In the Old Testament you see a lot of imagery regarding the serious consequences of sin. Basically, the consequence of sin is death. Immediately after Adam and Eve sinned, God killed an animal and clothed them with the animal's skin (this is pretty symbolic, by the way). The animal didn't do anything wrong, of course, Adam and Eve did. Just like Jesus didn't do anything wrong...we did. He willingly took our punishment for sin - death - on himself, opening the way to eternal life and a restored relationship with God. Animal sacrifices in the Old Testament were a precursor to Jesus' sacrifice in the New Testament, for the forgiveness of sins.
Edit: By the way, God never commanded people to sacrifice children to him (with the exception of Abraham and Isaac; God was testing Abraham). God actually, specifically told people NOT to sacrifice their children to him.
I'm not saying god demands children sacrifice. I just can't accept or understand the concept of the killing of innocent, to placate a sin. I know the explanation of "died so we dont have to", but it doesnt say why God seems to be so keen on sacrifices, and why the more innocent the sacrifice, the better. Based on this, my killing of children then follows as something that would please the lord immensely, since the sacrifice of something innocent is something he really enjoys. And killing may be sin, but such perfect sacrifice dedicated to the lord must pretty much compensate it, or at least get you some heaven points.
I'm not even arguing God here, only stating that a principle of innocent sacrifice as somehow the best kind there is, sounds pretty warped to me. Sounds suspiciously like something man came up with himself...
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Well, I'm atheist so maybe I should really have just ignored this thread, but the way I see it, "original sin" is what makes us human.
The Devil (or, our natural inquisitive nature as I prefer to call him), taught Adam to say No. To stand up and make his own damned decisions about what fruit he was gonna eat, regardless of what the authorities (God) thought of it.
And in my opinion, the ability to say, or at least think, No, is what makes us human.
So thank Satan for that at least, if he exists, which is HIGHLY improbable.
Edd
Also, Satan is pretty.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
In the Old Testament you see a lot of imagery regarding the serious consequences of sin. Basically, the consequence of sin is death. Immediately after Adam and Eve sinned, God killed an animal and clothed them with the animal's skin (this is pretty symbolic, by the way). The animal didn't do anything wrong, of course, Adam and Eve did. Just like Jesus didn't do anything wrong...we did. He willingly took our punishment for sin - death - on himself, opening the way to eternal life and a restored relationship with God. Animal sacrifices in the Old Testament were a precursor to Jesus' sacrifice in the New Testament, for the forgiveness of sins.
Edit: By the way, God never commanded people to sacrifice children to him (with the exception of Abraham and Isaac; God was testing Abraham). God actually, specifically told people NOT to sacrifice their children to him.
sadly tho...the animals did not 'choose' to die as jesus did. but we humans are always put our lives above other animals.
however, i really enjoyed reading what you wrote. i never quite read or thought about it in that way, granted it's been a really long time since i put any serious thought to it, period.
funny, as a child i always dreaded going to confession...the whole process sorta scared me, and yet i always felt *better* afterwards. i cannot even remember the last time i went to confession, probably in HS.....and imagine that is where it will end.
so basically its the sins of the father thing. adam sinned so even though we havent sinned, we all 'pay the price'. the assumption being, we are all born sinners. even though consciously until we reach a certain age we are incapable of making that distinction between right and wrong.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I'm not saying god demands children sacrifice. I just can't accept or understand the concept of the killing of innocent, to placate a sin. I know the explanation of "died so we dont have to", but it doesnt say why God seems to be so keen on sacrifices, and why the more innocent the sacrifice, the better. Based on this, my killing of children then follows as something that would please the lord immensely, since the sacrifice of something innocent is something he really enjoys. And killing may be sin, but such perfect sacrifice dedicated to the lord must pretty much compensate it, or at least get you some heaven points.
I'm not even arguing God here, only stating that a principle of innocent sacrifice as somehow the best kind there is, sounds pretty warped to me. Sounds suspiciously like something man came up with himself...
Peace
Dan
It's a difficult concept. Basically, Adam and Eve deserved to die for what they did, but God spared them and promised that one day there would be someone who lived a perfect live and never sinned to take their punishment for them and all of their descendants. God is a just God. There had to be some kind of consequence for sin. Through one man (Adam) came death, and so through one man (Jesus) would come life. That's basically it.
