PDA

View Full Version : For God to condemn you just to die for you is ridiculous and immoral.



Greatest I am
11-04-2012, 12:56 PM
For God to condemn you just to die for you is ridiculous and immoral.

In doing so, God would be endorsing human sacrifice and the notion that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is good justice. He would also be condoning suicide.

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:

Substitutionary atonement is immoral according to scriptures and all other holy books that I know of. I think that the guilty should be punished and not an innocent human or even a man being ridden like a mule, ---- to use common jargon, --- by a God/Jesus. This is likely the moral reason why most Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah along with the fact that Jesus did not fulfill the other Jewish requirements set by their books and myths.

People are supposed to martyr themselves for their God, not their God martyr himself for them.

Do you agree that for God to condemn you just to die for you is ridiculous and immoral?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqP_fjBkwxc&feature=related

If you believe that substitutionary atonement is moral, please provide an argument to support your position.

===============================================

There are also ample quotes in scripture that speak against God wanting any sacrifice at all and if you embrace the notion of innocent blood atonement and God setting Jesus as the ransom for sins, then please view these for the real biblical perspective.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott15j2KwQ&feature=related

Regards
DL

CWH
11-05-2012, 08:24 AM
For God to condemn you just to die for you is ridiculous and immoral.

In doing so, God would be endorsing human sacrifice and the notion that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is good justice. He would also be condoning suicide.

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:

Substitutionary atonement is immoral according to scriptures and all other holy books that I know of. I think that the guilty should be punished and not an innocent human or even a man being ridden like a mule, ---- to use common jargon, --- by a God/Jesus. This is likely the moral reason why most Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah along with the fact that Jesus did not fulfill the other Jewish requirements set by their books and myths.

People are supposed to martyr themselves for their God, not their God martyr himself for them.

Do you agree that for God to condemn you just to die for you is ridiculous and immoral?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqP_fjBkwxc&feature=related

If you believe that substitutionary atonement is moral, please provide an argument to support your position.

===============================================

There are also ample quotes in scripture that speak against God wanting any sacrifice at all and if you embrace the notion of innocent blood atonement and God setting Jesus as the ransom for sins, then please view these for the real biblical perspective.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott15j2KwQ&feature=related

Regards
DL

Jesus is considered as God; He was no ordinary human. Could a human performed miracles such as raising the dead and curing diseases instantly? it is God dying for humankind; this is oppose to Muslims dying for their God. Which is better and more moral, God sacrificing for humans or humans sacrificing for God?

Jesus Died for You
Allah wants you to die for him.

John 15:13
Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

As I have said before, death and being resurrected after 3 days is not considered as human sacrifice. What sacrifice is this if I killed a chicken to worship my ancestors and raised the chicken up alive in 3 days? It is the same as putting the chicken to sleep for 3 days. Even if someone died and was raised a few thousand years later is not considered as human sacrifice.

Thank God for dying for our sins.:pray:

Rose
11-05-2012, 09:18 AM
Jesus is considered as God; He was no ordinary human. Could a human performed miracles such as raising the dead and curing diseases instantly? it is God dying for humankind; this is oppose to Muslims dying for their God. Which is better and more moral, God sacrificing for humans or humans sacrificing for God?

Jesus Died for You
Allah wants you to die for him.

John 15:13
Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

As I have said before, death and being resurrected after 3 days is not considered as human sacrifice. What sacrifice is this if I killed a chicken to worship my ancestors and raised the chicken up alive in 3 days? It is the same as putting the chicken to sleep for 3 days. Even if someone died and was raised a few thousand years later is not considered as human sacrifice.

Thank God for dying for our sins.:pray:

Basically what you are saying is that the sacrificial death of Jesus was meaningless, because he was raised up in three days. In trying to invalidate the human sacrificial aspect of his death, you are also invalidating its meaning. It is not considered a sacrifice if you really don't give up anything. God gave up nothing.

