Equality.

Author: GnosticChristianBishop

Posts

Total: 53
#31
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@SirAnonymous
Well, it would be rather pointless to create beings without free will. I can write a computer program to make it say "SirAnonymous is the greatest", but it would be a waste of time.
If you wrote a computer program knowing that you'd written into it the ability to (and desire to) do something you didn't design it to do, would you then be mad at the computer program? 

He knew that in the long run it would be a good thing, even though it would bring about a lot of bad things in the short run.*
Why would god want to take "the long way" to a good thing?
#32
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@ludofl3x
If you wrote a computer program knowing that you'd written into it the ability to (and desire to) do something you didn't design it to do, would you then be mad at the computer program? 
Don't doubt my ability to rage at inanimate objects!

More seriously, the computer analogy breaks down because computers are incapable of rational thought and free will. Everything a computer does is a direct result, intentionally or unintentionally, of its programming (unless the hardware breaks). But let's set that aside and suppose that the computer can have rational thought and free will. If I were to program a computer so that it truly had rational thought and free will, and it did something I didn't want, then yes, I might be mad at it. Simply because I give someone a choice does not mean that I am responsible for what choice they make. If they have free will, then they can choose rightly, or they can choose wrongly. But because they have free will, they are responsible for that choice, not the person who gave them free will.
Why would god want to take "the long way" to a good thing?
Why do you assume that there is a short way? Yes, God is omnipotent, but He cannot force people with free will to do what He wants. Not because He can't, but because they wouldn't be free if He did.
#33
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@SirAnonymous
 If I were to program a computer so that it truly had rational thought and free will, and it did something I didn't want, then yes, I might be mad at it. 
Great! So now, what if when you programmed it this way, you KNEW it would do something you didn't want it to? Not guessed, but knew absolutely, would you be mad at the program?
#34
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@ludofl3x
Great! So now, what if when you programmed it this way, you KNEW it would do something you didn't want it to? Not guessed, but knew absolutely, would you be mad at the program?
Yes. My knowledge of what it would do has no bearing on the fact that it freely chose to do something wrong.

Consider this: When people have children, they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that their child will do things that are wrong. Is it then the parents' fault that their child does wrong things? Are parents wrong to be mad when their children do wrong?
#35
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@SirAnonymous
My knowledge of what it would do has no bearing on the fact that it freely chose to do something wrong.
Your knowledge that it WOULD (not could) do something wrong means that it didn't freely choose. You programmed it not only with the ability to make the error, but you programmed it and ran it KNOWING it would make the error. But no big deal, you're mad at the program you wrote. So, how do you fix it so you're no longer mad at it? 
Are parents wrong to be mad when their children do wrong?
Can you give me an idea of what "wrong" looks like in this context? I never got mad at, say, getting the answer to a math problem wrong, I'm sure that's not what you mean, I'd just like you to define it so I can respond accurately. Give me an example. I will pose a counter question in the meantime:

Let's say you have a son who crashes your car after borrowing it without permission, and thankfully no one, including him, is hurt. You have three choices for punishment:
  • Ignore it so long as he says "sorry"
  • Make him work off the bill to repair the damage to the car, and severely restrict his privileges until such time as it's paid off (no phone, no driving, no access to friends, etc, commonly known as "grounding")
  • Send him to a torture chamber from which there is no escape including death
Which punishment would you choose?

