How and why can people ignore their God’s immoral ways?

[Gnostic Bishop]

How and why can people ignore their God’s immoral ways?

 

I find it quite strange that Christian, Muslims and Jews can ignore the immoral ways that their God is shown to have in the Bible, Qur’an and Talmud.

 

If you have read any of the critical books on God, you will have seen God described with some rather disingenuous terms that, if applied to a man, would see that man executed by any moral government in quick order. The Buddhist saying that if you ever meet God, kill him seems quite fitting. Frankly, I think killing him without making him suffer for a time would be too good for him. If hell were real, that would be a better end for him as mankind would surely need to see that torture to gain real closure for God’s crimes against humanity. This aside.

 

I can appreciate the value for society of local churches, mosques and temples but cannot fathom why lying priests, preachers and imams try to sell their God as a good God, when he is obviously more satanic than Satan. Perhaps scripture speak at least one truth in that the whole world would be deceived by Satan and his lying preachers and imams. Not that I believe in Satan.

 

As a Gnostic Christian, my focus has been to try to become a Parfait, a perfected moral man, using the methods Jesus taught. It has been a long climb up Jacob’s ladder and apotheosis put me up one rung and I have tried to climb higher, but seem to have stalled due to my inability to find arguments that are persuasive enough to loosen Satan’s grip on the minds of Christians, Muslims and Jews. Their need of fellowship is stronger than their work on their moral sense and they stay in their religions even though they know that their God is immoral and not worthy of their idol worship. This Gnostic Christian truth is not a flattering epithet for God, which is likely what cause their destruction by Inquisition.

 

The truth hurts the religious even when given with a loving touch. I am not that good at that but have seen good honest lovers of Christ get verbally abused by theists. They think hate is motivating those who speak against their God even when love is the motivator. Hate is born of love, and the Gnostic hate of God is justified on moral grounds, and the attempted correction of a believers moral sense and their thinking is done out of love. They forget that that is how Jesus was and how that love driven expression of hate with what he saw around him almost got him killed at the hands of the Jews. So the myth says.

 

The fact that I have had many theists resist entering into moral argument of their God indicates that they know that their God is immoral. I can appreciate that once a person accepts the fellowship that his tribal nature seeks, and he can survive without having better morals, he is loath to jeopardize the comfort zone he has created for himself. The problem is that theists are living in self-deception and for one who seeks or has attained Gnosis, a deeper knowing of himself, self-deception is basically not allowed. That is why I have to bother fighting a fight that is almost un-winnable.

 

If you have an answer to the question I posed at the onset, please enlighten me as I am quite disappointed to see so many living in self-deception and without Gnosis, and following Gods who are demonstrably more Satan like than God like.

 

In the terrible days that we will face from environmental degradation that will soon be upon us, a new and moral God will be required and we presently do not have one.

 

I recognize that our tribal and fellowship needs are quite strong and a part of our basic instincts. Do you have any idea as to how we can break Satan’s hold on Christians, Muslims and Jews and change their fellowship and tribal needs to a need for a God with decent moral values?

 

Regards

DL

 

[Jsbrads]

I don’t think it is up to people to decide whom to genocide. God has culled his creation many times. Much like any human would do to plants and animals.

It isn’t immoral to destroy evil people. It is the highest Good.

[Tyler H]

How were the infants who drowned in the flood evil? Or the ones burned alive in Sodom and Gomorrah? Or the first born sons of people who didn’t smear sheeps blood on their door, what did they do?

[Fashus Maximus]

On 11/27/2017 at 5:54 AM, Tyler H said:

How were the infants who drowned in the flood evil? Or the ones burned alive in Sodom and Gomorrah? Or the first born sons of people who didn’t smear sheeps blood on their door, what did they do?

Those people were given warning after warning to cease their incestuous behaviors and witch practices. After generations of inbreeding, those "infants" you refer to were non-human satanic abominations, who were most likely in pain and illness from their genetic deformities. The flood, and any other Godly purification cleansed society from heretics, degenerates, and their likely-to-die-anyway offspring.