Rose

CWH
11-05-2012, 09:50 AM
Basically what you are saying is that the sacrificial death of Jesus was meaningless, because he was raised up in three days. In trying to invalidate the human sacrificial aspect of his death, you are also invalidating its meaning. It is not considered a sacrifice if you really don't give up anything. God gave up nothing.

Rose

Jesus death on the cross and being raised up in 3 days represents God's power over death. Death is also sin and the last one to be conquered. Thus, Jesus death on the cross and raised up in 3 days is power over human death and sin. Jesus gave up His earthly life and was rewarded with eternal life in heaven is telling us that if we believe in Him, we will likewise received eternal life where death and sin will not prevail. It has the same meaning as He gave up His life for our sins. Isn't it wonderful if death is reversible?...died and be raised again and again and again...Death where is thy sting? If you want it, believe in Jesus, Love God with all your heart soul and might and Love your neighbor as yourself.

May God grant us eternal life.:pray:

Greatest I am
11-05-2012, 10:03 AM
Jesus death on the cross and being raised up in 3 days represents God's power over death. Death is also sin and the last one to be conquered. Thus, Jesus death on the cross and raised up in 3 days is power over human death and sin. Jesus gave up His earthly life and was rewarded with eternal life in heaven :

Are you suggesting that Jesus/God did not have eternal life in heaven before the sacrifice you say was not a sacrifice?

Can God die or only the body he was using as a mule for his consciousness?
The loss of a mule that he is ridding is not much of a loss at all as he can replace it whenever he wishes to.
Right?

Also. Can you provide an argument showing that it is good justice to punish the innocent instead of the guilty?

If you were the innocent victim made to suffer instead of the guilty, show how you could or would think that that was good justice.

Regards
DL

CWH
11-05-2012, 10:49 AM
Are you suggesting that Jesus/God did not have eternal life in heaven before the sacrifice you say was not a sacrifice?
I am suggesting that humans on earth cannot have eternal life unless they are in heaven. Is there any human on earth that you know who is still alive after thousands of years? Likewise with Jesus/God, when He was on earth, he did not expect to live forever unless He is in heaven.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit.


Can God die or only the body he was using as a mule for his consciousness?
The loss of a mule that he is ridding is not much of a loss at all as he can replace it whenever he wishes to.
Right?
Can God die? of course not! Where was Jesus when He died during the 3 days? It was stated in the Bible that he went to Hades for the 3 days....so did Jesus/God really died? Do people really died?...It was said that death is just a journey to the next realm.


Also. Can you provide an argument showing that it is good justice to punish the innocent instead of the guilty?

If you were the innocent victim made to suffer instead of the guilty, show how you could or would think that that was good justice.
If someone were to kill your naughty children, would you try to protect them and save them even at the expense of your life? Is this a moral and right thing to do?
Is your risk of injury and death justified to save your naughty children? Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s children. Same with what Jesus was doing. "Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends". Remember, God the Father did not kill Jesus, the Romans and the unbelieving Jews were the ones who have Jesus killed.

May God Bless us with eternal life.:pray:

Greatest I am
11-05-2012, 02:46 PM
I am suggesting that humans on earth cannot have eternal life unless they are in heaven. Is there any human on earth that you know who is still alive after thousands of years? Likewise with Jesus/God, when He was on earth, he did not expect to live forever unless He is in heaven.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit.


Can God die? of course not! Where was Jesus when He died during the 3 days? It was stated in the Bible that he went to Hades for the 3 days....so did Jesus/God really died? Do people really died?...It was said that death is just a journey to the next realm.


If someone were to kill your naughty children, would you try to protect them and save them even at the expense of your life? Is this a moral and right thing to do?
Is your risk of injury and death justified to save your naughty children? Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s children. Same with what Jesus was doing. "Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends". Remember, God the Father did not kill Jesus, the Romans and the unbelieving Jews were the ones who have Jesus killed.

