How about a new Council of Nicea?

[Mare Tranquillity]

I have suspected that you can't read the bible with full understanding and now I would have to say that you can't read what I write with full understanding also. We have not agreed that God is a murderous bastard.

Neither can you read the Bible with full understanding, nor what I write. Which one of us is perfect?

No, God isn't a murderous bastard, the Bible blasphemes when it portrays Him that way. I've never spoken ill of God, just the Bible.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Now that we've all come to an agreement about the credibility of the Old Testament, let's examine a new way of presenting Christ-ianity. My vote is to saw off the whole of the Old Testament as having nothing of substance to contribute to the message of Jesus.

For the sake of clarity let's call the proposed new version of the Bible the "New Christ Bible" since it's to be about Jesus and His message rather than a book of dubious history and violent blasphemy.

The New Christ Bible (NCB) probably should start with the beginning of Jesus' ministry because nothing before that is either provable nor germane to what He taught. Likewise the miracles should also be left out since they aren't particularly believable and they distance Jesus from the very people who are supposed to emulate His behavior. If Jesus was a supernatural being, then we are bound to feel that we have no chance to live as He lived. The miracles spice up the story but they don't contribute to the very real good ideas that Jesus advocated. The focus should be on the two commandments that Jesus said were the most important: Love God and love others as yourself. We don't need the Ten Commandments, Jesus summed them up in two. We can discuss what of Jesus teachings are to be included at a later date, but first we have to deal with one more blasphemous concept.

The idea that God demanded a blood payment for humanity's sins and God was willing to accept that payment be made by an innocent person makes total mockery of a fair and just God. Goatherder nomads demanded blood payment, the Creator of the Universe hardly has to stoop to that level. If there were sins that needed forgiving, then God could simply have announced in a pretty loud voice that, "Everybody is forgiven!" and let it go at that. Making God responsible for the monstrous act of crucifixion is as incomprehensible as crediting God with the insane violence and scatatology, genocide and incest, slavery and murder, and the selling of children in the Old Testament. It's palpable nonsense and anyone who can believe that of God is living in fear, whether they admit it or not. God is not only better than we imagine, He is better than we CAN imagine.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Hey they may have been goatherders. But then again they may not have been. Which is why I have not made a cliam I cannot support.

So the basis if your argument that they had goats is that we all have cars. A lot of people in the middle east raised pigs too but the Jews did not. Cultural differences can be pretty big.

So why are we spending so much time debating something as silly as whether or not Medes had goats? The answer is simple, the debate demonstrates that you jump to conclusions based on your preconceived notions of what ancient people did or did not do.

The lack of pigs in Jewish culture is another reason to suspect goats of being there. Are Medes considered Jewish, did they follow the Jewish laws as we know them? No, the Medes were assimilated into the Persian empire, are you going to argure that the Persians didn't have goats?

You are willing to accept insane violence and cruelty on the part of the Creator of the Universe and you accuse me of jumping to conclusions over a few goats? Straining at gnats while swallowing camels.

 

[numinus]

Democracy or bushido or machindo or even labra are all concepts to which or by which a person may govern their lives, that's a personal choice. But what you are talking about is setting up your own church as the universal concept for everybody and you want to do it with no proof of validity. You can't even give a shred of proof that your Catholic god exists or that your concepts are in anyway derived from Him. I agree with you that a creative force of some sort exists (we are here after all) but nothing links our existence to your personal vision or your church's vision of this force.

Our perspectives are so divergent that even discussing with each other is difficult. You talk about universal standards to which a person subordinates their whole being, but I don't know of any standards like that. There are things that I don't think are correct to do and I don't do them, but I've never tried to apply them to everybody, everywhere, for all time--in fact I'm not sure that's possible. You have edicts from an invisible being, you have a church based around the purported thoughts and wishes of that invisible being and you want your beliefs to be seen as universally applicable. I don't buy, my life has led me to a different place and from where I stand murdering or threatening to murder a child on the sayso of a disembodied voice is probably a form of mental illness.

This is complete nonsense.

You have already accepted some sort of universal moral standard by which ALL human beings ought to abide by -- although you pretend to be dumb about it.

You have the universal declaration of human rights (and all the conventions consequent to it). You have an idea of universal justice by which international law is based. You have the idea of the rule of law based on the consent of the governed to be governed. Do you need me to dumb this down further?