#36
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@ludofl3x
Your knowledge that it WOULD (not could) do something wrong means that it didn't freely choose.
In the case of running a program with an error, that is true, because the program can only do what I tell it. In the case of an omniscient God creating beings with free will, that is not true. God's knowledge does not cause them to make the choice. Their choice causes God to have the knowledge.
Can you give me an idea of what "wrong" looks like in this context? I never got mad at, say, getting the answer to a math problem wrong, I'm sure that's not what you mean, I'd just like you to define it so I can respond accurately. Give me an example.
You need an example of what children do wrong? Lying, stealing, being mean to others, disobeying their parents.
Let's say you have a son who crashes your car after borrowing it without permission, and thankfully no one, including him, is hurt. You have three choices for punishment:
  • Ignore it so long as he says "sorry"
  • Make him work off the bill to repair the damage to the car, and severely restrict his privileges until such time as it's paid off (no phone, no driving, no access to friends, etc, commonly known as "grounding")
  • Send him to a torture chamber from which there is no escape including death
Which punishment would you choose?
Likely the second. As the father in this situation, my goal is not punitive punishment. My goal is to help my son understand what he did, feel the consequences of his actions in a way that helps him understand, and to make it less likely that he will do it again in the future. In this scenario, I am a father, not the judge of the universe. I would also maintain that this scenario is not analogous to the options presented under Christianity.

But if you wish to say that God's standards are wrong, on what basis can you make that claim? By what objective standard of morality can you say that His standards are wrong? And if you think morality is subjective, then "I subjectively disagree with God's standards" is not at all convincing.
#37
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@ludofl3x
In the case of running a program with an error, that is true, because the program can only do what I tell it. In the case of an omniscient God creating beings with free will, that is not true. God's knowledge does not cause them to make the choice. Their choice causes God to have the knowledge.
Addendum to explain the difference more clearly. I am not omniscient, so the only way I can know for certain what my program will do is if I explicitly tell it to do that. If I give the program free will, then I won't know what it will do because I didn't tell it what to do, because I am not omniscient. God, however, is omniscient, so he knows what people with free will will do, even though He didn't tell them what to do. He knows what people will do because He is omniscient, not because He made them do it or because He didn't give them a choice.
#38
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@SirAnonymous
In the case of running a program with an error, that is true, because the program can only do what I tell it. In the case of an omniscient God creating beings with free will, that is not true. God's knowledge does not cause them to make the choice. Their choice causes God to have the knowledge.
So god doesn't have knowledge of the future, even though he is omniscient? I'm confused. My choice causing god to have the knowledge is not omniscience. I'm not saying god's knowledge causes them to make the choice, to be clear, it's a programming problem. 

You need an example of what children do wrong? Lying, stealing, being mean to others, disobeying their parents.
These are all pretty minor offenses, and while I'd not be pleased and certainly would consider consequences, especially as these are fairly vague descriptions. If I knew before my child was born that they would grow up to be a mass murderer, then still had the child, ultimately, I am responsible for all of the murders that child commits, because I could have decided not to have a child. Since no parent knows for sure what sort of good or evil their child will get up to, it's not really an apt comparison. Also, none of the wrongs you put up there would warrant a torture chamber, we agree?

By what objective standard of morality can you say that His standards are wrong?
I don't believe morality is objective, and I don't think you do either. Morality is and always has been subjective. For example, at one time it was okay to sell your daughter as a sex slave, and now we see this practice as abhorrent. It was at one time widely accepted as "okay" to beat another person's child (corporal punishment at school is only one example). Now it isn't. In some places, the death penalty is viewed as totally wrong. In others, it's commonly prescribed in many societies. I can therefore say I wouldn't take my moral standards from a book from however many thousands of years ago, and rather from my own assessment of how my actions impact me, my family, my extended family, my community, and the world at large, basically in that order. For me, it is absolutely immoral, for example, to punish someone who isn't guilty of a crime that I know someone else committed. 

I would also maintain that this scenario is not analogous to the options presented under Christianity.
How so? 
#39
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@SirAnonymous
Addendum to explain the difference more clearly. I am not omniscient, so the only way I can know for certain what my program will do is if I explicitly tell it to do that. If I give the program free will, then I won't know what it will do because I didn't tell it what to do, because I am not omniscient. God, however, is omniscient, so he knows what people with free will will do, even though He didn't tell them what to do. He knows what people will do because He is omniscient, not because He made them do it or because He didn't give them a choice.
Thank you. So, if you don't know what the program will do, and it does something you didn't expect it to, you'd still be mad at the program itself, and not the programmer? You'd not go back and try to fix the code line that needed a tweak to perform better? 

