If you accept this as universal morality, you will reject God.

1. 0

   Greatest I amposted 11 years ago

   If you accept this as universal morality, you will reject God.
   
   http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/
   
   God does not follow the first rule at all.
   
   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 sin.
   
   This shows that what many thinks is our number one moral value was completely ignored by God.
   
   Is God immoral or has man gotten morality wrong?
   
   If God was right, then are we to believe that fathers are to bury their children instead of the way people think in that children should bury their parents?
   
   John 6:44
   "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”
   
   On earth as it is in heaven.
   
   If you had God’s power to set the conditions for atonement, would you step up yourself or would you send your child to die?
   
   Regards
   DL

   replyreport
2. 59

   SpanStarposted 11 years ago

   Based on your article I do not believe the assertion of your title. Since man has it in his head what we think the value of sin is does not reflect what God feels the value of sin is, for God has always required a life when it comes to sin and animals were the substitution for mankind sin before Jesus was sacrificed.
   
   One need only look around at the kind of society, the kind of world that we consistently create, seeing man's morality is seriously lacking.
   
   Parents are burying their children because of the environments we have created as human beings they lends themselves to bigotry, hatred, greed, lust and so drive by shootings can result in innocent children being murdered, holding up a convenience store can result in children being murdered etc.
   
   John 6:44-God can draw men to him but if that is the basis he created humans is contradictory to his gift of free will.
   
   Your comment "If you had God's power-" we are deciding based on our idea of what God should be doing, it is time we recognize God Didn't, Doesn't Have To Do Anything. Salvation is a gift from God not an obligation. God could have allowed all mankind to perish in hell. God doesn't need to do what we think he should do for we are in his ballpark and we play by his rules.

   replyreport
3. 60

   Paul Wingertposted 11 years ago

   "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 sin."
   
   First of all, god did not crucify Jesus, the Romans did. This whole idea od Jesus dying for our sins is totally rediculous. Wouldn't it be easier if god simply programed humans to be sin free, especially when sin is a man made idea, come to think of it, so is god.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Greatest I amposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      P W
      
      No argument.
      The notion of punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is ridiculous.
      
      Regards
      DL

      replyreport
4. 0

   Greatest I amposted 11 years ago

   S S
   
   You do not know your bible at all.
   
   Listen and learn.
   
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U
   
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott15j2 … re=related
   
   
   Thomas Paine, in Age of Reason, wrote:
   If I owe a person money, and cannot pay him, and he threatens to put me in prison, another person can take the debt upon himself, and pay it for me. But if I have committed a crime, every circumstance of the case is changed. Moral justice cannot take the innocent for the guilty even if the innocent would offer itself. To suppose justice to do this, is to destroy the principle of its existence, which is the thing itself. It is then no longer justice. It is indiscriminate revenge.
   
   This single reflection will show that the doctrine of redemption is founded on a mere pecuniary idea corresponding to that of a debt which another person might pay; and as this pecuniary idea corresponds again with the system of second redemptions, obtained through the means of money given to the church for pardons, the probability is that the same persons fabricated both the one and the other of those theories; and that, in truth, there is no such thing as redemption; that it is fabulous; and that man stands in the same relative condition with his Maker he ever did stand, since man existed; and that it is his greatest consolation to think so.
   Emphasis mine.
   
   So not only is the killing of an innocent man immoral, but it shows that the redemption allegory being used is that of a financial debt. Which is an interesting parallel to the practice of purchasing 'pardons'.
   
   
   
   [It is] not good that the man should be alone ; I will make him an help meet for him. (Gen. 2:18) KJV Story book
   
   Free will to me is the ability to make a choice without coercion.
   A choice made while under coercion, (especially under threat of pain and suffering), is not a freely made choice, ergo it is not free will. In fact there is a name for it; it's called extortion and it is a criminal offense precisely for the reason that it is not a free choice but a forced one.
   
   "Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense." Wikipedia
   
   "Test all things"
   1 Thessalonians. 5:21
   
   No noble and gracious God would demand the sacrifice of a so called son just to prove it's benevolence.
   
