God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.

[Greatest I am]

God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott1...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqP_f...eature=related

I think that the notion that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty perpetrator is immoral. Be it a willing sacrifice as some believe with Jesus or unwilling victim.

I also think that God, who has a plethora of other options, would have come up with a moral way instead of an immoral and barbaric human sacrifice.

I agree with scriptures say that we are all responsible for our own righteousness as well as our own iniquity and that God cannot be bribed by sacrifice.

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.

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

I believe as I do because I believe that the first rule of morality is harm/care of children.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

Do you agree that the notion of substitutionary atonement is immoral and that God’s first principle of morality is hare/harm and that this would prevent him from demanding the death of his son?

Regards
DL

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I think that the notion that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty perpetrator is immoral. Be it a willing sacrifice as some believe with Jesus or unwilling victim.

Funny you should mention that, since I just posted the same thing five minutes ago in a Facebook conversation. The conversation went like this:

Richard Amiel McGough
I have no problem with the idea of "justification by faith" but rather the way that "faith" is linked to believing dogmas about the sacrifice of Christ, and worse, the idea that an angry God needed to be "propitiated" before he could forgive. I can forgive every day without killing a sacrificial victim. Am I greater than God? It seems to be a primitive concept of morality where the scales had to be balanced. Someone had to pay for the crime. I find that concept unbelievable.

Gerald Peter Wensveen
Richard, you said, "Someone had to pay for the crime. I find that concept unbelievable." Why? Everyday in courthouses people are paying for the crimes they committed. "If you do the crime you pay the fine or do the time. What is so unbelievable or inappropriate about that? Richard, if somone murders your wife in cold blood would you just instantaneously forgive the murderer and tell the judge to let the murderer of your wife go scott free? Ofcourse not. So what's to beef about when Christ paid our fine and did our time so that we could be forgiven and go free?

Richard Amiel McGough
Gerald, your question backfires on the Gospel. Christians don't have to pay for the crimes they commit. They merely repent and they are forgiven. If a man raped your wife and said he was sorry, would you just let him off? But is that not what God does? The Gospel therefore appears to contradict the idea of justice.

I love synchronicity.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott1...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqP_f...eature=related

I think that the notion that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty perpetrator is immoral. Be it a willing sacrifice as some believe with Jesus or unwilling victim.

I also think that God, who has a plethora of other options, would have come up with a moral way instead of an immoral and barbaric human sacrifice.

I agree with scriptures say that we are all responsible for our own righteousness as well as our own iniquity and that God cannot be bribed by sacrifice.

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.

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

I believe as I do because I believe that the first rule of morality is harm/care of children.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

Do you agree that the notion of substitutionary atonement is immoral and that God's first principle of morality is hare/harm and that this would prevent him from demanding the death of his son?

Regards
DL

Great videos DL!

I agree with everything you wrote. The third video is particularly enlightening because it shows that there is no logical, philosophical, theological, or moral justification for the idea that someone had to be tortured to death in order for God to forgive sin.

[MELCHEZEDIC]