Take note, the concept of natural law is the basis by which you, yourself, criticize positive law. That is how just about anyone can appear on the international news saying the prc, north korea, iran, saudi arabia, etc. are human rights violators. And on this basis are diplomatic and economic pressures brought to bear on them.

What in hell are you thinking about, eh?

Yes, I suspect you would be convicted because you can't supply even the tiniest shred of proof that the creative force of the universe had ANYTHING to do with you setting out to murder your child. You would be on the same thin ice as the Son of Sam killer who said his dog told him what to do. If he could have proved that, and proved that his dog was some kind of authority, then it might have gone differently. But you and the Son of Sam have nothing to support your assumption that the disembodied voices you hear are coming for this Catholic god. People have been killing at some god's behest for all of human history--what makes you any different?

Why do you persist on dumbing down this discussion, hmmm? Is that the only thing you are capable of understanding? Okay, let's dumb this down to your level and see if it holds any water.

First of all, abraham was the leader of a NOMADIC tribe. A nomadic tribe, by nature, DOES NOT owe any allegiance to any body politic -- either by consent or force -- except their own. A harsh environment in which one lives in dictates a harsh socio-political setting. Its a matter of SURVIVAL that abraham, being the leader of his tribe, is a law unto himself.

And if, by some unimaginable quirk, a jury of one's peers is the requirement of justice at that time, one cannot find any objective jury for hundreds of miles around.

And if an objective jury was indeed formed, there is no legal precedent that would allow abraham to subject himself to the power of this jury -- except by force.

And if abraham did subject himself to the power of this jury, they would readily acquit abraham simply because he possesses unquestionable SOVEREIGNTY over his subjects. Merely refusing any member of his tribe the protection of the tribe (which is abraham's prerogative, by RIGHT) would have the same effect as killing this person with his own hands.

And even if you are permitted to question abraham's sovereign right (bear in mind that you cannot, presently) you can only do so according to a power higher than any earthly power -- meaning god's natural law -- the same power who ordered the ritual in the first place.

So, you can present this argument in a court of morons and still, you would loose.

 

[numinus]

Now that we've all come to an agreement about the credibility of the Old Testament, let's examine a new way of presenting Christ-ianity. My vote is to saw off the whole of the Old Testament as having nothing of substance to contribute to the message of Jesus.

The only credibility in question is your own rational faculties.

Duh?

For the sake of clarity let's call the proposed new version of the Bible the "New Christ Bible" since it's to be about Jesus and His message rather than a book of dubious history and violent blasphemy.

The New Christ Bible (NCB) probably should start with the beginning of Jesus' ministry because nothing before that is either provable nor germane to what He taught.

Nonsense.

He was teaching against the judaism of the pharisees, sadducees, essenes and the zealots at that time. How can one appreciate jesus' criticisms without any knowledge of the counter-points of his teachings, hmmm? And how can one appreciate the jewish millieu at that time without the history the jewish people went through, hmmm? For instance, what is the big deal about the messiah, in the first place? Do you even know the answer to that?

Likewise the miracles should also be left out since they aren't particularly believable and they distance Jesus from the very people who are supposed to emulate His behavior.

Nonsense.

The miracles jesus performed were minor compared to the real miracle he was capable of -- the ability to profoundly change people's hearts.

If Jesus was a supernatural being, then we are bound to feel that we have no chance to live as He lived.

Which is the whole point as far back as the genesis story (which, unfortunately, you can only appreciate as the story of talking snakes) -- that man is incapable of salvation on his own.

Even if you were a christian gnostic, the very opposite of orthodox christianity as far as philosophical impetus is concerned -- you would still need 'revelation' through a teacher. And it is this teacher's mastery over esoteric knowledge that gives him some form of divine status.

The miracles spice up the story but they don't contribute to the very real good ideas that Jesus advocated.

That is because you are clueless as to the purpose of the miracle stories in the first place.

The focus should be on the two commandments that Jesus said were the most important: Love God and love others as yourself. We don't need the Ten Commandments, Jesus summed them up in two. We can discuss what of Jesus teachings are to be included at a later date, but first we have to deal with one more blasphemous concept.

That is the focus of christianity. And on these commandments, canon law was concieved.

Truly, you don't know what you are talking about.

The idea that God demanded a blood payment for humanity's sins and God was willing to accept that payment be made by an innocent person makes total mockery of a fair and just God. Goatherder nomads demanded blood payment, the Creator of the Universe hardly has to stoop to that level.

God does not require a blood payment. Man does.

It shows the extent by which god would stoop for his love. God would subject himself to humanity's judgement (instead of the other way around) for that love.

