French Patriot
-
Posts
1,138 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by French Patriot
-
-
On 6/20/2018 at 7:10 AM, Altai said:
Probably most of the people who lose a case thinks that they were right, just the law cheated them. There are many murderers, thieves, terrorists thinks that they were right. Anyone has an excuse for their actions.Mostly true, but that does not apply to my case as the intent was to get before the courts.
Regards
DL
-
19 hours ago, Altai said:
I dont like to read or write long posts. Free speech is being abused most of the time to spread lies and provoke people. For example according to Oxford Universty, 49% of the politics news in my country is fake. This is the result of uncontrolled free speech. It should not be allowed, its sooooooo dangerous. If you have an objection against something, if you think that there are somethings wrong, you just need to go to the court. Positive free speech will end up with a happy public life, negative one will just cause a chaos. Most of the govts controls people's speech while they falsely make them to believe they have freedom of speech.I agree that lies and those that use them should be held responsible for any harm that comes of the lies.
Especially in the religious lies.
Regards
DL
-
23 hours ago, Argus said:
She lives in a country which defines illegal speech as anything which is unflattering towards the government or towards Islam. And fully supports those restrictions.
And that is the problem with allowing governments to define 'hate speech' too broadly as there is a tendency among the autocratic to ban anything which might point out their own inadequacies or corruption.
I agree and technology is at a level where corruption will be a lot harder to hide.
That marker, like most of the markers we think of as evil, are going down nicely.
Our demographers are happy.
Regards
DL
-
On 6/16/2018 at 5:33 PM, Altai said:
Nonsense. If something is legal, this means people are allowed to perform it. This is why its called democracy. If you or your represantives in the parliament think that its something wrong and should be changed, there are legal prodecures to apply for a change. This is the only thing that you or your represantives can do to involve. In other case, it will be just a chaos because everyone has their own personal interests and therefore everyone has some laws they dont like and will speak against with hatred.
So as I say always, if you have a problem, go to the closes court and prove it or just shut up.Been there and done that in real life. I fought the law and the law won, but they cheated.
That same law I fought has now been repealed.
I can tell you from experience that it is you who should do as you bid me.
I have the scars. Do you?
Regards
DL
-
On 6/14/2018 at 7:06 PM, Altai said:
I dont think I gave a reply that difficult to understand. If slave owning is regarded as something legal in your society, then people must not be allowed to speak hateful against owning slave, you cant speak hateful and incite hatred against something legal. If you think that slavery is something wrong, you should ban it first. If you allow it but you also think that its something wrong, you are probably metally sick.You are the sick one if you do not speak against bad laws.
We have been adjusting, reversing and improving our laws forever because people spoke out against bad laws.
You would have women shut up when there were laws preventing them from voting and would also not speak up againt anti-gay laws.
You might want to start thinking before I let my bully attitude start talking about your I Q.
Regards
DL
-
32 minutes ago, Altai said:
If it is a hate that will harm society life, it must not be allowed.
Please read my last.
The speech against slavery, even to the point of inciting violence, I think, was justified even though it did harm to the slave owning South and it's people. That was indeed bringing harm to the society in the South. That may not be the type of harm you meant.
Regards
DL
-
1 hour ago, turningrite said:
Generally speaking, I oppose the concept of censorship. I do, however, believe it necessary to restrict speech that's intended to incite violence against members of any specific group, which historically has been the intent of hate speech laws in democratic countries. In a free and democratic society, there must be no topics that are presumptively deemed to be beyond the realm of public discourse. The role of a responsible citizenry is to ensure that debate is fairly and civilly conducted. The tendency to bully others into silence has seemingly increased, and particularly so in academia, which is disturbing. Democracy can't survive without freedom of speech and anybody who says otherwise is either a fool or is taking the rest of us for fools.
We are on the same page buddy.
A slight caveat to your incitement to violence. History shows that even that might pass. Here I am thinking of the hate speech that may well have included violence before the North warred against the slavery and slave ownership of the South in the U.S. The same goes for the hate speech against Germany before we entered WWII.
Regards
DL
-
Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate speech?
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.
God seems to think correcting hateful thoughts or actions is good and correction often times includes showing hate for what is though or done.
I have tested the notions of and concepts of hate and love and find both to be quite useful.
There is a time to love and a time to hate even in these days where Google and others who control the net are actively censoring us?
Should we allow ourselves to hate and speak against those things that deserve to be hated or should we allow the censors to muzzle us?
Are censors coming to take away our freedom of speech if it has a hate component?
"First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me." – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)”
"Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart
Does hate serve a good purpose for us?
For evil to grow, all good people who know what to hate need do is allow censorship and the end of freedom of speech.
