Religion and Ethics - The topic of this USMB Discussion is an "oxymoron"

[RWS]

But I will tell you right now that ethics is way more important than belief in an imaginary god.

Believing in an imaginary god doesn't make you religious. It just makes you wrong. Moreover, religion and ethics occupy the same realm--how we treat one another--and are therefore appropriately included under the same forum.

Ques: what does that mean "follow your morals"? Do you mean something like "go with your gut" or "act on impulse"?

Correct, except for the imaginary God bit.

What I can't figure out is that virtually no one of any intellectual capacity can fathom that there is no other life in the seemingly endless universe, and in the same breath, pretend that the notion of God is so absurd

Very odd.

I am very supportive of life, and intelligent life, outside of the earth. And I argue for it. I cannot fathom why you would make such a ridiculous statement! Actually, it's usually the religious folks that cannot accept the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere, because it goes against their biblical religion and the authority of their rulers. Especially when it means that if they came here, they may actually be our "gods".

Religion and ethics are opposites. You cannot have one and also the other, if you're following one of the trilogy. You either have ethics, or you support a religion that killed/tortured/raped everyone in its way in order to get popular. I'm sorry, you can be a dick and try to brush it off, but the reality is that this is what happened to get you to be your religion. And eventually, you will be compelled to do it again, once asked. And you will justify it based on a religion you were born into.

And btw, since we're about to get into grammar nazi's, your last sentence is a doozy.... But I understand... jus sayin for your buddy whose ass i'm about to kick...

Wait.....wut?

So the life that exists in the universe can include anything except God. Check. Got it.

So morality is absent in religion. Only those not religious can be moral. Check. Got it.

Do you smoke much reefer?

Whoa, dude, hold it up. The universe can exist with "god". It's just that your "God" is probably something that wants to kill everybody else.

Check? Got it?

A belief in "god" does not mean you have to kill anybody that thinks differently.

 

[RWS]

And if you cannot handle people that believe in a "god", that won't follow your religion, then YOU are the problem...

 

[RWS]

If you can understand the difference between faith and a religion, then you need not follow further.

But if not...

I'll explain.

If you are told to do anything that is contradictory to your nature, than that's a religion.

If you are told to do things that just don't make sense, then that's a religion...

If you are told to do something that will give you eternal life, then that's a religion.

If you are told that you don't have to do anything of the above, as long as you contribute otherwise, then that's a religion...


People of faith, like some of us, realize these things, and realize what they're trying to accomplish. And we won't fall for it. Again.

And the rest of you spewing out these falsehoods based on your birth-religion need to take a step back and realize the truth.

 

[Boss]

.
christian faith is the product of governance, a book by rulers and not a religion.

it has been pointed out to you organized religions were created or established by the rulers at the time the religions were formally accepted - christianity was created in the late 4th century by the concoction of their 4th century bible - the 1st century events of that book is not a formal religion, the non existence, formality is the product of the rulers that intervened that eventually produced (said) christianity. the subject of this thread.

the religion(s) not produced by the presiding rulers are ones that the rulers attempt to discredit and prevent from being established - branches of Marxism.

what fairyland do you reside in ...

Sorry, that's not where Christianity began. So, you keep telling me nonsense. If the religion began four centuries after Jesus, it might be different.

Okay BreezeWood
Neither Boss nor I agree with saying "official" Christianity began with 4th century European history.

Can we work out what to call the different eras or periods?

I don't think the "Antichrist" spirit has any specific timeline,
but shows in INCIDENTS such as Hitler, the Crusades,
and now with Jihadist terrorism. These are MANIFESTATIONS
of the Antichrist that is and has always been in the world.

Jesus as divine Justice has always been with God in heaven,
but has stages of Manifestation.

Do you want to name the stages?
OT is when the laws were given by the letter through Moses but not the spirit
because Jesus wasn't made manifest until the NT.

NT is when Jesus is made manifest the first time
and currently we are going through the process of full integrated REALIZATION
of this spirit of Peace and Justice/Justice with Mercy/Restorative Justice
INTO the world and embodying this spirit in our RELATIONS our Institutions and society as a whole.

We are in that process now.

So what do you want to call these stages?

What do you call the stage at the beginning when the laws or Word
of God was with God in heaven and Adam and Eve obeyed God by natural innocence.

What do you call the stage of falling out, where the OT is filled with
the tragic tormented history of humanity unable to live by the laws as set out
because we don't have a sense of universal justice but are living by material greed for selfish control and power.

What do you call the stage of first introducing the spirit of
Justice that is going to reconcile man and God.

And what do you call the final stages of fulfilling that process
which we are facing now.

.

Neither Boss nor I agree with saying "official" Christianity began with 4th century European history.

that is when your "official" christianity began - and is not the religion of the 1st century.

OT - NT are written religions - the 1st century is verbal to this day, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani” to bad the very words of Jesus could not be forgotten though "interpret" them as you may.

you are disingenuous by your league with boss as I have no association with them you could hardly have not understood.

