Does God want us to judge him?

[Hollie]

So you just made up stuff without any basis in fact.

I have lots of facts for basing my belief that spirit created the material world. Where have you been?

You are the one who has no facts for his belief. You don’t even have a belief that’s how few of facts you have.

You have zero facts. You've always had zero facts. You'll never have real facts because you don't know what that is.

There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. The closest we can come to conceptualizing God is that God is consciousness without form.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create. George Wald

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

Man believing in a universal right and wrong is another fact. If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

So where are your facts, Taz?

“If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information.”

Don’t forget talking snakes. They would be logical, governed by...you know...rules, laws and information.

And don’t forget Noah living to be 600 years old. Speaking of Noah, the flood fable identifies that only Noah and his immediate family were left to repopulate the earth after their pleasure cruise to nowhere.

That would imply some rather, how shall we say, uncomfortable questions about the gods and their views on familial (incestuous) relations.

Was it your gods who coined the phrase “incest is best”?

There were no talking snakes Hollie. That would be reading an allegorical account of the fall of man literally. Which is rather surprising since you are Jewish.

Same for the allegorical account of the great flood. Exception that was an allegorical account of a historical event which happened before the great migration from the of civilization.

Do you really believe the G-d of Abraham and the Jewish people promote incest.

That’s a very serious allegation.

No taking snakes? Which edited / revised bibles are you worshipping?

Have you ever read the Ark tale?

 

[ding]

I have lots of facts for basing my belief that spirit created the material world. Where have you been?

You are the one who has no facts for his belief. You don’t even have a belief that’s how few of facts you have.

You have zero facts. You've always had zero facts. You'll never have real facts because you don't know what that is.

There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. The closest we can come to conceptualizing God is that God is consciousness without form.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create. George Wald

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

Man believing in a universal right and wrong is another fact. If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

So where are your facts, Taz?

“If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information.”

Don’t forget talking snakes. They would be logical, governed by...you know...rules, laws and information.

And don’t forget Noah living to be 600 years old. Speaking of Noah, the flood fable identifies that only Noah and his immediate family were left to repopulate the earth after their pleasure cruise to nowhere.

That would imply some rather, how shall we say, uncomfortable questions about the gods and their views on familial (incestuous) relations.

Was it your gods who coined the phrase “incest is best”?

There were no talking snakes Hollie. That would be reading an allegorical account of the fall of man literally. Which is rather surprising since you are Jewish.

Same for the allegorical account of the great flood. Exception that was an allegorical account of a historical event which happened before the great migration from the of civilization.

Do you really believe the G-d of Abraham and the Jewish people promote incest.

That’s a very serious allegation.

No taking snakes? Which edited / revised bibles are you worshipping?

Have you ever read the Ark tale?

The Torah, Hollie.

But it is interesting that you accept the boundary for Israel described in Genesis as the basis for the nation of Israel.

Your beliefs are contradictory.

 

[Hollie]

You have zero facts. You've always had zero facts. You'll never have real facts because you don't know what that is.

There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. The closest we can come to conceptualizing God is that God is consciousness without form.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create. George Wald

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

Man believing in a universal right and wrong is another fact. If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

So where are your facts, Taz?

“If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information.”

Don’t forget talking snakes. They would be logical, governed by...you know...rules, laws and information.

And don’t forget Noah living to be 600 years old. Speaking of Noah, the flood fable identifies that only Noah and his immediate family were left to repopulate the earth after their pleasure cruise to nowhere.

That would imply some rather, how shall we say, uncomfortable questions about the gods and their views on familial (incestuous) relations.

Was it your gods who coined the phrase “incest is best”?

There were no talking snakes Hollie. That would be reading an allegorical account of the fall of man literally. Which is rather surprising since you are Jewish.

Same for the allegorical account of the great flood. Exception that was an allegorical account of a historical event which happened before the great migration from the of civilization.

Do you really believe the G-d of Abraham and the Jewish people promote incest.

That’s a very serious allegation.

No taking snakes? Which edited / revised bibles are you worshipping?

Have you ever read the Ark tale?

The Torah, Hollie.

But it is interesting that you accept the boundary for Israel described in Genesis as the basis for the nation of Israel.

Your beliefs are contradictory.

Rather telling that you use "..... it's allegorical" to sidestep the rather glaring inconsistencies in your new-fangled bibles.

 

[ding]

There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. The closest we can come to conceptualizing God is that God is consciousness without form.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create. George Wald

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

Man believing in a universal right and wrong is another fact. If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

So where are your facts, Taz?

“If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information.”

Don’t forget talking snakes. They would be logical, governed by...you know...rules, laws and information.

And don’t forget Noah living to be 600 years old. Speaking of Noah, the flood fable identifies that only Noah and his immediate family were left to repopulate the earth after their pleasure cruise to nowhere.

