Is it foolish to call God, “Father”?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Is it foolish to call God, “Father”?


As above, so below says the Lord’s Prayer.

God’s first legal decision has him demanding that Jesus be a human sacrifice to rescind God’s own condemnation of his own creation.

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

Quite good for Christians, --- while quite evil to others who do not condone human sacrifice, --- just because a God whose reality has yet to be shown demands it.

The main point is; would any father or mother who reads this O. P., ever choose such a sacrifice, given that other venues were available as they were with God?

Your own answer says that you would expect a Father to find another way and that such a God is not a worthy God.

Do you agree that to call God, Father, is to insult the word father, --- as no human father would be so evil.

Is it foolish to call God, Father?

Regards
DL

[Abbey Marie]

Is it foolish to reply to Gnostic's endless God-hating threads?


Let's ask a Communications expert...


http://i43.tinypic.com/28ahoyd.jpg

[SassyLady]

Is it foolish to call God, “Father”?


As above, so below says the Lord’s Prayer.

God’s first legal decision has him demanding that Jesus be a human sacrifice to rescind God’s own condemnation of his own creation.

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

Quite good for Christians, --- while quite evil to others who do not condone human sacrifice, --- just because a God whose reality has yet to be shown demands it.

The main point is; would any father or mother who reads this O. P., ever choose such a sacrifice, given that other venues were available as they were with God?

Your own answer says that you would expect a Father to find another way and that such a God is not a worthy God.

Do you agree that to call God, Father, is to insult the word father, --- as no human father would be so evil.
Is it foolish to call God, Father?

Regards
DL




Are you kidding me .... have you been living in a nutshell or what?

Some fathers kill their children all time and it's not to further any type of redemption for anyone. Some fathers use their children for their own desires and then kill them. Some fathers kill their daughters for daring to look at another male, or ask to drive or for being vulnerable enough to get raped without six male witnesses.

Obviously you are wearing blinders when it comes to the sins that are committed by some human fathers.

To answer your question, no, it is not foolish. Even human children who are horribly abused will still call their sires "father".

[logroller]

Is it foolish to call God, “Father”?


As above, so below says the Lord’s Prayer.

God’s first legal decision has him demanding that Jesus be a human sacrifice to rescind God’s own condemnation of his own creation.

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

Quite good for Christians, --- while quite evil to others who do not condone human sacrifice, --- just because a God whose reality has yet to be shown demands it.

The main point is; would any father or mother who reads this O. P., ever choose such a sacrifice, given that other venues were available as they were with God?

Your own answer says that you would expect a Father to find another way and that such a God is not a worthy God.

Do you agree that to call God, Father, is to insult the word father, --- as no human father would be so evil.

Is it foolish to call God, Father?

Regards
DL



Once again you presuppose too much. As dark is the absence of light, so too is evil the absence of good. For if there is good in an action, then such is surely not evil. Jesus knew that his bodily sacrifice was necessary for the salvation of man-- a good thing and therefore not evil.

Its foolish to ignore the good of something because you haven't faith.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Are you kidding me .... have you been living in a nutshell or what?

Some fathers kill their children all time and it's not to further any type of redemption for anyone. Some fathers use their children for their own desires and then kill them. Some fathers kill their daughters for daring to look at another male, or ask to drive or for being vulnerable enough to get raped without six male witnesses.

Obviously you are wearing blinders when it comes to the sins that are committed by some human fathers.

To answer your question, no, it is not foolish. Even human children who are horribly abused will still call their sires "father".

Yes but are they respecting the name? No.


Neither is Jesus if he apples it to his father who had him needlessly murdered.

No one should call such a moral monster a God or Father.

Regards
DL


Once again you presuppose too much. As dark is the absence of light, so too is evil the absence of good. For if there is good in an action, then such is surely not evil. Jesus knew that his bodily sacrifice was necessary for the salvation of man-- a good thing and therefore not evil.

Its foolish to ignore the good of something because you haven't faith.

So if God tells you that human sacrifice is good, and that punishing the innocent instead of the guity, even if not necessary, you will embrace it.

Nice Satanic morals friend. You like that as long as you are not the sacrifice. Typical Christian with corrupted morality.

Regards
DL

[SassyLady]

Yes but are they respecting the name? No.


Neither is Jesus if he apples it to his father who had him needlessly murdered.

No one should call such a moral monster a God or Father.

Regards
DL

This is the question I answered. You did not ask if it was respectful or not.



Do you agree that to call God, Father, is to insult the word father, --- as no human father would be so evil.