Regards
DL
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, JamesHackerMP said:
So, are the Unitarians like the Arians of old (not the Nazi Arians, the people in the 4th century and after who disagreed with the Trinitarian concept accepted by the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon)?
Given that every church and preacher have their own views, I think my best response here would be to ask you to just go to a Unitarian site and ask them that question.
Religions are changing view quickly today due to pressure from the reducing numbers of church goers.
So many tribes chasing a dwindling amount of funds to do their adherents out of who basically pay to be lied to about Gods that no one can know anything about.
Gnostic Christians can and do know their God as it is themselves.
Regards
DL
-
12 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:
Are you saying the Trinity was invented? I mean, like it wasn't believed in earliest Christianity?
The Trinity concept was only accepted after Constantine forced the Christians to vote it into place, what, 300 years after Jesus dies.
It took threats of death to get his way.
It is a long story but if you have the time.
Originally Posted by animefan48
Well, the reality is most Christians do buy into the trinity doctrine because of persecution of the early Gnostics and non-Trinitarians, and the religious councils were dissenters were forced to agree to a Trinitarian theology. Many Unitarian and Universalist theologies argue that when Jesus said he was the way, he meant that he was an example of how to live to be united/reunited with God. As for the name, God does give other names for himself including the Alpha and Omega, as well as some believe a name that should not be written (or even spoken I believe). Honestly, I think using the name I Am That I Am would just be confusing and convoluted, seriously. I seriously do not believe that it is a continuation of Gnostic/mystical/Unitarian suppression. Even the Gnostic and mystical traditions within Islam and Christianity do not tend to use that name, and among the 99 Names of Allah, I did not find that one. Also, many Rastafarians believe that the Holy Spirit lives in humans and will sometimes say I and I instead of we, yet they don't seem to use the name I Am for God/Jah either, so I really don't think it can be related to suppressing mystical and Gnostic interpretations. I think that originally oppressing those ideas and decreeing them heretical are quite enough, the early Church did such a good job that after the split many Protestant groups continued to condemn mystical and later Gnostic sects and theologies.
Yup, the bishops voted and it was settled for all time!!1 (Some say the preliminary votes were 150 something to 140 something in favor of the trinity)
But then Constantine stepped in: After a prolonged and inconclusive debate, the impatient Constantine intervened to force an end to the conflict by demanding the adoption of the creed. The vote was taken under threat of exile for any who did not support the decision favored by Constantine. (And later, they fully endorsed the trinity idea when it all happened again at the council of Constantinople in AD 381, where only Trinitarians were invited to attend. Surprise! They also managed to carry a vote in favor of the Trinity.)
http://home.pacific.net.au/~amaxwell/bdigest/bd12bbs.tx
Even a Trinitarian scholar admits the Earliest & Original beliefs were NOT Trinitarian!
The trinity formulation is a later corruption away from the earliest & original beliefs!
"It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed".
Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180
"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament".
R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173, 1980
The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament.
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 306.
"The formulation `One God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective"
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299.
"The formulation `One God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299).
"Fourth-century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary a deviation from this teaching" (The Encyclopedia Americana, p. 1956, p. 2941).
Was Jesus God to Paul and other early Christians? No. . . . .
(Source: How the Bible became the Bible by Donald L. O'Dell - ISBN 0-7414-2993-4 Published by INFINITY Publishing.com)
Constantine's Victory Arch says it all.
http://www.simchajtv.com/movie-secrets-of-christianity-selling-christianity/
Regards
DL
-
On 5/29/2018 at 1:43 PM, JamesHackerMP said:
Lewis Black did a comedy routine in which he commented on the OT (or to Jews, the Tanakh, call it what you will). He stated how he always sees on TV Christian preachers interpreting the OT. And their interpretations, he alleges, are typically wrong. "It's not their fault...because it's not their book!" I think this clip includes that, not sure, but it's most of his routine on the OT from "Red, White and Screwed".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlWb6HZwrU8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZ_zHwU3R20
God was kind of a dick in the OT. It's best left to Jews to explain why, IMHO. Why worry about God's behavior in the OT? The Torah/Tanakh/etc were written long after the events supposedly took place. Perhaps the destruction of Midian, for example, was a tradition that started later, to justify its destruction? "Oh yeah, God told us to do that."
As a Christian (not very devout, I do not go to church these days but I do believe there is a God of some sort, however fuzzily the Bible may describe him, but I'm sure the nuns would have smacked my knuckles with a yard stick if I had spouted it all out in first grade catholic school) I do believe that the OT is less important to us. I hear the term "old testmanent Christianity" before, and I just rolled my eyes. The OT is for the Jewish faith primarily, as Lewis Black asserts. Not irrelevant, but simply less urgent for one to read it if one is a Christian, IMHO.
