God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.

[Greatest I am]

God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott15j2KwQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqP_fjBkwxc&feature=related

I think that the notion that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty perpetrator is immoral. Be it a willing sacrifice as some believe with Jesus or an unwilling victim.

I also think that God, who has a plethora of other options, would have come up with a moral way instead of an immoral and barbaric human sacrifice.

I agree with scriptures that say that we are all responsible for our own righteousness as well as our own iniquity and that God cannot be bribed by sacrifice.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, itshall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Psalm 49:7
None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

I believe as I do because Ibelieve that the first rule of morality is harm/care of children.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

Do you agree that the notion of substitutionary atonement is immoral and that God’s first principle of morality is harm/care and that this would prevent him from demanding the death of his son?

Regards
DL

 

[Stone]

.........................

I believe as I do because Ibelieve that the first rule of morality is harm/care of children.

...................................

I believe as I do because......

That seems to be central to your current argument.

If that were true, why do you argue to legalize drug abuse?
You did argue that legalizing drug abuse would in some way protect children.
Where is the logic to that?

What does the term 'morality' mean to you and how does it apply to a scenario of intentionally placing children in dangerous environments?

 

[Tuffdisc]

GIA, you read too much into things like that. Honesty, if people continue to rant that English is your second language, they are seriously proving a point

 

[Greatest I am]

That seems to be central to your current argument.

If that were true, why do you argue to legalize drug abuse?
You did argue that legalizing drug abuse would in some way protect children.
Where is the logic to that?

What does the term 'morality' mean to you and how does it apply to a scenario of intentionally placing children in dangerous environments?

What dangerous environment?
The one where the father is in jail for his addiction instead of at home where he can do his job?

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

GIA, you read too much into things like that. Honesty, if people continue to rant that English is your second language, they are seriously proving a point

Who is ranting about my language mon ami?

Regards
DL

 

[Stone]

What dangerous environment?
The one where the father is in jail for his addiction instead of at home where he can do his job?

Regards
DL

What dangerous environment?

You advocate a culture of drug abuse.

The one where the father is in jail for his addiction instead of at home where he can do his job?

Your argument was to legalize drug abuse rather than decriminalize abuse/addiction. Your argument would withhold medical intervention and support for those suffering abuse/addiction.

Your arguments have advocated drug abuse and addiction.

How in the world can children be safe in a culture where drug abuse and drug addiction are both legal and advocated?
What kind of social model could ever be called moral under those criteria ?
And what does the term...'morality' mean to you?



Do you intend to address any of those issues?

 

[Greatest I am]

Lies not worth a response.

Regards
DL

 

[Stone]

Lies not worth a response.

Regards
DL

Of course you aren't going to respond.
You have no defense.
The arguments you posted to legalize drug abuse in the drug threads you started betray your innocence.
All anyone has to do is go read them to realize your position on advocating drug abuse and it's influence on children.
You have categorically stated you are against decriminalizing drug abuse and addiction.
You have tried to present logic claiming that legalizing drug abuse and addiction ensures the safety of children.
That's insanity, GIA.


Why did you make your acceptance of drug abuse and addiction in association with the safety of children, central to your core religious beliefs?

Are drugs in some way needed to achieve the enlightenment you claim to have achieved?

 

[Minor Axis]

God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.

Regardless of the various debates taking place in this thread, the above is a silly premise that only a human could spin to make sense out the nonsensical especially relieving the entire human race of all their sins for a nano-second. God is supposed to be smart right? What exactly was accomplished by Jesus's death?

I just watched the Richard Dawkins video which is brilliant.

 

[Stone]

............................... the above is a silly premise ..................

More on the level of stupidity, imo.
It's being generated by beliefs contrary to logic and a moral system obviously compromised.
There has been an element of a moral system based upon a concept of learned experience rather than one learned from a pre-existing source ( like a religion or Book of Holy records, ie Bible ) being presented in GIA's drug posts.
But the experience in reality ( the reality we live in ) contradicts GIA's claims!!!! Building a moral system with fallacies will logically only further reflect fallacies.
To equate the acceptance of drug abuse and addiction to a moral condition ( goodness ) and then further build in 'faith based' associations derived from selected ( cherry picked ) scripture.... and myth..... is going to obviously be fraught with fallacy and confusion with morality becoming a meaningless concept only used as a wildcard for rationale. But it's irrational ( and meaningless) because it's built from the act of abusing logic and contradicting reality. ( and that's one hell of a start at deciphering faith, the belief in the unprovable )

It's on a level of stupidity, imo.
Incredible sophistry and contextual abuse
But it's also a tool of persuasion. As long as it's not exposed for what it is.

 

[Kyle B]

If God and Jesus are the same does it matter?!?!?!

 

[Minor Axis]

If God and Jesus are the same does it matter?!?!?!

If God exists or does not exist, what does it *really* matter?

 

[Stone]

If God exists or does not exist, what does it *really* matter?

In one scenario, you are dust.......the other scenario you might be toast ......

 

[Stone]

If God and Jesus are the same does it matter?!?!?!

You shouldn't tempt GIA.......in his mind that would be a conspiracy :eek......

