Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Was seeking God more pleasant before literali

GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 8:04:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Was seeking God more pleasant before literalism?

We know that Christian literalism helped to usher in the Dark Ages and Inquisition. Before this hard line of locked thinking, various religions lived quite comfortably side by side. Not all the time of course, but generally speaking.

As a Gnostic Christian who, even after apotheosis, continues to seek God perpetually, I see literalism as idol worship of either the bible or of the God shown in the scriptures. Muslims are also literalists and thus idol worshipers of Allah. This idol worship is often an inhibitor to decent dialog. It seems that the Abrahamic cults have almost all become idol worshipers of their Godinabook.

In discussions with those who are idol worshipers, discussions are often strained as adherents to a literal God are not allowing themselves the benefits of thinking that is unhindered by what they are told they must believe. This often stifles any good discussion.

Seeker and non-believers on the other hand, even as they may have some pre-conceived notions, tend to be more open to a change of mind. This makes an interesting discussion where an end point and agreement might be gained for whatever issue is being discussed. Wisdom and insight can then be sought without having to contend with some ancient God"s feelings or ancient edicts coming into play.

It is quite possible that my own fundamentalism for my religion has given me too big of a bias to judge this issue well so I seek confirmation on this issue from others here.

Have you found it more pleasant to discuss with non-believers and seekers as compared to literalist Christians and Muslims who are idol worshipers?

Is literalism applicable to such old writings at all?

Is the wisdom of the old myths lost through literal reading?

Regards
DL
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 9:02:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 8:04:04 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Was seeking God more pleasant before literalism?

We know that Christian literalism helped to usher in the Dark Ages and Inquisition. Before this hard line of locked thinking, various religions lived quite comfortably side by side. Not all the time of course, but generally speaking.

As a Gnostic Christian who, even after apotheosis, continues to seek God perpetually, I see literalism as idol worship of either the bible or of the God shown in the scriptures. Muslims are also literalists and thus idol worshipers of Allah. This idol worship is often an inhibitor to decent dialog. It seems that the Abrahamic cults have almost all become idol worshipers of their Godinabook.

In discussions with those who are idol worshipers, discussions are often strained as adherents to a literal God are not allowing themselves the benefits of thinking that is unhindered by what they are told they must believe. This often stifles any good discussion.

Seeker and non-believers on the other hand, even as they may have some pre-conceived notions, tend to be more open to a change of mind. This makes an interesting discussion where an end point and agreement might be gained for whatever issue is being discussed. Wisdom and insight can then be sought without having to contend with some ancient God"s feelings or ancient edicts coming into play.

It is quite possible that my own fundamentalism for my religion has given me too big of a bias to judge this issue well so I seek confirmation on this issue from others here.

Have you found it more pleasant to discuss with non-believers and seekers as compared to literalist Christians and Muslims who are idol worshipers?

I find it frustrating to argue with anyone who is a literalist. And they tend to take certain translations as the literal meaning. Devoid of such poetic or metaphorical literary markers such as rhythm and rhyme.


Is literalism applicable to such old writings at all?

Certainly so. Not all ancient writing is to be interpreted as metaphorical. There are passages that are written as historical accounts of actual events. Tone and progression are usually good indicators.


Is the wisdom of the old myths lost through literal reading?

Absolutely. I also think writers of the past wrote in their language, using their contemporary world view. And their are a lot of people, not just literalist, that lose all reading comprehension when a verse is shown them.


Regards
DL
drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 9:50:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 8:04:04 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Was seeking God more pleasant before literalism?

We know that Christian literalism helped to usher in the Dark Ages and Inquisition. Before this hard line of locked thinking, various religions lived quite comfortably side by side. Not all the time of course, but generally speaking.

As a Gnostic Christian who, even after apotheosis, continues to seek God perpetually, I see literalism as idol worship of either the bible or of the God shown in the scriptures. Muslims are also literalists and thus idol worshipers of Allah. This idol worship is often an inhibitor to decent dialog. It seems that the Abrahamic cults have almost all become idol worshipers of their Godinabook.

In discussions with those who are idol worshipers, discussions are often strained as adherents to a literal God are not allowing themselves the benefits of thinking that is unhindered by what they are told they must believe. This often stifles any good discussion.