Well put, but Christians sure quote the O. T. when they want to reduce women and gays to second class citizens with their vile homophobia and misogyny.
It is not surprising that the Christian clergy lie like crazy to have people follow Jesus instead of the prick of a Father, who they tied Jesus to with their idiotic Trinity concept.
Regards
DL
-
On 6/2/2018 at 5:55 PM, -TSS- said:
My apologies to you Canadians as our Finnish Foreign Minister attended some anti-abortion vigil in Canada claiming that he was doing it in his spare time. When you are a minister you are a minister 24/7, there is no spare time.
Attending demonstrations in another country is off-limits for a minister. Demonstrations seek to change the laws of a country and when a minister attends one in another country he is intervening in affairs of another country.
The dimwit we have for a foreign minister is a catholic. Being catholic is very rare in Finland but unfortunately the exception has reached to become foreign minister.
I am pro choice.
Freedom of association trumps a ministers duties if we are to promote voting by conscience instead of by party line.
We saw, with Trump, what voting the tribal line instead of by conscience does to a party. Yuk.
Regards
DL
-
2 minutes ago, jbg said:
I'm not sure I follow. It sounds like you agree with me.
Mais oui mon ami.
It is the intelligent view.
In fact there would only be two dogs as they were too stupid to even know to reproduce. None of us would be here.
The Jews and Gnostic Christians were correct. So are you.
Regards
DL
-
28 minutes ago, jbg said:
If mankind stayed in Eden we would have been little different for a dog fed every day by his master. While Edenic life was no doubt pleasant there was nothing "human" about it.
U C 20/20.
That is why the Jews and us Gnostic Christians see Eden as where man was elevated. Not where we fell.
That is the Christians enhancing their misogynous potential with false guilt. Their specialty.
Regards
DL
-
Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh and his crimes against humanity?
The good Jesus would likely condemn while the less moral and good Jesus that most follow might not. A number of his policies have been found wanting, --- in moral terms. Not surprising that given time and language.
Dogma says that Jesus ascended to heaven and his rightful place as judge of the universe at Yahweh’s right hand. The pure hand says tradition.
Would Jesus dethrone Yahweh for the insane genocidal example he shows for a God, or would Jesus somehow justify what Yahweh, and himself to Trinitarians, did. Would he say that genocide was good?
Heaven forbid.
Condemn or Condone?
I say Jesus would condemn.
What say you my moral friends?
Regards
DL
-
6 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:
Maybe...but then they become their parents. Hippies thought they would change the world too....instead they became CEOs.
Where they will apply their better and more flexible thinking. Win, Win. Win.
If we were not so stupid, we could change that tomorrow but we are just to stupid to take advantage of what we know is profitable, en masse. We will not organize in a common demography.
Regards
DL
-
The young are more intelligent and flexible in their thinking than their parents.
A good thing for social progress that.
Regards
DL
-
33 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
1) Yes they do. This is called "Student Recruitment"
2) Ok, it sounds like you want to be Christian but you don't like the church. Many in the Church also just ignore it and follow the teachings.
On student- teacher.
Jesus said, seek God. He did not say let God seek you.
On Christianity.
I do not ignore the church as it is evil in it's present form.
I wish to reform it and make it more like Gnostic Christianity which is a much better form.
Note how Christianity is trying to take God out of man while we want to put God back in man where he belongs, given that we create all the Gods.
Regards
DL
-
5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
1) Yes, but I posted this definition: "Gnostic doctrine taught that the world was created and ruled by a lesser divinity, the demiurge, and that Christ was an emissary of the remote supreme divine being,"
That's two supernatural beings to start out with...
2) Look. I looked for a definition and found it. What's your definition ? Should be able to provide that in one paragraph, I would think. I will even read it, which is more of my attention than I give to street preachers.
"Trust me, this religion is GREAT" isn't an effective recruiting tool to those who have heard it in the past and passed on by.
Recruit?
Students seek the teacher. The teacher does not chase down students.
Gnostic Christianity is a religion of free thinking esoteric ecumenists and naturalists. It is a good man ideology that has no need of a savior or hero as we do not see a God, if he exists, as loser enough to need to condemn his creations then stupidly turn around and die to forgive it instead of just forgiving it outright. The only salvation we seek is from such stupid and immoral thinking.
The archetypal Jesus we know and follow is not the immoral and vile Roman creation that the church sells. He is there to slave men to religions and governments while the Jesus Gnostic Christians try to emulate is there to free us from religions and governments and create moral men instead of immoral children who are forever looking to others to do their thinking for them.
I am likely the worst teacher for Gnostic Christianity due to my passion for truth and freedom and disrespect for the vile and immoral mainstream religions but I am what I am. Being French does not help. We are passionate by nature.