In non-biblical terms, it is likely that the last generations had degenerated to a point where they were no longer a forward-thinking people. They failed to foresee the flood, or they failed to acknowledge the risk foretold by Noah, or they took too many witch potions (i.e. drugs / alcohol) to care.

[Jsbrads]

How were the heroine babies evil? What did they do to deserve being born to a heroine addicted malnutrition mother?

You can be “kind” to the out of wedlock mothers in the 60s and create 30 million fatherless children who prey on each other and have an average lifespan of 23. Or you can be “cruel” to that tiny minority of fools in the 60s and today there might be 1 million fatherless children (most of whom would live close to respectable adults and aren’t preyed on by their own, or allowed to prey on others because the fathers are around). I would rather be “cruel” sometimes, shame fools, minimize the incentive for the fools to take over the earth.

The populations destroyed were preying on each other. There weren’t any righteous to save. You have no concept of how hard it was to care for four more mouths than your own. Noah was able to save himself, his sons and womenfolk. How many babies could he have fed? Raised? How long would you have enslaved him? Those babies had parents. They created the babies they couldn’t raise. Not Noah. Not God.

Sodom, the same principal applies. Who would have taken them? Midian, ditto. 

[ProRational]

The Buddha said if you meet the real Buddha kill him. This was a message to never stop improving oneself. The Hesychast Monasteries (an acetic type of Eastern Christian Monasticism) follows the same ideals to never stop improving oneself. So do several orders of Catholic Monasticism (Benedictine Order, Franciscan Order, and the Carmelites) the use of a religious leader in Catholicism (is one who is sworn never to do violence, which if employed correctly maintains the example of justice but I will follow up on that latter. Also, due to freewill and the neglect of certain guiding foundations they may have chosen various excesses, thereby contradicting faith. Hesychast's teach that man's punishment for seeking unnatural pleasure (sin) which corrupts his union with the creator, is pain which could be emotional. This is not to associate God a perfect being, with those he chose to love (mankind an imperfect being). Man is (at-least according to Christians) to have free will, if man has free will he can use his status or privilege of power for either good or bad reasons (Or to believe or disbelieve in Him.) The Catholic church when it covered up the sexual scandal to avoid a black-eye did so out of their free will. The pain of such a sin was that a lot of faithful could not reconcile being part of such a faith. To approach on other Abrahamic faiths I will say that Israel in modern times had been promised its territory by the British before WWI and under the League of Nations after WWI as well as after WWII. The question (again arguing a non-philosophical point) is not where was God during the final solution under the third Reich it was where was humanity. Also theology would not be a Scientific school of thought because if the presence of God were proven, then where would the test of faith be. If you prove something exists then no one has to have faith. Thereby defeating man's free will, if man were to know God exists he would not have to have faith in the unseen, but because He's unseen and intangible doesn't mean He can't be felt on an emotional (or better Spiritual level). Back onto the topic of the Holocaust, it was God's promise to the Jewish people that they should return to the land of their ancestors. He did but not before a lot of horrible things on man's part were done. This is also quite ironic because the Nazi party had various occult ideals and twisted their idea of what God was to suit their political agenda. I also find it ironic that Hitler and various others attempting to exterminate those they thought were impure actually ended up serving God's promise to the Jews, who some still had faith and it was restored in others once they reached their promised land again. One can say God doesn't exist and walk through life believing in an uneventful end by just closing their eyes and sleeping. But also one can say (which is mentioned by even people of the soviet union who were encouraged to embrace atheism) that something had to be guiding them. They believed by rights, when science and all material understanding said they should die and they did not that something had to be guiding them, or an unseen presence was with them that saved them, this was felt when they thought nothing was there to save them. On the subject of the fifth commandment the Christian English bible said thou shall not kill, due to the misinterpretation translating from Hebrew of which has many words for one English word will have subtle difference that make the sentence context a lot different based on how one might translate a word. It is thou shall not commit murder the intentional taking of a person's life. If one were to bring up the doctrine of a just war for the Crusades, (actions based on the individuals) many men fought in defense of their lives some of which only killed when in self-defense (others out of anger or malice which would be murder.) This actually was in a sense an act of love as it had been the violent expansion of the caliphate that threatened the people's existence (not just culturally but there was unjust extortion of the use of the Jizya by the Muslims who began to sack Constantinople and Antioch) but also the violence of the Muslims who were using the idea of Sharia law to exterminate the non-believer. Sharia while not new to Islam, Hafez was a great critic of Sharia and a Muslim pointing out those who professed its necessity as well as their lack to adhere to it. It is not a question of God, it is a question of man abandoning his morals to achieve pleasure (a Christian can say that Islamic terrorism is a way of God punishing America.) But more accurate would be the breakdown of Family values and reluctance of people to take a stand in a society that encourages hedonism on one hand, and an unjust sense of law on the other. If one were to see his fellow brother or sister do something incorrect and not say something it encourages a breakdown in both himself or his fellow brother or sister. It is the morals in a society that go before ethics start breaking down, and when ethics break down a society can get very discontent because it can seem like everyone is wrong because no one knows what to believe (facts get mangled in fiction). 

