Does God want us to judge him?

[Venture]

God commands we want him but not lust him. Lust is a form of want, want is not a form of lust. Therefore lordoflight's argument is misconstrued.

Did fallen angels reproduce with humans during the antediluvian? Does this represent God's creations' corruption, including the angels he cast out? There is a resurgence in popularity and understanding of the Book of Enoch. The scriptures omitted in ancient times have returned due to our want of knowledge and domination. The snake corrupting Eve could represent the bastardized children of Eve, who did Adam and Eve's children have to marry and fight with after all? The omissions and manipulated transliterations of the apocrypha represent religious peoples rejection of the defiling of man by fallen angels mating and manipulating our genetics, along with mysticism and deceptive claims of magic during pre-Christ times. Also, a society forming their belief systems around oral traditions versus peer-reviewed literature has yet to meet an exegesis.

The Jewish Yahweh seems tribal, relentless, natural, omniscient, outside of human conception and will manifest.
The Muslim Allah seems to be especially sensitive against scrutiny and especially reminiscent of a patriarchy.
The Christian God seems anthropomorphized because of works of tolerance, accepted amongst multiple languages and cultures, and has reformations causing divided beliefs.

To what extent are my observations incorrect?

To your first bit, please see my reply above.

As to your last, you have made some errors.

You say God will manifest. How can you know this as a fact?

You also say God is natural which is silly given his supernatural attributes. Imaginary attributes just like him that is.

That natural is also refuted by the bulk of nature as in it, the predominant theme is that offspring bury or outlive their parents and that most parents want it that way. God did the opposite and chose to bury his offspring which makes him a prick as far as nature would be concerned.

Regards
DL

Logical reply above. I never said God will manifest, I know God has and is manifest. Whether he will or not, let's leave that up to fortune tellers and wait around for them to look into their crystal balls first. Or we could not wait, and have faith. Most people think faith is a belief not found in reason and empirical evidence, I believe faith is this issue with dealing with future and/or random events, using past events and figures to guide moral decisions for the future. Jesus and Buddha are the first to come to mind for myself.

As soon as I posted that reply I knew the nature bit was inaccurate and refutable. I am not familiar with Jewish conceptions of God, nonetheless, more familiar than the Islamic Allah. What I think I meant by natural is something of a strong wind, a large asteroid, a wild fire, a flood, or a disease. Something elemental but in oneness through oral descriptions and OT scripture.

I wish I had the courage to cherry pick scripture like you do, but I haven't studied the Holy Bible and its related texts, in their original languages, yet.

"Imaginary" attributes because you probably live in a disenchanted world. I'm not saying you have to go into solitude and hallucinate to know God, but there must be a feeling of God rather than empirical evidence. God of the OT is much different than that of the NT. How do you expect humans to make the transition from paganism and polytheistic nomads to Abrahamic semites, hamites, and japhetites?

God didn't choose, the plan was there before Christus came to the Greco-Roman world. The purpose was not to kill his son, but to sacrifice his son who is a manifestation of himself, to suffer and die for our original departure from God's presence.

[Greatest I am]

God commands we want him but not lust him. Lust is a form of want, want is not a form of lust. Therefore lordoflight's argument is misconstrued.

Did fallen angels reproduce with humans during the antediluvian? Does this represent God's creations' corruption, including the angels he cast out? There is a resurgence in popularity and understanding of the Book of Enoch. The scriptures omitted in ancient times have returned due to our want of knowledge and domination. The snake corrupting Eve could represent the bastardized children of Eve, who did Adam and Eve's children have to marry and fight with after all? The omissions and manipulated transliterations of the apocrypha represent religious peoples rejection of the defiling of man by fallen angels mating and manipulating our genetics, along with mysticism and deceptive claims of magic during pre-Christ times. Also, a society forming their belief systems around oral traditions versus peer-reviewed literature has yet to meet an exegesis.