I don't think the "Antichrist" spirit has any specific timeline ...

antichrist began in the late 4th century within the christian bible, the history from "that" time to the present bears the outcome from the false (religions) political agendas beginning.

the christian bible is a compilation of writings put together and completed in the late 4th century - the only remedy is to either verify through evidence its many objectionable passages or appropriately to rewrite its passages to properly portray the religion of the 1st century and dismiss the works of the late 4th century as a fraudulent document.

I answered your post and as before in the past in response to you, you refuse to engage the answer I have given you - I will again refer to you as disingenuous.


you could be helpful emily - I would like to give a name to the original 1st century religion referring to those events with the final act being Jesus's untimely death - the verbal religion is simply the Religion of God. something that would distinguish it from christianity.

OK BreezeWood so you are calling the
1st century as the "Religion of God" maybe we can call it the Original laws of God
and the 4th century (I thought it was marked at early as 999) as the
"Antichrist" false Christianity that is politicized crusades for conquest.

For the historical date of 999 given as the first record of a CROSS
used to symbolize CRUSADES for sacrifice,
would you say that is part of the 4th century Antichrist,
such as the prehistory, the same trend but BEFORE the
written history in the Bible?

I got this date from the book "Saving Paradise"
that uses that as the shift from the
Peaceful brotherhood age (what you are calling the Original
RELIGION or laws of God) to the conquest/crusades for political motives.

Sorry I come across as disingenuous to you.

as long as we come up with a common timeline
I don't think it matters so much what Boss or you or I think of each other.

What matters is that we agree on a common truth so we can
discuss these things clearly regardless what flaws or motives any of us may or may not have.

Can you add in a description of where the crusades fit in
that date back to 999 as approximately when the first CROSS appeared?

Thanks BreezeWood perhaps it's because other people
have questioned your motives that you question mine.
But I'm not to be defined by other people and neither are you.
You are defined or defiled by the words that come from your own mouth.
So if you falsely accuse me, that's on you not on me.
I am sincere, and it's not my problem if your bad experience with other people
makes you suspect otherwise. That's your experience with them, and is not what I'm about.
Sorry if that affects us, and I hope it will not interfere in the future. All can be forgiven and corrected,
and that's what I'm about.

.

the christian bible is a compilation of writings put together and completed in the late 4th century - the only remedy is to either verify through evidence its many objectionable passages or appropriately to rewrite its passages to properly portray the religion of the 1st century and dismiss the works of the late 4th century as a fraudulent document.

I've yet to read a response from you to an answer given in response to one of your many inquiries ... in short the christian bible is the problem, everything else will be solved.


christianity as a "religion" is only as substantive as the last 4th century christian bible left to be read. it's political agenda is the true fabric of humanities repressiveness that is the books greatest and least desirable appeal to the original religion it was meant to depict. -

there I gave you reason again to not answer the original answer ... .

This is absolute nonsense. Both you and the OP are attempting to claim Christianity is not based upon its origins but a version from 400 years after Christ. You can't name a single denomination that practices this. Every Christian I know believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ. So why the hell are you both trying to make a point that can't be made?

 

[Boss]

If you can understand the difference between faith and a religion, then you need not follow further.

But if not...

I'll explain.

If you are told to do anything that is contradictory to your nature, than that's a religion.

If you are told to do things that just don't make sense, then that's a religion...

If you are told to do something that will give you eternal life, then that's a religion.

If you are told that you don't have to do anything of the above, as long as you contribute otherwise, then that's a religion...


People of faith, like some of us, realize these things, and realize what they're trying to accomplish. And we won't fall for it. Again.

And the rest of you spewing out these falsehoods based on your birth-religion need to take a step back and realize the truth.

No, you need to stop being an idiot. You haven't supported a single argument you've made here. You continue to make these verbose proclamations as if you're some kind of god-king we're all obligated to follow. When someone challenges you, they are insulted and treated to more baseless proclamations. Is that all the OP offers?

 

[BreezeWood]

Sorry, that's not where Christianity began. So, you keep telling me nonsense. If the religion began four centuries after Jesus, it might be different.

Okay BreezeWood
Neither Boss nor I agree with saying "official" Christianity began with 4th century European history.

Can we work out what to call the different eras or periods?

I don't think the "Antichrist" spirit has any specific timeline,
but shows in INCIDENTS such as Hitler, the Crusades,
and now with Jihadist terrorism. These are MANIFESTATIONS
of the Antichrist that is and has always been in the world.

Jesus as divine Justice has always been with God in heaven,
but has stages of Manifestation.

Do you want to name the stages?
OT is when the laws were given by the letter through Moses but not the spirit
because Jesus wasn't made manifest until the NT.

NT is when Jesus is made manifest the first time
and currently we are going through the process of full integrated REALIZATION
of this spirit of Peace and Justice/Justice with Mercy/Restorative Justice
INTO the world and embodying this spirit in our RELATIONS our Institutions and society as a whole.

We are in that process now.

So what do you want to call these stages?

What do you call the stage at the beginning when the laws or Word
of God was with God in heaven and Adam and Eve obeyed God by natural innocence.