Edited November 29, 2017 by ProRational
didn't make enough sense at the begining of the Catholic Monastic orders

[M.2]

On ‎2017‎. ‎11‎. ‎14‎. at 2:43 PM, Gnostic Bishop said:

1. How and why can people ignore their God’s immoral ways?
2. I find it quite strange that Christian, Muslims and Jews can ignore the immoral ways that their God is shown to have in the Bible, Qur’an and Talmud.
3. If you have read any of the critical books on God, you will have seen God described with some rather disingenuous terms that, if applied to a man, would see that man executed by any moral government in quick order.
4. The Buddhist saying that if you ever meet God, kill him seems quite fitting.
5. Frankly, I think killing him without making him suffer for a time would be too good for him. If hell were real, that would be a better end for him as mankind would surely need to see that torture to gain real closure for God’s crimes against humanity. This aside.

1. Seems to me like you are hardly interested in a counter argument, based on my earlier encounters with you, and that your question is insincere. But I'll bite, because I always fancy a good intellectual exercise. Please, if you can, try to ignore my snarky tone, and try to focus on my points.
2. Which immoral ways?
3. Why would you apply the same morals to God as you do to man?
4. What does Buddhism have to do with anything? They don't have the Abrahamic God.
5. Which crimes against humanity?

Quote

I can appreciate the value for society of local churches, mosques and temples but cannot fathom why lying priests, preachers and imams try to sell their God as a good God, when he is obviously more satanic than Satan. Perhaps scripture speak at least one truth in that the whole world would be deceived by Satan and his lying preachers and imams. Not that I believe in Satan. 

Maybe what God does is in accordance with their ethics? It's difficult if you don't have any examples.

Quote

1. As a Gnostic Christian, my focus has been to try to become a Parfait, a perfected moral man, using the methods Jesus taught.
2. It has been a long climb up Jacob’s ladder and apotheosis put me up one rung and I have tried to climb higher, but seem to have stalled due to my inability to find arguments that are persuasive enough to loosen Satan’s grip on the minds of Christians, Muslims and Jews.
3. Their need of fellowship is stronger than their work on their moral sense and they stay in their religions even though they know that their God is immoral and not worthy of their idol worship.
4. This Gnostic Christian truth is not a flattering epithet for God, which is likely what cause their destruction by Inquisition.

1. So you pray the Lord's prayer? Saying "Parfait", which is french for "Perfect" does not make you learned by the way.
2. Maybe you can't find arguments because there aren't any? The ones you presented so far have been pretty poor. I haven't had to open a link once.
3. Seems to me that you are just boasting how edgy you are.
4. When was this?