The Jewish Yahweh seems tribal, relentless, natural, omniscient, outside of human conception and will manifest.
The Muslim Allah seems to be especially sensitive against scrutiny and especially reminiscent of a patriarchy.
The Christian God seems anthropomorphized because of works of tolerance, accepted amongst multiple languages and cultures, and has reformations causing divided beliefs.

To what extent are my observations incorrect?

To your first bit, please see my reply above.

As to your last, you have made some errors.

You say God will manifest. How can you know this as a fact?

You also say God is natural which is silly given his supernatural attributes. Imaginary attributes just like him that is.

That natural is also refuted by the bulk of nature as in it, the predominant theme is that offspring bury or outlive their parents and that most parents want it that way. God did the opposite and chose to bury his offspring which makes him a prick as far as nature would be concerned.

Regards
DL

Logical reply above. I never said God will manifest, I know God has and is manifest. Whether he will or not, let's leave that up to fortune tellers and wait around for them to look into their crystal balls first. Or we could not wait, and have faith. Most people think faith is a belief not found in reason and empirical evidence, I believe faith is this issue with dealing with future and/or random events, using past events and figures to guide moral decisions for the future. Jesus and Buddha are the first to come to mind for myself.

As soon as I posted that reply I knew the nature bit was inaccurate and refutable. I am not familiar with Jewish conceptions of God, nonetheless, more familiar than the Islamic Allah. What I think I meant by natural is something of a strong wind, a large asteroid, a wild fire, a flood, or a disease. Something elemental but in oneness through oral descriptions and OT scripture.

I wish I had the courage to cherry pick scripture like you do, but I haven't studied the Holy Bible and its related texts, in their original languages, yet.

"Imaginary" attributes because you probably live in a disenchanted world. I'm not saying you have to go into solitude and hallucinate to know God, but there must be a feeling of God rather than empirical evidence. God of the OT is much different than that of the NT. How do you expect humans to make the transition from paganism and polytheistic nomads to Abrahamic semites, hamites, and japhetites?

God didn't choose, the plan was there before Christus came to the Greco-Roman world. The purpose was not to kill his son, but to sacrifice his son who is a manifestation of himself, to suffer and die for our original departure from God's presence.

I like the idea of God dying. If as depicted in the bible then good riddance.

"Something elemental but in oneness through oral descriptions and OT scripture."

Oneness is what Gnostic Christianity is all about and that is why our beliefs recognize the evolving perfection of the world.

If you are to primarily use the Jewish God for study, remember that it is the keepers of Jewish oral traditions, Karaite Jews, that rule Jewish thinking and that they put man above God where we belong as they know that all the Gods are man made.

Like the biblical Jesus asked, have ye forgotten that ye are Gods?

https://imgur.com/9eoBEyo
https://imgur.com/EBHriD9

Regards
DL

[Venture]

I like the idea of evolving perfection but I don't like the idea of God dying permanently because he is everlasting. We nearly overlooked the resurrection as a focal point in the story of the biblical Jesus.

I like that quote that we forgot we were Gods, as if we were the creators, or had a little bit of God-stuff in us before imperial rule and city dwelling made us more self-deprecating on average.

I thought the Karaites thought Moses was given the commandments by one divine non-human God? Not that they 'knew all Gods were man made'....

I am fascinated by Gnostic ism, but am leary to accept any rejection of the trinity and the atonement of Jesus as non-central to a Christian belief system. I really have a bad gut feeling towards Catholicism, Islam, and some forms of Judaism, but I have little knowledge yet to act upon and explain in more detail my presuppositions about certain belief systems.

[Greatest I am]

I like the idea of evolving perfection but I don't like the idea of God dying permanently because he is everlasting. We nearly overlooked the resurrection as a focal point in the story of the biblical Jesus.

I like that quote that we forgot we were Gods, as if we were the creators, or had a little bit of God-stuff in us before imperial rule and city dwelling made us more self-deprecating on average.