What do you call the stage of falling out, where the OT is filled with
the tragic tormented history of humanity unable to live by the laws as set out
because we don't have a sense of universal justice but are living by material greed for selfish control and power.

What do you call the stage of first introducing the spirit of
Justice that is going to reconcile man and God.

And what do you call the final stages of fulfilling that process
which we are facing now.

.

Neither Boss nor I agree with saying "official" Christianity began with 4th century European history.

that is when your "official" christianity began - and is not the religion of the 1st century.

OT - NT are written religions - the 1st century is verbal to this day, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani” to bad the very words of Jesus could not be forgotten though "interpret" them as you may.

you are disingenuous by your league with boss as I have no association with them you could hardly have not understood.

I don't think the "Antichrist" spirit has any specific timeline ...

antichrist began in the late 4th century within the christian bible, the history from "that" time to the present bears the outcome from the false (religions) political agendas beginning.

the christian bible is a compilation of writings put together and completed in the late 4th century - the only remedy is to either verify through evidence its many objectionable passages or appropriately to rewrite its passages to properly portray the religion of the 1st century and dismiss the works of the late 4th century as a fraudulent document.

I answered your post and as before in the past in response to you, you refuse to engage the answer I have given you - I will again refer to you as disingenuous.


you could be helpful emily - I would like to give a name to the original 1st century religion referring to those events with the final act being Jesus's untimely death - the verbal religion is simply the Religion of God. something that would distinguish it from christianity.

OK BreezeWood so you are calling the
1st century as the "Religion of God" maybe we can call it the Original laws of God
and the 4th century (I thought it was marked at early as 999) as the
"Antichrist" false Christianity that is politicized crusades for conquest.

For the historical date of 999 given as the first record of a CROSS
used to symbolize CRUSADES for sacrifice,
would you say that is part of the 4th century Antichrist,
such as the prehistory, the same trend but BEFORE the
written history in the Bible?

I got this date from the book "Saving Paradise"
that uses that as the shift from the
Peaceful brotherhood age (what you are calling the Original
RELIGION or laws of God) to the conquest/crusades for political motives.

Sorry I come across as disingenuous to you.

as long as we come up with a common timeline
I don't think it matters so much what Boss or you or I think of each other.

What matters is that we agree on a common truth so we can
discuss these things clearly regardless what flaws or motives any of us may or may not have.

Can you add in a description of where the crusades fit in
that date back to 999 as approximately when the first CROSS appeared?

Thanks BreezeWood perhaps it's because other people
have questioned your motives that you question mine.
But I'm not to be defined by other people and neither are you.
You are defined or defiled by the words that come from your own mouth.
So if you falsely accuse me, that's on you not on me.
I am sincere, and it's not my problem if your bad experience with other people
makes you suspect otherwise. That's your experience with them, and is not what I'm about.
Sorry if that affects us, and I hope it will not interfere in the future. All can be forgiven and corrected,
and that's what I'm about.

.

the christian bible is a compilation of writings put together and completed in the late 4th century - the only remedy is to either verify through evidence its many objectionable passages or appropriately to rewrite its passages to properly portray the religion of the 1st century and dismiss the works of the late 4th century as a fraudulent document.

I've yet to read a response from you to an answer given in response to one of your many inquiries ... in short the christian bible is the problem, everything else will be solved.


christianity as a "religion" is only as substantive as the last 4th century christian bible left to be read. it's political agenda is the true fabric of humanities repressiveness that is the books greatest and least desirable appeal to the original religion it was meant to depict. -

there I gave you reason again to not answer the original answer ... .

1. What problem does the Christian Bible pose that it doesn't ALSO SOLVE, BreezeWood

2. yes we already established that you are saying 4th century Christianity is the corrupt political religion

And you said to call the stage BEFORE that the true ORIGINAL Religion of God.

What else are you disagreeing with?

Are you saying there is no interpretation of the Bible that reconciles with the true/original "Religion of God"

is that where we disagree?

I can see both the corrupt/political side of Christian history, but also see where the Bible DOES teach the true "religion of God"

Why can you only see one side and not the other in the Bible. What is wrong with it that you would fix?

Thanks BW!

.

Are you saying there is no interpretation of the Bible that reconciles with the true/original "Religion of God"

the original religion is a 5 word commandment - The Triumph of Good vs Evil - to accomplish remission to the Everlasting.

I can see both the corrupt/political side of Christian history, but also see where the Bible DOES teach the true "religion of God"

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”.


the above is your religion ... and is not from a 1st century origin as the religion of the Almighty.

the two religions are incomparable the latter 4th century is a 10,000 page political document disguised as a religion that does not even support the true religion or events of the 1st century.

we are at odds em because the only solution I see fit is to reopen the c bible if they claim it is the original religion and set it correctly - Triumph over sin and attaining a pure state before death is the goal, not for just an individual but by the commandment must be accomplished by all mankind or non will be admitted. its all or non. that's why the correction is a concern for everyone.

