Does God ---- Do unto others?

[Syne]

Personal growth can hardly be expected from a great many people, and "supposed to" is the same sort of moral obligation (command) you seem to decry from a god.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tough_love(emphasis added):

There is evidence to suggest that what the British call tough love can be beneficial in the development of preferred character trait in children up to five years old. However, the British definition used by these researchers is more similar to the concept of "authoritative" parenting, whereas American ideas about tough love are closer to the notion of "authoritarian" parenting, which has been linked with negative outcomes in other research.

You can never successfully reason using ridicule, as it immediately divorces the person from their reasoning faculties and leaves you unable to engage.

It is possible to show, in many cases, that the literal interpretation is merely an illustration of the very similar underlying truth, or that, coupled with other literal points, describe a more general basis.

But ridicule does seem to be the favored expedient, even if it never accomplishes anything.

 

[Greatest I am]

Faith is not ignorant. I speak the truth, Jesus did not turn water into wine like snap* nor did he walk on water. Im no fool. Retract that statement, friendo.

I did not say that faith was ignorant.

And if you want a retraction, show where I distorted anything or am wrong.

Faith without facts is for fools.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Personal growth can hardly be expected from a great many people, and "supposed to" is the same sort of moral obligation (command) you seem to decry from a god.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tough_love(emphasis added):


You can never successfully reason using ridicule, as it immediately divorces the person from their reasoning faculties and leaves you unable to engage.

It is possible to show, in many cases, that the literal interpretation is merely an illustration of the very similar underlying truth, or that, coupled with other literal points, describe a more general basis.

But ridicule does seem to be the favored expedient, even if it never accomplishes anything.

You contradict yourself.

Compare your last to this.

"You can never successfully reason using ridicule, as it immediately divorces the person from their reasoning faculties and leaves you unable to engage."

Ridicule, as you can see, did accomplish something.

Recognition that you are unable to engage is determined by the thinking process that resulted from the ridicule.

That is personal growth.

To prove your case, some anecdotal rendering or imaginary scenario would be required.

Regards
DL

 

[kx000]

I did not say that faith was ignorant.

And if you want a retraction, show where I distorted anything or am wrong.

Faith without facts is for fools.

Regards
DL

There are facts for anything. Faith is knowing deep in your heart, instinctually. In the end when time comes to pass people will hail Faith even over Hope, Science, and Knowledge. What happens if/when God becomes real and we waisted all this time thinking when all we had to do is listen to the folks at the loony bin? The fact is we have no knowledge on God, what is your faith?

 

[Jan Ardena]

GIA,

On the contrary. God's commanding something means that thing wasn't being done prior to it.

Laws are written to react to what has been done. Not to what is imaginary or potential.

That's not the point. You said that the moment God issued a law, that was the end of freewill. I am saying that, it is because of freewill, that God issued the law.

The consequences of not acting according to the best interest of the soul, the essence of the person, the part which God is pertaining to, kicks in.
IOW, there is a price to pay for every action we perform, which is a natural
thing.

Infinite punishment for finite sins is demonstrably unjust.

Show, in any religious scripture, where this is the case.

Your conclusion is based on your twisting the words to suit yourself.
You're not taking into account who and what God is, by description.

God, as described, is an impossibility.

This is my point.
You don't know that. And you don't know enough to make that conclusion.
Your only position is lack of belief. Atheism.

That is the wisdom and standard of the day. What other standard should I use?

The wisdom and standard of the day, aren't opposed to people having sex with dogs, horses, and asses. Do you see anything demoralising in that?

Yet you accept that God is a murderer, and immoral. Can you not see how warped that is. If you don't accept the God as a whole, why bother to accept that God is God, at all.

I do not accept the notion of God at all. I do accept what is written about him and followed with belief by fools.

Why are people who believe in the scriptoral representation of God, fools?

I do not believe in bible God and have moved on to do my duty to mankind. Correct foolish and harmful thinking.

If you feel that is your duty, then why can't you argue every point that is put to you, from the perspective of the other person?
I for one would love to converse with you, but you ignore my points, when they don't fit with your outlook. Or you just explain them away with your own perspective.

For example, I remember saying to you that the forbidden fruit in the garden of Edan, which eve partook, was not an apple, or any fruit of that kind. But sexual interaction with another race of people. And the ''tree'' mentioned was not the kind of trees we see in the forest, but a family tree (so to speak).

It didn't sit with your own understanding, so you just palmed me off.

You have said I am an atheist and I am not.
I just have a better and more moral God than bible God.