It's sad, too, that animals had to be sacrificed, but again, it was basically symbolism for what God had promised Adam and Eve. Sacrificing an animal showed people's acknowledgement that their sin required death, repentance from that sin, and faith in the future sacrifice from God, who would bear their penalty.
Adam and Eve's sin, bringing death into the world, changed the nature of their descedants to be susceptible to sin. In that respect, we are all born with a sinful nature. Once a child gets to an age where they know right from wrong, they begin using their free will, and eventually, they will sin.
Chicago 2000 : Chicago 2003 : Chicago 2006 : Summerfest 2006 : Lollapalooza 2007 : Chicago 2009 : Noblesville (Indy) 2010 : PJ20 (East Troy) 2011 : Wrigley Field 2013 : Milwaukee (Yield) 2014 : Wrigley Field 2016
It's a difficult concept. Basically, Adam and Eve deserved to die for what they did, but God spared them and promised that one day there would be someone who lived a perfect live and never sinned to take their punishment for them and all of their descendants. God is a just God. There had to be some kind of consequence for sin. Through one man (Adam) came death, and so through one man (Jesus) would come life. That's basically it.
It's sad, too, that animals had to be sacrificed, but again, it was basically symbolism for what God had promised Adam and Eve. Sacrificing an animal showed people's acknowledgement that their sin required death, repentance from that sin, and faith in the future sacrifice from God, who would bear their penalty.
Adam and Eve's sin, bringing death into the world, changed the nature of their descedants to be susceptible to sin. In that respect, we are all born with a sinful nature. Once a child gets to an age where they know right from wrong, they begin using their free will, and eventually, they will sin.
It still does not explain why God needs that innocent sacrifice to be placated. Sure, he makes the arrangements, but why MUST he have sacrifice, when murder and killing are bad? He can't be happy uintil he has made the arrangements to send someone perfect down (took him some thousand years to do too) and have him be killed by the people, so that he could be satisifed. To me it sounds like you broke my old tv, which pissed me off, so I have to save up lots of cash, buy a really expensive one to give to you so you could break that too, and THEN I'd be happy and reconciled. Doesn't add up at all.
He sounds like a blood-thirsty and jealous god. (Especially the OT) And we do die. Adam and Eve died. God just didn't kill them at once. I will say that I have no faith whatsoever in the christian/bible depiction of God, particularly the OT version.
As for sin, that is to me one of the most poisonous concepts ever invented, not to mention the concept of original sin which is even worse. The definition of sin seems to be anything we naturally do and wish for. Making for an eternal guilt trip on each of us, which also have a nice side-effect in making us more accepting to authority and punishment. (Since we know we deep down deserve it)
Good and bad exists, but neither in any pure form, and both based on value judgements anyway. I'm not an atheist at all, believe it or not, but my image of God/the divine lies in a very different direction. I dont believe there is a man in the sky watching our every move and deciding who's been good or who's been bad. God, or the god-force to me is best manifested in love and harmony between people, and between people and nature. I believe much more that everything IS God, in the sense that God is everything, and we are just as much part of him as everything else is. And I dont need to have a book-reference to know or feel these things. That part of christians I believe in, that feeling of connecting to God. But it is in my view a mistake to mix that with the dusty old story-book which contains how people thought of these things 4000 years ago. We have evolved our thinking a lot in those years, so we should no longer get caught up in how racist and sexist patriarchs manipulated the sense of God thousands of years ago.
Anyway, I wanted to hear how you can justify God's bloodlust, but I'm not expecting an answer I'll accept. It's defintiely a matter of belief and leap of faith to accept that inconsistency. I prefer not to be shackled with old inconsistencies that have accumulated over the milennia from an inferior starting point, compared to where we find ourselves now. The leap of faith should be about acknowledging the divine, not in brushing glaring old logical inconsistencies under the carpet for fear of evolving from the stagnant old dogmas and ideas. (like 3=1 for instance, or god giving orders in violation of his own commandments)
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
It still does not explain why God needs that innocent sacrifice to be placated. Sure, he makes the arrangements, but why MUST he have sacrifice, when murder and killing are bad? He can't be happy uintil he has made the arrangements to send someone perfect down (took him some thousand years to do too) and have him be killed by the people, so that he could be satisifed. To me it sounds like you broke my old tv, which pissed me off, so I have to save up lots of cash, buy a really expensive one to give to you so you could break that too, and THEN I'd be happy and reconciled. Doesn't add up at all.
