Originally posted by Greatest I am
I do not think that substitutionary atonement was well already there and that the text was just applied to it.The idea of a God dying for his creation is just too stupid to contemplate as we all know that God cannot die.
Regards
DL
But that came from Egyptian religions, and made more sense in their original context.
Originally posted by Bentley
We all know that? I thought many people didn't even know God existed.
That too and the tipping point of non-belief over belief is supposed to be around 2050.
I am not an atheist but if this is the best religions can do then they deserve death.
This stupid God dying B.S. is apart of what will do Christianity in.
Regards
DL
Originally posted by Greatest I am
I do not think that substitutionary atonement was well already there and that the text was just applied to it.The idea of a God dying for his creation is just too stupid to contemplate as we all know that God cannot die.
Regards
DL
If you're going to spend your time trying to take a shit on Christianity, at least educate yourself on the basic tenants of the religion first.
"God" didn't die for humanity's sins. Jesus did, who is a facet/aspect of God.
Originally posted by Robtard
If you're going to spend your time trying to take a shit on Christianity, at least educate yourself on the basic tenants of the religion first."God" didn't die for humanity's sins. Jesus did, who is a facet/aspect of God.
An immoral aspect that you like because it lets you walk away from your responsibilities.
Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.
Jesus said to pick up your cross and follow him but I see that you have taken the line that someone else should pay your dues. Quite manly and moral that. Not.
Do you really think someone else can pay your dues and allow you to shirk your just reward?
Imagine you have two children. One of your children does something wrong – say it curses, or throws a temper tantrum, or something like that. In fact, say it does this on a regular basis, and you continually forgive your child, but it never seems to change.
Now suppose one day you’ve had enough, you need to do something different. You still wish to forgive your child, but nothing has worked. Do you go to your second child, your good child, and punish it to atone for the sins of the first?
In fact, if you ever saw a parent on the street punish one of their children for the actions of their other child, how would you react? Would you support their decision, or would you be offended? Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.
Interestingly, some historical royal families would beat their slaves when their own children did wrong – you should not, after all, ever beat a prince. The question is: what kind of lesson does that teach the child who actually did the harm? Does it teach them to be a better person, to stop doing harm, or does it teach them both that they won't themselves be punished, and also that punishing other people is normal? I know that's not a lesson I would want to teach my children, and I suspect it's not a lesson most Christians would want to teach theirs. So why does God?
For me, that’s at least one significant reason I find Jesus’ atonement of our sin to be morally repugnant – of course, that’s assuming Jesus ever existed; that original sin actually exists; that God actually exists; etc.
Regards
DL
Originally posted by Greatest I am
An immoral aspect that you like because it lets you walk away from your responsibilities.Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.
Jesus said to pick up your cross and follow him but I see that you have taken the line that someone else should pay your dues. Quite manly and moral that. Not.
Do you really think someone else can pay your dues and allow you to shirk your just reward?
I stopped reading there, since the basis for your rant is incorrect yet again. I am not a Christian; one need not be a Christian to know about Christianity.
Originally posted by Greatest I am
Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.
The thing about that suffering is, he (or rather, He) volunteered to do that. He wanted to pay your unpayable debt. He may have been innocent but he was not uninformed.
The metaphor often used in Sunday School for primary aged children is one about debts. A man goes into debt for whatever reason (let's say to pay for a house to be built for his aging mother). The man gets fired and is unable to pay the debt back. He gets thrown in debtor prison after 6 months of delinquency. His best friend, who is the nicest guy ever and has tons of money, pays off his debts. Not only that, he pays for this man's legal fees and puts money in the bank for his best friend. The nice friend is Jesus and the man in debt is every single human, ever.
Sure, this nice guy never went into debt and he didn't deserve to have to pay for it. But he can afford it. He can take it. He's the BatChrist.
