Do you believe in God?
Tell me people do you believe in God?
(1) Isn’t Jesus supposed to be human?
(2) What do you want me say? They failed their mission and will have to try again. I reject your claim that they had no opportunity. Again, the soul has been with humanity in this world since the beginning.
Ok .
But if people can’t travel in time and have no access to Christianity and Christianity is the only way to appease god to reach heaven , I don’t see how u can say they still had an opportunity.
Ps: u told Jesus was god , so I don’t get why you say now is human .
The word of Jesus is the word of good right ?
he did miracles too and redirect too.
That ain’t human .
Ok .
But if people can’t travel in time and have no access to Christianity and Christianity is the only way to appease god to reach heaven , I don’t see how u can say they still had an opportunity.
Ps: u told Jesus was god , so I don’t get why you say now is human .
The word of Jesus is the word of good right ?
he did miracles too and redirect too.
That ain’t human .
Not good enough. Good luck to you.
This is not how ethics works. There are boundaries that should not be crossed and you are free to operate within those boundaries.
To transgress a boundary that God has told you (which is why God is not supposed to speak to anybody in this Universe) is not a "lower will" or whatever, it's a major offense against God.
You don't even need religion to understand ethics which is why your argument that the holocaust was part of the "lower will" of God is an argument that the devil itself, the false god Lucifer (Satan in Islam) is actually God.
This is also evident in your arguments regarding "greatness".
What philosophers or theologians do you actually read? Or are you just making this up as you go?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is not how ethics works. There are boundaries that should not be crossed and you are free to operate within those boundaries.
To transgress a boundary that God has told you (which is why God is not supposed to speak to anybody in this Universe) is not a "lower will" or whatever, it's a major offense against God.
You don't even need religion to understand ethics which is why your argument that the holocaust was part of the "lower will" of God is an argument that the devil itself, the false god
You just said the devil created himself after lecturing me about being polytheistic. That isn’t something you just brush aside if you’re an honest person dedicated to the truth.
You really need to take a step back and reevaluate your view of yourself as truth teller.
You just said the devil created himself after lecturing me about being polytheistic. That isn’t something you just brush aside if you’re an honest person dedicated to the truth.
You really need to take a step back and reevaluate your view of yourself as truth teller.
The devil is not God, it was never supposed to exist. That which became the devil was apart of creation. It is merely something that could be done (to become the devil) and it (that which became the devil) did that which is unthinkable: which is to transgress a boundary given to it by God.
You are polytheistic devil worshipper if you believe what you say.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The devil is not God, it was never supposed to exist. That which became the devil was apart of creation. It is merely something that could be done (to become the devil) and it (that which became the devil) did that which is unthinkable: which is to transgress a boundary given to it by God.
You are polytheistic devil worshipper if you believe what you say.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If it can be done — the devil rebelling against God — then that means there must be a (created) will to do it. If God never created the will to rebel, then it would never be a possibility. By definition, if God created this rebellious will, then it’s part of his will. If it isn’t his will, then he would have never created it. You can’t see this?
You are a proposing a Creator who creates something that doesn’t serve him, which isn’t real.
If it can be done — the devil rebelling against God — then that means there must be a (created) will to do it. If God never created the will to rebel, then it would never be a possibility. By definition, if God created this rebellious will, then it’s part of his will. If it isn’t his will, then he would have never created it. You can’t see this?
You are a proposing a Creator who creates something that doesn’t serve him, which isn’t real.
God is not a master who needs slaves. God did not create a will to rebel, He gave boundaries and free will.
People choose to do things. We have drives and motivations. God does not.
God created no wills. What do you think a "will" even is?
Peoole are not automatons, they have choices and make those choices and will be held accountable for what they think, believe, and do.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Answer me honestly: was the holocaust the will of God?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
God is not a master who needs slaves. God did not create a will to rebel, He gave boundaries and free will.
People choose to do things. We have drives and motivations. God does not.
God created no wills. What do you think a "will" even is?
Peoole are not automatons, they have choices and make those choices and will be held accountable for what they think, believe, and do.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not good enough. Good luck to you.
When a man reaches for the sword in the name of justice, the lower version of God will place blame on anyone else but himself. He will sacrifice women or even innocent children rather than himself.
The true God, the God of life, takes responsibility for all evil and death. He makes himself the one and only scapegoat.
When a man reaches for the sword in the name of justice, the lower version of God will place blame on anyone else but himself. He will sacrifice women or even innocent children rather than himself.
The true God, the God of life, takes responsibility for all evil and death. He makes himself the one and only scapegoat.
Further, when the lower version of God does evil, he hides and pulls strings from the shadows. He would rather you think he doesn’t exist than receive condemnation for his actions.
However, if he can pull off his evil without facing condemnation AND be worshipped? The angels in heaven mourn over such depravity.
lol I’m just trying to understand how they had an opportunity to do so and your answer is not good enough ?
It’s not me who needs luck , it’s the ones dying before the arriving of Jesus and his teaching ….
