Is God a just judge?

Originally posted by dadudemon
It would appear that you do not have an understanding the Atonement.

Do you honestly think you've stumbled upon an amazing theosophical thought that wasn't already addressed 1900 years ago?

Edit - Let me know if you're serious. I don't think you are. If you were, you'd post it on a Christian Apologist message board where you would get real answers and real arguments.

Give an answer to the question instead of deflecting to me and you will see if the question has been addressed well or not.

You deflect and want to send me elsewhere because you know I am correct on this issue.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I am not the poster you were asking this of, but ...

1. I am not so sure "there is nothing new under the sun" works here as an argument. We are living in a different time in a different locale in a different culture with different means of communication different mindsets and different scientific knowledge and technologies. That's too much "different" not to be considered new unless you have an exceptional definition of that word.

2. I think you mean "theological"? Theosophical is associated with Aleister Crowley and Luciferians and the like.

On the other hand, the OP has claimed to be Gnostic in other threads ...

Indeed I have but that has nothing to do with my moral position here. True that we do not see Jesus as a sacrifice but human useless human sacrifice is always wrong.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. Regarding the Atonement, yeah, you can pretty much bet that anything anyone thinks about the Atonement has already been thought and argued about. It is one of if not the most important aspect of Christianity.

2. No, I mean "theosophical" as in "theosophy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy

Hogwash.

Without the sacrifice of Jesus there would be no Christianity like we see it today. Christianity never taught his esoteric teachings and have nothing without God having Jesus murdered.

Regards
DL

The sacrifice of Christ is pretty much a central tenet of the foundation of Christianity.

Along with gun ownership, hating liberals, homosexuals, and foreigners.

whoa people really hate religion on KMC.

i've never been religious but i would probably be ticked off if i were.

can't people be objective about this?

[QUOTE=14830551]Originally posted by dadudemon
[B]1. Regarding the Atonement, yeah, you can pretty much bet that anything anyone thinks about the Atonement has already been thought and argued about. It is one of if not the most important aspect of Christianity.

2. No, I mean "theosophical"

And what does atonement mean exactly and what was its relevance in the discussion anyway?

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Give an answer to the question instead of deflecting to me and you will see if the question has been addressed well or not.

You deflect and want to send me elsewhere because you know I am correct on this issue.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Hogwash.

Without the sacrifice of Jesus there would be no Christianity like we see it today. Christianity never taught his esoteric teachings and have nothing without God having Jesus murdered.

Regards
DL

You're a troll. That is pretty clear.

You didn't answer my question:

"I don't think you are [serious]. If you were, you'd post it on a Christian Apologist message board where you would get real answers and real arguments."

Why do you post them on KMC when KMC is full of atheists and people who espouse atheistic ideals? What does that do for you?

Do you really want argument or do you just want people to agree with you? At least fess up to your real intentions with these troll threads. You're not pissing anyone off: that is one thing you can count on. You're no being edgey, either: no one really gives a ****. Lastly, you're not submitting any thought-provoking or groundbreaking ideas. There is nothing original, creative, or worthy of discussion regarding these lame threads you make.

You should just make one thread that is titled: "I Am Butthurt about My Christian Youth and Want to Whine about It." 🙂

So, I ask you, why do you not post your question (or questions) on a Christian Apologist forum where you will talk to internet "experts" who are interested in arguing with you about your mundane whining?

Here is a site:

http://www.christianforums.com/

Register on that site and you'll get access to their Christian Apologetics forum.

They have over 6000 threads and 245,000+ posts.

Look, here is another:
http://carm.org/forums

And another:
http://www.worthychristianforums.com/forum/12-apologetics/

Guess what I did?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=christian+apologetic+forum

But, SURE! I'll play your little troll game. Grab some Preparation H.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Is God a just judge?

This speaks of Jesus.

Mistake #1:

You think God and Jesus are the same person when, as fact, the Trinity concept did not exist during Jesus Christ's ministry:

Educate your obviously Catholic influence, here:

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/trinity.html

Originally posted by Greatest I am
He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

There are 2 factually incorrect things in this statement, alone.

