Care to compare the Jesus you know to the one I know? [Archive]

View Full Version : Care to compare the Jesus you know to the one I know?

Greatest I am

11-12-2013, 01:48 PM

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

Richard Amiel McGough

11-12-2013, 10:21 PM

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.”

Hey there DL, :yo:

I really appreciate your sharing your personal point of view.

I've always been attracted to the writings and artwork of William Blake. And that's one of my favorite quotes of his. (Favorite being everyone's fave - to see the world in a grain of sand."

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.

It is quite literally immoral in a number of different ways. It makes the word "righteous" totally meaningless, since - as the Good Book says - he that does righteousness is righteous. But then the Good Book directly contradicts itself and so that the only way to be righteous is to believe in Jesus. What does believing a religious doctrine have to do with righteousness. Nothing at all. And so it goes ...

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.

Well, there has been a bit of resurgence of the "esoteric Christ" in the more liberal branches of Christianity in the last 50 years. I'm thinking of books like "The Cosmic Christ" and Spong who says that Christianity should change to be more like atheistic Buddhism, etc. But the "churches" won't ever teach it because it contradicts all their dogmas.

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

I have always appreciated Alan Watts. It makes me wonder - did LSD induce your apotheosis?

Richard

David M

11-13-2013, 07:17 AM

Hello DL
That is the most articulate post from you I have read. I would continue to discuss points one at a time beginning with; God is ONE, if I though a reasoned discussion with you could take place.

I would have to start at the beginning with; God is ONE. Richard has already stifled my discussion on this subject with him by saying the word "ONE" is ambiguous. The discussion should not start form the point of Jesus, but start from the beginning when there was only God and nothing else; not even the universe.

I would change the title of the thread to; ' Care to compare the God you know to the one I know?

By the word know, do you mean; "know about" or "know personally"?

I think we have to build up our picture of God from the facts as they are first presented and not based on what we already think we know. It is hard to put our conclusions to one side, but that is what is required from all sides, if all sides are to have open minds. We should not dismiss things as irrelevant or absurd until all the different ways to understand these things are in and then the selection process of filtering takes place. Eventually, we reduce all the various opinions down to one or two which we consider the most likely to be true later reduce this to one, once we get supporting evidence from other parts of the Bible to support the only likely meaning that is the Truth.
I think we have to start off with the purpose of God. What was the purpose of God creating the universe and then going on to create man upon this planet? Once we see God's purpose, we can see how God brings about his purpose and so get all the pieces in God's revelation to man to fit together.

To start from Jesus is the wrong place. You have already referred to "righteousness" and we should understand the righteousness of God from the beginning as we see exercised in the Garden of Eden and build on the subject from there. This will mean ensuring we are on the same page and therefore agreeing the meaning of words such as "righteousness". Once we agree what it means, we can see how it applies.

Can you start off by telling us what you think the purpose of God is in creating the universe including this planet earth on which there is the vast variety of life, both animal and plant? You can quote the words recorded as spoken by God in his revealed word (which is the basis or our Bible) to support your own answer to this question.

All the best
David

Greatest I am

11-13-2013, 07:40 AM

Hey there DL, :yo:

I really appreciate your sharing your personal point of view.

I've always been attracted to the writings and artwork of William Blake. And that's one of my favorite quotes of his. (Favorite being everyone's fave - to see the world in a grain of sand."

It is quite literally immoral in a number of different ways. It makes the word "righteous" totally meaningless, since - as the Good Book says - he that does righteousness is righteous. But then the Good Book directly contradicts itself and so that the only way to be righteous is to believe in Jesus. What does believing a religious doctrine have to do with righteousness. Nothing at all. And so it goes ...

Well, there has been a bit of resurgence of the "esoteric Christ" in the more liberal branches of Christianity in the last 50 years. I'm thinking of books like "The Cosmic Christ" and Spong who says that Christianity should change to be more like atheistic Buddhism, etc. But the "churches" won't ever teach it because it contradicts all their dogmas.

I have always appreciated Alan Watts. It makes me wonder - did LSD induce your apotheosis?

Richard

No. No hallucinogens were involved.

I did try LSD the one time and although interesting from a distorted vision and slowness of thinking POV, nothing much else was noted. It did not incite a desire to redo the experience as it lasted too long and I was bored by the end of it.
Music was better under the influence though but that could be just because of focus. I was hopping for some kind of hallucination but alas, nothing of the sort. I think the drug was always overrated and since it has basically died out, I am likely right on that.

I am not saying that there is anything particularly wrong in using a drug to induce a religious experience, that is fairly common. I am just saying that it is not my way.