 

[BreezeWood]

Sorry, that's not where Christianity began. So, you keep telling me nonsense. If the religion began four centuries after Jesus, it might be different.

Okay BreezeWood
Neither Boss nor I agree with saying "official" Christianity began with 4th century European history.

Can we work out what to call the different eras or periods?

I don't think the "Antichrist" spirit has any specific timeline,
but shows in INCIDENTS such as Hitler, the Crusades,
and now with Jihadist terrorism. These are MANIFESTATIONS
of the Antichrist that is and has always been in the world.

Jesus as divine Justice has always been with God in heaven,
but has stages of Manifestation.

Do you want to name the stages?
OT is when the laws were given by the letter through Moses but not the spirit
because Jesus wasn't made manifest until the NT.

NT is when Jesus is made manifest the first time
and currently we are going through the process of full integrated REALIZATION
of this spirit of Peace and Justice/Justice with Mercy/Restorative Justice
INTO the world and embodying this spirit in our RELATIONS our Institutions and society as a whole.

We are in that process now.

So what do you want to call these stages?

What do you call the stage at the beginning when the laws or Word
of God was with God in heaven and Adam and Eve obeyed God by natural innocence.

What do you call the stage of falling out, where the OT is filled with
the tragic tormented history of humanity unable to live by the laws as set out
because we don't have a sense of universal justice but are living by material greed for selfish control and power.

What do you call the stage of first introducing the spirit of
Justice that is going to reconcile man and God.

And what do you call the final stages of fulfilling that process
which we are facing now.

.

Neither Boss nor I agree with saying "official" Christianity began with 4th century European history.

that is when your "official" christianity began - and is not the religion of the 1st century.

OT - NT are written religions - the 1st century is verbal to this day, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani” to bad the very words of Jesus could not be forgotten though "interpret" them as you may.

you are disingenuous by your league with boss as I have no association with them you could hardly have not understood.

I don't think the "Antichrist" spirit has any specific timeline ...

antichrist began in the late 4th century within the christian bible, the history from "that" time to the present bears the outcome from the false (religions) political agendas beginning.

the christian bible is a compilation of writings put together and completed in the late 4th century - the only remedy is to either verify through evidence its many objectionable passages or appropriately to rewrite its passages to properly portray the religion of the 1st century and dismiss the works of the late 4th century as a fraudulent document.

I answered your post and as before in the past in response to you, you refuse to engage the answer I have given you - I will again refer to you as disingenuous.


you could be helpful emily - I would like to give a name to the original 1st century religion referring to those events with the final act being Jesus's untimely death - the verbal religion is simply the Religion of God. something that would distinguish it from christianity.

OK BreezeWood so you are calling the
1st century as the "Religion of God" maybe we can call it the Original laws of God
and the 4th century (I thought it was marked at early as 999) as the
"Antichrist" false Christianity that is politicized crusades for conquest.

For the historical date of 999 given as the first record of a CROSS
used to symbolize CRUSADES for sacrifice,
would you say that is part of the 4th century Antichrist,
such as the prehistory, the same trend but BEFORE the
written history in the Bible?

I got this date from the book "Saving Paradise"
that uses that as the shift from the
Peaceful brotherhood age (what you are calling the Original
RELIGION or laws of God) to the conquest/crusades for political motives.

Sorry I come across as disingenuous to you.

as long as we come up with a common timeline
I don't think it matters so much what Boss or you or I think of each other.

What matters is that we agree on a common truth so we can
discuss these things clearly regardless what flaws or motives any of us may or may not have.

Can you add in a description of where the crusades fit in
that date back to 999 as approximately when the first CROSS appeared?

Thanks BreezeWood perhaps it's because other people
have questioned your motives that you question mine.
But I'm not to be defined by other people and neither are you.
You are defined or defiled by the words that come from your own mouth.
So if you falsely accuse me, that's on you not on me.
I am sincere, and it's not my problem if your bad experience with other people
makes you suspect otherwise. That's your experience with them, and is not what I'm about.
Sorry if that affects us, and I hope it will not interfere in the future. All can be forgiven and corrected,
and that's what I'm about.

.

the christian bible is a compilation of writings put together and completed in the late 4th century - the only remedy is to either verify through evidence its many objectionable passages or appropriately to rewrite its passages to properly portray the religion of the 1st century and dismiss the works of the late 4th century as a fraudulent document.

I've yet to read a response from you to an answer given in response to one of your many inquiries ... in short the christian bible is the problem, everything else will be solved.


christianity as a "religion" is only as substantive as the last 4th century christian bible left to be read. it's political agenda is the true fabric of humanities repressiveness that is the books greatest and least desirable appeal to the original religion it was meant to depict. -

there I gave you reason again to not answer the original answer ... .

This is absolute nonsense. Both you and the OP are attempting to claim Christianity is not based upon its origins but a version from 400 years after Christ. You can't name a single denomination that practices this. Every Christian I know believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ. So why the hell are you both trying to make a point that can't be made?

.