1. His ministry was in the middle of Man's dispensation on earth, not the last times. He was born, supposedly, 4000 years after "Man began", next comes 2000 or so years of Christianity, then Armageddon, and then there is to be a 1000 year reign of Jesus on earth and then the last of "time". That's much closer to the "middle" than the "last times."

2. He was thought of and talked about maybe thousands of years before he was born. Jesus Christ, the concept, was not a new idea to the ancient Jews. Here, educate yourself on Judaism, here:

http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm

Originally posted by Greatest I am
The above quote shows this as Gods first actual judgement

No it doesn't. You didn't even come close to explaining how anything you said, priorly, constituted a "judgement."

Originally posted by Greatest I am
and shows his setting and accepting a bribe of a human sacrifice to corrupt or alter his justice and judgement.

Because you stated this, you clearly have no concept of what the Atonement even is. It is like...you made up what you thought the Atonement was and are now arguing against that concept. I do not even know what kind of fallacy that is because it is such an extreme strawman that I do not believe it can be properly labeled a strawman.

Read this (the whole thing) on what the Atonement is:

http://carm.org/substitutionary-atonement-jesus-christ

Notice that it has nothing to do with God passing a Judgement? You do know that the Atonement did not just cover sins, right? It also covered suffering or sorrow.

What you did not understand is the "sin" paradox. You should have learned that in Sunday School or Catholic School. The sin paradox, basically, forces God into an illogical and untenable position. His Laws are that no one can sin and if you sin, you cannot live in His presence because you are unclean and you cannot tolerate being in the presence of your God while unclean. You are born on this earth to become a better person so you can live in His presence, again. But you can't. Because all will sin.

So here is the paradox:

God commands you not to sin. God knows you WILL sin. He loves all of his children and wants all of them to come back to His presence. So if God created us with sin and God commands us all to be perfect, that's a crazy paradox. You cannot live and not sin. You cannot go back to live with Heavenly Father if you are born. Heavenly Father commands you to be perfect.

Impossible.

So what must happen? Since the Eternal Laws of Justice demand you pay the price of yours sins, for eternity, then the price has to be paid before you can live with God again. So what if someone decides to suffer an infinite amount for every single person who was born or will be born? Well...the price is paid and everyone gets to live with Heavenly Father, again. But Heavenly Father set conditions upon your sins being forgiven. So someone already paid the price for your sins. Whether or not you make up for that is supposed to be on you. So free will is maintained, God's Eternal Laws of Justice are maintained, and any human who chooses God with their free will can do so by making use of the atonement.

As my atheist employee says (when he does or says something bad): "Hey! I'm just getting my Atonement's worth."

The fact that I had to explain any of this to you should indicate, for you, strongly, that you clearly missed the entire boat on what Christianity is, at an extremely fundamental level. I'll be honest, I do not know a single atheist, in the real world, who does not know of and understand what the Atonement is.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Justice usually states that only the punishment of the guilty is acceptable to justice

See above: all will sin (save it be Christ).

Originally posted by Greatest I am
and that it would be unjust to punish the innocent.

None are innocent (that's the Catholic teaching) so all need to be saved. Many other Christians, including Mormons, believe that the innocent are saved through Christ's Atonement (babies, mentally handicap, etc.).

Originally posted by Greatest I am
God’s corruption of this usual justice is what the bribe or sacrifice of Jesus bought. Injustice.

By the time we get to this part of your post, your head is so far up your ass that it is back on top of your neck, again. What you said here is completely nonsensical. It doesn't even make a modicum of sense. It is because you have built factually incorrect idea off of fallacy off of poor logic to arrive at this weird conclusion. Here is what you did:

"1. Because Bill Clinton was the First President of the USA.

