Are you afraid of death?

[Greatest I am]

When I believed in hell, yes.

Why would you believe what is likely a lie?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF6I5VSZVqc

If there is a hell then there is a heaven.

Nature always creates for the best possible end and if the god you believe in cannot even do that then why would you follow or believe in such a loser?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Tell me friend.
When one of your children does something bad, do you punish your other child?

Likely you are not that deranged.

That in effect is what God did yet you respect that vile demiurge for something that you would never do.

Please explain after viewing this sermon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKNup9gEBdg&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs

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

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

No, I'm a Christian and know that I will be with my Savior. My only hope is to share as much love and bring as many people to Christ as I can while on Earth and to help make it a better place while I'm here.

So you think that bringing people to a Jesus who promotes immoral tenets, like his no divorce and substitutionary atonement policies will make earth a better place.

Satan would agree as he is all in for stopping people from finding loving life partners and Satan also thinks it good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKNup9gEBdg&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Do you think taking the fall for people one loves in other contexts is also immoral because it 'punishes the innocent instead of the guilty'?

That is too open ended for me. Please give the scenario you had in mind.

But speaking of the Jesus sacrifice.

Taking someone else's fall does not take the guilt or responsibility for the act out of the perpetrator.

In the case of Jesus' so called substitutionary atonement, taking that guilt out of the perpetrator is the intention and that is a poor intention.

Guilt is what stops us from doing that same evil again.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Substitutionary atonement is only one of many interpretations of what Jesus did. There are much better ones, in my opinion.

Yet that is what most Christians accept.

What did you have in mind if not that Jesus died to save mankind from god's wrath?

If Jesus is not our savior, why would Christians venerate him so much when some of his policies and teachings are clearly immoral and anti-love?

Like his no divorce policy.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I guess that he was not familiar with scriptures.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

Seems he decided to accept it before it even happened. Strange since god had yet to write the history or even allow sin.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I said nothing of good and hard but it seems that you do not mind the innocent getting it good and hard when it is the guilty that deserve whatever is deserved.

Your view is what is so repulsive as to not be worth considering. IMO.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is naïve about a person wanting to get out of a loveless relationship?

People have a right to seek loving partners to go through life with.

Right?

If they make a mistake or love turns to hate and or abuse, to force those abused people to remain married is definitely anti-love and quite immoral.

If you do not agree, it shows how your religion has compromised your morals as well as your view of the value of love.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

St Bernard tells us that God the Father did not demand the Son's sacrifice but accepted it when it was offered. The other argument that you seem to be making--that the Atonement was immoral because it prevented sinners from getting what we deserve good and hard--is so repulsive as to not be worth considering.

Generally the rap on the prohibition on divorce is that it's naive, romantic, and unrealistic about what relationships are really like, not that it's (in intent) 'anti-love'.

I think the issue stems from the fact that we, in the first instance, are guilty of an original sin that is not of our own doing. Putting that aside, the remission of sin, which was the shedding of blood through sacrifice (which was cross cultural) is in itself barbaric. And what is essentially being accepted that that is just as true today as it was 'then'; that Jesus' sacrifice matters because sacrifice matters

As Ingersoll said; 'no man would be fit for heaven who would consent that an innocent person should suffer for his sin.'

If we are guilty of an arbitrary 'sin' by the creator, then we should stand guilty of it. For we are doing nothing other than what is in accordance with ourselves.

Well put.

The tone of our friend Signora Ophelia Maraschina and her hard heart reminds me of this.

"Whoever imagines himself a favorite with God,
holds other people in contempt.
Whenever a man believes that he has the exact truth from God,
there is in that man no spirit of compromise.
He has not the modesty born of the imperfections of human nature;
he has the arrogance of theological certainty and the tyranny born of ignorant assurance.
Believing himself to be the slave of God,
he imitates his master,
and of all tyrants,
the worst is a slave in power."
--Robert Ingersoll

It seems that she hold the innocent in contempt for not wanting to be punished in place of the guilty.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Your responses are almost unreadably poorly formatted and you're assuming even worse things of me than I am of you, which I don't appreciate, but I'd also like to say that it's rich that a self-proclaimed Gnostic is lecturing orthodox Christians (many denominations of whom, incidentally, interpret 'immorality' broadly enough as to be more or less okay with divorce as long as it's not jumped into as frivolously as a lot of secular (and even religious) high-status types do) on being 'anti-love' and accusing me of holding other people in contempt, when it was Gnosticism, during the centuries in which it was relevant, that was noted for its blistering contempt for the body, sex, children, human relationships, and anybody who wasn't mentally or spiritually 'advanced' enough for the teacher's liking.

afleitch's formulation of your other accusation is, as is so often the case from him, much better-put and more challenging than yours. To him I'd simply say that I don't mind having a faintly or more-than-faintly 'barbaric' understanding of the world in this respect. Chalk it up to a combination of hard knocks in childhood and Freudo-Marxism later on.