Seeker and non-believers on the other hand, even as they may have some pre-conceived notions, tend to be more open to a change of mind. This makes an interesting discussion where an end point and agreement might be gained for whatever issue is being discussed. Wisdom and insight can then be sought without having to contend with some ancient God"s feelings or ancient edicts coming into play.

It is quite possible that my own fundamentalism for my religion has given me too big of a bias to judge this issue well so I seek confirmation on this issue from others here.

Have you found it more pleasant to discuss with non-believers and seekers as compared to literalist Christians and Muslims who are idol worshipers?

Is literalism applicable to such old writings at all?

Is the wisdom of the old myths lost through literal reading?

Regards
DL

Absolutely, all the books of all religions are parable lessons created by man specifying how to live the good life as people have perceived over time. God is, and we all live within him.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 12:06:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 8:04:04 PM, GreatestIam wrote:

We know that Christian literalism helped to usher in the Dark Ages and Inquisition.

Really? The fall of the Roman Empire with continuall invasions were not responsible for the "Dark Ages?" What makes the "dark ages" dark? It really is an antiquated term used not by scholars, but generally by opponents of the Catholic Church.

Please describe how the Inquisition is about "Christian Literalism."
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 8:17:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 9:02:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

I find it frustrating to argue with anyone who is a literalist. And they tend to take certain translations as the literal meaning. Devoid of such poetic or metaphorical literary markers such as rhythm and rhyme.


Thanks for this and your other comments.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 8:18:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 9:50:30 PM, drpiek wrote:

Absolutely, all the books of all religions are parable lessons created by man specifying how to live the good life as people have perceived over time. God is, and we all live within him.

No argument there my friend.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 8:21:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 12:06:20 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/27/2015 8:04:04 PM, GreatestIam wrote:

We know that Christian literalism helped to usher in the Dark Ages and Inquisition.

Really? The fall of the Roman Empire with continuall invasions were not responsible for the "Dark Ages?" What makes the "dark ages" dark? It really is an antiquated term used not by scholars, but generally by opponents of the Catholic Church.

Please describe how the Inquisition is about "Christian Literalism."

It was about Christian Literalism because if others had a different bible they had to change or die.

To see just how much blood is on your bible, I offer this history.

https://www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 12:47:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 8:04:04 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Was seeking God more pleasant before literalism?

We know that Christian literalism helped to usher in the Dark Ages and Inquisition. Before this hard line of locked thinking, various religions lived quite comfortably side by side. Not all the time of course, but generally speaking.

As a Gnostic Christian who, even after apotheosis, continues to seek God perpetually, I see literalism as idol worship of either the bible or of the God shown in the scriptures. Muslims are also literalists and thus idol worshipers of Allah. This idol worship is often an inhibitor to decent dialog. It seems that the Abrahamic cults have almost all become idol worshipers of their Godinabook.

In discussions with those who are idol worshipers, discussions are often strained as adherents to a literal God are not allowing themselves the benefits of thinking that is unhindered by what they are told they must believe. This often stifles any good discussion.

Seeker and non-believers on the other hand, even as they may have some pre-conceived notions, tend to be more open to a change of mind. This makes an interesting discussion where an end point and agreement might be gained for whatever issue is being discussed. Wisdom and insight can then be sought without having to contend with some ancient God"s feelings or ancient edicts coming into play.

It is quite possible that my own fundamentalism for my religion has given me too big of a bias to judge this issue well so I seek confirmation on this issue from others here.

Have you found it more pleasant to discuss with non-believers and seekers as compared to literalist Christians and Muslims who are idol worshipers?

Is literalism applicable to such old writings at all?

Is the wisdom of the old myths lost through literal reading?

Regards
DL

Seeking the true God has never been more pleasant or beneficial than it is today.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 1:05:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 12:58:28 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Yet you do not seek God and are an idol worshiper of your Godinabook.

Regards3
DL

Oh I seek God, and that book, teh bible, is the road map for the path to him.

I always smile when I see your Avatar, so appropriate for one who serve "the original serpent" as fully as you do, lol.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 1:27:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 1:05:23 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/28/2015 12:58:28 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Yet you do not seek God and are an idol worshiper of your Godinabook.