Hitchens was great on this point. Something about "You just have to believe that God sat by for hundreds of thousands of years of human history and did nothing, then sent his messiah into an already feverish messiah creating culture ... YOU JUST HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT ... to sacrifice for the sins of mankind, yada yada yada ..."
It's bizarre on its face. And the obvious answer is it is religion designing like all the other religions.
You think I looked at a map before walking the path because you assume I must be like you. Only the blind man who realizes he’s blind can know me.
The funny thing is I am the blind man. I do not know or claim to know the ultimate nature of things. You claim you do. Have you ever read William James "The Varieties of Religious Experience?" You really are like Koresh. Here are the options as I see them, in descending order of likelihood:
1. You are like Koresh (see the James book).
2. You are an AI religio-bot.
3. You are trolling.
4. You actually are a direct messenger/channeler of god but refuse to reveal how this came about and who the god is (see the James book as to why one might be self-deluded along these lines).
The correct assertion that God did not smite the world with a flood is not an argument against God it is an argument against a literal interpretation of the Bible.
If you want an argument for God I would recommend Ibn Sina's Proof of the Truthful. As for why this world is so dogshit (which corresponds to the absurdity of religion as it of) the argument within the Abrahamic religions is the existence of the devil which, for some reason, chose to harm humanity with its design which is opposed to Go
I looked at it and knew it under another name. I'm not really going there. It seems an oversimplified reduction of the Big Bang ilk, "well just reverse things and we will see the beginning." Much more recent discoveries call the whole thing into question. Quantum realities in particular must be a humongous clue about origins and even about ontological being, but Sina hardly had access to that. He's too oversimplified. Like the regression thing, we can't just give a pat, obvious answer to it and say voila. That usually fails.
It is not an argument from cause, it is an argument from being which is fundamentally different.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hitchens was great on this point. Something about "You just have to believe that God sat by for hundreds of thousands of years of human history and did nothing, then sent his messiah into an already feverish messiah creating culture ... YOU JUST HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT ... to sacrifice for the sins of mankind, yada yada yada ..."
It's bizarre on its face. And the obvious answer is it is religion designing like all the other religions.
Probably why they need that 6000 years limit .
The most practical thing anyone can do to connect with the soul is to get into self development. The self is the bridge to the soul in the same way the soul is the bridge to God.
(1) Give your word to your self that you will achieve a certain goal.
(2) The consequence for breaking your word is death. This vow and willingness to lay down your life for your self is an act of love.
(3) When you fail your goal and don’t hold yourself to account, then stand in front of the righteous judge in your mind’s eye, receive your guilty verdict, and toss yourself out into the outer darkness of death.
Do this and you will begin to know the story written on your soul.
This is not how ethics works. There are boundaries that should not be crossed and you are free to operate within those boundaries.
Do you mean free in the Libertarian sense? In that case very few atheist philosophers would agree with this claim as physical objects operating in time and space simply behave as objects with those particular characteristics always will behave in situations such as that one. "Operating within boundaries" is incoherent. Objects behave precisely as they behave and could not have done otherwise.
This problem of self defeat also applies to the very argument you're making in this thread. I'm either forced to agree with you or forced into disagreement. The idea that you or I chose between two arguments is nothing more than epiphenomenal trickery at best, and even that's assuming you grant that the mind is a non-reductive physical property emergent from the physical but not reducible to it.
Do you mean free in the Libertarian sense? In that case very few atheist philosophers would agree with this claim as physical objects operating in time and space simply behave as objects with those particular characteristics always will behave in situations such as that one. "Operating within boundaries" is incoherent. Objects behave precisely as they behave and could not have done otherwise.
This problem of self defeat also applies to the very argument you're making in this thread. I'm either f
What do you mean free in the libertarian sense?
If you know that murder is wrong and simply do not kill somebody in such a manner that it could be perceived as murder, even if who they are allows for your justification of their killing, is that freedom? You are free to do it, but you would clearly be doing something wrong and would be judged by God for doing so. You still have a choice, a genuine choice, which is freedom itself.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do you mean free in the Libertarian sense? In that case very few atheist philosophers would agree with this claim as physical objects operating in time and space simply behave as objects with those particular characteristics always will behave in situations such as that one. "Operating within boundaries" is incoherent. Objects behave precisely as they behave and could not have done otherwise.
This problem of self defeat also applies to the very argument you're making in this thread. I'm either f
And the mind is a material concept, your consciousness is not. I do grant to consciousness, with just cause, a non-reductive physical property emergent from the physical but not reducible to it.
Thank you for stating that so succinctly, it's a very precise argument.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Also it's completely false that objects behave as objects will and could not do otherwise.
It's called nonlinearity, the manner in which the Universe genuinely behaves.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Even with the time limit, they have to believe that God only intervened to save those living in a very specific and particular geographic location. Heck the full extent of the world wasn’t known to those to whom Jesus purportedly appeared. Why didn’t Jesus say something, or better yet, why didn’t he actually appear to those living in Sun-Saharan Africa, Australia, Eastern Asia, the Pacific Islands, or the Americas? The poor people living in those places apparently were doomed from the start and God didn’t really care too much about them, did He?