The plan of God for man, is seriously misunderstood. The issue's surrounding the redemptive process, and the purpose behind the issue's are about to be made abundantly clear. The promise of the Father is, that in the end the work and will of God would be so plain, that a fool shall not error.That we would plainly see them who did the will of God, and them who did not. The very notion that a loving and caring God, would not at some time make his purpose's and plans openly and completely understood, only goes to show the lack of faith currently present in the last days housholds of faith. The love of many will have become cold, that there would be a great falling away from the faith, and that there would be a great deception. Any premise related to God must first begin with the fact that he is the Elohim of all eternity, the all knowing God. This is to say, that he has always known the beginning from the end, and the end from the beginning. This is true in the garden of Eden, the creation of the Angelic beings who are the host in heaven, and eveyrthing that would happen as a result of all that he has ever created. There is literally nothing that God did know would take place and has intended it to be as it is, from the beginning to the end. Much of what many of you believe to be rediculous, or hard to understand, is just the cover to keep unregenerated man from entering back into the garden. Weather you agree with it or not, the God of heaven and earth has the right to do whatever it is he deems to be of importance to achieve his purposes. He's got no one to explain anything to. Fortunately for us, God is love and spirit.
Before we start at the beginning of the creation, and the story we have been told concerning that creation, I want to make it clear from the start, that I am but one of the many stones that are about to appear, to draw you back to God, and to gather his wheat into his barn / banquet hall / ark. Since many of you seem to be big on using your skills of reason and intellectual insight, let us all come together, to reason with each other. Does it seem reasonable to you, that an all knowing God, would not have known what lucifers reaction to playing second fiddle to man, after man had been placed above the Angels in heaven, which has been God's plan for man from the beginning, and the reason for lucifers rebellion. For a little while, have I created you to be beneath the Angels in heaven, but in the end, you shall rule over the Angels in heaven. This is Gods promise to man. The men and women he choose's among us, to hold this position is ofcourse his right to decide. That at some point in the very near future that what he has said will come to be, is of a truth. The idea that God who created lucifer, and all of the Angelic beings in heaven, would not know what the creation of free will would cause, in man and in the host of heaven, is to me very short sighted for a all knowing God. This being what it must be, let us go on to begin to understand the truth concerning the work and will of God, creation and man. In case some of you are having a hard time keeping up, let me explain that prior to the creation of free will, which was God's answer to lucifers accusation before the throne of God. If the Angels were not created to bid his every word, they would not serve him willingly. Being the highest ranked Angel in heaven at the time of the creation of man, lucifer was made aware of Gods plan to place man over the rule of the Angels in heaven. This would of course include him. Doesn't it seem a little odd to you, that Angels who were previously ruled by the bidding of God, all of a sudden rebelled. Where did the ability to chose come from ?. They who had no choice, now seemingly have a choice. What you lose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven, what you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven. God is the creator of all things, he created evil and good, night and day, the sun, the moon and the stars. Nothing has been created that God did not create.
The righteousness of God, demanded that he allow all his creation to choose the way they would go, knowing ahead of time, all that would take place as a result. It has all, always been his plan from the beginning. Free will was created for the purpose of revealing what was in the heart of all of his created beings. As the highest ranked Angel in heaven, who above all other Angels, was Gods right hand man, the idea of God creating man to rule over him, was more then he could take. His pride brought him down, as it does for many of us. Pride cometh before a FALL. God knew what lucifer would do, he made his plan depending on his foreknowledge of exactly what lucifer would do. Just as he knows that not all men shall be saved, he also knew that there would be Angels in heaven who would willing serve him. We Will continue later if you so chose. There seems to be a limit to my post, what ever the problem is, what you have been given so far, should give you a bit to chew on for awhile.

[David M]

The plan of God for man, is seriously misunderstood. The issue's surrounding the redemptive process, and the purpose behind the issue's are about to be made abundantly clear. The promise of the Father is, that in the end the work and will of God would be so plain, that a fool shall not error.That we would plainly see them who did the will of God, and them who did not. The very notion that a loving and caring God, would not at some time make his purpose's and plans openly and completely understood, only goes to show the lack of faith currently present in the last days housholds of faith. The love of many will have become cold, that there would be a great falling away from the faith, and that there would be a great deception. Any premise related to God must first begin with the fact that he is the Elohim of all eternity, the all knowing God. This is to say, that he has always known the beginning from the end, and the end from the beginning. This is true in the garden of Eden, the creation of the Angelic beings who are the host in heaven, and eveyrthing that would happen as a result of all that he has ever created. There is literally nothing that God did know would take place and has intended it to be as it is, from the beginning to the end. Much of what many of you believe to be rediculous, or hard to understand, is just the cover to keep unregenerated man from entering back into the garden. Weather you agree with it or not, the God of heaven and earth has the right to do whatever it is he deems to be of importance to achieve his purposes. He's got no one to explain anything to. Fortunately for us, God is love and spirit.
Before we start at the beginning of the creation, and the story we have been told concerning that creation, I want to make it clear from the start, that I am but one of the many stones that are about to appear, to draw you back to God, and to gather his wheat into his barn / banquet hall / ark. Since many of you seem to be big on using your skills of reason and intellectual insight, let us all come together, to reason with each other. Does it seem reasonable to you, that an all knowing God, would not have known what lucifers reaction to playing second fiddle to man, after man had been placed above the Angels in heaven, which has been God's plan for man from the beginning, and the reason for lucifers rebellion. For a little while, have I created you to be beneath the Angels in heaven, but in the end, you shall rule over the Angels in heaven. This is Gods promise to man. The men and women he choose's among us, to hold this position is ofcourse his right to decide. That at some point in the very near future that what he has said will come to be, is of a truth. The idea that God who created lucifer, and all of the Angelic beings in heaven, would not know what the creation of free will would cause, in man and in the host of heaven, is to me very short sighted for a all knowing God. This being what it must be, let us go on to begin to understand the truth concerning the work and will of God, creation and man. In case some of you are having a hard time keeping up, let me explain that prior to the creation of free will, which was God's answer to lucifers accusation before the throne of God. If the Angels were not created to bid his every word, they would not serve him willingly. Being the highest ranked Angel in heaven at the time of the creation of man, lucifer was made aware of Gods plan to place man over the rule of the Angels in heaven. This would of course include him. Doesn't it seem a little odd to you, that Angels who were previously ruled by the bidding of God, all of a sudden rebelled. Where did the ability to chose come from ?. They who had no choice, now seemingly have a choice. What you lose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven, what you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven. God is the creator of all things, he created evil and good, night and day, the sun, the moon and the stars. Nothing has been created that God did not create.
The righteousness of God, demanded that he allow all his creation to choose the way they would go, knowing ahead of time, all that would take place as a result. It has all, always been his plan from the beginning. Free will was created for the purpose of revealing what was in the heart of all of his created beings. As the highest ranked Angel in heaven, who above all other Angels, was Gods right hand man, the idea of God creating man to rule over him, was more then he could take. His pride brought him down, as it does for many of us. Pride cometh before a FALL. God knew what lucifer would do, he made his plan depending on his foreknowledge of exactly what lucifer would do. Just as he knows that not all men shall be saved, he also knew that there would be Angels in heaven who would willing serve him. We Will continue later if you so chose. There seems to be a limit to my post, what ever the problem is, what you have been given so far, should give you a bit to chew on for awhile.

Hello MELCHEZEDIC

Just one tip; please break up your text into smaller paragraphs and introduce more spaces. This makes reading long posts easier and to reply to. I see this is your first post to the forum, and so let me be the first to say;welcome to the forum.

I agree with your opening statement, but I disagree with your references to Lucifer as highlighted in red above and what else you attribute to Lucifer as a fallen Angel. Where did you come by your doctrine?

Lucifer is only ever mentioned once by name in the Bible;
Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

In the context of verse 4 of the same chapter;That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon,

Your assumption that Lucifer is a (fallen) Angel of God is wrong. The name of Lucifer might have other pagan associations but in the context of the chapter, Lucifer is identified as the King of Babylon.

You will gather from other threads in which I have posted replies, Satan as a fallen Angel of God is an un-scriptural doctrine, which I expose as such, whenever I find Satan used in the context of a fallen Angel. Angels do the will of God. It is therefore a paradox that has to be explained by you if you say that God's Angels can sin. God's Angels should not be confused with "angels" as in Jude 6 in which the word "angel" applies to men and women. Angels and can be priests, ministers, apostles and anyone who carries God's message as a messenger which is what the word angel means.