I thought the Karaites thought Moses was given the commandments by one divine non-human God? Not that they 'knew all Gods were man made'....

I am fascinated by Gnostic ism, but am leary to accept any rejection of the trinity and the atonement of Jesus as non-central to a Christian belief system. I really have a bad gut feeling towards Catholicism, Islam, and some forms of Judaism, but I have little knowledge yet to act upon and explain in more detail my presuppositions about certain belief systems.

Many have bought into the salvific sacrifice of Jesus but forget that he said he came to fulfil the law. These laws.

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.

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Jesus cannot die for your wickedness without breaking the law that he taught.

If you answer this question honestly, you will agree.

Do you agree that 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 that to abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat is immoral?

As to Jews in general and the literal reading of their myths, forget that foolishness.

http://www.raceandhistory.com/historica ... exodus.htm

Further.
I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental trash that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.

https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

Further.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."

Please listen as to what is said about the literal reading of myths.

"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."

Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02cia ... =PLCBF574D

Regards
DL

[Venture]

I like the idea of evolving perfection but I don't like the idea of God dying permanently because he is everlasting. We nearly overlooked the resurrection as a focal point in the story of the biblical Jesus.

I like that quote that we forgot we were Gods, as if we were the creators, or had a little bit of God-stuff in us before imperial rule and city dwelling made us more self-deprecating on average.

I thought the Karaites thought Moses was given the commandments by one divine non-human God? Not that they 'knew all Gods were man made'....

I am fascinated by Gnostic ism, but am leary to accept any rejection of the trinity and the atonement of Jesus as non-central to a Christian belief system. I really have a bad gut feeling towards Catholicism, Islam, and some forms of Judaism, but I have little knowledge yet to act upon and explain in more detail my presuppositions about certain belief systems.

Many have bought into the salvific sacrifice of Jesus but forget that he said he came to fulfil the law. These laws.

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.

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Jesus cannot die for your wickedness without breaking the law that he taught.

If you answer this question honestly, you will agree.

Do you agree that 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 that to abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat is immoral?

As to Jews in general and the literal reading of their myths, forget that foolishness.

http://www.raceandhistory.com/historica ... exodus.htm

Further.
I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental trash that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.

https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

Further.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."

Please listen as to what is said about the literal reading of myths.

"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."

Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02cia ... =PLCBF574D

Regards
DL

I definitely see the intelligence of the ancients in comparison to the divisive systems and teachings today, with first-hand experience.

The golden rule is the greatest importance, but throughout my life I've struggled with the idea of any person who wants to destroy themselves and others, the inverse of doing right to your neighbours as you would have them do to you. I think there are unintentional actions that hurt others and help others, but that doesn't mean I am unintentionally helping or hurting myself in turn. To know your own intent comes with learning and self-awareness through spirituality, a journey I've only begun.

Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophecies, but I thought this coming and fulfillment represented the switch from the old laws to the new laws of faith in Christ and works in our limited time. Viewing Jesus as a scapegoat is wrong, but dying for our sins is not dying for my sins, it is dying for humanity's immoral tendencies and superiorty complexes, in hopes that we realize the importance of good works and understanding biblical myths.

I really enjoyed the Timothy Freke video, so I'll be watching it a few more times. Ms. Armstrong had some good points about the idolatry and anthropomorphization of God, but I've yet to see how her argument towards the end has actually played out, about ancient Indian religions being the closest to a true conception of God because they used the proper language to talk about the "ultimate"?

I like what Schiffman says in the later parts of the article about archaeology allowing us to form our own opinions in ambiguity. Some might see this as personal opinions warping historical truth because of the multitude of recent alternative history books, but I see it as a statement to our ability as individuals in a collective to use information about history to form our own opinions and be moreso open-minded to new ideas, rather than accepting a leader's view or an elitist education's view. I believe the Joshua and Exodus myths were exaggerated but not untrue. That belief might change with time and education, I don't know yet. The problem with archaeological studies and forthcoming ideas are the lack of information regarding exact time periods, the issue of accurately dating things by years and millenias, and the general public's ability over time to either be moreso open or moreso close minded to new ideas about deep histories.

