Questions to Christians

[Fairy]

Oh my god. I can't take any more of this. I'm off to X and my intelligent, man-hating terfy friends. What a breath of fresh air they are

accelafine, you seem to like coming here to read these tragic love stories though. Do you read Mills and Boon books by any chance? Or what about Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë?

Don’t you just love a good Kathy and Heathcliff experience?

That's pretty funny. I've just started Sean Carroll's 'The biggest ideas in the universe--quanta and fields' but his American 'English' has alienated me from the start.

You alienated yourself..stop blaming fictional characters for your own alienation.

[accelafine]

accelafine, you seem to like coming here to read these tragic love stories though. Do you read Mills and Boon books by any chance? Or what about Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë?

Don’t you just love a good Kathy and Heathcliff experience?

That's pretty funny. I've just started Sean Carroll's 'The biggest ideas in the universe--quanta and fields' but his American 'English' has alienated me from the start.

You alienated yourself..stop blaming fictional characters for your own alienation.

Stop pretending to be retarded. No one's that stupid without being mentally retarded.

[Fairy]

That's pretty funny. I've just started Sean Carroll's 'The biggest ideas in the universe--quanta and fields' but his American 'English' has alienated me from the start.

You alienated yourself..stop blaming fictional characters for your own alienation.

Stop pretending to be retarded. No one's that stupid without being mentally retarded.

Yes I’m mentally retarded. I’m totally and utterly mentally insane. It’s the real me, not pretending.

What, was you expecting someone else?

[accelafine]

You alienated yourself..stop blaming fictional characters for your own alienation.

Stop pretending to be retarded. No one's that stupid without being mentally retarded.

Yes I’m mentally retarded. I’m totally and utterly mentally insane. It’s the real me, not pretending.

What, was you expecting someone else?

Poms are all nuts. Awful people.

[Fairy]

Life is a serial killer, it’s a sadistic torturer. It births you just to watch you die painfully and slowly, but sometimes quickly if you are lucky.

[Fairy]

Stop pretending to be retarded. No one's that stupid without being mentally retarded.

Yes I’m mentally retarded. I’m totally and utterly mentally insane. It’s the real me, not pretending.

What, was you expecting someone else?

Poms are all nuts. Awful people.

You’ve always known that, congratulations. Can’t keep away from them though can you. Misery loves company or else why do you keep reading Pom nuts shit. poo poo head.

[Age]

To "have a god" means to have some object, entity or value that is prioritized first in one's life -- the thing one most worships, and to which one's life is oriented. Thus, the commandment implies, "You shall not rank anything else in your valuing as higher than God," or "Nothing but God Himself is fit to become the orientation point of one's life, projects and values."

It can be paraphrased, then, in various ways; but the principle is very clear. God first. Only the true God.

Does God put anything before all other things? I wonder.

But, God is all visible things.

[attofishpi]

Yes I’m mentally retarded. I’m totally and utterly mentally insane. It’s the real me, not pretending.

What, was you expecting someone else?

Poms are all nuts. Awful people.

You’ve always known that, congratulations. Can’t keep away from them though can you. Misery loves company or else why do you keep reading Pom nuts shit. poo poo head.

So.












Does NE1 actually want to question an actual Christian?

[Age]

So God must put himself before all other things. He's a supremely self centred being.

God IS before all things, by definition. It's called being the "First Cause." So is God legitimately "before all things," and do all things "consist in Him"? Indeed so: and it's a claim that Scripture is glad to make (see Col. 1:17).

But there's nothing "self-centered," in the negative sense, about God: a God who is willing to die for His people is, by definition, not "self-centered" in that negative way that you might imagine. And a God who is concerned with eternal salvation is, by definition, not merely thinking about Himself.

What makes such a claim hubristic in a human being, and what turns being self-centered into such a bad thing for us is two things: first, that it's totally unwarranted, and secondly, that no man is legitimately or plausibly the center of even his own universe, let alone anybody else's.

Not so with God.

Isn't there only ever the present appearance of life though? Where would the centre of life be located, if ever there was such a centre?

Because all things, which happen, happened 'before', the 'center of Life' is then the Mind, Itself, which is also where Awareness/Consciousness happen, and occur.

[Age]

So God must put himself before all other things. He's a supremely self centred being.

God IS before all things, by definition. It's called being the "First Cause." So is God legitimately "before all things," and do all things "consist in Him"? Indeed so: and it's a claim that Scripture is glad to make (see Col. 1:17).

But none of that prevents God from having priorities. So why is it not legitimate to ask what God puts before all other things?

God, in the visible sense, is just 'all matter', of which none is before, nor after, another.

All is just, continually, changing in shape and form, always.

Matter is just always interacting with itself, and absolutely none is more, nor less, important.

But there's nothing "self-centered," in the negative sense, about God: a God who is willing to die for His people

But God is said to be eternal, therefore he can't die. But I suppose you are talking about the earthly death of Christ. Whether presented as truth, or allegory, I have never understood the "logic" of Christ's death being a benefit to anybody. It makes absolutely no sense to me, and believe me, I have genuinely tried to understand the underlying concept.

Firstly, let 'us' agree that calling that human being, God, only confuses things, here, and was just "immanuel can's" faulty attempt to try to claim that God, Itself, is not 'Self-centered'.

Secondly, God is absolutely 'Self-centered', but this is totally understandable, and totally acceptable, because as being all visible things there is not one thing that is before/more, nor after/less.

God has every 'right' to be 'Self-centered' because It is, literally, every visible thing.

What makes such a claim hubristic in a human being, and what turns being self-centered into such a bad thing for us is two things: first, that it's totally unwarranted, and secondly, that no man is legitimately or plausibly the center of even his own universe, let alone anybody else's.

Well we are all inevitably the centre of our own universe,

Only if you things 'try to' make or cause "your" 'own universes'..

but I agree that doesn't entitle us to put ourselves above all others. But if we have any duty at all, as human beings, I think it is towards other human beings, and not to "supreme" beings, whether they be real or fictional.

Why do think that if there is so-called 'duty', then why towards other human beings, only?

This is a prime example of 'self-centeredness', itself. Thinking that only 'the species' that one 'belongs' to, deserves 'duty' towards, for example, is 'species self-centeredness'. By thinking 'this way' you are, literally, putting "yourselves' above all others. Which you also claim you are not entitled to.

And, having 'duty' to the so-called 'Supreme Being' just means having 'duty' to all, equally, and not just some, more nor less so.

[Age]

God IS before all things, by definition. It's called being the "First Cause." So is God legitimately "before all things," and do all things "consist in Him"? Indeed so: and it's a claim that Scripture is glad to make (see Col. 1:17).

But there's nothing "self-centered," in the negative sense, about God: a God who is willing to die for His people is, by definition, not "self-centered" in that negative way that you might imagine. And a God who is concerned with eternal salvation is, by definition, not merely thinking about Himself.

What makes such a claim hubristic in a human being, and what turns being self-centered into such a bad thing for us is two things: first, that it's totally unwarranted, and secondly, that no man is legitimately or plausibly the center of even his own universe, let alone anybody else's.

Not so with God.

Isn't there only ever the present appearance of life though? Where would the centre of life be located, if ever there was such a centre?

I'm sorry...I just can't even understand your first question above.

Why can you not even understand this Truly simple yes or no question?

It's not at all obvious to me why you would imagine that was true.

It now appears that you did, actually, understand the question, and, really, you just completely disagree.

Also, why it was not at all obvious to 'this one' why "fairy' could see that there was only ever the appearance of life is because 'this one' believes, and desperately hopes, absolutely, that there is more than just 'this life'.

How and why all of these people, really, 'saw', and 'did not see', what they all did was, and still is, completely obvious.

[Age]

God IS before all things, by definition. It's called being the "First Cause." So is God legitimately "before all things," and do all things "consist in Him"? Indeed so: and it's a claim that Scripture is glad to make (see Col. 1:17).

But none of that prevents God from having priorities. So why is it not legitimate to ask what God puts before all other things?

Because whatever is the most valuable thing in the universe IS the thing most deserving of our affection. By definition, there's nothing higher.

But there's nothing "self-centered," in the negative sense, about God: a God who is willing to die for His people

But God is said to be eternal, therefore he can't die. But I suppose you are talking about the earthly death of Christ. Whether presented as truth, or allegory, I have never understood the "logic" of Christ's death being a benefit to anybody. It makes absolutely no sense to me, and believe me, I have genuinely tried to understand the underlying concept.

It's called "substitutionary atonement." And it's actually not a hard concept to understand. There are at least rough parallels in ordinary human practice. Think of when somebody else pays your fine for you, and you don't end up going to jail. It's when somebody else gives you a kidney, so you don't end up on dialysis. It's not hard to understand what's going on, in either case. But as with either case, your agreement to the arragement defines whether or not it's even going to happen.

But, the actual very reason that that 'just another human being' being 'killed' for its lack of ability to communicate, and/or argue, Correctly, or sufficiently and efficiently enough, and which is called 'died for our sins' also has gone completely unnoticed and unrecognised by you human beings, hitherto the days when this is being written.

That human body being nailed to a cross is absolutely in no parallel at all to one human being paying a fine for another human being so the latter does not have to go to prison. you really are, literally, completely 'missing the mark' here, again, "immanuel can".

What makes such a claim hubristic in a human being, and what turns being self-centered into such a bad thing for us is two things: first, that it's totally unwarranted, and secondly, that no man is legitimately or plausibly the center of even his own universe, let alone anybody else's.

Well we are all inevitably the centre of our own universe,...

Actually, the obvious fact is the opposite. You and I come into a world that was already formed and running when we were born. During our lives, much of what happens to us, from cradle to grave, is beyond our ability even to influence, let alone control; and what actually we can control or change often turns out to be very small, local, and only related to our own immediate situation.

LOL Talk about, another, prime example of one who has been completely and utterly misled, and is continuing to mislead. Thus, continuing to create and cause a Truly twisted and distorted 'world', in which more unfortunate human beings will be born and brought into.

And we're totally out of control of when and how we die...short of suicide. And then, when we're gone, the universe will go on as if we never existed. So of what were we the center?[/quote]

Once again, 'this one' completely and utterly missed the actual point that was being made by 'another one'. The point being that you human beings make up and create your own little universes by 'the way' you 'look at' and 'see', things/the One and only Universe, differently.

Maybe the real marvel is that so many people think they're some kind of "center of the universe" when nothing could be farther from the obvious truth.

Obviously you human beings, individually nor even collectively, are the centre of the Universe. But, what is actually at 'the center' of the Universe, because It is at 'all of' the Universe, always is in fact right within the 'very center' of each and every one of you human beings.

'I/It is and am, also, guiding and instructing you all to what is, actually, irrefutably True, and Right, if only you, individually, would just LOOK, and LISTEN.

But if we have any duty at all, as human beings, I think it is towards other human beings, and not to "supreme" beings, whether they be real or fictional.

To fictional ones, you're right; we can have no duty. But if God is God, then not only is it obvious we have duty to Him,

LOL "Him".

These people could just not SEE and HEAR the actual irrefutable Truth, while they were believing and presuming otherwise.

As 'this one' keeps proving irrefutably so, for me.

but it's been an instant recognition by all cultures and by practically every person who has ever lived that we do. If it's not obvious to you, that might be a function of being raised in an atypically unspiritual culture. It's certainly not the world or historical average.

'Averages' do not matter one iota here.

And, just maybe it is not obvious to "harbal" because "harbal" is not as susceptible to unsupported and unverified beliefs and claims as you obvious are "Immanuel can".

After all you have proven over and over here that you are absolutely susceptible to the biggest and most obvious False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect views and claims.

And given that all attempts to construct a metaethical basis for morality on secular lines have been dismal failures so far, then if we believe in morality at all, it's only because of that legacy of recognition that mankind has that God should be the focus of our duty.

LOL you say this as though 'following perceived gods' and 'following some claimed rules made up by these perceived gods has made 'the world' a better place. LOL one only has to 'look at' the warring, in the so-called "middle east", with the absolute slaughter of completely absolutely innocent child, in the very days that these words are being put on screens, and all under the 'pretense of God', to 'see' how following and worshipping human beings made up theologies is, and was, absolutely disastrous for not just human kind but also for the planet and thus all of the other animals as well.

you human beings were living a far more peaceful and harmonious life before the introduction of human beings made up stories of God/s, and lawfully enforced rules.

you human beings used to live 'morally', before you decided to do what you 'knew' was Wrong, and started punishing others for doing what just some claimed were 'wrong things' to do.

There is absolutely no wonder why "harbal" and far clearer thinking human beings are so skeptical about what you and others say and claim here "immanuel can".

Thee is no wonder why there is so much hatred and anger in 'the world' when there are so many people with 'superiority complexes' and with 'very judgmental views' like you 'immanuel can".

[Age]

I'm sorry...I just can't even understand your first question above. It's not at all obvious to me why you would imagine that was true.

Ok never mind, I'm just trying to understand what you are understanding in the hope that it aligns with my own understanding. I really want to understand what you are showing me, us. Genuinely, I do.

What's not true about the idea there is only ever the present appearance of life. Isn't Life, just as it is, already the case, without any thought about it needed to be what it is?

"immanuel can" just believes, and hopes, absolutely, that there is some kind of 'other life', after the human body stops breathing, and experiencing, in this One and only Life. Although it is, obviously, absolutely Untrue, "immanuel can" is just really, really hoping that there is 'another life'. And, that is what "immanuel can" 'understands'.

[Age]

God IS before all things, by definition. It's called being the "First Cause." So is God legitimately "before all things," and do all things "consist in Him"? Indeed so:

So in God's unconditional Love...

Where did you get the phrase "unconditional love"? All love happens within certain "conditions."

For example, if nothing else, there has to be consent of both parties. That's a condition of any relationship we would call a "love" relationship.

LOL For one who supposedly believes in God, but then claims that all 'love' happens within certain conditions, the contradiction here is blatantly obvious.

Also, absolutely no 'consent' is needed regarding 'love', itself, as there is not a human being that does not want, nor even need, 'love' always, anyway.

[Age]

That depends. What do you mean by "life just carry on"? Do you mean, "Carry on as it is?" Or do you hold it possible that entering into a relationship with somebody might well produce some fairly significant changes to life?

I don't really know what I meant by carry on, only that whether I love somebody else or not, that would not take away or add any more to the love I already am.

But then again, by entering into a relationship with somebody else, might just significantly change the love that I already am. How so...probably because the love that I already am would be doubled, when I'm loving someone else as well, my love would be greater love than the lesser love that it was before I chose to love another.

Is that what you meant?

There is not a human being who would not consent to 'love', itself. So, what "immanuel can" was 'trying to' claim above here is just moot, anyway.