BlackBart wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

BlackBart wrote:I'd need to see some evidence for a god before I'd start contemplating whether or not it would pop it's clogs on demand.

Everyone has been looking for evidence for 3,000 years.
I ain't holding my breath. At least not for bible God.

I've seen exactly the same amount of any evidence for any given god. I.e none.

If you seek the right way you might find God and know what all of us Gnostics know.

And if I look the right way I might find an invisible Aardvark named Bernard.

I see you did not follow that link or you would recognize how closely we really think and how inapropriate you remark is.

Understandable as you speak from a position of ignorance on my position.

You missed the word fiction.

Regards
DL

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Also Hitchens response:

First, no person in their right mind would wish for the torture and bloody execution of another person (especially one said to be completely innocent). Were we there at that time we would object and attempt to end the situation. Also, all of this was perpetrated before our births, and thereby forced upon us as a sacrifice without our consent. Second, this is nothing more than scapegoating. Hitchens' argument runs loosely along these lines "If you are in trouble, I can pay your debt. I can even serve your sentence in jail. If I feel especially kind I may even walk to the gallows in your place. But none of this will absolve you of personal responsibility for committing the wrong or immoral act."

+ 1

Regards
DL

Scot Dutchy wrote:Look if god or any deity did exist he has probably committed suicide after the mess he made of this planet.

He did in a way but the responsible father was too big of a coward and sent his innocent son.

And Christians adore that prick. Good thing he does not exist or who knows what atrocities Christians would engage in.

They are bad enough as is.

It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are moral religionists as well as those who do not believe. They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief or not. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Beliefs in fantasy, miracles and magic are evil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHaClU ... playnext=1

They also do much harm to their own.

African witches and Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9gXr ... re=related

Jesus Camp 1of 9
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=48b_1185215493

Death to Gays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMw2Zg_B ... re=related

For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.
Fight them when you can. It is your duty to our fellow man.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:

BlackBart wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

BlackBart wrote:I'd need to see some evidence for a god before I'd start contemplating whether or not it would pop it's clogs on demand.

Everyone has been looking for evidence for 3,000 years.
I ain't holding my breath. At least not for bible God.

I've seen exactly the same amount of any evidence for any given god. I.e none.

If you seek the right way you might find God and know what all of us Gnostics know.

And if I look the right way I might find an invisible Aardvark named Bernard.

I see you did not follow that link or you would recognize how closely we really think and how inapropriate you remark is.

My remark was completely appropriate thanks. If you want to find X, you'll probably find a way 'find' it. Which is why it's better not to try and find X but simply study the evidence around us and try and draw a conclusion from there.

I'll admit I gave up after 5 minutes. It seemed he was taking 20 minutes to say; 'The Bible is probably a collection of made up fairy tales that people try and read too much into to justify their blind faith in a deity for which there is no evidence'.

I liked the cat that looked like Hitler though.

Understandable as you speak from a position of ignorance on my position.

You missed the word fiction.

I'm an agnostic atheist. What don't you enlighten is as to what your actual position is?

Blackbart you cannot understand GIA's position. He is a gnostic who has claimed he has undergone apotheosis and therefore possess divine knowledge and is in fact, a god himself.

Greatest I am wrote:Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?

Welcome back GIA. It has been a long time since I've seen one of your posts, let's see what sort of arguments you make this time. Since you are assuming God is real, I will bite and assume the same. The answer is no, it is not egotistical, why do you ask? but let's see what else you wrote:

People who believe in the barbaric human blood sacrifice of the Triune Jesus/God

Define barbaric. In Christian and Jewish theology, blood is needed for the cleansing of sin. Blood is the source of life in Jewish culture. Which is why it was forbidden to eat meat with blood or drink blood. To do so was to consume life essence and was considered a grave sin. Since, Jews and Christians believe that the price for sin is death, it required blood, the essence of life, to counter the death. Every year, Jews would celebrate Yom Kippur in which a young lamb would be sacrificed on the altar and the blood placed on the Holy of Holies. This would bring atonement for all Jews of their sins committed that year. But this was only temporary, and wore away. Christian theology then teaches that Christ died as the young lamb. Paul, a former Jew turned Christian, writes in Romans 3:23, "For the wage of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord."

