"The "divine commandments" are two -- Love God, and love everyone else as much as yourself. Do those two things and you will do no evil. Pretty
I believed the one about: "Do not eat from this tree" was the most important, as the consequence of not obeying it is said to be original sin. But
if the tree thing and original sin isn't so important, and we can get by just by loving the old man and other people, then what's the use of
redemption and salvation?
Or are you inventing a whole new christian doctrine separating original sin from evil?
" ...but I do disagree that giving up free will (effectively, becoming slaves to the will of another) is a price worth paying."
Honestly, I'm not mocking. But I don't understand a word of this sentence. Could you please reformulate it without use of double-negotiations.
"The two options:
1) Eternal existence, without death and suffering, but as a puppet of God, who forces you to behave in a manner that mitigates death and suffering
2) A brief mortal existence, with suffering and death, followed by an eternal existence, without being a puppet of God or anyone else
If those are the two available options (and, in terms of the discussion you came into, they are,) I fail to see how the first option is preferable to
Presenting the only available options of YOUR faith and deciding the terms of the discussion I came into as YOUR terms. Yes, these are the options.
Outside your faith and your terms, there are other options. Are you pushing your faith-system by suggesting, that only your options are options. Do I
really have to explain how a change of basic parameters (as e.g. away from your faith-system) to different parameters also changes the resulting
There are many postulated variable concepts in your little dogma above.
If there is an ultimate 'god', is he also the creator? How do you know?
How do you know, if either a false or ultimate god will treat anybody as puppets?
How do you know, that there IS eternal existence?
How do you know, that we have to buy an entrance-ticket to an eternal existence with intact individuality?
Everything you've said is according to your doctrines, but presented as 'objective'. Come again; your whole construction is based on shaky
assumptions, which you're not willing to touch with a ten-foot pole in fear that the whole thing comes crashing down.