Does God want us to judge him?

[ding]

Then you have to look inside yourself because I have already provided the reasons why I did look inside myself.

There's nothing inside myself that points to a being that wants me to follow a book. And you don't have a standard way for everyone to do that and find a god.

Who said anything about a book?

People come to know God in their own way.

If god was real, there would be a standard way to reach it.

Why? We are all unique individuals with different ways of learning and relating.

Sure. That’s why different cultures have different versions of the gods.

There is only one Creator. He doesn’t care what name you call him just that you call him. The fact that belief in God is so prevalent throughout history in every culture ought to raise you suspicion.

 

[Hollie]

There's nothing inside myself that points to a being that wants me to follow a book. And you don't have a standard way for everyone to do that and find a god.

Who said anything about a book?

People come to know God in their own way.

If god was real, there would be a standard way to reach it.

Why? We are all unique individuals with different ways of learning and relating.

Sure. That’s why different cultures have different versions of the gods.

There is only one Creator. He doesn’t care what name you call him just that you call him. The fact that belief in God is so prevalent throughout history in every culture ought to raise you suspicion.

Actually, There are many conceptions of gods, ranging from incorporeal entities to long haired hippies walking around in sandals. So, I do have to ask why you believe your perception of the gods is more supported than various other suppositions and assertions of the gods.

Within the evolution (oops, I said that word) of the religious faiths, there were theistic thresholds crossed that allowed the later religions to establish themselves as unique, even though it's obvious these later religious incorporated much theology from their predecessors. Christianity began as an esthetic sect within messianic Judaism. Christianity was derived from the Pauline theology elaborating the divinity of Jesus and his substitution for atonement for sin.

Each of these transitions (evolutions), is basically one part of a continuance in which the preceding religions are relevant to the later in that much of the theology evolves from the former. There are of course departures from the old which are incorporated in the creation of the new.

 

[ding]

Who said anything about a book?

People come to know God in their own way.

If god was real, there would be a standard way to reach it.

Why? We are all unique individuals with different ways of learning and relating.

Sure. That’s why different cultures have different versions of the gods.

There is only one Creator. He doesn’t care what name you call him just that you call him. The fact that belief in God is so prevalent throughout history in every culture ought to raise you suspicion.

Actually, There are many conceptions of gods, ranging from incorporeal entities to long haired hippies walking around in sandals. So, I do have to ask why you believe your perception of the gods is more supported than various other suppositions and assertions of the gods.

Within the evolution (oops, I said that word) of the religious faiths, there were theistic thresholds crossed that allowed the later religions to establish themselves as unique, even though it's obvious these later religious incorporated much theology from their predecessors. Christianity began as an esthetic sect within messianic Judaism. Christianity was derived from the Pauline theology elaborating the divinity of Jesus and his substitution for atonement for sin.

Each of these transitions (evolutions), is basically one part of a continuance in which the preceding religions are relevant to the later in that much of the theology evolves from the former. There are of course departures from the old which are incorporated in the creation of the new.

That question is meaningless to me. I don’t attack or criticize the faith of others. I don’t need to validate my beliefs at the expense of others.

 

[Hollie]

If god was real, there would be a standard way to reach it.

Why? We are all unique individuals with different ways of learning and relating.

Sure. That’s why different cultures have different versions of the gods.

There is only one Creator. He doesn’t care what name you call him just that you call him. The fact that belief in God is so prevalent throughout history in every culture ought to raise you suspicion.

Actually, There are many conceptions of gods, ranging from incorporeal entities to long haired hippies walking around in sandals. So, I do have to ask why you believe your perception of the gods is more supported than various other suppositions and assertions of the gods.

Within the evolution (oops, I said that word) of the religious faiths, there were theistic thresholds crossed that allowed the later religions to establish themselves as unique, even though it's obvious these later religious incorporated much theology from their predecessors. Christianity began as an esthetic sect within messianic Judaism. Christianity was derived from the Pauline theology elaborating the divinity of Jesus and his substitution for atonement for sin.

