Jump to content

Greatest I am

Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Greatest I am

  1. + 1


    We are serious but try to be intelligent about it.


    That is something the dumb them down religions do not like or practice.


    Strange that Christianity, who says it has all the answers, cannot tolerate questions and always hide hard answers behind miracles and faith.




  2. Endy




    On Righteousness


    The rightousness of God is a kind of sharing along with equality. There is equality in the heaven which is stretched out in all directions and contains the entire earth in its circle. The night reveals all the stars equally.






    Google is a great source of facts.


    But if you think some other religion other than Gnostic Christianity will smarten Christianity and Islam up, then support them.


    That is the right thing to do.




    Didn't the gnostics consider the god of the old testament to be Satan masquerading as god?

    More or less but do remember that we do not read any scripture literally. Especially our own. They are too weird.


    The trick and what we preach is that any myth from any tradition is there for people to internalize and by doing so, one gains enlightenment when the pineal gland is activated.


    Somewhat as Jesus taught.






  3. Chad


    We have no evidence at all that the biblical Jesus was real. He is only if you want to ignore reality and start believing in miracles and magic. A game for the mentally dysfunctional.


    We can see if the Jesus you believe in is moral though.


    You seem to like his, --- let no man put asunder, --- no divorce policy.


    Show how that would work for a wife that gets beat twice a week by a husband who refuses to stop.


    Show how denying that woman a chance to find a decent partner is a good policy.




  4. I really see there as having been too many sects forced under the Gnostic umbrella to make that sort of judgement.


    According to the Gospel of Judas only a select few could reach Heaven(as revealed to Judas by Jesus). Contrasting with that is Mandaeism in which Jesus was seen as a false prophet.


    A couple of the more extreme examples, but both are likely to feel equally "wrong" to a majority of Christians today.


    I do think for moral and practical reasons major religions will become more accepting over time. Most probable situation looking at past history.

    So you do not see Universalism or the fact that women and gays are given full equality as a major factor?


    Gays and women will not care about equality. Is that right?




  5. I want to know what idiot let the snake into the garden?

    I mean, it's not like they couldn't tell what would happen.


    What were they thinking of?


    (I'd also like to know how come people believe that it was all paradise until someone decided not to follow the rules; and that someone was a woman.


    Because the church reversed what the Jews thought of Eden. Man's elevation became our fall.


    It is also likely why, if you check the Vatican art of Eden, Satan is depicted as a well breasted woman.


    Christianity has always blamed women for everything.


    That is why they still deny them and gays equality.




    It's a culture-control book. And it worked.

    + 1




    Yes I can see that was likely the intent of the authors and compilers.

    Yes. Roman ones.






    I think you took my comment wrongly. From how I see it and the way most religions look at sex for pleasure, Adam and Eve were banned from the paradise for engaging in sexual arts other than for procreation. I leave 'eating the cherry/plum' to your imaginations. NSFW.

    Yet A & E are not said to have any sex till after being banished and not even as having the power to choose to or not without the knowledge of good and evil.


    You point to evil sex but A & E could not know evil or sex as sex has both good and evil aspects.


    For a guy in a science forum, you do not think too deeply.






    A) it had no effect prior to




    B) it would have made Adam and Eve immortal


    If B is true then God apparently didn't care and Adam and Eve just happened not to have already eaten from it. I don't see this as casting anyone in a good light, so I prefer A.


    As far as gaining a moral sense goes, I was really thinking in terms of metaphor not as a literal interpretation.


    If you want literal then God asked for good behavior from people lacking knowledge of good and evil. One can only hope that the whole thing was part of His Plan and that Adam and Eve weren't being punished but merely sent on their way as God intended from the start.

    It is not what I want but it is the literal view that has Christianity denying women and gays equality.


    That is why the myth deserves refutation.




    Because knowledge is power, and power may only be God's.


    And in a more practical sense, because the parable warns you, the lowly human, of the dangers of asking too many questions and being overly curious. God gave you a good thing here, dude. He knows best, and when he doesn't, your pastor does.


    This is all about power.




    That said, I disagree that the tree of knowledge is *all* of knowledge. Adam and Eve ate from it and they don't know everything; they got the sense of curiosity and the sense of doubt. It's a tree that has the *essense* of knowldge (which is the danger to god) rather than pure 1+1=2 knowldge.

    Power and money. For sure.


    As to knowledge of good and evil being connected to almost everything.

    Just to show how wrong you are, can you name a few things or issues where good and evil do not apply?




  6. From the Christian point of view, Jesus willingly sacrificed himself - which does not make him a scapegoat, but a martyr. It's a subtle, but important difference.

    So to you, Jesus was just a martyr and not our saviour. He did not die for us at all.


    All the Christians have it wrong then. Right?




    It is best to attack the reality of Christianity rather than attack strawmen.

    Only those of little intelligence and morals will name this a strawman.




    In addition to the obvious strawman that this is, as pointed out by previous posters, there is another problem. Christians are called to follow the example of Christ. Jesus taught us to be self-sacrificing. If somebody takes my cloak, I am commanded to not deny them my coat either. I am commanded to love my fellow man, the ultimate demonstration of which is to lay down my life for them.


    "Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends." John 15:13.

    So in contrast, the exact opposite of Christians are expected. In actuality, we are expected to confess our sins and accept the responsibility for them. Nothing could be further from using a "scapegoat".


    i John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.


    Jesus is your scapegoat and if you take Jesus out of Christianity, then there is no Christianity. Even Paul said that.


    Only lying Christians will say that Jesus was not a scapegoat.




    The essence of Christianity and similar religions is narcissism. Of course it's a deplorable view to accept a piece of superstition of such, and dress it up as a martyr for the forgiveness of their wrong doings.


    What they seem to claim as selflessness I can only view as cowardice and darn right ridiculous.



    Well technically God sacrificed his own human form to himself, and it very much had a religious significance, in the eyes of God.


    God offered himself to God with the human sacrifice of God to allow God to forgive the sins God allowed to happen.

    You see 20/20.




    God sacrificed his only son so we may be moved and fully understand the never ending limits to His forgiveness. It has always been about forgiveness (Hosea 6:6 & Matthew 6:19-21). Even if you live a life full of distrust, disbelief and misdirection yet you ask for forgiveness on the final second of the final hour, you will be forgiven. (Luke 23:43.)

    Yet scriptures also say that the vast majority of us will end in hell or dead.


    Only the really blind will see that as God's never ending limits to forgiveness.


    It looks more like never ending hate. To those who look.




    Depending on who you are, Catholics never take The Bible literally and/or take The Bible too literally, because they have things about their religion that are not in any other religion that uses The Bible, but that's entirely based on personal belief. It is true that from a human view, all religion is is just personal chosen life-styles, and if you are religious, you believe that there is something driving you to be religious, whether it's a deity or a self knowledge or self enlightenment or you fill in the blank. However, you cannot say that since different Catholics have different personal beliefs makes them a non-existing religious group (and correct me if I misinterpreted that). If a Muslim, for instance, and not to sound discriminate, goes and joins a group of terrorist extremist Muslims, does that make him no longer a Muslim? It was a little wrong to connect someone being Irish to someone being Catholic, because it's like how people try to connect someone being gay to someone being black, it makes no sense (they didn't choose to be black, but they chose to be gay. They didn't choose to be Irish, but they chose to be catholic). BUT it is true that you can't disregard someone from part of a group of people just because of the personal decisions they make. It is insulting to them because you are taking away their identity because of their lifestyle. Sometimes this is necessary, however, because as most religions say, if someone is saying they are some religion, but never practice or preform any of the necessities of that religion, then they are lying to themselves. But as a general definition, it is insulting to say someone is not part of a religion because of their personal choices. Instead of just saying that they are wrong, however again, you can help them find out what they are doing incorrectly and try to help them to stop doing what they're doing wrong.

    Exactly why I slant what I write to moral discussions. Christians tend to forgive their God even when found guilty though showing that the Christian religion will compromise the believers morals.


    Even here, look at the Christians who have embraced human sacrifice instead of denouncing it as immoral and do not care if an innocent man was murdered or not as long as they can profit from it.




  7. Have you investigated Gnostic Christianity?


    The Gnostic wing of Christianity, if it can even be called that today, has quite a few differences to Christianity and Catholicism.


    If the old Gnostic Christians were here, they would hardly recognize what has happened to the original Orthodox Catholic Church or it's various offshoots in Protestantism or Islam. The Gnostic Christian Jesus would have a fit and would be quite disappointed I think. I know that this Gnostic Christian is.


    The two main differences that moved the old Christians to kill Gnostic Christians and burn their scriptures was literalism in reading scriptures and the fact that the Gnostic version of Jesus was a Universalist.


    That Gnostic Christian Jesus, and the Gnostic Christians of that flavor, (there are likely as many Gnostic sects as Christian sects), sees a spark of God in all people including women and gays. That fact, to me, makes Gnostic Christianity a more desirable denomination of Christianity than all the rest.


    If a religion cannot abide with equality of the sexes then to my mind it is not a just religion and is not worthy of the support of moral people. Inequality is an immoral position and most of the Abrahamic cults are of that immoral persuasion.


    As the superior Catholic theology, it is my hope that Gnostic Christianity will eventually bury the non-egalitarian and immoral Christian cults as their members recognize that equality is the right moral system for all to live under.


    If you have investigated Gnostic Christianity, do you agree that from a moral POV, they are the superior Christian theology thanks to equality and Universalism?




  8. Most people would not teach their children to use a scapegoat at school because of the reputation and shame it would give the child.


    Yet Christians plan on doing that very thing to get themselves into heaven. They call it the sacrifice of Jesus, but regardless, it is still using a scapegoat.


    Christians have to embrace human sacrifice and the notion that it is good justice to punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

    Is that a good moral teaching for Christians or not?






  9. Endy


    Presumably is not allowed as it adds to the story and we are not to do so.


    If you are correct and that it is a story of how to gain a moral sense, then was God wrong in punishing A & E for doing the right thing?









    Churches are not into social manipulation are they?


    Just kidding. Good point.









    There is nothing in the text that supports your view and I discard it for that reason.


    You did not speak to the equality of women and gays.


    Are they equal in all ways to you and I?









    The tree of knowledge is te knowledge of almost everything.


    Care to wonder why God would want us to stay in ignorant bliss and as bright as bricks.


    Not even knowing one is naked made A & E as dumb as rocks, --- or maybe 2 year olds.




  10. Apologies. I could not use the quote function here.






    You do know that this myth has been used to discriminate and denigrate women and gays forever. Right?


    It is disingenuous FMPOV to make light of it and not discredit literal reading of it.


    Do you believe that women and gays are second class citizens?









    Scriptures show God doing the first killing but do you really believe that there was no death before Original Sin or that man doing sin created death?




  11. The Trinity concept was basically forced down the throat of the church that Constantine bought with pain of death to any that went against him. He rigged the vote so that he could become the next God/Man. That was a custom of the God/Emperors.


    That aside, I think that the only way to know if Jesus was real or not would be to analyse his policies for their morality.


    I see most of what he says as unworkable rhetoric and some issues, like his divorce policy, is anti-love and completely immoral.


    That tells me that Jesus is a made up character.


    Historically, there is no evidence for Jesus and morally either.


    He is a cut above his genocidal son murdering father but still had a lot of wisdom to find.


    If you Google --- Secrets of Christianity- Selling Christianity, you will see Constantine's victory arch and that there is not a cross on it.


    Morals will decide if Jesus is worthy or not and I say not.




  12. Hmm, is help ever required? That's an interesting ethical question. How do you answer it?



    This equation only determines how it would be best to preserve your parents' variations, but you only have half of each parent's variations, unless they share some variations. Note that I am defining "variation" in the context of the entire population. But they are no more likely to share variations than you and your wife are. You would probably be right if the parents were very similar genetically, because that would result in highly similar offspring.


    Also, if a DNA test isn't available, they could choose among siblings on the basis of sex. Similarly sexed siblings will share at least one of their chromosomes, assuming they have the same father. The daughters got daddy's X, and the sons got daddy's Y.

    On the other hand, a sibling that doesn't have the same father will only have 1/4 of your DNA.



    Thank you both. I think I have confirmed my point and will pass this on to my friend and see if he agrees.


    If you are interested in this issue, you can find it here-------




    If he has questions I will let him ask those here who likely know more of this issue than I do. For me, it was more of a math question.




  13. In a post I made this statement and have forgotten where I read on it and would appreciate any help in proving my point. The poster I was adressing does not believe that if one's only purpose is to save a genetic line, that it is more advantagious to save a sibbling than a son.


    Greatest I am wrote:


    Your parents are a and b. You and your siblings are 1/2a and 1/2b Your children are ½ of 1/2a and 1/2b + ½ of your wife 1/2c + 1/2d ---- c and d coming from her parents. Note that your closest match is your siblings and not your children.



    His reply to me was------



    "Please provide evidence because I believe you are completely making that up."


    To date I have been unable to link to anything that proves my point. If you can help, I would be thankful.





  14. I wrote this primarily for a religious audience but it crosses between the politics of war as well as religion.


    Please focus on the political aspects and war as what I am looking for is how to prevent the evils of war as resources become short in various areas.








    Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

    And if you cannot, why would God punish you?


    Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by putting forward their free will argument and placing all the blame on mankind.

    That usually sounds like ----God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy. Such statements simply avoid God's culpability as the author and creator of human nature.


    Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.


    If all do evil/sin by nature then, the evil/sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not do evil/sin. Can we then help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?


    Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil and sin is all human generated and in this sense, I agree with Christians, but for completely different reasons. Evil is mankind’s responsibility and not some imaginary God’s. Free will is something that can only be taken. Free will cannot be given not even by a God unless it has been forcibly withheld.


    Much has been written to explain evil and sin but I see as a natural part of evolution.



    First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created. Without intent to do evil, no act should be called evil.

    In secular courts, this is called mens rea. Latin for an evil mind or intent and without it, the court will not find someone guilty even if they know that they are the perpetrator of the act.


    Evil then is only human to human when they know they are doing evil and intend harm.

    As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.

    Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil, at all times.


    Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.


    This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.


    Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, you should see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us. Wherever it came from, God or nature, without evolution we would go extinct. We must do good and evil.


    There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.


    These links speak to theistic evolution.






    If theistic evolution is true, then the myth of Eden should be read as a myth and there is not really any original sin.


    If the above is not convincing enough for you then show me where in this baby evil lives or is a part of it’s nature and instincts.



    Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

    And if you cannot, why would God punish you?



    DL <br clear="all">

  15. Comprehending reality Poe and Candid style.



    Poe said...


    If we cannot comprehend God in his visible works, how thenin his inconceivable thoughts, that call the works into being? If we cannotunderstand him in his objective creatures, how then in his substantive moodsand phases of creation?



    I replace Poe’s “God” with reality or nature.



    These views are what led to my apotheosis and I endorse themwholeheartedly.



    When I was a seeker, before I found this clip below. I hadconcluded that reality was in the best and only state that it could be in. Thisbest state included nature as well as man within it.



    When this was written, most thought it to just be a cynicalview of life but I think it is quite true and irrefutable, based on theanthropic principle.






    "It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwisethan as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they mustnecessarily be created for the best end.”






    The above quote should make sense if you see nature alwaysdoing the best it can with all the conditions at hand taken into account.



    Just looking at nature and mankind then at this point intime, can we agree that what we have is the best of all possible worlds, givenall the conditions at hand?



    To set you on the tract and mindset that I developed, Iwould like you to think of the day you were born.


    Can you say that given all the conditions at hand back then,your DNA and all other conditions, nature produced you to the very bestcondition that she could muster?



    If yes, consider that the next day let’s say, after youbegan to learned and found the teat and continued learning and developing,right till today, that the initial best you, in the best of all possible world,are continuously aging as the best thatyou can possible be, given all theconditions at hand.


    Not perfect, but the best you can possibly be.



    Are you living in the best of all possible world and are youtoday, the best that nature can produce, given all the conditions at hand?







  16. The land of the free. Fact or meaningless rhetoric?



    Rhetoric is described as language that is not honest,sincere, or meaningful.



    I am French. French has no word that equates to freedom or freewill as understood by the English. This makes freedom and land of the free purerhetorical statements and basically a dishonest statement. These terms are ideasor a reality that are impossible to have.



    Freedom and free will then just becomes something that Iwould name as liberty. Liberty is described as permission especially to gofreely within specified limits. That says to me that we are only free to followthe rules of society and those in power.



    That being the case, is land of the free a true andmeaningful expression?



    Would it be more accurate to say land of liberty to followthe rules?



    Free will is defined as freedom of humans to make choicesthat are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention.



    Free will translates to being your own master and not havingyour will hampered by any outside influence not of your choosing.



    Does any law or divine command negate free will, freedom ofchoice and the notion of a ---- Land of the free?







  17. Let me be

    the first to give a serious reply.


    The good

    So, yes, it is true

    that we have leaders in our society. They are the heads of state, ministers, and

    the leaders of large enterprises, as well as a number of very wealthy investors,

    etc., etc... The more money/goods/people you control, the more influence you

    have. So far, nothing new. I also agree that we need those leaders. The

    alternative could be anarchy, and although anarchists claim that would be nice,

    it wouldn't. I also agree that if we would dispose (somehow) of our current

    leaders, that someone else would become the new leader. For example, the

    anarchists might have an inspiring anarchist leader, which they would follow.

