Why Do I hate creationists (theists in general)

[ScienceAf]

Did we ever get a punchline to the OP?

And... give it up folks...
Your creator!
Your inventor!
Ladies and Gentlemen please welcome...

Your god!
He doesn't need you creationists to prove shit!

[Faith No More]

I would like to state for any confused person atheist or theist or anything in between;

All will be judged by their works.

That being the case; the knowing hypocrite is at much more risk than the perhaps ignorant yet good soul.

And even still, eternal damnation to unbearable torture is not biblical.

The only unforgiving sin is that of knowing misdirection.

If one has yet to learn or be shown to the point of them gaining faith, then that person isn't held accountable for that. Their works, however will be what is placed on the scales and written in the book.

Christians or the otherwise faithful, being of some faith or knowledge, would be held accountable to a higher degree.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

I have a feeling I'm going to regret this, but on what have you based all of that?

[Cyberman]

Did we ever get a punchline to the OP?

And... give it up folks...
Your creator!
Your inventor!
Ladies and Gentlemen please welcome...

Your god!
He doesn't need you creationists to prove shit!

... I'll take that as a "no", then.

[popsthebuilder]

I would like to state for any confused person atheist or theist or anything in between;

All will be judged by their works.

That being the case; the knowing hypocrite is at much more risk than the perhaps ignorant yet good soul.

And even still, eternal damnation to unbearable torture is not biblical.

The only unforgiving sin is that of knowing misdirection.

If one has yet to learn or be shown to the point of them gaining faith, then that person isn't held accountable for that. Their works, however will be what is placed on the scales and written in the book.

Christians or the otherwise faithful, being of some faith or knowledge, would be held accountable to a higher degree.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

I have a feeling I'm going to regret this, but on what have you based all of that?

The reading of core religious text without preconceptions and with an opened mind and discernment.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

[Arkilogue]

Have you looked up panentheism? God is distinct from creation but interpenetrates and surrounds it.

The electromagnetic force, gravity and the Higg's field all span the universe and have relatively (within the universe) infinite range.

Ark, my vote is for panentheism. Deism does not account for God's role as the necessary being that sustains existence. Pantheism to me is the same as having no god at all. The best it gets you is panpsychic idealism, the kissing cousin of materialism.

The similarly of moral teaching between different religious traditions seems more easily explained by all people sharing a universal human nature. Each religion has very different ideas about what that human nature is and where it comes from. My point to pops is that you cannot just look at the surface where things appear similar.

I found it quite simple to understand: Take a beam of white light (God, unified state of existence before inflation of universe) pass it through a prism (opening of the universe as a vacuum cavitation), and you get the same colors (individuated forces of the universe, gravity, electromagnetism, etc) in the same order and proportion, each time.

Now where in the rainbow is the original white light?

Morality is inherent in "one of the colors" (electromagnetism) It describes as a shaping force; uprightness, vertical travel (up or down), magnetic return (reaping) for electric thoughts and actions (sowing) and proper conduct/conduction. What happens if we improperly conduct and put up too much resistance? We short circuit and burn.

---

Have you read any Spinozan ethics? If you have you'd understand that I'm pretty much on the money regarding pantheism. Well it's a lot more complex than that as a system of ethics, but the idea of god is essentially as I state it. In pantheism the universe is god and all in the universe are part of god. It does not exist as a separate being and is not conscious in and of itself.

The reason why I speak of god's ego rather than his substance is because it's all we have to go on. The writers of the world's holy books only gave us personality, no substance to be found because, like the Scarlet Pimpernel, wherever you looked he wasn't there. Oh yes, we got a lot of natural processes which were previously ascribed to gods, but guess what, as natural processes we now know no gods were ever involved (unless you're going to try and raise your idiotic notion that processes worked differently than they do now before we discovered their workings).

