God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 03:00 AM
link   




posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 03:00 AM
link   
edit on 29-11-2012 by Pinocchio because: Pinocchio... Is NOT The Ark Of The Covenant! Humph!




posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Greatest I am

I cited you a secular law that was used to kill millions, and asked you to defend the morality of that.


And I sited a God law that was used to kill billions if not trillions if you count all the animals.

We are here to compare. Not defend.


Compare what? You don't believe in God, and I'm not a Fundamentalist, so explain how the Ten Commandments have killed more people than secular laws, such as the one I cited, did in the 20th Century.

Or just admit that your premise is idiotic, as everyone else in the thread seems to realize.


Who has stated that they would vote to live under God's laws?
Would you be that idiotic?


Given the choice of living under Christ's Two Commandments, or under the secular law of the Soviet Union, only an imbecile would choose the latter. But you're throwing your hat into that ring, eh?


I guess you have not looked at what the Soviet Union is nowadays.
This shows how your ilk discriminates unjustly.

So you are that idiotic.

Get some stones ready for the unruly children.

Regards
DL



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by Greatest I am
 




Strange that you have God, who creates only perfection, for his pleasure, would be displeased with what his perfect pleasing creations do.

We both know that that you word contradicts itself all over the place.


Are you saying that free will and the eventuality for evil were now part of God's design? I think that free will necessitates the result. Communication is the result you get in this life and I would expect that God knows this. We are rising. The fact that we can rise or fall depends on God and is not mutually exclusive to us. It's a team effort with the Spirit. God creates perfection, yet getting there requires the gift to be earned along the way. Nothing can be given except what is earned. God gives and receives and so do we. Like God, we must earn what is given from work and labor. Suffering is either a result of what is taken or the cause of what is earned. We cannot earn salvation.

Please provide contradictions. All paradoxes can be resolved and it may be possible you misunderstand my point of view. I do not see contradictions in my view as my view is Biblical. As I stated, a contradiction is merely a misunderstood paradox. If you think I misunderstand, you can share your view. No need to throw insults around.



It was God's plan from the beginning to have Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or God damned sin.

If God had not intended humans to sin from the beginning, why did he build into the Creation this "solution" for sin? Why create a solution for a problem you do not anticipate?

God knew that the moment he said "don't eat from that tree," the die was cast. The eating was inevitable. Eve was merely following the plan.

This then begs the question.

What kind of God would plan and execute the murder of his own son when there was absolutely no need to?

Only an insane God. That’s who.

The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice, thus showing it‘s immorality.

One of Christianity's highest form of immorality is what they have done to women.
They have denied them equality and subjugated them to men.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL
------------------------

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

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

Theistic evolution.
www.youtube.com.../c/6F8036F680C1DBEB



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by Greatest I am
 




Shall we thump away at and past each other or do you want to actually discuss the O P?

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

Perhaps if you knew when Rome created your bible it would make a change in your useless thumping.

I will add these clips to the mix for your consideration. They show who put what in Jesus' mouth and how Christianity has been manipulated. The first which is part of the second speaks to my Gnostic Christian label and the second shows my view of religions overall and the Noble Lie that I think we and our governments should rescind. The third clip speaks to the reason that religions were invented in the first place as it shows why social control was required for city states that had to deal with the reality of finite resources. I see these city states as led by a timocratic king who through the religion that he would have created, also realized that there had to be a tyrannical part to his benevolent duty and created a religion to be just that.


No need to trumpet your view of the accuracy or inaccuracy of theology if you doubt the Bible to begin with. Just say you think it is not true and I'll continue sticking to what it says. I do not see the paradox and inaccuracy you seem to see. I assume you have not studied from a platform of faith or your eyes would be opened. As I said before, if you have a context to provide to show an error in my theology, don't use the Bible if you do not adhere to its accuracy. You are contradicting yourself in the process. You cannot embrace it and then state its inaccuracy in the same breath and expect to be taken seriously.



Let's see what you can make of paradoxes based on your own answers to simple questions.

Is God omni-present as scriptures indicate?
He was in the beginning and would have to restrict himself and not be omnipotent if he did.

Can God be where sin abides? Some believe he cannot?

Regards
DL



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
That's a tough subject to deal with I do not put my hands on.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 




It was God's plan from the beginning to have Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or God damned sin.


Another way to see this is to realize that all symbols in the Bible, including the cross and crucification, are symbols pointing to the larger story that started creation from the beginning. Christ is the Cosmos. All that we see and experience is the spirit of the Son involved into the material world as an image of God. The purpose is to raise to new life (Evolve). Involution and evolution are concepts that follow the line of thought originating with this verse and a few others.

1 Colossians 1: 15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

We can think of Him as the Wave of particle and wave duality. Light is what the image is. Collapsing wave function is the WORD that we collapse.