Quote

1. The truth hurts the religious even when given with a loving touch. I am not that good at that but have seen good honest lovers of Christ get verbally abused by theists.
2. They think hate is motivating those who speak against their God even when love is the motivator. Hate is born of love, and the Gnostic hate of God is justified on moral grounds, and the attempted correction of a believers moral sense and their thinking is done out of love. They forget that that is how Jesus was and how that love driven expression of hate with what he saw around him almost got him killed at the hands of the Jews. So the myth says.

1. Have you seen any gnostics being killed by theists? In a world where people are being killed for their faith, anecdotal examples of verbal abuse by christians is the least of my worries.
2. Damn... Theists around you are terrible human beings. You should definitely move cities.

Quote

The fact that I have had many theists resist entering into moral argument of their God indicates that they know that their God is immoral. I can appreciate that once a person accepts the fellowship that his tribal nature seeks, and he can survive without having better morals, he is loath to jeopardize the comfort zone he has created for himself. The problem is that theists are living in self-deception and for one who seeks or has attained Gnosis, a deeper knowing of himself, self-deception is basically not allowed. That is why I have to bother fighting a fight that is almost un-winnable.

I'm here. Open to arguments.

Quote

1. If you have an answer to the question I posed at the onset, please enlighten me as I am quite disappointed to see so many living in self-deception and without Gnosis, and following Gods who are demonstrably more Satan like than God like.
2. In the terrible days that we will face from environmental degradation that will soon be upon us, a new and moral God will be required and we presently do not have one.
3. I recognize that our tribal and fellowship needs are quite strong and a part of our basic instincts. Do you have any idea as to how we can break Satan’s hold on Christians, Muslims and Jews and change their fellowship and tribal needs to a need for a God with decent moral values?

1. Please do demonstrate.
2. Isn't there only one God? What do you mean "a new"?
3. Satan has been doing a pretty poor job with his hold on Christians as far as I know. I mean, have you seen the Duomo di Milano? Satan wouldn't build something like that.

[Gnostic Bishop]

On ‎27‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 2:19 AM, Jsbrads said:

I don’t think it is up to people to decide whom to genocide. God has culled his creation many times. Much like any human would do to plants and animals.

It isn’t immoral to destroy evil people. It is the highest Good.

So killing instead of curing is a higher good.

Only to the morally and mentally brain dead my friend.

You must be a Christian as they are the only ones who support what the rest of the world knows is evil. Genocide. 

Regards

DL

 

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

On ‎28‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 5:55 PM, Fashus Maximus said:

Those people were given warning after warning to cease their incestuous behaviors and witch practices. After generations of inbreeding, those "infants" you refer to were non-human satanic abominations, who were most likely in pain and illness from their genetic deformities. The flood, and any other Godly purification cleansed society from heretics, degenerates, and their likely-to-die-anyway offspring.

In non-biblical terms, it is likely that the last generations had degenerated to a point where they were no longer a forward-thinking people. They failed to foresee the flood, or they failed to acknowledge the risk foretold by Noah, or they took too many witch potions (i.e. drugs / alcohol) to care.

Yet God chose to kill when he could have cured.

You and your view make no sense and is not at all biblical.

Regards

DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

On ‎29‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 6:10 AM, ProRational said:

The Buddha said if you meet the real Buddha kill him. This was a message to never stop improving oneself.

That is also how Gnostic Christianity works as it is a religion of esoteric ecumenists and perpetual seekers.

Regards

DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

On ‎29‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 8:37 AM, Mishi2 said:

5. Which crimes against humanity?

 

I doubt if I can even chat with you but will try one point at a time to see if we can.

If you do not see the crimes against humanity I see, beginning with every time God kills or has us killed, when he could just as easily cure, then I guess that the conversation end right here. You might think of the flood of Noah's day as well as when God had Israel smash babies heads against stones.

Regards

DL

 

[M.2]

14 minutes ago, Gnostic Bishop said:

I doubt if I can even chat with you but will try one point at a time to see if we can.

If you do not see the crimes against humanity I see, beginning with every time God kills or has us killed, when he could just as easily cure, then I guess that the conversation end right here. You might think of the flood of Noah's day as well as when God had Israel smash babies heads against stones.

I'm open to chatting with anyone, and I often do.

You have a revulsion to death and killing that is pretty common in today's world, where we sacrifice the unborn to save the dying.

Also, you use the word "crime", by which you imply that there are laws in place that apply to God. Let's assume the laws for men apply to God just for argument's sake. We define murder as killing of the innocent. What makes you think everyone God kills is innocent? (According to catholic doctrine, not even babies are innocent in the eyes of God, in case you were going there.)

[Gnostic Bishop]

2 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

I'm open to chatting with anyone, and I often do.

You have a revulsion to death and killing that is pretty common in today's world, where we sacrifice the unborn to save the dying.

Also, you use the word "crime", by which you imply that there are laws in place that apply to God. Let's assume the laws for men apply to God just for argument's sake. We define murder as killing of the innocent. What makes you think everyone God kills is innocent? (According to catholic doctrine, not even babies are innocent in the eyes of God, in case you were going there.)

I know of no unborn sacrificed to save a dying person.

True that Christians are gullible enough to believe their lying priests who claim that their children are born in sin, so you would think that they would not care if a sinners is aborted.

Be they innocent or guilty, God can cure or kill and when he chooses to kill, he is choosing the immoral path instead of the moral path.

I now see why you numbered everything. You like to go your own way.

Regards

DL

 

[M.2]

19 minutes ago, Gnostic Bishop said:

1. I know of no unborn sacrificed to save a dying person.
2. True that Christians are gullible enough to believe their lying priests who claim that their children are born in sin, so you would think that they would not care if a sinners is aborted.
3. Be they innocent or guilty, God can cure or kill and when he chooses to kill, he is choosing the immoral path instead of the moral path.
4. I now see why you numbered everything. You like to go your own way.

1. You know how we abort babies by the millions to provide pensions to dying boomers. Mr.Molyneux talks about it almost weekly. You should check him out. 
2. Abortion is not done by God, but by us, which is why it is immoral. A baby has done nothing wrong to us, however definitely has against God. A baby can fall into despair for example, which is an offence against God. But I'll give it to you, even this, for argument's sake. God still has every right to take a life, since he owns life.
3. Only if you assume that it is immoral for God to kill.
4. I like to number everything because I respect the person I'm interacting with. Saves a lot of time and confusion.

[Gnostic Bishop]

21 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

3. Only if you assume that it is immoral for God to kill.

If you see it as immoral for either a man or a God to kill, when they can cure, you show how your beliefs have corrupted your moral sense.

If you cannot see that clear example of poor moral thinking, we have nothing further to discus as we would be wasting time.

Regards

DL

 

[M.2]

2 minutes ago, Gnostic Bishop said:

If you see it as immoral for either a man or a God to kill, when they can cure, you show how your beliefs have corrupted your moral sense.

If you cannot see that clear example of poor moral thinking, we have nothing further to discus as we would be wasting time.

False dichotomy. God does not kill because he is too busy watching the game to fix a person.

What would he want to cure anyway?

Would you please stop evaluating about my moral thinking? I got your point. I am probably a better person than you are even by your standards.

[Fashus Maximus]

1 hour ago, Gnostic Bishop said:

Yet God chose to kill when he could have cured.

Deus Vult. I'm missing what is immoral about cleansing the earth from the spawn of Satan.

1 hour ago, Gnostic Bishop said:

You and your view make no sense and is not at all biblical

You're making the age-old mistake of applying rational thought to that which requires faith (the suspension of rational thought). That's what doesn't make sense, here. You cannot have an argument about faith without faith. So if you have a faith-based argument to make, I'm all ears. Otherwise, any argument made against God's actions is always trumped by a simple answer: faith.

And what did I say that was not biblical?

[Jsbrads]

Do you know what God values higher than life?

Free Will.

someone chooses to be evil, God doesn’t destroy his Free Will to make him a better person. Watch out Gnostic, you are beginning to sound very Utopian...