This is the fundamental difference with islam and judaism. God is not merely 'majestic' -- he is the highest form of love. And it is precisely this love that islam and judaism cannot accept.

If there were sins that needed forgiving, then God could simply have announced in a pretty loud voice that, "Everybody is forgiven!" and let it go at that.

True, except that it is man that cannot forgive himself.

What do you do if someone you care for cannot forgive himself?

Making God responsible for the monstrous act of crucifixion is as incomprehensible as crediting God with the insane violence and scatatology, genocide and incest, slavery and murder, and the selling of children in the Old Testament.

Nope.

God isn't responsible. Man is.

To say otherwise would mean you deny free will.

Is that what you're saying?

It's palpable nonsense and anyone who can believe that of God is living in fear, whether they admit it or not. God is not only better than we imagine, He is better than we CAN imagine.

As demonstrated, it is your idea that is full of nonsense.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

This is complete nonsense.

You have already accepted some sort of universal moral standard by which ALL human beings ought to abide by -- although you pretend to be dumb about it.

You have the universal declaration of human rights (and all the conventions consequent to it). You have an idea of universal justice by which international law is based. You have the idea of the rule of law based on the consent of the governed to be governed. Do you need me to dumb this down further?

Take note, the concept of natural law is the basis by which you, yourself, criticize positive law. That is how just about anyone can appear on the international news saying the prc, north korea, iran, saudi arabia, etc. are human rights violators. And on this basis are diplomatic and economic pressures brought to bear on them.

What in hell are you thinking about, eh?

Why do you persist on dumbing down this discussion, hmmm? Is that the only thing you are capable of understanding? Okay, let's dumb this down to your level and see if it holds any water.

First of all, abraham was the leader of a NOMADIC tribe. A nomadic tribe, by nature, DOES NOT owe any allegiance to any body politic -- either by consent or force -- except their own. A harsh environment in which one lives in dictates a harsh socio-political setting. Its a matter of SURVIVAL that abraham, being the leader of his tribe, is a law unto himself.

And if, by some unimaginable quirk, a jury of one's peers is the requirement of justice at that time, one cannot find any objective jury for hundreds of miles around.

And if an objective jury was indeed formed, there is no legal precedent that would allow abraham to subject himself to the power of this jury -- except by force.

And if abraham did subject himself to the power of this jury, they would readily acquit abraham simply because he possesses unquestionable SOVEREIGNTY over his subjects. Merely refusing any member of his tribe the protection of the tribe (which is abraham's prerogative, by RIGHT) would have the same effect as killing this person with his own hands.

And even if you are permitted to question abraham's sovereign right (bear in mind that you cannot, presently) you can only do so according to a power higher than any earthly power -- meaning god's natural law -- the same power who ordered the ritual in the first place.

So, you can present this argument in a court of morons and still, you would loose.

Much sound and fury, signifying nothing. Why do you post to me, Nums? All you do is shout at me and occasionally threaten to have your wife slap a harelip on me. You also make sweeping statements about me that have no factual basis: "You have already accepted some sort of universal moral standard by which ALL human beings ought to abide by..." Total twaddle from your imgination.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

He was teaching against the judaism of the pharisees, sadducees, essenes and the zealots at that time. How can one appreciate jesus' criticisms without any knowledge of the counter-points of his teachings, hmmm? And how can one appreciate the jewish millieu at that time without the history the jewish people went through, hmmm? For instance, what is the big deal about the messiah, in the first place? Do you even know the answer to that?

Are you really saying that LOVE GOD and LOVE OTHERS AS YOURSELF are meaningless phrases without the backdrop of Judaism? The good things Jesus taught are universal and need no historical backdrop to make them valid.

The miracles jesus performed were minor compared to the real miracle he was capable of -- the ability to profoundly change people's hearts.

We agree on that, but I would go a step further and note that the minor miracles also damage the story because they aren't believable. As you say, they don't add anything of real value.

Which is the whole point as far back as the genesis story (which, unfortunately, you can only appreciate as the story of talking snakes) -- that man is incapable of salvation on his own.

Twaddle! The whole idea of salvation is a hoax used to control people. Each of us has a relationship with our Creator and no one needs anything but that. The concept of our being in dire peril is superstitious nonsense used to frighten people into obedience. There is not a single shred of evidence to demonstrate this wild claim, nothing but some words in a book.

Even if you were a christian gnostic, the very opposite of orthodox christianity as far as philosophical impetus is concerned -- you would still need 'revelation' through a teacher. And it is this teacher's mastery over esoteric knowledge that gives him some form of divine status.

Stop letting other people run your life, Nums! You have a relationship with your Creator and you can get everything you need directly from Him, you don't need intermediaries, or priests, or old books. Knock and the door shall be opened unto you, seek and ye shall find.

That is the focus of christianity. And on these commandments, canon law was concieved.

Not hardly, churches don't teach it, Christians don't practice it, you've never mentioned it even once without my bringing it up. In fact I've never heard a Christian speak about those two commandments unless I brought them up. They aren't posted on churches and Christians don't advocate them.

Truly, you don't know what you are talking about.

Why post to me then?

God does not require a blood payment. Man does.
It shows the extent by which god would stoop for his love. God would subject himself to humanity's judgement (instead of the other way around) for that love.

This is the fundamental difference with islam and judaism. God is not merely 'majestic' -- he is the highest form of love. And it is precisely this love that islam and judaism cannot accept.

True, except that it is man that cannot forgive himself.

What do you do if someone you care for cannot forgive himself?

If someone I know can't forgive themselve I DON'T GO OUT AND CRUCIFY AN INNOCENT PERSON. Your argument is without basis, it's silly to think that nailing Jesus up made anybody--then or now--feel better about their sins. What a crock, do they teach that in your church? And you believe it?

Nope.
God isn't responsible. Man is. To say otherwise would mean you deny free will.
Is that what you're saying?

No, not at all, but you are saying then that the Bible is wrong when it attributes the atrocities to God, HEY!, we agree on something. The Bible is blasphemous when it says that God did all those insane cruel things, He didn't, men did. All the more reason that those things should be taken out of the Bible and out of the story of Jesus because the stories are false.

As demonstrated, it is your idea that is full of nonsense.

If God is the epitome of love then He is beyond our comprehension, isn't He? Or are you claiming to be able to encompass the totality of God's Goodness?

 

[Dr.Who]

Now that we've all come to an agreement about the credibility of the Old Testament, let's examine a new way of presenting Christ-ianity. My vote is to saw off the whole of the Old Testament as having nothing of substance to contribute to the message of Jesus.

For the sake of clarity let's call the proposed new version of the Bible the "New Christ Bible" since it's to be about Jesus and His message rather than a book of dubious history and violent blasphemy.

The New Christ Bible (NCB) probably should start with the beginning of Jesus' ministry because nothing before that is either provable nor germane to what He taught. Likewise the miracles should also be left out since they aren't particularly believable and they distance Jesus from the very people who are supposed to emulate His behavior. If Jesus was a supernatural being, then we are bound to feel that we have no chance to live as He lived. The miracles spice up the story but they don't contribute to the very real good ideas that Jesus advocated. The focus should be on the two commandments that Jesus said were the most important: Love God and love others as yourself. We don't need the Ten Commandments, Jesus summed them up in two. We can discuss what of Jesus teachings are to be included at a later date, but first we have to deal with one more blasphemous concept.

The idea that God demanded a blood payment for humanity's sins and God was willing to accept that payment be made by an innocent person makes total mockery of a fair and just God. Goatherder nomads demanded blood payment, the Creator of the Universe hardly has to stoop to that level. If there were sins that needed forgiving, then God could simply have announced in a pretty loud voice that, "Everybody is forgiven!" and let it go at that. Making God responsible for the monstrous act of crucifixion is as incomprehensible as crediting God with the insane violence and scatatology, genocide and incest, slavery and murder, and the selling of children in the Old Testament. It's palpable nonsense and anyone who can believe that of God is living in fear, whether they admit it or not. God is not only better than we imagine, He is better than we CAN imagine.

Uh, good luck with that. No not really. You would fail miserably at that since it is so far removed from what the rest of the world thinks.

 

[Dr.Who]

The lack of pigs in Jewish culture is another reason to suspect goats of being there. Are Medes considered Jewish, did they follow the Jewish laws as we know them? No, the Medes were assimilated into the Persian empire, are you going to argure that the Persians didn't have goats?

I have not argued once that the Medes did not have goats. I argued that you had no reason whatsoever for assuming that they did. That you made your statement with nothing at all to support it. And that that strategy is common in the way you approach the bible.

I see that you are now doing some research. You have figured out that the medes are not the same as the Jews and that they became the persians. I bet if you work a little harder you can figure out that the persians did indeed have goats. Maybe you can even find reasons to think that they had goats back when they were still called Medes. Then you will be able to say what you say and support it.