Is it foolish to call God, Father?

"Foolish", "needlessly", "murdered" are words that can be applied to anything by anybody based upon their own world perspective .... if you wish to use these labels, that is your prerogative.

From your posts it's obvious that you have no clue about Christianity. Perhaps you come here and post because you are trying to find you way ..... I hope you find what you are looking for.

[Kathianne]

My opinion only, if NO ONE responded to his idiotship, he'd be gone.

It's already working to a degree.

He's a troll. He needs to be ignored.

[Jeff]

My opinion only, if NO ONE responded to his idiotship, he'd be gone.

It's already working to a degree.

He's a troll. He needs to be ignored.


:trolls::trolls::trolls:

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

This is the question I answered. You did not ask if it was respectful or not.



"Foolish", "needlessly", "murdered" are words that can be applied to anything by anybody based upon their own world perspective .... if you wish to use these labels, that is your prerogative.

From your posts it's obvious that you have no clue about Christianity. Perhaps you come here and post because you are trying to find you way ..... I hope you find what you are looking for.

I have ad it does not include having to adore a genocidal son murdering God.

One last question.

Is God a just judge?

This speaks of Jesus.

He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

The above quote shows this as Gods first actual judgement and shows his setting and accepting a bribe of a human sacrifice to corrupt or alter his justice and judgement.

Justice usually states that only the punishment of the guilty is acceptable to justice and that it would be unjust to punish the innocent.

God’s corruption of this usual justice is what the bribe or sacrifice of Jesus bought. Injustice.

If you elect your judges in your country, would you vote God in as a fair and just judge knowing that he can be bribed?

Is God a just judge?

Regards
DL

[darin]

Is it foolish to call God, “Father”?


As above, so below says the Lord’s Prayer.

God’s first legal decision has him demanding that Jesus be a human sacrifice to rescind God’s own condemnation of his own creation.

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

Quite good for Christians, --- while quite evil to others who do not condone human sacrifice, --- just because a God whose reality has yet to be shown demands it.

The main point is; would any father or mother who reads this O. P., ever choose such a sacrifice, given that other venues were available as they were with God?

Your own answer says that you would expect a Father to find another way and that such a God is not a worthy God.

Do you agree that to call God, Father, is to insult the word father, --- as no human father would be so evil.

Is it foolish to call God, Father?

Regards
DL




God loves it when they call him Big Poppa

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I see that moral questions and their answers are beyond some.

Regards
DL

[darin]

I see that moral questions and their answers are beyond some.

Regards
DL


Don't hate me, hate the bible.

Leviticus 17:17-21

(17) " I doth love it when ye call me big poppa " Throw yer hands in thee air, if you'se a true player (18) "I doth love it when ye call me big pop-pa" (19) To thee honies gettin' gold playin' niggas like dummies (20)"I love it when ye call me big poppa" If ye got a gun up in yer waist please don't shoot up thee haven (why?) (21)'Cause I see some ladies tonight that should be havin' me baby, baby

[logroller]

So if God tells you that human sacrifice is good, and that punishing the innocent instead of the guity, even if not necessary, you will embrace it.

Thats a big IF there gnostic. Its an intriguing dichotomy that you wish it to be, but it is intrinsically flawed. For We sacrifice our innocence everyday--it's called sin. At the moment you perceive something is wrong and do so anyway or perceive something is right and don't do so--you aren't innocent any longer. So please show me where all these innocent people are that God has ordained it good to sacrifice. I know of only one; He's seated at the right hand of the Father.


What if your father called upon you to sacrifice yourself; would you embrace it?

[DragonStryk72]

Is it foolish to call God, “Father”?


As above, so below says the Lord’s Prayer.

God’s first legal decision has him demanding that Jesus be a human sacrifice to rescind God’s own condemnation of his own creation.

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

Quite good for Christians, --- while quite evil to others who do not condone human sacrifice, --- just because a God whose reality has yet to be shown demands it.

The main point is; would any father or mother who reads this O. P., ever choose such a sacrifice, given that other venues were available as they were with God?

Your own answer says that you would expect a Father to find another way and that such a God is not a worthy God.

Do you agree that to call God, Father, is to insult the word father, --- as no human father would be so evil.

Is it foolish to call God, Father?

Regards
DL




Many have been chosen in the Bible, such as Moses, but they were never *forced* to do God's will, nor was Christ. Going back to Moses: He could have tapped only once with the staff, but instead chose to tap more than once. Ramses witnessed the ten plagues, and at each one, just kept choosing the worst path. Same thing with Noah, he could've just been like, "Man, I got quit drinkin' so much."

