Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You would not Know God, if He let you Kill Him to pay for your own Wickedness, Arose from The Grave to prove He was God and Appeared to you Himself.No you sin when you blaspheme God and claim He has Sin within Him.There is No Sin in God.Yahweh.
Sin entered the world through Free Will.
.
So Yahweh sinned when he gave man a free will. Right?
God knew man would sin, so why the elaborate myth of the talking serpent?
And why punish man for seeking an education instead of staying, as the bible says, with their eyes closed.
There eyes were opened and that is why you sing of Adam's sin being a happy fault and necessary to god's plan.
Right?
If not that, then would you derail god's plan if you were Adam and not sin?
Regards
DL
I and you, and everyone you know if you were in Adam's Place would disobey God.
The Plan of God was to grant free will, so that He could eventually test and try His Creation to see if they would be Worthy of living in an Eternal Universe and Eternal which He will Restore back to a Perfect State after The Great Judgment.
So much for your all knowing god who does not know the results of all his tests.
You ignore that the first time Adam used his free will to educate himself and not be blind, Yahweh locked away the tree of life and thus murdered A & E by neglect.
Try thinking instead of spouting off your vile genocide loving ways and your satanic god.
Thanks for putting man above god in the creation process and thinking we can derail god's plan and be his co-creators.
We now tell god his mistakes.
Except for you who seems to think genocide is something a good god would use.
You call evil good. That is not good.
Regards
DL
But Satan, you do know, and it is Him you Worship. The Usurper, and Adversary of God.
He was a liar and murderer from the beginning, and all that follow him are liars too.
When they speak, they speak The Native Tongue of Satan. The Language of Lies.
I see you are very fluent in it.
As the 'Bible' is more or less represented as being the word of the supreme being, there are principles to understand about such a communication.
Such a supreme being would necessarily understand that any language will change over time and written language will suffer conflicts as this evolution develops.
Thus, this being would use such a medium in such a way that this change could be incorporated in the message.
It is observed that Jesus always and only taught with metaphors. Jesus, though literate, left no writings (nor did Buddha).
This non-writing is a message in itself.
If you actually care about it, this Yahweh would be the first sinner since religions teach that he is the creator of all, thus including the alleged sins of man.
?? Care?? I wrote the question.
I agree with your view.
Regards
DL
Doesn't mean that you actually care, just asked a question and seem to have a preconceived answer that you adhere to.
I had an opinion coming in for sure. Didn't you?
I was hoping to have my mind changed as then I would learn something new.
Having my views confirmed and not refuted has me learning absolutely nothing.
If you can change my views, I would be pleased.
That would mean I learned something new.
Regards
DL
Actually, a small mind will try to detail how others with their own ideas are inferior to an obviously inferior mind claiming that his own opinion is the only viable opinion and all others are a waste of time. You appear to have such a mind.
Not my job to change your views, just question their veracity.
To learn something new you have to be open to something new, which I don't see in your posts.
But then again, I really don't care about the subject merely the responses which detail much about the posters.
A small mind will analyse people instead of the issue at hand.
Psychobabble is for small minds.
Regards
DL
As the 'Bible' is more or less represented as being the word of the supreme being, there are principles to understand about such a communication.
Such a supreme being would necessarily understand that any language will change over time and written language will suffer conflicts as this evolution develops.
Thus, this being would use such a medium in such a way that this change could be incorporated in the message.
It is observed that Jesus always and only taught with metaphors. Jesus, though literate, left no writings (nor did Buddha).
This non-writing is a message in itself.
There is no evidence for a real Jesus, let alone that he could read and wright.
You would know that to Jews, an unmarried Rabbi would not have had respect.
As to Yahweh and his plan, literalist Christians are confused and do not know if Eden was our fall or our elevation.
Regards
DL
God is without Sin, and The Wages of Sin are Death. How will you Pay for Your Crimes against God and Man?You would not Know God, if He let you Kill Him to pay for your own Wickedness, Arose from The Grave to prove He was God and Appeared to you Himself.No you sin when you blaspheme God and claim He has Sin within Him.There is No Sin in God.
Sin entered the world through Free Will.
.
So Yahweh sinned when he gave man a free will. Right?
God knew man would sin, so why the elaborate myth of the talking serpent?
And why punish man for seeking an education instead of staying, as the bible says, with their eyes closed.
There eyes were opened and that is why you sing of Adam's sin being a happy fault and necessary to god's plan.
Right?
If not that, then would you derail god's plan if you were Adam and not sin?
Regards
DL
I and you, and everyone you know if you were in Adam's Place would disobey God.
The Plan of God was to grant free will, so that He could eventually test and try His Creation to see if they would be Worthy of living in an Eternal Universe and Eternal which He will Restore back to a Perfect State after The Great Judgment.
So much for your all knowing god who does not know the results of all his tests.