That would imply some rather, how shall we say, uncomfortable questions about the gods and their views on familial (incestuous) relations.

Was it your gods who coined the phrase “incest is best”?

There were no talking snakes Hollie. That would be reading an allegorical account of the fall of man literally. Which is rather surprising since you are Jewish.

Same for the allegorical account of the great flood. Exception that was an allegorical account of a historical event which happened before the great migration from the of civilization.

Do you really believe the G-d of Abraham and the Jewish people promote incest.

That’s a very serious allegation.

No taking snakes? Which edited / revised bibles are you worshipping?

Have you ever read the Ark tale?

The Torah, Hollie.

But it is interesting that you accept the boundary for Israel described in Genesis as the basis for the nation of Israel.

Your beliefs are contradictory.

Rather telling that you use "..... it's allegorical" to sidestep the rather glaring inconsistencies in your new-fangled bibles.

There are no inconsistencies in the Torah.

The allegorical account of the fall of man captures the truth that man is unique in the creation of space and time. A new thing.

They knew 6000 years ago what you never knew or understood; that the significance of man and the differences which distinguishes us from every other creature tells us that there is a universal truth which exists independent of man.

 

[Hollie]

“If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information.”

Don’t forget talking snakes. They would be logical, governed by...you know...rules, laws and information.

And don’t forget Noah living to be 600 years old. Speaking of Noah, the flood fable identifies that only Noah and his immediate family were left to repopulate the earth after their pleasure cruise to nowhere.

That would imply some rather, how shall we say, uncomfortable questions about the gods and their views on familial (incestuous) relations.

Was it your gods who coined the phrase “incest is best”?

There were no talking snakes Hollie. That would be reading an allegorical account of the fall of man literally. Which is rather surprising since you are Jewish.

Same for the allegorical account of the great flood. Exception that was an allegorical account of a historical event which happened before the great migration from the of civilization.

Do you really believe the G-d of Abraham and the Jewish people promote incest.

That’s a very serious allegation.

No taking snakes? Which edited / revised bibles are you worshipping?

Have you ever read the Ark tale?

The Torah, Hollie.

But it is interesting that you accept the boundary for Israel described in Genesis as the basis for the nation of Israel.

Your beliefs are contradictory.

Rather telling that you use "..... it's allegorical" to sidestep the rather glaring inconsistencies in your new-fangled bibles.

There are no inconsistencies in the Torah.

The allegorical account of the fall of man captures the truth that man is unique in the creation of space and time. A new thing.

They knew 6000 years ago what you never knew or understood; that the significance of man and the differences which distinguishes us from every other creature and the implication of that which is a universal truth does exist independent of man.

You forgot that “... it’s allegorical” refutes your all-knowing, all-seeing Bibles. “They” wrote the Bible’s in allegorical terms. Did you forget what you wrote?

 

[ding]

There were no talking snakes Hollie. That would be reading an allegorical account of the fall of man literally. Which is rather surprising since you are Jewish.

Same for the allegorical account of the great flood. Exception that was an allegorical account of a historical event which happened before the great migration from the of civilization.

Do you really believe the G-d of Abraham and the Jewish people promote incest.

That’s a very serious allegation.

No taking snakes? Which edited / revised bibles are you worshipping?

Have you ever read the Ark tale?

The Torah, Hollie.

But it is interesting that you accept the boundary for Israel described in Genesis as the basis for the nation of Israel.

Your beliefs are contradictory.

Rather telling that you use "..... it's allegorical" to sidestep the rather glaring inconsistencies in your new-fangled bibles.

There are no inconsistencies in the Torah.

The allegorical account of the fall of man captures the truth that man is unique in the creation of space and time. A new thing.

They knew 6000 years ago what you never knew or understood; that the significance of man and the differences which distinguishes us from every other creature and the implication of that which is a universal truth does exist independent of man.

You forgot that “... it’s allegorical” refutes your all-knowing, all-seeing Bibles. “They” wrote the Bible’s in allegorical terms. Did you forget what you wrote?

I am discussing the Torah, Hollie. I am doing so intentionally because you are the most disingenuous person I have ever had the displeasure of communicating with. You are an angry militant Jew who probably believes in G-d.

 

[Taz]

So you just made up stuff without any basis in fact.

I have lots of facts for basing my belief that spirit created the material world. Where have you been?

You are the one who has no facts for his belief. You don’t even have a belief that’s how few of facts you have.

You have zero facts. You've always had zero facts. You'll never have real facts because you don't know what that is.

There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. The closest we can come to conceptualizing God is that God is consciousness without form.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create. George Wald

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

Man believing in a universal right and wrong is another fact. If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

So where are your facts, Taz?