Have you read the book Jesus was a Mushroom by Peter Allero, the guy that studies the dead sea scrolls for the Vatican. That is weird but quite believable. Those long desert night you know.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am

11-13-2013, 07:52 AM

David M

11-14-2013, 08:05 AM

You know that such discussions are hard as they are all based on assumptions. That is why I like to study and debate the moral aspect of things.The hard part is to drop assumptions. That would have to go for both of us.
Debating moral issues is a difficult subject. There is a programme on the BBC Radio 4 called; 'The Moral Maze'. That title signifies the difficulty involved like working one's way through a maze, where one has many directions to go and leading to dead-ends.

Even her, you start with God is one while advocating ther Trinity whith entities of various power instead of them all having the same status. Can't be forgiven for cursing the holy ghost but I can for cursing the other two. See what I mean.I see what you mean, but you have used the word 'Trinity', which at the point I am starting from is an assumption. if we start afresh at the beginning with Genesis 1:1 and take things slowly, we shall see what is revealed. When God said in Gen 1:26; "Let us make man in our image", we have to hold on to that until we find where we can find something in scripture to explain that verse and who the "our" might be referring to. In fact, verse 27 says this; So God created man in his own image, Do you see how "our" has turned into "his". If "our" is correct, then we would expect the word "their" to be used. You see we already have what seems like a conflict. At this point, we cannot fully conclude whether we are dealing with one entity or more. There are many verses that tell us; God said It was God who spoke, and not a collective voice as would be indicated by the word "our". It is along these lines we continue to analyse as we go through the Bible from the beginning to the end.

Further, it is tradition and dogma to say that God is un-knowable, un-fathomable and mysterious and he re you want to discuss what you cannot know or fathom.

See the problem?I see your problem and I do have a problem visualizing God as Spirit and not in a tangible and visible form. The one problem I see is that people think God is "all love" to the exclusion of all else. That is not the way God is presented in the Bible. God has many attributes. There are some things God cannot be, if they make him less than perfect. For example. God is righteous, therefore, God cannot be unrighteous. I do not agree with people who think God can be or do anything he likes. He does so in the framework of his being. In terms or what God can accomplish, I do not limit God. I am not going to attribute any attribute or character to God, which makes him less than he is.

We have to define what is righteous according to God's definition. God is a god of love and also God is vengeful, wise, long-suffering, patient, all-knowing. So the list goes on. All these things apply to God at the same time; they cannot be separated from each other. It is difficult for you and I to judge righteously, when we are both unrighteous. Our thinking is already impaired. The second problem, and this relates to morals, is that you want to decide what is the standard according to your rules. I accept God as my maker, and because God is so powerful compared to me, I cannot be anything but humble when, in thought, I am in his presence. One cannot believe in God and not have humility. Self-righteousness and lack of humility in God's sight is not acceptable. I do not think a person's humility or lack of, come into the evaluation of morals when dealing with issues purely at the human level.

So to hell with, --- is God one or real or not. Let's talk morals as we can have an end point.How do you know there is an end point to human theorizing? Moral issues may not be resolved at the human level. We do not have to think God has any problem deciding whether he is moral or not. God judges according to his standard. In the list I compiled I missed out; mercy and graceful. Those are two qualities of God by which God's justice is not always as severe as is deserved. When King David is referred to as; "a friend of God" that has to be balanced with David's double sin against God in which David was guilty of adultery and murder. You condemn God for not killing David according to the law, and you condemn God for being merciful. If it were not for God being merciful and forgiving us when we do not deserve it, then none of us would have any hope at all. That is why the apostle Paul wrote (and it is also dependent on the fact that the resurrection of Jesus took place); if in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

Do you think it moral for a God to have himself murdered as a sacrifice to himself to annul a condemnation that he himself imposed?You are jumping the gun. We have not established from starting at Genesis 1:1 that God is anything else but God. Jesus does not come until the New Testament and the gospel records. This is an assumption on your part. It is hard to drop the assumption, but that is what you have to do, until you reach a conclusion by slowly going through the Bible from start to finish and put the pieces together.

Should we all line up to profit from the murder of Jesus, an innocent man?First you say God murdered himself and now you are saying Jesus is man. Do you see how muddled you make the conversation by introducing these erroneous ideas. They have not been established from going through the Bible from start to finish. We will probably conclude from the OT that the Jews believed a monotheistic God, but do not accuse me of jumping to that conclusion yet since we are still in Genesis 1.