Hell, God even allowed for King Solomon arguing with Him over the construction of the first temple.

That's the thing with Free Will. It means that you're free to choose the other path, even if it might lead to bad places. Christ knew what he was getting into, and knew how it would end, and he still chose it.

You act as though God personally shackled Jesus to it, but as was shown in the desert, with the temptation of Christ by Satan, Christ was possessed of human free will, and could have chosen to use his powers for evil. He chose not to.


Thats a big IF there gnostic. Its an intriguing dichotomy that you wish it to be, but it is intrinsically flawed. For We sacrifice our innocence everyday--it's called sin. At the moment you perceive something is wrong and do so anyway or perceive something is right and don't do so--you aren't innocent any longer. So please show me where all these innocent people are that God has ordained it good to sacrifice. I know of only one; He's seated at the right hand of the Father.


What if your father called upon you to sacrifice yourself; would you embrace it?

Um, not technically true. At the marketplace in the temple, Jesus gave in to wrath when he drove them out.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Thats a big IF there gnostic. Its an intriguing dichotomy that you wish it to be, but it is intrinsically flawed. For We sacrifice our innocence everyday--it's called sin. At the moment you perceive something is wrong and do so anyway or perceive something is right and don't do so--you aren't innocent any longer. So please show me where all these innocent people are that God has ordained it good to sacrifice. I know of only one; He's seated at the right hand of the Father.


What if your father called upon you to sacrifice yourself; would you embrace it?

Been there and done that.

How can Jesus, who has no rump, sit beside himself He is God. Right?


"We sacrifice our innocence everyday--it's called sin."
Thanks for this dumb remark. and add a new concept to your poor thinking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

The innocent cannot sin.

Regards
DL


Many have been chosen in the Bible, such as Moses, but they were never *forced* to do God's will, nor was Christ. Going back to Moses: He could have tapped only once with the staff, but instead chose to tap more than once. Ramses witnessed the ten plagues, and at each one, just kept choosing the worst path. Same thing with Noah, he could've just been like, "Man, I got quit drinkin' so much."

Hell, God even allowed for King Solomon arguing with Him over the construction of the first temple.

That's the thing with Free Will. It means that you're free to choose the other path, even if it might lead to bad places. Christ knew what he was getting into, and knew how it would end, and he still chose it.

You act as though God personally shackled Jesus to it, but as was shown in the desert, with the temptation of Christ by Satan, Christ was possessed of human free will, and could have chosen to use his powers for evil. He chose not to.

If you red scriptures literally you also see God torturing Kind David; son for six days before finally killing it all because he was angry with David.

We can continue in literal mode if you like that vile prick of a God.

Or we can go to reality instead of your fantasy world.

http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/doubtingexodus.htm

----------------------------------

So you think that Satan would think that Jesus/God could be tempted by something he already owned.

How droll.

Literalists are so funny. Too bad it is so sad to lose another mind to senseless fantasy, miracles and magic.

Regards
DL

[red state]

Many have been chosen in the Bible, such as Moses, but they were never *forced* to do God's will, nor was Christ. Going back to Moses: He could have tapped only once with the staff, but instead chose to tap more than once. Ramses witnessed the ten plagues, and at each one, just kept choosing the worst path. Same thing with Noah, he could've just been like, "Man, I got quit drinkin' so much."

Hell, God even allowed for King Solomon arguing with Him over the construction of the first temple.

That's the thing with Free Will. It means that you're free to choose the other path, even if it might lead to bad places. Christ knew what he was getting into, and knew how it would end, and he still chose it.

You act as though God personally shackled Jesus to it, but as was shown in the desert, with the temptation of Christ by Satan, Christ was possessed of human free will, and could have chosen to use his powers for evil. He chose not to.

Um, not technically true. At the marketplace in the temple, Jesus gave in to wrath when he drove them out.


Wrong, wrong, wrong......Christ never gave in to temptation, stumbled or failed. He simply GAVE.......period! He gave his power, HIS wisdom and HIS life (which was OUR condemnation...not His). Had He not paid our debt and served our sentence, we'd still be condemned. As a PERFECT example, Christ did what we all should do when wrongs are committed.............................He made it RIGHT. those guys he drove out were making a mockery of HIS house. If anyone came into my house and disrespected me, I (as a Christian would open up a "can" on them too).

