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

[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?

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

So doesn't that violate the free will that was supposedly given to man by his creator?

And if it is the creator that decides who is going to believe or not then isn't he damning those people he decides don't believe just because he feels like it?

Religion is a complex social construct and religions have evolved and changed and much of those changes can be very closely correlated to the evolution of our intelligence.

We used to believe in many gods but as we came to understand the world we discarded many gods. Now most religions are monotheistic they concern themselves with the big questions to which we do not have definitive answers.

How did the universe come to be and what happens after we die ?

 

[GreatestIam]

So doesn't that violate the free will that was supposedly given to man by his creator?

Absolutely as the script is quite clear. I don't know where that free will thing came into play as A & E were given commands to follow and punishments if they did not do as told to do, and commands seem to screw up free will quite well.

Satan or the talking serpent were there to insure that Adam sinned so that Christians could later sing that Adam's sin was a happy fault and necessary to god's plan.

Christians do not know if sin is evil or not, given that it is necessary to god's plan.

This must be true as Christians always run from such discussions.

Regards
DL

 

[ding]

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 , do you want to explain his error to him because I have explained it to him a dozen times and provided links as well?

 

[Blues Man]

So doesn't that violate the free will that was supposedly given to man by his creator?

Absolutely as the script is quite clear. I don't know where that free will thing came into play as A & E were given commands to follow and punishments if they did not do as told to do, and commands seem to screw up free will quite well.

Satan or the talking serpent were there to insure that Adam sinned so that Christians could later sing that Adam's sin was a happy fault and necessary to god's plan.

Christians do not know if sin is evil or not, given that it is necessary to god's plan.

This must be true as Christians always run from such discussions.

Regards
DL

But if Adam had no free will then he couldn't have disobeyed. If as you say it was the creator who decided what Adam would believe then the creator must have decided Adam would believe Eve and commit a sin.

You can't say there is no free will then blame someone else besides the creator for the sins of his creations.

 

[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.

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.

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

 

[GreatestIam]

And if it is the creator that decides who is going to believe or not then isn't he damning those people he decides don't believe just because he feels like it?

Absolutely.

We, if those quotes are believed, must wait for Yahweh to decide who will be graced with belief and who will be denied it.

How did the universe come to be and what happens after we die ?

Interesting questions, but Gnostic Christians are more concerned with our moral soul than if we can find the gods of the gaps.

You might have noted that many debates those issues and never get to an end game. It is impossible to get there with such abstract concepts based on speculation and not facts.

That is why we go for the moral aspects as those can have an end game and Christianity is a large target, given their adoration of a genocidal god.

Regards
DL

 

[surada]

So doesn't that violate the free will that was supposedly given to man by his creator?

Absolutely as the script is quite clear. I don't know where that free will thing came into play as A & E were given commands to follow and punishments if they did not do as told to do, and commands seem to screw up free will quite well.

Satan or the talking serpent were there to insure that Adam sinned so that Christians could later sing that Adam's sin was a happy fault and necessary to god's plan.

Christians do not know if sin is evil or not, given that it is necessary to god's plan.

This must be true as Christians always run from such discussions.

Regards
DL

Do you take the Bible stories literally?

 

[ding]

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.

Matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium. So matter and energy cannot be eternal or the first cause. The only thing that can be eternal and the first cause is something which is unchanging. The only thing that can be unchanging is no thing. Spirit or consciousness without form is no thing. Consciousness without form can be eternal and unchanging. 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.

 

[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 , do you want to explain his error to him because I have explained it to him a dozen times and provided links as well?

What mistake, exactly?

I keep failing with you, so what makes you think I would succeed with a better mind than yours?

Regards
DL

 

[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.

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

Your perception of God is wrong. Just because you can't understand why bad things happen to good people doesn't mean good does not come from it.

 

[ding]

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 , do you want to explain his error to him because I have explained it to him a dozen times and provided links as well?

What mistake, exactly?

I keep failing with you, so what makes you think I would succeed with a better mind than yours?

Regards
DL

That Gnostic Christians do not believe in a supernatural God. All one has to do is use google, dummy.

 

[GreatestIam]

So doesn't that violate the free will that was supposedly given to man by his creator?

Absolutely as the script is quite clear. I don't know where that free will thing came into play as A & E were given commands to follow and punishments if they did not do as told to do, and commands seem to screw up free will quite well.

Satan or the talking serpent were there to insure that Adam sinned so that Christians could later sing that Adam's sin was a happy fault and necessary to god's plan.

Christians do not know if sin is evil or not, given that it is necessary to god's plan.

This must be true as Christians always run from such discussions.

Regards
DL

Do you take the Bible stories literally?

Hell no.

Gnostic Christians are esoteric ecumenists and naturalists, basically, and hold no supernatural beliefs.

