French Patriot
-
Posts
1,138 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by French Patriot
-
-
22 minutes ago, betsy said:
I want to understand this. Are you an atheist?
That is irrelevant to the issue, but no, I am a Gnostic Christian.
Regards
DL
-
4 hours ago, betsy said:
If you have any clue at all about the Bible - and what the Bible is all about - you wouldn't be giving such an ignorant response.
For those who venture into Philosophical discussions - logical, critical thinking is a requirement.
Furthermore, you can't criticise or give sensible opinion of what you know nothing about. That's logic #1.
That would be like a three year old spouting off about the economy. You may want to use your time arguing with this three year old - but hey, that's your choice......just don't expect everyone to be like you!
Philosophy/Theology, isn't a grade school subject. Of course, you're free to give your opinion. Just don't be offended if you're not taken seriously, or if you're ignored.
Cheers.
IOW, your do not back up or support your delusional supernatural thinking.
Run along child. You have yet to put away the things of children. The supernatural.
Regards
DL
-
4 hours ago, betsy said:
May I ask what's your purpose for being........... spiritual?
I think it is likely attached to our selfish gene. It is the best way to think to enhance our chances of survival. It would lead to cooperation instead of competition.
Regards
DL
-
On 5/1/2017 at 9:18 AM, betsy said:
That's the question usually asked by non-believers.
This video addresses the arguments usually given by non-believers. For those who want to discuss, please watch and we'll discuss the points given in this video on why we should trust the Bible.
Honesty test.
Your link says that truth can be found in your bible.
Do talking serpents and donkeys seem like a truth to you?
Regards
DL
-
Can you be spiritual without being religious?
Spirituality might be exemplified by this quote.
John 6 ; 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
One can practice spirituality alone. One cannot practice religiosity without a group/tribe.
Religiosity, I would define roughly, as promoting an organized or local church/temple/tribe etc.
Spirituality ignores our tribal instincts. Our religiosity demand that we cater to our tribal/fellowship needs.
If you are spiritually minded and have a working moral system that you think is the best, I think that you should want to share it and have others follow it. To share it should have you join a church or religion so as to promote your good thinking.
Does a spiritual mind, if truly spiritual, have to join a religion, even if not morally up to your standard, in order to share your view and perhaps help that religion rise up to your better standard of excellence?
If you answer yes to that question, is that why spiritually minded atheists and others now forming atheist churches or churches that take a more secular role within society?
Regards
DL
-
"who are too old to get adopted should all be put down - that's what you're saying here?"
"You may be the type to simply stand by and not involved yourself while a person is being beaten to death"
I see that it is pointless to chat with you if that is what you are reading into what I say.
Thanks for the chat.
Regards
DL
-
2 hours ago, betsy said:
Oh boy.....yeah, that figures. You've been listening to a confused man. Don't get me started on Dawkins.....
Dawkins was not the one giving the stats.
Watch it again for the first time or remain willfully ignorant of the facts.
Regards
DL
-
2 hours ago, betsy said:
Well, ladida. I'm getting confused with you guys. Aren't these women supposed to have control over their own bodies? If these women can't even be responsible enough to ensure that they use protection to prevent pregnancy.....AND STD........ why would they become my responsibility?
Perhaps you''ll agree that women who can't make a rational choice should have that choice be taken away from them? We'll decide if they're responsible enough to be allowed to have any children at all!
They are not your responsibility, so mind your own business.
To your last, only an immoral person would suggest eugenics.
Regards
DL
-
betsy
Have a look at what you would do if you successfully created change in the direction you want.
As to your reply to my other link above.
Look at the stats for the first time as you are not sounding like you even know what they are.
Those stats, are the best, per capita that we have ever enjoyed.
==========
My bottom line to the ugliness of abortion.
I dislike the notion of losing any zygote, embryo or any potential human.
That does not give me the right to force women to have children they do not want, especially like in your case, where I will not put my money where my mouth is to insure a decent life for that child.
The numbers are reducing themselves on their own as we become more moral, as is indicated by the stats that you either ignored or did not bother learning.
Regards
DL
-
9 minutes ago, betsy said:
HELLO? Stop for a minute there, and think.
You stop and note how much better things are getting, while you wish to reverse the trends of the lowering abortion rates and most other markers for evil. Stats are given at the end of this link that shows how rapidly our morality is moving things to a much better world and stats.
Regards
DL
-
3 minutes ago, betsy said:
HELLO? Stop for a minute there, and think. Who's shirking responsiblities here? Isn't it the mother who got herself pregnant?
And who are her enablers? People like you.
You guys are moulding our youth to be irresponsible and negligent - even at the expense of their own health!
Why do you think STDs are on the rise despite the fact that we've been supposedly educating people for DECADES about the use of condom to prevent the spread of std???