The wrath of God (if this is what Christ was displaying while making things RIGHT) is NOT a sin and unless I'm mistaking what you said, I stand by this because I see no where in this account of Christ acting out of WRATH.

Matthew 21:10-20King James Version

10 And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this?
11 And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.
12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.
15 And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the son of David; they were sore displeased,
16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?
17 And he left them, and went out of the city into Bethany; and he lodged there.

[aboutime]

Just a reminder to those who question, and must constantly be raking the coals to incite here.

Explain this, and answer the question yourself.

Reportedly. While a man was on the cross. He was heard to say:

"FATHER, forgive them. For they know Not what they do!"

If any member reading this thread can vouch for, or verify anything differently because YOU WERE THERE.

Let's hear it. And provide a LINK.

[DragonStryk72]

Wrong, wrong, wrong......Christ never gave in to temptation, stumbled or failed. He simply GAVE.......period! He gave his power, HIS wisdom and HIS life (which was OUR condemnation...not His). Had He not paid our debt and served our sentence, we'd still be condemned. As a PERFECT example, Christ did what we all should do when wrongs are committed.............................He made it RIGHT. those guys he drove out were making a mockery of HIS house. If anyone came into my house and disrespected me, I (as a Christian would open up a "can" on them too).

The wrath of God (if this is what Christ was displaying while making things RIGHT) is NOT a sin and unless I'm mistaking what you said, I stand by this because I see no where in this account of Christ acting out of WRATH.

Matthew 21:10-20King James Version

10 And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this?
11 And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.
12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple,and overthrew the tablesof the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.
15 And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the son of David; they were sore displeased,
16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?
17 And he left them, and went out of the city into Bethany; and he lodged there.

Flipping tables is an act of wrath, because notice it doesn't say, "He asked them politely to leave". Nope, straight to driving them out. Again, that's wrath.

If there was no temptation of Christ, then why is the story in the Bible? What, Jesus was just trying to bump up his rep? I grew up going to Catholic school, RS. Sorry, but you're incorrect here.

Your assumption that Jesus committed no sins in his life is just not correct, and was never a lesson that he wanted us to take. Heck, you remember "Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone."? Remember how he didn't cast a stone after that? He didn't hold himself above us all. You attempting to do so diminishes His message and life.

I never said Christ gave in to temptation, I said he was tempted. In order to be tempted, he has to be able to be tempted into sin. Him overcoming temptation is a strength, not the weakness you seem dead set on making it.

So please, stop trying to lessen Christ, and see some the strength of his that you've missed.

[DragonStryk72]

Been there and done that.

How can Jesus, who has no rump, sit beside himself He is God. Right?


"We sacrifice our innocence everyday--it's called sin."
Thanks for this dumb remark. and add a new concept to your poor thinking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

The innocent cannot sin.

Regards
DL



If you red scriptures literally you also see God torturing Kind David; son for six days before finally killing it all because he was angry with David.

We can continue in literal mode if you like that vile prick of a God.

Or we can go to reality instead of your fantasy world.

http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/doubtingexodus.htm

----------------------------------

So you think that Satan would think that Jesus/God could be tempted by something he already owned.

How droll.

Literalists are so funny. Too bad it is so sad to lose another mind to senseless fantasy, miracles and magic.

Regards
DL

SO, you're just abandoning the whole choice thing. Nice to see you concede the core of your argument. Jesus had a choice in the matter, Satan didn't tempt him with NEW power, he tempted Christ to use his own powers to make himself comfortable, to break his fast, and in so doing, turn from the path. Jesus felt pain, felt hunger, or else, he wasn't human, which was sort of the whole point of the exercise.

Now, to skip down to the next point: Torture. Actually, there was no torture. Read the whole section you're trying to reference. A child got sick, and died, and another was born to them. That's about it, and given the time period, not precisely an uncommon thing to happen. It was Nathan's conjecture that God did it, as God only stated that it was going to happen, not that he would cause it.

Ah, good, you posted a biased article link. Nice to know you're not posting links with any objective merit. Lord, I might have had to actually work for a minute. "It was probably" is not scientific. Oh, and just so we're clear, one of my favorite quotes: "I refuse to believe that the same God who gave men Reason, would then deny its use."

You wanna debate this? You better step up your game. So far, it's been pretty weak, clearly stemming from not actually reading the source material for yourself.

[logroller]

Been there and done that.
You mean, considered there and dismissed that.



How can Jesus, who has no rump, sit beside himself He is God. Right?
Its figurative, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figurative


We sacrifice our innocence everyday--it's called sin.

