It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I can think of a way around that. Everyone wants to be respected, right? So if you respect others because you want to be respected, that means any problems they bring to your attention, you will try to rectify, and vice versa.
In that sense, the "Golden Rule" is perfectly sensible. After all, we do have a global definition for 'respect'.
Senseless and prejudice? I was simply making the point that if "only those with faith will understand" that's the same as saying, "Because I said so," or "Because the Bible says so".
There is absolutely no logical basis, and therefore no reason to give you any credence. At all.
This does not apply to a "Ethical Subjectivist" who whole-heartily only cares about their own views and that the views of others matter not. Or a pure egoist who would also care nothing for respect if dis-respecting somehow benefits them.
Originally posted by Greatest I am
Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by Greatest I am
You say you are a gnostic Christian, however your posts only up until recently do they even reflect Gnosticism.
You speak about the Godhead and seem like you know some of the early history of how the religion sprung up.
What confuses me is how you seem to be angered with God and continue to place judgement on the creator time and time again in threads including this one.
Why is that?
If I were to have to pick a religion to be a part of it would be the same as you, but I choose not to lable such.
As a teen I connected with Gnosticism and have sense, but I just can't stick to one because I find half truths in all of them. That's just how I SEE it in my mind.
I have an analytical mind whereas I have pieced them all together, all myths, and see where they connect, he ce my signature.
I see Jesus reflecting the Mind in all his incarnations.
So be it.
"Why is that? "
Because I have a social conscience and it is an evil immoral religion.
It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.
They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Belief in fantasy is evil.
www.youtube.com...
They also do much harm to their own.
African witches and Jesus
www.youtube.com...
Jesus Camp 1of 9
www.youtube.com...
Promoting death to Gays.
www.youtube.com...
For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.
Fight them when you can. It is your duty to our fellow man.
------------------------------
"As a teen I connected with Gnosticism and have sense, but I just can't stick to one because I find half truths in all of them. That's just how I SEE it in my mind. "
And that is the way it should be. Some wisdom can be found in all of the books of wisdom, bibles and philosophical writings. Nothing wrong in choosing the best from each in building your paradigm. That is what I dis and was rewarded with apotheosis for my efforts.
All Gods should be thought of as myths until one is lucky, or unlucky depending on how you look at things, to force his apotheosis.
I do not have all the pieces yet and hope I never do as then I would be idol worshiping what I found.
I am starting to confirm my view that all religions evolved from the same source.
This is long but it adds to that view.
www.youtube.com...
FMPOV, if one can make sense of the Eden myth, then the rest of the true theology that the Godhead has formed will be known.
This clip has given me a new perspective that I find compelling and is leading to the possibility that religions were created to control sexual mores in finite communities so that overpopulation would not disturb the organization of those demographic entities/cities. This may actually be why temple prostitutes were the first prostitutes. My theories are not complete yet though but the logic seems sound.
www.youtube.com...
Regards
DLedit on 14-9-2012 by Greatest I am because: (no reason given)
When having a moral discussion ALL moral viewpoints are included, simply dismissing the ones you don't agree with is a cop-out.
There are many views that I have seen that are different from mine, but just as beautifully insightful. Take Buddhism, for instance, or Taoism. Perhaps a little bit of Mormonism, a touch of Scientology...that stuff. It all has wonderful aspects to it, and I love seeing what Christians do in the guise of saving their own souls.
But when it comes to philosophical discussion, I would have more fun bashing my head against a brick wall.
All moral viewpoints are included, yes, but logical deduction narrows them down to a mere handful, and close examination shows us that morals, invented by mankind, are simply our way of deciding what feels right and what feels wrong. So in such a subjective matter, who is correct? That all depends on what region you live in
Originally posted by Greatest I am
Originally posted by akushla99
Originally posted by Greatest I am
Originally posted by akushla99
But, my short answer is NO...God is not immoral...
Satisfied?
A99
Thanks.
So all the times God is shown as either directly or indirectly killing children and babies because of what their parents have done are justified in your eyes. Right?
If you lived in those days and were asked to smash a babies skull against a rock you would would you?
Regards
DL
WRONG
You did not read what I wrote...patently!
...or you do not understand plain english...
Here it is again...read it...
"You are using a misinterpreted interpretation to come to a conclusion; a conclusion (incidentally), promoted by fundies (of most major faiths - think...Islamic fundies), that presents you with a vision of an omnipotent, omniscient, all-creating, all-encompassing, timeless being...who is so conflicted in its all-pervading potency, that it would pit Itself against itself, and then (in some cosmic schizophrenic episode), require its creations (essentially itself, if you follow the hidden parts of the text) to avail themselves of thier own salvation from itself...
In the EXTREME...this scenario...DOES NOT MAKE SENSE...and let me be clear, God is not an idiot...which is what is mooted in this scenario...a scenario you (at some level believe) give credit to, in the original thread question..."
A99
So God is moral but that does not make sense so he is not. Got you.
Good English that even this Frenchman can understand. Not.
Perhaps you are in some cosmic schizophrenic episode.
Regards
DL
Originally posted by akushla99
[...this scenario...DOES NOT MAKE SENSE...and let me be clear, God is not an idiot...which is what is mooted in this scenario...a scenario you (at some level believe) give credit to, in the original thread question..."
A99
Originally posted by Greatest I am
Originally posted by akushla99
[...this scenario...DOES NOT MAKE SENSE...and let me be clear, God is not an idiot...which is what is mooted in this scenario...a scenario you (at some level believe) give credit to, in the original thread question..."
A99
So God is moral but that does not make sense so he is not. Got you.
Good English that even this Frenchman can understand. Not.
Perhaps you are in some cosmic schizophrenic episode.