Fathers being put to death because of their children is temporally backwards and scarce in examples. However, there are many examples I could talk about regarding children dying because of their fathers, mainly due to religious beliefs, socio-economic background, race, geographic location, bad or questionable familial reputations, etc.

I have tried my best never to take scripture literally, although I've probably committed that action by accepting words of preachers and pastors earlier in life. I view the bible as a collection of myths about historical occurrences that serve moral purposes in our evolutionary biology, however short-lived.

[Greatest I am]

Venture

The Golden Rule of doing unto other as we would like done to us is also written as to not do what we would not like done to us. Both the positive action and negated actions assume that the one we are working with has the normal values of the society and not the few weirder sub groups such as S & M, for instance, that might pot up in a larger group.

That glitch in understanding might be why moral psychologist have changed it slightly to the following list of best rules or laws.

https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haid ... n#t-343855

1 Harm/Care
2 Fairness/reciprocity
3 In group loyalty
4 Authority/respect
5 Purity/sanctity

Regards
DL

[Venture]

Venture

The Golden Rule of doing unto other as we would like done to us is also written as to not do what we would not like done to us. Both the positive action and negated actions assume that the one we are working with has the normal values of the society and not the few weirder sub groups such as S & M, for instance, that might pot up in a larger group.

That glitch in understanding might be why moral psychologist have changed it slightly to the following list of best rules or laws.

https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haid ... n#t-343855

1 Harm/Care
2 Fairness/reciprocity
3 In group loyalty
4 Authority/respect
5 Purity/sanctity

Regards
DL

That video was terribly cherry picked, with a short attempt at denouncing the importance of morality near the end. The stats were heavily weighted on the outside and then attempting to make lofty generalizations with harm and fairness down left to right, with a short mention that most populations in general need to deal with authority, purity, and in-group loyalty. Who is trying to make people in groups cooperate? The government? Banks? Corporations? A large family or a school? I don't buy this for a second and I don't know why it's so important for you to give arguments and links that avoid the story of Jesus. Not a bad guy, real or not whatever you believe, the story itself is inspiring. Do you believe God is a God or is God through Jesus? Do you think God wants us to judge him? Or does God know we will judge him?

I agree we should do unto others as we do to ourselves, with the best intentions and long-term moral outcomes in mind.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Only the most immoral thinkers will like Yahweh thanks to his genocidal son murdering ways.

I think there have been any number of moral thinkers who did not want to face the problems with Yahweh. IOW you are being very binary here. If someone agrees with you about Yahweh, they are moral, if not, not. Whereas people can manage to be quite moral thinkers and do good, despite not being able to truly face the problems with the OT's version of God. Though if you mean they are immoral BECAUSE he was genocidal, not despite, then I am more likely to agree.

You seem to think God is somehow in possession of moral knowledge that we do not have.

I disagree based on scriptures and common sense.

You could respond to the examples I gave and the argument. Obviously you disagree since you stated this position already. I think that when dealing with Christianity one must have an argument to show that one can know X is wrong, even if God does it. Just saying one knows and can know is not enough.

"Want is not a form of lust. Lust is a kind of want. "

You break the law of the excluded middle as well as algebra.

If a=b then b must =a

You just presumed the conclusion, with a=b. Which you have not demonstrated.

My argument is that his statement was a confusion, just as it would be to say mammals are cats. Cats are a kind of mammal. You cannot say that mammals are cats. Lust is a specific desire/want. It is an member of the set of wants.

I can want water when I am thirsty. It is not lust. This does not mean I lust for water. I want to be close to God or my Self. This is not lust.

And excluded middle has absolutely nothing to do with my argument. I was not that proposition and propostion not-a are both true.