Each of these transitions (evolutions), is basically one part of a continuance in which the preceding religions are relevant to the later in that much of the theology evolves from the former. There are of course departures from the old which are incorporated in the creation of the new.

That question is meaningless to me. I don’t attack or criticize the faith of others. I don’t need to validate my beliefs at the expense of others.

There was no mention of criticizing or attacking another faith.

It's just a fact that a great many religions grew out of and incorporated their theology from earlier religions. I find it entertainingly ironic that religionists discount the huge, sweeping disagreements they have over theology, that have gone on for thousands of years, with no evidence to arbitrate one assertion over the other. Yet, most of the core theology derives from similar notions of supernatural entities.

If you were willing to be objective, you would admit you have no corroboration that any of the gospels were authored by Luke, Matthew, Mark or John. You are simply accepting they were. So what happens if they were written by priests who were trying to codify messianic fervor of the time, and they did so writing a fictional account of a messiah? What if the real Jesus is an Essene priest who lived 100 years before? Suddenly that could explain a few things. Like why the stories are so differing in key elements. And the tonal nature of them, and so on.

 

[ding]

Why? We are all unique individuals with different ways of learning and relating.

Sure. That’s why different cultures have different versions of the gods.

There is only one Creator. He doesn’t care what name you call him just that you call him. The fact that belief in God is so prevalent throughout history in every culture ought to raise you suspicion.

Actually, There are many conceptions of gods, ranging from incorporeal entities to long haired hippies walking around in sandals. So, I do have to ask why you believe your perception of the gods is more supported than various other suppositions and assertions of the gods.

Within the evolution (oops, I said that word) of the religious faiths, there were theistic thresholds crossed that allowed the later religions to establish themselves as unique, even though it's obvious these later religious incorporated much theology from their predecessors. Christianity began as an esthetic sect within messianic Judaism. Christianity was derived from the Pauline theology elaborating the divinity of Jesus and his substitution for atonement for sin.

Each of these transitions (evolutions), is basically one part of a continuance in which the preceding religions are relevant to the later in that much of the theology evolves from the former. There are of course departures from the old which are incorporated in the creation of the new.

That question is meaningless to me. I don’t attack or criticize the faith of others. I don’t need to validate my beliefs at the expense of others.

There was no mention of criticizing or attacking another faith.

It's just a fact that a great many religions grew out of and incorporated their theology from earlier religions. I find it entertainingly ironic that religionists discount the huge, sweeping disagreements they have over theology, that have gone on for thousands of years, with no evidence to arbitrate one assertion over the other. Yet, most of the core theology derives from similar notions of supernatural entities.

If you were willing to be objective, you would admit you have no corroboration that any of the gospels were authored by Luke, Matthew, Mark or John. You are simply accepting they were. So what happens if they were written by priests who were trying to codify messianic fervor of the time, and they did so writing a fictional account of a messiah? What if the real Jesus is an Essene priest who lived 100 years before? Suddenly that could explain a few things. Like why the stories are so differing in key elements. And the tonal nature of them, and so on.

Right. You just wanted me to say my religion was more supported than the others.

It seems that YOU are the one who wants to make that critical theory argument.

 

[Karl Rand]

Sure. That’s why different cultures have different versions of the gods.

Or to put it another way, delusions take many forms.

 

[ding]

Sure. That’s why different cultures have different versions of the gods.

Or to put it another way, delusions take many forms.

The diversity you criticize is in reality a strength, but I doubt you would ever attempt to understand it. It doesn’t fit your narrative.

 

[ding]

Sure. That’s why different cultures have different versions of the gods.

Or to put it another way, delusions take many forms.

I am always interested in seeing the predictable surprises that will naturally follow the unholy alliance between militant atheists and Jews even when the Jew might be an atheist as well. Thus proving that the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.

