Did I miss anything?

[Drich]

That's ok. I read all your posts in the voice of NephilimFree anyway. Makes them sound a little more rational.

I don't know if I've quite come across anything so insulting. Well played. Remind me never to cross you.

Fuck, that was righteous.

Meh, self righteous at best.

[Cyberman]

Hey, I am simply a mirror to some people. You see in me only what you carry with you.

In related news: you owe me a new irony meter.

[archangle]

Hey, I am simply a mirror to some people. You see in me only what you carry with you.

In related news: you owe me a new irony meter.

I take that view of 90% of the post here. Including mine. This kind of crazy is not related to a belief system.

[Ryantology]

So for you, your grandmother is your off spring. Something/someone you created???
(Because that is what is being discussed)
Well, for the rest of us grandmothers are points of origins, and not generally created by the rest of us.

So, I can't neglect and abuse my ancestors, but it's okay if it's my descendant?

If someone gave you something you did not want would you fight to keep it?

I don't get your point.

strawman. Where was ownership of another human being as chatted ever suggested?

Discussing the idea of being allowed to destroy a creation is discussing property rights.

Not anymore, at least. Where I live, people are not allowed to destroy an airplane full of passengers, or a traffic-heavy bridge or an occupied building or a synthetic heart beating in someone's chest, even if they personally created these things.

Looks like your argument just died a quick death for some reason.

what are you talking about?!?!?
I asked can one own a dolphin, or orangutan. These animals are considered sentient. Yet they are own by people and companies. This was to refute the idea that a sentient being could not be owned.

I'm not talking about the right to own a being as property, specifically, but the right to abuse and destroy your property, and/or something you create. That is, after all, the justification for God abusing and destroying humans. Unless it's a lot simpler than that, and God being more powerful is all the justification he needs. In which case, you and Waldorf have some theological sparring to do.

hilarious:
So, if when a company spends millions of dollars if not billions of dollars developing an AI.. It is your professional opinion that said company would not have ownership of said AI?

If that AI becomes independently sentient and has the equivalent of our own free will, then it is its own being and deserves rights and independence, to the limit which is safe for itself and for us.

Business man are you?

Nope.

This is a completely arbitrary assessment. What do you base any of this on? Right now it seems like your whole Arguement is based on a general lack of understanding.

It's not an assessment. It's a question and you just dodged it.

Based on what?

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

The Pharisees are mentioned as an example of putting too much effort into following the letter and not the spirit of the law. What makes you think that people like you, who follow only the laws that are easy and convenient, are more righteous than they are?

[Drich]

[Ryantology]

Christ in Mat 5 upped the reach of the law so far it makes it impossible to earn righteousness by following the law. Now we must seek redemption in order to find the righteousness needed for eternal life.

Yes, and he makes it very clear in the same book and chapter that following the law and teaching others to do so is one of the ways in which you demonstrate that your desire for redemption is sincere. Obviously, it's impossible to do perfectly, but just as obviously, you are supposed to try as hard as you possibly can, because if you don't, your application will be denied. You don't follow the law to say "I am earning my redemption because I follow the law". You follow the law to say "I can never earn redemption. I can never give you all you expect, but I will give you everything I can give so that you can know that I am not just acting in my self-interest".

Every time you try to say that the law doesn't apply to you because you're not an ancient Hebrew, or that following it isn't necessary because all you have to do is ask Jesus to save you, you are failing to follow the law and you are teaching others to not follow the law. You are less righteous than the Pharisees and you will go to hell.

I wouldn't accept any so-called Christian in this case because not one of you actually lives like that and the vast majority of you make virtually zero effort at all, and I am far more permissive and understanding than your god.

[Mystical]

Drich, baby, haven't you figured out you're an atheist yet?

[Drich]

Drich, baby, haven't you figured out you're an atheist yet?

I have been told that by a few 'brothers' and appearently now a 'luckie' few atheist.

---

So for you, your grandmother is your off spring. Something/someone you created???
(Because that is what is being discussed)
Well, for the rest of us grandmothers are points of origins, and not generally created by the rest of us.

So, I can't neglect and abuse my ancestors, but it's okay if it's my descendant?

If someone gave you something you did not want would you fight to keep it?

I don't get your point.

strawman. Where was ownership of another human being as chatted ever suggested?

Discussing the idea of being allowed to destroy a creation is discussing property rights.