Is human sacrifice in any way moral?It was not moral that the Jewish religious leaders conspired to kill Jesus and had the Romans do their dirty work. Can you see that it was immoral men, who killed Jesus. The fact that God caused the birth of Jesus (a man) with the purpose that Jesus would have to lay down his life as a perfect sacrifice as the only possible way, is not an immoral act of God. It can be argued that both God and Jesus were prepared for Jesus to be the sacrifice and that this was done in love. Hence, as you know, (John 3:16)For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever... That is not the action of an immoral God.
God has made the rule; the soul that sinneth, it shall die (eternally).. Is it immoral of God, or is it immoral for men and women, who have the power of self control (as Jesus proved possible) to lead obedient lives, when men and women fail? When man breaks the rule, he has to be prepared for the consequences. God is not immoral for allowing the death sentence to be passed. It would be more immoral of God, if he did not apply judgement according to the rules he has laid down and which men and women know. It would be immoral of God if he was not consistent and dealt out his judgement in arbitrary and unfair way. Righteous judgement is a difficult call from the human position of weakness in such matters.

Did Jesus commit suicide? No! Did Jesus sign his own death warrant? Yes! Jesus signed did not sign his own death warrant literally, but metaphorically he did, when he accused the Pharisees of their adding to the law and his condemnation of there ways. His final words to them were; Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Even in that quote from Jesus he is says; he is coming in the name of the Lord. He is not saying he is coming as God. Now I have jumped ahead. I do not want to pursue this point here. This is how we should analyse all the words of Jesus when we reach this stage. Before then, we have to finish with the Old Testament and see what we find out about God.

Regards
David

Greatest I am

11-14-2013, 12:35 PM

Dave

I get the impression that you want to keep you assumptions while I cannot keep mine. Like in Genesis, you say God created us while I think we created God.

We could argue that forever and never get to the moral of anything. See what I mean?

And we would never get out of Gen 1 because I would ask about Lilith and you would deny her existence and ignore what the Jews though. Never mind that they saw Genesis as man's elevation while you see it as man's fall.

You want us to write a book and I cannot afford that time. Especially when you ignore simple question and take off on tangents.

For example.

Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
Is human sacrifice in any way moral?

Your reply was,
It was not moral that the Jewish religious leaders conspired to kill Jesus and had the Romans do their dirty work. Can you see that it was immoral men, who killed Jesus.

I do not see an answer here but if wrong then correct me.

Was your answer a yes or a no?

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

You also threw this out with your moral judgement.

For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever... That is not the action of an immoral God.

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

From MPOV it is completely immoral because if God had loved us he would not have condemned us for the sins we were not responsible for and he had no reason to have his son killed as he could forgive without demanding a blood sacrifice.

Right?

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

Have a look at my view on God having Jesus killed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-91mSkxaXs

Now if you want to argue for your God. let's try this way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA_K5BZmQFM

Regards
DL

David M

11-15-2013, 01:38 AM

Hello DL

I like the way we are having this discussion. I hope we can keep this up.

Dave

I get the impression that you want to keep you assumptions while I cannot keep mine. Like in Genesis, you say God created us while I think we created God. Good point. The middle ground is to say perhaps; we have a book called the Bible. It speaks (or tells us) of a (the) God. What we are doing now is an exercise in fully understanding what the book is telling us. No more, no less. Once we have fully found out what the book is telling us about God, we can either accept that God exists or reject that idea. Are you up to the challenge of finding out? It is difficult (we agree) to drop all our conclusions (seen by the other as assumptions). When we spot that happening, we can point it out and so modify what is said to ensure we are not jumping to any conclusions at this stage. I do not know if it is possible to succeed in doing this; only by trying will we get to know.

We could argue that forever and never get to the moral of anything. See what I mean?There is no point arguing the same points for ever unless our thinking and perception is changing in anyway. Once we cannot reason any further then we must draw an end to the discussion.

And we would never get out of Gen 1 because I would ask about Lilith and you would deny her existence and ignore what the Jews though. Never mind that they saw Genesis as man's elevation while you see it as man's fall.And where does Lilith come from? For the purposes of understanding what the Bible (God's word) is telling us and not what man (man's word) is telling us then we have to ignore what the Jews thought. The "Jews thoughts" are man's thoughts. For the exercise I propose should (must) be done is to only reason things out from the words in the Bible. I do not object to referring to ancient manuscripts and dictionaries as an aid. The problem we have is that we are relying on a Book that has been translated and over the centuries has errors introduced. Unfortunately, we have to deal with those. It is the errors that cause confusion and result in further errors of understanding.

You want us to write a book and I cannot afford that time. It would seem like we could rewrite the Bible in the way the author(s) intended us to understand. To get to know what the author meant, the author would have to speak to us and explain. As it is, we have the minimal of words from which to understand the true message that is being told to us. It would take a great effort to this, and I could easily say also that I do not have the time to do this. It seems like a lot of effort on my part to put to one side all my conclusions based on decades of reading the Bible, reading commentaries, listening to talks on Bible topics and deciding what to accept and what to reject and what I am undecided on.

Especially when you ignore simple question and take off on tangents.

For example.

Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
Is human sacrifice in any way moral?

