Believer or not, your epitome of desire, is to be named the Greatest I am.

[steve_bank]

It is inadvertent and natural given the lack of sentience.

You may as well ask why a rock is hard. It is it's nature.

I say it cannot be other than what it is and is therefore the best it can be, given our history, in spite of your wish list.

Show a flaw in my reasoning if you can.

Regards
DL

In the ancient sport of metaphysics I give you a 4.2 out of 10. The landing was a bit wobbly giving you deductions along with a lack of form and control in the air.

As we are not able to enumerate possibilities, the idea that this is the best possible has no meaning. Similar to asling why the universe exists. It can only be answered by subjective perceptions in myth and religion.

The universe is what it is, it is neither good or bad or perfect or imperfect. Such concepts are product of human brains and human imagination. So IMO your assertion fails, as does the traditional Christian logic and syllogisms.

Subjectivism is the idea that knowledge or perception of something changes that outcomes.

In the 19th century scince as Natural Philospht based in metaphysics was no longer able to explain experiment and aobservation and became modern empirical model based science.

There is cince based on math and experiment and there is interpretation of experiment and theory. That would be philosophy, metaphysics, and religion.

In metaphysics we are limited by imprecise language. You can say 'best of all possible worlds', but that is then open to interpretation., leading to endless unresolvable debate. endless and unresolvable.

The Christian god can be disproved by any objective empirical methods. Given the gd premise, then theChritain logic and reasonng follows. A valid argumebnt is one in which the conclusion follows from premise with no logicak falacies.

A valid logical argument based on a premise does not infer the premise is true.

For yiu to make yur SSERTION BEST OFF ALL POSIBILITUES PUT IT IN A SYLOGISM.

P1
P2
C REALITY IS THE BEST OF ALL POSSIBILITIES.

Then we can proceed to debate.

So far yiur argument sounds like

P1 NATURE SELCTS FOR OPTIMUM
C THERFORE IT IS THE BEST OF ALL OUTCOMES.

 

[atrib]

In what way? All I have done is ask you to support your assertion with evidence and reason, because I am not willing to simply take your word for it. How does that make me pompous?



Every human on the planet is different. We all think differently and are motivated by different things, although we can sometimes be typecast into broad general categories. Second, individuals do not evolve, biologically speaking, but populations of humans do. I was born with the genes I was born with, and those do not change. We do change physiologically as we live, but that is not evolution. Not every human desires to be the "epitome of fitness", whatever that is supposed to mean. Some of us are content to live our lives in the slower lanes, savoring every moment without the drive to become the best at what we do. If fact, the overachievers are the minority. There are very few Michael Jordans and Elon Musks in the world; most of us are just average. Your assertion is demonstrably wrong, else bell-shaped curves and grading/selection based on test scores would not exist.



I have no fucking clue what this means. I am defective because I don't want to be greatest human in the world? Are you fucking kidding me?



So demonstrate it. Instead of just making unsupported assertions.

No, nature does NOT create the best possible end. Evolution has no goal to be perfect or to necessarily optimize the design to the best possible state; it is a mechanism that selects for the fittest among a group of individuals, but that doesn't mean nature creates perfection or even the best possible outcome. A lot of it is driven by blind luck and circumstance. You need to be good enough and lucky enough to survive and reproduce, not to be the best at anything. You clearly do not understand how evolution works.

From your reply, you do not seem to have any Gnosis of what you are and do.

I know exactly who I am and what makes me happy. I am not spiritual in that I do not believe supernatural nonsense, but one can be knowledgeable of the world and their place in it, and lead a fulfilling life without believing such nonsense.

So I ask you again, are you here to preach, or to discuss ideas?

Let's look at your notion.
"No, nature does NOT create the best possible end."

Have you fathered a child?

You are a part of nature.

Did you reproduce for less than the best possible end?

If you did, and you did not want to reproduce the best, what makes you think the rest of nature would follow and not create for the best end?

Regards
DL

Because babies!
Do you know how many babies are born with Down Syndrome? Or addicted to heroin because their mothers were users? Or with microcephaly, or holes in their hearts or any host of other medical conditions? Best possible goal indeed.

You don't understand how nature works, and you can't be bothered to explain your own arguments or listen to arguments made by others. All you are interested in is peddling your woo. Preaching is not permitted in these forums.

You do not understand nature and stop your fucking preaching.

The only thing I have done is challenge your claim and provide evidence that rebuts it. That is not preaching. Your claim that I am preaching is fucking dishonest.

Your brand of woo is not that different from the woo that regular Christians peddle. New bottle, same old shit inside.

You have your own physical and mental problems that came from nature.

That does not negate that it tried to make you for your best possible end.

So you acknowledge that nature does not always produce the best possible result. Nature failed with me and with the billions of others like me who are not perfect. So your claim is invalid! Do you not understand that?

It sometimes happens that nature is given garbage to work with, in genetic terms, but it still tries for the best end.

Who tries, exactly? Nature has no intent. Evolution is undirected. Ignorant Christian!

What makes you think my genes are garbage? I am not the one babbling nonsense on these forums. Perhaps take a look at yourself before you point to others.

Why do you think life would work for some lesser goal?

My life works just fine. And humans are not the only form of life. Do bacteria have goals? Do molluscs have goals? Incoherent Christian babbling!

What would that goal be? The worst end?

Nature has no goal. Goals require sentience, and nature is not sentient. Please pay attention and stop your incoherent babbling.

You are a part of nature. Do you work for the best end or something less?

Best at what? How does one decide what the best end is? Stop preaching and listen to what others are saying.

 

[steve_bank]

Gnostic calls Christians fools. Sheesh.

Somebody needsd an anger management class, or what about 'turn the other cheek' and 'the meek shall inherit the Earth'.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

It is inadvertent and natural given the lack of sentience.

You may as well ask why a rock is hard. It is it's nature.

I say it cannot be other than what it is and is therefore the best it can be, given our history, in spite of your wish list.

Show a flaw in my reasoning if you can.

Regards
DL

In the ancient sport of metaphysics I give you a 4.2 out of 10. The landing was a bit wobbly giving you deductions along with a lack of form and control in the air.

As we are not able to enumerate possibilities, the idea that this is the best possible has no meaning. Similar to asling why the universe exists. It can only be answered by subjective perceptions in myth and religion.

The universe is what it is, it is neither good or bad or perfect or imperfect. Such concepts are product of human brains and human imagination. So IMO your assertion fails, as does the traditional Christian logic and syllogisms.

Subjectivism is the idea that knowledge or perception of something changes that outcomes.

In the 19th century scince as Natural Philospht based in metaphysics was no longer able to explain experiment and aobservation and became modern empirical model based science.

There is cince based on math and experiment and there is interpretation of experiment and theory. That would be philosophy, metaphysics, and religion.

In metaphysics we are limited by imprecise language. You can say 'best of all possible worlds', but that is then open to interpretation., leading to endless unresolvable debate. endless and unresolvable.

The Christian god can be disproved by any objective empirical methods. Given the gd premise, then theChritain logic and reasonng follows. A valid argumebnt is one in which the conclusion follows from premise with no logicak falacies.

A valid logical argument based on a premise does not infer the premise is true.

For yiu to make yur SSERTION BEST OFF ALL POSIBILITUES PUT IT IN A SYLOGISM.

P1
P2
C REALITY IS THE BEST OF ALL POSSIBILITIES.

Then we can proceed to debate.

So far yiur argument sounds like

P1 NATURE SELCTS FOR OPTIMUM
C THERFORE IT IS THE BEST OF ALL OUTCOMES.

If you can show how the world can possibly be other than what it is, given our history, then show it.

Otherwise, the world must be the best it can be, given our history, as it is the only thing it can be.

If you cannot break the logic trail, then it is sound.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

In what way? All I have done is ask you to support your assertion with evidence and reason, because I am not willing to simply take your word for it. How does that make me pompous?