This is absolute nonsense. Both you and the OP are attempting to claim Christianity is not based upon its origins but a version from 400 years after Christ.

where in the 1st century the specific moment do you conclude Jesus is proclaimed as Christ.

nor does that fit very well your claim as a spiritualist either bossy ... had a change of heart, becoming afraid, your not worried about losing your job are you.

Every Christian I know believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ. So why the hell are you both trying to make a point that can't be made?

are you referring to their 10,000 page political document ... and you believe Jesus guided their hand while they wrote it in the "4th" century . .... that is a concern because it is not something they own, the religion they disregard is meant for everyone and is meant to be understood correctly.

and what is your explanation for all the denominations ... of the "same" ... "religion", bossy.

 

[Boss]

Breeze, until you can cite a denomination of Christianity that doesn't adhere to the teachings of Jesus, you have nothing. You're making an argument with no basis. You keep pointing to the 4th century... a number literally defined by the life of Jesus, as some sort of reference point for where the religion began. It's just shear ignorance not worthy of response.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Breeze, until you can cite a denomination of Christianity that doesn't adhere to the teachings of Jesus, you have nothing. You're making an argument with no basis. You keep pointing to the 4th century... a number literally defined by the life of Jesus, as some sort of reference point for where the religion began. It's just shear ignorance not worthy of response.

The term “canon” is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible. The difficulty in determining the biblical canon is that the Bible does not give us a list of the books that belong in the Bible. Determining the canon was a process conducted first by Jewish rabbis and scholars and later by early Christians. Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon. A book of Scripture belonged in the canon from the moment God inspired its writing. It was simply a matter of God’s convincing His human followers which books should be included in the Bible.

... the cannon of the bible was completed in 397 AD by the Christian church ...

yes mr dictator, the bible was not written in the late 4th century, 397 ad ... because you say so.

 

[emilynghiem]

Okay BreezeWood
Neither Boss nor I agree with saying "official" Christianity began with 4th century European history.

Can we work out what to call the different eras or periods?

I don't think the "Antichrist" spirit has any specific timeline,
but shows in INCIDENTS such as Hitler, the Crusades,
and now with Jihadist terrorism. These are MANIFESTATIONS
of the Antichrist that is and has always been in the world.

Jesus as divine Justice has always been with God in heaven,
but has stages of Manifestation.

Do you want to name the stages?
OT is when the laws were given by the letter through Moses but not the spirit
because Jesus wasn't made manifest until the NT.

NT is when Jesus is made manifest the first time
and currently we are going through the process of full integrated REALIZATION
of this spirit of Peace and Justice/Justice with Mercy/Restorative Justice
INTO the world and embodying this spirit in our RELATIONS our Institutions and society as a whole.

We are in that process now.

So what do you want to call these stages?

What do you call the stage at the beginning when the laws or Word
of God was with God in heaven and Adam and Eve obeyed God by natural innocence.

What do you call the stage of falling out, where the OT is filled with
the tragic tormented history of humanity unable to live by the laws as set out
because we don't have a sense of universal justice but are living by material greed for selfish control and power.

What do you call the stage of first introducing the spirit of
Justice that is going to reconcile man and God.

And what do you call the final stages of fulfilling that process
which we are facing now.

.

Neither Boss nor I agree with saying "official" Christianity began with 4th century European history.

that is when your "official" christianity began - and is not the religion of the 1st century.

OT - NT are written religions - the 1st century is verbal to this day, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani” to bad the very words of Jesus could not be forgotten though "interpret" them as you may.

you are disingenuous by your league with boss as I have no association with them you could hardly have not understood.

I don't think the "Antichrist" spirit has any specific timeline ...

antichrist began in the late 4th century within the christian bible, the history from "that" time to the present bears the outcome from the false (religions) political agendas beginning.

the christian bible is a compilation of writings put together and completed in the late 4th century - the only remedy is to either verify through evidence its many objectionable passages or appropriately to rewrite its passages to properly portray the religion of the 1st century and dismiss the works of the late 4th century as a fraudulent document.

I answered your post and as before in the past in response to you, you refuse to engage the answer I have given you - I will again refer to you as disingenuous.


you could be helpful emily - I would like to give a name to the original 1st century religion referring to those events with the final act being Jesus's untimely death - the verbal religion is simply the Religion of God. something that would distinguish it from christianity.

OK BreezeWood so you are calling the
1st century as the "Religion of God" maybe we can call it the Original laws of God
and the 4th century (I thought it was marked at early as 999) as the
"Antichrist" false Christianity that is politicized crusades for conquest.

For the historical date of 999 given as the first record of a CROSS
used to symbolize CRUSADES for sacrifice,
would you say that is part of the 4th century Antichrist,
such as the prehistory, the same trend but BEFORE the
written history in the Bible?

I got this date from the book "Saving Paradise"
that uses that as the shift from the
Peaceful brotherhood age (what you are calling the Original
RELIGION or laws of God) to the conquest/crusades for political motives.

Sorry I come across as disingenuous to you.

as long as we come up with a common timeline
I don't think it matters so much what Boss or you or I think of each other.

What matters is that we agree on a common truth so we can
discuss these things clearly regardless what flaws or motives any of us may or may not have.