Keep up the good work and learn to support your statements.

You are willing to accept insane violence and cruelty on the part of the Creator of the Universe and you accuse me of jumping to conclusions over a few goats? Straining at gnats while swallowing camels.

Nope. But you are willing to put the worst spin possible on events because you most likely have an axe to grind.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Uh, good luck with that. No not really. You would fail miserably at that since it is so far removed from what the rest of the world thinks.

Look at history, Jesus was just one man, Hitler was just one man, Gandhi was just one man. There was a time when giving women equal rights was unthinkable--the Christian church was against it. Integration? Interracial marriage? Inter-faith marriage? Gay priests? Gay marriage? An end to burning witches at the stake? All of these things were so far removed from what the majority thought that the voices crying in the wilderness were ignored.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I have not argued once that the Medes did not have goats. I argued that you had no reason whatsoever for assuming that they did. That you made your statement with nothing at all to support it. And that that strategy is common in the way you approach the bible.

I see that you are now doing some research. You have figured out that the medes are not the same as the Jews and that they became the persians. I bet if you work a little harder you can figure out that the persians did indeed have goats. Maybe you can even find reasons to think that they had goats back when they were still called Medes. Then you will be able to say what you say and support it.

Keep up the good work and learn to support your statements.

Nope. But you are willing to put the worst spin possible on events because you most likely have an axe to grind.

Was there any group in the Middle East that didn't have goats, not to my knowledge. I'm not sure why this is such a bugaboo for you.

My statements about the Bible have been exact quotes, the fact that you want the words to mean something different isn't my problem. Again and again I have shown that what I said was based on the actual words in the Bible, while you have retreated to interpretations. My axe to grind is the blasphemy in the Bible that is used by Christians to justify their violence and intolerance today. You keep trying to make it something that it's not, you keep trying to make it an attack on God or the teachings of Jesus when you know very well that it's not. That's disingenuous, Who.

 

[numinus]

Much sound and fury, signifying nothing. Why do you post to me, Nums? All you do is shout at me and occasionally threaten to have your wife slap a harelip on me. You also make sweeping statements about me that have no factual basis: "You have already accepted some sort of universal moral standard by which ALL human beings ought to abide by..." Total twaddle from your imgination.

So, you do not accept the universal nature of the universal declaration of human rights? Is it not coincident to the teachings of jesus -- the very teachings js mills described as the epitome of utilitarianism?

Please, defend the indefensible. It is your credibility on the line, after all. Oh and I don't shout. When facts and logic are overwhelmingly on one's side, one need not shout.

 

[numinus]

Are you really saying that LOVE GOD and LOVE OTHERS AS YOURSELF are meaningless phrases without the backdrop of Judaism? The good things Jesus taught are universal and need no historical backdrop to make them valid.

Certainly.

There is no dimension of love in the legalistic pharisaic view of the torah.

The sadducees' view of political expediency and the zealots' view of revolt completely missed the point.

The essenes' view of spirituality, though the nearest, also fails because they reject the world wherein salvation was supposed to proceed in.

We agree on that, but I would go a step further and note that the minor miracles also damage the story because they aren't believable. As you say, they don't add anything of real value.

Of course not!

It shows that a profound change of heart is the prerequisite for profound change (an action necessarily emanating from the mind) -- something that was thought of to be impossible previously.

Tell me, is it easier to make bread and fish appear to multiply (something that an illusionist could do with his eyes closed) or to make hundreds of people change their hearts and share their food reserves to strangers in the middle of nowhere????

And while you're at it, you might want to say exactly which of the two is a miracle.

Twaddle! The whole idea of salvation is a hoax used to control people. Each of us has a relationship with our Creator and no one needs anything but that. The concept of our being in dire peril is superstitious nonsense used to frighten people into obedience. There is not a single shred of evidence to demonstrate this wild claim, nothing but some words in a book.

What are you talking about?????

Prior to christianity, the one thing that most people fear, something that constitutes radical and irreversible evil, is death. People therefore fear it.

What christianity teaches is that death ceases to be the radical and irreversible evil -- jesus being our 'guarantor' to this truth by his death and resurrection. And because death itself has become powerless against us, christianity proclaims to all who would care to listen -- BE NOT AFRAID..

Stop letting other people run your life, Nums! You have a relationship with your Creator and you can get everything you need directly from Him, you don't need intermediaries, or priests, or old books. Knock and the door shall be opened unto you, seek and ye shall find.