May God Bless us with eternal life.:pray:

Thanks for not giving an argument as asked so that we could continue on topic.

As to what you gave, you say Jesus went to hades for three days yet scriptures say he went to heaven that same day with his fellow crucified victim.

Just another biblical contradiction.

Regards
DL

throwback
11-05-2012, 02:49 PM
For God to condemn you just to die for you is ridiculous and immoral.

In doing so, God would be endorsing human sacrifice and the notion that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is good justice.......................

The notion that the innocent are sacrificed for the foregiveness sake of the guilty is a very apparent scriptural teaching starting way back with Abel and all the way to Jesus. Such "condonement" is done throughout the books of Lev. and Deut. to name but a few. Such thinking was likely the norm for Bronze Age patriarchal societies.



Substitutionary atonement is immoral according to scriptures and all other holy books that I know of. I think that the guilty should be punished and not an innocent human or even a man being ridden like a mule, ---- to use common jargon, --- by a God/Jesus. This is likely the moral reason why most Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah along with the fact that Jesus did not fulfill the other Jewish requirements set by their books and myths.

Regards
DL


Jesus' substitutional punishment is an interesting case. What we see and hear taught in Christianity is that Jesus' had to die so that mankind could have the hope of eternal life. But, what we see when we examine the scriptures is that it is quite possible that Jesus' motivation for sacrifice wasn't as selfless as Christianity teaches. According to the scriptures, Jesus' full obediance and subsequent sacrifice enabled him to be given power, a name above all others, and lasting sovereign lordship. So it was for the joy that was set before him, that Jesus endured the cross and despised the shame thereof knowing/believing that afterwards he would be given dominion at the right hand of God.

Rose
11-05-2012, 04:12 PM
The notion that the innocent are sacrificed for the foregiveness sake of the guilty is a very apparent scriptural teaching starting way back with Abel and all the way to Jesus. Such "condonement" is done throughout the books of Lev. and Deut. to name but a few. Such thinking was likely the norm for Bronze Age patriarchal societies.



Jesus' substitutional punishment is an interesting case. What we see and hear taught in Christianity is that Jesus' had to die so that mankind could have the hope of eternal life. But, what we see when we examine the scriptures is that it is quite possible that Jesus' motivation for sacrifice wasn't as selfless as Christianity teaches. According to the scriptures, Jesus' full obediance and subsequent sacrifice enabled him to be given power, a name above all others, and lasting sovereign lordship. So it was for the joy that was set before him, that Jesus endured the cross and despised the shame thereof knowing/believing that afterwards he would be given dominion at the right hand of God.

The Bible tends to contradict itself quite a lot. There are verses that say fathers shall not be punished for the sins of their children, nor children punished for the sins of their fathers.


Deut.24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

2Kings 14:6 But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezek.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.



Then there are verses that say God will punish children for the sins of their fathers unto the third and fourth generation.

Exo.20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Exo. 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.


And the worst verse of all is found in the New Testament where Jesus proclaims that his generation will be punished for all the sins of his people, beginning with the blood of Abel.


Matt. 23:31-32 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers…35-36 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.





So, which is it?


Rose

Greatest I am
11-06-2012, 06:51 AM
The notion that the innocent are sacrificed for the foregiveness sake of the guilty is a very apparent scriptural teaching starting way back with Abel and all the way to Jesus. Such "condonement" is done throughout the books of Lev. and Deut. to name but a few. Such thinking was likely the norm for Bronze Age patriarchal societies.



Jesus' substitutional punishment is an interesting case. What we see and hear taught in Christianity is that Jesus' had to die so that mankind could have the hope of eternal life. But, what we see when we examine the scriptures is that it is quite possible that Jesus' motivation for sacrifice wasn't as selfless as Christianity teaches. According to the scriptures, Jesus' full obediance and subsequent sacrifice enabled him to be given power, a name above all others, and lasting sovereign lordship. So it was for the joy that was set before him, that Jesus endured the cross and despised the shame thereof knowing/believing that afterwards he would be given dominion at the right hand of God.

