Before There Was God…

[alang1216]

“Trinity”, “Tri”, Three... Reality persists, without regard to yours, or my feelings on the matter...

Really? You're going to argue semantics as the basis for your reality? That's not reality that is purely illusion. A coin has two sides, is it one coin or two?

Actually a coin has three sides. And there is nothing semantical about reality...

More semantics. My house has an inside and an outside, how many sides does it have? How many sides to a Mobius strip?

 

[Vastator]

“Trinity”, “Tri”, Three... Reality persists, without regard to yours, or my feelings on the matter...

Really? You're going to argue semantics as the basis for your reality? That's not reality that is purely illusion. A coin has two sides, is it one coin or two?

Actually a coin has three sides. And there is nothing semantical about reality...

More semantics. My house has an inside and an outside, how many sides does it have? How many sides to a Mobius strip?

I agree. More senantics... Christianity is polytheistic. Why do you recoil from such an obvious fact. I never judged it as negative. Yet many recoil from that obvious fact. Why?

 

[alang1216]

“Trinity”, “Tri”, Three... Reality persists, without regard to yours, or my feelings on the matter...

Really? You're going to argue semantics as the basis for your reality? That's not reality that is purely illusion. A coin has two sides, is it one coin or two?

Actually a coin has three sides. And there is nothing semantical about reality...

More semantics. My house has an inside and an outside, how many sides does it have? How many sides to a Mobius strip?

I agree. More senantics... Christianity is polytheistic. Why do you recoil from such an obvious fact. I never judged it as negative. Yet many recoil from that obvious fact. Why?

It's a far from obvious fact and from the very beginning of Christianity, many have written on every side of the issue. I'm not a Christian and would prefer a world of polytheists to what we have, however, I'm loath to tell the billion+ Christians that I know more about their religion than they do. You may have no problem telling them what they believe but if they say they're monotheists I take them at their word.

 

[OldLady]

….there were gods.



1.Perhaps God was tired out from creating the world, or didn’t feel it necessary to intermingle with the kids, so he didn’t ….until Moses, in 1313 BCE. That’s when he offered the contract, the Ten Commandments, acceptance of which sent mankind off to the races, producing the greatest culture ever known: Western Civilization.




BTW, even before the events on Sinai, there were rules for humanity.

2.Before Sinai and the Ten Commandments, there were the rules called the Noahide Laws, based on reason and a desire to be able to live with other people, laws against bad behavior, the idea that these injured society: bans on murder, theft, idolatry, sexual immorality, animal cruelty, cursing God, and the need to set up courts to punish the infractions. They are incumbent on everyone, whether one respects the Bible or not, because they are so obvious.
The benefit of the Bible is that it tells society how to be good.

“Noahide Laws, also called Noachian Laws, a Jewish Talmudic designation for seven biblical laws given to Adam and to Noah before the revelation to Moses on Mt. Sinai and consequently binding on all mankind.” Noahide Laws | Judaism


“According to Jewish tradition, non-Jews who adhere to these laws …are said to be followers of Noahidism and regarded as righteous gentiles, who are assured of a place in …the world to come, the final reward of the righteous.” Seven Laws of Noah - Wikipedia





3. Now for the idea that the rational, the common sense method is better than specific rules of religious morality. Can a human being be good without reference to God? As the saying goes, ‘Going to church doesn’t make you a good Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.’ Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. While it is true that one can be moral and good and not religious, the idea does not work for all or even most, and certainly not for entire societies, not in the long term.

Why? Because there is no force behind reason. Take slavery as an example. There is no rational way to convince the slaveholder that he shouldn’t own and sell his fellow man: it makes a great profit, makes his life easier. He can even claim that his slaves live longer and better than many free men.

Or, take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer. Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.





And, there is the obvious case today: the Democrat Party actually favors infanticide….and have convinced many to still vote for this….paganism. Abortion up to actual birth, and allowing one born in this manner to die.....is human sacrifice.

No coincidence that the same party eschews religion.

You seem to be pushing the idea of an "acceptable" religion. That is one of the first things our Founding Fathers said NO to.

"You seem to be pushing the idea of an "acceptable" religion. That is one of the first things our Founding Fathers said NO to."



You really are a dunce......

The battle cry of the Left…”separation of church and state.” Why? Truth is, America was founded based on the Judeo-Christian faith, the Bible being the most quoted source by our Founders. And those Founders were religious folks who saw America escaping the king as the extension of the Jews escaping Egypt.

The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2010/02/new_column_libe_4.html

They were believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known by Leftists today, “an extremist Fundamentalist hate group.”
Oh.....a "white" extremist Fundamentalist hate group.”




I'll bet you are a government school grad who has never read a book not assigned therein.