Regards
DL
Originally posted by WarminIndy
reply to post by Greatest I am
I am still wanting to know whether you want to discuss the thesis in your OP, which is the challenge, "like it or not".
You have reached a preclusion based on your own view that whether or not I agree matters little, you want me to notice your conclusion and say nothing about it. As far as you are concerned, I have to like it. What if I don't like it, what then?
Since it is your challenge and I am responding to it, tell me why your opinion is worth more than mine. Like it or not, this is my response. Like it or not, you can't tell me how to think. Is that a good enough response? Next time, frame your questions better, this was a simple ad hominem attack, and a straw man.
Morals (for a supreme God)...do not figure in the equation...this is a viewpoint that is often mistakenly overlooked...
If you truly believe that God is All powerful, omniscient, omnipotent, creator of all that is seen and unseen - who are you, or anyone that would dare to perform this exercise in futility and arrogance?
We are clearly not speaking of the same god...
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus
Originally posted by Greatest I am
Originally posted by WarminIndy
reply to post by Greatest I am
I am still wanting to know whether you want to discuss the thesis in your OP, which is the challenge, "like it or not".
You have reached a preclusion based on your own view that whether or not I agree matters little, you want me to notice your conclusion and say nothing about it. As far as you are concerned, I have to like it. What if I don't like it, what then?
Since it is your challenge and I am responding to it, tell me why your opinion is worth more than mine. Like it or not, this is my response. Like it or not, you can't tell me how to think. Is that a good enough response? Next time, frame your questions better, this was a simple ad hominem attack, and a straw man.
If you wish to speak to the issue and not the straw man you yourself have created, I am there for that.
Regards
DL
A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. This, of course, is a fallacy, because the position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that which has actually been refuted; the real target of the argument is untouched by it.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy
It's my personal believe that the Christians in this thread are unable to defend their beloved deity from the onslaught of logical discourse, so they have resorted to a battle of semantics in order to avoid the true contention of this thread.
A transparent ploy, and painfully weak. I'm calling on it, right here, so no one misses the dodge: the fact that "God" apparently stands above our morals, which are based on his laws, and the Christians have chosen to pick on the "lack of option" in the assertion, when it chould be so much easier to prove it wrong and avoid the whole mess.
Failing that, they argue semantics and "not having the opportunity to argue", which they actually have but are wasting trying to prove that they don't have it...if that makes sense. After all, everyone here is open to being disproved, but you have to disprove it first.
Your move, my friends.edit on 15-9-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by MagnumOpus
The immoral aspect is the lies presented for what god isn't.
God, in the original concept, is that of the force that created the universe billions of years ago and shows traces of intelligent design. No image exists for this God concept and the only one that is close is the Unverse itself.
The false concepts for god stem from more recent times in the area of Sumeria and the gods of Anu, and reference to these concepts as god is the immorality due to telling big lies. This making the entire Biblical concepts for god false and immoral.
Yahweh isn't god, and neither is Jesus.
Promotion of gods in the recent time is about promotion of Royalists and Kings, about promotion of inequality over that of equality. It is about starting wars for power and control held in the hands of the few.
Originally posted by mythos
Originally posted by Murgatroid
The serpent was subtle and lied to Eve -- beguiled (deceived) her. Had Eve understood God's real love and the real consequences of obeying Satan, she would not have done it. Satan denied the consequences and made evil appear to be good. ~ Gen. 3:1-5,13
Genesis is blatant propaganda against the female-earth based religions; it names the serpent as evil, who in most all other cultures and traditions is a revered symbol of the earth and rebirth. it blames the woman for original sin and condemns birth and menstruation as punishment for her crime. it creates a male as the first being, and woman as an afterthought. and in the greatest of all blasphemies it names God as a HE....
it is this thinking that has allowed the wanton pillaging of the earth, the countless indignities perpetrated upon women and has condemned us to this unbalanced patriarchal - "my sword is bigger than your sword" - BS we must endure everyday.
the only God that is immoral is the God that hates. i will leave that for the readers to say which God is so keen on fire & brimstone.
may the Goddess & the God & the Great Mystery beyond forgive us... for we know not what we are doing.
edit on 12-9-2012 by mythos because: fix quotes
The transparent ploy was in the title. Why do you not just simply ask the question, "Is God immoral?" then present your views on why you believe such a thing.
I don't really care what your opinion is on the matter, because you have established already that my opinion is worthless to begin with. I encourage you to stop the charade, you think you have made a point.
So go ahead, show me all day long you are not willing to admit it was a crude attempt at non-dialogue and ad hominem against people who believe.
William Seabrook lived for years among the Malinke people in old French West Africa and tells of aBelgian hunter who abused and murdered his local bearers until, as a matter of private justice, theyarranged for a sorcerer to lay on a death-sending for him. In a clearing in the jungle the witch doctorsset up the corpse of a man requisitioned from a nearby village, dressed it in one of the Belgian's shirts,combed some of his hair in among its own, fastened some of his nail parings to its fingers, andrebaptised the body with the hunter's name. Around this object of sympathetic magic, they chantedand drummed, focusing their malignant hatred on the white man miles away.A number of his employees, pretending sympathy for him, made certain that the Belgian knew that allthis was going on and would continue until he died. He soon fell ill and did die, apparently fromautosuggestion. (302) The accepted explanation for events of this kind is that an unconscious belief inthe power of the spell, even if one has not in fact been cast, can kill. But the discovery of what seemsto be illness transmitted by telepathy suggests that the ceremony itself may be important. The frenzyof hate around the corpse in the jungle would certainly have a hypnotic effect on the participants andwould produce exactly the conditions now known to be necessary for creating a telepathic state, thetoken doll in this case perhaps serving only as a focus for emotions that were in themselves doingdamage at a distance.