Let’s chat about the atheist religion.

[Age]

I already have.
If you don't like my definition then give me another one and we can talk about it.
Until then there is nothing else to talk about.

i.e. put up or shut up.

This will be the FOURTH TIME I have "put up" a definition. Seriously what is going on here?

'atheist'; a person who disbelieves, or lacks belief, in the existence of God or gods.

Yet you criticise my definition, which you seem to have copied.

If that is really what it seems to you, then so be it. I still wonder why it took you four times to see it?

Anyway, I have already explained how and why your definition does not fit in with others people's definition of the word 'atheist'. If you can not see the subtle differences, not even the obvious ones, then that is okay with me.

I have already asked you clarify some questions, which you have not, but if you say that you do not believe anything at all, then that means you are OPEN the fact that God could actually exist after all.

[Sculptor]

This will be the FOURTH TIME I have "put up" a definition. Seriously what is going on here?

'atheist'; a person who disbelieves, or lacks belief, in the existence of God or gods.

Yet you criticise my definition, which you seem to have copied.

If that is really what it seems to you, then so be it. I still wonder why it took you four times to see it?

Anyway, I have already explained how and why your definition does not fit in with others people's definition of the word 'atheist'. If you can not see the subtle differences, not even the obvious ones, then that is okay with me.

I have already asked you clarify some questions, which you have not, but if you say that you do not believe anything at all, then that means you are OPEN the fact that God could actually exist after all.

You are a cracked pot.

[Age]

Yet you criticise my definition, which you seem to have copied.

If that is really what it seems to you, then so be it. I still wonder why it took you four times to see it?

Anyway, I have already explained how and why your definition does not fit in with others people's definition of the word 'atheist'. If you can not see the subtle differences, nor even the obvious ones, then that is okay with me.

I have already asked you clarify some questions, which you have not answered, but if you say that you do not believe anything at all, then that means you are OPEN to the fact that God could actually exist after all.

You are a cracked pot.

This is just yet another attempt and another example of your diversionary tactics.

If you can not and will not answer my very simple clarifying questions, then that is okay with me. But your attempts at deflecting are not very successful.

Either you believe some things are true, and therefore you are not an atheist at all, from your definition of the word 'atheist', or, there is absolutely nothing at all that you believe is true, in which case you are OPEN to the fact that God existing could actually be absolutely true. So, which one is it?

Or, will you just attempt to deflect once more?

[Sculptor]

If that is really what it seems to you, then so be it. I still wonder why it took you four times to see it?

Anyway, I have already explained how and why your definition does not fit in with others people's definition of the word 'atheist'. If you can not see the subtle differences, nor even the obvious ones, then that is okay with me.

I have already asked you clarify some questions, which you have not answered, but if you say that you do not believe anything at all, then that means you are OPEN to the fact that God could actually exist after all.

You are a cracked pot.

Either you believe some things are true, and therefore you are not an atheist at all, from your definition of the word 'atheist', or, there is absolutely nothing at all that you believe is true, in which case you are OPEN to the fact that God existing could actually be absolutely true. So, which one is it?

I'll tell you which one it is: you are a cracked pot.
I could perfectly well believe in anything I like, except god and STILL be an atheist.
It's this point where, what little cognition you have, seems to break down.

For example I believe you are a cracked pot.
I have no belief in god.
I am an atheist.

[Dontaskme]

...

Forgive me for not responding more directly to your points -- of course there are areas I have agreement, but I'm up briefly in the middle of the night and I'm tired. I just feel inspired to respond as follows...

I am suggesting that people have a responsibility for their own education, and clarity and scope of thinking, and for what they "teach" or impart on others. If we do not thoughtfully consider that, and respect other people's attention and time, then we are just blathering for our own self-absorption and ego. I'm suggesting purposeful engagement with others, as opposed to just talking at people. Philosophical discussions are a perfect place to practice and enhance that. People who only want to grandstand about their own ideas/opinions, aren't really exploring anything broader or new.

Thanks for responding.

I'm personally not here to teach or preach or impose any of what is my own unique direct experience on any one else. I'm here reporting my experiences because it's something I like to do with my time, and I also like the the fact that this forum is an available platform where I can practice putting into words what is only ever my own unique direct experience of what I believe is the nature of reality.