I don't agree with your trying to equate an acceptable or superior religion to our success. Mixing religion and politics is never a good idea. Look at the Muslim countries you despise. Look at the Fundamentalists who want us to legalize bigotry against gays again. Religion needs to stay out of it for a reason.

" Mixing religion and politics is never a good idea."


(sigh.....) If only you were less ignorant, and had a knowledge of history.

This is the result of NOT aligning morality and governance:

The regimen that mandated the end of religion in Western civilization began two centuries ago.


‘The Enlightenment’…sounds like a blessing, sunlight into the dark. That’s probably the impression left by government schooling. Actually, the explosion of science, the sudden success in understanding of the world, led to many elites actually believing that only one of the two features that led to that point, reason, was necessary….and the other, religion, could be dispensed with.


They were wrong. Science can tell us what we can do, but, sans religion, not what we should do.




“The term Enlightenment suggests….that belief in Judeo-Christian values and God Himself was at best an obstruction to modern Western civilization.”
Ben Shapiro, “The Right Side Of History,” p.98

Herein the danger of eliminating the Judeo-Christian influence that were prominent in the creation of this nation.





.Want to see the comparison between keeping both faith and reason, and basing the revolution only on reason? That would be the American Revolution vs the French version.
In the course of France's short revolution, 600,000 French citizens were killed, and another 145,000 fled the country.
Schom, "Napoleon Bonaparte," p. 253.

"That's in a country with between 24 and 26 million people, about the current population of Texas. In terms of population loss, that would be the equivalent of the United States having a 9/11 attack every day for seven years."
Coulter, "Demonic," p. 266.


The American Revolution? About 1%-2% of that number.

There is no morality. No care or concern for other, or for life. Nor is any required. This is the gift of the Enlightenment, with its view to replacing religion with science, with reason.




BTW, the Russian Revolution was an extension of the French one, and ultimately cost over 100 million human lives.
Even in the 19th century, as religious conviction waned, the warnings were there. Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’

Mass murder included.


"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky

This is why the major political party, the Democrat, can endorse infanticide and racism, and still be considered a choice for governing.

This is kind of ironic, considering that I am criticized a lot by the right for being "self-righteous" and "moralizing" if I try to remind anyone of basic Christian tenets I learned in Sunday school. The right should try to make up it's mind. Do you guys want morality or don't you?

 

[edthecynic]

Thank you for admitting you have no rebuttal.

No rebuttal required for such a ridiculous straw man.

Thank you for admitting that JC was not a HUMAN sacrifice.

 

[Vastator]

“Trinity”, “Tri”, Three... Reality persists, without regard to yours, or my feelings on the matter...

Really? You're going to argue semantics as the basis for your reality? That's not reality that is purely illusion. A coin has two sides, is it one coin or two?

Actually a coin has three sides. And there is nothing semantical about reality...

More semantics. My house has an inside and an outside, how many sides does it have? How many sides to a Mobius strip?

I agree. More senantics... Christianity is polytheistic. Why do you recoil from such an obvious fact. I never judged it as negative. Yet many recoil from that obvious fact. Why?

It's a far from obvious fact and from the very beginning of Christianity, many have written on every side of the issue. I'm not a Christian and would prefer a world of polytheists to what we have, however, I'm loath to tell the billion+ Christians that I know more about their religion than they do. You may have no problem telling them what they believe but if they say they're monotheists I take them at their word.

They’re well, and entitled to whatever religion they like. But they don’t get to rewrite the worlds dictionary to suit their faith.

 

[edthecynic]

Spin however they like; Christians are not monotheistic. End of story...

Is that your view or their view?

It’s reality, no matter how anyone views it...

Sorry but your opinion does not equate to reality. You may think the Trinity is contrived or silly or whatever but that is only your opinion. You are welcome to live in your own personal reality but don't think it is shared by anyone else.

“Trinity”, “Tri”, Three... Reality persists, without regard to yours, or my feelings on the matter...

And there is a 4th god in Christianity, the "god of the air" AKA Lucifer, bringer of enlightenment, and god of the air.

 

[edthecynic]

The Trinity, it was decided, was one.
"The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. 'triad', from Latin: trinus "threefold")[1] holds that God is one God, but three coeternal consubstantial persons[2] or hypostases[3]—the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit—as "one God in three Divine Persons". The three Persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature"

Typical doublespeak!

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Thank you for admitting that JC was not a HUMAN sacrifice.

What are you? Some sort of "debate king"? I admitted no such thing. You actually called Jesus a "human sacrifice" in post
#4.. Not me.

When you resort to making up things to put in other's mouths it reeks of dishonesty, desperation and failure.

 

[edthecynic]

Thank you for admitting that JC was not a HUMAN sacrifice.

What are you? Some sort of "debate king"? I admitted no such thing. You actually called Jesus a "human sacrifice" in post
#4.. Not me.

When you resort to making up things to put in other's mouths it reeks of dishonesty, desperation and failure.

And you claimed JC was a "straw man" and therefore not a human sacrifice.

 

[PoliticalChic]

….there were gods.



1.Perhaps God was tired out from creating the world, or didn’t feel it necessary to intermingle with the kids, so he didn’t ….until Moses, in 1313 BCE. That’s when he offered the contract, the Ten Commandments, acceptance of which sent mankind off to the races, producing the greatest culture ever known: Western Civilization.




BTW, even before the events on Sinai, there were rules for humanity.

2.Before Sinai and the Ten Commandments, there were the rules called the Noahide Laws, based on reason and a desire to be able to live with other people, laws against bad behavior, the idea that these injured society: bans on murder, theft, idolatry, sexual immorality, animal cruelty, cursing God, and the need to set up courts to punish the infractions. They are incumbent on everyone, whether one respects the Bible or not, because they are so obvious.
The benefit of the Bible is that it tells society how to be good.

“Noahide Laws, also called Noachian Laws, a Jewish Talmudic designation for seven biblical laws given to Adam and to Noah before the revelation to Moses on Mt. Sinai and consequently binding on all mankind.” Noahide Laws | Judaism


“According to Jewish tradition, non-Jews who adhere to these laws …are said to be followers of Noahidism and regarded as righteous gentiles, who are assured of a place in …the world to come, the final reward of the righteous.” Seven Laws of Noah - Wikipedia





3. Now for the idea that the rational, the common sense method is better than specific rules of religious morality. Can a human being be good without reference to God? As the saying goes, ‘Going to church doesn’t make you a good Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.’ Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. While it is true that one can be moral and good and not religious, the idea does not work for all or even most, and certainly not for entire societies, not in the long term.

Why? Because there is no force behind reason. Take slavery as an example. There is no rational way to convince the slaveholder that he shouldn’t own and sell his fellow man: it makes a great profit, makes his life easier. He can even claim that his slaves live longer and better than many free men.

Or, take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer. Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.





And, there is the obvious case today: the Democrat Party actually favors infanticide….and have convinced many to still vote for this….paganism. Abortion up to actual birth, and allowing one born in this manner to die.....is human sacrifice.

No coincidence that the same party eschews religion.

You seem to be pushing the idea of an "acceptable" religion. That is one of the first things our Founding Fathers said NO to.

"You seem to be pushing the idea of an "acceptable" religion. That is one of the first things our Founding Fathers said NO to."



You really are a dunce......

The battle cry of the Left…”separation of church and state.” Why? Truth is, America was founded based on the Judeo-Christian faith, the Bible being the most quoted source by our Founders. And those Founders were religious folks who saw America escaping the king as the extension of the Jews escaping Egypt.

The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2010/02/new_column_libe_4.html

They were believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known by Leftists today, “an extremist Fundamentalist hate group.”
Oh.....a "white" extremist Fundamentalist hate group.”




I'll bet you are a government school grad who has never read a book not assigned therein.

I don't agree with your trying to equate an acceptable or superior religion to our success. Mixing religion and politics is never a good idea. Look at the Muslim countries you despise. Look at the Fundamentalists who want us to legalize bigotry against gays again. Religion needs to stay out of it for a reason.

" Mixing religion and politics is never a good idea."


(sigh.....) If only you were less ignorant, and had a knowledge of history.

This is the result of NOT aligning morality and governance:

The regimen that mandated the end of religion in Western civilization began two centuries ago.


‘The Enlightenment’…sounds like a blessing, sunlight into the dark. That’s probably the impression left by government schooling. Actually, the explosion of science, the sudden success in understanding of the world, led to many elites actually believing that only one of the two features that led to that point, reason, was necessary….and the other, religion, could be dispensed with.


They were wrong. Science can tell us what we can do, but, sans religion, not what we should do.




“The term Enlightenment suggests….that belief in Judeo-Christian values and God Himself was at best an obstruction to modern Western civilization.”
Ben Shapiro, “The Right Side Of History,” p.98

Herein the danger of eliminating the Judeo-Christian influence that were prominent in the creation of this nation.





.Want to see the comparison between keeping both faith and reason, and basing the revolution only on reason? That would be the American Revolution vs the French version.
In the course of France's short revolution, 600,000 French citizens were killed, and another 145,000 fled the country.
Schom, "Napoleon Bonaparte," p. 253.

"That's in a country with between 24 and 26 million people, about the current population of Texas. In terms of population loss, that would be the equivalent of the United States having a 9/11 attack every day for seven years."
Coulter, "Demonic," p. 266.


The American Revolution? About 1%-2% of that number.

There is no morality. No care or concern for other, or for life. Nor is any required. This is the gift of the Enlightenment, with its view to replacing religion with science, with reason.




BTW, the Russian Revolution was an extension of the French one, and ultimately cost over 100 million human lives.
Even in the 19th century, as religious conviction waned, the warnings were there. Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’

Mass murder included.


"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky

This is why the major political party, the Democrat, can endorse infanticide and racism, and still be considered a choice for governing.

This is kind of ironic, considering that I am criticized a lot by the right for being "self-righteous" and "moralizing" if I try to remind anyone of basic Christian tenets I learned in Sunday school. The right should try to make up it's mind. Do you guys want morality or don't you?

What does that have to do with the post you linked to, this...



" Mixing religion and politics is never a good idea."


(sigh.....) If only you were less ignorant, and had a knowledge of history.

This is the result of NOT aligning morality and governance:

The regimen that mandated the end of religion in Western civilization began two centuries ago.


‘The Enlightenment’…sounds like a blessing, sunlight into the dark. That’s probably the impression left by government schooling. Actually, the explosion of science, the sudden success in understanding of the world, led to many elites actually believing that only one of the two features that led to that point, reason, was necessary….and the other, religion, could be dispensed with.


They were wrong. Science can tell us what we can do, but, sans religion, not what we should do.




“The term Enlightenment suggests….that belief in Judeo-Christian values and God Himself was at best an obstruction to modern Western civilization.”
Ben Shapiro, “The Right Side Of History,” p.98

Herein the danger of eliminating the Judeo-Christian influence that were prominent in the creation of this nation.





.Want to see the comparison between keeping both faith and reason, and basing the revolution only on reason? That would be the American Revolution vs the French version.
In the course of France's short revolution, 600,000 French citizens were killed, and another 145,000 fled the country.
Schom, "Napoleon Bonaparte," p. 253.

"That's in a country with between 24 and 26 million people, about the current population of Texas. In terms of population loss, that would be the equivalent of the United States having a 9/11 attack every day for seven years."
Coulter, "Demonic," p. 266.


The American Revolution? About 1%-2% of that number.

There is no morality. No care or concern for other, or for life. Nor is any required. This is the gift of the Enlightenment, with its view to replacing religion with science, with reason.




BTW, the Russian Revolution was an extension of the French one, and ultimately cost over 100 million human lives.
Even in the 19th century, as religious conviction waned, the warnings were there. Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’

Mass murder included.


"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky

This is why the major political party, the Democrat, can endorse infanticide and racism, and still be considered a choice for governing.

 

[Moonglow]

You want us to be impressed with your genocidal God!?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

And you claimed JC was a "straw man" and therefore not a human sacrifice.

Refresh my memory. I don't recall any such thing. The Romans killed Jesus because he was seen as a threat to the order of their rule. That was a crucifixion, not a "human sacrifice".

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You want us to be impressed with your genocidal God!?

People are genocidal....not God. Stop being so obtuse.

 

[edthecynic]

And you claimed JC was a "straw man" and therefore not a human sacrifice.

Refresh my memory. I don't recall any such thing. The Romans killed Jesus because he was seen as a threat to the order of their rule. That was a crucifixion, not a "human sacrifice".

Christians claim that JC was a human sacrifice for the sins of mankind, crucifixion was merely the means of the human sacrifice. Without the human sacrifice of JC no one could be saved according to Christians.

 

[edthecynic]

You want us to be impressed with your genocidal God!?

People are genocidal....not God. Stop being so obtuse.

According to biblical doctrine people are made in the image of God.

Gen 1: 26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Christians claim that JC was a human sacrifice for the sins of mankind, crucifixion was merely the means of the human sacrifice. Without the human sacrifice of JC no one could be saved according to Christians.

Well I'm not a fan of Christian dogma. Jesus willingly martyred himself. Is that a human sacrifice? Or is it something else altogether?
I would say something else I always have wondered why the death of Jesus was necessary and that is part of the reason why I'm not a traditional Christian, or a Christian at all, if you ask some people.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

According to biblical doctrine people are made in the image of God.

So they are, according to doctrine. That doesn't make God genocidal. It makes people who do all the killing genocidal.

 

[edthecynic]

People are genocidal....not God. Stop being so obtuse.

Sure, nothing the least bit genocidal about your God!
Num 31: 7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

1Sa 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

 

[edthecynic]

Jesus willingly martyred himself. Is that a human sacrifice?

Absolutely!