Does your version of god have a plan in place for every person? Or is he just kind of observing and reacting to what people do? In other words is god ever surprised? (not the god in the bible, because there are outcomes he doesn't expect in the text)

Sorry, forgot to address this:

Let's say you have a son who crashes your car after borrowing it without permission, and thankfully no one, including him, is hurt. You have three choices for punishment:
  • Ignore it so long as he says "sorry"
  • Make him work off the bill to repair the damage to the car, and severely restrict his privileges until such time as it's paid off (no phone, no driving, no access to friends, etc, commonly known as "grounding")
  • Send him to a torture chamber from which there is no escape including death
Which punishment would you choose?
Likely the second. As the father in this situation, my goal is not punitive punishment. My goal is to help my son understand what he did, feel the consequences of his actions in a way that helps him understand, and to make it less likely that he will do it again in the future. In this scenario, I am a father, not the judge of the universe. I would also maintain that this scenario is not analogous to the options presented under Christianity.
Options one and two are directly Christian principles: ask for forgiveness and you're forgiven without condition (isn't this the Jesus promise?) and obviously Hell. THe middle one is closer to just, but it's a principle that a vast, vast majority of humans would adhere to, and Christianity is a worldwide minority. That would mean the middle option can be arrived at independent of a judeochristian principle. 
#40
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@ludofl3x
These are all pretty minor offenses, and while I'd not be pleased and certainly would consider consequences, especially as these are fairly vague descriptions. If I knew before my child was born that they would grow up to be a mass murderer, then still had the child, ultimately, I am responsible for all of the murders that child commits, because I could have decided not to have a child. Since no parent knows for sure what sort of good or evil their child will get up to, it's not really an apt comparison. Also, none of the wrongs you put up there would warrant a torture chamber, we agree?
On what basis would we agree? What standard do we have to determine what punishment each crime deserves?
I don't believe morality is objective, and I don't think you do either.
I do indeed.
Morality is and always has been subjective. For example, at one time it was okay to sell your daughter as a sex slave, and now we see this practice as abhorrent. It was at one time widely accepted as "okay" to beat another person's child (corporal punishment at school is only one example). Now it isn't. In some places, the death penalty is viewed as totally wrong. In others, it's commonly prescribed in many societies.
Change in human opinions of morality has nothing to do with whether there is an objective standard. Morality is not rooted in humans.
I can therefore say I wouldn't take my moral standards from a book from however many thousands of years ago
If there is an objective standard for morality, then it wouldn't change, so why does the age matter?
For me, it is absolutely immoral, for example, to punish someone who isn't guilty of a crime that I know someone else committed. 
You don't think so. If morality is subjective, why should I care what you think? If morality is objective, then what do your views of morality have to the objective standard?
I would also maintain that this scenario is not analogous to the options presented under Christianity.
How so? 
The first option presents repentance as merely saying sorry, and the father ignoring it. In Christianity, repentance is not just saying sorry. It is also a change of heart and a change of ways. Furthermore, the Father does not ignore sin. The punishment for sin has been paid by God's Son. This is also why the third option is wrong. Everyone is offered a pardon for what they've done. If a criminal rejects the judge's pardon, whose fault is it that the prisoner doesn't get pardoned? And if the prisoner says, "I don't believe the judge and his pardon exist", will he be set free?
So, if you don't know what the program will do, and it does something you didn't expect it to, you'd still be mad at the program itself, and not the programmer? You'd not go back and try to fix the code line that needed a tweak to perform better? 
If the program truly has free will, then that includes the ability to choose evil. So while I can improve the program so it may do less evil, I can't prevent it from ever choosing evil without removing its ability to choose.
(not the god in the bible, because there are outcomes he doesn't expect in the text)
I would dispute that.
Does your version of god have a plan in place for every person? Or is he just kind of observing and reacting to what people do? In other words is god ever surprised?
I don't think He is ever surprised.
#41
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@ludofl3x
Options one and two are directly Christian principles: ask for forgiveness and you're forgiven without condition (isn't this the Jesus promise?) and obviously Hell. THe middle one is closer to just, but it's a principle that a vast, vast majority of humans would adhere to, and Christianity is a worldwide minority. That would mean the middle option can be arrived at independent of a judeochristian principle. 
That people can arrive at moral conclusions without Christianity has nothing to do with whether the Christian standard is correct.
#42
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@SirAnonymous
Change in human opinions of morality has nothing to do with whether there is an objective standard. Morality is not rooted in humans.
Please demonstrate your evidence to this end. If morality is not rooted in humans, then what is it rooted in?
If there is an objective standard for morality, then it wouldn't change, so why does the age matter?
Please show me the objective standard for morality and I can answer. Don't assert it, though, I'm asking you to point me to it so I can ask my moral questions of this standard and get my definitive, inarguable (because it is objective) answers.
The punishment for sin has been paid by God's Son... And if the prisoner says, "I don't believe the judge and his pardon exist", will he be set free?
So, Jesus was not guilty of any sins, and every other person on earth was, because of Adam, right? If Jesus isn't guilty, Adam was, and the entire world population (or, local Hebrews, YMMV) are sinners, morality would dictate the punishment falls on...the only guy who isn't guilty and that somehow absolves everyone ever? I'm sorry, can you please walk me through the morality of this decision? If a judge decides you're guilty of a crime in a court of law, and decides to punish a person you've never met before, is that just and moral? And the answer to the question is yes, if he's pardoned, he will be set free even if he doesn't believe the pardon or the judge exists. 