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

The Godhead is what produces the light behind the Star. Hydrogen is one proton and one electron in equilibrium. From this starting point, we have the Neutron in the middle with the proton and the electron (Negative) being the wild one. It's symbolic of everything that follows. Carbon has 6 protons, 6 electrons and 6 neutrons. It is the mark of mankind.

Revelation 13

18 This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man.[e-or of mankind] That number is 666.

I mention this to say that we are all one thing. All of us are Word (Information). To be in Christ is to be saved information in that Spirit. There are other spirits that a person can place themselves in. Only one offers life and light. To go back to your original thought, we see that Christ is broken apart to make us. This is essentially what the Hebrew tradition says with Adam Kadmon.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 




If God had not intended humans to sin from the beginning, why did he build into the Creation this "solution" for sin? Why create a solution for a problem you do not anticipate?

God knew that the moment he said "don't eat from that tree," the die was cast. The eating was inevitable. Eve was merely following the plan.



If you get what I just said, then you can now see why God allowed HIS Son to be raised in such a way. It is the point of raising a child of God. The many come from the one, yet we are all one in Christ. Christ is one in God. The prodigal Son comes back.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 




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."




By God, you are referring to YHVH, which is the Lord. The Shepherd is our Spirit, broken parts from one loaf. You are accusing yourself. God is not the Image of the First Born Son. The Son is the Image of God. So are we. We are Children being raised. If you accuse God, you are accusing the wrong entity. God is perfect. We are the ones involved so we can evolve. The Bible was US, not God.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 




Let's see what you can make of paradoxes based on your own answers to simple questions.

Is God omni-present as scriptures indicate?
He was in the beginning and would have to restrict himself and not be omnipotent if he did.

Can God be where sin abides? Some believe he cannot?

Regards
DL




Just so you are clear, my last posts just answered this question as well. The Lord is us. We are the ones created from the Lord, which is the image of God, the first born over all creation. That's us. We are all slices of the same loaf. The Bible, including the raising of the Son in the Image, was us the whole time. We are the reflection of the Son being raised. Overall, we are a composite of the many. The Son of God is the Lord of Humanity as a Son being raised. If you blame God, you blame all of us.

I answer this question here very clearly. Why ONE God must have One Son and many Children

If you pay attention to the reasoning, you will see why One God must create an image of Himself in the multiplicity of the Cosmos to have other persons to interact with. The Son must have an opposite reflection for the process to be logical.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Sigh.

Regards
DL



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am
I guess you have not looked at what the Soviet Union is nowadays.


Things worked out so well for them because of their reliance on secular law?


Get a brain, DL -- when man invents a new morality, he invents it to suit himself, as has been evidenced by every society that's done it.

You're defending a system that said it was okay to kill someone if they didn't work hard enough.

What's your justification for that? Apart from a 3,000 year old text you don't believe and cherry pick to try and make a lame point, in spite of that.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Greatest I am
I guess you have not looked at what the Soviet Union is nowadays.


Things worked out so well for them because of their reliance on secular law?


Get a brain, DL -- when man invents a new morality, he invents it to suit himself, as has been evidenced by every society that's done it.

You're defending a system that said it was okay to kill someone if they didn't work hard enough.

What's your justification for that? Apart from a 3,000 year old text you don't believe and cherry pick to try and make a lame point, in spite of that.


I do not defend murder but wonder how you cannot see that you defend murder and genocide by promoting your genocidal son murdering God.

Children and babies cannot work yet your God does not even have that excuse for murdering them.

Regards
DL



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am
I do not defend murder but wonder how you cannot see that you defend murder and genocide by promoting your genocidal son murdering God.

Children and babies cannot work yet your God does not even have that excuse for murdering them.


Kindly prove to me that God did any of that.

I presume that you don't need proof that the secular law of Article 58 was used to kill millions in the 20th Century, let me know if you do.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Greatest I am
I do not defend murder but wonder how you cannot see that you defend murder and genocide by promoting your genocidal son murdering God.

Children and babies cannot work yet your God does not even have that excuse for murdering them.


Kindly prove to me that God did any of that.

I presume that you don't need proof that the secular law of Article 58 was used to kill millions in the 20th Century, let me know if you do.


You're not so dishonest as to compare Stalin's dictatorship to modern day secularism are you?.........

Oh wait, you just attempted to deny the atrocities featured in your holy book weren't due to the commands of your chosen space ghost........so nvm



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Greatest I am
I do not defend murder but wonder how you cannot see that you defend murder and genocide by promoting your genocidal son murdering God.

Children and babies cannot work yet your God does not even have that excuse for murdering them.


Kindly prove to me that God did any of that.