2. He weighs purple millimeters.

3. Because he weighs purple millimeters, Bill Clinton's little brother, Abraham Lincoln, can now conquer the Mongolians.

4. Therefore, Bill Clinton is actually a turtle. AHA! EUREKA!"

Originally posted by Greatest I am
If you elect your judges in your country, would you vote God in as a fair and just judge knowing that he can be bribed?

Well, since we actually CHOSE to be born into this life and we agreed with God's Plan of Salvation, which literally implies we fully trust God's judgement and knowledge, yeah, we would definitely welcome God as our Judge. In fact, one of the central beliefs about God in Christianity is that he's a perfect and infallible judge.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Is God a just judge?

Regards
DL

lol

So did you want me to answer your question or did you want to troll?

Looks like you're either trolling or you are an idiot.

And what does atonement mean again?

Originally posted by Breno
And what does atonement mean again?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=atonement

Originally posted by dadudemon

we actually CHOSE to be born into this life ...

😕

Unless you were giving shorthand for "born again", I think I understood everything you wrote EXCEPT for this quoted statement above.

Are you talking natural birth or spiritual birth (i.e. Baptism & Conversion)?

The latter I'd understand.
The former I myself would be interested in hearing an explanation for.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
😕

Unless you were giving shorthand for "born [b]again", I think I understood everything you wrote EXCEPT for this quoted statement above.

Are you talking natural birth or spiritual birth (i.e. Baptism & Conversion)?

The latter I'd understand.
The former I myself would be interested in hearing an explanation for. [/B]

I'm Mormon.

We don't think God forced us to be born into this mortal existence: we think we chose to be born in this existence. We call this concept the, "preexistance." The concept finds its origins from a statement in Jeremiah: "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee..." Clearly, we existed before being put into this plane of existence. How else could Joel Extending the concept of free will that God gives us, we would have had a logical choice to be born on the earth rather than stay with God, in heaven.

When the scriptures make reference to being taught the gospel and having these things being brought back to our "remembrance", we clearly were taught them, before, in a preexistance with God. How else would we remember them unless we were taught them, before?

1 Corinthians 4:17

1 Timothy 4:6

2 Timothy 1:5

The concept of a preexistance is something that the Jews believe but, strangely, many Christians do not believe. You'd think that Christians would maintain that belief. But I've heard, from a Jewish guy, that Christians do not necessarily NOT believe in the preexistance concept, it is just not taught.

The preexistance concept was struck down by 5th of the 7 enumerical coucils as "heresy", which is why the concept of a preexistance seems to evade so many Christian teachings, today.

More preexistance evidence:

Psalm 139:16

But probably the biggest nail in the coffin is this:

Zechariah 12:1

How could God put a spirit into a body that did not exist before the body? Clearly, God created the spirit, first, and then put it in the body, as that verse tells us.

And the First Estate is found in Jude 1:6:

"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

Clearly, we kept our first estate but the third of the host of heaven, which Lucifer was apart of, did not keep their first estate.

Regardless, I do not expect you to believe this. In fact, I am positive that you will not believe it. It seems to be a strongly entrenched concept in Christianity due to the evils that are the enumerical councils (much of those decisions incorrectly interpreted and set, for over a thousand years, the direction the Catholic Church would take and they still influence, incorrectly so, protestant faiths). Why, when Jews already believed in a preexistance, would Christians stop believing in a preexistance? I think it is simple: the enumerical councils were full of biblical laymen and had strong political agendas. They gladly picked and chose which gospel they would accept and reject for their own wicked machinations.

Ignore that previous post.

I got distracted at work when I was editing it:

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
😕

Unless you were giving shorthand for "born [b]again", I think I understood everything you wrote EXCEPT for this quoted statement above.

Are you talking natural birth or spiritual birth (i.e. Baptism & Conversion)?

The latter I'd understand.
The former I myself would be interested in hearing an explanation for. [/B]

I'm Mormon.

We don't think God forced us to be born into this mortal existence: we think we chose to be born in this existence. We call this concept the, "preexistance." The concept finds its origins from a statement in Jeremiah: "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee..." Clearly, we existed before being put into this plane of existence. Extending the concept of free will that God gives us, we would have had a logical choice to be born on the earth rather than stay with God, in heaven. If we didn't, our free will is not preserved.