He sounds like a blood-thirsty and jealous god. (Especially the OT) And we do die. Adam and Eve died. God just didn't kill them at once. I will say that I have no faith whatsoever in the christian/bible depiction of God, particularly the OT version.
As for sin, that is to me one of the most poisonous concepts ever invented, not to mention the concept of original sin which is even worse. The definition of sin seems to be anything we naturally do and wish for. Making for an eternal guilt trip on each of us, which also have a nice side-effect in making us more accepting to authority and punishment. (Since we know we deep down deserve it)
Good and bad exists, but neither in any pure form, and both based on value judgements anyway. I'm not an atheist at all, believe it or not, but my image of God/the divine lies in a very different direction. I dont believe there is a man in the sky watching our every move and deciding who's been good or who's been bad. God, or the god-force to me is best manifested in love and harmony between people, and between people and nature. I believe much more that everything IS God, in the sense that God is everything, and we are just as much part of him as everything else is. And I dont need to have a book-reference to know or feel these things. That part of christians I believe in, that feeling of connecting to God. But it is in my view a mistake to mix that with the dusty old story-book which contains how people thought of these things 4000 years ago. We have evolved our thinking a lot in those years, so we should no longer get caught up in how racist and sexist patriarchs manipulated the sense of God thousands of years ago.
Anyway, I wanted to hear how you can justify God's bloodlust, but I'm not expecting an answer I'll accept. It's defintiely a matter of belief and leap of faith to accept that inconsistency. I prefer not to be shackled with old inconsistencies that have accumulated over the milennia from an inferior starting point, compared to where we find ourselves now. The leap of faith should be about acknowledging the divine, not in brushing glaring old logical inconsistencies under the carpet for fear of evolving from the stagnant old dogmas and ideas. (like 3=1 for instance, or god giving orders in violation of his own commandments)
Peace
Dan
When God told Adam and Eve that the day that they ate of the fruit, they would die; he was laying out the penalty for sin. He told them in no uncertain terms what would happen. God created the universe and humans, and he made the rules. Sin brings death. No, they did not die immediately after eating the fruit, but their actions brought death into the world, not only of themselves but of every human being that would come after them.
It is interesting that within moments of of Adam and Eve tasting the fruit, God already decided that he would have mercy and provide a sinless sacrifice to atone for them. Some call it substitution. It doesn't mean that God is bloodthirsty, wanting to kill people. He is a God of holiness and justice, and so he could not just let the sin go, since he had already determined beforehand that the punishment for sin was death. What is amazing is that he took that punishment - the punishment he himself had created and demanded - on himself, since he is also a God of love who desires to have mercy on those he has created. People die anyway because even though our sins are ultimately atoned for, we don't necessarily escape their consequences. Jesus forgave the criminal crucified next to him who repented, but he didn't take him down off the cross.
Since God created life, only God has the right to take life. That's why he forbade humans from killing each other. They did not have the right to take another human life, because only God has that right.
As for the Bible being a historically reliable text, that's a completely different topic, but I will say this. When one really begins to read and study the Bible, it becomes clear that God is not any different from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Even though the Bible is really 66 individual books, written on two (or possibly three) continents, in three different languages, over a period of approximately 1500 years, by more than 40 authors (who came from many walks of life), it remains one unified book from beginning to end. In it we see how a loving, merciful, and just God deals with sinful people in all kinds of situations. God’s love for His creation, especially for humanity, is evident all through the Bible. Throughout the Bible we see God lovingly and mercifully calling people into a special relationship with Himself, not because they deserve it but because He is a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in loving-kindness and truth. Yet we also see a holy and righteous God Who is the judge of all those who disobey. You can see that in both the Old and the New Testaments. The Old Testament describes God punishing people for sin, but also having mercy on people. The New Testament describes God's boundless love, but also his judgment. His characteristics are revealed in both Testaments.