I have no interest as to whether what I write has any views or comments. That is not why I am here. I'm here only for the purpose of my own self inquiry into the nature of reality which I consider to be Nondual. If other readers find any value in what they read then that to me is part of their own personal journey of self inquiry. I also welcome any harsh criticism and challenge, but do not feel a desire to change my own self bias seeing in favor of someone else's way of seeing, nor do I ever doubt that I could be wrong because someone else is right. That's not why I am here.

I have no interest in breaching the paths taken by others for I believe we're all on our own intentional journey and always right where we should be at every step of the way on the personal individual quest of self discovery which also includes the questionable inquiry into the nature of reality itself. After all, philosophers are to my understanding all about self discovery which is being your own scientist from your own direct experience and not being swayed by opinion that is in direct opposistion to your own which can only serve as being counter intuitive to your own knowledge.

Some here have even suggested that I personally have a very weak delivery system of putting my knowledge across to others. But that does not bother me one iota as I believe knowledge of truth is to be found beyond the intellect of concepts or high sounding words which to me just deviate away from what's actually real and true anyway.


So for me personally, the only valuable thing that I have learnt in my life was the Nondual nature of reality which is pure oneness. And that everything else is just a temporal appearance, here today, gone tommorow, just a pie in the sky fictional story. So for me personally, there is nothing new to discover or learn anymore. Now, that might seem absurd to many who believe there is always more to learn and know. But for me, all I have learnt is that everything is nothing, and nothing is everything, and that's totally enough for me, and is mostly what I talk about here, which I enjoy doing.

We're all doing different dances here.

Agreed, the paths are many, and yet the destination is the same for all of us. Which is to find the truth. And the truth is within all of us because we are it.

Rather than just a stage on which everyone does their individual bit, there's an opportunity for meaningful exploration that balances and broadens ideas. I can see agreement with things that a lot of people say here, but their egos are unapproachable and uncooperative -- and their rigid, well-rehearsed and protected scripts do not allow any other potential.

But people can only know what they know so far. There is always room for expansion if one is open, but I agree trying to communicate with someone who is a closed mind is futile. The mind is a curious entity which has an insatiable tendency to want to know more and more. But in my opinion all knowledge is just a fictional story arising from nothing and returning to the same nothing, and that knowledge is what makes up the human story, and the story is what the mind craves, for what can it do with nothing?
Now that's all I've come to realise in my journey and so that's all I'm doing here is putting that personal vision across. Whether others agree with it or not does not interest me, for we can only know what we know.

It's like drowning in their babble... rather than taking a nice swim with them. So then maybe I feel compelled to splash them in the face. How can any single view be correct or representative for all -- and yet, so many people insist theirs must be? Why... who cares... and what difference does it make? We're alive for a short while amidst all of these stories (take-your-pick), and then we're gone. All that we thought... all of our judgments and ideas... (most likely) no longer exist/matter beyond the human brain and physical realm. So where is the real value to be found? If it's not about what we say and think, could it be in how much we connect to while we're able to? And... (bringing this full circle) in connection, isn't there responsibility? There's more than just individual expression.

Of course there is more than just individual expression, there is multiple individual expressions, and to me they are all as valid as one another simply because they all originate and manifest from the same ground of being. That ground is the ground of consciousness or beingness or oneness, or nonduality, just different words for the same thing.

.

[Sculptor]

...

Forgive me for not responding more directly to your points -- of course there are areas I have agreement, but I'm up briefly in the middle of the night and I'm tired. I just feel inspired to respond as follows...

I am suggesting that people have a responsibility for their own education, and clarity and scope of thinking, and for what they "teach" or impart on others. If we do not thoughtfully consider that, and respect other people's attention and time, then we are just blathering for our own self-absorption and ego. I'm suggesting purposeful engagement with others, as opposed to just talking at people. Philosophical discussions are a perfect place to practice and enhance that. People who only want to grandstand about their own ideas/opinions, aren't really exploring anything broader or new.

Thanks for responding.

I'm personally not here to teach or preach or impose any of what is my own unique direct experience on any one else.

Funny you should say that since you seem to be trying to do just that.

[Dontaskme]

Funny you should say that since you seem to be trying to do just that.

''Do or do not. There is no try only do.

There is no doer of a deed
Or one who reaps the deed’s result;
Phenomena alone flow on—
No other view than this is right.''


“I am a finger pointing to the moon. Don’t look at me; look at the moon.”

[Sculptor]

Funny you should say that since you seem to be trying to do just that.

''Do or do not. There is no try only do.

There is no doer of a deed
Or one who reaps the deed’s result;
Phenomena alone flow on—
No other view than this is right.''


“I am a finger pointing to the moon. Don’t look at me; look at the moon.”

Are you feeling okay?

There definitely is trying. You are very trying.

[Dontaskme]

Let’s chat about the atheist religion.

Believers in the mainstream god religions often denigrate and discriminate against atheists, non-believers and rival religions on moral grounds. Godless mean without a moral sense to them.

God can only exist in it's concept, as it is conceived mentally as a word. No word ever created itself, in that there is no God in the word God who created itself..just as there is no Person in the word Person, so words in effect are made of no thing, they are just pure emptiness. No one ever really thinks about that, people just believe the words to be real things in and of themselves. They are not any thing at all.

There is no such thing as a non-believer, because the very concept implies there is a ''believer'' but only as the word dictates which is empty, so ANY word is nought but a self conceiving illusion, known only to another illusion which is consciousness, and so that which is known, can NEVER be un-known. So The illusion of self knowledge is real enough as it becomes conceptually known to the mind that cannot be unknown as it is known only to the mind, and not the mind of another which is just another illusion.


In other words, conceptually known knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of reality. There is no more reality in a word than there is real person in a cartoon character or a nightly dream.

''Don't be attached to my philosophy and doctrine. Attachment to any religion is simply another form of mental illusory affliction.''

In other words affliction is to be in opposition to your naturally unborn state which is pure awareness . Only the mind is born, not you.

.

[Dontaskme]

Funny you should say that since you seem to be trying to do just that.

''Do or do not. There is no try only do.

There is no doer of a deed
Or one who reaps the deed’s result;
Phenomena alone flow on—
No other view than this is right.''


“I am a finger pointing to the moon. Don’t look at me; look at the moon.”

Are you feeling okay?

There definitely is trying. You are very trying.

I'm feeling just fine.

Do you believe I'm trying?

If you do, then I don't believe that belief. I don't believe that doingness has to try to do, as I already know that doing does without ever trying, and that trying belongs to the world of illusory dualities, where there is the false believed story that there is a personal doer. In reality though, all action is one unitary action. Just like spilt milk doesn't try to spill itself, rather, the action of spilt milk is only ever one unitary action in the instantaneous moment.
Actions cannot undo themselves without using a time machine in the false hope of con trolling by falsely manipulating the action into a different outcome. But we all know that that's impossible.

I believe there is doing, but I have no idea who or what is doing except what I assume as make believe. Now I can go along with the make believe of an assumed doer, or I can just enjoy being the action of doerless doing, which is what is happening here, which I have already explained earlier, and so it's not my fault if you don't want to believe what is actually happening here. You can believe what ever you want, I have no problem, so all I can say is that I'm sorry that my personal beliefs are of a concern to you, but honestly, you don't have to be concerned for me, I'm perfectly fine here.

.

[Greatest I am]

Let’s chat about the atheist religion.

Believers in the mainstream god religions often denigrate and discriminate against atheists, non-believers and rival religions on moral grounds. Godless mean without a moral sense to them.

God can only exist in it's concept, as it is conceived mentally as a word. No word ever created itself, in that there is no God in the word God who created itself..just as there is no Person in the word Person, so words in effect are made of no thing, they are just pure emptiness. No one ever really thinks about that, people just believe the words to be real things in and of themselves. They are not any thing at all.

There is no such thing as a non-believer, because the very concept implies there is a ''believer'' but only as the word dictates which is empty, so ANY word is nought but a self conceiving illusion, known only to another illusion which is consciousness, and so that which is known, can NEVER be un-known. So The illusion of self knowledge is real enough as it becomes conceptually known to the mind that cannot be unknown as it is known only to the mind, and not the mind of another which is just another illusion.


In other words, conceptually known knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of reality. There is no more reality in a word than there is real person in a cartoon character or a nightly dream.

''Don't be attached to my philosophy and doctrine. Attachment to any religion is simply another form of mental illusory affliction.''

In other words affliction is to be in opposition to your naturally unborn state which is pure awareness . Only the mind is born, not you.

.

I understand what you are saying but do not agree.