When the scriptures make reference to being taught the gospel and having these things being brought back to our "remembrance", we clearly were taught them, before, in a preexistance with God. How else would we remember them unless we were taught them, before?

1 Corinthians 4:17

1 Timothy 4:6

2 Timothy 1:5

The concept of a preexistance is something that the Jews believe but, strangely, many Christians do not believe. You'd think that Christians would maintain that belief. But I've heard, from a Jewish guy, that Christians do not necessarily NOT believe in the preexistance concept, it is just not taught anymore.

But there is another, darker, reason that the preexistance concept seems to not be taught by modern Christians: it was struck down by 5th of the 7 enumerical coucils as "heresy", which is why the concept of a preexistance seems to evade so many Christian teachings, today. Why did it take until a 5th council before they struck it down if it was "heresy"? It certainly was a concept in Judism before Christianity started takings roots. It was certainly a concept taught by early Christians...clearly, there was something else going on in these councils that was not necessarily of God. More on that, later...

More preexistance evidence:

Psalm 139:16

But probably the biggest nail in the coffin is this:

Zechariah 12:1

How could God put a spirit into a body that did not exist before the body? Clearly, God created the spirit, first, and then put it in the body, as that verse tells us. How long that spirit existed before being put in the body, we cannot know. Mormons assert it was a ridiculously long time before...some Christians assert it was created at nearly the same time the body was. Others assert that the spirit, contrary to what is taught in the scriptures, was formed after the fetus was formed and the fetus is "quickened" with a spirit.

And the First Estate is found in Jude 1:6:

"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

Clearly, we kept our first estate but the third of the host of heaven, which Lucifer was apart of, did not keep their first estate.

Regardless, I do not expect you to believe this. In fact, I am positive that you will not believe it. It seems to be a strongly entrenched concept in Christianity due to the evils that are the enumerical councils (much of those decisions incorrectly interpreted and set, for over a thousand years, the direction the Catholic Church would take and they still influence, incorrectly so, protestant faiths). Why, when Jews already believed in a preexistance, would Christians stop believing in a preexistance? I think it is simple: the enumerical councils were full of biblical laymen and had strong political agendas. They gladly picked and chose which gospel they would accept and reject for their own wicked and political machinations.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
The sacrifice of Christ is pretty much a central tenet of the foundation of Christianity.

Along with gun ownership, hating liberals, homosexuals, and foreigners.

+ 1

For the evils of religion to grow, read any scripture literally.

Any and all harmless beliefs are allowed by Gnostic Christians. We know that any myth can be internalized for good results and as esoteric ecumenists, we enjoy knowledge of all the myths that man has created about Gods.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D

When there is a victim is when that view changes. Then you see why Christianity annihilated Gnostic Christianity. We do not let the evils of forced literalism go unopposed. To a tyrant like Constantine, we were poison. One of his first commands to his new Church was to kill off the free thinkers and of course, his new tool, his Church, did as bid. It was quite a ride for free thought for the next 1,000 years.

For the evils of religion to grow.

How can a Gnostic Christian, --- and any other free thinking moral person, --- not judge other's morals when seeing someone hurt other because of the same Church's teachings today?

Can you ignore such things if you have decent morals? Impossible. Especially with Islam pulling the same murderous, freedom stifling ****.

We must discriminate and judge constantly. Every law is a compulsion on all of us to judge.

It is my view that all right wing literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are moral religionists, --- as well as those who do not believe. Literalists hurt their parent religions --- and everyone else, be he a believer or not. Literalists and the right wing of religions make us all into laughing stocks. Their God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution has got to go. So must beliefs in fantasy, miracles and magic. These are all evil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHa...x=0&playnext=1

They also do much harm to their own fellow adherents.