Chicago 2000 : Chicago 2003 : Chicago 2006 : Summerfest 2006 : Lollapalooza 2007 : Chicago 2009 : Noblesville (Indy) 2010 : PJ20 (East Troy) 2011 : Wrigley Field 2013 : Milwaukee (Yield) 2014 : Wrigley Field 2016
As for sin, that is to me one of the most poisonous concepts ever invented, not to mention the concept of original sin which is even worse. The definition of sin seems to be anything we naturally do and wish for. Making for an eternal guilt trip on each of us, which also have a nice side-effect in making us more accepting to authority and punishment. (Since we know we deep down deserve it)
Anyway, I wanted to hear how you can justify God's bloodlust, but I'm not expecting an answer I'll accept. It's defintiely a matter of belief and leap of faith to accept that inconsistency. I prefer not to be shackled with old inconsistencies that have accumulated over the milennia from an inferior starting point, compared to where we find ourselves now. The leap of faith should be about acknowledging the divine, not in brushing glaring old logical inconsistencies under the carpet for fear of evolving from the stagnant old dogmas and ideas. (like 3=1 for instance, or god giving orders in violation of his own commandments)
Peace
Dan
It isn't bloodlust. In fact, its quite the opposite. If it we're bloodlust, we would all be gone. The bible states that the wages of sin is death. Not a death from old age and natural causes, but immediate death not in just the physical sense but the spiritual sense as well. This was the ultimate mission of Christ coming to earth. This is from a Christian vantage point, of course, which i realize, understand and respect that you reject. i'm in no way pushing beliefs here, but rather attempting to explain them as i don't think you quite understand them. It is not bloodlust at all, but grace! Undeserved and unconditional grace. The polar opposite of bloodlust. We as humans are fallible and imperfect. Period. No one is righteous or "good enough" to achieve Godly standards. Because of this we would be doomed to physical and spiritual death. God, according to Christian belief, took on human flesh, came to earth to, first of all, take part in the human experience. Pain, suffering, anger, rejection, temptation,betrayal and yes, of course, death. Brutal torturous death. All of the things we as humans experience, Christ experienced as well, yet led a virtually blameless life. The idea of Christ as "sacrificial lamb" is of course, metaphor. Christ suffered and died in our place. He took the weight and punishment of our shortcomings upon himself. That's called grace. It isn't called "bloodlust". It's a gift that we ,according to Christian belief, simply need to accept. It isn't a loophole to excuse despicable behavior. It is a recognition and understanding that we has humans with wonderfully and brilliantly God given free-will, are going to fuck up from time to time, regardless of how hard we try not to.
As far as the original question regarding sin and forgiveness, just because we as humans are inclined to mess up occasionally, doesn't mean forgiveness isn't required. It doesn't mean we need not sincerely seek it for ourselves and, perhaps more importantly, offer it to others who wrong us. Christ instructed his followers to pray for God to "forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us". That doesn't say forgive us BECAUSE we forgive others. It is basically asking God to forgive us IN THE SAME MANNER as we forgive others. In other words, if we choose not to forgive those that wrong us, but rather hold grudges and harbor feelings of resentment and contempt, we should only expect God to treat us in the same fashion. That's serious food for contemplation.
i rarely ever contribute to these types of threads anymore. In fact, i haven't posted in this forum, at all, for months. Today i needed to keep my mind busy a little.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
When God told Adam and Eve that the day that they ate of the fruit, they would die; he was laying out the penalty for sin. He told them in no uncertain terms what would happen. God created the universe and humans, and he made the rules. Sin brings death. No, they did not die immediately after eating the fruit, but their actions brought death into the world, not only of themselves but of every human being that would come after them.
It is interesting that within moments of of Adam and Eve tasting the fruit, God already decided that he would have mercy and provide a sinless sacrifice to atone for them. Some call it substitution. It doesn't mean that God is bloodthirsty, wanting to kill people. He is a God of holiness and justice, and so he could not just let the sin go, since he had already determined beforehand that the punishment for sin was death. What is amazing is that he took that punishment - the punishment he himself had created and demanded - on himself, since he is also a God of love who desires to have mercy on those he has created. People die anyway because even though our sins are ultimately atoned for, we don't necessarily escape their consequences. Jesus forgave the criminal crucified next to him who repented, but he didn't take him down off the cross.
