Issues of morality shut Christians up

by Greatest I am Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:47 pm

First topic message reminder :

Issues of morality shuts Christians up.

I know I have done well in an O. P. when Christians run from a discussion.

I wrote these two posts and got almost no response. Not a usual thing for my posts. This tells me that I hit the nail right on the head and Christians have no apologetics to refute my claim.

==========================

If you accept this as universal morality, you will reject God.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

God does not follow the first rule at all.

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 sin.

This shows that what many thinks is our number one moral value was completely ignored by God.

Is God immoral or has man gotten morality wrong?

If God was right, then are we to believe that fathers are to bury their children instead of the way people think in that children should bury their parents?

John 6:44
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”

On earth as it is in heaven.

If you had God’s power to set the conditions for atonement, would you step up yourself or would you send your child to die?

=============================

God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott1...eature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqP_f...eature=related

I think that the notion that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty perpetrator is immoral. Be it a willing sacrifice as some believe with Jesus or unwilling victim.

I also think that God, who has a plethora of other options, would have come up with a moral way instead of an immoral and barbaric human sacrifice.

I agree with scriptures say that we are all responsible for our own righteousness as well as our own iniquity and that God cannot be bribed by sacrifice.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Psalm 49:7
None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

I believe as I do because I believe that the first rule of morality is harm/care of children.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

Do you agree that the notion of substitutionary atonement is immoral and that God’s first principle of morality is hare/harm and that this would prevent him from demanding the death of his son?

==============================

This lack of opposition to the premise given tells me that Christians may actually be more moral than what I give them credit for. They do not walk their talk in these cases and that is a plus.

Seems Christians actually recognize good morals even if they do not preach them.
I thank Christians for confirming my view that they are just following tradition, dogma and culture while not really following their God. Thank God for that. Any sane man would reject the bible God.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:45 pm

stuart torr wrote:I rarely go on my other forum greatest because of a shadow, I'm certainly not leaving this, this is the last time I'm speaking to you.

If this is how you answer questions then good.

Regards
DL

by polyglide Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:56 am

Take an example of a number of fake bank notes being in circulation, the best way to avoid them would be to be able to recognise a good one at firsty glance, you would not then have to bother about the others.

The same applies to all the religions, there can only be one true God and one true religion.

by Greatest I am Sat Aug 23, 2014 7:56 pm

polyglide wrote:Take an example of a number of fake bank notes being in circulation, the best way to avoid them would be to be able to recognise a good one at firsty glance, you would not then have to bother about the others.

The same applies to all the religions, there can only be one true God and one true religion.

That or they are all man made and wrong and that would only make Gnostic Christianity true as that is what we teach.

As you say, there can only be one and as perpetual seekers, Gnostic Christians recognize that none are the true one so far or we would have found the absentee God.

To think that a God could be explained by or is so small that any one belief system can access him is too droll to contemplate. He would be a tiny baby God.

Regards
DL

by stuart torr Sat Aug 23, 2014 9:20 pm

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Sep 14, 2014 8:44 pm

polyglide wrote:Take an example of a number of fake bank notes being in circulation, the best way to avoid them would be to be able to recognise a good one at firsty glance, you would not then have to bother about the others.

The same applies to all the religions, there can only be one true God and one true religion.

Doesn't this rather point to them all being fakes, since not one of them can evidence their claims, but instead rely on faith? The other problem with your analogy is that your claim involves a being that could easily identify 'fake notes' and more saliently could identify 'the one genuine note' in circulation. Yet despite your religion claiming that deity to be omnipotent omniscient and omni-benevolent has done nothing to unequivocally do this.

by stuart torr Sun Sep 14, 2014 9:23 pm

lots of fake gods in circulation then Sheldon with those fake bank notes that you cannot recognize immediately.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Sep 14, 2014 9:31 pm

stuart torr wrote:lots of fake gods in circulation then Sheldon with those fake bank notes that you cannot recognize immediately.