 

[Greatest I am]

Regardless of the various debates taking place in this thread, the above is a silly premise that only a human could spin to make sense out the nonsensical especially relieving the entire human race of all their sins for a nano-second. God is supposed to be smart right? What exactly was accomplished by Jesus's death?

I just watched the Richard Dawkins video which is brilliant.

It is and you will note that the Christian did not speak to the morality and just took it when Dawkins pointed it out.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

If God and Jesus are the same does it matter?!?!?!

Do you believe that human sacrifice is a moral practice?

Do you believe that the innocent should be punished instead of the guilty?

Thomas Paine, in Age ofReason, wrote:
If I owe a person money, andcannot pay him, and he threatens to put me in prison, another person can takethe debt upon himself, and pay it for me. But if I have committed a crime,every circumstance of the case is changed. Moral justice cannot take theinnocent for the guilty even if the innocent would offer itself. To supposejustice to do this, is to destroy the principle of its existence, which is thething itself. It is then no longer justice. It is indiscriminate revenge.

This single reflection willshow that the doctrine of redemption is founded on a mere pecuniary ideacorresponding to that of a debt which another person might pay; and as thispecuniary idea corresponds again with the system of second redemptions,obtained through the means of money given to the church for pardons, theprobability is that the same persons fabricated both the one and the other ofthose theories; and that, in truth, there is no such thing as redemption; thatit is fabulous; and that man stands in the same relative condition with hisMaker he ever did stand, since man existed; and that it is his greatestconsolation to think so.
Emphasis mine.

So not only is the killing ofan innocent man immoral, but it shows that the redemption allegory being usedis that of a financial debt. Which is an interesting parallel to the practiceof purchasing 'pardons'.

[It is] not good that the manshould be alone ; I will make him an help meet for him. (Gen. 2:18) KJV Storybook

Free will to me is theability to make a choice without coercion.
A choice made while undercoercion, (especially under threat of pain and suffering), is not a freely madechoice, ergo it is not free will. In fact there is a name for it; it's calledextortion and it is a criminal offense precisely for the reason that it is nota free choice but a forced one.

"Extortion (also calledshakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence which occurs when aperson unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s),entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm issometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced byorganized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is notrequired to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence which refers to arequirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence issufficient to commit the offense." Wikipedia

"Test all things"
1 Thessalonians. 5:21

No noble and gracious Godwould demand the sacrifice of a so called son just to prove it's benevolence.

Regards
DL

 

[skyblue]

what faith are you GIA?.....i've never seen you say

 

[Stone]

what faith are you GIA?.....i've never seen you say

He's what is called a gnostic warrior/priest

He likens himself to be a gnostic christian, but there is nothing christian-like to his beliefs.

He will argue morality and the equality of women while hiding the fact his 'religion' includes the belief that the first woman was Lilith, a demon that 'god' made out of filth and sediment, yet publicly compare women to this Lilith that he sets on a pedestal.
And drugs? put children in the middle of a culture of drug abuse and call them safe.


Watch him become evasive about magic/magik sex.......a secret among many gnostics of which only the most extreme openly discuss.

Watch him blur the passages between the New and Old Testaments and devise new contextual meanings with gnostic scripture of unknown authorship and origin.

Get him going on the hierarchy of gods and demons.
Lots to consider there.


What is his 'faith' you ask?
Sophistry and contextual abuse. imo.

 

[Greatest I am]

what faith are you GIA?.....i've never seen you say

The Godhead I know in a nutshell.
I was a skeptic till the age of 39.
I then had an apotheosis and later branded myself a Gnostic Christian naturalist.
Gnostic Christian because I exemplify this quote from William Blake.

“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read'st black where I read white.”

This refers to how Gnostics tend to reverse, for moral reasons, what Christians see in the Bible. We tend to recognize the evil ways of O T God where literal Christians will see God’s killing as good. Christians are sheeple where Gnostic Christians are goats.

This is perhaps why we see the use of a Jesus scapegoat as immoral, while theists like to make Jesus their beast of burden. An immoral position.

During my apotheosis, something that only lasted 5 or 6 seconds, the only things of note to happen was that my paradigm of reality was confirmed and I was chastised to think more demographically. What I found was what I call a cosmic consciousness. Not a new term but one that is a close but not exact fit.

I recognize that I have no proof. That is always the way with apotheosis.
This is also why I prefer to stick to issues of morality because no one has yet been able to prove that God is real and I have no more proof than they for the cosmic consciousness.

The cosmic consciousness is not a miracle working God. He does not interfere with us save when one of us finds it. Not a common thing from what I can see. It is a part of nature and our next evolutionary step.

I tend to have more in common with atheists who ignore what they see as my delusion because our morals are basically identical. Theist tend not to like me much as I have no respect for literalists and fundamentals and think that most Christians have tribal mentalities and poor morals.

I am rather between a rock and a hard place but this I cannot help.

I am happy to be questioned on what I believe but whether or not God exists is basically irrelevant to this world for all that he does not do, and I prefer to thrash out moral issues that can actually find an end point. The search for God is never ending when you are of the Gnostic persuasion. My apotheosis basically says that I am to discard whatever God I found, God as a set of rules that is, not idol worship it but instead, raise my bar and seek further.

My apotheosis also showed me that God has no need for love, adoration orobedience. He has no needs. Man has dominion here on earth and is to be and is the supreme being.

Regards
DL