Many modern Christians read that verse and think I am going to heaven! But one can also read this verse as an understanding of the sin/blood relationship. If death is the product of sin, then eternal life is only brought about through the death of Jesus Christ, whose blood was shed so that the world may live. So again, define barbaric. Webster defines it as: Savagely cruel; exceedingly brutal. Demonstrate that a sacrifice done out of love is savagely cruel or brutal?

Next, in that sojourn away, it seems you have not done any amount of reading up on Christian doctrines or theology as is evidence by this next piece:

must believe that the greatest force ever to exist decided that humans, lowly creations whom we are told are infinitely inferior to God, are somehow more important than God’s own life and that he would give it up for believers.

Except not. Yes, according to Christian theology, God is way above humankind, but that does not mean anything to God. The creation story in Genesis 1, is about God literally preparing the earth with human as the pinnacle of God's creation in his image. The creation story in Genesis 2, is specifically about preparing the Garden and establishing man's role on earth as steward for God's creation.

Even throughout the Old Testament, God demonstrates that he loves people, by giving them a million chances to come back to Him. While the wage of sin is death, those that turn to God are saved from His just wrath. This is why you get people like Rahab, or Ninevah in Jonah. Non-Israelites who profess faith in God, and are spared the fate of those who continuously engage in shameful and wicked customs of worship, such as temple orgies.

So in Christian theology, the concept of God dying for us, is a God dying for us out of love. No matter how long it was, an hour, 3 days, a year, etc. The Father still experienced death through the Son.

That is like a slave master dying in place of his slave. A rather silly notion to me.

How is that a silly notion? If the slave master gave his life in place of his slave, what would the reason be behind that if not love or care for the slave.

Jesus preached that we should develop a humble character with little self-pride.

Yes.

How is placing your own life above Triune Jesus/God’s showing a humble character as you think that he would die for you? That is taking self-pride to the maximum.

You have failed to demonstrate that in Christian doctrine that is what is occurring. Our lives mean quite a lot to God. Throughout the Bible, we are bombarded with passages about God's love for the world and for its people. The staple, John 3:16, perhaps the most well known verse of the entire Bible even reads, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, so that those who believe in Him, shall not perish but have eternal life."

In Judaism, the concept of keeping the law was paramount. But as Jesus demonstrates in Matthew 5-7, keeping the law is impossible. In Mark 10:24-28, after the rich young man left dejected, the apostles are perplexed who can be saved, and Jesus says for man this is impossible. But he continues that for God anything is possible. Mankind cannot save itself according to Christian doctrine. If God did not love the world and give His grace, mankind would be in a state of depravity, because no one is worthy of His grace. Yet he died on the cross? Why? Because he loved the world. How does that make one proud? He loves everyone equally, and died for everyone equally.

I think that those with good morals will know that no noble and gracious God would demand the sacrifice of a so called son just to prove it's benevolence.

So you just said 33-35% of the world apparently don't have good morals all because they believe that God sent his son, out of love to die for the world's sins. Not to prove his benevolence. Again, you demonstrate a faulty understanding of Christian doctrine. If you are going to argue against it, please actually know what you are arguing against.

Yet Christians who think they are moral will believe that God would do such a despicable thing as having his son killed even as scriptures say that God prefers repentance to sacrifice and does not believe in asking or accepting a ransom.

This judgement on an entire faith group is laughable. You load your statement with emotional jargon. Look at how you phrased that: despicable thing. Demonstrate that it was a despicable thing. Your opinion, no matter how justified you think it is, is not any more valid than those Christians. Unless you can back up your opinion with reasoning. The concept of sacrificing oneself for the many, is a concept that almost universally is accepted as being of moral quality. A soldier falls on a grenade and dies so that his squad lives is generally considered honorable, and people show respect and reverence for that soldier. Why is Christ's death on the cross different? If Christianity were true and Jesus actually died on the cross, bearing the world's sin, and thus saving the world for those who receive Christ in their heart through the Spirit, why is that a despicable thing? Back up your opinion, GIA.