To be a Gnostic Christian you have to both want to be the best possible person you can be. The elevated Cathars called themselves Parfait, and you also have to have the desire to bring the immoral and vile mainstream religions to heel as we also live by the notion that for evil to grow, all good people need do is nothing.
Oop. This is more than one chapter. Part of being a lousy teacher I guess.
Then again, not having much of a formal education and being self taught, I am happy to be able to stich more than 5 words together.
Regards
DL
.
-
13 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:
God certainly deserves his share of the blame. Like I said, he knew the outcome. Why? Because as you pointed out, he created man to sin just like that. It was his choice to create a species (probably many species) with the ability to sin. He wanted Adam and Eve to grab the fruit (or the key to the liquor cabinet as I put it).
You wrote above of God's rather harsh treatment of his own son. I thought the Christians believed that it's a trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit are the same thing). So really, God, if he made himself incarnate on Earth, was really allowing his body a sort of passive aggressive suicide, right?
Then again, there was that rather curious incident from the OT where he tells Abraham to sacrifice his own son and then pulls Abraham's hand back at the last minute, oh, just kidding, I just wanted to see if you would do it.
If read literally, you are bang on.
If you want to get the wisdom out of the bible you have to go into allegory and esoteric mystical thinking and recognize how smart the ancients were before Christianity spoiled the soup with literal reading.
Evolution has designed us to be both good and evil from our human POV and we must embrace the fact that we must sin in order to evolve.
I have no problem with evil and neither does nature.
Cooperation is good, competition is evil from the losers POV.
We default to good, but use evil as a part of our growth, in terms of evolution.
We would have it no other way, or we would go extinct.
Perhaps Martin Luther recognized that and said it this way.
“Be a sinner and sin strongly, but more strongly have faith and rejoice in Christ.”
Martin Luther
Regards
DL
-
50 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
1) Rabbi Hillel wrote "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn." Jesus one-upped him.
2) Still don't know what Gnosticism is. If adding magic to good humanism makes it better somehow, then great but I don't agree.
Neither would I if it did.
If there was anything supernatural or magic in Gnostic Christianity, I would never have taken on the label.
I took it on because I saw that the only good Christian was a Gnostic Christian.
That has been the case from the tome Christianity usurped what I think were close to original Gnostic Christian holy books from the time we called ourselves Chrestians. Unfortunately this far up the time line and lacking original text, I may never be able to prove it.
Do try to remember that we lost the God wars and the Christians lied a lot about what we believed.
This link speaks too that.
Regards
DL
-
29 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
I disagree. The golden rule requires Christians to do better, to treat others better: “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”
That rule was ancient before Christianity used it.
If Christianity lived by it, then the word Inquisition would not exist.
The only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.
Regards
DL
-
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=gnosticism+definition
Still sounds like more Lord of the Rings pap to me. Jesus was a philosopher not a religionist. He wasn't founding a religion but a way of life within whatever religion you have, which for him was Judaism.
Holy books and ancient legends are mere historical artificacts, not containers of scientific truths.I agree with your view of Jesus. So does Gnostic Christianity. That Jesus had no supernatural belief in his philosophy/ideology. Neither does Gnostic Christianity. Jesus was his own man and his own God and so are we.
Modern Gnostic Christians name our God "I am", and yes, we do mean ourselves.
You are your controller. I am mine. You represent and present whatever mind picture you have of your God or ideal human, and so do I.
The name "I Am" you might see as meaning something like, --- I think I have grown up thanks to having forced my apotheosis through Gnosis and meditation.
In Gnostic Christianity, we follow the Christian tradition that lazy Christians have forgotten that they are to do. That is, become brethren to Jesus.
That is why some say that the only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.
Here is the real way Jesus taught.
Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded
Joseph Campbell shows the same esoteric ecumenist idea in this link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU
The bible just plainly says to put away the things of children. The supernatural.
I urge you to also see that Freke link above.
Regards
DL
-
17 hours ago, Goddess said:
I have a friend who is a Gnostic Bishop with a Sanctuary in CA. I like gnosticism. It's closest to what I understand.
Most people just inherit their traditional family Gods.
Gnostic Christians choose to be so which shows they have a seeker's mind set and not an idol worshiping mind set.
It is unfortunate that I do not have a local church or I would break my loner ways and support it.
Toronto is coming along but it is not quite there yet and still too far from Ottawa for me to make that trip regularly.
With most revealed religions on the wane, and with more atheists starting to replace them, and given the vile reputation that mainstream religions are fostering, there might never be a Gnostic church in my area.
The Gnostic Christian doctrine and ideology is hard to beat though so time will tell.
Regards
DL
Give to Caesar. Why? Better law and justice?
in Religion & Politics
Posted · Edited by French Patriot