That is precisely why I'm not a gnostic, if you haven't noticed this little fact by now. No need for esoteric knowledge ritually bestowed in some dark cave.

One only need to look at the workings of nature and the mind to see the creator's self-revelation. To this end, the thoughts of scientists as well as philosophers serves me well.

Not hardly, churches don't teach it,

The church I attended teached it ad nauseum. So did the catholic school I went to.

What goat-herder church did you attend, hmmm?

Christians don't practice it,

Of course they do, one way or another. Unfortunately for you, the majority of christians live their faith quietly. In this regard, I am envious of them.

you've never mentioned it even once without my bringing it up.

I never mentioned 'dimension of love' even once????? Even in the homosexuality thread, the abortion thread, and just about any thread I cared to post in?????

Hmmmm.

In fact I've never heard a Christian speak about those two commandments unless I brought them up.

That's because you never read humanae vitae after all the times I told you to. It's right there.

Now, whose fault is that, eh?

They aren't posted on churches and Christians don't advocate them.

You would know this is a lie if only you would spend an hour every week to attend church -- preferably catholic since I can't speak for other churches.

Why post to me then?

To point out the fact that you are ignorant about the things you pretend to criticize.

If someone I know can't forgive themselve I DON'T GO OUT AND CRUCIFY AN INNOCENT PERSON.

Certainly, if you just know them.

But what if you LOVE them? Wouldn't you go out of your way to tell this person that he is forgiven? How far would you go? Multiply that to infinity and you would have scratched the basic idea of what I'm talking about here.

Oh, and it was jesus' will to be crucified, him being the third person of god. And it was entirely his will that he did not climb down the cross, despite the taunt.

Your argument is without basis, it's silly to think that nailing Jesus up made anybody--then or now--feel better about their sins. What a crock, do they teach that in your church? And you believe it?

Of course it makes me feel better to know that, no matter how horrible I have been, I'm still within the bounds of grace and forgiveness. Now, it is simply a matter of admitting my failings -- an immensely easier exercise under the circumstances.

In fact, dr who just told me what I think is irrelevant. Somehow, I needed an anonymous person on-line to remind of it.

No, not at all, but you are saying then that the Bible is wrong when it attributes the atrocities to God, HEY!, we agree on something.

And what stupid logic led you to believe that, eh?

How can god be responsible for the actions of individuals imbued with FREE WILL?

Does god's foreknowledge of your action make him responsible?

Hmmmm.

The Bible is blasphemous when it says that God did all those insane cruel things, He didn't, men did.

Correct.

Therefore, the bible isn't blasphemous.

Duh?

All the more reason that those things should be taken out of the Bible and out of the story of Jesus because the stories are false.

Nope.

An education on basic facts and logic is enough.

If God is the epitome of love then He is beyond our comprehension, isn't He?
Or are you claiming to be able to encompass the totality of God's Goodness?

That is why they're called MYSTERIES.

You are supposed to be contemplating on these mysteries while praying forumla prayer (in catholicism, that's the mind-numbing rosary -- every school day for 11 years in my case), either joyful, sorrowful or glorious mysteries, depending on the day.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

So, you do not accept the universal nature of the universal declaration of human rights? Is it not coincident to the teachings of jesus -- the very teachings js mills described as the epitome of utilitarianism?

Please, defend the indefensible. It is your credibility on the line, after all. Oh and I don't shout. When facts and logic are overwhelmingly on one's side, one need not shout.

Well, by golly, I guess I understand why you shout so much now.

When your "universal" declaration is truly universal and not exclusive to only humans, then I'll consider it. We need a concept of ethics that includes all life not just our own. Part of the reason that I disagree with the current practice of Christianity is that it's divisive, it puts man and God on one side of the line and all the rest of Creation on the other side. Humans need to have a wider perspective on the value of life.

 

[numinus]

Well, by golly, I guess I understand why you shout so much now.

LMAO.

Did you honestly think you have provided any rational argument?

Or that you can actually hear an on-line shout?

Duh?

When your "universal" declaration is truly universal and not exclusive to only humans, then I'll consider it. We need a concept of ethics that includes all life not just our own. Part of the reason that I disagree with the current practice of Christianity is that it's divisive, it puts man and God on one side of the line and all the rest of Creation on the other side. Humans need to have a wider perspective on the value of life.

Like this one right here.

A declaration of the rights of fungi to happily exist and torment humans?

What can anyone really say?

Duh?