I presume that you don't need proof that the secular law of Article 58 was used to kill millions in the 20th Century, let me know if you do.


You're not so dishonest as to compare Stalin's dictatorship to modern day secularism are you?.........

Oh wait, you just attempted to deny the atrocities featured in your holy book weren't due to the commands of your chosen space ghost........so nvm


What?

I asked DL to prove that God did any of that, to support his argument that secular law is preferable. Most societies have laws that are derived from these old beliefs that DL (and you, apparently,) doesn't like, so one is forced to find a society that repudiated them in order to have a "clean comparison", and that would be the secular 20th Century governments of the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, etc.

Don't like it? Prove me wrong, DL won't.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Greatest I am
I do not defend murder but wonder how you cannot see that you defend murder and genocide by promoting your genocidal son murdering God.

Children and babies cannot work yet your God does not even have that excuse for murdering them.


Kindly prove to me that God did any of that.

I presume that you don't need proof that the secular law of Article 58 was used to kill millions in the 20th Century, let me know if you do.


You're not so dishonest as to compare Stalin's dictatorship to modern day secularism are you?.........

Oh wait, you just attempted to deny the atrocities featured in your holy book weren't due to the commands of your chosen space ghost........so nvm


What?

I asked DL to prove that God did any of that, to support his argument that secular law is preferable. Most societies have laws that are derived from these old beliefs that DL (and you, apparently,) doesn't like, so one is forced to find a society that repudiated them in order to have a "clean comparison", and that would be the secular 20th Century governments of the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, etc.

Don't like it? Prove me wrong, DL won't.


Your cult doesn't have a monopoly on morals and it never has. The basic rules on not killing one another, not stealing, lying or basically trying not to be a **** existed long before you think your god decided it was time to have morals.......

So your attempts to compare Stalin's dictatorship and it's millions of deaths with secular society are not only fallacious but pretty vile.

Not to mention desperate....



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Prezbo369
So your attempts to compare Stalin's dictatorship and it's millions of deaths with secular society are not only fallacious but pretty vile.


Again, prove it -- show me that the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China aren't secular societies which rejected religion as a basis for morality.

Fill the thread with your intellectual insights -- calling me names isn't much of an argument.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Again, prove it -- show me that the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China aren't secular societies which rejected religion as a basis for morality.



You'd have to first prove that your religion or indeed any religion is or was a basis for morality, as like I said, it isn't and never has been.

And I think it'd help if you knew what the word Secular actually stood for, as it seems you think it represents anti-religion. Most of the countries in the west are secular, i.e. neutral in regards to religion (the US has been close to a theocracy, but thankfully hasn't gone down that road yet).

But worst of all you continually attempt to blame the atrocities in Stalinist Russia on secularism, and not on the insane dictator who for all intended reasons was a god in his country. And we all know just how jealous gods can get don't we.....




Fill the thread with your intellectual insights -- calling me names isn't much of an argument.



I haven't called you a name, I described what you attempted to do as vile and desperate so you don't need to try and play the victim.

P.S can you explain what you think is 'secular law'?



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by adjensen

Again, prove it -- show me that the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China aren't secular societies which rejected religion as a basis for morality.



You'd have to first prove that your religion or indeed any religion is or was a basis for morality, as like I said, it isn't and never has been.


Our discussion has nothing to do with whether "any religion is a basis for morality", but whether the laws of the Soviet Union were secular in nature, and I've irrefutably shown that they were. You've provided nothing but whines of "oh, that's unfair to say that, just because the Soviets rejected religion, their laws are secular," so let's hear what religion the Soviet laws were based on, since you claim they weren't secular.

Article 58 isn't some arbitrary edict that was never enforced -- it was a fundamental part of the Soviet legal system, proposed and passed by the government, and, in practice, was used to justify the slaughter of millions, so can it with the "that's not 'true' secularism" defence.


And I think it'd help if you knew what the word Secular actually stood for, as it seems you think it represents anti-religion. Most of the countries in the west are secular, i.e. neutral in regards to religion


Kindly show me where I said that it meant "anti-religion", I'm well aware it simply means non-religion. However, "most countries in the west," in Europe at least, were founded as Christian nations, with state religions and laws derived from Christian views, so to point to Sweden, for example, as being a prime example of "secular law" is invalid, unless you think that they overturned all of those old laws and wrote new ones when Christianity began to wane.

Geez, even the fundamental right in the United States to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is incumbent on the existence of a creator God, right there in the text. Why? Because without God, those rights are bestowed by man, and if man gives them, man can take them away, and while Jefferson didn't think much of Christianity, he sure knew the truth of that statement.


(the US has been close to a theocracy, but thankfully hasn't gone down that road yet).


Based on that statement, you obviously have no idea what a theocracy is, because the United States has never been close to such a governing system.





top topics
 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join