Even babies have been shown to follow guidelines given by their instincts and DNA.

They default to cooperation and not competition and although not verbal, it can be said that they follow an ideology.

Since following an ideology is a prerequisite of religion, atheism can be considered a religion, since atheists draws on philosophical ideologies to guide ideas, behaviors, and actions, like that of any religion. That is why atheist churches are called atheist churches.

We are all born with the capability and desire to do evil to a loser when we choose to compete, and in that sense, we are all born sinners. I do not use sinner thought and say we are all born able and willing to do evil when we compete.

Regards.
DL

[Dontaskme]

Let’s chat about the atheist religion.

Believers in the mainstream god religions often denigrate and discriminate against atheists, non-believers and rival religions on moral grounds. Godless mean without a moral sense to them.

God can only exist in it's concept, as it is conceived mentally as a word. No word ever created itself, in that there is no God in the word God who created itself..just as there is no Person in the word Person, so words in effect are made of no thing, they are just pure emptiness. No one ever really thinks about that, people just believe the words to be real things in and of themselves. They are not any thing at all.

There is no such thing as a non-believer, because the very concept implies there is a ''believer'' but only as the word dictates which is empty, so ANY word is nought but a self conceiving illusion, known only to another illusion which is consciousness, and so that which is known, can NEVER be un-known. So The illusion of self knowledge is real enough as it becomes conceptually known to the mind that cannot be unknown as it is known only to the mind, and not the mind of another which is just another illusion.


In other words, conceptually known knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of reality. There is no more reality in a word than there is real person in a cartoon character or a nightly dream.

''Don't be attached to my philosophy and doctrine. Attachment to any religion is simply another form of mental illusory affliction.''

In other words affliction is to be in opposition to your naturally unborn state which is pure awareness . Only the mind is born, not you.

.

I understand what you are saying but do not agree.

Even babies have been shown to follow guidelines given by their instincts and DNA.

They default to cooperation and not competition and although not verbal, it can be said that they follow an ideology.

Since following an ideology is a prerequisite of religion, atheism can be considered a religion, since atheists draws on philosophical ideologies to guide ideas, behaviors, and actions, like that of any religion. That is why atheist churches are called atheist churches.

We are all born with the capability and desire to do evil to a loser when we choose to compete, and in that sense, we are all born sinners. I do not use sinner thought and say we are all born able and willing to do evil when we compete.

Regards.
DL

I understand what you are saying but do not agree.

DNA instinctive behaviour is a programme that no one ever wrote, or followed, or lived by via cooperation except in this artificial conception, for there is not-a-thing running the multiple programmes of life or aware the programmes are running. In other words, there is no one running the show, for there is no author or named one who stakes their claim or has copyright, except in this artificial conception. AKA within the dream of separation, within the story / message of ''I'', including my story, for all stories are a fictional idea thought and believed to be real by no one. As God said in the bible. I am the Word And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us…In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The “Word of life” combines the two truths that (Christ Jesus) is Himself life and that He imparts it, as the life (John 14:6), He is the personal expression of what God is, the interpreter of His nature (cp. John 1:18); but, as He also Himself said, He came that they might have life (John 10:10). Jesus is the ultimate divine revelation. He was distinct from the Father, a separate Person in the Godhead, yet one with the Father in essence.


All known actions whether they be evil or good are programmes known by consciousness the only knowing there is, which is this immediate not-knowing knowing one with itself, the only self. All known concepts are therefore appearances in and of the nothingness in which they manifest -The true SELF...or God.



When it comes to God, one cap fits all, and if the shoe fits, then that too is worn by all.

No other one competes with God, for there is no other God than God.


.

[Age]

You are a cracked pot.

Either you believe some things are true, and therefore you are not an atheist at all, from your definition of the word 'atheist', or, there is absolutely nothing at all that you believe is true, in which case you are OPEN to the fact that God existing could actually be absolutely true. So, which one is it?

I'll tell you which one it is: you are a cracked pot.
I could perfectly well believe in anything I like, except god and STILL be an atheist.

Finally we got to this stage, only a few more to go. Now, do you actually remember that it was 'you', "sculpture1", who was the one who said, "To be an 'atheist' entails no beliefs"?

If yes, then great.

Now, to you, can one believe that God does not exist and STILL be a so called "atheist"?

If yes, then also great?