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.

What is God?

Further.
Bill Moyers Journal . Watch & Listen | PBS

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

 

[ding]

So doesn't that violate the free will that was supposedly given to man by his creator?

Absolutely as the script is quite clear. I don't know where that free will thing came into play as A & E were given commands to follow and punishments if they did not do as told to do, and commands seem to screw up free will quite well.

Satan or the talking serpent were there to insure that Adam sinned so that Christians could later sing that Adam's sin was a happy fault and necessary to god's plan.

Christians do not know if sin is evil or not, given that it is necessary to god's plan.

This must be true as Christians always run from such discussions.

Regards
DL

Do you take the Bible stories literally?

He does and he doesn't. He's a subversive. He doesn't believe God exists. He's an atheist. So he does not accept ancient man's answers to the origin questions as meaningful. But he does use the literal reading of those accounts for the purpose of his subversion.

He really is doing exactly what Yuri Bezmenov describes here.

 

[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

Your perception of God is wrong. Just because you can't understand why bad things happen to good people doesn't mean good does not come from it.

Explain the good side of genocidal, infanticidal, homophobic and misogynous god.

Regards
DL

 

[ding]

So doesn't that violate the free will that was supposedly given to man by his creator?

Absolutely as the script is quite clear. I don't know where that free will thing came into play as A & E were given commands to follow and punishments if they did not do as told to do, and commands seem to screw up free will quite well.

Satan or the talking serpent were there to insure that Adam sinned so that Christians could later sing that Adam's sin was a happy fault and necessary to god's plan.

Christians do not know if sin is evil or not, given that it is necessary to god's plan.

This must be true as Christians always run from such discussions.

Regards
DL

But if Adam had no free will then he couldn't have disobeyed. If as you say it was the creator who decided what Adam would believe then the creator must have decided Adam would believe Eve and commit a sin.

You can't say there is no free will then blame someone else besides the creator for the sins of his creations.

Why are you reading these accounts literally?

 

[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.

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

Your perception of God is wrong. Just because you can't understand why bad things happen to good people doesn't mean good does not come from it.

Explain the good side of genocidal, infanticidal, homophobic and misogynous god.

Regards
DL

Maimonides responds...

MEN frequently think that the evils in the world are more numerous than the good things, that just isn't the case. He who thinks that he can have flesh and bones without being subject to any external influence, or any of the accidents of matter, unconsciously wishes to reconcile two opposites, viz., to be at the same time subject and not subject to change. If man were never subject to change there could be no generation: there would be one single being, but no individuals forming a species. It would be in vain to expect to see living beings formed of the blood of menstruous women and the semen virile, who will not die, will never feel pain, or will move perpetually, or will shine like the sun. Whatever is formed of any matter receives the most perfect form possible in that species of matter: in each individual case the defects are in accordance with the defects of that individual matter. The best and most perfect being that can be formed of the blood and the semen is the species of man, for as far as man's nature is known, he is living, reasonable, and mortal. It is therefore impossible that man should be free from this species of evil. You will, nevertheless, find that the evils of the above kind which befall man are very few and rare.

It must be admitted as a fact that it cannot be said of God that He directly creates evil, or He has the direct intention to produce evil; this is impossible His works are all perfectly good. He only produces existence, and all existence is good. God is perfect goodness, and that all that comes from Him is absolutely good. Consequently the true work of God is all good, since it is existence. ALL the great evils which men cause to each other because of certain intentions, desires, opinions, or religious principles, are likewise due to non-existence, because they originate in ignorance, which is absence of wisdom. The numerous evils to which individual persons are exposed are due to the defects existing in the persons themselves. We suffer from the evils which we, by our own free will, inflict on ourselves and ascribe them to God, who is far from being connected with them. Man himself is the author of this class of evils. The error of the ignorant goes so far as to say that God's power is insufficient, because He has given to this Universe the properties which they imagine cause these great evils.

 

[surada]

So doesn't that violate the free will that was supposedly given to man by his creator?

Absolutely as the script is quite clear. I don't know where that free will thing came into play as A & E were given commands to follow and punishments if they did not do as told to do, and commands seem to screw up free will quite well.

Satan or the talking serpent were there to insure that Adam sinned so that Christians could later sing that Adam's sin was a happy fault and necessary to god's plan.

Christians do not know if sin is evil or not, given that it is necessary to god's plan.

This must be true as Christians always run from such discussions.

Regards
DL

Do you take the Bible stories literally?

He does and he doesn't. He's a subversive. He doesn't believe God exists. He's an atheist. So he does not accept ancient man's answers to the origin questions as meaningful. But he does use the literal reading of those accounts for the purpose of his subversion.

He really is doing exactly what Yuri Bezmenov describes here.