You ignore that the first time Adam used his free will to educate himself and not be blind, Yahweh locked away the tree of life and thus murdered A & E by neglect.
Try thinking instead of spouting off your vile genocide loving ways and your satanic god.
Thanks for putting man above god in the creation process and thinking we can derail god's plan and be his co-creators.
We now tell god his mistakes.
Except for you who seems to think genocide is something a good god would use.
You call evil good. That is not good.
Regards
DL
But Satan, you do know, and it is Him you Worship. The Usurper, and Adversary of God.
He was a liar and murderer from the beginning, and all that follow him are liars too.
When they speak, they speak The Native Tongue of Satan. The Language of Lies.
I see you are very fluent in it.
You say all that while ignoring that you bible says that Yahweh is the creator of all concepts and that would include lying.
Only literalist fools believe the garbage you spew so you are a useless tool here with your ranting and praising your genocidal prick of a god.
Get on topic or get lost or be ignored for the literalist fool you are. Flat earters are as bright as bricks.
Regards
DL
As the 'Bible' is more or less represented as being the word of the supreme being, there are principles to understand about such a communication.
Such a supreme being would necessarily understand that any language will change over time and written language will suffer conflicts as this evolution develops.
Thus, this being would use such a medium in such a way that this change could be incorporated in the message.
It is observed that Jesus always and only taught with metaphors. Jesus, though literate, left no writings (nor did Buddha).
This non-writing is a message in itself.
There is no evidence for a real Jesus, let alone that he could read and wright.
You would know that to Jews, an unmarried Rabbi would not have had respect.
As to Yahweh and his plan, literalist Christians are confused and do not know if Eden was our fall or our elevation.
Regards
DL
You seem confused and single minded. You deny Jesus, state the minds of thousand year old minds as if you were there and state irrelevant ideas about that which you claim to not believe in. Strange for one who claims to have an open mind.
As the 'Bible' is more or less represented as being the word of the supreme being, there are principles to understand about such a communication.
Such a supreme being would necessarily understand that any language will change over time and written language will suffer conflicts as this evolution develops.
Thus, this being would use such a medium in such a way that this change could be incorporated in the message.
It is observed that Jesus always and only taught with metaphors. Jesus, though literate, left no writings (nor did Buddha).
This non-writing is a message in itself.
There is no evidence for a real Jesus, let alone that he could read and wright.
You would know that to Jews, an unmarried Rabbi would not have had respect.
As to Yahweh and his plan, literalist Christians are confused and do not know if Eden was our fall or our elevation.
Regards
DL
You seem confused and single minded. You deny Jesus, state the minds of thousand year old minds as if you were there and state irrelevant ideas about that which you claim to not believe in. Strange for one who claims to have an open mind.
The Wages of Sin are Death.
Jesus Had NO SIN. His name was Emanuel (God With Us) But you Do. And do you know why you want to IGNORE ME? Because deep down in your wicked Soul, You Want Satan to Win. It's him whom you serve. The Great Trickster.The Wages of Sin are Death.
Jesus, the sinner, died.
Your on ignore you brain dead dolt. take your stupidity elsewhere. You are as poor of a liars as the clergy in your satanic religion.
Regards
DL
As the 'Bible' is more or less represented as being the word of the supreme being, there are principles to understand about such a communication.
Such a supreme being would necessarily understand that any language will change over time and written language will suffer conflicts as this evolution develops.
Thus, this being would use such a medium in such a way that this change could be incorporated in the message.
It is observed that Jesus always and only taught with metaphors. Jesus, though literate, left no writings (nor did Buddha).
This non-writing is a message in itself.
There is no evidence for a real Jesus, let alone that he could read and wright.
You would know that to Jews, an unmarried Rabbi would not have had respect.
As to Yahweh and his plan, literalist Christians are confused and do not know if Eden was our fall or our elevation.
Regards
DL
You seem confused and single minded. You deny Jesus, state the minds of thousand year old minds as if you were there and state irrelevant ideas about that which you claim to not believe in. Strange for one who claims to have an open mind.
You seem confused and single minded. You deny my view of Jesus, while thinking you know better of his views than I do.
Get the log out of your eye then come back and chat, on the topic.
Regards
DL
As the 'Bible' is more or less represented as being the word of the supreme being, there are principles to understand about such a communication.
Such a supreme being would necessarily understand that any language will change over time and written language will suffer conflicts as this evolution develops.
Thus, this being would use such a medium in such a way that this change could be incorporated in the message.
It is observed that Jesus always and only taught with metaphors. Jesus, though literate, left no writings (nor did Buddha).
This non-writing is a message in itself.
There is no evidence for a real Jesus, let alone that he could read and wright.
You would know that to Jews, an unmarried Rabbi would not have had respect.
