To some this world is hell but, then again some prefer misery.
What? That’s bullshit, nobody can prefer misery, it’s logically impossible.
And no, don’t tell me “What about masochists?”. Masochism is when the psychological pleasure a person receives overrides the pain and the end result is still pleasure so that’s not actual misery.
I was not speaking of physical misery.
Mental misery?
Mental misery?
Mental misery?
Yea. Have you not met any?
Ditto.
Interesting that you think both God and Satan would treat their sons the same way and would both do the same immoral thing of having their sons needlessly murdered.
Regards
DL
Seems like.
My pleasure to pass that quote along. Those who think will see religions for what they mostly all are.
Regards
DL
Indeed. The ego must be appeased by God or he is not worthy of following.
Except that thinking that one is special or has a pipeline to God that no one else has is what has created all the various religions and that is why we no longer recognize which God is worthy and garbage like the O.T. God is actually sought out.
Ridiculous that. No one should love a genocidal son murderer.
Regards
DL
Indeed. Hence the demiurge for the Gnostic Christians and Satan for Christians to try to explain evil in the world.
Gnostic Christians ended up seeing a perfect world created by a perfect God while Christians now see an evil world controlled by Satan and cursed by a good God because his first humans would not follow his will and chose intelligence over ignorant bliss.
Strange how view change over time.
Regards
DL
Mental or physical misery, my point stands. If you claim somebody prefers being miserable you’re basically claiming that somebody is happy while being sad…
There is probably a very neat explanation for the change. Once the church took hold of the Gnostic beliefs, they needed to make a business of it? Guilt was a way to assure an eternal debt to the souls’s redemption, and actually buying “indulgences” was like a security blanket, for both: the believer who felt comfortable wit the idea of living without that, (and back in those days, debt was something people went to prison for) and for the church-which was assured a life long hold on income and the control of lives. This change, therefore, including the idea of hell, was brought about ex post facto, by some very smart men, who wanted their piece of the pie. Jesus and the disciples were , by a clever revision, changed into figures to serve this purpose. Jesus was the most used/abused figure in the history of religious thought. No wonder the heretics were burned at the stake, and schisms dealt with utmost ferocity.
Insightful.
That is also why the Jewish elevation in Eden became the fall of Christianity. All for the cash that gilt brings in be it real or made up by the churches.
youtube.com/watch?v=SF6I5VSZVqc
All we seem to get from religions are lies.
Regards
DL
Reason is possible in brains that have achieved a certain level of consciousness in which the demands of body needs are not solely determined by instinctual behavior. It is a space or delay between the instinctual reporting of a need and the ability of the mind/body to fulfill the need . It is the space for options.
This level of awareness includes our awareness of personal death. This may be the reason that the “fall into mind” has been characterized as a negative occurrence by the Judeo-Christian religions. Serpent is the ravenous id; Eve is emotional coloration or demand of the need; Adam is the possibility of logical mental behavior for fulfilling the need.
A reasoned hypothesis. That is the beauty of not reading scriptures literally. We can find a way to interpret it that makes sense. The literalist way does not.
Note how the Jews who own that myth interpreted that the fall was in fact our elevation of mind and not the fall of it.
I think the Christians should have used the Jewish interpretation.
More money for them though in going to a fall.
Regards
DL
Is it immoral to protect or defend? If your child is the one capable of doing so then how is it immoral to send them to their death for the greater good. It would be immoral to not do so.
Sorry, but the greater good is god’s domain. Jacob is a good example. It became a test of faith. Actual sacrifice is god’s literal re-affirmation of his self, as in the case of Jesus. On the contrary, it would be a slap in god’s face to assert his regression into human sacrifice.
Was the father not capable? Was the Father defective or is the son just more of a God than your God?
Would you do the right thing and step up or would you also self-serve yourself and send a son to do you duty?
How will you get yourself into heaven? On your own merit or via a scapegoat?
Revisit substitutionary atonement or vicarious redemption and scapegoating with me just to refresh your memory.
youtube.com/watch?v=uNtBkOXItqw
I am not an atheist but Satan and Christians want atheists to embrace barbaric human sacrifice and the notion that we should profit from punishing the innocent instead of the guilty. Scapegoating IOW.
In reality, if God did demand such a barbaric sacrifice, he would be sinning as we all know that it is immoral to kill the innocent. God knows this yet Christians do not seem to. You do. Right?
Those with good morals will know that no noble and gracious God would demand the sacrifice of a son just to prove it’s benevolence. When you die, Satan will ask you; how was your ticket to heaven purchased? With innocent blood?
If and when you say yes, you become his.
The other option in scriptures, a moral one, is shown here. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Scriptures indicate that God prefers repentance to sacrifice and as God’s will is supreme and cannot be thwarted, this will come to pass.
It is a special distorted Christian view of love that sees, — as the greatest act of love possible, — their God condemning them, and then turning and demanding his son’s deaths and thus corrupting God’s perfect justice. A bribe set by God as judge himself for himself. This is of course ridiculous.
Christians have an insane view of love, IMO.
Would you express your love for humanity or those you love by having your own child needlessly murdered?
Or if convinced that a sacrifice was somehow good, would you have the moral fortitude to step up yourself to that cross instead of sending your child?
Your cowardly God did not.
Regards
DL
Any God with such poor morals deserves a good slap.
So do his followers who would try to profit from punishing the innocent instead of the guilty.
God definitely backslid unless you think evil existed when God was all there was. Most Christians do not.
Who created evil if not God?
Regards
DL