Thanks for this dumb remark. and add a new concept to your poor thinking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

Thanks for validating my qualifying remarks:

At the moment you perceive something is wrong and do so anyway or perceive something is right and don't do so--you aren't innocent any longer.
Plus it's cruelly ironic that you'd accuse me of poor thinking after I've already established your propensity for committing logical fallacies. For example :


The innocent cannot sin.
Correction: the innocent have not sinned, but they can.
If a then not b:
if someone is innocent, then they have not sinned.
The above syllogism is true.
whereas, if someone has free will, then they can choose to sin. An innocent person has free will, therefore, they can sin and have not done so.

ust how gnostic do you think yourself; this is pretty basic logic. Educate yourself mr Wikipedia.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

SO, you're just abandoning the whole choice thing. Nice to see you concede the core of your argument. Jesus had a choice in the matter, Satan didn't tempt him with NEW power, he tempted Christ to use his own powers to make himself comfortable, to break his fast, and in so doing, turn from the path. Jesus felt pain, felt hunger, or else, he wasn't human, which was sort of the whole point of the exercise.

Now, to skip down to the next point: Torture. Actually, there was no torture. Read the whole section you're trying to reference. A child got sick, and died, and another was born to them. That's about it, and given the time period, not precisely an uncommon thing to happen. It was Nathan's conjecture that God did it, as God only stated that it was going to happen, not that he would cause it.

Ah, good, you posted a biased article link. Nice to know you're not posting links with any objective merit. Lord, I might have had to actually work for a minute. "It was probably" is not scientific. Oh, and just so we're clear, one of my favorite quotes: "I refuse to believe that the same God who gave men Reason, would then deny its use."

You wanna debate this? You better step up your game. So far, it's been pretty weak, clearly stemming from not actually reading the source material for yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI

Regards
DL

[aboutime]

Because of WHO I think might be calling himself Gnostic here.

I suspect this link...may apply. http://www.godhatesfags.com/

[DragonStryk72]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI

Regards
DL

Yeah, a movie, well-acted one, but a movie. So.... you've got nothing, huh?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Yeah, a movie, well-acted one, but a movie. So.... you've got nothing, huh?

So you do not agree with the morality shown.

That means that you have even less. You d have genocidal son murderer as your God. Love your satanic hero.

Regards
DL

[aboutime]

So you do not agree with the morality shown.

That means that you have even less. You d have genocidal son murderer as your God. Love your satanic hero.

Regards
DL

Thank you (Gnostic)...I mean...Mister Phelps. You swore you would haunt from the grave, and HERE you are.

Maybe now would be a good time to COME OUT OF THE CLOSET.

[DragonStryk72]

So you do not agree with the morality shown.

That means that you have even less. You d have genocidal son murderer as your God. Love your satanic hero.

Regards
DL

Again, the Romans murdered him, not God, and they only did so at the behest of the Jews. It was a whole thing, with Pontius Pilate sentencing him, Longhenis stabbing with the spear at the end. It was God that resurrected him.

Also, the argument used in the movie clip is rife with oversimplification, and leaves out many facts. It's their purely to give weight to the other side of the argument. If you have to leave out facts to support your argument, it isn't an argument worth having.

[red state]

Flipping tables is an act of wrath, because notice it doesn't say, "He asked them politely to leave". Nope, straight to driving them out. Again, that's wrath.

If there was no temptation of Christ, then why is the story in the Bible? What, Jesus was just trying to bump up his rep? I grew up going to Catholic school, RS. Sorry, but you're incorrect here.

Your assumption that Jesus committed no sins in his life is just not correct, and was never a lesson that he wanted us to take. Heck, you remember "Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone."? Remember how he didn't cast a stone after that? He didn't hold himself above us all. You attempting to do so diminishes His message and life.

I never said Christ gave in to temptation, I said he was tempted. In order to be tempted, he has to be able to be tempted into sin. Him overcoming temptation is a strength, not the weakness you seem dead set on making it.

So please, stop trying to lessen Christ, and see some the strength of his that you've missed.


You are still incorrect......DUTY, and honorable actions (regardless of such actions/duty being violent or not) is not WRATH. The Bible says that God has been a God of Wrath but this was not such an occasion and this scene is void of wrath or the mention of wrath. I have many family members and friends who have KILLED in the line of duty but it was NOT wrath. There is a difference.....