Regards3
DL

Oh I seek God, and that book, teh bible, is the road map for the path to him.


There can be only one reply to your words.

https://www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 2:06:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 1:27:42 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 1/28/2015 1:05:23 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/28/2015 12:58:28 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Yet you do not seek God and are an idol worshiper of your Godinabook.

Regards3
DL

Oh I seek God, and that book, teh bible, is the road map for the path to him.


There can be only one reply to your words.

https://www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL

I haven't looked at the video, but the only true answer to my words is to agree.

I continually seek God, even though I found him decades ago. You can't stop seeking him, because he wants you to grow ever closer to him, and the Bible gives us the only ways to acheive that.
12_13
Posts: 1,365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 2:36:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 8:04:04 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
As a Gnostic Christian who, even after apotheosis, continues to seek God perpetually, I see literalism as idol worship of either the bible or of the God shown in the scriptures. Muslims are also literalists and thus idol worshipers of Allah. This idol worship is often an inhibitor to decent dialog. It seems that the Abrahamic cults have almost all become idol worshipers of their Godinabook.

So, should I choose your words or the words in the Bible? Am I idolater also, if I take your word as the truth and higher than the Bible word?

In my opinion your idea is paradoxical. If I take your word literally and believe it, I am as well idol worshiper.

I think Bible is given so that we could learn to know God, who and what he is. Then we could know him when we find him. If you don"t know God, how could you recognize him, if you find him? You probably end to follow some false God that pleases you. I don"t want to keep anyone else as my God than the Bible God.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2015 8:51:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 2:06:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/28/2015 1:27:42 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 1/28/2015 1:05:23 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/28/2015 12:58:28 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Yet you do not seek God and are an idol worshiper of your Godinabook.

Regards3
DL

Oh I seek God, and that book, teh bible, is the road map for the path to him.


There can be only one reply to your words.

https://www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL

I haven't looked at the video, but the only true answer to my words is to agree.

I continually seek God, even though I found him decades ago. You can't stop seeking him, because he wants you to grow ever closer to him, and the Bible gives us the only ways to acheive that.

You are an idol worshiper even as your bible warns against doing so. You have named your idol yet try to deny it. I am not surprised at your dishonesty.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2015 8:57:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 2:36:21 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 8:04:04 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
As a Gnostic Christian who, even after apotheosis, continues to seek God perpetually, I see literalism as idol worship of either the bible or of the God shown in the scriptures. Muslims are also literalists and thus idol worshipers of Allah. This idol worship is often an inhibitor to decent dialog. It seems that the Abrahamic cults have almost all become idol worshipers of their Godinabook.

So, should I choose your words or the words in the Bible? Am I idolater also, if I take your word as the truth and higher than the Bible word?

In my opinion your idea is paradoxical. If I take your word literally and believe it, I am as well idol worshiper.

I think Bible is given so that we could learn to know God, who and what he is. Then we could know him when we find him. If you don"t know God, how could you recognize him, if you find him? You probably end to follow some false God that pleases you. I don"t want to keep anyone else as my God than the Bible God.

Then you have chosen a God with satanic morals.

Christianity is based on human sacrifice and the notion that adherents should profit from the murder of an innocent man. Care to look at that immoral concept.

Imagine you have two children. One of your children does something wrong " say it curses, or throws a temper tantrum, or something like that. In fact, say it does this on a regular basis, and you continually forgive your child, but it never seems to change.

Now suppose one day you"ve had enough, you need to do something different. You still wish to forgive your child, but nothing has worked. Do you go to your second child, your good child, and punish it to atone for the sins of the first?

In fact, if you ever saw a parent on the street punish one of their children for the actions of their other child, how would you react? Would you support their decision, or would you be offended? Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.

Interestingly, some historical royal families would beat their slaves when their own children did wrong " you should not, after all, ever beat a prince. The question is: what kind of lesson does that teach the child who actually did the harm? Does it teach them to be a better person, to stop doing harm, or does it teach them both that they won't themselves be punished, and also that punishing other people is normal? I know that's not a lesson I would want to teach my children, and I suspect it's not a lesson most Christians would want to teach theirs. So why does God?