Everyone is offered a pardon for what they've done.
Isn't everyone offered a pardon for what ADAM did? 

I don't think He is ever surprised.
Ok, so if he's never surprised, he has a plan, is that fair to say? And everything goes according to it, we cannot act outside of the will of god, is that also fair to say?
Topic's author
#43
GnosticChristianBishop
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 361
1
2
3
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
GnosticChristianBishop
1
2
3
-->
@SirAnonymous
God in scriptures begins with God commanding Adam and Eve to reproduce.

Commands are incompatible with free will.

Especially when the next command denies Adam and Eve the knowledge that they were naked and that they could reproduce.

Eve and Satan made the right choice and that is why you sing of Adam's sin being a happy fault and necessary to God's plan.

Stop talking out of both sides of your mouth and pick a side.

I note that you maintain your stupid position, --- that the breasts you see on Satan in the Expulsion belong on a man.

You must be deformed.

Regards
DL


Topic's author
#44
GnosticChristianBishop
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 361
1
2
3
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
GnosticChristianBishop
1
2
3
-->
@SirAnonymous
"Yes. My knowledge of what it would do has no bearing on the fact that it freely chose to do something wrong."

More lies, to me.

As to your bogus free will argument. you ignore where your bible says we are controlled by God's grace,  so here is more scriptures for you to ignore. I also gave an argument you cannot refute, junior Christian.

Bolded so you can find it.

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.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXOvYn1OAL0&list=UUDXjzOeZRqLxhYaaEhWLb_A&index=9
 
#45
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
It’s my view that the simplest explanation is that there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realisation: there is probably no heaven and afterlife either. I think belief in an afterlife is just wishful thinking. There is no reliable evidence for it, and it flies in the face of everything we know in science. I think that when we die we return to dust. But there’s a sense in which we live on, in our influence, and in our genes that we pass on to our children. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that I am extremely grateful.

Stephen Hawking
Topic's author
#46
GnosticChristianBishop
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 361
1
2
3
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
GnosticChristianBishop
1
2
3
-->
@SirAnonymous
"But if you wish to say that God's standards are wrong, on what basis can you make that claim? By what objective standard of morality can you say that His standards are wrong? And if you think morality is subjective, then "I subjectively disagree with God's standards" is not at all convincing."

Most moral issues are subjective, but I have one that I will offer as objective, and a true good, without an evil side, even as that goes against my normal pure dualistic thinking.

I Offer that killing when one is also able to cure is immoral.