Can you add in a description of where the crusades fit in
that date back to 999 as approximately when the first CROSS appeared?

Thanks BreezeWood perhaps it's because other people
have questioned your motives that you question mine.
But I'm not to be defined by other people and neither are you.
You are defined or defiled by the words that come from your own mouth.
So if you falsely accuse me, that's on you not on me.
I am sincere, and it's not my problem if your bad experience with other people
makes you suspect otherwise. That's your experience with them, and is not what I'm about.
Sorry if that affects us, and I hope it will not interfere in the future. All can be forgiven and corrected,
and that's what I'm about.

.

the christian bible is a compilation of writings put together and completed in the late 4th century - the only remedy is to either verify through evidence its many objectionable passages or appropriately to rewrite its passages to properly portray the religion of the 1st century and dismiss the works of the late 4th century as a fraudulent document.

I've yet to read a response from you to an answer given in response to one of your many inquiries ... in short the christian bible is the problem, everything else will be solved.


christianity as a "religion" is only as substantive as the last 4th century christian bible left to be read. it's political agenda is the true fabric of humanities repressiveness that is the books greatest and least desirable appeal to the original religion it was meant to depict. -

there I gave you reason again to not answer the original answer ... .

1. What problem does the Christian Bible pose that it doesn't ALSO SOLVE, BreezeWood

2. yes we already established that you are saying 4th century Christianity is the corrupt political religion

And you said to call the stage BEFORE that the true ORIGINAL Religion of God.

What else are you disagreeing with?

Are you saying there is no interpretation of the Bible that reconciles with the true/original "Religion of God"

is that where we disagree?

I can see both the corrupt/political side of Christian history, but also see where the Bible DOES teach the true "religion of God"

Why can you only see one side and not the other in the Bible. What is wrong with it that you would fix?

Thanks BW!

.

Are you saying there is no interpretation of the Bible that reconciles with the true/original "Religion of God"

the original religion is a 5 word commandment - The Triumph of Good vs Evil - to accomplish remission to the Everlasting.

I can see both the corrupt/political side of Christian history, but also see where the Bible DOES teach the true "religion of God"

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”.


the above is your religion ... and is not from a 1st century origin as the religion of the Almighty.

the two religions are incomparable the latter 4th century is a 10,000 page political document disguised as a religion that does not even support the true religion or events of the 1st century.

we are at odds em because the only solution I see fit is to reopen the c bible if they claim it is the original religion and set it correctly - Triumph over sin and attaining a pure state before death is the goal, not for just an individual but by the commandment must be accomplished by all mankind or non will be admitted. its all or non. that's why the correction is a concern for everyone.

Dear BreezeWood
My understanding of Jesus "as the universal way" is that through
**RESTORATIVE JUSTICE**
that is how fallen man and fallen relations become reconciled and one with God.

are you okay with this explanation
that Christ Jesus
means
Restorative Justice
as the process by which man and man's laws
become reconciled with God and God's law.

 

[emilynghiem]

But I will tell you right now that ethics is way more important than belief in an imaginary god.

Believing in an imaginary god doesn't make you religious. It just makes you wrong. Moreover, religion and ethics occupy the same realm--how we treat one another--and are therefore appropriately included under the same forum.

Ques: what does that mean "follow your morals"? Do you mean something like "go with your gut" or "act on impulse"?

Correct, except for the imaginary God bit.

What I can't figure out is that virtually no one of any intellectual capacity can fathom that there is no other life in the seemingly endless universe, and in the same breath, pretend that the notion of God is so absurd

Very odd.

I am very supportive of life, and intelligent life, outside of the earth. And I argue for it. I cannot fathom why you would make such a ridiculous statement! Actually, it's usually the religious folks that cannot accept the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere, because it goes against their biblical religion and the authority of their rulers. Especially when it means that if they came here, they may actually be our "gods".

Religion and ethics are opposites. You cannot have one and also the other, if you're following one of the trilogy. You either have ethics, or you support a religion that killed/tortured/raped everyone in its way in order to get popular. I'm sorry, you can be a dick and try to brush it off, but the reality is that this is what happened to get you to be your religion. And eventually, you will be compelled to do it again, once asked. And you will justify it based on a religion you were born into.

And btw, since we're about to get into grammar nazi's, your last sentence is a doozy.... But I understand... jus sayin for your buddy whose ass i'm about to kick...

Wait.....wut?

So the life that exists in the universe can include anything except God. Check. Got it.

So morality is absent in religion. Only those not religious can be moral. Check. Got it.

Do you smoke much reefer?

Whoa, dude, hold it up. The universe can exist with "god". It's just that your "God" is probably something that wants to kill everybody else.

Check? Got it?

A belief in "god" does not mean you have to kill anybody that thinks differently.

Dear RWS
What if "God" is defined to be
* nature
* life
* the universe

If God is the "Spirit of Life" or "natural laws of life"
then can "Life" or the "universe" exist
without the "spirit or laws of life" which cause it to exist and operate.