   Regards
   DL

   replyreport
5. 59

   SpanStarposted 11 years ago

   If you don't think I understand the Bible that clearly based on your writing you are lost in the abyss of understanding the Bible.
   
   Your attempt at rewriting scripture, biblical passage in your own image doesn't come across as credible at all.
   
   The Bible addresses money
   
   New International
   For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
   
   Where in the Bible does it say people are forced to follow the teachings of Jesus the Christ or God himself? God would like for us to follow his teachings but if we choose not to then just keep doing what we're doing!
   
   Based on what I'm reading your argument seems to be predicated on the idea that humans aren't sinful! It is because of sin what am that we are being judged. Once again you are presenting human moral standards into a spiritual realm-no one knows if I'm a relative fits into a spiritual dimension.
   
   Isaiah 55:9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ...
   
   "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher
   than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. ...

   replyreport
6. 0

   Greatest I amposted 11 years ago

   S S
   
   Get with the program.
   
   The issue is morality and not sin.
   Unless you want to talk of the sin that God did in having his son murdered.
   
   Answer the last question in the O P to get you on track.
   
   Regards
   DL

   replyreport
   1. 57

      MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Actually if you take into account the trinity then he didn't have his son murdered so much as he committed partial suicide.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Greatest I amposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Is that sort of like half an orgasm?
         
         Seriously though.
         Originally Posted by animefan48
         Well, the reality is most Christians do buy into the trinity doctrine because of persecution of the early Gnostics and non-Trinitarians, and the religious councils were dissenters were forced to agree to a Trinitarian theology. Many Unitarian and Universalist theologies argue that when Jesus said he was the way, he meant that he was an example of how to live to be united/reunited with God. As for the name, God does give other names for himself including the Alpha and Omega, as well as some believe a name that should not be written (or even spoken I believe). Honestly, I think using the name I Am That I Am would just be confusing and convoluted, seriously. I seriously do not believe that it is a continuation of Gnostic/mystical/Unitarian suppression. Even the Gnostic and mystical traditions within Islam and Christianity do not tend to use that name, and among the 99 Names of Allah, I did not find that one. Also, many Rastafarians believe that the Holy Spirit lives in humans and will sometimes say I and I instead of we, yet they don't seem to use the name I Am for God/Jah either, so I really don't think it can be related to suppressing mystical and Gnostic interpretations. I think that originally oppressing those ideas and decreeing them heretical are quite enough, the early Church did such a good job that after the split many Protestant groups continued to condemn mystical and later Gnostic sects and theologies.
         
         
         Yup, the bishops voted and it was settled for all time!!1 (Some say the preliminary votes were 150 something to 140 something in favor of the trinity)
         
         But then Constantine stepped in: After a prolonged and inconclusive debate, the impatient Constantine intervened to force an end to the conflict by demanding the adoption of the creed. The vote was taken under threat of exile for any who did not support the decision favored by Constantine. (And later, they fully endorsed the trinity idea when it all happened again at the council of Constantinople in AD 381, where only Trinitarians were invited to attend. Surprise! They also managed to carry a vote in favor of the Trinity.)
         
         http://home.pacific.net.au/~amaxwell/bdigest/bd12bbs.tx
         
         
         Even a Trinitarian scholar admits the Earliest & Original beliefs were NOT Trinitarian!
         
         The trinity formulation is a later corruption away from the earliest & original beliefs!
         
         "It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed".
         Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180
         
         "In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament".
         R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173, 1980
         
         The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament.
         New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 306.
         
         "The formulation ‘One God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective"
         New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299.
         
         "The formulation ‘One God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299).
         
         "Fourth-century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary a deviation from this teaching" (The Encyclopedia Americana, p. 1956, p. 2941).
         
         Was Jesus God to Paul and other early Christians? No. . . . .
         (Source: How the Bible became the Bible by Donald L. O'Dell - ISBN 0-7414-2993-4 Published by INFINITY Publishing.com)
         
         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD0eSqFJ7J4
         
         Regards
         DL

         replyreport
7. 59

   SpanStarposted 11 years ago

   What-you don't think sin involves morality-"Great Caesar's Ghost!"
   
