Imperefct God

[henry quirk]

I have every freedom and right that I choose to defend or demand

Yes, that's a marvelous example of what I said above: asserting a right by way of nothing more than wishing it were so. So let me ask you the child's question: "What gives you that 'right'?"

Did you see "chose to defend".

I can defend any right I claim. Can't you?

I can do anything I want, within the bounds of nature. Even break some laws of men. Can't you?

Regards
DL

The question -- to be specific about it -- is not...

Can I shoot a man just to watch him bleed? (of course you can)

...but...

Should I shoot a man just to watch him bleed? (no, you shouldn't).

[gaffo]

Don't forget Crom, on his mountain, indifferent.

Gnostics ignore Atonement, so the cross is immateril to them. and utterly irrelivent - all they care about is the message their Christ had to those that heard him speak.

I'm not gnostic...not sure what Crom, a deist's god, has to do with gnosticism.

Anyway: good to see you, guy...it's been a little while.

???"Crom"??? as in Cromcrock? he was/is the god fo the Irish prior to Christians, and he has nothing to do with Jebu nor his cros or his daddy.

[gaffo]

Don't forget Crom, on his mountain, indifferent.

Gnostics ignore Atonement, so the cross is immateril to them. and utterly irrelivent - all they care about is the message their Christ had to those that heard him speak.

Imagine if he wrote: "Christians ignore atonement, and the cross is immaterial to them and utterly irrelevant." Would anybody believe him?

why not? your Jesus said many wise tings - found in ghte gospels - if you remove the cross/atonement - what e/He aid about "stuff/lif" - wisdom - is not less - and you are wrong, millions fo folks lived and died ignoring the atonement, and only valuing your God's Sons sayings from 200-1200 ad - until the Catholics killed them all off.

so ya, um no you you are wrong - thanks for reply though - you a nice guy and i like talking to you - and yes you do have a mind also - just wrong here.

peace.

[gaffo]

Gnostics ignore Atonement, so the cross is immateril to them. and utterly irrelivent - all they care about is the message their Christ had to those that heard him speak.

Imagine if he wrote: "Christians ignore atonement, and the cross is immaterial to them and utterly irrelevant." Would anybody believe him?

And yet, he insists that there's such a thing as a "Christian Gnostic."

Go figure.

There's all kinda mish-mashes of christian-fill in the _____.

I think there's even christian-deism...lord knows how that works.

Seems to me: a lotta folks are invested in watering Christianity down.

seems to me the core question per Christianity is:

1. did the messenger have a message - and if so way was it?
2. did he or of not, if not, was him dying on the cross make up for his lack of message?
3. which do you value more - a guy dying on a cross or the message he spoke about prior to being killed my the romans?


it pretty simple - sem to me the cross won out that what the guy had to say lost out. thanks to history and Sual/Pual.

[gaffo]

Ignore the word "cult" if you want. It won't change anything. Gnosticism is not at all Christian, and cannot be, regardless of what anybody claims. Anybody who thinks otherwise simply has no idea what a "Christian" is.

The last time I checked there is no copyright on the term, "Christian." There is no universally accepted meaning of that word, which is why the world is filled with religions that call themselves Christian, including the syncretistic versions of Christianity mixing voodoo and animism with Biblical teaching in Africa and South America, Christian Science, Mormonism, even political parties. The term Christian includes innumerable ideologies and superstitions.

You may not like that, but there is no authority determining who or what can be called Christian.

the pope is the authority.............................

lol.

[gaffo]

Ignore the word "cult" if you want. It won't change anything. Gnosticism is not at all Christian, and cannot be, regardless of what anybody claims. Anybody who thinks otherwise simply has no idea what a "Christian" is.

The last time I checked there is no copyright on the term, "Christian."

Actually, there is.

Christ retains the right to define it.

um, ok, but he is one of the daad.

read Ecclesiastes.

any chump can re-write what a dead man said and meant when they cannot return alive to refute those claiming to say what he said.

[gaffo]

“atheist churches,” which cater to Americans who have lost faith in supernatural deities but still crave community, enjoy singing with others, and want to think deeply about morality. It’s religion, minus all the God stuff.

The unitarian universalists fit that description.