You see 20/20.

Most Christians do forget that Jesus is trying to join the ranks of the heroes of 1000 faces and is trying to get to the top of that list.

That or they are just ignoring it in the hope that he is actually real and would rather ride him as their scapegoat into heaven instead of step[ping up and doing the work of getting there on their own two feet as scriptures tell them they must. That is the difference between sheep and goats.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6ObhG-Bdc8

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
11-06-2012, 07:07 AM
The Bible tends to contradict itself quite a lot. There are verses that say fathers shall not be punished for the sins of their children, nor children punished for the sins of their fathers.


Deut.24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

2Kings 14:6 But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezek.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.



Then there are verses that say God will punish children for the sins of their fathers unto the third and fourth generation.

Exo.20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Exo. 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.


And the worst verse of all is found in the New Testament where Jesus proclaims that his generation will be punished for all the sins of his people, beginning with the blood of Abel.


Matt. 23:31-32 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers…35-36 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.





So, which is it?


Rose

Said of Gnostic and Christian reading practices.

“Both read the Bible day and night; but you read black where I read white.”
William Blake.

Gnostic Christians like myself have always been at odds with much of the interpretations and messages given in scriptures and taken up by Christians.

We see then calling evil good and as is the case here, we take the opposing moral view on human sacrifice and the notion that the innocent should be punished instead of the guilty. That is why we reject the whole sacrificed for us scenario.

I believe that all scriptures were written to initiate thought and the seeking of God. That is why most scriptures contradict themselves in the bible. To make us choose which God we would follow.

Goats will reject the Christian self-serving scapegoat riding scenario and the punishment of the innocent while Christians have embrace human sacrifice to save their miserable souls. Miserable because they call evil good.

They do not recognize that they follow an Anti-Christ more than a Christ or just do not care and just follow whoever will save them.

Thinkers know that none are ever lost to God but Christians are hampered in their thinking by fear and thus take the moral low ground.

As a book of wisdom then, the bible is quite good but only if one has an opened mind when reading it. I like that book of wisdom as it helped me form my morality and was instrumental in helping me push my apotheosis.

So to your question Rose of which is it.

It can be either depending on your morals and you have chosen the right path my dear.

Regards
DL

David M
11-07-2012, 12:48 AM
Hello DL


Said of Gnostic and Christian reading practices.

“Both read the Bible day and night; but you read black where I read white.”
William Blake.

Gnostic Christians like myself have always been at odds with much of the interpretations and messages given in scriptures and taken up by Christians.
Thank you got explaining your position when it comes to understanding the Bible. I do not claim to be a Gnostic Christian, but like you I do have different understanding to what I call mainstream Christianity and that is why I am giving my understanding on such matters as 'Jesus is not God' and that God's Angels do not sin. If you disagree with either of these beliefs then that puts you more in line with mainstream Christianity.
The call from God is to come out of the "world" and be separate. One has to be different from the world that is evil in God's sight. By example, we have to be different as Jesus was different and had given us an ensample to live up to.


We see then calling evil good and as is the case here, we take the opposing moral view on human sacrifice and the notion that the innocent should be punished instead of the guilty. That is why we reject the whole sacrificed for us scenario.
Are you taking the opposite view for the sake of being opposite? If so, this does not work, you must back up your position with support from scripture. I will back up my understanding with scripture and be prepared to explain the verses that lead me to my beliefs. It is not sufficient to call God immoral of letting His only begotten Son offer himself as a sacrifice for my sins and for your sins. Without the sacrifice of Jesus, you can have no hope at all, and if you have hope, then I dare say, it is misplaced. Please understand what Paul has written to the Ephesians (5:2): And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.