Every human on the planet is different. We all think differently and are motivated by different things, although we can sometimes be typecast into broad general categories. Second, individuals do not evolve, biologically speaking, but populations of humans do. I was born with the genes I was born with, and those do not change. We do change physiologically as we live, but that is not evolution. Not every human desires to be the "epitome of fitness", whatever that is supposed to mean. Some of us are content to live our lives in the slower lanes, savoring every moment without the drive to become the best at what we do. If fact, the overachievers are the minority. There are very few Michael Jordans and Elon Musks in the world; most of us are just average. Your assertion is demonstrably wrong, else bell-shaped curves and grading/selection based on test scores would not exist.



I have no fucking clue what this means. I am defective because I don't want to be greatest human in the world? Are you fucking kidding me?



So demonstrate it. Instead of just making unsupported assertions.

No, nature does NOT create the best possible end. Evolution has no goal to be perfect or to necessarily optimize the design to the best possible state; it is a mechanism that selects for the fittest among a group of individuals, but that doesn't mean nature creates perfection or even the best possible outcome. A lot of it is driven by blind luck and circumstance. You need to be good enough and lucky enough to survive and reproduce, not to be the best at anything. You clearly do not understand how evolution works.

From your reply, you do not seem to have any Gnosis of what you are and do.

I know exactly who I am and what makes me happy. I am not spiritual in that I do not believe supernatural nonsense, but one can be knowledgeable of the world and their place in it, and lead a fulfilling life without believing such nonsense.

So I ask you again, are you here to preach, or to discuss ideas?

Let's look at your notion.
"No, nature does NOT create the best possible end."

Have you fathered a child?

You are a part of nature.

Did you reproduce for less than the best possible end?

If you did, and you did not want to reproduce the best, what makes you think the rest of nature would follow and not create for the best end?

Regards
DL

Because babies!
Do you know how many babies are born with Down Syndrome? Or addicted to heroin because their mothers were users? Or with microcephaly, or holes in their hearts or any host of other medical conditions? Best possible goal indeed.

You don't understand how nature works, and you can't be bothered to explain your own arguments or listen to arguments made by others. All you are interested in is peddling your woo. Preaching is not permitted in these forums.

You do not understand nature and stop your fucking preaching.

The only thing I have done is challenge your claim and provide evidence that rebuts it. That is not preaching. Your claim that I am preaching is fucking dishonest.

Your brand of woo is not that different from the woo that regular Christians peddle. New bottle, same old shit inside.

You have your own physical and mental problems that came from nature.

That does not negate that it tried to make you for your best possible end.

So you acknowledge that nature does not always produce the best possible result. Nature failed with me and with the billions of others like me who are not perfect. So your claim is invalid! Do you not understand that?

It sometimes happens that nature is given garbage to work with, in genetic terms, but it still tries for the best end.

Who tries, exactly? Nature has no intent. Evolution is undirected. Ignorant Christian!

What makes you think my genes are garbage? I am not the one babbling nonsense on these forums. Perhaps take a look at yourself before you point to others.

Why do you think life would work for some lesser goal?

My life works just fine. And humans are not the only form of life. Do bacteria have goals? Do molluscs have goals? Incoherent Christian babbling!

What would that goal be? The worst end?

Nature has no goal. Goals require sentience, and nature is not sentient. Please pay attention and stop your incoherent babbling.

You are a part of nature. Do you work for the best end or something less?

Best at what? How does one decide what the best end is? Stop preaching and listen to what others are saying.

If you cannot answer questions, you hide truth from yourself.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

atrib

Note your poor reading comprehension.

My.
You have your own physical and mental problems that came from nature.

That does not negate that it tried to make you for your best possible end.

Your reply.
So you acknowledge that nature does not always produce the best possible result.

Regards
DL

 

[steve_bank]

In the ancient sport of metaphysics I give you a 4.2 out of 10. The landing was a bit wobbly giving you deductions along with a lack of form and control in the air.

As we are not able to enumerate possibilities, the idea that this is the best possible has no meaning. Similar to asling why the universe exists. It can only be answered by subjective perceptions in myth and religion.

The universe is what it is, it is neither good or bad or perfect or imperfect. Such concepts are product of human brains and human imagination. So IMO your assertion fails, as does the traditional Christian logic and syllogisms.

Subjectivism is the idea that knowledge or perception of something changes that outcomes.