Your reply was,
It was not moral that the Jewish religious leaders conspired to kill Jesus and had the Romans do their dirty work. Can you see that it was immoral men, who killed Jesus.

I do not see an answer here but if wrong then correct me.

Was your answer a yes or a no?Yes

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

You also threw this out with your moral judgement.

For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever... That is not the action of an immoral God.

-----------------------------------------
Why do you say I am making a moral judgement? All I have done is quote a verse. Are you not making a moral judgement about what that verse is saying?

From MPOV it is completely immoral because if God had loved us he would not have condemned us for the sins we were not responsible for and he had no reason to have his son killed as he could forgive without demanding a blood sacrifice.

Right?

======================================
If you want a one word answer from me. No. I expect you will have to ask me to explain why I have come to that decision. When I explain why I have come to my decision and what I base my decision on, then I am wrongly accused of waffling, or going off at a tangent. It seems unless we are prepared to reason, we have to stick with our one-word answers and we gain nothing from the discussion. Maybe I can give you a list of questions to which you can answer Yes or No.

Have a look at my view on God having Jesus killed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-91mSkxaXsThis is 3 minutes and 25 seconds in which the presenter shows himself/herself to be a "moron" and has no understanding of what the Bible tells us. The presenter admits to "cannot make sense" to why Jesus had to die etc. With that admission, it is obvious from the start of the presentation, "absurd" (to quote someone else) statements are made. So many questions are asked in the video, do you or the presenter want to listen to the answers from someone who has made sense of it?

Now if you want to argue for your God. let's try this way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA_K5BZmQFMThe same goes for the second video. Another 4 minutes 59 seconds of garbage that makes me cringe for the reason the presenter does not expect. The response of a typical Christian is used and in that sense, both presenter and Christian example make me cringe.

So, I have spent 8 or 9 minutes of listening to rubbish. If you are serious about wanting to get to the truth, why not spend some hours listening to someone who presents a good exposition and explains these things.

I have found a series of talks in which an exposition of the Book of Job is given. I have watched one video and have downloaded the series. Since I am going away for a couple of weeks, I have transferred them to my video player so I can watch and learn and have something to do while sat in a plane for five hours. I suggest you watch the following series: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=an+exposition+on+the+book+of+ job&sm=1 You will find the six-part series listed.

The recording and editing of the video leaves a lot to be desired, but if you can get over that and concentrate on what the speaker is saying what the Book of Job says, then I think this will answer most of the questions that arise from watching videos like the two you have asked me to watch. There are so many of these "moronic" videos that having watched one, it is a waste of my time to keep watching more. I am prepared to spend time (not wasting time) watching videos that have something to teach me. Even in the videos I suggest you watch, I do not have to agree with the speaker on everything he says, and he does not expect everything he says to be accepted. So far, I have not found anything said to be contentious. He is putting forward things for you to consider. The speaker has resolved difficult questions for himself and the exposition of the Book of Job, shows you how he has come to answer these difficult questions. I found the last part #6 video and watched that before finding the series. Now I am part way through the part #1 in which the speaker is speaking generally and referring to other well know critics of the Book of Job. The following parts to the series, he says he is going to stay in the Bible and use extensively. All I can do is suggest you watch if you want to get answers. It would take me as long to explain these things to you, and I think the speaker in these videos does a better job of presenting the evidence and explanations far better than I do.

Here is the link again; http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=an+exposition+on+the+book+of+ job&sm=1

Regards
David

Greatest I am

11-18-2013, 02:02 PM

Progress. How sweet it is.

----------------------------------
Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
Is human sacrifice in any way moral?

Your reply was,
It was not moral that the Jewish religious leaders conspired to kill Jesus and had the Romans do their dirty work. Can you see that it was immoral men, who killed Jesus.

I do not see an answer here but if wrong then correct me.

Was your answer a yes or a no?

Yes

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

Thanks for that yes.

Now could you give us an argument showing how creating a human sacrifice and punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is moral?

Our legal systems work quite hard at making sure that the guilty are punished and not the innocent so it will be interesting to see how you justify intentionally punishing the innocent instead of the guilty.

Regards
DL

David M

11-19-2013, 12:03 PM

Hello DL

Thanks for that yes.

Now could you give us an argument showing how creating a human sacrifice and punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is moral?Simple answer is; No. The reason being, I do not agree with what you are saying. You are saying; a human sacrifice (which I think you have a specific sacrifice in mind) is punishing the innocent instead of the guilty. That is not something I agree with, so I can only argue against it.

Our legal systems work quite hard at making sure that the guilty are punished and not the innocent so it will be interesting to see how you justify intentionally punishing the innocent instead of the guilty.

Regards
DL”Quite hard” is no where near perfect. Why trust in an imperfect system in which the innocent do not receive justice? Justice is only got if you have enough money to buy it.