You do not have a clue as to what Gnostic Christian beliefs are.

Neither did you ancestors and founders when they used the sword against all free thinkers of that day. They could not convert by good deeds the way a religion should be able to do so it was convert or die.

"when it was Gnosticism, during the centuries in which it was relevant, that was noted for its blistering contempt for the body, sex, children, human relationships, and anybody who wasn't mentally or spiritually 'advanced' enough for the teacher's liking."

Here is the relevant Gnostic Christian writing that you seem not to know about.

Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.
If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.
But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

As you can see, we believe that god resides within our bodies and we have the required respect for them.

We also have the same reverence, not contempt, for all the others you name.

I would stay away from the word "contempt" if I were you since it was Christians showing contempt for all those they murdered to grow the immoral religion you follow.

As to my presentation. Read sllllower and you will have the time to absorb what I put.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

As you can see, we believe that god resides within our bodies

I don't see that from that passage,

I am not surprised at your lack of comprehension.

You trust your church yet will never hear them quote these.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

No, and honestly, I don't get the obsession people have with living as long as possible.  Why would I want to spend 100 years in a world filled with pain and suffering when I can spend an eternity in a perfect world with my God?

What makes you think there is more pain and suffering than good in the world?

I track the stats for evil. Murder and death by violence and war, poverty, longevity, crime and slavery.

All those are at the best levels that mankind has ever seen.

So why do you see more evil than good?

Could it be the way you are looking and not reality?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

No, and honestly, I don't get the obsession people have with living as long as possible.  Why would I want to spend 100 years in a world filled with pain and suffering when I can spend an eternity in a perfect world with my God?

What makes you think there is more pain and suffering than good in the world?

I track the stats for evil. Murder and death by violence and war, poverty, longevity, crime and slavery.

All those are at the best levels that mankind has ever seen.

So why do you see more evil than good?

Could it be the way you are looking and not reality?

Regards
DL

Weird comment. He didn't say it is worse than before. He simply says there is a lot of pain and suffering in the world. Do you disagree?

Regards
David

When compared to the amount of good, yes.

When not compared to the good, and ignoring that per capita things used to be a lot worse for us, then of course there is suffering in the world but I would not say a lot per capita.

This link tries to put a realistic comedic spin to the overblown opinions to the contrary out there.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Oww4Ap3YZA

Further to why I see things as getting so much better, per capita.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

No, and honestly, I don't get the obsession people have with living as long as possible.  Why would I want to spend 100 years in a world filled with pain and suffering when I can spend an eternity in a perfect world with my God?

What makes you think there is more pain and suffering than good in the world?

I track the stats for evil. Murder and death by violence and war, poverty, longevity, crime and slavery.

All those are at the best levels that mankind has ever seen.

So why do you see more evil than good?

Could it be the way you are looking and not reality?

Regards
DL

Weird comment. He didn't say it is worse than before. He simply says there is a lot of pain and suffering in the world. Do you disagree?

Regards
David

When compared to the amount of good, yes.

When not compared to the good, and ignoring that per capita things used to be a lot worse for us, then of course there is suffering in the world but I would not say a lot per capita.

This link tries to put a realistic comedic spin to the overblown opinions to the contrary out there.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Oww4Ap3YZA

Further to why I see things as getting so much better, per capita.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim

Regards
DL

Not all pain and suffering caused by being in this ephemeral world is quantifiable by the [Inks]ing Economist. One would think a Gnostic would understand that.

I do and made that clear in my response.

Thanks for recognizing the thinking potential in Gnostic Christianity.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Further to why I see things as getting so much better, per capita.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim

Regards
DL

Thing is, study after study has shown that people's happiness depends not so much on their absolute well-being, but upon their relative well-being.