Is thinking that to believe that God would die for you the epitome of an inflated ego?

No. Why would it be. If I was a soldier in a platoon, I have the faith that my comrades would die for me. Would that make me an egotistical soldier?

If not, what could possibly inflate an ego more than that?

Relevance?

Regards
DL

Anyways, welcome back, GIA.

*For my atheist friends on this forum, this post was a response purely to GIA's post. It was a general summary of the most widely accepted doctrines of Christianity. This does not mean it is my belief, nor does it mean it is even true. The purpose was to demonstrate that GIA had a faulty understanding of Christian doctrine, and thus his post was missing the point.

willhud9 wrote:Blackbart you cannot understand GIA's position. He is a gnostic who has claimed he has undergone apotheosis and therefore possess divine knowledge and is in fact, a god himself.

Oh, I fully understand that. And of course, I'm sure GIA can support this with evidence.

BlackBart wrote:

willhud9 wrote:Blackbart you cannot understand GIA's position. He is a gnostic who has claimed he has undergone apotheosis and therefore possess divine knowledge and is in fact, a god himself.

Oh, I fully understand that. And of course, I'm sure GIA can support this with evidence.

Nope, been there, done that ages ago. He already said he doesn't have evidence for his apotheosis.

willhud9 wrote:

BlackBart wrote:

willhud9 wrote:Blackbart you cannot understand GIA's position. He is a gnostic who has claimed he has undergone apotheosis and therefore possess divine knowledge and is in fact, a god himself.

Oh, I fully understand that. And of course, I'm sure GIA can support this with evidence.

Nope, been there, done that ages ago. He already said he doesn't have evidence for his apotheosis.

I'm shocked. Whoda thunk it?

BlackBart wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

BlackBart wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

Everyone has been looking for evidence for 3,000 years.
I ain't holding my breath. At least not for bible God.

I've seen exactly the same amount of any evidence for any given god. I.e none.

If you seek the right way you might find God and know what all of us Gnostics know.

And if I look the right way I might find an invisible Aardvark named Bernard.

I see you did not follow that link or you would recognize how closely we really think and how inapropriate you remark is.

My remark was completely appropriate thanks. If you want to find X, you'll probably find a way 'find' it. Which is why it's better not to try and find X but simply study the evidence around us and try and draw a conclusion from there.

I'll admit I gave up after 5 minutes. It seemed he was taking 20 minutes to say; 'The Bible is probably a collection of made up fairy tales that people try and read too much into to justify their blind faith in a deity for which there is no evidence'.

I liked the cat that looked like Hitler though.

Understandable as you speak from a position of ignorance on my position.

You missed the word fiction.

I'm an agnostic atheist. What don't you enlighten is as to what your actual position is?

My pleasure.

The Godhead I know in a nutshell.
I was a skeptic till the age of 39.
I then had an apotheosis and later branded myself an esoteric ecumenist and Gnostic Christian. Gnostic Christian because I exemplify this quote from William Blake.

“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read'st black where I read white.”

This refers to how Gnostics tend to reverse, for moral reasons, what Christians see in the Bible. We tend to recognize the evil ways of O T God where literal Christians will see God’s killing as good. Christians are sheep where Gnostic Christians are goats.
This is perhaps why we see the use of a Jesus scapegoat as immoral, while theists like to make Jesus their beast of burden. An immoral position.

During my apotheosis, something that only lasted 5 or 6 seconds, the only things of note to happen was that my paradigm of reality was confirmed and I was chastised to think more demographically. What I found was what I call a cosmic consciousness. Not a new term but one that is a close but not exact fit.

I recognize that I have no proof. That is always the way with apotheosis.
This is also why I prefer to stick to issues of morality because no one has yet been able to prove that God is real and I have no more proof than they for the cosmic consciousness.

The cosmic consciousness is not a miracle working God. He does not interfere with us save when one of us finds it. Not a common thing from what I can see. It is a part of nature and our next evolutionary step.