African witches and Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9...eature=related

Jesus Camp 1of 3
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=48b_1185215493

Death to Gays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMw2Z...eature=related

For evil to grow my friend, all good people need do is nothing. Fight literalism when you can. It is your duty to our fellow man.

Regards
DL

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Raisen
whoa people really hate religion on KMC.

i've never been religious but i would probably be ticked off if i were.

can't people be objective about this?

Read the post just above and tell us if we should like religions?

Especially the Abrahamic deniers of equality to women and gays cults.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Breno
[QUOTE=14830551]Originally posted by dadudemon
[B]1. Regarding the Atonement, yeah, you can pretty much bet that anything anyone thinks about the Atonement has already been thought and argued about. It is one of if not the most important aspect of Christianity.

2. No, I mean "theosophical"

And what does atonement mean exactly and what was its relevance in the discussion anyway?

How will you get yourself into heaven? On your own merit or via a scapegoat?

Revisit substitutionary atonement or vicarious redemption and scapegoating with me just to refresh your memory.

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

I am not an atheist but Satan and Christians want atheists to embrace barbaric human sacrifice and the notion that we should profit from punishing the innocent instead of the guilty. Scapegoating IOW.

In reality, if God did demand such a barbaric sacrifice, he would be sinning as we all know that it is immoral to kill the innocent. God knows this yet Christians do not seem to. You do. Right?

Those with good morals will know that no noble and gracious God would demand the sacrifice of a son just to prove it's benevolence. When you die, Satan will ask you; how was your ticket to heaven purchased? With innocent blood?

If and when you say yes, you become his.

-----------------------------------

The other option in scriptures, a moral one, is shown here. 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.

Scriptures indicate that God prefers repentance to sacrifice and as God’s will is supreme and cannot be thwarted, this will come to pass.

---------------------------------

It is a special distorted Christian view of love that sees, --- as the greatest act of love possible, --- their God condemning them, and then turning and demanding his son’s deaths and thus corrupting God's perfect justice. A bribe set by God as judge himself for himself. This is of course ridiculous.

Christians have an insane view of love, IMO.

Would you express your love for humanity or those you love by having your own child needlessly murdered?

Or if convinced that a sacrifice was somehow good, would you have the moral fortitude to step up yourself to that cross instead of sending your child?

Your cowardly God did not.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Read the post just above and tell us if we should like religions?

Especially the Abrahamic deniers of equality to women and gays cults.

Regards
DL

if that's how you think it is, then you're wrong, my friend...
there are certain circumstances that prohibits women in doing something but most of it are just a misinterpretation... let me give you an example:

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness."
I Timothy 2:11

this verse is often misinterpreted as a sexist remark... but even men should be silent if there's no interpreter:

"But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God."
I Corinthians 14:28

with regard to homosexuals... what was prohibited is the act, not the person...

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."
I Corinthians 6:9-10

"Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,
Idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies,
Envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."
Galatians 5:19-21

it's the act, not the person... 🙂

Originally posted by dyajeep
if that's how you think it is, then you're wrong, my friend...
there are certain circumstances that prohibits women in doing something but most of it are just a misinterpretation... let me give you an example:

"[b]Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness."
I Timothy 2:11

this verse is often misinterpreted as a sexist remark... but even men should be silent if there's no interpreter:

"But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God."
I Corinthians 14:28

with regard to homosexuals... what was prohibited is the act, not the person...

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."
I Corinthians 6:9-10

"Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,
Idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies,
Envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."
Galatians 5:19-21

it's the act, not the person... 🙂 [/B]

Who goes to hell? The act or the person?

As to women.

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

Regards
DL

Look at all the people defending Islam and none defending Christianity. Foolish hypocrites claiming "Oh I'm not bias"

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Look at all the people defending Islam and none defending Christianity. Foolish hypocrites claiming "Oh I'm not bias"

This is a Christian centered O.P.

There are thread for Islam.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
This is a Christian centered O.P.

There are thread for Islam.

Regards
DL

Not really, I created a thread about muslim extremists and everyone started talking about christianity.