Issues of morality shuts Christians up.

Greatest I am said:
A reply is possible without even viewing any of the links I put up.

It is the morality that believers run from, not the time.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...

it could also be your redundancy. you have regurgitated the same theme in every thread you have posted for quite a while now. It's stale.
 
seagypsy said:
it could also be your redundancy. you have regurgitated the same theme in every thread you have posted for quite a while now. It's stale.
Click to expand...

It is also state for me as few theists have engaged been persuaded to engage. I note that others have the same problem.

I do recognize your true statement and am just about to post on a new track. It will have some moral content but I will be trying to speak more to how religions began as well as another on freedom and how we all have a God within to express.

Regards
DL
 
Greatest I am said:
It is also state for me as few theists have engaged been persuaded to engage. I note that others have the same problem.

I do recognize your true statement and am just about to post on a new track. It will have some moral content but I will be trying to speak more to how religions began as well as another on freedom and how we all have a God within to express.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...

Looking forward to even a slight change in topic.
 
Just about all of the ideas in your threads could have been presented in the course of a single thread. You've been basically spamming the forum with this crap for months.
 
MLJHILTON said:
I’m very happy to engage with you on this, my friend. I’ve been a Bible-believing Christian for 35 years, and can assure you that the moral standard of the God of the Bible is far higher than that of anyone on the earth, including your good self.

As I understand it, your problem is that in order to deal with the problem of sin God sent Jesus to suffer on the cross, shed His blood, and die; and you see this as being in violation of the highest principle of morality, which is to care for others, especially children, and to keep them from harm.

Before we get to the Bible let’s ask ourselves a question: is it ever morally acceptable to do harm to another person, or to put them into a position where harm might befall them?

I attended a health and safety briefing where the consultant (whom I’ll call Jim for convenience) told this story. Jim had been a sailor, and one day there was an accident and the clothes of one of his colleagues caught fire. The man was rushing about like a headless chicken, panic-stricken. Jim took a pole and struck the man across the shins. This got him on to the ground, where they were able to cover him with a blanket and smother the flames. Unfortunately both his legs were broken. Was Jim’s act of breaking the man’s legs immoral?

There was a case recently in England where three burglars broke into a house, and the householder shot and injured two of them with a legally-held shot-gun. Was his act immoral? The judge said no; he was quite within his rights to protect his family and his property.

Last year, American forces found Osama Bin Laden in a compound in Pakistan and killed him. Was their act immoral?

My parents lived through a world war, when young men from Britain and America were sent out in order to halt the abomination that was Hitler’s Third Reich. Was it an immoral act to send these men out to face the horrors of war and almost certain death?

Is it morally acceptable to do harm to someone in order to prevent greater harm being done either to themselves or to someone else? The obvious answer is “yes”.

Now, God sent Jesus to be crucified in order to save you and me from eternal punishment in hell. Was that an immoral act? One person suffered for a limited time to prevent multitudes from suffering for an unlimited time. That is not an immoral act. That is an act of mercy.

You say that it is immoral to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, even if the innocent one is willing to take the punishment. Actually, the God of the Bible would agree with you in most cases. There are two examples in the Bible of men being willing to bear eternal punishment in order that the people of Israel might be saved – Moses (Exodus 32:31-33) and Paul (Romans 9:1-5). However, the only person that God would allow to suffer and die, not only for Israel but for all mankind, was Jesus, because He was the only one who could possibly survive such an ordeal.

You say that God’s first principle of morality is care/harm. Actually God’s first principle is love – "you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength, and you shall love your neighbour as yourself". Read Luke 10:25-37 to understand what Jesus means by that.
Click to expand...

The answer to your first examples of doing harm to save lives are all moral. So we agree so far.

Your view of God having Jesus killed was not a moral act though and comparing humans to a God is not quite a fair comparison.

Your God is supposed to be all powerful and moral.
Are you suggesting that he could not just forgive humans without blood?
Scriptures show that he had already forgiven some before Jesus died so I cannot see why he just did not follow that precedent.

Further, you assume that God accepted the ransom that he himself set.
Jesus and his,---- why have you forsaken me, does not sound like a sacrifice that was being accepted. More like rejected simply because it is an insane policy to punish the innocent instead of the guilty and that even goes against scriptures.

Do you think that a better policy than this.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall 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:

Further, God had already put in place a way for us to save ourselves without us having to accept a scapegoat and punish the innocent instead of the guilty. This is just one of such biblical sayings that echo the spirit of God's intent.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

If God is not willing that any perish, only those of little faith will think that God's will, will not be done.

Regards
DL
 
wynn said:
Have you saved GIA?
Click to expand...

Not that I am aware of. I certainly am not trying to but sometimes awesome just happens lol. Maybe I misunderstood your post. A streak of narcissism hit me maybe. I assumed that you were referring to me as the possible savior because you had quoted me in your response.
 