I tend to have more in common with atheists who ignore what they see as my delusion because our morals are basically identical. Theist tend not to like me much as I have no respect for literalists and fundamentals and think that most Christians have tribal mentalities and poor morals.

I am rather between a rock and a hard place but this I cannot help.

I am happy to be questioned on what I believe but whether or not God exists is basically irrelevant to this world for all that he does not do, and I prefer to thrash out moral issues that can actually find an end point. The search for God is never ending when you are of the Gnostic persuasion. My apotheosis basically says that I am to discard whatever God I found, God as a set of rules that is, not idol worship it but instead, raise my bar and seek further.

My apotheosis also showed me that God has no need for love, adoration or obedience. He has no needs. Man has dominion here on earth and is to be and is the supreme being.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:
My pleasure.

The Godhead I know in a nutshell.

Just out of curiosity, why Godhead and not just god?

Greatest I am wrote:I was a skeptic till the age of 39.

Am I reading this correctly? You stopped being a skeptic?

Greatest I am wrote:I then had an apotheosis and later branded myself an esoteric ecumenist and Gnostic Christian. Gnostic Christian because I exemplify this quote from William Blake.

“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read'st black where I read white.”

This refers to how Gnostics tend to reverse, for moral reasons, what Christians see in the Bible. We tend to recognize the evil ways of O T God where literal Christians will see God’s killing as good. Christians are sheep where Gnostic Christians are goats.
This is perhaps why we see the use of a Jesus scapegoat as immoral, while theists like to make Jesus their beast of burden. An immoral position.

But why would god do all these things then? Why would the bible glorify Jesus's sacrifice?

Greatest I am wrote:During my apotheosis, something that only lasted 5 or 6 seconds, the only things of note to happen was that my paradigm of reality was confirmed and I was chastised to think more demographically.

That's quite fuzzy.

Greatest I am wrote:What I found was what I call a cosmic consciousness. Not a new term but one that is a close but not exact fit.

I recognize that I have no proof. That is always the way with apotheosis.
This is also why I prefer to stick to issues of morality because no one has yet been able to prove that God is real and I have no more proof than they for the cosmic consciousness.

The cosmic consciousness is not a miracle working God. He does not interfere with us save when one of us finds it. Not a common thing from what I can see. It is a part of nature and our next evolutionary step.

How does this conciousness interfere when someone finds him?
And how is it the next evolutionary step? That makes no sense.
That's like saying humans are the next evolutionary step of chimpansees.

willhud9 wrote:Blackbart you cannot understand GIA's position. He is a gnostic who has claimed he has undergone apotheosis and therefore possess divine knowledge and is in fact, a god himself.

Thanks for your distortion of the truth.

You know that I do not define the word God in the usual way. The same applies to the word god.

This guy has a decent definition but then falls into idols worship himself even as he says we should not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... kZg1ZflpJs

"Define barbaric"

If I have to my friend then we do not speak the same language and dialog is pointless.

Regards
DL

willhud9 wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?

Welcome back GIA. It has been a long time since I've seen one of your posts, let's see what sort of arguments you make this time. Since you are assuming God is real, I will bite and assume the same. The answer is no, it is not egotistical, why do you ask? but let's see what else you wrote:

People who believe in the barbaric human blood sacrifice of the Triune Jesus/God

Define barbaric. In Christian and Jewish theology, blood is needed for the cleansing of sin. Blood is the source of life in Jewish culture. Which is why it was forbidden to eat meat with blood or drink blood. To do so was to consume life essence and was considered a grave sin. Since, Jews and Christians believe that the price for sin is death, it required blood, the essence of life, to counter the death. Every year, Jews would celebrate Yom Kippur in which a young lamb would be sacrificed on the altar and the blood placed on the Holy of Holies. This would bring atonement for all Jews of their sins committed that year. But this was only temporary, and wore away. Christian theology then teaches that Christ died as the young lamb. Paul, a former Jew turned Christian, writes in Romans 3:23, "For the wage of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord."

