Gnostic Bishop wrote:Volunteering or not does not change you moral position.

It is you who is immoral if you do not take responsibility for what you do.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you think a good and moral legal system should punish the guilty or the innocent?

If the guilty, then how is it moral for you to try to profit from the punishment of an innocent man and having him suffer for you?

Of course it does Bishop, and your representation is a distortion of the truth in saying that God murdered his son.
You'll find this all well explained in the book of Romans.
We are all sinners and can not justify ourselves morally. I'm sure I'm at least as morally responsible as you are but fall well short of being able to morally justify myself before God.
You claim God does not exist and think that solves it for you.
I neither requested or demanded that God make atonement for sins. If he chose to do so then that's fine by me and I don't foolishly reject it.

Flann 5 wrote:

Gnostic Bishop wrote:Volunteering or not does not change you moral position.

It is you who is immoral if you do not take responsibility for what you do.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you think a good and moral legal system should punish the guilty or the innocent?

If the guilty, then how is it moral for you to try to profit from the punishment of an innocent man and having him suffer for you?

Of course it does Bishop, and your representation is a distortion of the truth in saying that God murdered his son.
You'll find this all well explained in the book of Romans.
We are all sinners and can not justify ourselves morally. I'm sure I'm at least as morally responsible as you are but fall well short of being able to morally justify myself before God.
You claim God does not exist and think that solves it for you.
I neither requested or demanded that God make atonement for sins. If he chose to do so then that's fine by me and I don't foolishly reject it.

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

That makes it murder as the conditions that required Jesus' death had yet to be put in place. God put them in place after choosing Jesus so that is pre-meditated murder.

Just like if you put your child in a room and then put a killer in there with him.

If God made you unable to justify your sins without embracing his murder of his son and you do so then you are as vile, morality wise, as the God you adore.

I cannot fathom what kind of pathetic mind cannot grasp that having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Jesus tell you to pick up your cross and follow him. Not put it on his scapegoat back and then jump on yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olhCazkejPg

Regards
DL

Perhaps you should ask Tolkien. Atheist C.S. Lewis did and became a Christian as a consequence of the answer.

Ah, let me update this... Atheist C.S. Lewis not only became a Christian, he became one of the 20th century's greatest writers and apologists.

It may be fun for you to kiss the baloney stone in a closed group forum, but when I spend time with my friends Lewis, and Tolkien, and Chesterton, and the Dr. Who is Thursday, and Deb Elkink and a hundred others your kissing becomes obviously the spreading.

Remember, bishop's moves are limited but the Queen's are not.

Stahrwe wrote:It may be fun for you to kiss the baloney stone in a closed group forum

don't you enjoy kissing the baloney stone in a closed group forum Stahrwe?, not that all churches or all forums are that closed.

and Queens moves are indeed limited now Freddie has moved on to sunnier climes

stahrwe wrote:Perhaps you should ask Tolkien. Atheist C.S. Lewis did and became a Christian as a consequence of the answer.

Good point Stahrwe. I'm sure Tolkein was well able to distinguish mythology from history.

Gnostic Bishop wrote:One's bias will determine who we will listen to. I listen to those who regardless of beliefs, rise to the top in each field.

And how many of those at the top in their academic fields are Gnostics?
Your complacency in thinking that smart academics agree with you is stunning. Why are they not all Gnostics then if they really agree with you and that's where the evidence points?
Are even Avalos and Francesca who you like Gnostics?

It is actually not surprising that a literal reading of the Bible seems so bogus to any but the most devout of Christians anymore. I can safely say that scripture wouldn't sound so outlandish to someone living in the time of Christ since it was written by and specifically for the cultures of that time . Thus, reading the Bible today requires considerably more effort because now you must understand the 1st century middle Eastern and Roman cultures and events; then you must apply the words of the Bible to those cultures and events to accurately understand the lesson that was put forth and why; and finally, you have to extrapolate the lesson in measure and apply it to the conditions we are faced with today - which implies that you must also understand the conditions of today and why. Ironically, the conditions really haven't changed all that much but the language and perception of those conditions are drastically different due to technology, experience and education. Like the schism between Orthodoxy and Catholicism that rose from a language barrier, our inability to truly relate to the teachings of the Bible stem from a culture barrier.