I believe that all scriptures were written to initiate thought and the seeking of God. That is why most scriptures contradict themselves in the bible. To make us choose which God we would follow.
I agree with your the first part of your statement and belief, but differ with you on the second part. Jesus said things that stir up our conscience and leave us in a position where we should be happy and confident, but also contrite and humble. We can be confident in the mercy and grace of God, but equally aware that of ourselves, we are not good enough or worthy enough to receive His grace, but God is happy to be merciful and graceful to us if our hearts are right before Him.
God is not an author of confusion and we have to seek God and find Him. It is in sincerity and in truth that we come to God. There can only be one truth as God is ONE and therefore we should do our best to understand the truth. We cannot see God, therefore in our imaginations we will have a different mind's image of God, but from what God has revealed to us, we should all get to know the same about God. It is wresting scripture to our own destruction which is was many Christians are doing whereby we have so many different beliefs about Jesus and God which are simply not based on the truth, but have been based on the teaching of men which is not based on scripture.


Goats will reject the Christian self-serving scapegoat riding scenario and the punishment of the innocent while Christians have embrace human sacrifice to save their miserable souls. Miserable because they call evil good.
I do not agree with many Christian doctrines of the mainstream Christianity, and I wish I could find some common ground of agreement with you, but if you are calling me miserable for believing that God has the right to punish/kill reprobate then this is where you are mistaken in your understanding about God and the people who recognize that God is sovereign and only acts according to His word. If you are a Gnostic Christian how do you believe you are going to be saved from eternal death if you do not believe that God has the right to destroy those (now or later) who do abominable things in God's sight that we know are also abominable in our sight? Why accuse God of killing people who themselves kill other people? I take it that you are not a killer or are you? You might want to be different, but from what I hear you say, you are still in the world, and that makes you the same as the world, and I fail to see what makes you separate from the world.


They do not recognize that they follow an Anti-Christ more than a Christ or just do not care and just follow whoever will save them.
I might agree with you that you are right about some who say they are Christians and do such things, but you cannot label all Christians. Strictly speaking the people you identify as doing the things you say should not be called Christians. Now are you really a Christian or is Gnostic Christian something completely different to Christianity which is based on the teaching and following the teaching of Jesus the Christ? Did Jesus accuse God of being immoral? There is much to the teaching of Jesus we must get clear if we are truly to be called a Christian.


Thinkers know that none are ever lost to God but Christians are hampered in their thinking by fear and thus take the moral low ground.
True Christians must be humble. That is not taking the moral low ground. Are you taking the moral high ground? How do you evaluate the moral high ground? Richard has a theory of morality based on the second great commandment applying to men and women; forgetting that Jesus gave us the first great commandment which the world ignores and many Christians do not fully practice as shown by the things they do and say and believe about God.


As a book of wisdom then, the bible is quite good but only if one has an opened mind when reading it. I like that book of wisdom as it helped me form my morality and was instrumental in helping me push my apotheosis.
I am confused as to what your apothesis is; you make controversial statements about God and yet do not say anything positive about God. I fail to see anything Christian in what you have said and that is why if you are a Gnostic then you should leave off the word Christian; you cannot be a Gnostic Christian otherwise you are misleading people about what you believe and you are no better than your "father the devil who was a liar from the beginning". I would like to know what your morality is. Is your morality in agreement with Richard's theory and how do you propose to change the world and what are you going to do with all those who willfully ignore practicing the theory and commit evil against their neighbor?

I look forward to your answers.

David

David M
11-07-2012, 01:20 AM
The Bible tends to contradict itself quite a lot. There are verses that say fathers shall not be punished for the sins of their children, nor children punished for the sins of their fathers.


Deut.24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

2Kings 14:6 But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezek.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.



Then there are verses that say God will punish children for the sins of their fathers unto the third and fourth generation.

Exo.20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Exo. 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.


And the worst verse of all is found in the New Testament where Jesus proclaims that his generation will be punished for all the sins of his people, beginning with the blood of Abel.


