the OP is asserting.

So Christianity embraced homosexuality. Gays will be happy to hear this.

Nice that you ignore the scriptures that say men are above women. The opposite is true to any real man.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

Our first allegiance is to our countries.

Our laws and political leanings are moving us towards laïcité, a rather rigid form of the best religious freedoms/ideology, quirky or not, for all. Keep it to yourself will be the order of the day. Happy days. All within a Western style of freedom seeking governance.

Should our backwards thinking mainstream religions be asked to be more representative of good law?

Negative discrimination without a just cause is what Yahweh admits to doing in Job 2;3., when he allowed Satan to move him to sin against Job.

Christians should admit their sin and stop preaching that it is a good to be homophobic and misogynous, contradicting the law of the land.

Regards
DL

Our first allegiance is to ourselves then our families. the country is a bit further down on the list for me

Yet you rely on the state to protect you and yours on a daily basis.

Loyalty is not a Christian thing.

What ever happened to ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

Our first allegiance is to our countries.

Our laws and political leanings are moving us towards laïcité, a rather rigid form of the best religious freedoms/ideology, quirky or not, for all. Keep it to yourself will be the order of the day. Happy days. All within a Western style of freedom seeking governance.

Should our backwards thinking mainstream religions be asked to be more representative of good law?

Negative discrimination without a just cause is what Yahweh admits to doing in Job 2;3., when he allowed Satan to move him to sin against Job.

Christians should admit their sin and stop preaching that it is a good to be homophobic and misogynous, contradicting the law of the land.

Regards
DL

Religion and Government..............separate.

Good luck, when the U.S. has a religious test for candidates.

To think that one can close off half his mind is not too bright.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

I know of no Christian Church that relegates nonbelievers to second rate status.

You know squat.

Think Armageddon and retract your foolish thinking.

Regards
DL

"Nuh-Uh" is the best you've got?
I know of no Christian Church that relegates nonbelievers to second rate status.

How soon you forget that Christianity grew threw inquisitions and murder because they had no decent moral tenets to convert with.

Regards
DL

Nope. It was to put down the cathar aggression. Learn some history. Inquisitions established the use of trials where none existed before.

Were the Cathars aggressive?

Cathar Beliefs, doctrines, theology and practices

Cathar Beliefs, doctrines, theology and practices

www.cathar.info

Feb 08, 2017 · Cathars were Dualists. That is, they believed in two universal principles, a good God and a bad God, much like the Jehovah and Satan of mainstream Christianity. As Dualists, they belonged to a tradition that was already ancient in the days of Jesus. (The revered Magi in the nativity story were Zoroastrians - Persian Dualists).

A man with a brain. Nice to meet you.

I do not see things quite as you do.

Duality of god is one god with a good and evil side. Just like you and I.

We see Yahweh as doing more evil than good and that is why we branded him a demiurge.

Remember that we do not hold any supernatural belief.

We are not as gullible as those who used inquisitions to convert because they did not have a decent moral code to convert with.

Morality is the Gnostic Christian side of Christianity as we do not adore a genocidal satanic god.

Regards
DL

You don't believe in a supernatural God though, do you? Even though you profess you are a Gnostic Christian, right?

Gnostic Christianity has never believed in the supernatural.

We leave such beliefs to the less bright and more gullible.

Regards
DL

 

[surada]

Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

Depends on the country and where it's located. ...

"religions that preach inequality for women and gays" are all found in muslim countries, aren't they skinhead?

Women in Islam had more rights than their European sisters until 1950.

Um... no. And for sure not anymore, mooselimbs are going backwards.

You're just ignorant. Women had the right to buy, sell, inherit property, own property... the right to divorce and child custody.. the right to an education and the right to write their own marriage contract.

How much does the Ayatollah pay you for this disinformation, 2 camel turds a day?

You really are obnoxious and too stupid to look up women's rights in Islam for yourself.

Don't they teach you how to link your point at the madrasa?

Madrassas are in Pakistan where there is little public education. Its for boys 6 to12 and most are small groups of less than 20 students. They teach reading, writing, arithmetic, a little geography and religion.