It's this point where, what little cognition you have, seems to break down.

If what you have been saying here was not so self-contradictory, then there would not be any need for the clarifying questions being posed to you. Also, when you answer the actual clarifying questions posed to you, then they will not be asked again.

For example I believe you are a cracked pot.

But what you believe is true here has NO bearing whatsoever on what thee actual Truth IS, nor even on what we have been discussing here. So, believe whatever you want. Your beliefs have NO effect on me whatsoever.

I have no belief in god.
I am an atheist.

I have asked you before to clarify what does the phrase, "I have no belief in God", actually mean? Does it mean that you believe that God does not exist, or, does it just mean that you have NO beliefs in relation to God at all?

I, once again, patiently await you Honest answer.

If someone said to you that they "have no belief in unicorn", then what would that mean to you?

If you are completely incapable of just clarifying, like you have been, then so be it. I accept this. If you stop responding I also accept this, but continuing to reply without answering the actual clarifying questions posed to you, then some see that as being very deflecting and/or devious behavior.

So, until you answer the actual questions posed to you, then you are only fooling and deceiving you here. You are certainly NOT fooling nor deceiving Me at all.

[Greatest I am]

God can only exist in it's concept, as it is conceived mentally as a word. No word ever created itself, in that there is no God in the word God who created itself..just as there is no Person in the word Person, so words in effect are made of no thing, they are just pure emptiness. No one ever really thinks about that, people just believe the words to be real things in and of themselves. They are not any thing at all.

There is no such thing as a non-believer, because the very concept implies there is a ''believer'' but only as the word dictates which is empty, so ANY word is nought but a self conceiving illusion, known only to another illusion which is consciousness, and so that which is known, can NEVER be un-known. So The illusion of self knowledge is real enough as it becomes conceptually known to the mind that cannot be unknown as it is known only to the mind, and not the mind of another which is just another illusion.


In other words, conceptually known knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of reality. There is no more reality in a word than there is real person in a cartoon character or a nightly dream.

''Don't be attached to my philosophy and doctrine. Attachment to any religion is simply another form of mental illusory affliction.''

In other words affliction is to be in opposition to your naturally unborn state which is pure awareness . Only the mind is born, not you.

.

I understand what you are saying but do not agree.

Even babies have been shown to follow guidelines given by their instincts and DNA.

They default to cooperation and not competition and although not verbal, it can be said that they follow an ideology.

Since following an ideology is a prerequisite of religion, atheism can be considered a religion, since atheists draws on philosophical ideologies to guide ideas, behaviors, and actions, like that of any religion. That is why atheist churches are called atheist churches.

We are all born with the capability and desire to do evil to a loser when we choose to compete, and in that sense, we are all born sinners. I do not use sinner thought and say we are all born able and willing to do evil when we compete.

Regards.
DL

I understand what you are saying but do not agree.

DNA instinctive behaviour is a programme that no one ever wrote, or followed, or lived by via cooperation except in this artificial conception, for there is not-a-thing running the multiple programmes of life or aware the programmes are running. In other words, there is no one running the show, for there is no author or named one who stakes their claim or has copyright, except in this artificial conception. AKA within the dream of separation, within the story / message of ''I'', including my story, for all stories are a fictional idea thought and believed to be real by no one. As God said in the bible. I am the Word And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us…In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The “Word of life” combines the two truths that (Christ Jesus) is Himself life and that He imparts it, as the life (John 14:6), He is the personal expression of what God is, the interpreter of His nature (cp. John 1:18); but, as He also Himself said, He came that they might have life (John 10:10). Jesus is the ultimate divine revelation. He was distinct from the Father, a separate Person in the Godhead, yet one with the Father in essence.


All known actions whether they be evil or good are programmes known by consciousness the only knowing there is, which is this immediate not-knowing knowing one with itself, the only self. All known concepts are therefore appearances in and of the nothingness in which they manifest -The true SELF...or God.



When it comes to God, one cap fits all, and if the shoe fits, then that too is worn by all.

No other one competes with God, for there is no other God than God.


.

If you think no one follows their instinct, who teaches a baby to suckle?

As to your genocidal god, would you take advice from a less evil Hitler?

As to your view of the sacrifice of Jesus, lets see what kind of moral sense your genocidal god has given you. Come to reason of ignore me.


On Jesus dying for you.