Many modern Christians read that verse and think I am going to heaven! But one can also read this verse as an understanding of the sin/blood relationship. If death is the product of sin, then eternal life is only brought about through the death of Jesus Christ, whose blood was shed so that the world may live. So again, define barbaric. Webster defines it as: Savagely cruel; exceedingly brutal. Demonstrate that a sacrifice done out of love is savagely cruel or brutal?

Next, in that sojourn away, it seems you have not done any amount of reading up on Christian doctrines or theology as is evidence by this next piece:

must believe that the greatest force ever to exist decided that humans, lowly creations whom we are told are infinitely inferior to God, are somehow more important than God’s own life and that he would give it up for believers.

Except not. Yes, according to Christian theology, God is way above humankind, but that does not mean anything to God. The creation story in Genesis 1, is about God literally preparing the earth with human as the pinnacle of God's creation in his image. The creation story in Genesis 2, is specifically about preparing the Garden and establishing man's role on earth as steward for God's creation.

Even throughout the Old Testament, God demonstrates that he loves people, by giving them a million chances to come back to Him. While the wage of sin is death, those that turn to God are saved from His just wrath. This is why you get people like Rahab, or Ninevah in Jonah. Non-Israelites who profess faith in God, and are spared the fate of those who continuously engage in shameful and wicked customs of worship, such as temple orgies.

So in Christian theology, the concept of God dying for us, is a God dying for us out of love. No matter how long it was, an hour, 3 days, a year, etc. The Father still experienced death through the Son.

That is like a slave master dying in place of his slave. A rather silly notion to me.

How is that a silly notion? If the slave master gave his life in place of his slave, what would the reason be behind that if not love or care for the slave.

Jesus preached that we should develop a humble character with little self-pride.

Yes.

How is placing your own life above Triune Jesus/God’s showing a humble character as you think that he would die for you? That is taking self-pride to the maximum.

You have failed to demonstrate that in Christian doctrine that is what is occurring. Our lives mean quite a lot to God. Throughout the Bible, we are bombarded with passages about God's love for the world and for its people. The staple, John 3:16, perhaps the most well known verse of the entire Bible even reads, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, so that those who believe in Him, shall not perish but have eternal life."

In Judaism, the concept of keeping the law was paramount. But as Jesus demonstrates in Matthew 5-7, keeping the law is impossible. In Mark 10:24-28, after the rich young man left dejected, the apostles are perplexed who can be saved, and Jesus says for man this is impossible. But he continues that for God anything is possible. Mankind cannot save itself according to Christian doctrine. If God did not love the world and give His grace, mankind would be in a state of depravity, because no one is worthy of His grace. Yet he died on the cross? Why? Because he loved the world. How does that make one proud? He loves everyone equally, and died for everyone equally.

I think that those with good morals will know that no noble and gracious God would demand the sacrifice of a so called son just to prove it's benevolence.

So you just said 33-35% of the world apparently don't have good morals all because they believe that God sent his son, out of love to die for the world's sins. Not to prove his benevolence. Again, you demonstrate a faulty understanding of Christian doctrine. If you are going to argue against it, please actually know what you are arguing against.

Yet Christians who think they are moral will believe that God would do such a despicable thing as having his son killed even as scriptures say that God prefers repentance to sacrifice and does not believe in asking or accepting a ransom.

This judgement on an entire faith group is laughable. You load your statement with emotional jargon. Look at how you phrased that: despicable thing. Demonstrate that it was a despicable thing. Your opinion, no matter how justified you think it is, is not any more valid than those Christians. Unless you can back up your opinion with reasoning. The concept of sacrificing oneself for the many, is a concept that almost universally is accepted as being of moral quality. A soldier falls on a grenade and dies so that his squad lives is generally considered honorable, and people show respect and reverence for that soldier. Why is Christ's death on the cross different? If Christianity were true and Jesus actually died on the cross, bearing the world's sin, and thus saving the world for those who receive Christ in their heart through the Spirit, why is that a despicable thing? Back up your opinion, GIA.

Is thinking that to believe that God would die for you the epitome of an inflated ego?