This copy&paste isn’t facts, just fartsmoke.

What exactly did you disagree with? Can you explain it? Is copy and paste and fartsmoke the extent of your intellectual argument?

You have no credible link, so I didn’t even bother to read what you copy&pasted. Your personal opinion is a waste of time.

 

[Hollie]

No taking snakes? Which edited / revised bibles are you worshipping?

Have you ever read the Ark tale?

The Torah, Hollie.

But it is interesting that you accept the boundary for Israel described in Genesis as the basis for the nation of Israel.

Your beliefs are contradictory.

Rather telling that you use "..... it's allegorical" to sidestep the rather glaring inconsistencies in your new-fangled bibles.

There are no inconsistencies in the Torah.

The allegorical account of the fall of man captures the truth that man is unique in the creation of space and time. A new thing.

They knew 6000 years ago what you never knew or understood; that the significance of man and the differences which distinguishes us from every other creature and the implication of that which is a universal truth does exist independent of man.

You forgot that “... it’s allegorical” refutes your all-knowing, all-seeing Bibles. “They” wrote the Bible’s in allegorical terms. Did you forget what you wrote?

I am discussing the Torah, Hollie. I am doing so intentionally because you are the most disingenuous person I have ever had the displeasure of communicating with. You are an angry militant Jew who probably believes in G-d.

You are sidestepping your earlier comments. You attempt to self-title yourself as some authority on the Bible yet as a Jew convert to Christianity your bible knowledge falls flat.

 

[ding]

I have lots of facts for basing my belief that spirit created the material world. Where have you been?

You are the one who has no facts for his belief. You don’t even have a belief that’s how few of facts you have.

You have zero facts. You've always had zero facts. You'll never have real facts because you don't know what that is.

There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. The closest we can come to conceptualizing God is that God is consciousness without form.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create. George Wald

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

Man believing in a universal right and wrong is another fact. If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

So where are your facts, Taz?

This copy&paste isn’t facts, just fartsmoke.

What exactly did you disagree with? Can you explain it? Is copy and paste and fartsmoke the extent of your intellectual argument?

You have no credible link, so I didn’t even bother to read what you copy&pasted. Your personal opinion is a waste of time.

You really didn’t have any other play to make.

 

[ding]

The Torah, Hollie.

But it is interesting that you accept the boundary for Israel described in Genesis as the basis for the nation of Israel.

Your beliefs are contradictory.

Rather telling that you use "..... it's allegorical" to sidestep the rather glaring inconsistencies in your new-fangled bibles.

There are no inconsistencies in the Torah.

The allegorical account of the fall of man captures the truth that man is unique in the creation of space and time. A new thing.

They knew 6000 years ago what you never knew or understood; that the significance of man and the differences which distinguishes us from every other creature and the implication of that which is a universal truth does exist independent of man.

You forgot that “... it’s allegorical” refutes your all-knowing, all-seeing Bibles. “They” wrote the Bible’s in allegorical terms. Did you forget what you wrote?

I am discussing the Torah, Hollie. I am doing so intentionally because you are the most disingenuous person I have ever had the displeasure of communicating with. You are an angry militant Jew who probably believes in G-d.

You are sidestepping your earlier comments. You attempt to self-title yourself as some authority on the Bible yet as a Jew convert to Christianity your bible knowledge falls flat.

I don’t believe I am. I have been discussing the evidence that the first 11 chapters of the Torah were allegorical accounts of world history that all nations share. And that those accounts start with the belief that spirit created the material world and that man is a product of that creation. It has yet to be refuted.

 

[Taz]

Rather telling that you use "..... it's allegorical" to sidestep the rather glaring inconsistencies in your new-fangled bibles.

There are no inconsistencies in the Torah.

The allegorical account of the fall of man captures the truth that man is unique in the creation of space and time. A new thing.

They knew 6000 years ago what you never knew or understood; that the significance of man and the differences which distinguishes us from every other creature and the implication of that which is a universal truth does exist independent of man.

You forgot that “... it’s allegorical” refutes your all-knowing, all-seeing Bibles. “They” wrote the Bible’s in allegorical terms. Did you forget what you wrote?

I am discussing the Torah, Hollie. I am doing so intentionally because you are the most disingenuous person I have ever had the displeasure of communicating with. You are an angry militant Jew who probably believes in G-d.

You are sidestepping your earlier comments. You attempt to self-title yourself as some authority on the Bible yet as a Jew convert to Christianity your bible knowledge falls flat.

I don’t believe I am. I have been discussing the evidence that the first 11 chapters of the Torah were allegorical accounts of world history that all nations share. And that those accounts start with the belief that spirit created the material world and that man is a product of that creation. It has yet to be refuted.

You used to be a Heeb?

 

[ding]

There are no inconsistencies in the Torah.

