Issues of morality shuts Christians up.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Looking forward to even a slight change in topic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

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

 

Looks like GIA is looking for a savior.

 

If that's me, can I get a holiday dedicated to me?:yay:

 

Have you saved GIA?

 

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.

 

Well I feel stupid now...:shy:

But thanks for clarifying what probably should have been obvious.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

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

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.

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.

 

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

 

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.

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?

 

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.

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 ...

 

I could not reply to your P M, apparently it is full, so I give you a shorter thanks here than I the one I had to scrap.
Thanks for your recommendations.

Regards
DL

 

ok cool