I replied to your post because yours was the briefest one summing up GIA's activities here; although besides you, others have pointed out how repetitive he is.
Repetitive behavior is sometimes a sign that the person is looking for a savior.
 
wynn said:
I replied to your post because yours was the briefest one summing up GIA's activities here; although besides you, others have pointed out how repetitive he is.
Repetitive behavior is sometimes a sign that the person is looking for a savior.
Click to expand...

Well I feel stupid now...:shy:

But thanks for clarifying what probably should have been obvious.
 
gia said - "Look again for the first time.
All who believe are literalists. They have to be."
Click to expand...
Please, will you write complete thoughts so we don't have to waste time tearing apart your incomplete thoughts?
If you would only take an extra twenty seconds to write "all who believe are literalists to some extent, although they may not see themselves that way, they should," you could actually bring up an idea that is worth discussing, instead of putting forth indefensible fragments of ideas.
If you want to say Yahweh is the devil or whatever, say that. Don't try to be poetic. I have read poetry and literature, and your posts aren't that, so just speak plainly. If you want to say, "god is in the mirror", or whatever, please say it, instead of wasting time pointing out that fundamentalist ideas of God are wacky.

Your religion seems to be basically a rejection of everything. OK, so let's suppose x y and z are wrong, what is right? You don't seem to be interested in actually following any of your own ideas to any type of end, so why should I? I think i am more interested in whatever conclusions your ideas would come to if discussed sensibly than you are.
 
cole grey said:
Please, will you write complete thoughts so we don't have to waste time tearing apart your incomplete thoughts?
If you would only take an extra twenty seconds to write "all who believe are literalists to some extent, although they may not see themselves that way, they should," you could actually bring up an idea that is worth discussing, instead of putting forth indefensible fragments of ideas.
If you want to say Yahweh is the devil or whatever, say that. Don't try to be poetic. I have read poetry and literature, and your posts aren't that, so just speak plainly. If you want to say, "god is in the mirror", or whatever, please say it, instead of wasting time pointing out that fundamentalist ideas of God are wacky.

Your religion seems to be basically a rejection of everything. OK, so let's suppose x y and z are wrong, what is right? You don't seem to be interested in actually following any of your own ideas to any type of end, so why should I? I think i am more interested in whatever conclusions your ideas would come to if discussed sensibly than you are.
Click to expand...

Mon ami.

Being French and self-taught in English, I do not expect that I would come to the standards of a well-educated Englis.
Such is life. I am aware of my linguistic failings but tend to be understood well enough.
If you are volunteering to ghost write for me then say so.

It would have to be someone as bright as a brick who would not understand what I am saying above.

"Your religion seems to be basically a rejection of everything."

Eh. No. My religion, Gnostic Christian, is based on knowledge and not fantasy and literal reading of 3,000 year old plagiarized material.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xH93PSZ6fQ


"so let's suppose x y and z are wrong, what is right?"

Likely whoever has the best apology and opinion.


"You don't seem to be interested in actually following any of your own ideas to any type of end,"

Not so. My end position is usually stated within the O P. I usually make statements and make my end position quite clear.
Note how this O P is a definitive statement and not a question.
Your language may be better but not your thinking.

If you want a sensible discussion then have at it.

Speak to the issue though and leave the personal aside or I will ignore you.

Regards
DL
 
Greatest I am said:
I am aware of my linguistic failings but tend to be understood well enough.
Click to expand...
i am pointing out that you don't seem to be being understood well enough, if "well-enough" means getting past a simple rejection of fundamentalism and pure literalism, which most people here who have an actual interest in religion seem to have little interest in defending.

Eh. No. My religion, Gnostic Christian, is based on knowledge and not fantasy and literal reading of 3,000 year old plagiarized material.
Click to expand...
why do you say "christian"? Please explain what is christian about your religion. I am interested in what makes a religion christian.
My end position is usually stated within the O P. I usually make statements and make my end position quite clear.
Note how this O P is a definitive statement and not a question.
Click to expand...
well, unless your religion is just about shutting people up, or pointing out that the god of the bible should be rejected, it is unclear what you are proposing in the thread. I am quite sure your religion is not just about people ignoring your posts about morality. Perhaps you would like to take that as evidence your religion is correct, but it certainly doesn't give us any insight into what your religion is.

Speak to the issue though and leave the personal aside or I will ignore you.
Click to expand...
i was just commenting on your posting style, not your personal life. If you feel that you are being very clear and your command of the language is getting across everything you have to say, then by all means, don't listen to me. It seems most people here are having trouble making out some of your ideas. If they are indeed valuable, which i am willing to believe, that value seems to be getting lost here.
 
cole grey said:
i am pointing out that you don't seem to be being understood well enough, if "well-enough" means getting past a simple rejection of fundamentalism and pure literalism, which most people here who have an actual interest in religion seem to have little interest in defending.
Click to expand...