The clearest example I can think of is a study the U.S.Army did in WWII. The brass was worried that morale for black soldiers would be worse for those on bases in the segregated south than in the north because of the added social restrictions they faced there when they went on leave. Objectively, black soldiers stationed in the north were better off than those stationed in the south. Turned out that those soldiers didn't base their happiness on what happened to themselves alone. Those in the south had higher morale than those in the north. They compared their lot to that of southern black civilians and felt pretty good about their lot because it was much better than their comparison group. Conversely, the economic opportunities the war brought northern black civilians meant that black troops stationed in the north felt they were worse off than those they compared themselves to, so their morale turned out to be lower.

Thinking on this, I now realize why class stratification tends to occur. It gives everyone except those in the lowest class a chance to feel better about themselves than they otherwise would, simply because they are in a better class. So long as one can keep that lowest class small, class stratification might actually be an overall good for society, if happiness is your measure of good.

Interesting.

By taking that full billion out of poverty, the world gave them the opportunity for education, medical care and a longer life span.

Those that would have been dead likely would not be happy and are likely quite happy to be alive in their situation and that is nice for the overall society.

Check the health part of this presentation.

https://www.gapminder.org/downloads/human-development-trends-2005/

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

No, and honestly, I don't get the obsession people have with living as long as possible.  Why would I want to spend 100 years in a world filled with pain and suffering when I can spend an eternity in a perfect world with my God?

What makes you think there is more pain and suffering than good in the world?

I track the stats for evil. Murder and death by violence and war, poverty, longevity, crime and slavery.

All those are at the best levels that mankind has ever seen.

So why do you see more evil than good?

Could it be the way you are looking and not reality?

Regards
DL

I don't necessarily think that there's more bad than good in the world; I simply don't see why I would want to spend 100 or more years in a world where evil exists when I can spend eternity in a world where it doesn't.

What makes you think that heaven has no evil?
Have you forgotten that that heaven is where Satan is said to have come from?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

No, and honestly, I don't get the obsession people have with living as long as possible.  Why would I want to spend 100 years in a world filled with pain and suffering when I can spend an eternity in a perfect world with my God?

What makes you think there is more pain and suffering than good in the world?

I track the stats for evil. Murder and death by violence and war, poverty, longevity, crime and slavery.

All those are at the best levels that mankind has ever seen.

So why do you see more evil than good?

Could it be the way you are looking and not reality?

Regards
DL

I don't necessarily think that there's more bad than good in the world; I simply don't see why I would want to spend 100 or more years in a world where evil exists when I can spend eternity in a world where it doesn't.

What makes you think that heaven has no evil?
Have you forgotten that that heaven is where Satan is said to have come from?

Regards
DL

What is even your point here?

That evil is in heaven as well as everywhere else.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

No, and honestly, I don't get the obsession people have with living as long as possible.  Why would I want to spend 100 years in a world filled with pain and suffering when I can spend an eternity in a perfect world with my God?

What makes you think there is more pain and suffering than good in the world?

I track the stats for evil. Murder and death by violence and war, poverty, longevity, crime and slavery.

All those are at the best levels that mankind has ever seen.

So why do you see more evil than good?

Could it be the way you are looking and not reality?

Regards
DL

I don't necessarily think that there's more bad than good in the world; I simply don't see why I would want to spend 100 or more years in a world where evil exists when I can spend eternity in a world where it doesn't.

What makes you think that heaven has no evil?
Have you forgotten that that heaven is where Satan is said to have come from?

Regards
DL

Heaven = paradise.  Paradise = no evil.  Satan = evil.  Therefore, Satan = not in Heaven.

Regards
Scott

Your answer = untruth.

Where was Satan born or created if not in heaven?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Can't even recant gracefully. How sad for you.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Can't even recant gracefully. How sad for you.

Regards
DL

I wasn't recanting.

Regards
Scott

Exactly. You should have.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

No, and honestly, I don't get the obsession people have with living as long as possible.  Why would I want to spend 100 years in a world filled with pain and suffering when I can spend an eternity in a perfect world with my God?

What makes you think there is more pain and suffering than good in the world?

I track the stats for evil. Murder and death by violence and war, poverty, longevity, crime and slavery.

All those are at the best levels that mankind has ever seen.

So why do you see more evil than good?

Could it be the way you are looking and not reality?

Regards
DL

I don't necessarily think that there's more bad than good in the world; I simply don't see why I would want to spend 100 or more years in a world where evil exists when I can spend eternity in a world where it doesn't.

What makes you think that heaven has no evil?
Have you forgotten that that heaven is where Satan is said to have come from?

Regards
DL

What is even your point here?

That evil is in heaven as well as everywhere else.

Regards
DL

I know, but why?

Because the imaginary heaven that most seek does not exist.

As above so below.