Good stuff my man, no I haven't read Spinozan ethics. I'm not a pantheist. In my panenthism, "God" is like solid white light and the universe is like a void bubble with the colors flying around inside with the white light remaining outside the bubble.

But it's not all we have to go on, there are many objective descriptions of God's substantial nature throughout the religions. "All consuming fire" (bible), Lord Vishnu (Bhagavad Gita) is described alternately as resting on an infinite serpent on an infinite ocean and that Vishnu's body is the infinite ocean itself.

The idea of a substantial infinity is even previous to "God" in many of these old stories, the Chaos of the Greeks and the Nun of Egypt. From this infinite formless "ocean" the gods self arose and its very easy to understand why some didn't conceive of the Infinite prior to creation as "God"....because there was no creation to be The God of.

"God"(Father/Mother) is the relationship of creator to (pro) creation. If there is no creation, there is no "God" role to play. But there is self existence. Like you self exist, but you won't be called a parent until you have a child. So it is with God.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I found it quite simple to understand: Take a beam of white light...pass it through a prism ...and you get the same colors...in the same order and proportion, each time...Now where in the rainbow is the original white light?...Morality is inherent in "one of the colors".

I could use the same analogy to support the notion of morality reflecting a universal human nature. Take human nature, pass it through a cultural prism and out come various ethical traditions. The point here is not that various moral traditions reflect a universal source. On that we both agree. Rather, I am saying that different religions base their morality on apparently an similar foundation, when if fact they are conceptually very different.

For example, it is my understanding is that the ethical theory of Islam is basically divine command. In contrast to this, the Church of Rome relies on virtue ethics. Now on first blush it may seem that both ground their moral teachings on the same God, but that simply is not true. Virtue ethics depends upon more perfectly manifesting an essential human nature subsequent to a rational Divine Truth. The Islam ethical theory reflects belief in a God that transcends reason and thus the commands supposedly given by special revelation are considered impervious to reason. These are polar opposite notions about God's nature.

It's very politically correct to see a common core to all religions traditions , but that's just wishful bumper-sticker "coexist" theology. I'm all for finding similarities where they actually exist, but it's not in anyway helpful to gloss over essential differences.

[popsthebuilder]

I found it quite simple to understand: Take a beam of white light...pass it through a prism ...and you get the same colors...in the same order and proportion, each time...Now where in the rainbow is the original white light?...Morality is inherent in "one of the colors".

I could use the same analogy to support the notion of morality reflecting a universal human nature. Take human nature, pass it through a cultural prism and out come various ethical traditions. The point here is not that various moral traditions reflect a universal source. On that we both agree. Rather, I am saying that different religions base their morality on apparently an similar foundation, when if fact they are conceptually very different.

For example, it is my understanding is that the ethical theory of Islam is basically divine command. In contrast to this, the Church of Rome relies on virtue ethics. Now on first blush it may seem that both ground their moral teachings on the same God, but that simply is not true. Virtue ethics depends upon more perfectly manifesting an essential human nature subsequent to a rational Divine Truth. The Islam ethical theory reflects belief in a God that transcends reason and thus the commands supposedly given by special revelation are considered impervious to reason. These are polar opposite notions about God's nature.

It's very politically correct to see a common core to all religions traditions , but that's just wishful bumper-sticker "coexist" theology. I'm all for finding similarities where they actually exist, but it's not in anyway helpful to gloss over essential differences.

Bumper sticker?!

Try the will of GOD for the sake of peaceable advancement as described by all the prophets and messengers spanning time and geography.

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

[Neo-Scholastic]

But what if some are false prophets?

[FatAndFaithless]

Does pops think all prophets in the history of religion were essentially preaching the same thing?

And it doesn't happen super often, but I'm in complete agreement with ChadW regarding the coexist bumper sticker comment.

[Cyberman]

All prophets are false prophets.

Wait... let me just qualify that.

All other prophets are false prophets. I'm the card-carrying real deal, so you can take my word for it.