Given the Israeli Gov’t has a active program supporting academic falsification of archeological ‘discoveries’ it’s almost impossible to separate ancient myth from recent claims.
We may also want to ask why the re-establishment of the temple and/or the ‘renewal of it’s covenant with God' (whatever that may mean) would justify the forced takeover of Palestine.
Strangely I suspect the establishment of Israel was assisted in part by the British because of their closeted anti-semitism. “We’d rather have them over there than all coming to England after the war”

Allow me to wander off topic for a bit. I’ve never understood why so much fuss is made of nations such as Iran aquiring nuclear weapons when Israel has been armed to the teeth with them for decades.

 

[ding]

The good Lord works in mysterious ways.

 

[Taz]

There's nothing inside myself that points to a being that wants me to follow a book. And you don't have a standard way for everyone to do that and find a god.

Who said anything about a book?

People come to know God in their own way.

If god was real, there would be a standard way to reach it.

Why? We are all unique individuals with different ways of learning and relating.

Sure. That’s why different cultures have different versions of the gods.

There is only one Creator. He doesn’t care what name you call him just that you call him. The fact that belief in God is so prevalent throughout history in every culture ought to raise you suspicion.

You have no proof of a single creator. Stop bullshitting everyone.

 

[Taz]

Sure. That’s why different cultures have different versions of the gods.

There is only one Creator. He doesn’t care what name you call him just that you call him. The fact that belief in God is so prevalent throughout history in every culture ought to raise you suspicion.

Actually, There are many conceptions of gods, ranging from incorporeal entities to long haired hippies walking around in sandals. So, I do have to ask why you believe your perception of the gods is more supported than various other suppositions and assertions of the gods.

Within the evolution (oops, I said that word) of the religious faiths, there were theistic thresholds crossed that allowed the later religions to establish themselves as unique, even though it's obvious these later religious incorporated much theology from their predecessors. Christianity began as an esthetic sect within messianic Judaism. Christianity was derived from the Pauline theology elaborating the divinity of Jesus and his substitution for atonement for sin.

Each of these transitions (evolutions), is basically one part of a continuance in which the preceding religions are relevant to the later in that much of the theology evolves from the former. There are of course departures from the old which are incorporated in the creation of the new.

That question is meaningless to me. I don’t attack or criticize the faith of others. I don’t need to validate my beliefs at the expense of others.

There was no mention of criticizing or attacking another faith.

It's just a fact that a great many religions grew out of and incorporated their theology from earlier religions. I find it entertainingly ironic that religionists discount the huge, sweeping disagreements they have over theology, that have gone on for thousands of years, with no evidence to arbitrate one assertion over the other. Yet, most of the core theology derives from similar notions of supernatural entities.

If you were willing to be objective, you would admit you have no corroboration that any of the gospels were authored by Luke, Matthew, Mark or John. You are simply accepting they were. So what happens if they were written by priests who were trying to codify messianic fervor of the time, and they did so writing a fictional account of a messiah? What if the real Jesus is an Essene priest who lived 100 years before? Suddenly that could explain a few things. Like why the stories are so differing in key elements. And the tonal nature of them, and so on.

Right. You just wanted me to say my religion was more supported than the others.

It seems that YOU are the one who wants to make that critical theory argument.

What religion would that be?

 

[ding]

There is only one Creator. He doesn’t care what name you call him just that you call him. The fact that belief in God is so prevalent throughout history in every culture ought to raise you suspicion.

Actually, There are many conceptions of gods, ranging from incorporeal entities to long haired hippies walking around in sandals. So, I do have to ask why you believe your perception of the gods is more supported than various other suppositions and assertions of the gods.

Within the evolution (oops, I said that word) of the religious faiths, there were theistic thresholds crossed that allowed the later religions to establish themselves as unique, even though it's obvious these later religious incorporated much theology from their predecessors. Christianity began as an esthetic sect within messianic Judaism. Christianity was derived from the Pauline theology elaborating the divinity of Jesus and his substitution for atonement for sin.