t_w_smith_2015 wrote:It is actually not surprising that a literal reading of the Bible seems so bogus to any but the most devout of Christians anymore. I can safely say that scripture wouldn't sound so outlandish to someone living in the time of Christ since it was written by and specifically for the cultures of that time . Thus, reading the Bible today requires considerably more effort because now you must understand the 1st century middle Eastern and Roman cultures and events; then you must apply the words of the Bible to those cultures and events to accurately understand the lesson that was put forth and why; and finally, you have to extrapolate the lesson in measure and apply it to the conditions we are faced with today - which implies that you must also understand the conditions of today and why. Ironically, the conditions really haven't changed all that much but the language and perception of those conditions are drastically different due to technology, experience and education. Like the schism between Orthodoxy and Catholicism that rose from a language barrier, our inability to truly relate to the teachings of the Bible stem from a culture barrier.

Hi t-w. Undoubtedly there are cultural differences and knowledge of their culture is helpful but I think you are overstating this to be an insuperable barrier to understanding these writings.
Is it really problematic for us to understand lets say the parable of the sower in the gospels, even if we are modern urbanites?
Can you provide examples from the gospels to illustrate the problem of the culture barrier and how this prevents us today from being able to relate to or understand these things?
Thanks.

stahrwe wrote:Perhaps you should ask Tolkien. Atheist C.S. Lewis did and became a Christian as a consequence of the answer.

Ah, let me update this... Atheist C.S. Lewis not only became a Christian, he became one of the 20th century's greatest writers and apologists.

It may be fun for you to kiss the baloney stone in a closed group forum, but when I spend time with my friends Lewis, and Tolkien, and Chesterton, and the Dr. Who is Thursday, and Deb Elkink and a hundred others your kissing becomes obviously the spreading.

Remember, bishop's moves are limited but the Queen's are not.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

Let me know if and when you grow to where you can discuss ideas.

Regards
DL

Flann 5 wrote:

stahrwe wrote:Perhaps you should ask Tolkien. Atheist C.S. Lewis did and became a Christian as a consequence of the answer.

Good point Stahrwe. I'm sure Tolkein was well able to distinguish mythology from history.

Gnostic Bishop wrote:One's bias will determine who we will listen to. I listen to those who regardless of beliefs, rise to the top in each field.

And how many of those at the top in their academic fields are Gnostics?
Your complacency in thinking that smart academics agree with you is stunning. Why are they not all Gnostics then if they really agree with you and that's where the evidence points?
Are even Avalos and Francesca who you like Gnostics?

Most who are intelligent enough to get a degree as statistics show, shed themselves of the tribalism and idiotic beliefs of religions. Most become atheists or close enough to it for me.

Better a moral atheist than believers like you whose morals have been corrupted to the point where you will forgive your God for torturing and killing babies and children but hopefully condemn a man for doing so.

Tell us, would you do so?

Would you condemn a man for doing all the killing your God is shown as doing in your history book.

Regards
DL

t_w_smith_2015 wrote:It is actually not surprising that a literal reading of the Bible seems so bogus to any but the most devout of Christians anymore. I can safely say that scripture wouldn't sound so outlandish to someone living in the time of Christ since it was written by and specifically for the cultures of that time . Thus, reading the Bible today requires considerably more effort because now you must understand the 1st century middle Eastern and Roman cultures and events; then you must apply the words of the Bible to those cultures and events to accurately understand the lesson that was put forth and why; and finally, you have to extrapolate the lesson in measure and apply it to the conditions we are faced with today - which implies that you must also understand the conditions of today and why. Ironically, the conditions really haven't changed all that much but the language and perception of those conditions are drastically different due to technology, experience and education. Like the schism between Orthodoxy and Catholicism that rose from a language barrier, our inability to truly relate to the teachings of the Bible stem from a culture barrier.

Well put and I agree.

I do not agree with this one small point.

"Like the schism between Orthodoxy and Catholicism that rose from a language barrier"

As I understand the ancient history, the schism was not language but the then Orthodox Church owned by Constantine trying to force literalism of only the 4 main Gospels down the throats of people who wanted to think for themselves and not convert to that literalism.

This short link speaks to that if you have the time for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02cia ... =PLCBF574D

Regards
DL