If you are speaking of God punishing Jesus, this is your idea and not mine. I disagree, therefore, I have nothing to justify. I can give you reasons for not agreeing with you. Is that what you want?

Have you watched the videos I gave you the link to? I watched several while on the plane. In fact, you do not need to read a lot, you just have to close your eyes and listen and be receptive to the suggestions put before you to explain the story of Job. We get the benefit of someone who has studied in the region of 40 expositions of the Book of Job and is giving his own exposition. This 6-part exposition of the Book of Job is the best I have listened to and there is so much more I appreciate about the structure of the book and the central theme. It bring into perspective the 3 three main characters in the book, which is presented in an unusual style. The three main characters in this play-like presentation are; God, Job and The Satan. You do not have to agree with the speaker’s suggestions, though if you are looking for better understanding of God’s word, there is plenty to appreciate and learn; as I have done.

Regards
David

Greatest I am

11-20-2013, 12:22 PM

So your bottom line is that you will embrace human sacrifice and punishing the innocent instead of the guilty but that you do not think human sacrifice is moral. But because your God did it, it is ok.

Thanks for showing us all the lack of morals that your religion produces.

You give truth to the notion that only religion will make good people knowingly do evil things.

Regards
DL

David M

11-20-2013, 02:42 PM

Hello DL

So your bottom line is that you will embrace human sacrifice and punishing the innocent instead of the guilty but that you do not think human sacrifice is moral. But because your God did it, it is ok.

Thanks for showing us all the lack of morals that your religion produces.

You give truth to the notion that only religion will make good people knowingly do evil things.

Regards
DL

You are jumping to the wrong conclusions again and expressing your opinion. If you want to make true progress, you must be prepared to discuss this and reason things out by dialogue. You have your reasoning I know, but it is not reasoning I agree with. Are you willing to learn? Have you bothered to view the first video in the series on the exposition of Job I gave you the link to? If we discussed that series after watching it, we would be able to discuss the speaker's suggestions. I have learned things from watching that series and you could learn something also, unless you keep your spiritual eyes and ears closed.

When you are willing to discuss these things and not just give your soundbites and ill-thought out opinions, then I am ready to continue. Just do not expect me to answer your questions without reciprocating. Unless you can explain how you derive your conclusions/opinions, you cannot expect anyone to blindly accept what you say. I could easily ignore you, but I do not want to do that, if you begin to reason. It is up to you. I had hoped we had resumed our conversations and would make progress generally; not one-sided,as you think you are making progress in getting me to support your ideas.

BTW. Did you realize that the "yes" to your question was only to that question? Now go figure. If I said "yes", to the original question, you would have to know why. You need to carefully consider your words; like the word "punish". You need to explain what way you think a person offering themselves as a sacrifice is seen by that person as a punishment. Have you ever volunteered to do anything?

You are a long way from being in the position to make your own moral judgements upon those whose reasons for arguing against you, you disagree with.

Regards
David

Greatest I am

11-20-2013, 02:57 PM

Hello DL

You are jumping to the wrong conclusions again and expressing your opinion. If you want to make true progress, you must be prepared to discuss this and reason things out by dialogue. You have your reasoning I know, but it is not reasoning I agree with. Are you willing to learn? Have you bothered to view the first video in the series on the exposition of Job I gave you the link to? If we discussed that series after watching it, we would be able to discuss the speaker's suggestions. I have learned things from watching that series and you could learn something also, unless you keep your spiritual eyes and ears closed.

When you are willing to discuss these things and not just give your soundbites and ill-thought out opinions, then I am ready to continue. Just do not expect me to answer your questions without reciprocating. Unless you can explain how you derive your conclusions/opinions, you cannot expect anyone to blindly accept what you say. I could easily ignore you, but I do not want to do that, if you begin to reason. It is up to you. I had hoped we had resumed our conversations and would make progress generally; not one-sided,as you think you are making progress in getting me to support your ideas.

BTW. Did you realize that the "yes" to your question was only to that question? Now go figure. If I said "yes", to the original question, you would have to know why. You need to carefully consider your words; like the word "punish". You need to explain what way you think a person offering themselves as a sacrifice is seen by that person as a punishment. Have you ever volunteered to do anything?

You are a long way from being in the position to make your own moral judgements upon those whose reasons for arguing against you, you disagree with.

Regards
David

What I concluded was based on what you answered.

If wrong then you should rephrase.

You also have taken a condescending attitude as to who needs to learn what when with your poor morals, I think it is you who has much to learn. Last time we spoke of Job you gave God a free pass for his evil works by ignoring that he said Satan had moved him to do harm without just cause.

Take that log out of your eye and we can start looking at the story with our eyes opened.

Regards
DL

David M

11-20-2013, 03:48 PM

What I concluded was based on what you answered.