You'd have to question why a deity that has both limitless power and benevolence, who created the universe just so we could find believe in and love it, would allow so many 'fake banknotes' to fool the majority of people. Yet that same deity grants PG the sagacity to unequivocally know what it wants, a rare gift you'd think, but you'd be very wrong as most theists make similarly bold claims about their own version of their god, who to believe?? confused

by stuart torr Sun Sep 14, 2014 9:49 pm

Precisely Sheldon, now which one of these theists with the same rare gift should we believe? especially without that thing called evidence. Laughing

by Greatest I am Thu Sep 18, 2014 7:40 pm

All notes are worthless without a certified government behind it. Coin of the realm.

Your coin is worthless without your government to back it.

A counterfeit coin has the greatest value if it is of pure truth. Perhaps that is why God rewards Satan so nicely.

Where is God's government to back up his immoral currency?

The Gods have no clothes. Sad

Regards
DL

by stuart torr Thu Sep 18, 2014 9:03 pm

The God on the cross wore clothes did he not? wrong again GIa. Laughing

by Greatest I am Fri Sep 19, 2014 2:50 pm

stuart torr wrote:The God on the cross wore clothes did he not? wrong again GIa.

Would you class that as cloths?

https://i.imgur.com/U1UO0AW.jpg

Regards
DL

by stuart torr Fri Sep 19, 2014 2:52 pm

Was not naked though was he GIa Laughing

by stuart torr Fri Sep 19, 2014 2:57 pm

I class them as clothes to cover his nakedness GIa Razz

by stuart torr Sat Sep 27, 2014 9:34 pm

Polyglide.
Do you not think the number of gods in the world weakens his power to start with?
There is more than one bible is there not? just different countries versions of the original, and even the original is by word of mouth and each different persons version of it.

by Greatest I am Mon Sep 29, 2014 6:08 pm

polyglide wrote:God does not need a government to back up anything he say's or does.

If you believe in God of the Bible then anything is withing his powers and the only reason the world is in such a state is because of man's arrogance and the time Satan has to do his utmost to turn everyone against God.

Yet God almost always used his government here on earth, his followers that is, to do all his killing for him. Read the O.T. and see God using the Jews to kill etc..

If one believes in the God of the bible then one is a fool and wants a God with satanic morals.

Regards
DL

by stuart torr Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:31 pm

As god does not exist, or did not exist, only in bibles written long after he was supposed to have made earth over 4and a half billion years ago, no-one around to witness him do it was there?

by Greatest I am Tue Sep 30, 2014 12:29 am

Of course not. Only literalist fools will think that there was.

Your first is a logical fallacy and a lie. Watch how you say things. You do not want us to think you as foolish as a theist.

Regards
DL

by stuart torr Wed Oct 01, 2014 5:30 pm

What is your post supposed to mean with regards to my last one then GIa?
As the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, and god is supposed to have made it is he not?
There are no bibles remotely that age is there?

by Greatest I am Wed Oct 01, 2014 6:41 pm

stuart torr wrote:What is your post supposed to mean with regards to my last one then GIa?
As the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, and god is supposed to have made it is he not?
There are no bibles remotely that age is there?

I would have thought that you would have noted my reference to literalist fools.

Only a literalist fool will believe in a creator God without any facts.

I do not believe in such a God but do believe that all Gods and scriptures are myths.

I do believe that we are getting closer to finding the Godhead I found though. It is natural and not supernatural.

What are your thoughts on the veracity of this Sudbury experiment?

http://vimeo.com/26318064

Regards
DL

by stuart torr Wed Oct 01, 2014 9:18 pm

Most of us have a sixth sense if we learn how to use it right.

by Greatest I am Wed Oct 01, 2014 9:49 pm

stuart torr wrote:Most of us have a sixth sense if we learn how to use it right.

http://vimeo.com/26137313

You did not tell me as yet what you thought of that other clip from the same source.

I can hardly wait.

Regards
DL

by stuart torr Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:31 pm

We do not need that kind of experiment to find it out either.

by Greatest I am Wed Oct 01, 2014 11:17 pm

stuart torr wrote:We do not need that kind of experiment to find it out either.

Without one, there can never be a confirmation of your theory of the existence of a sixth sense.

You would not us to think you were delusional.

Regards
DL

by stuart torr Wed Oct 01, 2014 11:32 pm

by Greatest I am Thu Oct 02, 2014 1:32 am

You should stop doing that. It is not helping your thinking.

Regards
DL

by stuart torr Thu Oct 02, 2014 12:27 pm

by polyglide Tue Oct 14, 2014 3:29 pm

I know a lot of poeple who prrint nonsense.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Feb 13, 2015 5:50 pm

polyglide wrote:I know a lot of poeple who prrint nonsense.

Like the Gideon society?

by stuart torr Fri Feb 13, 2015 6:12 pm

I know someone who needs to add spellchecker to their computer do you Sheldon?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Feb 14, 2015 6:39 am

stuart torr wrote:I know someone who needs to add spellchecker to their computer do you Sheldon?

Yes stu. I believe I've mentioned it. I even pointed out that he probably has one in his Web browser software's settings.

by polyglide Sat Feb 14, 2015 11:01 am

DR.Sheldon,
What is the good of spelling everything correctly, when you rarely understand the meaning.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Feb 14, 2015 10:33 pm

polyglide wrote:DR.Sheldon,
What is the good of spelling everything correctly, when you rarely understand the meaning.

What is it you're claiming I've not understood? Though it's not true of course, I'd say even if it were it would be an improvement on your posts where you misspell everything and don't understand any of it, your grasp of written English on here is execrable.

Another pointless ad hominem just for trying to help you grasp you can select a spell-checker option in your web browser settings. Rolling Eyes

by polyglide Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:54 pm

Dr.Sheldon,
I am not so childish as to point out that you are not beyond making a typing error, or in your case maybe you cannot spell.

As for not understanding English.

My understanding of the meaning of words is gained from ORT, which is more than can be said of you, or you would not be so ignorant.

by polyglide Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:57 pm

Dr Sheldon,
The word is homonym.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:33 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr.Sheldon,
I am not so childish as to point out that you are not beyond making a typing error, or in your case maybe you cannot spell.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Yes you are precisely that childish as you did exactly that when the predictive text on my phone produced a typo.

As for not understanding English. My understanding of the meaning of words is gained from ORT, which is more than can be said of you, or you would not be so ignorant.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Yes your understanding if English is top drawer, what was I thinking.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:37 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr Sheldon, The word is homonym.

No one has used that word that I'm aware of, so you've lost me again I'm afraid, unless you're suggesting it's ad homonym, you're not are you? Laughing

Only that would be too hilarious, especially after the supercilious lecture you just gave me.

by snowyflake Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:39 pm

Hey Doc, I've sent you a message. Smile

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 17, 2015 6:27 am

polyglide wrote:
DR.Sheldon,
What is the good of spelling everything correctly, when you rarely understand the meaning.

I asked you what it is you're claiming I never understood? You have ignored the question, why is that.

by polyglide Tue Feb 17, 2015 10:57 am

Dr. Sheldon,
My point is.

You are unable to appreciate that you can have a perfection but it can be ruined by abuse.

I simple illustration is beyond your understanding.

You look at things in a perverted manner [ which in dictionary terms makes you a pervert]

You have a total disregard for historicity and indulge in nothing more than hocuc-pocus.

Your infrangible attitude to that which you do not understand is only bettered by your inability to imbibe matters that would assist you to understand the historicity as opposed to the heretical.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 17, 2015 2:03 pm

Have you been at the communion wine?

You keep claiming I lack understanding but offer nothing but complete gibberish, so it's hardly surprising is it.

I know it's a waste of time but which historical facts are you now claiming I don't understand?

Have you managed to learn what ad hominem means yet. Or do you still think it's a spelling mistake for homonym? Now that was funny.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 17, 2015 2:13 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
My point is. You are unable to appreciate that you can have a perfection but it can be ruined by abuse.
Dr SC wrote:I understand the claim perfectly you clown, unlike you however I'd require evidence before believing bronze age claims for the existence of the supernatural. Anecdotal hearsay from unknown antiquated authorship simply won't cut the mustard.

I simple illustration is beyond your understanding.
Dr SC wrote:Your superior grasp of the English language has baffled me again I'm afraid.

You look at things in a perverted manner [ which in dictionary terms makes you a pervert

You do like to throw the word pervert around don't you. It looks like you have some sort of issues there to be honest.

by Sponsored content