Anyone who believes in Jesus must read the bible literally to some extent and they do not defend their moral positions because they know how poor they are.

why do you say "christian"? Please explain what is christian about your religion. I am interested in what makes a religion christian.
Click to expand...

Gnostic is the key word in Gnostic Christian. The Christian part is only indicating that we use the bible gospels to initiate discourse. That is what all gospels from any holy book were ever meant to do. Not create belief or point to any specific God. That would be idol worshipping and that is what literalist and fundamental Christians do.

well, unless your religion is just about shutting people up, or pointing out that the god of the bible should be rejected, it is unclear what you are proposing in the thread.
Click to expand...

They are not to shut anyone up but to draw their arguments and while they formulate them, recognize how poor they are and yes, in doing so they will realize that they should reject any genocidal son murdering God who thinks it goo justice to punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

I am quite sure your religion is not just about people ignoring your posts about morality. Perhaps you would like to take that as evidence your religion is correct, but it certainly doesn't give us any insight into what your religion is.
Click to expand...

Those who recognize my superior moral position will ask. Those who do not and are worthy of my time and their religious morals will engage or not if they recognize their apologies are not worthy.

i was just commenting on your posting style, not your personal life. If you feel that you are being very clear and your command of the language is getting across everything you have to say, then by all means, don't listen to me. It seems most people here are having trouble making out some of your ideas. If they are indeed valuable, which i am willing to believe, that value seems to be getting lost here.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Here. Perhaps. Not everywhere. I get kudos from some and abuse from others. It depends more on mind set than my delivery. In fact, I collaborated with two different friends for two different O Ps in the past who were eloquent writers and the same thing happened with those posts as here. One of them did not change one word from that O P but did endorse the language and delivery.

If you want proof and to show your stuff, I have asked one member here critique on a new O P I am working on. She has yet to get back to me. Check you P M for it and I invite you to do the same.

Regards
DL
 
Greatest I am said:
Anyone who believes in Jesus must read the bible literally to some extent and they do not defend their moral positions because they know how poor they are.
Click to expand...
i read the bible literally "to some extent". Anything you read is literal "to some extent". The news should be taken literally only "to some extent".
I doubt my moral IDEALS are any different then most humanists, or christians, and most other non-religious and religious people in my western society. I think the golden rule is pretty commonly accepted but often ignored in practice. What exactly is the poor moral position that is required of a person who reads the bible literally "to some extent"? That God is bad, and therefore we should be bad? I don't get that at all.
Those who recognize my superior moral position will ask.
Click to expand...
i certainly do not recognize your proposed "superior moral position". Superior to fundamentalists? So basically you say, "do what you want", is a superior moral position, but that depends on what each church is teaching. If a church is teaching, "be kind, follow the golden rule, etc.", THAT is CLEARLY a morally superior position than, "do what you think feels right". Nietzsche, although much of his position is agreeable to me, is probably not an ideal for a planet with billions of people on it. There is a basic element of animal fairness, that doesn't even have to climb the ladder to the human level, which (i think) needs to be expressed in our functional philosophies.
 
What is a literal reading, as opposed to a non-literal one?
Is distinguishing these two really so simple and clear-cut?
 
Greatest I am said:
Your God is supposed to be all powerful and moral.
Are you suggesting that he could not just forgive humans without blood?
Scriptures show that he had already forgiven some before Jesus died so I cannot see why he just did not follow that precedent.

Further, God had already put in place a way for us to save ourselves without us having to accept a scapegoat and punish the innocent instead of the guilty. This is just one of such biblical sayings that echo the spirit of God's intent.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Click to expand...

From the very beginning God showed that the shedding of innocent blood was necessary in order to deal with sin (Genesis 3:21). 1 John 1:7 tells us that "the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin". It's one thing to be forgiven, but quite another to be cleansed.

Greatest I am said:
Further, you assume that God accepted the ransom that he himself set.
Jesus and his,---- why have you forsaken me, does not sound like a sacrifice that was being accepted. More like rejected simply because it is an insane policy to punish the innocent instead of the guilty and that even goes against scriptures.

Do you think that a better policy than this.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall 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:

If God is not willing that any perish, only those of little faith will think that God's will, will not be done.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...

2 Corinthians 5:21 "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God". This is why God forsook Jesus on the cross - because he had become sin. What Jesus did goes far beyond simply forgiving us. It enables us to become children of God and participate in his righteousness.

What Ezekiel is saying is that a righteous son will not be held responsible for the sins of a wicked father, and a righteous father will not be blamed for the sins of a wicked son. Christ's substitutionary atoning sacrifice is a totally different thing.

Psalm 49:7-9 "No man can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for him (the ransom for a life is costly; no payment is ever enough) that he should live on for ever and not see decay". But Jesus was not just a man - he was the God-man, which means that he could redeem the life of another ... and another ... and another ... and you ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top