   Regarding the last question-your understanding of what one might do is clearly nothing more than your opinion.
   
   In order for God to save his people he decided the only way it would be possible would be his son suffered and died because we can't save ourselves and we are the cause for why his son had to die.
   
   Let us move away from God for a moment and recognize that parents have given their life in an effort to save their children perhaps from a tyrant, or maybe a criminal.
   
   Some soldiers have given their lives in order that their comrades have time to escape.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Greatest I amposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yes but in the case of Jesus, in your analogy, you have to have the C O throwing the grenade and then ordering the soldier, his son, to lay on it.
      
      Do try to give some thought to what you are saying.
      
      Any religion based on human sacrifice is immoral.
      
      As to sacrifice being God's only choice. Not for an omnipotent God.
      And scriptures are clear on this.
      Like most Christians, you do not know your own theology.
      
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U
      
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott15j2 … re=related
      
      Regards
      DL

      replyreport
8. 0

   Greatest I amposted 11 years ago

   S S
   
   "Regarding the last question-your understanding of what one might do is clearly nothing more than your opinion."
   
   It is not my opinion I seek but yours.
   
   Why are you reluctant to give it?
   
   "In order for God to save his people he decided the only way it would be possible would be his son suffered and died"
   
   Scriptures do not agree as they show that some were saved without it.
   
   Answer the question please.
   Nevr mind. I know your answer and you do also and it does not match your God's.
   
   Regards
   DL

   replyreport
9. 59

   SpanStarposted 11 years ago

   The New  International Bible
   
   by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11He is
   
   “‘the stone you builders rejected,
   
   which has become the capstone.
   
   12 Salvation is Found in No One Else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”

   replyreport
10. 71

    lone77starposted 11 years ago

    DL, wonderfully thought-provoking.
    
    It's all in the interpretation. What's good for the hunter isn't good for the duck.
    
    What is God's purpose? Most seem to have gotten this all wrong. Completely!
    
    And critics are muddling with poor interpretation of poor interpretations. In computer programming parlance: GIGO -- Garbage In, Garbage Out!
    
    God's purpose? Could it be to rescue his children?
    
    But the fallacy that many seem to be operating under is that God's children are Homo sapiens. Are they? Genesis 1:26 says that God created "man" in his own image, but God isn't Homo sapiens. He is a non-physical, spiritual and immortal source of creation. That would make us inherently non-physical, spiritual and immortal sources of creation. Baby gods?
    
    Why would we think we are Homo sapiens? Could it be that we have forgotten who we are? That we have lost our spiritual moorings and become dependent upon physical continuity and this action-reaction-based reality?
    
    If your child is trapped in a wrecked automobile, would you have any qualms about tearing the broken vehicle apart to get at the child? If your child were in the hospital, would you ignore going to the car junk yard and go directly to visit your injured offspring?
    
    God cares not for the vehicles we drive -- these Homo sapiens vehicles.
    
    So, your harm/care mandate is followed very carefully by God. Or perhaps, better said, created by God. It's His universe. And these bodies are not His children.
    
    Now, do you understand why the Flood of Noah was an act of love?
    
    Let that simmer a few lifetimes, if necessary.

    replyreport
    1. 78

       kirstenblogposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       If I am the emergency response official on the scene I would have a problem if all I could prove actually exists is the car, not the child. This is our situation, no proof that there is a 'child' as you put it in the car. Your 'child' is invisible, and impossible to prove the existence of.  Only the car can be shown to exist, so why am I getting out all my gear and putting myself in potential harms way for a child that I cannot see, hear, touch, smell, or in any other way conceivably physically interact with?

       replyreport
       1. 0

          Greatest I amposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          You-------------
          
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu3VTngm1F0
          
          Regards
          DL

          replyreport
    2. 0

       Greatest I amposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       L S
       
       Yep, killing someone is a good way to show your love for them. To one who is insane.
       
       Regards
       DL

       replyreport