Each of these transitions (evolutions), is basically one part of a continuance in which the preceding religions are relevant to the later in that much of the theology evolves from the former. There are of course departures from the old which are incorporated in the creation of the new.

That question is meaningless to me. I don’t attack or criticize the faith of others. I don’t need to validate my beliefs at the expense of others.

There was no mention of criticizing or attacking another faith.

It's just a fact that a great many religions grew out of and incorporated their theology from earlier religions. I find it entertainingly ironic that religionists discount the huge, sweeping disagreements they have over theology, that have gone on for thousands of years, with no evidence to arbitrate one assertion over the other. Yet, most of the core theology derives from similar notions of supernatural entities.

If you were willing to be objective, you would admit you have no corroboration that any of the gospels were authored by Luke, Matthew, Mark or John. You are simply accepting they were. So what happens if they were written by priests who were trying to codify messianic fervor of the time, and they did so writing a fictional account of a messiah? What if the real Jesus is an Essene priest who lived 100 years before? Suddenly that could explain a few things. Like why the stories are so differing in key elements. And the tonal nature of them, and so on.

Right. You just wanted me to say my religion was more supported than the others.

It seems that YOU are the one who wants to make that critical theory argument.

What religion would that be?

Larry the cable guy

 

[ding]

Who said anything about a book?

People come to know God in their own way.

If god was real, there would be a standard way to reach it.

Why? We are all unique individuals with different ways of learning and relating.

Sure. That’s why different cultures have different versions of the gods.

There is only one Creator. He doesn’t care what name you call him just that you call him. The fact that belief in God is so prevalent throughout history in every culture ought to raise you suspicion.

You have no proof of a single creator. Stop bullshitting everyone.

I wouldn’t shit you. You are my favorite turd.

 

[Hollie]

Sure. That’s why different cultures have different versions of the gods.

There is only one Creator. He doesn’t care what name you call him just that you call him. The fact that belief in God is so prevalent throughout history in every culture ought to raise you suspicion.

Actually, There are many conceptions of gods, ranging from incorporeal entities to long haired hippies walking around in sandals. So, I do have to ask why you believe your perception of the gods is more supported than various other suppositions and assertions of the gods.

Within the evolution (oops, I said that word) of the religious faiths, there were theistic thresholds crossed that allowed the later religions to establish themselves as unique, even though it's obvious these later religious incorporated much theology from their predecessors. Christianity began as an esthetic sect within messianic Judaism. Christianity was derived from the Pauline theology elaborating the divinity of Jesus and his substitution for atonement for sin.

Each of these transitions (evolutions), is basically one part of a continuance in which the preceding religions are relevant to the later in that much of the theology evolves from the former. There are of course departures from the old which are incorporated in the creation of the new.

That question is meaningless to me. I don’t attack or criticize the faith of others. I don’t need to validate my beliefs at the expense of others.

There was no mention of criticizing or attacking another faith.

It's just a fact that a great many religions grew out of and incorporated their theology from earlier religions. I find it entertainingly ironic that religionists discount the huge, sweeping disagreements they have over theology, that have gone on for thousands of years, with no evidence to arbitrate one assertion over the other. Yet, most of the core theology derives from similar notions of supernatural entities.

If you were willing to be objective, you would admit you have no corroboration that any of the gospels were authored by Luke, Matthew, Mark or John. You are simply accepting they were. So what happens if they were written by priests who were trying to codify messianic fervor of the time, and they did so writing a fictional account of a messiah? What if the real Jesus is an Essene priest who lived 100 years before? Suddenly that could explain a few things. Like why the stories are so differing in key elements. And the tonal nature of them, and so on.

Right. You just wanted me to say my religion was more supported than the others.

It seems that YOU are the one who wants to make that critical theory argument.

No. I wanted to see you sidestep and deflect, as usual.

 

[Taz]

Actually, There are many conceptions of gods, ranging from incorporeal entities to long haired hippies walking around in sandals. So, I do have to ask why you believe your perception of the gods is more supported than various other suppositions and assertions of the gods.

