plaetton:
Lol.
Look here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemistus_Pletho

When I first came across this historical character, a radical philosopher who stood up to challenge an established order, I felt a strangely strong affinity towards him.
During one important council, he changed his name to Plethon , held court for a thrilled audience for several days repudiating the Judeo-Christian concepts of divinity.
Much of his works paved the way for the revival of Neo-platonism ,and which , ultimately sowed the seeds of what later became known as the Renaissance era.

It was almost as if I was him and he was me, and I had been there. A deja vu of sorts.
Everything about his resume, his character, his message and his delivery speaks to me, and of me.

That is why I adopted his Name as my NL moniker, to, in his same fashion, continue to repudiate the Judeo-Christian concepts of divinity.

macof:

Reincarnation on my mind

But of course u don't believe such

Alfa Seltzer:

If I tell my child that Yahweh does not exist, some will call that wrong doing (sin). Many people will disagree that it is wrong doing. So we do not have a clear definition of what wrong-doing is.

Kissing and caressing my grilfriend is no wrong doing. Many religious people will disagree.

Alfa Seltzer:

If I tell my child that Yahweh does not exist, some will call that wrong doing (sin). Many people will disagree that it is wrong doing. So we do not have a clear definition of what wrong-doing is.

Kissing and caressing my grilfriend is no wrong doing. Many religious people will disagree.

macof:

Perfect. Sin is wat the society and wat certain people don't subscribe to

Joshthefirst: wrong doing sir, is clearly defined in our minds I think. You cannot use the above examples to debunk it.

Rape, hatred, lieing, murder, adultery, greed, debauchery, theft, etc are examples of wrongdoing.

Claiming wrongdoing has no definition will only compound the problem humanity has.

plaetton:

Modern society is doing very well without god, or the idea of godly morality.
In fact, god-centered morality is an oxymoron.

plaetton:
Your biblical god sanctioned all of the above acts of evil. I am not making it it up, It is all there in the bible.
If I show you biblical verses to prove this point, you will begin to justify it just like you always do.
You are a living contradiction.

plaetton:
Your god cannot ask you to go and invade(greed and aggression) and murder an entire community, take their belongings (theft), carry of their women (rape and debauchery) and here you are lamenting about sin the world.
Your god wrote the manual and showed the way.

plaetton:
Humanity has done far better on its own.

plaetton:
Fundamental human rights are conspicuously missing in your bible.
Your god suggested that sick lepers be isolated from love and care and be left to die. He could not even heal them. i guess he had no idea what to do.
So much for his omni omniness!

ifeness: Freewill means sin to Christians.

ifeness:
Freewill is everyone's birthright and can be exercised whenever they chose to. Animals have free will just like humans. If your car has freewill it will obviously chose to run away. That is normal

ifeness:
Real laws cannot be broken. Any law that can be broken is man made.

ifeness:
Example is the biblical 10 commandment. They all can be broken; therefore there are fake laws.

ifeness:
Laws that cannot be broken Example

1. You exist : you can never change that however you try it

ifeness:
2 change is constant : no one,even an imaginary god cannot change.

ifeness:
3 karma : what ever you give out is exactly what you will receive

ifeness:
4 the one is the all and all are one: we are all made up of one energy but interpreting in different ways. These four laws can never be broken.

Joshthefirst: wrong doing sir, is clearly defined in our minds I think. You cannot use the above examples to debunk it.

Rape, hatred, lieing, murder, adultery, greed, debauchery, theft, etc are examples of wrongdoing.

Claiming wrongdoing has no definition will only compound the problem humanity has.

Alfa Seltzer:

When Lot offered his daughters to anal rapists, was he sinning?

Joshthefirst: just because its recorded does not mean God cordones it.

macof:

Lot was a holy man that was blessed by God


Everything he did in the Bible was condone by the Bible God

Joshthefirst: nope. You're wrong. Even abraham did not do everything completely right in Gods eyes. Stop believeing and assuming what you want to believe because it suits you. Stop believeing carefully concocted falasies and fantasies. Believe the reality of truth.

Joshthefirst: just because its recorded does not mean God cordones it.

obadiah777: absolute hogwash. plaetton you need to be flogged with horse whip for this myopic and redundant article smdh

obadiah777: absolute hogwash. plaetton you need to be flogged with horse whip for this myopic and redundant article smdh

Ranchhoddas: My own question...is freewill going to be in heaven?

Oduduwaboy:
God should have made us robots from the very beginning...

Mr Troll: He did! . . . Until Adam ate the fruit

Oduduwaboy:

Wow !.....very insightful question him.
Its either the christians who go to their imaginary heaven become robots or heaven will soon become as bad as the present earth !