Originally posted by dadudemon
The thing about that suffering is, he (or rather, He) volunteered to do that. He wanted to pay your unpayable debt. He may have been innocent but he was not uninformed.The metaphor often used in Sunday School for primary aged children is one about debts. A man goes into debt for whatever reason (let's say to pay for a house to be built for his aging mother). The man gets fired and is unable to pay the debt back. He gets thrown in debtor prison after 6 months of delinquency. His best friend, who is the nicest guy ever and has tons of money, pays off his debts. Not only that, he pays for this man's legal fees and puts money in the bank for his best friend. The nice friend is Jesus and the man in debt is every single human, ever.
Sure, this nice guy never went into debt and he didn't deserve to have to pay for it. But he can afford it. He can take it. He's the BatChrist.
True that Christians often used debt to try to explain the immorality of vicarious redemption away.
That is much better than having people think of the taking of a life for a few bucks.
Be Jesus a voluntary act or not, for him to impose a fine that is intended to bankrupt the whole world is stupid beyond thought.
For people to believe a God can die is also quite ridiculous.
But Christians do both.
Regards
DL
Originally posted by Greatest I am
True that Christians often used debt to try to explain the immorality of vicarious redemption away.That is much better than having people think of the taking of a life for a few bucks.
Be Jesus a voluntary act or not, for him to impose a fine that is intended to bankrupt the whole world is stupid beyond thought.
For people to believe a God can die is also quite ridiculous.
But Christians do both.
Regards
DL
clearly you don't know what you're talking about... giving contributions to Church MUST be voluntary (II Corinthians 9:7)... and yeah, God is eternal and immortal so God cannot die, but His Son Jesus was manifested in the flesh, it is His body that died, dude... read and understand the Bible before criticizing it...
Originally posted by Greatest I am
True that Christians often used debt to try to explain the immorality of vicarious redemption away.That is much better than having people think of the taking of a life for a few bucks.
Be Jesus a voluntary act or not, for him to impose a fine that is intended to bankrupt the whole world is stupid beyond thought.
For people to believe a God can die is also quite ridiculous.
But Christians do both.
Regards
DL
What you don't realize is God didn't die.
And you call yourself Christian😂
Originally posted by dyajeep
clearly you don't know what you're talking about... giving contributions to Church MUST be voluntary (II Corinthians 9:7)... and yeah, God is eternal and immortal so God cannot die, but His Son Jesus was manifested in the flesh, it is His body that died, dude... read and understand the Bible before criticizing it...
Read and understand hat dead men do not walk and a God who condemns mankind then turns about and dies to reverse his own judgement is stupid beyond words.
You may think that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is a good moral tenet but that would be due to your religion corrupting our morals.
Regards
DL
Originally posted by dyajeep
Christian SHOULD follow the teachings of Christ... if GIA himself is criticizing Christ, it's obvious that he's not a Christian...
I criticize the Jesus you follow. I rather like the Jesus I follow.
His morals are quite good compared to the one you follow or will try to ride as your scapegoat into heaven.
Care to compare the Jesus you know to the one I know?
I have been asked to do an O P showing my beliefs and have written a nutshell view to fill that request.
I was a skeptic till the age of 39. I then had an apotheosis and later branded myself an esoteric ecumenist and Gnostic Christian. Gnostic Christian because I exemplify this quote from William Blake and that makes me as hated by Christians today as the ancient Gnostics that Constantine had the Christians kill when he bought the Catholic Church.
“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 the O. T. God where literal Christians will see God’s killing as good. Christians are sheep 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 or what I call; the Godhead.
The cosmic consciousness is not a miracle working God. It 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 exaggerated tribal mentalities and poor morals as they have developed a double standard to be able to stomach their God.
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 ignore whatever God I found, God as a set of rules that is, not idol worship it but instead, raise my bar of excellence 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.
Since then, I have tried to collect information that would help any that believe that apotheosis is possible, generally not Christians, --- as they do not believe in the mythical esoteric Jesus that I believe in and churches do not dare teach it.
This first clip gives the theological and philosophical interpretation of what Jesus taught and the second clip show what I think is a close representation of the method that helped me push my apotheosis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y
Basically, the usual Christian Jesus is their hero and savior while my version demand that man himself steps up to the plate and save himself.
Which version do you think is more moral and deserving of praise and why?
Regards
DL