Many years back, I attended a UU church in Lacombe, Louisiana. The congregation was intelligent, political, concerned about morality; it was also a soap opera of sex, backstabbing, grudges, and greed. And the children...all were bein' raised in an enlightened way, and nearly every one was a mess...all manner of psych-issues (self-injury, eatin' disorders, etc.).

After a couple of years, and havin' alienated pretty much everyone, I stopped attendin' services.

Now, I'm sure there are actual god churches where things are no better, but my gut tells me they'd be the exception whereas that UU church was the rule for the no-god places.

well you gave it a shot - atending a UU chiurch.

my understanding is that the UU chirch split about 20-30 yrs ago - beween the "conventional" chrisitans and the Wicca(sp) - and now there are two are two branches of that church.

[gaffo]

Imagine if he wrote: "Christians ignore atonement, and the cross is immaterial to them and utterly irrelevant." Would anybody believe him?

And yet, he insists that there's such a thing as a "Christian Gnostic."

Go figure.

It is Gnostic Christian, usually.

Still no such thing.

Who were you referring to and can I have a quote?

Gaffo. And no: it's right there, above, for you to see.

clearly i don't see what you see.

what do you see?

[gaffo]

Imagine if he wrote: "Christians ignore atonement, and the cross is immaterial to them and utterly irrelevant." Would anybody believe him?

And yet, he insists that there's such a thing as a "Christian Gnostic."

Go figure.

It is Gnostic Christian, usually.

Still no such thing.

Who were you referring to and can I have a quote?

Gaffo. And no: it's right there, above, for you to see.

lower case thanks

[gaffo]

Easy answer. Christianity is Judaism plus Messiah.

Nope!!!!!!!!!!!!! if that were so - and Jesus was "just" a jewish messiah - sure thing!


but Christianity is NOT that!!!!!!!!!!!! - and why we still have Judaism today -a dn why the Muslims reject Chrsitan thought - because BECASUE the CHRISTIANS since gospel of John claim that jebus is not "just" the jewish messiah, but God!!!!!!!!!!!! or His Son - depending upon which book in the NT you read - eithr theology - God or His Son is HERESY to Judaism ad Islam.


so you are playing willingfully dumb here! sr - and disscret yourself and me in converstation. if you are not willing to be honest in disscussion we have nothign to disscuss.

[attofishpi]

seems to me the core question per Christianity is:

1. did the messenger have a message - and if so way was it?
2. did he or of not, if not, was him dying on the cross make up for his lack of message?
3. which do you value more - a guy dying on a cross or the message he spoke about prior to being killed my the romans?


it pretty simple - sem to me the cross won out that what the guy had to say lost out. thanks to history and Sual/Pual.

Forget the old paul sole thang.

1. did the messenger have a message - and if so way was it?
1. Christ, the messenger among most things asked for faith in who He was and what He was about to do in that period of time (2000 appx yrs ago)
----churches\cathedrals were built upon the rock of what He stated - such that even an atheist that has to attend a funeral over those millennia had some OTHER thought that the END.

2. did he or of not, if not, was him dying on the cross make up for his lack of message?
2. What lack of message precisely. There is a reason for DOUBT and a reason for FAITH. His message was made clear by the extent to which he was known - SACRIFICED on a pair of sticks. (ya the crucifix)

3. which do you value more - a guy dying on a cross or the message he spoke about prior to being killed my the romans?
3. Ah...see now that is THE point. as per my point 2 answer. What did you expect, that Christ would pull out some tech, such as a megaphone and say HEY here I am, listen to the words I have been stating. Fortunately there were a group of early Christians that spread his message and a few that witnessed his resurrection.

...btw, your response to IC regarding him stating "Christianity is Judaism plus Messiah.

..is extremely short sighted. IC is bang on with that statement.

Je_wish

What do they still wish for? - Christ. He came, their high priests had him killed by the Romans. yadada - and now the "democratic Christian" nations, protect the Jewish land of Israel - how ironic - that indeed Christ did as intended.

[gaffo]

seems to me the core question per Christianity is:

1. did the messenger have a message - and if so way was it?
2. did he or of not, if not, was him dying on the cross make up for his lack of message?
3. which do you value more - a guy dying on a cross or the message he spoke about prior to being killed my the romans?

it pretty simple - sem to me the cross won out that what the guy had to say lost out. thanks to history and Sual/Pual.