The best thinking that we have to date seems to say that if we do not have evil to compare to good then good cannot be defined.

It would be like you or I deciding to make a graph with only one designator at one end and an infinite line at the other.

That may be why the early church called Adams sin a happy fault and necessary sin.

Our graph of good must have the necessary term of evil as the other end to make it a true graph.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

The best thinking that we have to date seems to say that if we do not have evil to compare to good then good cannot be defined.

Whose 'best thinking' is this? Give me names. Because heavy hitters from Augustine to G.E. Moore say the opposite or something close to the opposite.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

maek u think

The last thing the church wants is to have their sheeple think.

As to Augustine to G.E. Moore, in creating their graph of levels or degrees of good, what did they show as the least good and could we not call that evil?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

The best thinking that we have to date seems to say that if we do not have evil to compare to good then good cannot be defined.

No. It would be more appropriate to say that saying 'god is good' or 'good flows from god' actually says nothing about the nature of god (or good)

Digging this out from before (because every day is a learning day)

Theistic morality is subjectivist. If things are ‘good’ because god says that they are good then morals are arbitrary. Indeed, they are more arbitrary from a subjectivist perspective than our definition of morality because god (if it is in any way god like) is entirely unbounded by anything that would otherwise constrain us, or alter our path when making decisions.

So it robs ‘good’ from any definition. ‘Good’ is simply what something powerful mandates. If god mandates it, then ‘good’ means nothing. Saying ‘god is good’ is simply saying ‘god is god’. It says nothing meaningful about its actions because god would be ‘good’ no matter what it does. So that definition robs not only ‘good of its goodness’, but ‘god of its glory’. Why should there be praise for god if it would be equally praised even if it did the complete opposite? If what is arbitrary replaces what is just or reasonable, then all justice is, if anything, is what is pleasing to god.

So if things have to be ‘good’, then they must be good for another reason, if goodness needs to have value, then it can no more come from god that it can from us.

Saying that morality is actually grounded in god’s nature and expressed in its commands doesn’t avoid this problem. Whatever it was god’s nature to prefer would still be right by definition and still diminish the significance of moral terms. So saying god is good would just be saying that god also accords to its own nature which isn’t really an accomplishment. If it’s nature were different it would still be good. The wider issue is that theistic ethics are essentially ethically subjective; moral statements being made true by the attitude of certain people.

Which I think is what you might have wanted to say.

Perhaps.

I would never say that God is good as God is generally thought of as an entity while good is thought to be a condition or attribute.

I do like what you put though.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

The best thinking that we have to date seems to say that if we do not have evil to compare to good then good cannot be defined.

Whose 'best thinking' is this? Give me names. Because heavy hitters from Augustine to G.E. Moore say the opposite or something close to the opposite.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

maek u think

The last thing the church wants is to have their sheeple think.

Oh my God, you're not being ironic, are you??!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They...they didn't create 'graphs'.

They would have had to have a mental construct to go with their thinking and that would have been a graph.

You should not reference those whose thinking you do not understand.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

The best thinking that we have to date seems to say that if we do not have evil to compare to good then good cannot be defined.

Whose 'best thinking' is this? Give me names. Because heavy hitters from Augustine to G.E. Moore say the opposite or something close to the opposite.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

maek u think

The last thing the church wants is to have their sheeple think.

Oh my God, you're not being ironic, are you??!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They...they didn't create 'graphs'.

They would have had to have a mental construct to go with their thinking and that would have been a graph.

The word you're thinking of is 'schema' or possibly 'framework'. Augustine's schema/framework specifies evil as the privation of good, yes. You're defining good as the privation of evil, which is absurd.

You should not use those words whose meaning you do not understand.

Regards
NT

Nowhere have I stated that good as the privation of evil.

All I have stated is that on a graph of good, there would have to be something at the other end of the graph and that that would be called evil.

I guess you do not think well enough to be able to visualize that but if you google any graph, you will note that they always have two descriptions that they are comparing.

IE.      Good-----------------------------------------------------Evil

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Don't write like an idiot and I won't.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Don't write like an idiot and I won't.

Regards
DL

You know, maybe you know more about Gnosticism than I give you credit for. You certainly have the self-congratulatory, snobbish, unwarranted self-importance and belief that you know better than everyone else and if they disagree with you or don't understand what you're trying to say then they must be drooling morons down pat.

Also, you absolutely implied that you think good is a privation of evil and you know it, edgelord.

Regards
NT

Get the quote or be seen for what you are.

Regards
DL