For me, that"s at least one significant reason I find Jesus" atonement of our sin to be morally repugnant " of course, that"s assuming Jesus ever existed; that original sin actually exists; that God actually exists; etc.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2015 9:18:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/29/2015 8:51:18 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 1/28/2015 2:06:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/28/2015 1:27:42 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 1/28/2015 1:05:23 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/28/2015 12:58:28 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Yet you do not seek God and are an idol worshiper of your Godinabook.

Regards3
DL

Oh I seek God, and that book, teh bible, is the road map for the path to him.


There can be only one reply to your words.

https://www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL

I haven't looked at the video, but the only true answer to my words is to agree.

I continually seek God, even though I found him decades ago. You can't stop seeking him, because he wants you to grow ever closer to him, and the Bible gives us the only ways to acheive that.

You are an idol worshiper even as your bible warns against doing so. You have named your idol yet try to deny it. I am not surprised at your dishonesty.

Regards
DL

How do you make that out. I have no idols. There is nothing that comes before teh worship of God, Jehovah, in my life, you should know that, so you are either a fool or a liar to say otherwise.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2015 9:21:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/29/2015 8:57:09 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 1/28/2015 2:36:21 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 8:04:04 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
As a Gnostic Christian who, even after apotheosis, continues to seek God perpetually, I see literalism as idol worship of either the bible or of the God shown in the scriptures. Muslims are also literalists and thus idol worshipers of Allah. This idol worship is often an inhibitor to decent dialog. It seems that the Abrahamic cults have almost all become idol worshipers of their Godinabook.

So, should I choose your words or the words in the Bible? Am I idolater also, if I take your word as the truth and higher than the Bible word?

In my opinion your idea is paradoxical. If I take your word literally and believe it, I am as well idol worshiper.

I think Bible is given so that we could learn to know God, who and what he is. Then we could know him when we find him. If you don"t know God, how could you recognize him, if you find him? You probably end to follow some false God that pleases you. I don"t want to keep anyone else as my God than the Bible God.

Then you have chosen a God with satanic morals.

Christianity is based on human sacrifice and the notion that adherents should profit from the murder of an innocent man. Care to look at that immoral concept.

Imagine you have two children. One of your children does something wrong " say it curses, or throws a temper tantrum, or something like that. In fact, say it does this on a regular basis, and you continually forgive your child, but it never seems to change.

Now suppose one day you"ve had enough, you need to do something different. You still wish to forgive your child, but nothing has worked. Do you go to your second child, your good child, and punish it to atone for the sins of the first?

In fact, if you ever saw a parent on the street punish one of their children for the actions of their other child, how would you react? Would you support their decision, or would you be offended? Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.

Interestingly, some historical royal families would beat their slaves when their own children did wrong " you should not, after all, ever beat a prince. The question is: what kind of lesson does that teach the child who actually did the harm? Does it teach them to be a better person, to stop doing harm, or does it teach them both that they won't themselves be punished, and also that punishing other people is normal? I know that's not a lesson I would want to teach my children, and I suspect it's not a lesson most Christians would want to teach theirs. So why does God?

For me, that"s at least one significant reason I find Jesus" atonement of our sin to be morally repugnant " of course, that"s assuming Jesus ever existed; that original sin actually exists; that God actually exists; etc.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL

If you really new what teh bible teaches you could not say that unless you were happy to lie.

The BIble shows God as a highly moral being protecting his people, but showing mercy to any thgat join them.

What else is he supposed to do? Leave his people open to danger?

That woudl be highly immoral and he would not do that.

I am sure that the dead who come back in the resurrection will agree with me.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2015 11:20:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/29/2015 9:18:39 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/29/2015 8:51:18 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 1/28/2015 2:06:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/28/2015 1:27:42 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 1/28/2015 1:05:23 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/28/2015 12:58:28 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Yet you do not seek God and are an idol worshiper of your Godinabook.

Regards3
DL

Oh I seek God, and that book, teh bible, is the road map for the path to him.


There can be only one reply to your words.

https://www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL

I haven't looked at the video, but the only true answer to my words is to agree.