Matt. 23:31-32 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers…35-36 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.





So, which is it?


Rose

Hello Rose

This is where what has been called "balancing the Book" has to be done. Unless you see how these statements all apply, then it means you are blind to the truth within those statements. God makes it easy for you to find fault, and thereby many follow the easy broad way that leads to destruction. As has been quoted by many (Prov 2:5); It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.
Sadly, many give up the search and even more do not begin the search.

Regarding the worst verse of all. Again you are not understanding what Jesus is saying; Jesus is talking about Israel collectively. We can separate out individuals, just as God will separate out the sheep from the goats. Many are called but few are chosen; have you ever considered just how few that might mean compared to the billions that have ever lived? Jesus is still unique for having lived a sinless life; how many have come close to Jesus? This should make us think.

I have just been reading the first chapter of Malachi following a the theme of; God loves us. Here are the opening verses of Malachi;
Mal 1:1 The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi.
2 I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob,
3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.
4 Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever.

The whole chapter needs reading to realize that the priesthood was failing in its standards. The priests were to be the teachers and be examples to show the people the perfection that God required and yet they were prepared to give God second best. The Bible shows us all sides to human nature and it shows us the best and the worst of human nature and sadly "the world" is the enemy of God in that the people who are in the world are far from God and do not meet His standards. God wants to love us and will love those that love him. God will reciprocate the first law of morality (Richard's theory of morality relates to the second great commandment). And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. If you can do this then nothing can separate you from the love of God that will be reciprocated to you and that will have its ultimate fulfillment by being given eternal life in God's kingdom to come on this earth. We must wait in faith for that day to come, and in the meantime we can think on the words of the Apostle Paul (Romans 8);
35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

All the best

David

Greatest I am
11-08-2012, 08:21 AM
Hello DL


Thank you got explaining your position when it comes to understanding the Bible. I do not claim to be a Gnostic Christian, but like you I do have different understanding to what I call mainstream Christianity and that is why I am giving my understanding on such matters as 'Jesus is not God' and that God's Angels do not sin. If you disagree with either of these beliefs then that puts you more in line with mainstream Christianity.
The call from God is to come out of the "world" and be separate. One has to be different from the world that is evil in God's sight. By example, we have to be different as Jesus was different and had given us an ensample to live up to.

Then God should not have created it that way and Jesus is a poor example for how to live a moral life as all he has is unworkable rhetoric and some rather anti-love laws.

BTW. I do not buy into fantasy, angels, miracles and magic.

Jesus' reality cannot be proven but the morality of his sayings can so if you wish to discuss morals, I am all in.
Pick your moral issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4QXOgVfY9k&feature=player_embedded



Are you taking the opposite view for the sake of being opposite?

No. I do so on moral grounds.


If so, this does not work, you must back up your position with support from scripture.

The O P has many scriptures to back up my view.


I will back up my understanding with scripture and be prepared to explain the verses that lead me to my beliefs. It is not sufficient to call God immoral of letting His only begotten Son offer himself as a sacrifice for my sins and for your sins. Without the sacrifice of Jesus, you can have no hope at all, and if you have hope, then I dare say, it is misplaced. Please understand what Paul has written to the Ephesians (5:2): And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

What is wrong with this moral way in scriptures?

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.



I agree with your the first part of your statement and belief, but differ with you on the second part. Jesus said things that stir up our conscience and leave us in a position where we should be happy and confident, but also contrite and humble. We can be confident in the mercy and grace of God, but equally aware that of ourselves, we are not good enough or worthy enough to receive His grace, but God is happy to be merciful and graceful to us if our hearts are right before Him.
God is not an author of confusion and we have to seek God and find Him. It is in sincerity and in truth that we come to God. There can only be one truth as God is ONE and therefore we should do our best to understand the truth. We cannot see God, therefore in our imaginations we will have a different mind's image of God, but from what God has revealed to us, we should all get to know the same about God. It is wresting scripture to our own destruction which is was many Christians are doing whereby we have so many different beliefs about Jesus and God which are simply not based on the truth, but have been based on the teaching of men which is not based on scripture.


