Donnadogsoth

Believing we are made in the mental image of the Creator tells us the Universe is comprehensible to us in that we are able to think God's thoughts after him. It tells us we have a destiny beyond wallowing in the hedonistic mire. It tells us we have hope for our immortal effects in this Universe, and hope for an immortal happiness in the next world. Without God there is no reason for the Universe to be reasonable, and no reason for man to be Godly. If there are other intelligent creatures in the Universe, they too will be made in God's image, and there we will have a basis for mutual understanding.

Jesus very clearly threatened us with Hell. "Pluck your eye out if it offends thee"? "Cut your hand off if it offends thee"? "Better to enter into the kingdom maimed than who with a whole body into hell."? Then there's the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, besides the other verses about the wailing and gnashing of teeth and the worm that dieth not." No, Jesus was very clear that Hell existed, unless we're going to postmodernise everything into a nothingness. What you're describing in diminishing free will is what I call "negotiation"--pressing people's neural buttons to change their thoughts and behaviours. But when applied to Heaven and Hell, these descriptions, recommendations, and allusions by Jesus do not negotiate fully with our brains. There remains room for doubt, for intuition, for choice, or else none would be worthy of being saved because none would be in God's image including possessing free will.

Well, I've read that even the Norwegians think the Swedes are insane. The proper term for the push you describes is Cultural Vandalism.

New Silk Road Goes Global, Including in the U.S.— This Is the Reason Trump Is Under Attack http://larouchepub.com/other/2017/4421nsr_global.html Lyndon LaRouche is the world's foremost economist and advocate for the same "win-win" infrastructure-based global economic revitalisation that is happening out of the locus of the recent Bejing talks between various world leaders including a representative of the Trump administration. This article further details the process of the Belt and Road Initiative, noting the various leaders from many continents who are participating. As the article says, "Do not believe the lie that Trump is on the defensive—that his actions have undermined his credibility, as peddled ad nauseam in the western media. The fact is, Trump is on the offensive, to end the British Imperial era of history. The British and their assets in the United States—the neocons in both parties and on Wall Street, and the corrupt elements in the intelligence community, especially the FBI—are absolutely hysterical now that the geopolitical division of the world into warring factions, is being replaced with a win-win policy based on the common aims of mankind. What is at stake for this imperial oligarchy is their ability to induce the U.S. population to passively accept austerity and war, which is being destroyed by Trump’s move to bring the United States into the New Silk Road, and to work with Russia to crush the terrorist scourge. His stated intention to restore Glass Steagall and the Hamiltonian American System of physical economy, simply drives the British assets further into panic mode. "As Helga Zepp-LaRouche reiterated in her many speeches and interviews in China this past weekend—she was a featured speaker at the Global Think Tank Summit at the Belt and Road Forum: if Donald Trump succeeds in bringing the United States into the new paradigm of the global Silk Road, he will be remembered as one of the great presidents of American history. The Belt and Road International Forum, she said, has set the world on a course to a final demise of Empire and the zero-sum game geopolitical mind-set that goes with it. This week there has been a dramatic phase shift in the history of humanity. "Paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin: There is now a new world economic order, if we can keep it."

Fascinating stuff. Could you reference a source for this information or did you compose it yourself?

In what way does an illiterate peasant living in Greater Moravia in 913 AD lack the freedom of will to steal an apple or refrain from stealing it?

I'm trying to isolate a principle here. Do you believe colonisation is wrong or not?

Why shouldn't Stefan seek to preserve his society from being overwhelmed by colonisers? Aren't you against colonisation?

Why are you here? This is not a left-wing board by any stretch of the imagination. You are not going to find sympathetic fellow-travellers.

How left? Left liberal or left socialist?

Emotional-weakness-based pacifiism is as shameful as a clubfoot. We do not punish people for having clubbed feet. But, a principled pacifist is actually scandalous and forfeits the right to be protected by those with the courage and conviction to actually oppose evil men.

That's denying people free speech, not denying that they have free will.

I wonder how you vote?

Why would you hope the nation is more mentally ill than it already is?

How are you going to get your relative out of being raped? Ask the rapist nicely? Suppose he is in the process of stripping her and exposing himself, all the while she's screaming "Help!". So what do you do? You're a chickenshit pacifist who throws down the gun and what, tries to pull the rapist off of her? He's a hundred pounds heavier than you are and knows how to fight, so he punches you bloody, picks up the gun and shoots you, and then goes back to committing rape. Where is your third option here? Are you really stupid enough to believe that there are always pacifist options to any situation that don't involve people getting traumatised and killed? If you don't realise the right to self-defense you are retarded, and dangerous as well. In fact, if this is what your belief system amounts to, I correct myself, it is not amoral and flaky, it is immoral and flaky. If you are not willing to stop a rape happening right in front of you but instead try to paw the air at him or something, you are actually evil.

I know it's hard for you to think clearly about moral dilemmas, but you should realise what you've just said. In a situation wherein there are only two options: (1) watch (while 75% blind) and hear your relative be raped, or (2) attempt to stop the rape from happening, you have chosen to let your relative (niece perhaps?) be raped. All this because you think that God has no preferences, and that the situation is merely one of God raping himself while he watches. I can't on short notice think of anything more evil that this situation. You are willing to let your niece be raped because you're too much of feelgood, pacifist flake to even try to do anything to stop it.

If one of your relatives were about to be raped, and you had a gun, you're telling me you wouldn't shoot the rapist?

So, what would you do if someone came to hurt people you care about? Would you fight to defend them or would you do nothing?

No, you're not an egotist, you're an omnist. Why would I insult your family? You haven't answered my question about politics. You dodged that question like you dodged the others, substituting instead more blather about your religious mentality that I don't care about except to note that it is amoral and flaky.

Yes, you love your oversized head, I understand that. You're God and you have no preferences but you're also a human with preferences and would prefer to remain that way instead of ballooning off into the stratosphere. You're not answering the questions I gave you, but perhaps you'll answer this one: What are the political implications of your worldview? Other than generals and warlords are meanies?

Again, who cares? Who cares if a system is "barbaric" or "outdated"? Who cares if men kill each other in war, or are shot for being pacifists? What difference does it make if it is just God doing the killing and the "dying"? It's just God being an asshole to himself, but since he doesn't have preferences, it's really a matter of indifference, so why call anything barbaric and outdated? Why use loaded language like "serial killer" to describe the actions of God in sending himself to kill himself? Your oxytocin high is a joke. You are in love with yourself, not with someone else. Your love is a lie, by your own terms of belief.

Your New Age blather misses the point, which is that according to you God has no preferences, and therefore being a serial killer is as good as being anything else. You're also being highly insulting (to yourself, I suppose) by dismissing the efforts of all the patriots throughout all of history who lent, and in many cases lost, their lives defending their countries from the aggressions of wicked invaders. But, hey, if we're all God, there's no sense worrying about who dies or is "serially murdered by generals and warlords" given that there is no such thing as death, just an endless sadomasochistic dance punctuated by oxytocin highs.

Do you believe in pantheism, Richard?

Sounds like another pantheist has joined the fun.

I wasn't talking to you.