I continually seek God, even though I found him decades ago. You can't stop seeking him, because he wants you to grow ever closer to him, and the Bible gives us the only ways to acheive that.

You are an idol worshiper even as your bible warns against doing so. You have named your idol yet try to deny it. I am not surprised at your dishonesty.

Regards
DL

How do you make that out. I have no idols. There is nothing that comes before teh worship of God, Jehovah, in my life, you should know that, so you are either a fool or a liar to say otherwise.

Your idol is Jehovah. Go put your head back up his you know what. There is nothing you as an idol worshiper can teach me.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2015 11:23:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/29/2015 9:21:15 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/29/2015 8:57:09 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 1/28/2015 2:36:21 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 8:04:04 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
As a Gnostic Christian who, even after apotheosis, continues to seek God perpetually, I see literalism as idol worship of either the bible or of the God shown in the scriptures. Muslims are also literalists and thus idol worshipers of Allah. This idol worship is often an inhibitor to decent dialog. It seems that the Abrahamic cults have almost all become idol worshipers of their Godinabook.

So, should I choose your words or the words in the Bible? Am I idolater also, if I take your word as the truth and higher than the Bible word?

In my opinion your idea is paradoxical. If I take your word literally and believe it, I am as well idol worshiper.

I think Bible is given so that we could learn to know God, who and what he is. Then we could know him when we find him. If you don"t know God, how could you recognize him, if you find him? You probably end to follow some false God that pleases you. I don"t want to keep anyone else as my God than the Bible God.

Then you have chosen a God with satanic morals.

Christianity is based on human sacrifice and the notion that adherents should profit from the murder of an innocent man. Care to look at that immoral concept.

Imagine you have two children. One of your children does something wrong " say it curses, or throws a temper tantrum, or something like that. In fact, say it does this on a regular basis, and you continually forgive your child, but it never seems to change.

Now suppose one day you"ve had enough, you need to do something different. You still wish to forgive your child, but nothing has worked. Do you go to your second child, your good child, and punish it to atone for the sins of the first?

In fact, if you ever saw a parent on the street punish one of their children for the actions of their other child, how would you react? Would you support their decision, or would you be offended? Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.

Interestingly, some historical royal families would beat their slaves when their own children did wrong " you should not, after all, ever beat a prince. The question is: what kind of lesson does that teach the child who actually did the harm? Does it teach them to be a better person, to stop doing harm, or does it teach them both that they won't themselves be punished, and also that punishing other people is normal? I know that's not a lesson I would want to teach my children, and I suspect it's not a lesson most Christians would want to teach theirs. So why does God?

For me, that"s at least one significant reason I find Jesus" atonement of our sin to be morally repugnant " of course, that"s assuming Jesus ever existed; that original sin actually exists; that God actually exists; etc.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL

If you really new what teh bible teaches you could not say that unless you were happy to lie.

The BIble shows God as a highly moral being protecting his people, but showing mercy to any thgat join them.

What else is he supposed to do? Leave his people open to danger?

That woudl be highly immoral and he would not do that.

I am sure that the dead who come back in the resurrection will agree with me.

Your God kills instead of cures those he thinks defective so don't insult morality by saying your God has some.

If he did, he would take the moral high ground and cure instead of the satanic low ground of killing.

I see his lack of morals in you when you will let an innocent suffer for your sins.

Regards
DL
Harikrish
Posts: 11,011
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2015 11:28:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Seeking God was never pleasant. Preaching about God was always profitable. The same applies today.
12_13
Posts: 1,365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2015 11:49:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/29/2015 8:57:09 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?

It depends on what that means in practice. But before I go to there, I want to remind that Jesus had right to forgive even before his death. So, if we believe what the Bible tells, the death of Jesus was not needed for sins to be forgiven.

The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, answered them, "Why are you reasoning so in your hearts? Which is easier to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you;' or to say, 'Arise and walk?' But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (he said to the paralyzed man), "I tell you, arise, and take up your cot, and go to your house." Immediately he rose up before them, and took up that which he was laying on, and departed to his house, glorifying God.
Luke 5:21-25

Jesus came on earth to declare forgiveness of sins, as it is said in this:

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, Because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim release to the captives, Recovering of sight to the blind, To deliver those who are crushed, And to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."
Luke 4:18-19

That is the reason why Jesus came. And basically that became the reason why he was murdered.