No. Why would it be. If I was a soldier in a platoon, I have the faith that my comrades would die for me. Would that make me an egotistical soldier?

If not, what could possibly inflate an ego more than that?

Relevance?

Regards
DL

Anyways, welcome back, GIA.

*For my atheist friends on this forum, this post was a response purely to GIA's post. It was a general summary of the most widely accepted doctrines of Christianity. This does not mean it is my belief, nor does it mean it is even true. The purpose was to demonstrate that GIA had a faulty understanding of Christian doctrine, and thus his post was missing the point.

To your first.

A negative answer is hardly an argument.

I gave my reasons and argument as to why I think it is egotistical to hold such self-aggrandizing notions.

Give your argument against.

As to your last. If you are going to wrongly assume that you are leading a gang, then the least you could do is try to teach them how to have e decent debate. I assume here that you have recently learned how to yourself even if you did start off wrong.

You know that we always end poorly when attempting to debate and that our styles do not jive.

Is traffic slow or are you ready to learn?

Regards
DL

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:
My pleasure.

The Godhead I know in a nutshell.

Just out of curiosity, why Godhead and not just god?

Just to try to get people away from using the word God that has been distorted into a miracle working super tyrant of a God. Pure myth with a message.

Jesus has a better message.

This clip speaks to how things really work. That is from MPOV.
To you it will be B S except for the ----it is not real ---, part of the gents dialog.
His way is not exact to what my path was but it is close enough. Esoterically speaking that is.
We both know it is all make believe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y

Greatest I am wrote:I was a skeptic till the age of 39.

Am I reading this correctly? You stopped being a skeptic?

Yes. Reality is stranger than we think and apotheosis opens the mind to knowing that all possibilities are probabilities in an endless universe.

Greatest I am wrote:I then had an apotheosis and later branded myself an esoteric ecumenist and Gnostic Christian. Gnostic Christian because I exemplify this quote from William Blake.

“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read'st black where I read white.”

This refers to how Gnostics tend to reverse, for moral reasons, what Christians see in the Bible. We tend to recognize the evil ways of O T God where literal Christians will see God’s killing as good. Christians are sheep where Gnostic Christians are goats.
This is perhaps why we see the use of a Jesus scapegoat as immoral, while theists like to make Jesus their beast of burden. An immoral position.

But why would god do all these things then? Why would the bible glorify Jesus's sacrifice?

Simple. More cash for the church. Guilt is their stock and trade and they had to create some.

This Bishop is worth the listen even to atheists from a philosophical POV and it will give insight into what the left of Christianity thinks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF6I5VSZVqc

Greatest I am wrote:During my apotheosis, something that only lasted 5 or 6 seconds, the only things of note to happen was that my paradigm of reality was confirmed and I was chastised to think more demographically.

That's quite fuzzy.

Indeed. For our discussion here, it basically means that I should argue with more people about religion as that was part of my duty to society. I was to try to correct the more foolish literal theists. That is why I generally use a literal interpretation.

Greatest I am wrote:What I found was what I call a cosmic consciousness. Not a new term but one that is a close but not exact fit.

I recognize that I have no proof. That is always the way with apotheosis.
This is also why I prefer to stick to issues of morality because no one has yet been able to prove that God is real and I have no more proof than they for the cosmic consciousness.

The cosmic consciousness is not a miracle working God. He does not interfere with us save when one of us finds it. Not a common thing from what I can see. It is a part of nature and our next evolutionary step.

How does this conciousness interfere when someone finds him?

You can answer that one yourself my friend.
If your mind reached out and found another, would that not send your pre-conceived notions of reality and consciousness out the window? And would your thinking not take one hell of a flip?

And how is it the next evolutionary step? That makes no sense.

Evolution is change. We and our consciousness' are alone. At death we join a cosmic consciousness. That is change to the evolving creature ----, thus can be seen as the next evolutionary step of the single conscious mind.

That's like saying humans are the next evolutionary step of chimpansees.

In a way we are. Just a lot of steps.