In the 19th century scince as Natural Philospht based in metaphysics was no longer able to explain experiment and aobservation and became modern empirical model based science.

There is cince based on math and experiment and there is interpretation of experiment and theory. That would be philosophy, metaphysics, and religion.

In metaphysics we are limited by imprecise language. You can say 'best of all possible worlds', but that is then open to interpretation., leading to endless unresolvable debate. endless and unresolvable.

The Christian god can be disproved by any objective empirical methods. Given the gd premise, then theChritain logic and reasonng follows. A valid argumebnt is one in which the conclusion follows from premise with no logicak falacies.

A valid logical argument based on a premise does not infer the premise is true.

For yiu to make yur SSERTION BEST OFF ALL POSIBILITUES PUT IT IN A SYLOGISM.

P1
P2
C REALITY IS THE BEST OF ALL POSSIBILITIES.

Then we can proceed to debate.

So far yiur argument sounds like

P1 NATURE SELCTS FOR OPTIMUM
C THERFORE IT IS THE BEST OF ALL OUTCOMES.

If you can show how the world can possibly be other than what it is, given our history, then show it.

Otherwise, the world must be the best it can be, given our history, as it is the only thing it can be.

If you cannot break the logic trail, then it is sound.

Regards
DL

You are the one who claims best of all possible worlds. What I said was there is only one reality and it is nether good nor bad.

It sounds like in the face od=f the debate and criticism you are shifting your position. Like Trump who says, 'I never said that'.

Did you say something about reading compression?

 

[atrib]

atrib

Note your poor reading comprehension.

My.
You have your own physical and mental problems that came from nature.

That does not negate that it tried to make you for your best possible end.

Nature did not try to make me the best of anything. Nature is not sentient, and nature does not work that way. I am the product of billions of years of undirected mutations starting from simple prokaryotes to the complex eukaryotic organism I am today. I exist because every single ancestor in my lineage was lucky enough to survive long enough to reproduce, helped by random mutations that made it slightly better adapted to the world it inhabited. Not perfect, not the best they could be, but just good enough. None in this lineage were the "best they could be"; there is no such thing; they were simply good enough and lucky enough to live long enough to reproduce. The same is true for every other living thing that lives on this planet today. Your understanding of how nature works is deeply flawed, and until you take the time to educate yourself in the matter you will continue to embarrass yourself with your foolish proclamations.

What does "best possible end" even mean? Best at what? How is this "bestness" measured? And why do you get so defensive when people point out flaws in your assertions?

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

In the ancient sport of metaphysics I give you a 4.2 out of 10. The landing was a bit wobbly giving you deductions along with a lack of form and control in the air.

As we are not able to enumerate possibilities, the idea that this is the best possible has no meaning. Similar to asling why the universe exists. It can only be answered by subjective perceptions in myth and religion.

The universe is what it is, it is neither good or bad or perfect or imperfect. Such concepts are product of human brains and human imagination. So IMO your assertion fails, as does the traditional Christian logic and syllogisms.

Subjectivism is the idea that knowledge or perception of something changes that outcomes.

In the 19th century scince as Natural Philospht based in metaphysics was no longer able to explain experiment and aobservation and became modern empirical model based science.

There is cince based on math and experiment and there is interpretation of experiment and theory. That would be philosophy, metaphysics, and religion.

In metaphysics we are limited by imprecise language. You can say 'best of all possible worlds', but that is then open to interpretation., leading to endless unresolvable debate. endless and unresolvable.

The Christian god can be disproved by any objective empirical methods. Given the gd premise, then theChritain logic and reasonng follows. A valid argumebnt is one in which the conclusion follows from premise with no logicak falacies.

A valid logical argument based on a premise does not infer the premise is true.

For yiu to make yur SSERTION BEST OFF ALL POSIBILITUES PUT IT IN A SYLOGISM.

P1
P2
C REALITY IS THE BEST OF ALL POSSIBILITIES.

Then we can proceed to debate.

So far yiur argument sounds like

P1 NATURE SELCTS FOR OPTIMUM
C THERFORE IT IS THE BEST OF ALL OUTCOMES.