[Tyler H]

@Mishi2 @Jsbrads How is it that you have come to know this information?

[Jsbrads]

The creation of the universe is God creating the opportunity to give to others. This is Goodness.

Maximum goodness is achieved by humans who achieve their benefits. Eudaimonia and Free Will are completely intertwined concepts.

[M.2]

3 hours ago, Tyler H said:

@Mishi2 @Jsbrads How is it that you have come to know this information?

Apologetics? We've been doing it for 2 millenia. I understand that this a side of christianity that is difficult to accept, but this is basic stuff,

[Gnostic Bishop]

14 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

False dichotomy. God does not kill because he is too busy watching the game to fix a person.

What would he want to cure anyway?

Would you please stop evaluating about my moral thinking? I got your point. I am probably a better person than you are even by your standards.

More than likely, for sure. That being the case, why complain of my evaluation? Do you fear the truth?

What would God cure? Whatever is causing him to kill.

Regards

DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

5 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

Do you know what God values higher than life?

Free Will.

someone chooses to be evil, God doesn’t destroy his Free Will to make him a better person. 

Killing them does not make them a better person either but God killing them makes him mlook like quite the prick given that he could cure them of what he is killing them for.

 

I disagree that people choose to be evil.

 

Are we not all products of our environment and upbringing? Excepting the insane of course.

Think Stockholm Syndrome.

Are you good or evil intrinsically, or are you whatever your environment created?

Are you a product of nature or nurture?

Regards

DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

5 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

Do you know what God values higher than life?

Free Will.

 

If God values free will, --- quite an assumption on your part BTW, --- why does he deny it to both angels in heaven, man on earth and even Jesus before even man was created?

The first thing God is shown to, even before creation, is to deny Jesus his free will to choose not to sacrifice himself by choosing him, regardless of Jesus' will that seems to not have been in favor of God altering his usual justice of punishing the guilty to demanding a bribe/sacrifice to alter and corrupt his usual justice which sought to punish only the guilty.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

 

If we really had a free will, some would choose to not sin. Right?

None ever have according to scriptures so your notion of free will cannot be accurate.

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

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. That being the case, for God to punish us for following the instincts and natures he put in us would be quite wrong.

Regards

DL

[M.2]

19 minutes ago, Gnostic Bishop said:

More than likely, for sure. That being the case, why complain of my evaluation? Do you fear the truth?

What would God cure? Whatever is causing him to kill.

It is just boring.

What is causing him to kill?

[Jsbrads]

Discussing angels who if they exist, they live in a completely different universe than ours... also if you know your Bible, they descended into the preflood earth and failed miserably (the Noah movie exposed me to the opinion that many decided to join Noah and ended up back in heaven, an exercise of free will).

As to Jesus, we don’t know what he was. I have my beliefs, you yours and everybody else a different set of views.

But why distract from speaking about humans? Were my comments too simple and straightforward that you need to dissemble to gain ground? No? Then let’s talk about people. 

Killing people doesn’t make them better. That is true. But neither does leaving them alive make them better.  You can’t make people be good. But if people are particularly bad, like murderers, killing them is not only not bad, it is good. 

I agree with you that babies aren’t evil. And that life is good, but only in its capacity to create goodness. Life dedicated to cable TV and child neglect* is not a valuable life in general, but it isn’t my job to calculate the value of individuals and mete out my own form of justice. Society only has to execute murderers. God takes care of the details.  

*Note, some societies were far worse than that. Molech, burned babies and children alive. Human sacrifice, pedophilia, slavery, rape, nonporportional justice systems, socially condoned abuse of women...

[Tyler H]

5 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

Apologetics? We've been doing it for 2 millenia. I understand that this a side of christianity that is difficult to accept, but this is basic stuff,

Are you asking me a question? 

If not, ok, would you mind stepping me through the reason from first principles?

[M.2]

4 hours ago, Tyler H said:

Are you asking me a question? 