I note you did not address my point - man or message?

Forget the old paul sole thang.

??

1. Christ, the messenger among most things asked for faith in who He was and what He was about to do in that period of time (2000 appx yrs ago)

I read the Gospels long ago - and in them only in John is your claim correct, in the other 3 its have fatih in YHHW- not Jesus.

and Jesus said many things - all about moral moral teaching, not about "beleive in me as God/god's son. per Synotipc, not Gosp of John of course.

----churches\cathedrals were built upon the rock of what He stated - such that even an atheist that has to attend a funeral over those millennia had some OTHER thought that the END.

2. did he or of not, if not, was him dying on the cross make up for his lack of message?
2. What lack of message precisely. There is a reason for DOUBT and a reason for FAITH. His message was made clear by the extent to which he was known - SACRIFICED on a pair of sticks. (ya the crucifix)

3. which do you value more - a guy dying on a cross or the message he spoke about prior to being killed my the romans?
3. Ah...see now that is THE point. as per my point 2 answer. What did you expect, that Christ would pull out some tech, such as a megaphone and say HEY here I am, listen to the words I have been stating. Fortunately there were a group of early Christians that spread his message and a few that witnessed his resurrection.

...btw, your response to IC regarding him stating "Christianity is Judaism plus Messiah.

..is extremely short sighted. IC is bang on with that statement.

Je_wish

What do they still wish for? - Christ. He came, their high priests had him killed by the Romans. yadada - and now the "democratic Christian" nations, protect the Jewish land of Israel - how ironic - that indeed Christ did as intended.

So you aaying just ingore what Jsus said about conduct, and just affirm he iHe is God - both daddy and son - per John's work - and that is all that matter.

thanks for playing.

per Israel, the only reason she still has support is becasue of American special intersts buying out support when she has been a full Apertied state for 30 yrs - Europe cut her ties with she in the 90's - America as more cords to cut - 1/4th of sneate and house being dual citizens - plus specail interests buiyng out support for oppression when right conduct would have ended the support of israel after Israel via Janin/Cory Rachel - speaks vvolumes - $$$$$$ talks morality not so much - sadly ;-/.


tanks for rep;ly - nonted you did not actually anwser my quary though. man vs message.


ps.........



actually you did - man over message was your reply to me.

and so - why man over message?

back to you for conversation.

[gaffo]

where is IC????????????? i would welcome his conversation. Sir? wharer are you? you well i Hope/


i hope he is well, nice guy now i have to wrroy about him being silent ;-/./

[Immanuel Can]

Here's a puzzle for you. Fill in the missing premise in the syllogism:

Premise 1: There is no God. (Atheism)
Premise 2: ______________________ ?
Conclusion: Therefore, my existence has value/meaning. (or some other assertion of meaning or value: you can pick one)

Let's see what you think glues those two ideas together. I'll be intrigued to find out.

Firstly, your puzzle is faulty because you've distorted it with your thinking.

It's more like this...

Premise 1: There is no God.
Premise 2: There is awareness and order.
Premise 3: Man is creative.
Conclusion: Man creates value and meaning through awareness and order.

I can see you're not familiar with syllogisms. You have no middle terms. I don't want to be irritating, so I won't point out the problems in your proposal precisely.

The one I offered is unavoidable, actually, because premise 1 is required by Atheism, by definition. And the conclusion is the thing Atheism is supposed to issue in, if it can, by definition of the problem. All of that is unavoidable by definition.

The middle premise I left to you entirely. So at no point can this syllogism be "distorted." It can only be completed (by you) or not.

And it's not. But that's not your fault, and it's not even the fault of your lack of knowledge of syllogisms; it's because that syllogism cannot actually be completed by anything. There is no way to connect Atheism to morality. Atheism makes it utterly unnecessary -- and, in fact, impossible-- for anyone to assert any moral precept on its basis.

[Immanuel Can]

where is IC????????????? i would welcome his conversation. Sir? wharer are you? you well i Hope/


i hope he is well, nice guy now i have to wrroy about him being silent ;-/./

I'm here.

Thanks for the concern, G. I was "off the grid" for a week, with no access. But no harm done. I'm back now.