If you can show how the world can possibly be other than what it is, given our history, then show it.

Otherwise, the world must be the best it can be, given our history, as it is the only thing it can be.

If you cannot break the logic trail, then it is sound.

Regards
DL

You are the one who claims best of all possible worlds. What I said was there is only one reality and it is nether good nor bad.

It sounds like in the face od=f the debate and criticism you are shifting your position. Like Trump who says, 'I never said that'.

Did you say something about reading compression?

Yes. to another, but you do not want to miss any chance to insult, ass hole.

Your life must be shit if you think life neither good or bad here.

I will give you this last and go away as I have ne desire to have an ass hole bring out my net bully from not suffering a fool better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ADgh3yCSdM

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

atrib

Note your poor reading comprehension.

My.
You have your own physical and mental problems that came from nature.

That does not negate that it tried to make you for your best possible end.

Nature did not try to make me the best of anything. Nature is not sentient, and nature does not work that way. I am the product of billions of years of undirected mutations starting from simple prokaryotes to the complex eukaryotic organism I am today. I exist because every single ancestor in my lineage was lucky enough to survive long enough to reproduce, helped by random mutations that made it slightly better adapted to the world it inhabited. Not perfect, not the best they could be, but just good enough. None in this lineage were the "best they could be"; there is no such thing; they were simply good enough and lucky enough to live long enough to reproduce. The same is true for every other living thing that lives on this planet today. Your understanding of how nature works is deeply flawed, and until you take the time to educate yourself in the matter you will continue to embarrass yourself with your foolish proclamations.

What does "best possible end" even mean? Best at what? How is this "bestness" measured? And why do you get so defensive when people point out flaws in your assertions?

Because their are none and it hurts me to see so many that are poor thinkers.

I do not care what anyone means by best end. Those are fantasies and wish lists and are not relevant to my statement.

I am dealing with reality and recognizing that the world cannot be other than what it is, and is thus the best it can possibly be, given our history.

Regards
DL

 

[atrib]

atrib

Note your poor reading comprehension.

My.
You have your own physical and mental problems that came from nature.

That does not negate that it tried to make you for your best possible end.

Nature did not try to make me the best of anything. Nature is not sentient, and nature does not work that way. I am the product of billions of years of undirected mutations starting from simple prokaryotes to the complex eukaryotic organism I am today. I exist because every single ancestor in my lineage was lucky enough to survive long enough to reproduce, helped by random mutations that made it slightly better adapted to the world it inhabited. Not perfect, not the best they could be, but just good enough. None in this lineage were the "best they could be"; there is no such thing; they were simply good enough and lucky enough to live long enough to reproduce. The same is true for every other living thing that lives on this planet today. Your understanding of how nature works is deeply flawed, and until you take the time to educate yourself in the matter you will continue to embarrass yourself with your foolish proclamations.

What does "best possible end" even mean? Best at what? How is this "bestness" measured? And why do you get so defensive when people point out flaws in your assertions?

Because their are none and it hurts me to see so many that are poor thinkers.

I do not care what anyone means by best end. Those are fantasies and wish lists and are not relevant to my statement.

I am dealing with reality and recognizing that the world cannot be other than what it is, and is thus the best it can possibly be, given our history.

Regards
DL

I was foolish to think I might be able to have a meaningful discussion here. Clearly, I was wrong. My bad, and I am done here.

 

[steve_bank]

atrib

Note your poor reading comprehension.

My.
You have your own physical and mental problems that came from nature.

That does not negate that it tried to make you for your best possible end.

Nature did not try to make me the best of anything. Nature is not sentient, and nature does not work that way. I am the product of billions of years of undirected mutations starting from simple prokaryotes to the complex eukaryotic organism I am today. I exist because every single ancestor in my lineage was lucky enough to survive long enough to reproduce, helped by random mutations that made it slightly better adapted to the world it inhabited. Not perfect, not the best they could be, but just good enough. None in this lineage were the "best they could be"; there is no such thing; they were simply good enough and lucky enough to live long enough to reproduce. The same is true for every other living thing that lives on this planet today. Your understanding of how nature works is deeply flawed, and until you take the time to educate yourself in the matter you will continue to embarrass yourself with your foolish proclamations.