Jesus suffered much because of that mission he had. And he did that all for us, so that we could find God and peace. I think it was not immoral to come to save people, even though it meant that he would suffer. Immoral was that people killed him without any good reason.

And so, Bible doesn"t in my opinion teach about Jesus suffering on behalf of us, but that he suffered for us, because he wanted to tell the massage that God had given to him even though it meant that he must suffer much. I think that was not immoral. Immoral is that people kill innocent people and are evil liars.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2015 12:13:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/29/2015 11:28:03 AM, Harikrish wrote:
Seeking God was never pleasant. Preaching about God was always profitable. The same applies today.

I do not agree with your first as I enjoy seeking God with non-literalists as then we can concentrate on the issue or law without fear of going against some God with a view that cannot be questioned.

As to preaching, it was at one time but you might have noted how many churches are failing and the numbers are growing as we speak.

As a Gnostic Christian, I do not want to see an end to religions but if they are not to get a lot better than what they are, then I will try to kill them even faster than what is going on.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2015 12:19:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/29/2015 11:49:57 AM, 12_13 wrote:
At 1/29/2015 8:57:09 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?

It depends on what that means in practice. But before I go to there, I want to remind that Jesus had right to forgive even before his death. So, if we believe what the Bible tells, the death of Jesus was not needed for sins to be forgiven.

The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, answered them, "Why are you reasoning so in your hearts? Which is easier to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you;' or to say, 'Arise and walk?' But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (he said to the paralyzed man), "I tell you, arise, and take up your cot, and go to your house." Immediately he rose up before them, and took up that which he was laying on, and departed to his house, glorifying God.
Luke 5:21-25

Jesus came on earth to declare forgiveness of sins, as it is said in this:

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, Because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim release to the captives, Recovering of sight to the blind, To deliver those who are crushed, And to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."
Luke 4:18-19

That is the reason why Jesus came. And basically that became the reason why he was murdered.

Jesus suffered much because of that mission he had. And he did that all for us, so that we could find God and peace. I think it was not immoral to come to save people, even though it meant that he would suffer. Immoral was that people killed him without any good reason.

And so, Bible doesn"t in my opinion teach about Jesus suffering on behalf of us, but that he suffered for us, because he wanted to tell the massage that God had given to him even though it meant that he must suffer much. I think that was not immoral. Immoral is that people kill innocent people and are evil liars.

This question has nothing to do with Jesus so you should be able to answer it.
You will also note that I say nothing of the forgiveness of sin. That is not relevant to the question.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree with the statement or not?

If not, please give an argument showing how it is just to punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

Regards
DL
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2015 2:25:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/29/2015 11:28:03 AM, Harikrish wrote:
Seeking God was never pleasant. Preaching about God was always profitable. The same applies today.

It is both pleasant and profitable, but not financially profitable.

Only false teachers make a profit out of what they teach.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2015 1:58:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 8:21:22 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 1/28/2015 12:06:20 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/27/2015 8:04:04 PM, GreatestIam wrote:

We know that Christian literalism helped to usher in the Dark Ages and Inquisition.

Really? The fall of the Roman Empire with continuall invasions were not responsible for the "Dark Ages?" What makes the "dark ages" dark? It really is an antiquated term used not by scholars, but generally by opponents of the Catholic Church.

"Dark Ages" resolved.

Please describe how the Inquisition is about "Christian Literalism."

It was about Christian Literalism because if others had a different bible they had to change or die.

Well if Christianity is correct, then God is Truth. If that is the case the most important thing to do in life is to abide by that Truth. If falsehood is introduced you have permitted the greatest evil possible as you are permitting falsehood in. In different ages this has been fought in different ways.

To see just how much blood is on your bible, I offer this history.

https://www.youtube.com...

If you expect me to watch a 3 hr video to make your point, you are sadly optimistic as to the amount of free time that I have.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2015 2:17:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 8:04:04 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Was seeking God more pleasant before literalism?

We know that Christian literalism helped to usher in the Dark Ages and Inquisition. Before this hard line of locked thinking, various religions lived quite comfortably side by side. Not all the time of course, but generally speaking.