I do not agree with many Christian doctrines of the mainstream Christianity, and I wish I could find some common ground of agreement with you, but if you are calling me miserable for believing that God has the right to punish/kill reprobate then this is where you are mistaken in your understanding about God and the people who recognize that God is sovereign and only acts according to His word. If you are a Gnostic Christian how do you believe you are going to be saved from eternal death if you do not believe that God has the right to destroy those (now or later) who do abominable things in God's sight that we know are also abominable in our sight? Why accuse God of killing people who themselves kill other people? I take it that you are not a killer or are you? You might want to be different, but from what I hear you say, you are still in the world, and that makes you the same as the world, and I fail to see what makes you separate from the world.

We are both from this world. We are communicating in it. Right?

As to needing to be saved in the first place, none need saving as none can be justly condemned because we are all doing as God programmed us to do and in doing evil and sin to each other, we have no choice but to do so to survive.

It was God's plan from the beginning to have Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or God damned sin.

If God had not intended humans to sin from the beginning, why did he build into the Creation this "solution" for sin? Why create a solution for a problem you do not anticipate?

God knew that the moment he said "don't eat from that tree," the die was cast. The eating was inevitable. Eve was merely following the plan.

This then begs the question.

What kind of God would plan and execute the murder of his own son when there was absolutely no need to?

Only an insane God. That’s who.

The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice, thus showing it‘s immorality.

One of Christianity's highest form of immorality is what they have done to women.
They have denied them equality and subjugated them to men.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqN8EYIIR3g&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dspWh9g3hU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c0RFxXrYzg&feature=related

Regards
DL
------------------------

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.


Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.

Evil then is only human to human.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should all see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.



I might agree with you that you are right about some who say they are Christians and do such things, but you cannot label all Christians. Strictly speaking the people you identify as doing the things you say should not be called Christians. Now are you really a Christian or is Gnostic Christian something completely different to Christianity which is based on the teaching and following the teaching of Jesus the Christ? Did Jesus accuse God of being immoral? There is much to the teaching of Jesus we must get clear if we are truly to be called a Christian.

Then we should see what scholars say of the teachings and their source.

The moderator here says something about Christian knowledge that is quite true before the main speaker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xH93PSZ6fQ

Further to the source.


I will add these clips to the mix for your consideration. They show who put what in Jesus' mouth and how Christianity has been manipulated. The first which is part of the second speaks to my Gnostic Christian label and the second shows my view of religions overall and the Noble Lie that I think we and our governments should rescind. The third clip speaks to the reason that religions were invented in the first place as it shows why social control was required for city states that had to deal with the reality of finite resources. I see these city states as led by a timocratic king who through the religion that he would have created, also realized that there had to be a tyrannical part to his benevolent duty and created a religion to be just that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D134B912A5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrMtRm3b8MU&feature=autoplay&list=PLCBF574D134B912A5&playnext=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne1wIEGnPWo

I see the King/God as having to have the morals shown in the Haigt clip.

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

He would have to create his religion as expressed through his high priest/tyrant who would live by the first commandment of God, place no one above me as the enforcer of his King/God's rules and laws while still obeying his King. The larger Roman system would later assume the same system through the Noble Lie. First through the Flavians and later through Constantine.

http://www.simchajtv.com/movie-secrets-of-christianity-selling-christianity/




True Christians must be humble. That is not taking the moral low ground.

Was Jesus humble?
No. Only through me is hardly a humble statement. It is a self-aggrandizing one that places him higher than God himself and usurpes the job of God as judge.

Are you humble?
No. You cut up most Christians and their beliefs and place yourself above them in knowledge.