God should have made us robots from the very beginning......without freewill; this would have saved us all all all this headaches.

hmmm.....there too many contradictions and illogics in the Yahweh/jehovah story joor !

The Calvinist, who damns children of a span long to hell to burn forever for the glory of God (and this is called Christianity), and the Universalist who preaches that all shall be saved and none shall be damned (and this also is called Christianity), boasts alike of their holy [reveled] religion and their Christian faith.

"Something more therefore is necessary than mere cry and wholesale assertion, and that something is TRUTH; and as inquiry is the road to truth, he that is opposed to inquiry is not a friend to truth. "The God of truth is not the God of fable; when, therefore, any book is introduced into the world as the Word of God, and made a groundwork for religion, it ought to be scrutinized more than other books to see if it bear evidence of being what it is called. Our reverence to God demands that we do this, lest we ascribe to God what is not His, and our duty to ourselves demands it lest we take fable for fact, and rest our hope of salvation on a false foundation.

"It is not our calling a book holy that makes it so, any more than our calling a religion holy that entitles it to the name. Inquiry therefore is necessary in order to arrive at truth. But inquiry must have some principle to proceed on, some standard to judge by, superior to human authority.

"When we survey the works of creation, the revolutions of the planetary system, and the whole economy of what is called nature, which is no other than the laws the Creator has prescribed to matter, we see unerring order and universal harmony reigning throughout the whole. No one part contradicts another. The sun does not run against the moon, nor the moon against the sun, nor the planets against each other. Everything keeps its appointed time and place.

"This harmony in the works of God is so obvious, that the farmer of the field, though he cannot calculate eclipses, is as sensible of it as the philosophical astronomer. He sees the God of order in every part of the visible universe."

"Here, then, is the standard to which everything must be brought that pretends to be the work or Word of God, and by this standard it must be judged, independently of anything and everything that man can say or do. His opinion is like a feather in the scale compared with the standard that God Himself has set up."

Dnacode:
Until people come to understand that most likely Eden was another planet n which God planted a garden in and placed Adam inside the garden of planet Eden, they will always make they mistake of putting evolution apart from creation.

Until they realize that Adam(a new spiritual genetic experiment) was expelled from planet Eden and placed on earth when he fell and that earth already had some humans who were mere products of evolution when Adam was forced to live on earth.

That we basically had two groups of pple on earth; children of Adam and children of the earth(evolution) and that over time the two germ lines mixed but the Adamic germline (through Noah) survived the flood while that of the children of evolution were wiped out.

Dnacode:
Until people come to understand that most likely Eden was another planet n which God planted a garden in and placed Adam inside the garden of planet Eden, they will always make they mistake of putting evolution apart from creation.

Until they realize that Adam(a new spiritual genetic experiment) was expelled from planet Eden and placed on earth when he fell and that earth already had some humans who were mere products of evolution when Adam was forced to live on earth.

That we basically had two groups of pple on earth; children of Adam and children of the earth(evolution) and that over time the two germ lines mixed but the Adamic germline (through Noah) survived the flood while that of the children of evolution were wiped out.

plaetton:


Lol.
Started out somewhat in a sensible and palatable tone, then veered off into the ridiculous and hilarious.

First, the contradiction in the post.
If the two germlines(as you called them) were mixed over time, then , when again did they separate to the point where one germline was wiped out by a flood, while the other survived ?

Second question:
If the two germlines were genetically compatible enough to mix, then what were the distinct differences between them?

This is the problem with a religion-infused mind: You feel compelled to add ridiculously fasle twists to what would have been sensible hypothesis.

The truth remains that the Earth has a much much older and much more colorful and dramatic history than what we have been led to believe, and that different species of sentient life and different variations of HUMAN life once thrived and cohabited our Earth.

plaetton:


Lol.
Started out somewhat in a sensible and palatable tone, then veered off into the ridiculous and hilarious.

First, the contradiction in the post.
If the two germlines(as you called them) were mixed over time, then , when again did they separate to the point where one germline was wiped out by a flood, while the other survived ?

Second question:
If the two germlines were genetically compatible enough to mix, then what were the distinct differences between them?

This is the problem with a religion-infused mind: You feel compelled to add ridiculously fasle twists to what would have been sensible hypothesis.

The truth remains that the Earth has a much much older and much more colorful and dramatic history than what we have been led to believe, and that different species of sentient life and different variations of HUMAN life once thrived and cohabited our Earth.

Dnacode:



The Noahic germline was pure n was not a mix with those of the children of the earth.

plaetton:


And you arrived at this conclusion after conducting what genetic sample studies?

Let me guess, you, all on your own , extrapolated this from the ..... ?

sonOfLucifer: