Is it foolish to call God, “Father”?

[spin]

My sin, my death.

True for any believer.

Jesus has no right to take my punishment. It is mine and for him to just take it would be theft.
He has no right to forgive us as we did not choose him for that.

This totally misses the point of the salvation story. It requires your involvement in the process, otherwise it is nothing to you. You have to choose this path to salvation. You have to own it. You cannot be forgiven unless you take the necessary steps. There is no automatic salvation in this religion. You have to make a commitment, so you are grandstanding for no reason here. If you don't want to be forgiven through the mechanism of this myth, then you don't make the commitment. Though all potentially have this means of salvation, they don't all follow the path to salvation.

Your God might set and take bribes and you may think that just but it shows how corrupt your God is.

I don't have a god. I am agnostic. But you are manipulative through your own personal commitment. I have made it clear that I do not believe in the christian story of salvation, but I have attempted to clarify its mechanism to you because you don't seem to show any understanding of it. When you talk about bribes, that is your projection onto the christian god. You start with the notion that this god is corrupt and your conclusions follow from it, but that has little to do with what the christian myth is based on. Our job here is to attempt to understand the subject before us. You will not understand when you have chosen to set obstacles between yourself and what you are trying to work your way through.

[Gnostic Bishop]

Thanks for the psychobabble.

It is garbage.

Only fools will think that a God would condemn them.

That is why Gnostic Christians are Universalists.

Regards
DL

[spin]

Thanks for the psychobabble.

It is garbage.

Only fools will think that a God would condemn them.

That is why Gnostic Christians are Universalists.

Regards
DL

[hjalti]

Thanks for the psychobabble.

It is garbage.

Only fools will think that a God would condemn them.

That is why Gnostic Christians are Universalists.

Regards
DL

Why is the idea that a god would "condemn" people more silly than the idea that a god wouldn't do that? :S

[Gnostic Bishop]

Thanks for the psychobabble.

It is garbage.

Only fools will think that a God would condemn them.

That is why Gnostic Christians are Universalists.

Regards
DL

Why is the idea that a god would "condemn" people more silly than the idea that a god wouldn't do that? :S

Be it nature or God that does the creating, we have all been created for the best possible end. This is irrefutable.

Given that God can cure any condition, even evil in a soul, the moral position God would take is to cure instead of kill or send to hell for useless torture.God would do his will and save all souls.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

If your God does any less then he is not a moral God.

That means a moral God must be a Universalist. If he is Moral. If he is not, then he is not a true God is he?

Regards
DL

[hjalti]

Be it nature or God that does the creating, we have all been created for the best possible end. This is irrefutable.

Oh, if it's "irrefutable" then it must be true!

If your God does any less then he is not a moral God.

That means a moral God must be a Universalist. If he is Moral. If he is not, then he is not a true God is he?

I don't see why a god should be "moral" rather than "immoral".

[Gnostic Bishop]

Be it nature or God that does the creating, we have all been created for the best possible end. This is irrefutable.

Oh, if it's "irrefutable" then it must be true!

If your God does any less then he is not a moral God.

That means a moral God must be a Universalist. If he is Moral. If he is not, then he is not a true God is he?

I don't see why a god should be "moral" rather than "immoral".

Then find the most immoral God and follow him.
That is likely the Christian genocidal son murdering God.

Regards
DL

[spin]

Be it nature or God that does the creating, we have all been created for the best possible end. This is irrefutable.

Oh, if it's "irrefutable" then it must be true!

If your God does any less then he is not a moral God.

That means a moral God must be a Universalist. If he is Moral. If he is not, then he is not a true God is he?

I don't see why a god should be "moral" rather than "immoral".

Then find the most immoral God and follow him.
That is likely the Christian genocidal son murdering God.

Regards
DL

Can you say anything sillier than what you have? You aren't interested in either evaluating or even understanding the material we deal with. You're not even listening to those who bother talking to you. Here you were challenged with an epistemological problem: how does one know that a god is "moral" rather than "immoral"? You just couldn't think rationally about it. Until you can engage in reasoned conversation all you deserve is

[Gnostic Bishop]

Spin

We are to emulate God according to scriptures.

Do you think we would be advised to follow a God who was immoral or amoral.

So was there really an issue to speak to?

No there was not. Idiot.

Regards
DL

[spin]

Spin

We are to emulate God according to scriptures.

This is a typical unsupported assertion. Just because some text or other says something does not automatically mean you need to jump. If you cannot rise to evidence based decision making then you'll only do yourself harm.

Do you think we would be advised to follow a God who was immoral or amoral.

You still haven't got this fact: I am agnostic. To follow gods is like following astrology or phrenology. You would be advised to follow the evidence using logic and wisdom as your guides.

So was there really an issue to speak to?

Yes, there was. What criteria can you use to discern that a god is moral or not? And the precursor to that epistemological question would be on what substantive evidence can one base one's knowledge of such an entity as god? When you cannot answer either question to your interlocutor's satisfaction, you will be seen as talking nonsense.

When you talk to someone else you need to know that your presuppositions are held by your interlocutor. If they are not, you will fail to communicate. We do try to understand what people say on this forum, but when you can see that their presuppositions are not justified and no attempt is made to justify them, then failure to communicate meaningfully is bound to be the result. In short, you constrain yourself to talk crap, because you refuse to participate in a dialogue.

I have tried to communicate with you by laying down the bases of my thought as clearly as possible, but it takes two to tango.

No there was not. Idiot.

Regards
DL