As to Yahweh and his plan, literalist Christians are confused and do not know if Eden was our fall or our elevation.
Regards
DL
You seem confused and single minded. You deny Jesus, state the minds of thousand year old minds as if you were there and state irrelevant ideas about that which you claim to not believe in. Strange for one who claims to have an open mind.
1 John 2:22
21 I have not written to you because you lack knowledge of the truth, but because you have it, and because no lie comes from the truth. 22 Who is the liar, if it is not the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father, but whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.
As the 'Bible' is more or less represented as being the word of the supreme being, there are principles to understand about such a communication.
Such a supreme being would necessarily understand that any language will change over time and written language will suffer conflicts as this evolution develops.
Thus, this being would use such a medium in such a way that this change could be incorporated in the message.
It is observed that Jesus always and only taught with metaphors. Jesus, though literate, left no writings (nor did Buddha).
This non-writing is a message in itself.
There is no evidence for a real Jesus, let alone that he could read and wright.
You would know that to Jews, an unmarried Rabbi would not have had respect.
As to Yahweh and his plan, literalist Christians are confused and do not know if Eden was our fall or our elevation.
Regards
DL
You seem confused and single minded. You deny Jesus, state the minds of thousand year old minds as if you were there and state irrelevant ideas about that which you claim to not believe in. Strange for one who claims to have an open mind.
1 John 2:22
21 I have not written to you because you lack knowledge of the truth, but because you have it, and because no lie comes from the truth. 22 Who is the liar, if it is not the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father, but whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.
Whatever makes you happy in your little world, you go ahead and believe that. Any other thought or truth would only hurt your feelings.
As the 'Bible' is more or less represented as being the word of the supreme being, there are principles to understand about such a communication.
Such a supreme being would necessarily understand that any language will change over time and written language will suffer conflicts as this evolution develops.
Thus, this being would use such a medium in such a way that this change could be incorporated in the message.
It is observed that Jesus always and only taught with metaphors. Jesus, though literate, left no writings (nor did Buddha).
This non-writing is a message in itself.
There is no evidence for a real Jesus, let alone that he could read and wright.
You would know that to Jews, an unmarried Rabbi would not have had respect.
As to Yahweh and his plan, literalist Christians are confused and do not know if Eden was our fall or our elevation.
Regards
DL
You seem confused and single minded. You deny Jesus, state the minds of thousand year old minds as if you were there and state irrelevant ideas about that which you claim to not believe in. Strange for one who claims to have an open mind.
1 John 2:22
21 I have not written to you because you lack knowledge of the truth, but because you have it, and because no lie comes from the truth. 22 Who is the liar, if it is not the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father, but whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.
Whatever makes you happy in your little world, you go ahead and believe that. Any other thought or truth would only hurt your feelings.
Was this addresses to me?
All religious folks are confused.I thought god was responsible for everything?Did sin enter the world through Adam, Satan or Yahweh?
Most, as well as scriptures, say that it was through Adam, even though Christians sing that Adam’s sin was a happy fault and necessary to Yahweh’s plan.
Given the necessity, Adam, from that, may not be the culpable one and his punishment would be unjust.
Satan had already sinned in heaven before being cast into Eden.
It can be truthfully said that she was the first sinner on earth if we ignore Yahweh.
Further, would you say that Eve sinned, given that Satan or the talking serpent deceived her?
That deception would take lies, and that is a sin, and that sin also preceded Adam’s sin.
Many do not see what the serpent says as a lie, which complicates things.
Was the initial sin, regardless of who did it, a happy fault and necessary to god’s plan like Christians sing in their Exultet hymn?
Did Yahweh lie when he told Adam that he would die if he educated himself with the knowledge in the Tree of Knowledge?
Why and how does knowledge kill us?
If it does, should we keep our children as blind to it as Adam and Eve initially were?
The Eden myth can get quite complicated, especially when Christians call it a fall, then say it was necessary so as not to derail Yahweh’s plan.
This last being what the Jews wrote into their myth and which they say is not the Original Sin of the Christian interpretation, but more like the Original virtue that the Jews call it.
The opposite of what Christianity says, if you ignore their happy fault view.
In terms of first sin, I see Yahweh, since sin was necessary to him as the first sinner, followed by Satan, Yahweh’s loyal opposition and teacher of humankind, and then Adam.
Why Eve at the end of Genesis 3 has to then be second class to Adam, --- he shall rule over you, --- would seem like Yahweh punishing the wrong party.
Thoughts?
Regards
DL
Not to Christians, or so it seems.
They and the bible blame Adam, even while they sing the opposite.
Christians are confused on this issue.
Regards
DL
You are supposedly a Gnostic Christian, right? I mean that's what you claim, right?Did sin enter the world through Adam, Satan or Yahweh?
Most, as well as scriptures, say that it was through Adam, even though Christians sing that Adam’s sin was a happy fault and necessary to Yahweh’s plan.
Given the necessity, Adam, from that, may not be the culpable one and his punishment would be unjust.
Satan had already sinned in heaven before being cast into Eden.
It can be truthfully said that she was the first sinner on earth if we ignore Yahweh.
Further, would you say that Eve sinned, given that Satan or the talking serpent deceived her?
That deception would take lies, and that is a sin, and that sin also preceded Adam’s sin.
Many do not see what the serpent says as a lie, which complicates things.
Was the initial sin, regardless of who did it, a happy fault and necessary to god’s plan like Christians sing in their Exultet hymn?
Did Yahweh lie when he told Adam that he would die if he educated himself with the knowledge in the Tree of Knowledge?
Why and how does knowledge kill us?
If it does, should we keep our children as blind to it as Adam and Eve initially were?
The Eden myth can get quite complicated, especially when Christians call it a fall, then say it was necessary so as not to derail Yahweh’s plan.
This last being what the Jews wrote into their myth and which they say is not the Original Sin of the Christian interpretation, but more like the Original virtue that the Jews call it.
The opposite of what Christianity says, if you ignore their happy fault view.
In terms of first sin, I see Yahweh, since sin was necessary to him as the first sinner, followed by Satan, Yahweh’s loyal opposition and teacher of humankind, and then Adam.
Why Eve at the end of Genesis 3 has to then be second class to Adam, --- he shall rule over you, --- would seem like Yahweh punishing the wrong party.
Thoughts?
Regards
DL
Really? How so? What is the context?There is a lot of animosity and aggression displayed in these threads. It hardly seems appropriate in the context.
Did sin enter the world through Adam, Satan or Yahweh?
Most, as well as scriptures, say that it was through Adam, even though Christians sing that Adam’s sin was a happy fault and necessary to Yahweh’s plan.
Given the necessity, Adam, from that, may not be the culpable one and his punishment would be unjust.
Satan had already sinned in heaven before being cast into Eden.
It can be truthfully said that she was the first sinner on earth if we ignore Yahweh.
Further, would you say that Eve sinned, given that Satan or the talking serpent deceived her?
That deception would take lies, and that is a sin, and that sin also preceded Adam’s sin.
Many do not see what the serpent says as a lie, which complicates things.
Was the initial sin, regardless of who did it, a happy fault and necessary to god’s plan like Christians sing in their Exultet hymn?
Did Yahweh lie when he told Adam that he would die if he educated himself with the knowledge in the Tree of Knowledge?
Why and how does knowledge kill us?
If it does, should we keep our children as blind to it as Adam and Eve initially were?
The Eden myth can get quite complicated, especially when Christians call it a fall, then say it was necessary so as not to derail Yahweh’s plan.
This last being what the Jews wrote into their myth and which they say is not the Original Sin of the Christian interpretation, but more like the Original virtue that the Jews call it.
The opposite of what Christianity says, if you ignore their happy fault view.
In terms of first sin, I see Yahweh, since sin was necessary to him as the first sinner, followed by Satan, Yahweh’s loyal opposition and teacher of humankind, and then Adam.
Why Eve at the end of Genesis 3 has to then be second class to Adam, --- he shall rule over you, --- would seem like Yahweh punishing the wrong party.
Thoughts?
Regards
DL
Nah, you just don't make sense. Exactly what are your trying to say?There is no evidence for a real Jesus, let alone that he could read and wright.
You would know that to Jews, an unmarried Rabbi would not have had respect.
As to Yahweh and his plan, literalist Christians are confused and do not know if Eden was our fall or our elevation.
Regards
DL
You seem confused and single minded. You deny Jesus, state the minds of thousand year old minds as if you were there and state irrelevant ideas about that which you claim to not believe in. Strange for one who claims to have an open mind.
1 John 2:22
21 I have not written to you because you lack knowledge of the truth, but because you have it, and because no lie comes from the truth. 22 Who is the liar, if it is not the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father, but whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.
Whatever makes you happy in your little world, you go ahead and believe that. Any other thought or truth would only hurt your feelings.
Was this addresses to me?
Did you read the message quoted and did you post it? Think for once.
Nah, you just don't make sense. Exactly what are your trying to say?You seem confused and single minded. You deny Jesus, state the minds of thousand year old minds as if you were there and state irrelevant ideas about that which you claim to not believe in. Strange for one who claims to have an open mind.
1 John 2:22
21 I have not written to you because you lack knowledge of the truth, but because you have it, and because no lie comes from the truth. 22 Who is the liar, if it is not the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father, but whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.
Whatever makes you happy in your little world, you go ahead and believe that. Any other thought or truth would only hurt your feelings.
Was this addresses to me?
Did you read the message quoted and did you post it? Think for once.