 

[GreatestIam]

There is one religion, worship of the state. Failure to believe in the infallibility of the state is heresy and treason.

Yes. It is to ignore the majority of thought and that is basically what democracy is supposed to prevent.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

Our first allegiance is to our countries.

Our laws and political leanings are moving us towards laïcité, a rather rigid form of the best religious freedoms/ideology, quirky or not, for all. Keep it to yourself will be the order of the day. Happy days. All within a Western style of freedom seeking governance.

Should our backwards thinking mainstream religions be asked to be more representative of good law?

Negative discrimination without a just cause is what Yahweh admits to doing in Job 2;3., when he allowed Satan to move him to sin against Job.

Christians should admit their sin and stop preaching that it is a good to be homophobic and misogynous, contradicting the law of the land.

Regards
DL

Our first allegiance is to ourselves then our families. the country is a bit further down on the list for me

There are logical reasons the sequence is God, country and family.

I don't think a belief is gods is logical.

That's because you don't have a perception of God beyond magical fairytales, bro. So of course you don't believe belief in God is logical. I wouldn't believe in God either if I had your perception of God.

Interesting,

Do I have to believe before my perception changes or do I believe after I see something that changes my perception?

If you are to believe the scriptures, you have to wait for god to either give or deny you the grace to believe.

Check out the quotes in what follows. They are accurate as Christians never want to talk about them.

-----------

Are non-believers doomed by Divine Design?

Scriptures say that God decides if a person will be a believer or non-believer. Those scriptures are shown in this link.



Those quotes seems to really screw up the free will notion that Christians say God gives us.

The free will that God offers is kind of a joke anyway given the number of people whose free will to live is ignored in the billions of adults, children and babies that God is shown to torture and murder in scriptures.

If the bible and Yahweh are to be believed, and as a non-believer, I, of course, cannot believe it, thanks to God, by God’s design and will against me, then why did God deny me belief or faith?

Even more important to believers, might be to answer the question of; did God make you a believer in things that you can only hope exists and can never confirm?

Are you happy with God ignoring or negating your free will to think as you please?

I have assumed that God’s work of creating both believers and non-believers is working. If that is so, and you believers must think it so, just as I as a non-believer cannot think it is working, --- and Jesus said that those with faith could do all he did and more, --- then there is not even one believer or person of faith that has ever existed.

Either the bible and Christianity is all a lie, or there must be some who can do what Jesus did.

What is your choice of those two options?

Is the bible and Christianity a lie, or is God just not creating any people with faith, --- which would make all Christians who say they have faith, --- liars.

I mean no insult here but someone is definitely lying, if we read what is written and look at reality and listen to Christians.

What do you think is the truth?

Is it just for God to create people doomed to hell even if they wanted to believe?

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

Depends on the country and where it's located. ...

"religions that preach inequality for women and gays" are all found in muslim countries, aren't they skinhead?

Just look at what your vile lying preachers are preaching.

Are they any different from the right wing Muslims?

No. To an honest observer.

Regards
DL

I'm an agnostic, I don't follow pedophiles spouting garbage. Like you do.

Kiss this and tell us what you see as different.

Christian VS Muslim - YouTube

Regards
DL

 

[Blues Man]

Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

Our first allegiance is to our countries.

Our laws and political leanings are moving us towards laïcité, a rather rigid form of the best religious freedoms/ideology, quirky or not, for all. Keep it to yourself will be the order of the day. Happy days. All within a Western style of freedom seeking governance.

Should our backwards thinking mainstream religions be asked to be more representative of good law?

Negative discrimination without a just cause is what Yahweh admits to doing in Job 2;3., when he allowed Satan to move him to sin against Job.

Christians should admit their sin and stop preaching that it is a good to be homophobic and misogynous, contradicting the law of the land.

Regards
DL

Our first allegiance is to ourselves then our families. the country is a bit further down on the list for me

There are logical reasons the sequence is God, country and family.

I don't think a belief is gods is logical.