    Yes, there are anarchists who have organized themselves. Silly idiots.



    far, these are only really obvious things.



    True but they seem to go right by some.




    The bad

    But I also disagree with a number of things in the OP:


    First and foremost, why do you use that silly word "illuminati"?? It's connected to conspiracy stories, and as you can see, nobody wants to be associated with that (including myself). So, don't use that stupid word if you want to be taken seriously.

    Secondly, I disagree that our leaders need more power. Some argue that centralized financial power has caused the current crisis, and I agree. I do not think centralizing power can solve all problems. Also, the Soviets tried to run their economy from a centralized point of view, and it failed.


    And the funny

    Your proposal to give the Illuminati more power fits right in with the ultimate goal of the Illuminati: the New World Order (to form a single world government)... so I can only conclude that you are part of the Illuminati yourself.


    I used Illuminati because that is what the world has namedthose in our oligarchies have named those in power. To them a hidden group. Tome hidden in plain sight.



    Do you have a suggestion for what else I should have namedthat group?



    As to giving them power.


    If we gave them official power, with a mandate ofstabilizing the economy, with our guarantee of compliance and their investment,that stability would profit us all more in the long run than the presentchaotic fluctuations that presently plague the world.



    Better the devil you know and have control over than thedevil you do not know.



    We live in a world where Governments basically controldamned near everything else so it seems folly to me to leave one of the mostimportant parts of life to run itself. With the power we give them would alsocome their responsibility of stabilizing our shaky economy.









  18. The secret of the Illuminati and why they are identifiableyet unstoppable.



    The Illuminati is a natural consequence and phenomenon ofour monetary system. It cannot help but exist, whether we want it to or not.That is why it is unstoppable.



    Who controls the Illuminati?


    Collectively, we do. Directly and through our governments. Theyare in plain sight at the top of our socio economic demographic pyramid.



    The Illuminati is a known group of people or corporationswhom we allow to operate. It has been manipulating and controlling society formany years with Government and societal approval and collusion. Let me beclear. The Illuminati exist because we all allow them to. We allow ourselves tobe led and manipulated to their ends. All of us including you support them everytime you take a job or buy a product. We contribute to their coffers and agendadaily while at the same time, they cannot help but contribute to our welfare. Thisis of course a minimal contribution on their part. This being the only drawbackto the present system.



    Should the Illuminati be stopped?


    No. If they ever did disappear, we would invent a newIlluminati.



    Why not stop them?


    Because society would go to chaos and our socio economicdemographic pyramid would collapse. This collapse would only be for a short time.It would soon resume its natural and uncontrolled shape.



    Should the Illuminati be given more power?


    Yes. They could stabilize our common and bring a higher longterm profit and wealth for all.



    Will we give them more power?


    No. People fear what is already there and fear their ownpower to rule and control the economy. We are cowards and fear that we lack thewisdom and thus allow chaos to run our economy.



    If you are wise, you will know that you can know who theIlluminati are and you will also know that you are helping them exist.



    Are you aware of this?



    Their secret identities are in plain sight to the wise. Ifyou do not know them yet or how you are helping them exist, let’s chat.







  19. O say can you see, the U. S. Oligarchy?



    The U. S. is on sale. Buy it while it’s hot.



    O say can you see,


    by the dawn's early light,


    what so proudly we hailed


    we now proudly renounce.











    Plato theorized that democracies, as they matured, evolvedinto oligarchies or plutocracies. We are witnessing exactly that.



    When the new political election funding laws came intoeffect, the U. S. democratic system became an oligarchy or plutocracy. Billionairesare now buying political candidates and are in fact buying the leadership ofthe nation. They are now the power behind the throne and control the governmentand thus the people. Now, instead of working 9 to 5, Americans are working24/7.



    When did the U. S. devolve from the leading democracy of theWest, to a tyranny up for sale?








  20. tar


    Apotheosis does say raised to a divine level but I would add the word rapprochement to the description. A getting closer.


    It is an experiencing of the Godhead or cosmic consciousness for sure but only at the bottom of the ladder. So to speak. Somewhat like listening to an expert speaking for 15 minutes. One can get a sense of the issue and how he thinks of it but then if the student wants to know the topic in depth, he must put in many hours of study.








    No, the best way to learn a rigid set of rules like science is to teach those rules to others




    Thanks for confirming what I said while denying it.




  21. Theist. Who is your Lord and Monarch? Satan or Jesus?


    Dogma says that God evicted Satan from heaven because he would not bow to man.


    God also gave man dominion in Eden and this sovereignty was somehow given to Satan. We know this because he used it to tempt Jesus. His dominion thus had to be real or the temptation is a lie.


    Dogma also says that through Jesus is now the only way for man to reach heaven. The hierarchy of powers over man seems to thus be God at the top, if allowed by Jesus. Second would be Satan as man’s rightful sovereign. Third would be Jesus who usurped the position of the Trinity as the final judge for our admittance to heaven.


    The various position of the three mentioned can be argued but regardless of who is where, it still means that there are three invisible supernatural entities above man.


    This is contrary to the fact that God initially wanted man to be in the third position and not the forth.


    In nature, something man is a part of, all entities look to their own for guidance, laws and example to follow. Man breaks this natural pattern by placing three silent and invisible alien entities above us. A Father God who shows himself to not be a very good parent in Eden. A Satan entity who, even though is supposed to represent evil, is given sovereignty over man after God clawed back that dominion from us. And finally a Jesus entity who offers the greatest example of love, as well as the greatest example of hate as the gateway to heaven and hell.


    We are learning that it is a good idea to work along with nature and not spoil it. Climate change being the teacher. We may be living souls but we must be human and natural first in order for the soul to have a home.


    Why then are you, a human, going against nature by placing some other entity above you for the example, leadership and salvation that you think you need? That is counter to all of natures examples to us?


    Much is said of the so called free will that God is said to have given man. Yet we all know what happened to Adam and Eve the moment they exercised their will and not the will of God. It was not pretty. God set the conditions for their death and I call that murder. We can see that God does not allow man a free will.


    Why are you self deprecating yourself to a secondary position to an unknowable master? Why have you given up your free will to the will of an alien entity who basically says that if you do not do his will, you will burn for eternity? A threat from a tyrant and not free will at all.


    To me, that is like a slave deciding to venerate and adore his owner.


    Why are you not choosing your natural position of leadership or following human leadership? Why are you choosing a position that is basically of a slave?


    Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)


    John 8 44

    Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.



    If Satan is our earthly King and father as scripture says, are you to serve Satan with deep respect and fear, or Jesus, who has no authority or dominion on earth?







  22. A question for atheists. In a world where there's no proof of God's existence or of life after death; how will you explain to your children why you brought them into the world and why they should die?


    What is wrong in telling the truth.


    That life is great even with the few burdens we must carry.


    Would your life not be worth living without your faith in your unproven heaven waiting for you?


    If there is nothing after death, not my belief BTW, would you curse the life that you had, or thank the stars that you found even a bit of enjoyment in it?







  23. Reading Genesis, the garden of Eden doesn't seem like a very nice place to me.

    Never changing, no challenges, nothing new or stimulating, not allowed to question anything or try anything, never dying. What use is free will if you can't exercise it? Does anyone really think living like that would be pleasant or have any meaning?

    This seems worse than the descriptions of hell I've seen.



    I agree. Eden would be like death.


    This clip shows an analogy of man living in Eden without the knowledge of good and evil.




    Thank God, so to speak, we escaped that imaginary place or mankind would not have the great history of progress that we have. No, I have not forgotten the wars and hardships but better progress with hardships than stagnation.








    The big curses of leaving the garden of eden were that Adam had to eat of the plants of the fields by the sweat of his brow. In the garden, he supposedly could live from the natural bounty of the trees, which would have been more leisurely. Eve's curse was to experience pain in childbirth, so presumably she could have lived in the garden without worrying about herself, her husband, or her children dying and there would have been enough food to sustain unlimited growth. That would have been a pretty care-free life, don't you think? Living without labor, pain, or worries and being able to devote your life to being fruitful (sexually and in any other constructive/creative undertaking you choose) and multiplying (having children who don't bicker and behave in negative ways - only engage in constructive life-enhancing activities)?





    Sure. Except for the fact that mankind would be as bright as your average cow.


    Only sheeple would want to live such lives.


    We could all do it though. Frontal lobotomies are cheep in bulk.


    If one of your frolicking children from A & E happened to have an accident or fall in the water, they would not know it was evil and just watch.


    Only fools would want such a place of ignorant bliss and even they would be too dumb to know it was not good as again, they would know nothing of good or evil.








    After that, the Bearodactyl



    Wow. look at those drumsticks.




  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.