To cure instead of kill is the moral position.

God is demonstrably evil in nature, as evidenced by his killings, if the literature is to be believed literally. I E. Noah's flood and Constantine's Jesus' Armageddon. Not the Gnostic Christian Jesus.

The moral position for God can also be found in the bible, but Christians do not read those parts, because the negate the need for a hell.

I learn a lot when getting Christians to discredit their own bible and beliefs.

If you do not like or accept my offering, give us an example or two of your objective moral tenets.

I cannot think of another.

Regards
DL
   

Topic's author
#47
GnosticChristianBishop
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 361
1
2
3
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
GnosticChristianBishop
1
2
3
-->
@FLRW
Full agreement save this.

"No one directs our fate."

Strongly disagree.

We are all free agents in this reality together.

I choose and renew that choice  --- often ---,  to be a bully to the liars who call themselves believers in vile and immoral Gods.

They hide behind supernatural lies, while I keep burying them in their own biblical truth.

Regards
DL
Topic's author
#48
GnosticChristianBishop
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 361
1
2
3
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
GnosticChristianBishop
1
2
3
-->
@SirAnonymous
On what basis would we agree? What standard do we have to determine what punishment each crime deserves?

Ever hear of a victim report.

Who but the victim should choose the punishment?

Not some God who cannot be made a victim. Poor poor God.

How the hell would he know how to judge fairly?

Hell, his first judicial decision in scriptures is the immoral concept of punishing the innocent instead of the guilty and ignoring the victims.

What kind of incompetent judge or God would ignore the victim?

That is why your bible tells us to judge and not God.

Try reading your bible junior Christian.

Regards
DL
Topic's author
#49
GnosticChristianBishop
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 361
1
2
3
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
GnosticChristianBishop
1
2
3
-->
@SirAnonymous
"The punishment for sin has been paid by God's Son..."

Compare your thinking to what Jesus taught.

On Jesus dying for Christians from a moral perspective.

It takes quite an imagination and ego to think a god would actually die for us, after condemning us unjustly in the first place.

Christians have swallowed a lie and don’t care how evil they make Jesus to keep their feel good get out of hell free card.

It is a lie, first and foremost, because, like it or not, having another innocent person suffer or die for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

To abdicate your personal responsibility for your actions or use a scapegoat is immoral.

Christians also have to ignore what Jesus, as a Jewish Rabbi, would have taught his people.
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. 
Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.
 
Psa 49;7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

There is no way that Christians parents would teach their children to use a scapegoat. Good morals and Jesus speak against the messianic concept and bids us pick up our crosses and follow him.

===================

"That people can arrive at moral conclusions without Christianity has nothing to do with whether the Christian standard is correct."

If an opposing standards can be argued to be better, like the secular and free nations preaching for more equality, while some vile religions preach the opposite, should the inferior Christian standard be forced out of Christianity?

They thought it ok to have their inquisitions force other.

Do unto other says Christians should not mind being forced.  Right?

We would not sink to their level and kill, but brutal indoctrination, like they use on their children, is also reciprocity and fair play.

In a real holy judgement, all would be forced to the better Gnostic Christianity.

We remember the good Christianity that capture the world, and live it after apotheosis, something Christians cannot even spell.
  
Regards
DL
  
#50
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
there is probably no heaven and afterlife either. I think belief in an afterlife is just wishful thinking.

.............<---before ( * I * ) after----->...............

...................space( * ) i ( * )space....................

... past <----- out ( eternity ) in <-----future.....
#51
ahiyah
ahiyah's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 73
0
1
3
ahiyah's avatar
ahiyah
0
1
3
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
Oh, so you write stupid posts here too. 
Topic's author
#52
GnosticChristianBishop
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 361
1
2
3
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
GnosticChristianBishop
1
2
3
-->
@ahiyah
Saying is easy.

Showing is hard, stupid.

Regards
DL
#53
ahiyah
ahiyah's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 73
0
1
3
ahiyah's avatar
ahiyah
0
1
3
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
Riiight.