I agree.. That makes sense.. He does refer to the stories literally.

 

[GreatestIam]

So doesn't that violate the free will that was supposedly given to man by his creator?

Absolutely as the script is quite clear. I don't know where that free will thing came into play as A & E were given commands to follow and punishments if they did not do as told to do, and commands seem to screw up free will quite well.

Satan or the talking serpent were there to insure that Adam sinned so that Christians could later sing that Adam's sin was a happy fault and necessary to god's plan.

Christians do not know if sin is evil or not, given that it is necessary to god's plan.

This must be true as Christians always run from such discussions.

Regards
DL

But if Adam had no free will then he couldn't have disobeyed. If as you say it was the creator who decided what Adam would believe then the creator must have decided Adam would believe Eve and commit a sin.

You can't say there is no free will then blame someone else besides the creator for the sins of his creations.

Why are you reading these accounts literally?

You read the bible literally do you not?

If so, Jesus cannot be a literally real person to you.

Regards
DL

 

[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.

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

Your perception of God is wrong. Just because you can't understand why bad things happen to good people doesn't mean good does not come from it.

Explain the good side of genocidal, infanticidal, homophobic and misogynous god.

Regards
DL

The Catechism of the Catholic Church responds...

But why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it? With infinite power God could always create something better. But with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world "in a state of journeying" towards its ultimate perfection. In God's plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection.

For almighty God. . ., because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself.

In time we can discover that God in his almighty providence can bring a good from the consequences of an evil, even a moral evil, caused by his creatures.

 

[ding]

So doesn't that violate the free will that was supposedly given to man by his creator?

Absolutely as the script is quite clear. I don't know where that free will thing came into play as A & E were given commands to follow and punishments if they did not do as told to do, and commands seem to screw up free will quite well.

Satan or the talking serpent were there to insure that Adam sinned so that Christians could later sing that Adam's sin was a happy fault and necessary to god's plan.

Christians do not know if sin is evil or not, given that it is necessary to god's plan.

This must be true as Christians always run from such discussions.

Regards
DL

But if Adam had no free will then he couldn't have disobeyed. If as you say it was the creator who decided what Adam would believe then the creator must have decided Adam would believe Eve and commit a sin.

You can't say there is no free will then blame someone else besides the creator for the sins of his creations.

Why are you reading these accounts literally?

You read the bible literally do you not?

If so, Jesus cannot be a literally real person to you.

Regards
DL

No. Not the allegorical accounts anyway.

The first five books of the Bible (known as the Torah) were written by Moses - an adopted son of the king of Egypt - in approximately 1400 B.C.. These five books focus on the beginning of the nation of Israel; but the first 11 chapters of the Torah records the history that all nations have in common. These allegorical accounts of the history of the world had been passed down from generation to generation orally for thousands of years. Moses did not really write the first 11 chapters of the Bible. Moses was the first Hebrew to record them.

Approximately 800 years before Moses recorded the allegorical accounts of the history of the world. The Chinese recorded this history as symbols in the Chinese language. They drew pictures to express words or ideas. Simple pictures were combined to make more complex thoughts. They used well known history and common everyday things to make a word so people could easily remember it. The account of Genesis found it's way into the Chinese written language because the Chinese had migrated from the cradle of civilization. Prior to this migration they all shared a common history and religion.

The Bible even explains how it was possible for the Chinese to record the account of Genesis 800 years before Moses recorded it. The account of the Tower of Babel was the allegorical account of the great migration from Mesopotamia. This also explains why all ancient cultures have an account of a great flood. Because they all shared a common history and religion before the great migration from the cradle of civilization.

So if we start from the belief that the first eleven chapters of the Torah are an allegorical account of world history before the great migration from Mesopotamia - which was an actual historical event - then the first eleven chapters of the Torah takes on new meaning. Seen in this light these accounts should be viewed less like fairy tales and more like how important information was passed down in ancient times. Just as the Chinese used well known history and everyday things as symbols in their written language to make words easier to remember, ancient man used stories to pass down historical events and important knowledge to future generations. Interspersed in these allegorical accounts of history are wisdoms that they deemed important enough to pass down and remember. Such as man knows right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he didn't do wrong. Most people don't even realize this wisdom is in the Torah because they read it critically instead of searching for the wisdom that ancient man knew and found important enough to include in his account of world history.

We have to keep in mind that these accounts are 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years. Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing. We shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world. Unfortunately, we are so far removed from these events that we have lost all original meaning. If you were to ask almost any Jew what the Tower of Babel was about he would have no clue that it was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization. That is not intended to be a criticism. It is intended to be an illustration of just how difficult a task it is to discover the original meaning from ancient accounts from 6,000 years ago. We read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make ourselves feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom. Shame on us.