• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Sinning, as Jesus and the church say, is good. Turn or burn Christians.

"was necessary" and "is good" are two different things.

alasdair
 
Gormur said:
Sinning as Jesus and the Church say is good [because they want you to come repent, rinse and repeat]. This assumes that we don't want to find the truth but continue in our ignorance, which is socially acceptable and convenient. That's how I understood it anyhow. Maybe it means something else
Click to expand...
Carrot and stick.

Jesus is the carrot and hell the stick.

Social control and manipulation is what religions are all about. For a price.

Even the lying pope says that we have to go through the church to reach god.

Religions are lying gate keepers and are not requires for enlightenment. In fact, they are anathema to it.

Regards
DL
 
alasdairm said:
i could understand the church saying sinning is necessary. but good? not so much.

alasdair
Click to expand...
In our evolution, we compete or cooperate all the time.
Cooperation is seen as good because no victim is created.
Competition is seen as evil because a loser/victim will think evil has befallen him.

Think of competing is analogous to sinning.
Without the happy fault of competing, we would go extinct. Right?

There is no conflict between god and nature in this issue and that is why Gnostic Christians do not have what some call the problem of evil.

Take evil/competition away and we go extinct.

Regards
DL
 
The Axe said:
I think the church would say sinning is inevitable given human nature, which does bring up a paradox. Jesus teaches redemption for us as sinners, but how does a sinner who is a believer get into the kingdom of heaven where, presumably, there is no sin or sinners? Seems like an impossibility.
Click to expand...

Good point.

I have a TLDR that speaks to that for Christians.

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

Eve was correct in eating of the tree of knowledge and rejecting God.

It was God's plan from the beginning to have Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or God damned sin.

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

This indicates that Jesus had no choice.

If God had not intended humans to sin from the beginning, why did he build into the Creation this "solution" for sin? Why create a solution for a problem you do not anticipate?

God knew that the moment he said "don't eat from that tree," the die was cast. The eating was inevitable. Eve was merely following the plan.

This then begs the question.

What kind of God would plan and execute the murder of his own son when there was absolutely no need to?

Only an insane and immoral God. That’s who.

The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice, thus showing it‘s immorality.

One of Christianity's highest form of immorality is what they have done to women. They have denied them equality and subjugated them to men.

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

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.

Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.

First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.

Evil then is only human to human.

As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.

Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should all see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

Regards
DL

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

Evolutionary theology.


Regards
DL
 
Gormur said:
I took it as a misunderstanding like how L2 speakers can use good instead of accepted, but I'll wait for Gnostic Bishop to set the record straight
Click to expand...
I put quite a bit up on this thread today.

Let me know if you get it or not.

Regards
DL
 
The Axe said:
Firstly, sin and competition are not the same thing, you ignorantly equate the two of them.
Click to expand...
I agree that competition and sin are not always defined the same way, some quite stupid ways.

That does not negate they they are analogous in the way I have explained notions.

Equate them or accept it or recognize that we are not on the same page.

The Axe said:
Secondly, the very thing you call 'sin' could be bad evolutionarily in the long run for us, things like nuclear warfare, if subject to your crude idea of competition, could cause an extinction.
Click to expand...

Evolutionarily, how is the evils suffered by the losers of our competitions not just a small part of a larger good, --- when it is maintaining our species at it's fittest?

It prevents extinction and that is why it is generated by our selfish genetic programming.

It is a natural culling of the least fit, as far as our instincts are concerned.

Our DNA forces us to strive to be the fittest, not only for ourselves but for the species.

That is why you debate and argue buddy. You want to be the fittest at it.

I don't know if you recognize that I do it for the opposite reason.

Regards
DL
 
The Axe said:
Gnostic Christianity is an elaborate ruse to make a few cheap and trite points based on exaggeration and bad logic. No wonder humankind has ignored it for centuries.
Click to expand...

Being anquisitioned out of existence, by a religion you seem to favor, will sure stop the more moral that the usual Christian, --- Gnostic Christians, --- from raising their heads.

Only of late has free thinking been allowed, and the tipping point was reached about 10 years ago and free thinkers are already the vast majority.

Hail all the gods. Sheeple have finally been outnumbered by thinking people.

What points exactly do you have in mind.

If moral, I will pin your big ears back.

Gnostic Christians are demonstrably more moral than Christians.

Regards
DL
 
”Sinning, as Jesus and the church say, is necessary.”

alasdair
 
lucky things are good things but you didn't say jesus said sin was lucky.

your argument seems vague and muddled to me. thanks though.

alasdair
 
alasdairm said:
lucky things are good things but you didn't say jesus said sin was lucky.

your argument seems vague and muddled to me. thanks though.

alasdair
Click to expand...
That is because you insert words I have not used. I use happy fault the way the bible state it.

Use the quote function and you will get out of the muddle you lied your way to.

Regards
DL
 
lolirony.

no thanks. you don't seem sincerely interested in a civil discussion so i'm going to agree to disagree and bow out.

alasdair
 
alasdairm said:
lolirony.

no thanks. you don't seem sincerely interested in a civil discussion so i'm going to agree to disagree and bow out.

alasdair
Click to expand...
Thanks for the favor.

You don't seem sincerely interested in a civil discussion, given your lies about what is said.

Regards
DL
 
Gnostic Bishop said:
Thanks for the favor.

You don't seem sincerely interested in a civil discussion, given your lies about what is said.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...

You really are something else. I hope you realize what a terrible ambassador you are to the thing you're trying to push on people. I felt more favorably towards Gnostic Christianity before I had to deal with your constant hostility all across this forum.
 
Xorkoth said:
You really are something else. I hope you realize what a terrible ambassador you are to the thing you're trying to push on people. I felt more favorably towards Gnostic Christianity before I had to deal with your constant hostility all across this forum.
Click to expand...
What am I hostile towards?

Have you noticed?

Regards
DL
 
lol

Gnostic Bishop said:
You don't seem sincerely interested in a civil discussion, given your lies about what is said.
Click to expand...

2 posts up you called ali a liar for trying to argue with you, but that's just literally your last post... there are many others just in this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top