You are shirking your duty to the health of other women by promoting ideas, that, if we regressed to what you want, would have them butchered in back room abortions.
An STD, your next diversion from Christian responsibilities, is mostly being spread by Christians and not non-Christians, if I can match the numbers to the U.S. jail population which is only about 2% while you Christians are over represented in the 98%.
Strange that you only blame the mothers for the pregnancy. I always thought that there were men involved as well.
Regards
DL
-
8 hours ago, betsy said:
Why is it so surprising to have many Christians committing abortion? Aren't Christians getting confused by all these propaganda about pro-choice, feminism and women's rights? How many Christian mothers are outside pursuing careers instead of being at home, raising their children? Of course the usual rebuttal to that, so many women have no choice but to go out and work! Gee.....I wonder why?
As for the Pope.....that's his position. I'm not a Catholic. Though I can see where he's coming from: approval of contraceptives would mean he approves of fornication - sex outside of marriage (which is against the Scriptures).....because let's be honest, that's what our society really intend it for!
It's been a common rationale by pro-choice that the baby is better off dead, if raised in poverty.....or, if he's already at a disadvantaged position in life.
It reflects the a mentality that's so soaked in materialism: if one can't have wordly goods, one can't possibly enjoy life.
No wonder so many people are committing suicide nowadays. It doesn't take much to take away their purpose. To them, achieving status is the very meaning of life.
So you would rather deflect than deal with the fact that Christians are shirking their duty while complaining about the many Christians who are seeking abortions and not puting their money where their mouth is. Ok.
Regards
DL
-
On 4/22/2018 at 6:05 AM, betsy said:
Abortion is here to stay. No one will really try to bring this up.....so why make an issue of it?
We have to. It may be legal now to slaughter our unborn even for no reason than just to say because I want to....... but that shouldn't mean we have to tolerate it without voicing out our disapproval, that we are strongly opposed to it, in fact.
Atheist/secular anti-abortionists, see it as a human right violation - and they fight it on that ground.
We Christians, fight it on the ground that it goes against Biblical teachings. We share a common goal. To be the voice for the defenseless unborn.
Even if it's now legal to murder a child, keeping the issue alive may help a woman struggling with her decision, to do what is only righteous.
Talking about it, still, saves lives.
Not nearly as many as would be saved if those against it put their money where their mouth is.
You likely know how poor the stats are, from health to education and likely good outcome that those children will suffer without the cash to raise them properly.
If not for the numbers of Christian abortions in Canada and the U.S., the vast majority, were reduced, the numbers would be dropping even faster than they are today.
The Pope not preaching against contraceptives might also help.
Regards
DL
-
On 2/1/2018 at 9:53 AM, Boges said:
I think it's common knowledge that the Roman Catholic Church made up their own doctrine. Thus the reason for a reformation.
It's the biggest irony that the Christian church became the exact thing that Jesus preached against.
Many Christian sects use the NT interpretation of Jesus, and only that, as their guiding principals.
I agree but would say they made up little and plagiarized a lot from the Jews and Chrestian, a good man ideology. They even accepted whole scriptures by just changing the Chrestian designation to Christian.
That may be why Gnostic Christians started using other designators for Gnostic mystery schools.
That is what I believe so it must be true. ; -)
Regards
DL
-
How should humans determine what is moral? Is there a universal morality or is it acceptable for different groups to adhere to different morals?
I think that there is a universal morality and that it is basically tied to our selfish gene and natural desire to survive in an evolving world.
If you believe in evolution, then you will know that all we basically do all day is either compete or cooperate. Evolution has created us to instinctively know that cooperation is a better survival mechanism than competition that always created a loser. Losing is not a good survival strategy.
Here is a clip that shows, I think, the fact that we are hard wired to cooperate and do what we call good, as compared to competition that we would call evil as it creates a loser.
This other clip shows That morality as about the same everywhere and is always based on survival. It basically mimics ancient religious thinking while excluding God.
http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/
Regards
DL
-
and russia is completely puzzled by the canadian paranoia...Russia quietly negotiates territorial disputes with neighbour Norway but for some bizarre reason canadians think the russians are ready to invade...
then there is the dispute over Hans Island with the Danes, really?... do people actually believe Denmark and canada are going to go to war over a rock?...the danes plant a flag on the rock then canada plants a flag on the rock and they both go to the UN to mediate it...
What Canadian do you know who is paranoid?
I don't think Canadians are worried about much at all.
Why should we. Things are the best they have even been thanks to my Illuminati friends ruling the world.
Regards
DL
-
Fine
But Putin is Putin, and he is the one to be worried about.
Corruption is the largest economical industry in Russia. Their legal system is run by oligarchs , businesses can be raided and turned over to others on whim, the Dept of Interior is a nightmare of crooks.