[red state]

Those who believe Christ sinned are simply a lost cause (especially given the many accounts Old and New Testament) that proves otherwise. We all need to read more but I will never read things into accounts that are not there. Christ set an example and answering His call to DUTY.....by turning tables he showed strength and by not casting a stone does not prove that he sinned......in fact, I don't believe he was holding a stone because HE was the one to take on her punishment for HER sin once he made it to the Cross. If he were to pay her fine.....why in the world would he pay it TWICE?! Think, read, study and then read again......that is the only way to understand.

[aboutime]

First, and Final notice to the author of this thread.

It is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS what anyone else...any human being, calls GOD.

Bringing up such a hate intended question by someone with so little respect for others is USELESS.

[red state]

I agree and will not honor this thread any longer..... It was meant to be divisive and I'm not going to let such topics ruin friendships or ties with those I OTHERWISE have little to no beef with. It is for scum like the author that I'll save my arrows.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

First, and Final notice to the author of this thread.

It is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS what anyone else...any human being, calls GOD.

Bringing up such a hate intended question by someone with so little respect for others is USELESS.

You know where to shove your notice. Your God is waiting. Move your head out and put your notice in.


Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Those who believe Christ sinned are simply a lost cause (especially given the many accounts Old and New Testament) that proves otherwise. We all need to read more but I will never read things into accounts that are not there. Christ set an example and answering His call to DUTY.....by turning tables he showed strength and by not casting a stone does not prove that he sinned......in fact, I don't believe he was holding a stone because HE was the one to take on her punishment for HER sin once he made it to the Cross. If he were to pay her fine.....why in the world would he pay it TWICE?! Think, read, study and then read again......that is the only way to understand.

How will you get yourself into heaven? On your own merit or via a scapegoat?

Revisit substitutionary atonement or vicarious redemption and scapegoating with me just to refresh your memory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNtBkOXItqw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNtBkOXItqw)

I am not an atheist but Satan and Christians want atheists to embrace barbaric human sacrifice and the notion that we should profit from punishing the innocent instead of the guilty. Scapegoating IOW.

In reality, if God did demand such a barbaric sacrifice, he would be sinning as we all know that it is immoral to kill the innocent. God knows this yet Christians do not seem to. You do. Right?

Those with good morals will know that no noble and gracious God would demand the sacrifice of a son just to prove it's benevolence. When you die, Satan will ask you; how was your ticket to heaven purchased? With innocent blood?

If and when you say yes, you become his.

-----------------------------------

The other option in scriptures, a moral one, is shown here. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Scriptures indicate that God prefers repentance to sacrifice and as God’s will is supreme and cannot be thwarted, this will come to pass.

---------------------------------

It is a special distorted Christian view of love that sees, --- as the greatest act of love possible, --- their God condemning them, and then turning and demanding his son’s deaths and thus corrupting God's perfect justice. A bribe set by God as judge himself for himself. This is of course ridiculous.

Christians have an insane view of love, IMO.

Would you express your love for humanity or those you love by having your own child needlessly murdered?

Or if convinced that a sacrifice was somehow good, would you have the moral fortitude to step up yourself to that cross instead of sending your child?

Your cowardly God did not.

Regards
DL

[aboutime]

You know where to shove your notice. Your God is waiting. Move your head out and put your notice in.


Regards
DL


I must respectfully decline, while I await the removal of your lips from my Gnostic resting place. The FLUSH that pleases.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Again, the Romans murdered him, not God, and they only did so at the behest of the Jews. It was a whole thing, with Pontius Pilate sentencing him, Longhenis stabbing with the spear at the end. It was God that resurrected him.

Also, the argument used in the movie clip is rife with oversimplification, and leaves out many facts. It's their purely to give weight to the other side of the argument. If you have to leave out facts to support your argument, it isn't an argument worth having.

What is it about pre-destination tat you do no understand?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott15j2KwQ&feature=related

Regards
DL

[DragonStryk72]

What is it about pre-destination tat you do no understand?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott15j2KwQ&feature=related

Regards
DL

What is it about, "Jesus had a choice" you aren't getting? God can choose whomever he wants, but Jesus is still human, and therefore, still has choice. There is an entire story in the New Testament that is predicated on Jesus having choice. You can't keep trying to just ignore that, it's been repeated to you now, multiple times.

Yeah, again, if I've got a big job, I'm choosing the guy who is best for the job, but that guy still has the choice to refuse the job. Same thing here. This is a basic facet of life, I shouldn't have to keep repeating it to you.