Jesus was born a man, he was not God. God gave Jesus full access to His power (the Holy Spirit). Jesus was of flesh and blood, he did not have an incorruptible (spirit body) that the Angels had. In this way, we can see that Jesus did not have the same nature as Angels until after he was resurrected. Jesus was raised to life at the resurrection and given an incorruptible body that can never die. Jesus has now been elevated in status to that which is higher than the Angels and the same body that Jesus has now will be given to those who are raised from the dead and judged worthy to be with Christ in the Kingdom.

It is not in the nature of Angels to rebel. You are placing on Angels human attributes. Jesus said that God's will is done in Heaven. We can conclude that God's Angels do His will in Heaven. Angels are sent from Heaven to do His will. You must alter your line of thinking concerning God's Angels to avoid creating this paradox. I accept the teaching of God and His only begotten Son and not men.

All the best,

David

[Greatest I am]

Great videos DL!

I agree with everything you wrote. The third video is particularly enlightening because it shows that there is no logical, philosophical, theological, or moral justification for the idea that someone had to be tortured to death in order for God to forgive sin.

I blush. Thanks.

I agree with your vie above as well.

Now if I could only develop such eloquence. I hope I am not too old to learn.

Regards
DL

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I blush. Thanks.

I agree with your vie above as well.

Now if I could only develop such eloquence. I hope I am not too old to learn.

Regards
DL

Ah ... now I'm blushing ...

[Silence]

I was raised to believe in the penal substitution model of atonement, but over the years the verses in the bible that go contrary to that view have made me question whether man came up with that idea because he thought that God was like he is. God told Adam the punishment for sin is death. Whether the "mote ta moot" statement was delivered as a threat from an insecure deity who was afraid of disobedience wreaking havoc with His creation or was just a plain statement of fact, is another question that may be colored by man looking at it from one perspective. It is possible that the human rulers who used the "mote ta moot" decree in condemning people were doing it from a different perspective than God did in Genesis.

1 Cor 13:5 says that love "keeps no account of an evil suffered". The King James bible says "love thinks no evil", but this is a poor translation, which makes it seem to say that God does not go around dreaming up ways to do evil. The word they translate as "thinks" actually has more to do with reckoning or keeping account of actual things, not coming up with ideas. Since God is love, He cannot be keeping a legal account of sins that He needs to be paid for.

When He said that eating the fruit would cause death, He meant it. But just like on Paul Harvey's old radio show, there is sometimes "the rest of the story", whether we know it or not. Just because God told Adam that he would die if he ate of the fruit does not mean He is prevented from raising Adam back up. The accounts in Genesis 2 & 3 do not say anything about God raising people from the dead after dying for disobedience, but that doesn't mean God can't do it, or that He needs some kind of payment to be made first. Hebrews 2:2 is an interesting verse - "For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; ....". If every transgression and disobedience received a just punishment (in the Greek it says "a just payment of wages"), then what justice is there in saying that those who received their recompense then are going to receive more later on? This verse says nothing about it being a partial payment.


One of the things that makes people think that God needs sin to be paid for is the fact that Genesis 3 says God clothed Adam and Eve with the skins of animals. Again, was this for God's benefit and satisfaction or man's? Did God take out His anger by slaying the animals in order to be placated and able to tolerate coming up to Adam and Eve to put the clothes on them?

Could it be that man is the one who needs to be placated for feeling that he was "set up" to fail. That is the tone that Adam has when he says "The woman You gave to be with me gave me the fruit ....". 2 Cor. 5:19 seems to say that it is man that needs to be placated, not God - "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." It says God was reconciling the world to Himself, not that God reconciled Himself to the world. There are more instances like this, but right now I have to go and do some yard work before it gets too hot.

[Greatest I am]

Silence

Would God have been more accurate in telling A & E, not that they would die, but that he would kill them by denying them the tree of life?

Christians call Eden man's fall. Jews, who wrote those scriptures, call Eden man's elevation.

Do you think that to gain the knowledge that makes one as God, --- God's own word in this myth, ---- is a bad thing?

Regards
DL