Within the evolution (oops, I said that word) of the religious faiths, there were theistic thresholds crossed that allowed the later religions to establish themselves as unique, even though it's obvious these later religious incorporated much theology from their predecessors. Christianity began as an esthetic sect within messianic Judaism. Christianity was derived from the Pauline theology elaborating the divinity of Jesus and his substitution for atonement for sin.

Each of these transitions (evolutions), is basically one part of a continuance in which the preceding religions are relevant to the later in that much of the theology evolves from the former. There are of course departures from the old which are incorporated in the creation of the new.

That question is meaningless to me. I don’t attack or criticize the faith of others. I don’t need to validate my beliefs at the expense of others.

There was no mention of criticizing or attacking another faith.

It's just a fact that a great many religions grew out of and incorporated their theology from earlier religions. I find it entertainingly ironic that religionists discount the huge, sweeping disagreements they have over theology, that have gone on for thousands of years, with no evidence to arbitrate one assertion over the other. Yet, most of the core theology derives from similar notions of supernatural entities.

If you were willing to be objective, you would admit you have no corroboration that any of the gospels were authored by Luke, Matthew, Mark or John. You are simply accepting they were. So what happens if they were written by priests who were trying to codify messianic fervor of the time, and they did so writing a fictional account of a messiah? What if the real Jesus is an Essene priest who lived 100 years before? Suddenly that could explain a few things. Like why the stories are so differing in key elements. And the tonal nature of them, and so on.

Right. You just wanted me to say my religion was more supported than the others.

It seems that YOU are the one who wants to make that critical theory argument.

What religion would that be?

Larry the cable guy

You're ashamed to say what religion you are. I get it.

 

[Mindful]

If god was real, there would be a standard way to reach it.

Why? We are all unique individuals with different ways of learning and relating.

Sure. That’s why different cultures have different versions of the gods.

There is only one Creator. He doesn’t care what name you call him just that you call him. The fact that belief in God is so prevalent throughout history in every culture ought to raise you suspicion.

You have no proof of a single creator. Stop bullshitting everyone.

I wouldn’t shit you. You are my favorite turd.

Language!

From a Puritan like you?

 

[Mindful]

Judging G-d;

The Jews put him on trial in Auschwitz; pronounced Him guilty, but celebrated Shabbat nevertheless.

 

[Taz]

Why? We are all unique individuals with different ways of learning and relating.

Sure. That’s why different cultures have different versions of the gods.

There is only one Creator. He doesn’t care what name you call him just that you call him. The fact that belief in God is so prevalent throughout history in every culture ought to raise you suspicion.

You have no proof of a single creator. Stop bullshitting everyone.

I wouldn’t shit you. You are my favorite turd.

Language!

From a Puritan like you?

Give dingbat a break! He has no facts, so I let him have the schoolyard insults. It visibly makes him feel better.

 

[Mindful]

Sure. That’s why different cultures have different versions of the gods.

There is only one Creator. He doesn’t care what name you call him just that you call him. The fact that belief in God is so prevalent throughout history in every culture ought to raise you suspicion.

You have no proof of a single creator. Stop bullshitting everyone.

I wouldn’t shit you. You are my favorite turd.

Language!

From a Puritan like you?

Give dingbat a break! He has no facts, so I let him have the schoolyard insults. It visibly makes him feel better.

I never thought he'd sink so low.

 

[ding]

Why? We are all unique individuals with different ways of learning and relating.

Sure. That’s why different cultures have different versions of the gods.

There is only one Creator. He doesn’t care what name you call him just that you call him. The fact that belief in God is so prevalent throughout history in every culture ought to raise you suspicion.

You have no proof of a single creator. Stop bullshitting everyone.

I wouldn’t shit you. You are my favorite turd.

Language!

From a Puritan like you?

I don’t believe I have ever claimed to be a saint. The Good Lord certainly knows I’m not.

How about you? Are do you believe you are a saint?