Whose name do you use for the first commandment?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You posted something that is inchoherent, you need to work on your question. And you need to supply scripture verses, because you have provided incorrect ones. I don’t have a starting place.

PS: incoherent means that it does not stick together, you are going in two directions or something.

Simple question that has a one word answer.

Don't be scared.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

fact--God created mortals to live forever

How absurd.

 

[kjw47]

No time for liars.

Regards
DL

You have time every day for one--the man in the mirror.

 

[kjw47]

How absurd.

Obviously you do not know God or read his word-If Adam and Eve never ate of the tree they never would have died. Rebelling and eating of that tree brought death into this world.

 

[norwegen]

Mortals, by definition, die.

Death for Adam/Israel was a denial of access to the tree of life. It was condemnation.

Gnostics are just as ignorant as traditional Christians are in their belief that Mosaic Law must somehow fit into modern paradigms.

 

[playtime]

Who is that?

not a who ... but a what. i am more spiritual than 'religious' .

If not you, why not?

because i am imperfect.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Obviously you do not know God or read his word-If Adam and Eve never ate of the tree they never would have died. Rebelling and eating of that tree brought death into this world.

Mortals, by definition, die.

Death for Adam/Israel was a denial of access to the tree of life. It was condemnation.

Gnostics are just as ignorant as traditional Christians are in their belief that Mosaic Law must somehow fit into modern paradigms.

Sounds very immoral. What kind of a craven, vain, cruel "god" behaves this way? Gross.

 

[kjw47]

Sounds very immoral. What kind of a craven, vain, cruel "god" behaves this way? Gross.

The kind that hands eternal life on a silver platter to those who in return kick him in the teeth by believing a liar over him. How much is eternal life worth? Never sick, aging like now, etc. Was he worth believing that they would die if they ate of that tree? Or believe a liar who did 0 for them?
How angry would you be?

 

[norwegen]

Your opinion is interesting and wrong.

You should check with Jews before putting your foot in your mouth.

Jews are not literalists and put man above god.

I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental efforts that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.

What is God?

Further.
Bill Moyers Journal . Watch & Listen | PBS

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."

Please listen as to what is said about the literal reading of myths.

"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."

Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship.



Regards
DL

Your opinion is uninteresting and wrong.

Except for a few inspired laws for the Israelites, such as the ten commandments and to love God and their neighbors, they codified their own customs. Their nation was wayward.

"Vengeance is mine," said God, but they took it upon themselves to avenge anyway, saying it was God's will.

God's vengeance was on Israel, ultimately destroying the Satan among the remnant, Jesus being the catalyst for that vengeance and Rome bearing the sword.

 

[kjw47]

No time for liars.

Regards
DL

There are 2 kinds of people on earth--ones on Gods ark, ones on the same boat with -paedophiles, murderers, adulterers, People who hate God. etc,etc up the creek without a paddle. You made the wrong choice.

 

[surada]

Whose name do you use for the first commandment?

Jesus who said “he comes to cure and not kill the afflicted”.

Yahweh says he will come to kill, not cure the afflicted.

The one who always kills, has some Jews calling Yahweh a evil god.

I think the term suits.

You could name Spirit, if you are a Trinitarian, but the spirit does not speak in the bible, except to those with a Jesus consciousness, or one who has risen to a Christ consciousness.

Gnostic Christians condemned Yahweh to hell way back when Christians had morals.

We put our myth against theirs and called their God evil, and then the good old inquisitions; instead of trying to win the argument.

Jesus and his Armageddon does not seem to be much better than the genocidal Yahweh.

Most who read this might not agree, --- but if you put any name other than yourself, --- as the spirit that judges the good or evil in the Christian God, --- then you might wonder why you venerate an evil God.

I name Spirit God as I will not go to hell where Yahweh and Jesus are bound to end.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be Matthew.

People hate moral questions.

We are all sinners, thank God; who will sin by accepting to follow one of the Christian Gods?

IMO, Christianity had the potential to be the worlds best religion. It changed and is now failing.

I think it a shame that they will drag Gnostic Christianity down with it.

Who do you name for Commandment # 1?

Regards
DL

There is no Armageddon.

 

[ding]

Morals are usually subjective, not objective. Right?

Incorrect.

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.

 

[kjw47]

There is no Armageddon.

The bible says there will be. Rev 16:16-- Every kingdom on earth( govt, armies, supporters) will be mislead to stand in opposition to Gods king=Jesus. It has not occurred yet. It is coming.

 

[surada]

The bible says there will be. Rev 16:16-- Every kingdom on earth( govt, armies, supporters) will be mislead to stand in opposition to Gods king=Jesus. It has not occurred yet. It is coming.

It already happened. Many foreign armies fought with Titus in the seige of Jerusalem. Education helps.

 

[kjw47]

It already happened. Many foreign armies fought with Titus in the seige of Jerusalem. Education helps.

They did not fight against Jesus. He is Gods king mentioned at Rev 16--every one knows its fact. The result is Daniel 2:44( has not occurred yet)-and Rev 19:11 and on. (Rev 19:11( has not occurred yet) assures it is Jesus. You need new teachers.

 

[surada]

They did not fight against Jesus. He is Gods king mentioned at Rev 16--every one knows its fact. The result is Daniel 2:44( has not occurred yet)-and Rev 19:11 and on. (Rev 19:11( has not occurred yet) assures it is Jesus. You need new teachers.

Daniel was written about Antiochus IV in 168 BC. Its not about Jesus.

 

[kjw47]

Daniel was written about Antiochus IV in 168 BC. Its not about Jesus.

You are wrong. The only kingdom that will stand forever is Gods kingdom.

 

[Plow Boy]

Moral coward claim that, when they tuck tail and run from me, the moment I start showing them their garbage morals.

Back stabbers like you I eat for breakfast.

Regards
DL

??….??
Time will tell the tale, and I am looking forward to the Judgement Day, when all of Gods enemies finally learn their lessons: and all of His followers are finally rewarded.

 

[kjw47]

Sounds very immoral. What kind of a craven, vain, cruel "god" behaves this way? Gross.

He warned them in advance.
God handed them life everlasting, only knowing good. Never aging like now, never sick, never without in a beautiful Garden of Eden. That has more value than all the wealth on earth combined x trillions x trillions x trillions etc. He asked 1 single thing of them- Do not eat of that tree. He did all that as a loving Father. A fallen angel comes one day and lies to Eve. He gave them nothing ever, who should they have believed? God of course. Instead kicked God in the teeth and all of their descendants after by not standing up for God. Bringing death and bad into the world. It was those 3 rebels fault, not Gods they asked for this system.
Now we as mortals can support Gods side and listen to him, or support satans side. We all make the choice by actions.

 

[GreatestIam]

only knowing good.

??

It was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Right?

Where did you get that there is a tree of only good knowledge?

You are not to add to scripture, and here you are killing the duality it shows to exist.

I see that as really stupid.

Regards
DL