That's because you don't have a perception of God beyond magical fairytales, bro. So of course you don't believe belief in God is logical. I wouldn't believe in God either if I had your perception of God.

Interesting,

Do I have to believe before my perception changes or do I believe after I see something that changes my perception?

I think you have to have an open mind and objectively look at all sides before arriving at objective truth on any issue.

I do have an open mind.

I just like to have some sort of empirical evidence. There have been many times I have changed my opinion when I was presented with sufficient evidence that contradicted my original stance on a subject.

The universe and everything that has transpired since it was created from nothing being hardwired to produce intelligence is the evidence.

Not really.

The absence of scientific evidence is not in itself proof of a god being the creator of the universe.

It is just as possible that we do not yet have the technology or the mental capacity to see or understand the process of the inception of the universe.

There's no absence of evidence.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God. If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept.

There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

And how do you know the evidence we have regarding the inception of the universe is all the evidence there is?

And now you're bringing the spiritual into this? And we've already been over the morality and ethics argument and we do not agree so I see no need to rehash that one.

 

[GreatestIam]

Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

Our first allegiance is to our countries.

Our laws and political leanings are moving us towards laïcité, a rather rigid form of the best religious freedoms/ideology, quirky or not, for all. Keep it to yourself will be the order of the day. Happy days. All within a Western style of freedom seeking governance.

Should our backwards thinking mainstream religions be asked to be more representative of good law?

Negative discrimination without a just cause is what Yahweh admits to doing in Job 2;3., when he allowed Satan to move him to sin against Job.

Christians should admit their sin and stop preaching that it is a good to be homophobic and misogynous, contradicting the law of the land.

Regards
DL

Our first allegiance is to ourselves then our families. the country is a bit further down on the list for me

There are logical reasons the sequence is God, country and family.

I don't think a belief is gods is logical.

That's because you don't have a perception of God beyond magical fairytales, bro. So of course you don't believe belief in God is logical. I wouldn't believe in God either if I had your perception of God.

Interesting,

Do I have to believe before my perception changes or do I believe after I see something that changes my perception?

I think you have to have an open mind and objectively look at all sides before arriving at objective truth on any issue.

I do have an open mind.

I just like to have some sort of empirical evidence. There have been many times I have changed my opinion when I was presented with sufficient evidence that contradicted my original stance on a subject.

Maybe the problem is looking at the Bible as if was history and science.

The opposite of what the ancient intelligentsia did before that literal reading of myths began.

I hope you and Christians 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.

What is God?

Further.ttp://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.



Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

Our first allegiance is to our countries.

Our laws and political leanings are moving us towards laïcité, a rather rigid form of the best religious freedoms/ideology, quirky or not, for all. Keep it to yourself will be the order of the day. Happy days. All within a Western style of freedom seeking governance.

Should our backwards thinking mainstream religions be asked to be more representative of good law?

Negative discrimination without a just cause is what Yahweh admits to doing in Job 2;3., when he allowed Satan to move him to sin against Job.

Christians should admit their sin and stop preaching that it is a good to be homophobic and misogynous, contradicting the law of the land.

Regards
DL

Our first allegiance is to ourselves then our families. the country is a bit further down on the list for me

There are logical reasons the sequence is God, country and family.

I don't think a belief is gods is logical.

That's because you don't have a perception of God beyond magical fairytales, bro. So of course you don't believe belief in God is logical. I wouldn't believe in God either if I had your perception of God.

Interesting,

Do I have to believe before my perception changes or do I believe after I see something that changes my perception?

I think you have to have an open mind and objectively look at all sides before arriving at objective truth on any issue.

I do have an open mind.

I just like to have some sort of empirical evidence. There have been many times I have changed my opinion when I was presented with sufficient evidence that contradicted my original stance on a subject.

The universe and everything that has transpired since it was created from nothing being hardwired to produce intelligence is the evidence.

What is intelligent about reading myths literally and adoring a genocidal god and his homophobic and misogynous religion?

Oops. I forgot that asking you anything is a waste of time.

Please ignore.

Regards
DL