Regards
DL

Can you fix the quote tags, your post is all messed up.

Greatest I am wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:
My pleasure.

The Godhead I know in a nutshell.

Just out of curiosity, why Godhead and not just god?

Just to try to get people away from using the word God that has been distorted into a miracle working super tyrant of a God. Pure myth with a message.

But god (note the small letter) is just the plain english word for deity, regardless of any specific form of theism.

Greatest I am wrote:Jesus has a better message.

This clip speaks to how things really work. That is from MPOV.
To you it will be B S except for the ----it is not real ---, part of the gents dialog.
His way is not exact to what my path was but it is close enough. Esoterically speaking that is.
We both know it is all make believe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y

All of this not explain why you use the adjective head though...

Greatest I am wrote:I was a skeptic till the age of 39.

Am I reading this correctly? You stopped being a skeptic?[/quote]

Yes. Reality is stranger than we think and apotheosis opens the mind to knowing that all possibilities are probabilities in an endless universe.

Greatest I am wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:I then had an apotheosis and later branded myself an esoteric ecumenist and Gnostic Christian. Gnostic Christian because I exemplify this quote from William Blake.

“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read'st black where I read white.”

This refers to how Gnostics tend to reverse, for moral reasons, what Christians see in the Bible. We tend to recognize the evil ways of O T God where literal Christians will see God’s killing as good. Christians are sheep where Gnostic Christians are goats.
This is perhaps why we see the use of a Jesus scapegoat as immoral, while theists like to make Jesus their beast of burden. An immoral position.

But why would god do all these things then? Why would the bible glorify Jesus's sacrifice?

Simple. More cash for the church. Guilt is their stock and trade and they had to create some.

The church =/= the bible.
I'm talking about the book, which is the source of the entire Jesus myth, regradless of how you interpet it, the bible glorifies Jesus's sacrifice it also repeatedly and empathically states that the god of the OT and NT are one and the same.

Greatest I am wrote:This Bishop is worth the listen even to atheists from a philosophical POV and it will give insight into what the left of Christianity thinks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF6I5VSZVqc

I will watch this later when I have more time.

Greatest I am wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:During my apotheosis, something that only lasted 5 or 6 seconds, the only things of note to happen was that my paradigm of reality was confirmed and I was chastised to think more demographically.

That's quite fuzzy.

Indeed. For our discussion here, it basically means that I should argue with more people about religion as that was part of my duty to society. I was to try to correct the more foolish literal theists. That is why I generally use a literal interpretation.

I see.

Greatest I am wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:What I found was what I call a cosmic consciousness. Not a new term but one that is a close but not exact fit.

I recognize that I have no proof. That is always the way with apotheosis.
This is also why I prefer to stick to issues of morality because no one has yet been able to prove that God is real and I have no more proof than they for the cosmic consciousness.

The cosmic consciousness is not a miracle working God. He does not interfere with us save when one of us finds it. Not a common thing from what I can see. It is a part of nature and our next evolutionary step.

How does this conciousness interfere when someone finds him?

You can answer that one yourself my friend.
If your mind reached out and found another, would that not send your pre-conceived notions of reality and consciousness out the window? And would your thinking not take one hell of a flip?

Sure, if such a thing were to happen. But that could just be a case of human telepathy, it need not be a cosmic conciousness.

Greatest I am wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:And how is it the next evolutionary step? That makes no sense.

Evolution is change. We and our consciousness' are alone. At death we join a cosmic consciousness. That is change to the evolving creature ----, thus can be seen as the next evolutionary step of the single conscious mind.

That's not evolution, at least not in the biological/scientific sense.

Greatest I am wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:That's like saying humans are the next evolutionary step of chimpansees.

In a way we are. Just a lot of steps.

Regards
DL

But that's impossible since humans and chimps are cousins, not descandants of each other.

T H

Being computer stupid and I apologize on those quotes. Let me put in a few remarks and we can restart with anything that you will indicate I missed.
----------------------------------------

"Sure, if such a thing were to happen. But that could just be a case of human telepathy, it need not be a cosmic consciousness."

I know the difference.