Not anymore, at least. Where I live, people are not allowed to destroy an airplane full of passengers, or a traffic-heavy bridge or an occupied building or a synthetic heart beating in someone's chest, even if they personally created these things.

Looks like your argument just died a quick death for some reason.

what are you talking about?!?!?
I asked can one own a dolphin, or orangutan. These animals are considered sentient. Yet they are own by people and companies. This was to refute the idea that a sentient being could not be owned.

I'm not talking about the right to own a being as property, specifically, but the right to abuse and destroy your property, and/or something you create. That is, after all, the justification for God abusing and destroying humans. Unless it's a lot simpler than that, and God being more powerful is all the justification he needs. In which case, you and Waldorf have some theological sparring to do.

hilarious:
So, if when a company spends millions of dollars if not billions of dollars developing an AI.. It is your professional opinion that said company would not have ownership of said AI?

If that AI becomes independently sentient and has the equivalent of our own free will, then it is its own being and deserves rights and independence, to the limit which is safe for itself and for us.

Business man are you?

Nope.

This is a completely arbitrary assessment. What do you base any of this on? Right now it seems like your whole Arguement is based on a general lack of understanding.

It's not an assessment. It's a question and you just dodged it.

I feel like all of this has been addressed to my post to Eq. I can go over it in greater condescending detail with you if you like.

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

The Pharisees are mentioned as an example of putting too much effort into following the letter and not the spirit of the law. What makes you think that people like you, who follow only the laws that are easy and convenient, are more righteous than they are?

To become more righteous than the Pharisees is exactly what I am talking about when I say, that we must seek a righteousness apart from the law. As the righteousness the law provided was exemplified in the righteousness of the Pharisees.

The righteousness of the Pharisees was a righteousness based on the acts and actions of a literally and legitimately, holier than thou priestly sect that studied and focused on following the letter of the law all day every day.

No man could do better than the Pharisees did in following the law. That is why Christ extended the law to include thought and matters of the heart. While we can break and train our bodies from doing certain things, we will never be able to contain the evil that resides in our hearts. By outlawing matters of the heart Christ sealed our fates, when it comes to earning righteousness though the law. As it is now impossible to contain and extract the evil from our hearts as we are all literal slaves to sin.

That what He means by our righteousness must now exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees. As obtaining this level of righteousness is only possible through redemption. When we are redeemed we become perfect as Christ was perfect, thus gracing us with a righteousness greater than the Pharisees.

So again how am I doomed exactly?

---

Christ in Mat 5 upped the reach of the law so far it makes it impossible to earn righteousness by following the law. Now we must seek redemption in order to find the righteousness needed for eternal life.

Yes, and he makes it very clear in the same book and chapter that following the law and teaching others to do so is one of the ways in which you demonstrate that your desire for redemption is sincere. Obviously, it's impossible to do perfectly, but just as obviously, you are supposed to try as hard as you possibly can, because if you don't, your application will be denied. You don't follow the law to say "I am earning my redemption because I follow the law". You follow the law to say "I can never earn redemption. I can never give you all you expect, but I will give you everything I can give so that you can know that I am not just acting in my self-interest".

Every time you try to say that the law doesn't apply to you because you're not an ancient Hebrew, or that following it isn't necessary because all you have to do is ask Jesus to save you, you are failing to follow the law and you are teaching others to not follow the law. You are less righteous than the Pharisees and you will go to hell.

I wouldn't accept any so-called Christian in this case because not one of you actually lives like that and the vast majority of you make virtually zero effort at all, and I am far more permissive and understanding than your god.

As I have said over and over the law is not a means to righteousness anymore. That is why it does not apply. The only nt application the law has is to point out sin and convict us to seek redemption. That said do we still follow the law? As I told eq in my big post yes. Not as a means to righteousness but as an expression of Love to God.

Again, if you married the woman of your dreams would you cheat on her ten times a day, or would you seek to do what she likes? This is love is Eros or love from the heart that has us follow and seek the will of those we love. If we love God with all of our being as outlined, (heart, mind, spirit, and strength) how much stronger is our desire to seek out and follow the will of the Father? Again not as a means to righteousness but as an expression of pure love and respect?

[Ryantology]

[Cato]

I don't know if I've quite come across anything so insulting. Well played. Remind me never to cross you.

Fuck, that was righteous.

Meh, self righteous at best.

Says the dolt who's invisible friend wants me to burn forever.