If not, ok, would you mind stepping me through the reason from first principles?

I am asking you what exactly you are inquiring about. Is it apologetics, if so what in particular?

[Gnostic Bishop]

21 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

It is just boring.

What is causing him to kill?

Hate.

Regards

DL

21 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

Discussing angels who if they exist, they live in a completely different universe than ours... also if you know your Bible, they descended into the preflood earth and failed miserably (the Noah movie exposed me to the opinion that many decided to join Noah and ended up back in heaven, an exercise of free will).

As to Jesus, we don’t know what he was. I have my beliefs, you yours and everybody else a different set of views.

But why distract from speaking about humans? Were my comments too simple and straightforward that you need to dissemble to gain ground? No? Then let’s talk about people. 

Killing people doesn’t make them better. That is true. But neither does leaving them alive make them better.  You can’t make people be good. But if people are particularly bad, like murderers, killing them is not only not bad, it is good. 

I agree with you that babies aren’t evil. And that life is good, but only in its capacity to create goodness. Life dedicated to cable TV and child neglect* is not a valuable life in general, but it isn’t my job to calculate the value of individuals and mete out my own form of justice. Society only has to execute murderers. God takes care of the details.  

*Note, some societies were far worse than that. Molech, burned babies and children alive. Human sacrifice, pedophilia, slavery, rape, nonporportional justice systems, socially condoned abuse of women...

So you will ignore morality, and do the immoral thing, and let God take care of the details.

Ok.

The Inquisitors said the same basic thing.

Regards

DL

[M.2]

39 minutes ago, Gnostic Bishop said:

1. Hate.

2. So you will ignore morality, and do the immoral thing, and let God take care of the details.Ok. The Inquisitors said the same basic thing.

1. How do you know?

2. What did the inquisitors do exactly? Just curious, I don't mean to intrude.

[Tyler H]

I’m asking what is your methodology for determining whether what you’re saying is true or false.

[Gnostic Bishop]

3 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

1. How do you know?

2. What did the inquisitors do exactly? Just curious, I don't mean to intrude.

What, other than hate, would cause someone to murder another?

Google Inquisition and knock yourself out.

Regards

DL

 

 

Look up

[M.2]

17 minutes ago, Tyler H said:

I’m asking what is your methodology for determining whether what you’re saying is true or false.

Apologetics. What am I saying? I don't mean to be a pain, I'm honestly not sure what you are referring to.

16 minutes ago, Gnostic Bishop said:

1. What, other than hate, would cause someone to murder another?

2. Google Inquisition and knock yourself out.

1. By saying "murder", you have already evaluated his actions. One can kill another for a bunch of reasons. For a start, it can be an accident, or self defence, or defence of another...

2. I'm asking you. You bring up an argument, you are expected to justify it in this community.

[Tyler H]

18 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

Apologetics. What am I saying? I don't mean to be a pain, I'm honestly not sure what you are referring to.

No pain- everything you’re saying about God. His existence, motives, what morality does or does not apply to him. You answer apologetics, which to my understanding is pure argumentation, not reason and evidence, so I ask to be stepped through the argument since I have not heard it before - or of course corrected in my understanding of apologetics if I have mischaracterized it. 

[M.2]

2 hours ago, Tyler H said:

No pain- everything you’re saying about God. His existence, motives, what morality does or does not apply to him. You answer apologetics, which to my understanding is pure argumentation, not reason and evidence, so I ask to be stepped through the argument since I have not heard it before - or of course corrected in my understanding of apologetics if I have mischaracterized it. 

Sure. Everything I have said on this thread is the result of apologetics. Apologetics is reactive argumentation that aims to explain the doctrine to a specific objection (that of bishop in this case). It has to be reason and evidence based though, because the scientific method applies all the same.
Since I thought bishop was a christian, I thought we had common ground on the bible, so I started from there. Apparently I was wrong. With you, I don't know where to start from. We have to find common ground first. Otherwise I would be doing what Jehova's Witnesses do.