It takes quite an inflated ego to think a god would actually die for you, after condemning you unjustly in the first place.

You have swallowed a lie and don’t care how evil you make Jesus to keep your feel good get out of hell free card.

It is a lie, first and foremost because, like it or not, having another innocent person suffer or die for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral. To abdicate your personal responsibility for your actions or use a scapegoat is immoral.

You also have to ignore what Jesus, as a Jewish Rabbi, would have taught his people.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Psa 49;7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

There is no way that you would teach your children to use a scapegoat to escape their just punishments and here you are doing just that.

Jesus is just a smidge less immoral than his demiurge genocidal father, and here you are trying to put him as low in moral fibre as Yahweh.
Regards
DL

[Dontaskme]

I understand what you are saying but do not agree.

Even babies have been shown to follow guidelines given by their instincts and DNA.

They default to cooperation and not competition and although not verbal, it can be said that they follow an ideology.

Since following an ideology is a prerequisite of religion, atheism can be considered a religion, since atheists draws on philosophical ideologies to guide ideas, behaviors, and actions, like that of any religion. That is why atheist churches are called atheist churches.

We are all born with the capability and desire to do evil to a loser when we choose to compete, and in that sense, we are all born sinners. I do not use sinner thought and say we are all born able and willing to do evil when we compete.

Regards.
DL

I understand what you are saying but do not agree.

DNA instinctive behaviour is a programme that no one ever wrote, or followed, or lived by via cooperation except in this artificial conception, for there is not-a-thing running the multiple programmes of life or aware the programmes are running. In other words, there is no one running the show, for there is no author or named one who stakes their claim or has copyright, except in this artificial conception. AKA within the dream of separation, within the story / message of ''I'', including my story, for all stories are a fictional idea thought and believed to be real by no one. As God said in the bible. I am the Word And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us…In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The “Word of life” combines the two truths that (Christ Jesus) is Himself life and that He imparts it, as the life (John 14:6), He is the personal expression of what God is, the interpreter of His nature (cp. John 1:18); but, as He also Himself said, He came that they might have life (John 10:10). Jesus is the ultimate divine revelation. He was distinct from the Father, a separate Person in the Godhead, yet one with the Father in essence.


All known actions whether they be evil or good are programmes known by consciousness the only knowing there is, which is this immediate not-knowing knowing one with itself, the only self. All known concepts are therefore appearances in and of the nothingness in which they manifest -The true SELF...or God.



When it comes to God, one cap fits all, and if the shoe fits, then that too is worn by all.

No other one competes with God, for there is no other God than God.


.

If you think no one follows their instinct, who teaches a baby to suckle?

As to your genocidal god, would you take advice from a less evil Hitler?

As to your view of the sacrifice of Jesus, lets see what kind of moral sense your genocidal god has given you. Come to reason of ignore me.


On Jesus dying for you.

It takes quite an inflated ego to think a god would actually die for you, after condemning you unjustly in the first place.

You have swallowed a lie and don’t care how evil you make Jesus to keep your feel good get out of hell free card.

It is a lie, first and foremost because, like it or not, having another innocent person suffer or die for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral. To abdicate your personal responsibility for your actions or use a scapegoat is immoral.

You also have to ignore what Jesus, as a Jewish Rabbi, would have taught his people.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Psa 49;7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

There is no way that you would teach your children to use a scapegoat to escape their just punishments and here you are doing just that.

Jesus is just a smidge less immoral than his demiurge genocidal father, and here you are trying to put him as low in moral fibre as Yahweh.
Regards
DL

I've actually got no idea what you are taking about.

The God of your own understanding is in no way the God of my understanding. I see the God of my understanding as being nothing and everything, no concept at all and yet appearing as every concept, it's really that simple for me.

In fact, your response sounds as though your mind is caught up in some kind of self inflicted hellish reality which you believe to be real. In my reality, I don't think your way.

Seriously, I would never associate with thoughts such as yours, and is why I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about not only in regards to what you think I mean by what I'm saying, but in what you are saying to me as well. I think we're both identifying with totally different and conflicting thought streams here.

And that's all I can say to you in response.

As for the question of 'who': '' If you think no one follows their instinct, who teaches a baby to suckle?''

The 'who' is I don't know, and I don't have to know, because the knowing has always been here prior to my knowledge. I simply cannot know the answer, because I am the answer.