[Greatest I am]

Venture

The Golden Rule of doing unto other as we would like done to us is also written as to not do what we would not like done to us. Both the positive action and negated actions assume that the one we are working with has the normal values of the society and not the few weirder sub groups such as S & M, for instance, that might pot up in a larger group.

That glitch in understanding might be why moral psychologist have changed it slightly to the following list of best rules or laws.

https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haid ... n#t-343855

1 Harm/Care
2 Fairness/reciprocity
3 In group loyalty
4 Authority/respect
5 Purity/sanctity

Regards
DL

That video was terribly cherry picked, with a short attempt at denouncing the importance of morality near the end. The stats were heavily weighted on the outside and then attempting to make lofty generalizations with harm and fairness down left to right, with a short mention that most populations in general need to deal with authority, purity, and in-group loyalty. Who is trying to make people in groups cooperate? The government? Banks? Corporations? A large family or a school? I don't buy this for a second and I don't know why it's so important for you to give arguments and links that avoid the story of Jesus. Not a bad guy, real or not whatever you believe, the story itself is inspiring. Do you believe God is a God or is God through Jesus? Do you think God wants us to judge him? Or does God know we will judge him?

I agree we should do unto others as we do to ourselves, with the best intentions and long-term moral outcomes in mind.

I was not avoiding anything. I was presenting a possible modern way around the S & M issues you began.

As to Jesus, I often ask Christians to discuss his more vile moral tenets and they know they cannot argue well for them and just end in running away.

That applies to just the Roman created Jesus and not the more eastern mystic Jesus whose ways I follow.

This link speaks to what the Roman created Jesus spoke.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfGRN4HVrQ

I especially dislike Jesus' no divorce policy as well as his substitutional punishment policy.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Only the most immoral thinkers will like Yahweh thanks to his genocidal son murdering ways.

I think there have been any number of moral thinkers who did not want to face the problems with Yahweh. IOW you are being very binary here. If someone agrees with you about Yahweh, they are moral, if not, not. Whereas people can manage to be quite moral thinkers and do good, despite not being able to truly face the problems with the OT's version of God. Though if you mean they are immoral BECAUSE he was genocidal, not despite, then I am more likely to agree.

You seem to think God is somehow in possession of moral knowledge that we do not have.

I disagree based on scriptures and common sense.

You could respond to the examples I gave and the argument. Obviously you disagree since you stated this position already. I think that when dealing with Christianity one must have an argument to show that one can know X is wrong, even if God does it. Just saying one knows and can know is not enough.

"Want is not a form of lust. Lust is a kind of want. "

You break the law of the excluded middle as well as algebra.

If a=b then b must =a

You just presumed the conclusion, with a=b. Which you have not demonstrated.

My argument is that his statement was a confusion, just as it would be to say mammals are cats. Cats are a kind of mammal. You cannot say that mammals are cats. Lust is a specific desire/want. It is an member of the set of wants.

I can want water when I am thirsty. It is not lust. This does not mean I lust for water. I want to be close to God or my Self. This is not lust.

And excluded middle has absolutely nothing to do with my argument. I was not that proposition and propostion not-a are both true.

If I have to show and argument against a God who kills when he can cure and uses genocide as a remedy, as evil, then the reader's moral sense is so corrupted that I would not bother wasting my time on him.

Especially when no argument is given to try to justify the genocide of nearly the whole world.

A mathematical equation is a proposition that is proven right or wrong and I am not interested in your semantics as I am not here to discuss the meaning of words as that looks like it would be a waste of time since you do not seem to know what synonyms are.

Regards
DL

[Venture]

Venture

The Golden Rule of doing unto other as we would like done to us is also written as to not do what we would not like done to us. Both the positive action and negated actions assume that the one we are working with has the normal values of the society and not the few weirder sub groups such as S & M, for instance, that might pot up in a larger group.

That glitch in understanding might be why moral psychologist have changed it slightly to the following list of best rules or laws.

https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haid ... n#t-343855

1 Harm/Care
2 Fairness/reciprocity
3 In group loyalty
4 Authority/respect
5 Purity/sanctity

Regards
DL

That video was terribly cherry picked, with a short attempt at denouncing the importance of morality near the end. The stats were heavily weighted on the outside and then attempting to make lofty generalizations with harm and fairness down left to right, with a short mention that most populations in general need to deal with authority, purity, and in-group loyalty. Who is trying to make people in groups cooperate? The government? Banks? Corporations? A large family or a school? I don't buy this for a second and I don't know why it's so important for you to give arguments and links that avoid the story of Jesus. Not a bad guy, real or not whatever you believe, the story itself is inspiring. Do you believe God is a God or is God through Jesus? Do you think God wants us to judge him? Or does God know we will judge him?

I agree we should do unto others as we do to ourselves, with the best intentions and long-term moral outcomes in mind.

I was not avoiding anything. I was presenting a possible modern way around the S & M issues you began.

As to Jesus, I often ask Christians to discuss his more vile moral tenets and they know they cannot argue well for them and just end in running away.

That applies to just the Roman created Jesus and not the more eastern mystic Jesus whose ways I follow.

This link speaks to what the Roman created Jesus spoke.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfGRN4HVrQ

I especially dislike Jesus' no divorce policy as well as his substitutional punishment policy.

Regards
DL

I don't believe in eternal punishment, maybe brief or pre-afterlife punishment, a medium between undue violent vengeance and submissive forgiveness for evil. The idea that forgiveness is merely overlooking or accepting evil has been argued in the past. I always thought forgiveness could be equated to the acceptance of an apology or sincere change by the wrongdoer. In the linked video, he says it is the girl's or victim's responsibility to forgive the wrongdoer, not something or someone that sets a standard balance for punishment fitting the crimes (judge, court, law). I don't agree with this view because sometimes victims can be relentless in vengeance, unforgiving, or ready to stay in a state of victimhood whether or not they actually are a victim or not. Its also a little silly for the video to assume that humanism is directly opposed to Jesus, at least the Roman Jesus you seem to have a grudge against. I'm pretty sure there has been Christian humanism, and it is mainly because of Christianity that different religious beliefs, scientific research, women, and conquest of new lands and space have propagated such a formidable Western force for the past millenia. Tolerance of Atheism or aggressive opposers, the conception of a progressive God.

Our mortality and views of punishment of wrongdoing doesn't prove or disprove eternal life, so I don't know why discussion of the afterlife is a main talking point for whether or not God wants us to judge him. I'd assume most think hell is somewhere to go forever when you die, but I see it as a karma idea where if you do wrong you better watch out while you avoid a rabbit hole of unintentonal S&M brought upon yourself. We are going to judge God whether God wants us to or not. My whole life I've tested all things and held fast what is good, and that includes increasing the judging of myself. I find most human judgement is projected outwards rather than improving yourself before making an attempt at improving others. When you mention "Roman" Jesus I can't help but relate that conception with Catholicism, something conflated with latter day Roman politics, lots of idolatry and intentional omissions, extensions, additions, and mistranslations. I don't think Jesus of the Catholic church and Jesus of the Orthodox church are the same, and I've yet to understand anything about your eastern mystic version in any major sect.

You've shown some hatred of a few of Jesus' teachings because you have a different understanding of what Jesus represents and who Jesus was historically than I do. Whether or not that is a superior understanding or not is by the judgement of others and not you and I, because any disagreement about the small bits of our back and forth will cause tension between you and I, rather than the plethora of Jesus figures laden throughout the countless sects of Christianity.

The no divorce policy is only meant to show the importance of the bond of marriage, which few people will successfully accomplish in this century. Nearly, nobody my age wants to marry and those few who do, do so too early in life, too early in my opinion at least.

The substituional punishment policy is God's, not Jesus'. Its as if you assume Jesus decided one day that its time to be crucified and show a bunch of illiterate wanderers that he made a sacrifice for those who are morally better than others. Jesus was planned to be crucified and resurrected from birth, even before the time was right while the Roman empire was ripening.

If you go around having many marriages or sexual partners, you may be unintentionally running yourself amuck towards that accidental S&M idea I presented earlier. If there is a war, would you rather your local strongman become a soldier and die for your inadequacy or are you going to go fight? Will women and children bear arms instead of those who are better trained to fight the good fight? You call it substitutional punishment, I call it selfless sacrifice. You call it no divorce, I call it monogamous marriage policy.

I tend to stay away from the arguments for monogamy and heterosexuality when it comes to disease, patriarchy, and the strength of the underlying fabrics of societies, because of course the argument is at odds of being bigotry instead of taking it as preserving the well-being of the majority, especially women and children.

[Karpel Tunnel]

If I have to show and argument against a God who kills when he can cure and uses genocide as a remedy, as evil, then the reader's moral sense is so corrupted that I would not bother wasting my time on him.

Especially when no argument is given to try to justify the genocide of nearly the whole world.

Evasive as always.

A mathematical equation is a proposition that is proven right or wrong and I am not interested in your semantics as I am not here to discuss the meaning of words as that looks like it would be a waste of time since you do not seem to know what synonyms are.

You just made a semantic claim while saying you are not interested in semantics. You are arguing, without being clear about it, that want and lust are synonyms, when clearly they are not. Lust is directly associated in Chrisitianity and in dictionaries for general use with sexual desire and strong out of control versions of it. Wants are associate with just about any feeling to get/experienece/give/have something. Including the specific examples you chose not to respond to in my previous post.

I find that you continue to not respond to arguments that would be tricky to respond to, simply restate your positions, use arguments based on incredulity, which is a fallacy, and do not honorably respond to posts that could be troublesome - or interesting, for that matter. You are no murderer, obviously, but you do share with Yahweh the trait of reacting irrationally, emotionally, judgmentally and for no good reason. You are vastly more OT than NT and are doing gnositicm a disservice through your lazy evasive responses.

I know, we should just bow down and agree with everything you say, rather than agreeing with some and disagreeing with some, and presenting arguments for the latter. That is, engaging with ideas in a philosophical manner seems to turn you off, as it does many a guru.

Want and lust are not synonyms. And this is no nitpicky argument.

Christianity is very judgmental of lust, but not of wants as a rule. So his argument was flawed. But since his argument supported your thesis, you respond like any fundamentalist to threats and dismiss without cause.

Love the hypocrisy of in a single sentence saying you are not interested in semantics while in that sentence making an argument about semantics.

And if I remember right, you do not have English as a native language. Yet, it is just not remotely possible you have anything to learn from a native speaker.

[Ierrellus]

I still believe human morality owes to creative evolution. We cannot judge a god unless that god evolves with our human understanding. So why waste words on theological or philosophical abstractions?

[Greatest I am]

Venture

First, it seems that you pick and choose what you like and dislike and have made up your own God and religion.

"The substituional punishment policy is God's, not Jesus'."

That quote exemplifies my first comment as Jesus is God to most Christians as most are Trinitarian.

"Tolerance of Atheism or aggressive opposers, the conception of a progressive God."

Inquisitions, --- is all I should need say to your ideas of Christian tolerance, but I will add homophobia and misogyny.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I still believe human morality owes to creative evolution. We cannot judge a god unless that god evolves with our human understanding. So why waste words on theological or philosophical abstractions?

I agree with your first.

I use my time, and I hope it is not a waste of it, in forums and in person to lead those who are homophobic and misogynous in the hope that I might reduce the harm that the mainstream religions are doing.

I think it is the duty of all good people to fight evil.

Regards
DL