Are you taking the moral high ground?

Damned right I am. I am not the most moral person I know but do know where the high ground is.


How do you evaluate the moral high ground?

I base my morality as close to this.

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


Richard has a theory of morality based on the second great commandment applying to men and women; forgetting that Jesus gave us the first great commandment which the world ignores and many Christians do not fully practice as shown by the things they do and say and believe about God.

If you buy into Haigt's clip which exemplifies your second commandment then you will note that morality places others first.

Your first commandment places your jealous God first and jealousy is hardly a moral asset.
Further, place no one above me begs the question; who the hell is "me"?

Scriptures show a genocidal son murderer and I will not put such above me.



I am confused as to what your apothesis is;

The Godhead I know in a nutshell.
I was a skeptic till the age of 39.
I then had an apotheosis and later branded myself a Gnostic Christian naturalist.
Gnostic Christian because I exemplify this quote from William Blake.

“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read'st black where I read white.”

This refers to how Gnostics tend to reverse, for moral reasons, what Christians see in the Bible. We tend to recognize the evil ways of O T God where literal Christians will see God’s killing as good. Christians are sheeple where Gnostic Christians are goats.
This is perhaps why we see the use of a Jesus scapegoat as immoral, while theists like to make Jesus their beast of burden. An immoral position.

During my apotheosis, something that only lasted 5 or 6 seconds, the only things of note to happen was that my paradigm of reality was confirmed and I was chastised to think more demographically. What I found was what I call a cosmic consciousness. Not a new term but one that is a close but not exact fit.

I recognize that I have no proof. That is always the way with apotheosis.
This is also why I prefer to stick to issues of morality because no one has yet been able to prove that God is real and I have no more proof than they for the cosmic consciousness.

The cosmic consciousness is not a miracle working God. He does not interfere with us save when one of us finds it. Not a common thing from what I can see. It is a part of nature and our next evolutionary step.

I tend to have more in common with atheists who ignore what they see as my delusion because our morals are basically identical. Theist tend not to like me much as I have no respect for literalists and fundamentals and think that most Christians have tribal mentalities and poor morals.

I am rather between a rock and a hard place but this I cannot help.

I am happy to be questioned on what I believe but whether or not God exists is basically irrelevant to this world for all that he does not do, and I prefer to thrash out moral issues that can actually find an end point. The search for God is never ending when you are of the Gnostic persuasion. My apotheosis basically says that I am to discard whatever God I found, God as a set of rules that is, not idol worship it but instead, raise my bar and seek further.

My apotheosis also showed me that God has no need for love, adoration or obedience. He has no needs. Man has dominion here on earth and is to be and is the supreme being.

My view is that that is what the message of Jesus says.

Meet me here on this issue.

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3427-Only-I-can-judge-God-I-is-you-if-you-choose-to-be


you make controversial statements about God and yet do not say anything positive about God.

I would and do on rare occasions but most of what the bible shows is his killing us when the moral high ground says he should be correcting us and curing us as scriptures say a loving God would do.

Proverbs 3:12
For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

Which is the moral high ground?
Killing us or curing us?

Listen to what moral men say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI



I fail to see anything Christian in what you have said and that is why if you are a Gnostic then you should leave off the word Christian; you cannot be a Gnostic Christian otherwise you are misleading people about what you believe and you are no better than your "father the devil who was a liar from the beginning". I would like to know what your morality is. Is your morality in agreement with Richard's theory and how do you propose to change the world and what are you going to do with all those who willfully ignore practicing the theory and commit evil against their neighbor?

I look forward to your answers.

David

I have given my Gnostic view above as well as my moral position and have also shown where even you cannot help doing evil to those you must compete against.

As I said above; we cannot know the reality of God or Jesus but can come to some conclusions of the morality of what the bible puts in his mouth. Come back with something on morality please and not something that will get us nowhere.

That is how God or Jesus can be judged.

Regards
DL