If life can exist without having a beginning source,
then can LIFE itself as "self-existing" with no beginning and no end
be taken to be the meaning of God?

 

[Boss]

.

Breeze, until you can cite a denomination of Christianity that doesn't adhere to the teachings of Jesus, you have nothing. You're making an argument with no basis. You keep pointing to the 4th century... a number literally defined by the life of Jesus, as some sort of reference point for where the religion began. It's just shear ignorance not worthy of response.

The term “canon” is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible. The difficulty in determining the biblical canon is that the Bible does not give us a list of the books that belong in the Bible. Determining the canon was a process conducted first by Jewish rabbis and scholars and later by early Christians. Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon. A book of Scripture belonged in the canon from the moment God inspired its writing. It was simply a matter of God’s convincing His human followers which books should be included in the Bible.

... the cannon of the bible was completed in 397 AD by the Christian church ...

yes mr dictator, the bible was not written in the late 4th century, 397 ad ... because you say so.

The bible wasn't written then. Most of it was written centuries before. It's not because I say so, it's because it's a fact. It has also been translated and revised since then. None of that has to do with when Christianity began or how.

Do you honestly believe as the OP claims, that religions are antithetical to morals and ethics? If so, you're a dunderhead.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Breeze, until you can cite a denomination of Christianity that doesn't adhere to the teachings of Jesus, you have nothing. You're making an argument with no basis. You keep pointing to the 4th century... a number literally defined by the life of Jesus, as some sort of reference point for where the religion began. It's just shear ignorance not worthy of response.

The term “canon” is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible. The difficulty in determining the biblical canon is that the Bible does not give us a list of the books that belong in the Bible. Determining the canon was a process conducted first by Jewish rabbis and scholars and later by early Christians. Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon. A book of Scripture belonged in the canon from the moment God inspired its writing. It was simply a matter of God’s convincing His human followers which books should be included in the Bible.

... the cannon of the bible was completed in 397 AD by the Christian church ...

yes mr dictator, the bible was not written in the late 4th century, 397 ad ... because you say so.

The bible wasn't written then. Most of it was written centuries before. It's not because I say so, it's because it's a fact. It has also been translated and revised since then. None of that has to do with when Christianity began or how.

Do you honestly believe as the OP claims, that religions are antithetical to morals and ethics? If so, you're a dunderhead.

.

Do you honestly believe as the OP claims, that religions are antithetical to morals and ethics? If so, you're a dunderhead.

I'm not sure religions hold any special value above any other beliefs or are any different from ordinary beliefs concerning morals and ethics and particularly not the scripted ones.

... what point I winder would a 10,000 page document have in mind if only as a religious summation and does not rely on a single verifiable proof for any of its multitude of proclamations when referenced as a work of "moral" stewardship.


you did not answer my question on what day was Jesus made a christ while they were still alive.

 

[IResist]

I wouldn't go that far. I think one can have ethics and religion. I also think one can have ethics without religion.

The notion that religion makes someone moral and ethical is one that I strongly challenge, and think morality ought to be defined by words and action, not by religion or lack there of.

 

[Boss]

I wouldn't go that far. I think one can have ethics and religion. I also think one can have ethics without religion.

The notion that religion makes someone moral and ethical is one that I strongly challenge, and think morality ought to be defined by words and action, not by religion or lack there of.

Here's my problem with that... there is no accountability. It's a nice sentiment but it doesn't work.

You could say it's possible to have a store where nothing is priced and people just pay what they think things are worth.... nice sentiment, wouldn't work.

To have ethics and morality requires some means of accountability to some higher authority than self. If accountability for your morals are left to self it's like the store without pricing.

 

[Boss]

.

Breeze, until you can cite a denomination of Christianity that doesn't adhere to the teachings of Jesus, you have nothing. You're making an argument with no basis. You keep pointing to the 4th century... a number literally defined by the life of Jesus, as some sort of reference point for where the religion began. It's just shear ignorance not worthy of response.

The term “canon” is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible. The difficulty in determining the biblical canon is that the Bible does not give us a list of the books that belong in the Bible. Determining the canon was a process conducted first by Jewish rabbis and scholars and later by early Christians. Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon. A book of Scripture belonged in the canon from the moment God inspired its writing. It was simply a matter of God’s convincing His human followers which books should be included in the Bible.

... the cannon of the bible was completed in 397 AD by the Christian church ...

yes mr dictator, the bible was not written in the late 4th century, 397 ad ... because you say so.

The bible wasn't written then. Most of it was written centuries before. It's not because I say so, it's because it's a fact. It has also been translated and revised since then. None of that has to do with when Christianity began or how.

Do you honestly believe as the OP claims, that religions are antithetical to morals and ethics? If so, you're a dunderhead.

.

Do you honestly believe as the OP claims, that religions are antithetical to morals and ethics? If so, you're a dunderhead.

I'm not sure religions hold any special value above any other beliefs or are any different from ordinary beliefs concerning morals and ethics and particularly not the scripted ones.