As a Gnostic Christian who, even after apotheosis, continues to seek God perpetually, I see literalism as idol worship of either the bible or of the God shown in the scriptures. Muslims are also literalists and thus idol worshipers of Allah. This idol worship is often an inhibitor to decent dialog. It seems that the Abrahamic cults have almost all become idol worshipers of their Godinabook.

In discussions with those who are idol worshipers, discussions are often strained as adherents to a literal God are not allowing themselves the benefits of thinking that is unhindered by what they are told they must believe. This often stifles any good discussion.

Seeker and non-believers on the other hand, even as they may have some pre-conceived notions, tend to be more open to a change of mind. This makes an interesting discussion where an end point and agreement might be gained for whatever issue is being discussed. Wisdom and insight can then be sought without having to contend with some ancient God"s feelings or ancient edicts coming into play.

It is quite possible that my own fundamentalism for my religion has given me too big of a bias to judge this issue well so I seek confirmation on this issue from others here.

Have you found it more pleasant to discuss with non-believers and seekers as compared to literalist Christians and Muslims who are idol worshipers?

Is literalism applicable to such old writings at all?

Is the wisdom of the old myths lost through literal reading?

Regards
DL

I like your style my friend, even though I know you're not one of God's chosen saints. However, you have been indirectly taught some wisdom to know spiritual knowledge versus the visible objects and knowledge of this world.

All us saints and most of God's prophets had to write for Him. These writings were for God's purpose to teach us saints who we are in Him. They were not meant to teach heathens who had no clue who God was. The heathen Christians, Muslims and Jews who worship false deities in false gods do not hear the voice of the Lord or obey His commandments. This is why they are totally confused today.

Deuteronomy 28
15: "But if you will not obey the voice of the Lord your God or be careful to do all his commandments which I command you this day, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you.
16: Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the field.
17: Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading-trough.
18: cursed shall be the fruit of your body, and the fruit of your ground, the increase of your cattle, and the young of your flock.
19: Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out.
20: "the Lord will send upon you curses, confusion, and frustration, in all that you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly, on account of the evil of your doings, because you have forsaken me.
21: The Lord will make the pestilence cleave to you until he has consumed you off the land which you are entering to take possession of it.
22: The Lord will smite you with consumption, and with fever, inflammation, and fiery heat, and with drought, and with blasting, and with mildew; they shall pursue you until your perish.
23: And the heavens over your head shall be brass, and the earth under you shall be iron.
24: The Lord will make the rain of your land powder and dust; from heaven it shall come down upon you until you are destroyed.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2015 6:28:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/29/2015 12:19:58 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 1/29/2015 11:49:57 AM, 12_13 wrote:
At 1/29/2015 8:57:09 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?

It depends on what that means in practice. But before I go to there, I want to remind that Jesus had right to forgive even before his death. So, if we believe what the Bible tells, the death of Jesus was not needed for sins to be forgiven.

The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, answered them, "Why are you reasoning so in your hearts? Which is easier to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you;' or to say, 'Arise and walk?' But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (he said to the paralyzed man), "I tell you, arise, and take up your cot, and go to your house." Immediately he rose up before them, and took up that which he was laying on, and departed to his house, glorifying God.
Luke 5:21-25

Jesus came on earth to declare forgiveness of sins, as it is said in this:

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, Because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim release to the captives, Recovering of sight to the blind, To deliver those who are crushed, And to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."
Luke 4:18-19

That is the reason why Jesus came. And basically that became the reason why he was murdered.

Jesus suffered much because of that mission he had. And he did that all for us, so that we could find God and peace. I think it was not immoral to come to save people, even though it meant that he would suffer. Immoral was that people killed him without any good reason.

And so, Bible doesn"t in my opinion teach about Jesus suffering on behalf of us, but that he suffered for us, because he wanted to tell the massage that God had given to him even though it meant that he must suffer much. I think that was not immoral. Immoral is that people kill innocent people and are evil liars.

This question has nothing to do with Jesus so you should be able to answer it.
You will also note that I say nothing of the forgiveness of sin. That is not relevant to the question.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree with the statement or not?