What does "best possible end" even mean? Best at what? How is this "bestness" measured? And why do you get so defensive when people point out flaws in your assertions?

Because their are none and it hurts me to see so many that are poor thinkers.

I do not care what anyone means by best end. Those are fantasies and wish lists and are not relevant to my statement.

I am dealing with reality and recognizing that the world cannot be other than what it is, and is thus the best it can possibly be, given our history.

Regards
DL

Ok, that is a start. Are you differentiating between the physical unverse in toto and specifically human history? IOW the human condition as it is put?

As to insults, you staed your entry to these lengthy exchanges a ways back by insulting and demeaning, not that it affects anyone here. As I like to say, it is not what yiu believe it is what you say and do and how you relate to fellow humns of all kinds.

I get along well enough with the religious I do no agree with. I have no axe to grind.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Because their are none and it hurts me to see so many that are poor thinkers.

I do not care what anyone means by best end. Those are fantasies and wish lists and are not relevant to my statement.

I am dealing with reality and recognizing that the world cannot be other than what it is, and is thus the best it can possibly be, given our history.

Regards
DL

Ok, that is a start. Are you differentiating between the physical unverse in toto and specifically human history? IOW the human condition as it is put?

If the Earth is the only possible Earth and the best it can possibly be for us, given it's past, and we follow that logic for ourselves, then we would have to say the same for all of the universe.

Any change anywhere in the universe, effects the whole, as I understand physic anyway.

I know that we do not feel every exploding star etc., but we are all tied to gravity waves that seem to take up or nullify the shock waves.

I like some of the phrasing today like we are all one or all is unified etc., because it is a truth that I usually amend by saying that we are all in this together, alone.

As to insults, you staed your entry to these lengthy exchanges a ways back by insulting and demeaning, not that it affects anyone here. As I like to say, it is not what yiu believe it is what you say and do and how you relate to fellow humns of all kinds.

I get along well enough with the religious I do no agree with. I have no axe to grind.

Not to insult here, as I do not see you as that type of prick, but I do mean it if you do not amend your statement after reading this.

Insert gays and women harmed by homophobic and misogynous religions to this quote. You should get an idea of what you should be doing with the homophobic and misogynous mainstream religions if you live by the golden rule.

Please get back to me with your conclusion.

Martin Niemöller
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Regards
DL

 

[steve_bank]

If the Earth is the only possible Earth and the best it can possibly be for us, given it's past, and we follow that logic for ourselves, then we would have to say the same for all of the universe.

Any change anywhere in the universe, effects the whole, as I understand physic anyway.

I know that we do not feel every exploding star etc., but we are all tied to gravity waves that seem to take up or nullify the shock waves.

I like some of the phrasing today like we are all one or all is unified etc., because it is a truth that I usually amend by saying that we are all in this together, alone.

As to insults, you staed your entry to these lengthy exchanges a ways back by insulting and demeaning, not that it affects anyone here. As I like to say, it is not what yiu believe it is what you say and do and how you relate to fellow humns of all kinds.

I get along well enough with the religious I do no agree with. I have no axe to grind.

Not to insult here, as I do not see you as that type of prick, but I do mean it if you do not amend your statement after reading this.

Insert gays and women harmed by homophobic and misogynous religions to this quote. You should get an idea of what you should be doing with the homophobic and misogynous mainstream religions if you live by the golden rule.

Please get back to me with your conclusion.

Martin Niemöller
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Regards
DL

There's that rambling steam of concessions again, common among self ordained Christian preachers.

Turn the other cheek, the meek shall inherit the Earth...blessed are the peacemakers. The only coherent theme in the NT is the Simon On The Mount.

If you are referencing Nazis, us atheists look back to a long history of Christian oppression and suppression of freedoms. Christianity is always about a sense of personal power.

We atheists speak truth to religious power and self important preachers who think they are the truth, and think other Christians are foolish.

Like all Christians you pick and choose morality from the bible, set yourself up as moral authority in he name of Jesus, and demean those who disagree and criticize what you say.

Stck and trade of all dictators and authorterians, including Hitler.