... what point I winder would a 10,000 page document have in mind if only as a religious summation and does not rely on a single verifiable proof for any of its multitude of proclamations when referenced as a work of "moral" stewardship.


you did not answer my question on what day was Jesus made a christ while they were still alive.

The bible isn't a 10k page document. It's a collection of books written over a span of centuries. You can save yourself the trouble of trying to lure me into a debate over Christian dogma, I'm not interested. I'm not here to defend their religion, just to keep the facts straight.

 

[IResist]

I wouldn't go that far. I think one can have ethics and religion. I also think one can have ethics without religion.

The notion that religion makes someone moral and ethical is one that I strongly challenge, and think morality ought to be defined by words and action, not by religion or lack there of.

Here's my problem with that... there is no accountability. It's a nice sentiment but it doesn't work.

You could say it's possible to have a store where nothing is priced and people just pay what they think things are worth.... nice sentiment, wouldn't work.

To have ethics and morality requires some means of accountability to some higher authority than self. If accountability for your morals are left to self it's like the store without pricing.

The authority is the law that we have and that we are accountable to the law. Not to any religious law but to human law.

I see you're from Birmingham. Bentley was a family values preaching Christian who resigned in disgrace over an affair even though his religion violates it.

Nobody is above the law, but the laws of this country and Biblical laws are not the same thing.

 

[Boss]

I wouldn't go that far. I think one can have ethics and religion. I also think one can have ethics without religion.

The notion that religion makes someone moral and ethical is one that I strongly challenge, and think morality ought to be defined by words and action, not by religion or lack there of.

Here's my problem with that... there is no accountability. It's a nice sentiment but it doesn't work.

You could say it's possible to have a store where nothing is priced and people just pay what they think things are worth.... nice sentiment, wouldn't work.

To have ethics and morality requires some means of accountability to some higher authority than self. If accountability for your morals are left to self it's like the store without pricing.

The authority is the law that we have and that we are accountable to the law. Not to any religious law but to human law.

I see you're from Birmingham. Bentley was a family values preaching Christian who resigned in disgrace over an affair even though his religion violates it.

Nobody is above the law, but the laws of this country and Biblical laws are not the same thing.

You're missing the point. Laws are based on an enforcing authority. Why have law enforcement and courts? Why can't people abide by their own self-determined laws? That's essentially your argument.

Morals mean nothing when nothing holds you accountable. Gov. Bentley is a good example. He's obviously a religious hypocrite.

 

[IResist]

I wouldn't go that far. I think one can have ethics and religion. I also think one can have ethics without religion.

The notion that religion makes someone moral and ethical is one that I strongly challenge, and think morality ought to be defined by words and action, not by religion or lack there of.

Here's my problem with that... there is no accountability. It's a nice sentiment but it doesn't work.

You could say it's possible to have a store where nothing is priced and people just pay what they think things are worth.... nice sentiment, wouldn't work.

To have ethics and morality requires some means of accountability to some higher authority than self. If accountability for your morals are left to self it's like the store without pricing.

The authority is the law that we have and that we are accountable to the law. Not to any religious law but to human law.

I see you're from Birmingham. Bentley was a family values preaching Christian who resigned in disgrace over an affair even though his religion violates it.

Nobody is above the law, but the laws of this country and Biblical laws are not the same thing.

You're missing the point. Laws are based on an enforcing authority. Why have law enforcement and courts? Why can't people abide by their own self-determined laws? That's essentially your argument.

Morals mean nothing when nothing holds you accountable. Gov. Bentley is a good example. He's obviously a religious hypocrite.

That's not at all my point but we live under secular law, not religious law and Bentley is just one of many religious hypocrites out there. I am an atheist, yet I follow the law.

 

[Boss]

I wouldn't go that far. I think one can have ethics and religion. I also think one can have ethics without religion.

The notion that religion makes someone moral and ethical is one that I strongly challenge, and think morality ought to be defined by words and action, not by religion or lack there of.

Here's my problem with that... there is no accountability. It's a nice sentiment but it doesn't work.

You could say it's possible to have a store where nothing is priced and people just pay what they think things are worth.... nice sentiment, wouldn't work.

To have ethics and morality requires some means of accountability to some higher authority than self. If accountability for your morals are left to self it's like the store without pricing.

The authority is the law that we have and that we are accountable to the law. Not to any religious law but to human law.

I see you're from Birmingham. Bentley was a family values preaching Christian who resigned in disgrace over an affair even though his religion violates it.

Nobody is above the law, but the laws of this country and Biblical laws are not the same thing.

You're missing the point. Laws are based on an enforcing authority. Why have law enforcement and courts? Why can't people abide by their own self-determined laws? That's essentially your argument.

Morals mean nothing when nothing holds you accountable. Gov. Bentley is a good example. He's obviously a religious hypocrite.

That's not at all my point but we live under secular law, not religious law and Bentley is just one of many religious hypocrites out there. I am an atheist, yet I follow the law.

Nearly every law is rooted in someone's morality.

Yes, you follow the law because there is a consequence if you don't. If immortality has no consequence why be moral? Is it all based on self-serving rules you make as you go?