Of course I doi, and all will face the necessary punishment for whta they have done..


If not, please give an argument showing how it is just to punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

I can give no argument for that because I see things.from God's viewpoint and from his viewpoint one are innocent, not even his servants, yet.

God's standards of morality are far higher than yours.

For instance for him to stand back and see hie people put in danger would have been immoral, so hec acted.

You criticise him for defending his people, therefore it is you who is truly immnoral.

If you defend you people porperly you eliminate not only "clear and present danger" but teh danger of future attacks also, that means destroying the whole of the enemy, it jsut the ones curently doing teh threatening, but the ones who will be when they grow up.


Regards
DL

You speak from a moral; highground whch you do not possess.

You support a system whihc has wpied out "innocent" men women and children many times over, even in teh current times, in teh unauthorised defence of themsleves against other Satanically controlled peoples.

That is truly immoral.

Onyl God has the right to judge, and his judgement is perfect.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2015 9:21:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/30/2015 6:28:06 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

You speak from a moral; highground whch you do not possess.

You support a system whihc has wpied out "innocent" men women and children many times over, even in teh current times, in teh unauthorised defence of themsleves against other Satanically controlled peoples.

That is truly immoral.

Onyl God has the right to judge, and his judgement is perfect.

And yet, YOU just judged him. Hypocrite.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2015 9:38:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/30/2015 1:58:37 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/28/2015 8:21:22 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 1/28/2015 12:06:20 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/27/2015 8:04:04 PM, GreatestIam wrote:

We know that Christian literalism helped to usher in the Dark Ages and Inquisition.

Really? The fall of the Roman Empire with continuall invasions were not responsible for the "Dark Ages?" What makes the "dark ages" dark? It really is an antiquated term used not by scholars, but generally by opponents of the Catholic Church.

"Dark Ages" resolved.

Please describe how the Inquisition is about "Christian Literalism."

It was about Christian Literalism because if others had a different bible they had to change or die.

Well if Christianity is correct, then God is Truth. If that is the case the most important thing to do in life is to abide by that Truth. If falsehood is introduced you have permitted the greatest evil possible as you are permitting falsehood in. In different ages this has been fought in different ways.

To see just how much blood is on your bible, I offer this history.

https://www.youtube.com...

If you expect me to watch a 3 hr video to make your point, you are sadly optimistic as to the amount of free time that I have.

Then continue to promote your genocidal son murdering God and his blood drenched church.

Just don't expect respect from moral people.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2015 9:42:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/30/2015 2:17:17 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 1/27/2015 8:04:04 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Was seeking God more pleasant before literalism?

We know that Christian literalism helped to usher in the Dark Ages and Inquisition. Before this hard line of locked thinking, various religions lived quite comfortably side by side. Not all the time of course, but generally speaking.

As a Gnostic Christian who, even after apotheosis, continues to seek God perpetually, I see literalism as idol worship of either the bible or of the God shown in the scriptures. Muslims are also literalists and thus idol worshipers of Allah. This idol worship is often an inhibitor to decent dialog. It seems that the Abrahamic cults have almost all become idol worshipers of their Godinabook.

In discussions with those who are idol worshipers, discussions are often strained as adherents to a literal God are not allowing themselves the benefits of thinking that is unhindered by what they are told they must believe. This often stifles any good discussion.

Seeker and non-believers on the other hand, even as they may have some pre-conceived notions, tend to be more open to a change of mind. This makes an interesting discussion where an end point and agreement might be gained for whatever issue is being discussed. Wisdom and insight can then be sought without having to contend with some ancient God"s feelings or ancient edicts coming into play.

It is quite possible that my own fundamentalism for my religion has given me too big of a bias to judge this issue well so I seek confirmation on this issue from others here.

Have you found it more pleasant to discuss with non-believers and seekers as compared to literalist Christians and Muslims who are idol worshipers?

Is literalism applicable to such old writings at all?

Is the wisdom of the old myths lost through literal reading?

Regards
DL

I like your style my friend, even though I know you're not one of God's chosen saints. However, you have been indirectly taught some wisdom to know spiritual knowledge versus the visible objects and knowledge of this world.


How do you know whom God has chosen? Do you have a list?

Regards
DL