If wrong then you should rephrase.

You also have taken a condescending attitude as to who needs to learn what when with your poor morals, I think it is you who has much to learn. Last time we spoke of Job you gave God a free pass for his evil works by ignoring that he said Satan had moved him to do harm without just cause.

Take that log out of your eye and we can start looking at the story with our eyes opened.

Regards
DL

Stop making unfounded accusations DL. Since you want to continue in your old style, which I refrained from continuing to get involved in further posts from you, I thought when I contributed to this thread you started, we might be making progress in this conversation. Maybe I have learned that you are not going to change and therefore until your attitude changes, I am bowing out. All you have done is alienate yourself from me. When you have taken time to watch the videos and can make constructive comments, then I might engage with you again.

I will wait to see when you have said you have watched the videos.

Regards
David

Greatest I am

11-21-2013, 06:51 AM

When you stop embracing human sacrifice and the notion that it is good to profit from the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty, then we can talk.

If you cannot learn good morals instead of the crap you follow then perhaps we can chat.

You want me to change while you sit in the Satanic moral low ground.

Regards
DL

Richard Amiel McGough

11-21-2013, 08:35 PM

This is 3 minutes and 25 seconds in which the presenter shows himself/herself to be a "moron" and has no understanding of what the Bible tells us. The presenter admits to "cannot make sense" to why Jesus had to die etc. With that admission, it is obvious from the start of the presentation, "absurd" (to quote someone else) statements are made. So many questions are asked in the video, do you or the presenter want to listen to the answers from someone who has made sense of it?

Hey there David,

Do you think the person in that video misrepresented what the vast majority of Christians believe? If not, then it sounds like you are saying that most people who claim to believe the Bible are morons. Might want to reflect on that for a bit.

The same goes for the second video. Another 4 minutes 59 seconds of garbage that makes me cringe for the reason the presenter does not expect. The response of a typical Christian is used and in that sense, both presenter and Christian example make me cringe.

Now you've really got me confused. Are you rejecting the idea that God forgives sins because Jesus took the punishment we deserved? If so, it sounds like you are totally rejecting the Bible. But if not, then I don't see how you could you say the video was "garbage" since it was based on the injustice of that concept. If you really want to maintain it was "garbage" it would be good if you could state something in the video you thought was inaccurate.

So, I have spent 8 or 9 minutes of listening to rubbish. If you are serious about wanting to get to the truth, why not spend some hours listening to someone who presents a good exposition and explains these things.

I have found a series of talks in which an exposition of the Book of Job is given. I have watched one video and have downloaded the series. Since I am going away for a couple of weeks, I have transferred them to my video player so I can watch and learn and have something to do while sat in a plane for five hours. I suggest you watch the following series: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=an+exposition+on+the+book+of+ job&sm=1 You will find the six-part series listed.

Ah. The Christadelphian explanation - believed by 0.00001% of all Bible believers - is the truth. :thumb:

The recording and editing of the video leaves a lot to be desired, but if you can get over that and concentrate on what the speaker is saying what the Book of Job says, then I think this will answer most of the questions that arise from watching videos like the two you have asked me to watch. There are so many of these "moronic" videos that having watched one, it is a waste of my time to keep watching more. I am prepared to spend time (not wasting time) watching videos that have something to teach me. Even in the videos I suggest you watch, I do not have to agree with the speaker on everything he says, and he does not expect everything he says to be accepted. So far, I have not found anything said to be contentious. He is putting forward things for you to consider. The speaker has resolved difficult questions for himself and the exposition of the Book of Job, shows you how he has come to answer these difficult questions. I found the last part #6 video and watched that before finding the series. Now I am part way through the part #1 in which the speaker is speaking generally and referring to other well know critics of the Book of Job. The following parts to the series, he says he is going to stay in the Bible and use extensively. All I can do is suggest you watch if you want to get answers. It would take me as long to explain these things to you, and I think the speaker in these videos does a better job of presenting the evidence and explanations far better than I do.

Here is the link again; http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=an+exposition+on+the+book+of+ job&sm=1

Regards
David
"The speaker has resolved difficult questions for himself". What a fascinating coincidence! The answers he resolved "for himself" just happen to be identical to those taught by the human founder of his sect which are believed by approximately 0.00001% of Bible believers. Will wonders never cease?

David M

12-26-2013, 09:17 AM

Hello Richard
I am catching up on replies I have missed.

Hey there David,

Do you think the person in that video misrepresented what the vast majority of Christians believe? If not, then it sounds like you are saying that most people who claim to believe the Bible are morons. Might want to reflect on that for a bit. Very possibly the presenter says what a lot of Christians believe and which is not true. I do not give an exact percentage of who I would call morons but the figure is likely to be higher that lower. It comes back to (Matt 7:14) Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
I am still waiting for you or L67 or for someone else to comment and give what the criteria by which few will be saved. Few by comparison to the billions of people that have lived. The few could still be a large number.