[aboutime]

What is it about pre-destination tat you do no understand?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott15j2KwQ&feature=related

Regards
DL


You mean...udder dan dat yu are an arse? That's ur pre-destination...the butt of all jokes.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

What is it about, "Jesus had a choice" you aren't getting? God can choose whomever he wants, but Jesus is still human, and therefore, still has choice. There is an entire story in the New Testament that is predicated on Jesus having choice. You can't keep trying to just ignore that, it's been repeated to you now, multiple times.

Yeah, again, if I've got a big job, I'm choosing the guy who is best for the job, but that guy still has the choice to refuse the job. Same thing here. This is a basic facet of life, I shouldn't have to keep repeating it to you.

Jesus said I do my fathers will and not my own.

Call him a liar if you like.

Regards
DL

[DragonStryk72]

Jesus said I do my fathers will and not my own.

Call him a liar if you like.

Regards
DL

That's his choice. I can choose, even in the military, to disobey the will of my CO. Now, there may be consequences, but the choice still lies with me. It's the same thing with Jesus. Choosing to follow the will of another over your own can be demonstrated pretty much anywhere on Earth where someone is in charge of something, and others do what they say.

You keep trying to obviate free will, but it's still there, regardless of what you do to try and kill it.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

That's his choice. I can choose, even in the military, to disobey the will of my CO. Now, there may be consequences, but the choice still lies with me. It's the same thing with Jesus. Choosing to follow the will of another over your own can be demonstrated pretty much anywhere on Earth where someone is in charge of something, and others do what they say.

You keep trying to obviate free will, but it's still there, regardless of what you do to try and kill it.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author 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 sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.


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 is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
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.

Evil then is only human to human.
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, we should all 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.

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.

Regards
DL

----------------------------

Evolutionary theology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXOvYn1OAL0&list=UUDXjzOeZRqLxhYaaEhWLb_A&index=9 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXOvYn1OAL0&list=UUDXjzOeZRqLxhYaaEhWLb_A&index=9)

[aboutime]

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author 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 sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.


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 is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
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.

Evil then is only human to human.
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, we should all 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.

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.

Regards
DL

----------------------------

Evolutionary theology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXOvYn1OAL0&list=UUDXjzOeZRqLxhYaaEhWLb_A&index=9 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXOvYn1OAL0&list=UUDXjzOeZRqLxhYaaEhWLb_A&index=9)



Gnostic. So tell us. Who died, and left you here to become the decider of all of your HATEFUL Crap?
What other IDIOT like you gave you the sole source of judging other human beings who have surpassed your Dumbness...merely by the way you attempt to project yourself here as other than an IDIOT?

[DragonStryk72]

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author 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.

Again trying to obviate free will. Well, that is your free choice, I suppose, but then, you prove free will just by your continued responses. Yes, ignorant people can be easily swayed, but Eve knew the commandment. According to you, a good parent should allow their child no choice, and thus, no capacity for actual learning. Yes, free will, like all things worthwhile, come with consequences and risk.

God, this is, again, a weak argument at best, a desperate reach because it isn't going your way in the debate.

Actually, let's take your thought here for a moment: A world of pure good would suck. No, really, because nothing bad would ever happen, we would never have any frame of reference to understand that things are good, because what else is there? Then, of course, since nothing bad happens, nobody dies, and we use up the entirety of what Creation god made within a couple hundred years, or we never have children. Oh yeah, those seem like things we sort of want to keep around, right?

So, in essence, there has to be the presence of evil, and ability to overcome or fall to it, in order for their to be noticeable good in the world. It's like the line from The Incredibles, "When everyone's super... no one will be."


If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.

All sin is not by nature, and never has been. People get raised to believe that doing horrible things for this or that reason make them acceptable. So, no, again, sin is not solely by nature, as evidenced by life here on Earth.



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 is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

Thank you for conceding that evil is an act of volition.


Evil then is only human to human.
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.

Again, as I've stated, your definitions are incorrect. The Nazis cooperated quite well with one another, and we competed to get to the moon. Cooperation that creates victims, and competition that creates none. I already answered these points of yours, so why are we back here?


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, we should all 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.

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.

Regards
DL

But again, you keep leaning on the crutch the competition is evil, and cooperation good. They are not, in an of themselves. I can compete with someone, not victimize myself if I lose, or be a good winner if I succeed. I can cooperate to do horrible things, such as two men cooperating to rape a woman, a group of thieves working together to rob a bank.

Now, what did any of this have to do with my disproving your little "pre-destination" run?

[Abbey Marie]

My opinion only, if NO ONE responded to his idiotship, he'd be gone.