But you are an atheist, you are someone who doesn't believe in God. That is the best definition. You claim yourself that belief in God, is for fools.
So what you have done, is create your own version of God, that sits nicely with you, and call this religion, or theism.
Ultimately, that is atheism.

It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.

That is obviously not true, but is a part of your rejection of God.
Also, what is a literalist, or a fundamentalist?
Who are these people in society that ''hurt all of us''?

They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief.

So you want to hurt ''them'' back?

They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position.

Who are we talking about here?

There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Belief in fantasy is evil.

You are trying to put a spin on it, maybe to convince yourself.


The 'serpent'' in the garden, was not a snake, or animal, according to the hebrew, but a kind of magician. I can get the exact translation if you like.

But apart from that, there may be of species of humanoid in the universe, who are reptilian. Are you saying there isn't?

Your links:

The first one, I watched the first few minutes, and got really bored. Bill Maher, I have to admit, was major part of that.

Now the ones about child witches was interesting.
Do you know anything about the politics of The Congo?

Regarding the politician who wanted to make homosexuality illeagal in his country, what do you think is wrong with that?

jan.

 

[kx000]

Ya. Satan.

You are right about faith never dying.
There will always be fools willing to shed reason and logic and believe that staffs can turn into snakes and that donkeys can speak human.

Insanity and delusion will always be a human trait.

Regards
DL

Faith has nothing to do with donkeys. Retract. Only fools believe Jesus turned water into wine. Only a fool believes Jesus those things are not possible.

 

[Syne]

You contradict yourself.

Compare your last to this.

"You can never successfully reason using ridicule, as it immediately divorces the person from their reasoning faculties and leaves you unable to engage."

Ridicule, as you can see, did accomplish something.

Recognition that you are unable to engage is determined by the thinking process that resulted from the ridicule.

That is personal growth.

To prove your case, some anecdotal rendering or imaginary scenario would be required.

Regards
DL

And when have you ever known someone who takes scripture literally to demonstrate any ability to recognize the futility of trying to convince you of the literal interpretation or defending themselves once ridiculed? You are the only one who is likely to recognize any inability to engage, as you're not the one being put on the defensive. They will usually disengage, but this is only a retreat out of exasperation not any recognition or personal growth.

In your dealings, you should already have a wealth of such anecdotes whereby you can verify this.

 

[Greatest I am]

There are facts for anything. Faith is knowing deep in your heart, instinctually. In the end when time comes to pass people will hail Faith even over Hope, Science, and Knowledge. What happens if/when God becomes real and we waisted all this time thinking when all we had to do is listen to the folks at the loony bin? The fact is we have no knowledge on God, what is your faith?

Ask me when your head is not so firmly up your imaginary God's ass. Then you might hear me.

I do not put pearls before swines.

Regards
DL

 

[kx000]

Ask me when your head is not so firmly up your imaginary God's ass. Then you might hear me.

I do not put pearls before swines.

Regards
DL

Neither do I. Faith is a way of life, it is not defined by a book of LIES.

What is your faith?

 

[Greatest I am]

Neither do I. Faith is a way of life, it is not defined by a book of LIES.

What is your faith?

I do not have a faith.


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 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 or obedience. He has no needs. Man has dominion here on earth and is to be and is the supreme being.

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

Are all these long posts about apotheosis so self-gratifying that they warrant the repetition? Apparently apotheosis doesn't include any realization that all people have the same essential potential. Or are we to assume yours came by way of ridicule?

 

[Changeling]

Does God ---- Do unto others?



Does God ---- Do anything?

 

[Greatest I am]

Are all these long posts about apotheosis so self-gratifying that they warrant the repetition? Apparently apotheosis doesn't include any realization that all people have the same essential potential. Or are we to assume yours came by way of ridicule?

Thap post was asked for.

To your question.

In part. If those trying to convert me at the time had not offered such a ridiculous theology as Christianity is, I might have gone their way instead of the way I chose in thinking. If one knocks without the right paradigm, the door will not open.

Dumb children are not accepted into university. So to speak.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Does God ---- Do unto others?



Does God ---- Do anything?

Not that I can see.
Bible God seems to be dead. He ran out of miracles.

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

In part. If those trying to convert me at the time had not offered such a ridiculous theology as Christianity is, I might have gone their way instead of the way I chose in thinking.

Ah, but you don't indicate that your own personally held beliefs were ridiculed, so this is no basis for assuming ridicule a proper or working tactic.