The allegorical account of the fall of man captures the truth that man is unique in the creation of space and time. A new thing.

They knew 6000 years ago what you never knew or understood; that the significance of man and the differences which distinguishes us from every other creature and the implication of that which is a universal truth does exist independent of man.

You forgot that “... it’s allegorical” refutes your all-knowing, all-seeing Bibles. “They” wrote the Bible’s in allegorical terms. Did you forget what you wrote?

I am discussing the Torah, Hollie. I am doing so intentionally because you are the most disingenuous person I have ever had the displeasure of communicating with. You are an angry militant Jew who probably believes in G-d.

You are sidestepping your earlier comments. You attempt to self-title yourself as some authority on the Bible yet as a Jew convert to Christianity your bible knowledge falls flat.

I don’t believe I am. I have been discussing the evidence that the first 11 chapters of the Torah were allegorical accounts of world history that all nations share. And that those accounts start with the belief that spirit created the material world and that man is a product of that creation. It has yet to be refuted.

You used to be a Heeb?

No. Hollie is.

She hates Christians more than Hobelim or you do.

 

[Kat]

Topic. Is there one? If so, get back to it please.

 

[ding]

Topic. Is there one? If so, get back to it please.

Kind of sorta. The OP starts from a position of error. To correct that error I have to explain that it’s not a fairytale. How mankind ever got to that position I’ll never know. Suffice it to say men 6000 years ago understood the meaning of these allegorical accounts better than we do today. All original meaning has been lost.

 

[Taz]

Topic. Is there one? If so, get back to it please.

Kind of sorta. The OP starts from a position of error. To correct that error I have to explain that it’s not a fairytale. How mankind ever got to that position I’ll never know. Suffice it to say men 6000 years ago understood the meaning of these allegorical accounts better than we do today. All original meaning has been lost.

God just judged you through the mod, or is it that the mod just judged god, either way, stfu.

You Heeb.

 

[ding]

Topic. Is there one? If so, get back to it please.

Kind of sorta. The OP starts from a position of error. To correct that error I have to explain that it’s not a fairytale. How mankind ever got to that position I’ll never know. Suffice it to say men 6000 years ago understood the meaning of these allegorical accounts better than we do today. All original meaning has been lost.

God just judged you through the mod, or is it that the mod just judged god, either way, stfu.

You Heeb.

I don’t believe that was directed at me. I’m discussing the OP.

 

[Taz]

Topic. Is there one? If so, get back to it please.

Kind of sorta. The OP starts from a position of error. To correct that error I have to explain that it’s not a fairytale. How mankind ever got to that position I’ll never know. Suffice it to say men 6000 years ago understood the meaning of these allegorical accounts better than we do today. All original meaning has been lost.

God just judged you through the mod, or is it that the mod just judged god, either way, stfu.

You Heeb.

I don’t believe that was directed at me. I’m discussing the OP.

God gave us free will to judge him.

 

[ding]

Topic. Is there one? If so, get back to it please.

Kind of sorta. The OP starts from a position of error. To correct that error I have to explain that it’s not a fairytale. How mankind ever got to that position I’ll never know. Suffice it to say men 6000 years ago understood the meaning of these allegorical accounts better than we do today. All original meaning has been lost.

God just judged you through the mod, or is it that the mod just judged god, either way, stfu.

You Heeb.

I don’t believe that was directed at me. I’m discussing the OP.

God gave us free will to judge him.

Yes, but it isn’t judging if you don’t believe he exists.

 

[Taz]

Topic. Is there one? If so, get back to it please.

Kind of sorta. The OP starts from a position of error. To correct that error I have to explain that it’s not a fairytale. How mankind ever got to that position I’ll never know. Suffice it to say men 6000 years ago understood the meaning of these allegorical accounts better than we do today. All original meaning has been lost.

God just judged you through the mod, or is it that the mod just judged god, either way, stfu.

You Heeb.

I don’t believe that was directed at me. I’m discussing the OP.

God gave us free will to judge him.

Yes, but it isn’t judging if you don’t believe he exists.

I can judge your imaginary god if I want to.

 

[ding]

Kind of sorta. The OP starts from a position of error. To correct that error I have to explain that it’s not a fairytale. How mankind ever got to that position I’ll never know. Suffice it to say men 6000 years ago understood the meaning of these allegorical accounts better than we do today. All original meaning has been lost.

God just judged you through the mod, or is it that the mod just judged god, either way, stfu.

You Heeb.

I don’t believe that was directed at me. I’m discussing the OP.

God gave us free will to judge him.

Yes, but it isn’t judging if you don’t believe he exists.

I can judge your imaginary god if I want to.

I didn’t say you couldn’t. I said it isn’t judging if you don’t believe God exists. It is literally meaningless.