I have created telepathic communication twice. The first was with my wife and the second with what I call the cosmic consciousness. You asked why I used the word head and it was only out of tradition to believers and it is also where thought takes place in us thus it is a good analogy.

If I had not had the first with my wife, I would not give any credence to the second as it could have been some sort of mind glitch. In that sense, I have a witness to the evidence of telepathy being real and that to my mind confirms the truth of the reality that I now believe as real.

-----------------------------------

"The church =/= the bible.
I'm talking about the book, which is the source of the entire Jesus myth, regradless of how you interpet it, the bible glorifies Jesus's sacrifice it also repeatedly and empathically states that the god of the OT and NT are one and the same."

T H. I am not going to go into trying to explain what could have many ingredeants that neither of us could know to be true or not.

I do not know all the reasons why Rome and Government created Christianity to be what it was but believe that they did create Jesus as they wanted him to be.

http://caesarsmessiah.com/blog/2011/04/ ... hn-hudson/

----------------------------------------

"That's not evolution, at least not in the biological/scientific sense.

I am French and will bow to whatever you would call it then. I will not argue on the meaning of English terms.
Make your offer.

-----------------------------------

"But that's impossible since humans and chimps are cousins, not descendants of each other."

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:T H

Being computer stupid and I apologize on those quotes. Let me put in a few remarks and we can restart with anything that you will indicate I missed.
----------------------------------------

"Sure, if such a thing were to happen. But that could just be a case of human telepathy, it need not be a cosmic consciousness."

I know the difference.

How?

Greatest I am wrote:I have created telepathic communication twice. The first was with my wife and the second with what I call the cosmic consciousness.

How do you know this cosmic conciousness wasn't another human pretending to be a cosmic consiousness?

Greatest I am wrote:You asked why I used the word head and it was only out of tradition to believers and it is also where thought takes place in us thus it is a good analogy.

If I had not had the first with my wife, I would not give any credence to the second as it could have been some sort of mind glitch. In that sense, I have a witness to the evidence of telepathy being real and that to my mind confirms the truth of the reality that I now believe as real.

I see.

Greatest I am wrote:-----------------------------------

"The church =/= the bible.
I'm talking about the book, which is the source of the entire Jesus myth, regradless of how you interpet it, the bible glorifies Jesus's sacrifice it also repeatedly and empathically states that the god of the OT and NT are one and the same."

T H. I am not going to go into trying to explain what could have many ingredeants that neither of us could know to be true or not.

I do not know all the reasons why Rome and Government created Christianity to be what it was but believe that they did create Jesus as they wanted him to be.

If you believe that, why call yourself a Christian? Jesus might have never even existed..

Greatest I am wrote:http://caesarsmessiah.com/blog/2011/04/caesars-messiah-a-summary-of-findings-by-john-hudson/

This is a common conspiracy theory. So far no substantial evidence has been presented for this claim, only vague interpetations and gotcha-type conspiracy views.

Greatest I am wrote:----------------------------------------

"That's not evolution, at least not in the biological/scientific sense.

I am French and will bow to whatever you would call it then. I will not argue on the meaning of English terms.
Make your offer.

I take it you mean spiritual evolution.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:I have created telepathic communication twice. The first was with my wife and the second with what I call the cosmic consciousness.

How do you know this cosmic conciousness wasn't another human pretending to be a cosmic consiousness?

James Randi would like to give GIA a miilion dollars if he can prove it.

Until then...

Greatest I am wrote:

willhud9 wrote:Blackbart you cannot understand GIA's position. He is a gnostic who has claimed he has undergone apotheosis and therefore possess divine knowledge and is in fact, a god himself.

Thanks for your distortion of the truth.

Not a distortion of the truth. You said it yourself in other threads.

You know that I do not define the word God in the usual way. The same applies to the word god.

And did I define god differently? No.

"Define barbaric"

If I have to my friend then we do not speak the same language and dialog is pointless.

Regards
DL

In other words you cannot define what you are saying. You use a word and then cannot back it up. Gotcha. Quelle Surprise GIA.