Now you've really got me confused. Are you rejecting the idea that God forgives sins because Jesus took the punishment we deserved? If so, it sounds like you are totally rejecting the Bible. But if not, then I don't see how you could you say the video was "garbage" since it was based on the injustice of that concept. If you really want to maintain it was "garbage" it would be good if you could state something in the video you thought was inaccurate.Maybe another time. I do not want to waste another 3 minutes 25 seconds to find a piece of garbage to give you by way of example. Show me something you do not think is garbage and we can take it from there.
To answer your first question, Abraham's faith was counted to him as righteousness and so we can say from that God would save Abraham and that is why Abraham looked forward to receiving his inheritance. In the purpose of God like Abraham, no-one could be in the Kingdom of God and be in the presence of God unless they had gained the same victory as Jesus won. It is only by the victory won by Jesus that he wins the battle for us. By his blood (Romans 5:9)being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved. Until Jesus made himself as the only perfect sacrifice to end all sacrifices for sin, no-one would be saved; not even those who had died in faith. It was in the foreknowledge of God that Jesus had to be perfect and be the sacrifice for sin. Hebrews 9 explains this.

Ah. The Christadelphian explanation - believed by 0.00001% of all Bible believers - is the truth. :thumb:give it a rest. You are an irritant. However, I would not put the percentage that low. You might be correct. 0.00001% represents one in a million. If there are 7 billion (7,000,000,000) people on the planet now, that would mean 7,000 people would be saved. I think the number is higher than that, but how would I know (rhetorical)?

"The speaker has resolved difficult questions for himself". What a fascinating coincidence! The answers he resolved "for himself" just happen to be identical to those taught by the human founder of his sect which are believed by approximately 0.00001% of Bible believers. Will wonders never cease?They are the answers I would hope you could search out for yourself, but you seem devoid of any intention to do that. I bring to your attention a series on good Bible exposition; yet you prefer to present videos full garbage. If the presenter of the video in question says he "cannot make sense" of God's word, why present us with his nonsensical ideas to prove God is immoral the same as you think that is what the Bible is doing? I have passed that and have moved on. I can speak well of God in a way that you have not found to do so. The judgements of God are seen as harsh, but we should learn from other people's mistakes and should be thankful to God for the lessons we can learn and which keep us in the way that will lead to eternal life. Why do you not proclaim the positive message of the Bible and praise God who will solve the problems caused by man and clean up his mess. God will save man from his own destruction. You only have to see what potential humanitarian disasters are befalling this planet. I think it is fair to say, that whilst every generation has had reason to believe they might be the last generation to be alive before the return of Christ, the disasters have been getting worse and worse and growing in number. Earthquakes and natural disasters are getting more frequent and violent than they have ever been at any time in history. The mounting number of disasters and conflicts around the world are more than has ever been. Matthew 24 is coming to pass at this present time. How much worse it has to get before the next phase, we have to watch and see. The situation has been likened to a woman giving birth and the birth pangs are getting more frequent and stronger.

All the best
David

Matthjar

02-17-2014, 08:26 AM

Hiya I want to play too....

Yes.

1. Yes I believe that Human sacrifice can be moral.
2. Yes I can give you an argument showing how creating a human sacrifice and punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is moral?

A. A Person that is completely innocent/or guilty can sacrifice themselves in order to protect/serve/love another that is not completely innocent and thus by definition is guilty.

1. In the Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens the Roguish Scoundrel Drunkard CHOOSES to sacrifice himself (while innocent of the crime in question) to save the family that he loves from the grief of losing their husband/father figure. (Who although was not guilty by direct associate was guilty through his fathers sins, which is the Current Law of the Land.) They say on that day that never was such a peaceful countenance seen on the executioners block. Okay i now I kind of cheated by stealing from Dickens but i figure i could have just extrapolated a similar story.

OK.....

Now If I am going to play your game then you simply must play mine.

1. Do you believe that Human sacrifice can be moral?
2. I realize you may resist this question and that is okay I have other ways to get to an answer on this, but Where do you think Humankind come from?

AN ohhh i don't mean to step on any toes by jumping in here.......

Richard Amiel McGough

02-17-2014, 10:46 AM

Hiya I want to play too....

Awesome! I'm glad you jumped in ...

:snowfight:

Yes.

1. Yes I believe that Human sacrifice can be moral.
2. Yes I can give you an argument showing how creating a human sacrifice and punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is moral?

A. A Person that is completely innocent/or guilty can sacrifice themselves in order to protect/serve/love another that is not completely innocent and thus by definition is guilty.