It's already working to a degree.

He's a troll. He needs to be ignored.



http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140311135850/mlp/images/2/2a/She%27s_right_you_know_meme.jpg

[aboutime]

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140311135850/mlp/images/2/2a/She%27s_right_you_know_meme.jpg


As much as I agree with you Kathianne. The fact still remains. It's just so much fun exposing, and making idiots like that prove how little effort they need to use...to prove how dumb they really are.

Ignoring such idiots prevents us from having fun.

[red state]

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

Some see this as coaxing or helping the kid unbeknownst to the kid but I say it is, to some degree, aiding in the delinquency of a minor to encourage inappropriate or rude behavior. I don't find it amusing so.....

I side with the girls on this one.....:trolls:

PLLLLEEEEeeeeeZZZzEE!!!!!!!!!!

[red state]

So, be careful cuz.........before long, everyone will be spewing at the mouth. So just leave "lard @$$" alone and to his own devices. Please.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zK0JaEde4VI

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Gnostic. So tell us. Who died, and left you here to become the decider of all of your HATEFUL Crap?
What other IDIOT like you gave you the sole source of judging other human beings who have surpassed your Dumbness...merely by the way you attempt to project yourself here as other than an IDIOT?

You did not like your own conclusions and lash out instead of confronting your immorality.

Sweet.

Regard
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Again trying to obviate free will. Well, that is your free choice, I suppose, but then, you prove free will just by your continued responses. Yes, ignorant people can be easily swayed, but Eve knew the commandment. According to you, a good parent should allow their child no choice, and thus, no capacity for actual learning. Yes, free will, like all things worthwhile, come with consequences and risk.

God, this is, again, a weak argument at best, a desperate reach because it isn't going your way in the debate.

Actually, let's take your thought here for a moment: A world of pure good would suck. No, really, because nothing bad would ever happen, we would never have any frame of reference to understand that things are good, because what else is there? Then, of course, since nothing bad happens, nobody dies, and we use up the entirety of what Creation god made within a couple hundred years, or we never have children. Oh yeah, those seem like things we sort of want to keep around, right?[/COLOR][/FONT]

So, in essence, there has to be the presence of evil, and ability to overcome or fall to it, in order for their to be noticeable good in the world. It's like the line from The Incredibles, "When everyone's super... no one will be."

[FONT=Times New Roman]

All sin is not by nature, and never has been. People get raised to believe that doing horrible things for this or that reason make them acceptable. So, no, again, sin is not solely by nature, as evidenced by life here on Earth.


[FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=#000000]

Thank you for conceding that evil is an act of volition.

[FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=#000000]

Again, as I've stated, your definitions are incorrect. The Nazis cooperated quite well with one another, and we competed to get to the moon. Cooperation that creates victims, and competition that creates none. I already answered these points of yours, so why are we back here?

[FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=#000000]

But again, you keep leaning on the crutch the competition is evil, and cooperation good. They are not, in an of themselves. I can compete with someone, not victimize myself if I lose, or be a good winner if I succeed. I can cooperate to do horrible things, such as two men cooperating to rape a woman, a group of thieves working together to rob a bank.

Now, what did any of this have to do with my disproving your little "pre-destination" run?

[COLOR=#000000]"According to you, a good parent should allow their child no choice, and thus, no capacity for actual learning."


This is a complete lie.

Get the quote or be seen as he liar that you are.

Not a good ay to lose a discussion.

Regards
DL

[DragonStryk72]

"According to you, a good parent should allow their child no choice, and thus, no capacity for actual learning."


This is a complete lie.

Get the quote or be seen as he liar that you are.

Not a good ay to lose a discussion.

Regards
DL

Here's my defense: Your whole argument. Whether you are personally aware of advocating for such or not is really completely sidenote, and does nothing to prove me a liar. As well, since you've yet to prove a single assertion you've made, I'd be a bit more careful about calling others out.

And at this point, you can't even prove any of the assertions you have already made, so really, the worst I'm looking at is a no-contest tie. Either way, you seem to have hit your limit.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Here's my defense: Your whole argument. Whether you are personally aware of advocating for such or not is really completely sidenote, and does nothing to prove me a liar. As well, since you've yet to prove a single assertion you've made, I'd be a bit more careful about calling others out.

And at this point, you can't even prove any of the assertions you have already made, so really, the worst I'm looking at is a no-contest tie. Either way, you seem to have hit your limit.

Your defence should have been a quote to prove your statement.

You have shown yourself to be a liar.

Regards
DL