Like I said, I would count my fingers after shaking a Russian govts hand.
Corruption is everywhere. Ask Mulrony.
As to oligarchies, what do you think you live in if not exactly that?
Canadian Dream.
Regards
DL
Regards
DL
-
Russia is never a country to count on. In factb most countries cannot be counted on except to do something in their best interests and billy be damned for the rest.
If the Russians could get all the oil up there, they would kill cheat and lie to get it.
Hence the coalition.
I'm sure glad you were not on the negotiation team that formed it. You would have helped it fail.
You seem to think that the USSR still exists. Russia is not the USSR.
Regards
DL
-
With global warming happening and the Arctic Ocean opening up its waters these recent years, should Canada enforce/maintain a stronger military presence in the Canadian North?
With the waters opening up and vast mineral resources at stake, should Stephen Harper do something about maintaining our sovereignty up there? I feel Canada could do a bit more myself.
Already, the Russians, the Danish and the Americans are claiming various bids of the North for potential natural resources. Heck, even the Russians planted a Russian flag under the Ocean up north.
So, what do you think?
Last I heard, Canada was planning a bunch of joint ventures with most of the countries that circle the pole so I would say that any sovereignty issues would be dealt with quickly by those countries. We are all basically friends and I have not heard of any disputes to date.
It seems we are doing things right by cooperating for and not competing for those resources.
One of our good partners up there is Russia and I think that if any muscle is needed up there that we can count on them to support us and if we need muscle against them, the rest of our coalition can kick butt hard enough. So far so good in cooperations though.
Anyway, Harper will hit us in the wallets hard enough as is if he pushes us furthe into the drug was by clamping down on pot. Tax bump on the way.
I guess that the U S need more help in protecting what has been California's largest cash crop for the last 60 odd years. We just have to help kill off a few more Mexicans for the U S. I guess.
Strange that the whole world is moving to the left of that issue and Harper is going to the right just to please the U S and keep California puffing and a grinning.
Regards
DL
-
Thanks all.
Regards
DL
-
http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/
He would have to create his religion as expressed through his high priest/tyrant who would live by the first commandment of God, place no one above me as the enforcer of his King/God's rules and laws while still obeying his King. The larger Roman system would later assume the same system through the Noble Lie. First through the Flavian and later through Constantine.
http://www.simchajtv.com/movie-secrets-of-christianity-selling-christianity/
Regards
DL
-
All moral laws and directives come from men the authority structures that inevitably emerge when humans interact in nature.
The new testement is the law as written by the roman government and its aristocrats.
+ 1
I will add these clips to the mix for your consideration. They show who put what in Jesus' mouth and how Christianity has been manipulated. The first which is part of the second speaks to my Gnostic Christian label and the second shows my view of religions overall and the Noble Lie that I think we and our governments should rescind. The third clip speaks to the reason that religions were invented in the first place as it shows why social control was required for city states that had to deal with the reality of finite resources. I see these city states as led by a timocratic king who through the religion that he would have created, also realized that there had to be a tyrannical part to his benevolent duty and created a religion to be just that.
Please see next post for link.
I see the King/God as having to have the morals shown in the Haigt clip.
See nexr post for links.
-
Key word here is 'God's law' as it can be defined in two ways. Anthropogenic or non-anthropogenic versions of God's law.
God's law in term of....
1) Anthropogenic = human activity (bible, koran, torah, etc).
2) Non-anthropogenic = non-human activity (naturalism, pantheism, deism, etc).
I KIS for Christians.
Regards
DL
-
That is not true. Killing is fine. The motivations matter. i.e. if it was an 'accident' killing is fine unless there was negligence. Killing innocent people when you take out a terrorist is fine. Killing in self defense is fine. Killing by police officers to protect the public is fine. Killing a fetus is fine since the rights of the women are a higher priority (we get into the definition of life here).
We lay negligent homicide charges against J Ws who deny what would keep their children alive and who die when they negligently keep blood from their children.
Yet God is praise for doing the same thing to Adam and Eve when he negligently let them die by locking away what would keep them alive. The tree of life.
Is God guilty of negligent homicide?
If so, is he fit to give us laws?
Regards
DL
Give to Caesar. Why? Better law and justice?
in Religion & Politics
Posted
Give to Caesar. Why? Better law and justice?
Do you theists crave God’s law on earth, --- or do you think Jesus was saying that secular law was better?
Giving to Caesar includes loyalty and allegiance to the law of the land.
Jesus would not recommend an inferior justice system.
I guess that the choice is between God’s tyranny, --- and liberty to only follow the law, --- another tyranny, --- which has already negated any notion of freedom for man.
Is secular law inferior or superior to the laws of the Gods?
Regards
DL