1. In the Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens the Roguish Scoundrel Drunkard CHOOSES to sacrifice himself (while innocent of the crime in question) to save the family that he loves from the grief of losing their husband/father figure. (Who although was not guilty by direct associate was guilty through his fathers sins, which is the Current Law of the Land.) They say on that day that never was such a peaceful countenance seen on the executioners block. Okay i now I kind of cheated by stealing from Dickens but i figure i could have just extrapolated a similar story.

OK.....

Now If I am going to play your game then you simply must play mine.

1. Do you believe that Human sacrifice can be moral?
2. I realize you may resist this question and that is okay I have other ways to get to an answer on this, but Where do you think Humankind come from?

AN ohhh i don't mean to step on any toes by jumping in here.......
I don't see anything wrong in your citation of Dickens. That's not "stealing."

The sacrifice the Drunkard offered was not a "moral" issue at all. It is simply something he chose to do for someone he loved, like giving them a gift. There is no moral obligation to give gifts.

In general, human sacrifice is evil because it destroys a human. There are situations, of course, where one may deem it a necessary evil in light of a greater evil, and so the evil of human sacrifice may be justified, but that doesn't make it "good" and it certainly is nothing like the core meaning of "love."

So where did we come from? Our parents. And where did our parents come from? Their parents. And so on. Does this mean that there were a first pair of parents, like Adam and Eve? Nope. Why not? Evolution. If you reject evolution, you are rejecting science because of ignorant religious dogmas. We can talk about that if you like.

Great chatting!

Richard

Rose

02-17-2014, 10:49 AM

Matthjar

02-19-2014, 12:04 AM

Awesome! I'm glad you jumped in ...

:snowfight:

I don't see anything wrong in your citation of Dickens. That's not "stealing."

The sacrifice the Drunkard offered was not a "moral" issue at all. It is simply something he chose to do for someone he loved, like giving them a gift. There is no moral obligation to give gifts.

I may have misinterpreted the question....... I was just trying to show that someone could sacrifice their own life (thus committing human sacrifice) for another and have it be a good action rather than a evil one....

Now that i reread and understand the original question of
"Now could you give us an argument showing how creating a human sacrifice and punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is moral?"
Seems like a very loaded question... I am having a very hard time understanding the first qualifier of "creating a human sacrifice".... seems to be an odd choice of words...... for now I will just assume that this part if actually negligible to the real and second part of the question... if i am incorrect or am missing how answering this part is vital to what i perceive to be the real(??) question of .....

"Now could you give us an argument showing how punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is moral?"

The question even in this direct and simpler form is very difficult one indeed...... for now at least i am going to have to pass on that one.....

In general, human sacrifice is evil because it destroys a human. There are situations, of course, where one may deem it a necessary evil in light of a greater evil, and so the evil of human sacrifice may be justified, but that doesn't make it "good" and it certainly is nothing like the core meaning of "love."

When we assess a situation don't we have to assess the whole situation in context and the outcome to determine if an action is good or evil...... I am not so sure that we can say any action is either good, evil, or indifferent taken out of the context of the whole situation and the outcome of that action.....I mean shouldn't the reason why someone is doing something at the very least be a contextual clue as to discerning whether the behavior is evil or good or indifferent.....i am not arguing here that the end can ever justify the means...

So where did we come from? Our parents. And where did our parents come from? Their parents. And so on. Does this mean that there were a first pair of parents, like Adam and Eve? Nope. Why not? Evolution. If you reject evolution, you are rejecting science because of ignorant religious dogmas. We can talk about that if you like.

Actually awhile back i come across some information showing that genetic researchers had scientifically proven a genetic "Adam" and a genetic "Eve"... this of course does not Prove the biblical account of A+E or even that they new each other... but the fact that all Men have a common ancestor and all Women have one common ancestor..... If i understand genetics properly then this does not necessarily mean that they lived at the same time or that they even knew each other but it does not preclude it either.... Obviously though we can say that at some point their ancestors did eventually meet up and procreate since we exist..... I believe that does mean however that either there would have been at least a male or female missing link or that they indeed appear at the same time. I have no problem with evolution at all other than the random requirement.... I strongly believe that the mutations must have had a cause other than pure randomness....... some kind of Alien intelligence.....

LOL..... If i reject evolution it does not necessarily mean that I am doing so because of ignorant religious dogmas..... could be ignorance of any variety for example...... or bribery..... or stubbornness......or just to aggravate people who believe it.... could be myriads of reasons... I mean it is still a theory correct and not a proven fact???

Anyhow the main reason i brought it up as a hook to try to pull someone in to discussion regarding a mechanistic materialism worldview.... I need to see if i can come up with an argument requiring an atheist to defend the position...

And as Always great chatting with you Too Richard.... ;-)