 

[fromderinside]

Oh? you mean lazy?

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Like all Christians you pick and choose morality from the bible,.

That morality is given by Yahweh and Jesus, and we have called those immoral pricks demiurges from our conception.

You are too dumb and uneducated for me to keep correcting.

Here is what I usually say about biblical morals.

Both Christianity and Islam, slave holding ideologies, have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.

Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.

Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.

https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/theft-values/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxoxPapPxXk

Humanity centered religions, good? Yes. Esoteric ecumenist Gnostic Christianity being the best of these.

Supernaturally based religions, evil? Yes. Islam and Christianity being the worst of these.

Regards
DL

 

[steve_bank]

Like all Christians you pick and choose morality from the bible,.

That morality is given by Yahweh and Jesus, and we have called those immoral pricks demiurges from our conception.

You are too dumb and uneducated for me to keep correcting.

Here is what I usually say about biblical morals.

Both Christianity and Islam, slave holding ideologies, have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.

Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.

Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.

https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/theft-values/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxoxPapPxXk

Humanity centered religions, good? Yes. Esoteric ecumenist Gnostic Christianity being the best of these.

Supernaturally based religions, evil? Yes. Islam and Christianity being the worst of these.

Regards
DL

Pride comes before a fall. All religions are based on illusions without exception. The illusion of personal power. for those who have none. Simple psychology.

If you reject deities and the supernatural Gnostic Christianity is secular philosphy not relgion. Philisophical Christians.

Still avoidng my questions.

If you are a devotee of Jesus what about turn the oter cheek and the meek shall inherot the Earth?

Certainly a thinking mind will understand the question . The pick and choose morality.


So again, Gnostic Christians arr based on 2000 year old story about a man who was the product of a Hebrew culture whose tradition arose out of ignorant superstitious nomadic tribes?

What does a 'thinking mind' think about that?

You are avoiding inconvenient truths masking them with a sense of self righteousness and self justification. Just like Christians do.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Like all Christians you pick and choose morality from the bible,.

That morality is given by Yahweh and Jesus, and we have called those immoral pricks demiurges from our conception.

You are too dumb and uneducated for me to keep correcting.

Here is what I usually say about biblical morals.

Both Christianity and Islam, slave holding ideologies, have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.

Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.

Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.

https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/theft-values/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxoxPapPxXk

Humanity centered religions, good? Yes. Esoteric ecumenist Gnostic Christianity being the best of these.

Supernaturally based religions, evil? Yes. Islam and Christianity being the worst of these.

Regards
DL

Pride comes before a fall. All religions are based on illusions without exception. The illusion of personal power. for those who have none. Simple psychology.

If you reject deities and the supernatural Gnostic Christianity is secular philosphy not relgion. Philisophical Christians.

Still avoidng my questions.

If you are a devotee of Jesus what about turn the oter cheek and the meek shall inherot the Earth?

Certainly a thinking mind will understand the question . The pick and choose morality.


So again, Gnostic Christians arr based on 2000 year old story about a man who was the product of a Hebrew culture whose tradition arose out of ignorant superstitious nomadic tribes?

What does a 'thinking mind' think about that?

You are avoiding inconvenient truths masking them with a sense of self righteousness and self justification. Just like Christians do.

Take your personal psychobabble and shove it.

Next time, I will put you on ignore for the small minded a hole you seem to be.


I will deal with your only pertinent statements.


"If you are a devotee of Jesus what about turn the other cheek and the meek shall inherit the Earth?"


Jesus, for all I know, never existed, so what makes you think I am devoted to him?

He is just an archetypal Eastern mystic to me, which I have already told you, if memory serves, and his methods are what we use to seek Gnosis.

I will accept devoted to his methods of meditation to gain insight.

On turning the other cheek.

Do a bit of research and you will note that that turning the other cheek is an insult to the slapper.
It was meant, in our words to mean something like, is that all you have, wimp.

That weak shall inherit thing, in reality, would cause man's extinction.

I imagine it was told to the meek just to placate them.

Those of us who show the greatest fitness in our blood lines will inherit the earth. Not our weakest.

Regards
DL