Since God created life, only God has the right to take life. That's why he forbade humans from killing each other. They did not have the right to take another human life, because only God has that right.
As for the Bible being a historically reliable text, that's a completely different topic, but I will say this. When one really begins to read and study the Bible, it becomes clear that God is not any different from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Even though the Bible is really 66 individual books, written on two (or possibly three) continents, in three different languages, over a period of approximately 1500 years, by more than 40 authors (who came from many walks of life), it remains one unified book from beginning to end. In it we see how a loving, merciful, and just God deals with sinful people in all kinds of situations. God’s love for His creation, especially for humanity, is evident all through the Bible. Throughout the Bible we see God lovingly and mercifully calling people into a special relationship with Himself, not because they deserve it but because He is a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in loving-kindness and truth. Yet we also see a holy and righteous God Who is the judge of all those who disobey. You can see that in both the Old and the New Testaments. The Old Testament describes God punishing people for sin, but also having mercy on people. The New Testament describes God's boundless love, but also his judgment. His characteristics are revealed in both Testaments.
See, my faith evaporates the moment he must create sin, and a punishment for it. God made everything, supposedly, then God made sin, and knew it would happen. So why he is seemingly surprised of events unfolding seems weird to me, not to mention his penchant for live sacrifice. (which makes him suspiciously alike other tribal gods of the era, mind you)
You argue well enough, but to me it fails already on the first premise. God is not amazing and all-good for inventing sin, punishing us for doing it (as he would know we would since he created us) and having an itch for a sacrifice to atone for the inevitable. Just that removes any chance that he would be my god. To see god as a force of love and harmony makes much more sense, without having to drag on old biblical and church dogma. A jealous, vengeful, sacrifice-craving god is something very different from my perception of god and the divine. I know christians interpret that differently, but I can't get around the demand of sacrifice from the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good god. That he makes arrangements is not good enough an excuse.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
It isn't bloodlust. In fact, its quite the opposite. If it we're bloodlust, we would all be gone. The bible states that the wages of sin is death. Not a death from old age and natural causes, but immediate death not in just the physical sense but the spiritual sense as well. This was the ultimate mission of Christ coming to earth. This is from a Christian vantage point, of course, which i realize, understand and respect that you reject. i'm in no way pushing beliefs here, but rather attempting to explain them as i don't think you quite understand them. It is not bloodlust at all, but grace! Undeserved and unconditional grace. The polar opposite of bloodlust. We as humans are fallible and imperfect. Period. No one is righteous or "good enough" to achieve Godly standards. Because of this we would be doomed to physical and spiritual death. God, according to Christian belief, took on human flesh, came to earth to, first of all, take part in the human experience. Pain, suffering, anger, rejection, temptation,betrayal and yes, of course, death. Brutal torturous death. All of the things we as humans experience, Christ experienced as well, yet led a virtually blameless life. The idea of Christ as "sacrificial lamb" is of course, metaphor. Christ suffered and died in our place. He took the weight and punishment of our shortcomings upon himself. That's called grace. It isn't called "bloodlust". It's a gift that we ,according to Christian belief, simply need to accept. It isn't a loophole to excuse despicable behavior. It is a recognition and understanding that we has humans with wonderfully and brilliantly God given free-will, are going to fuck up from time to time, regardless of how hard we try not to.
I am sensationalizing a bit with the bloodlust, I'll admit, but the whole concept of live sacrifice to me doesnt sound like an omnipotent creator of the universe. Why did someone have to die in our place? Why MUST god have a live innocent sacrifice? That doesnt at all add up with the rest of it, without accepting a leap or two of faith.
As far as the original question regarding sin and forgiveness, just because we as humans are inclined to mess up occasionally, doesn't mean forgiveness isn't required. It doesn't mean we need not sincerely seek it for ourselves and, perhaps more importantly, offer it to others who wrong us. Christ instructed his followers to pray for God to "forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us". That doesn't say forgive us BECAUSE we forgive others. It is basically asking God to forgive us IN THE SAME MANNER as we forgive others. In other words, if we choose not to forgive those that wrong us, but rather hold grudges and harbor feelings of resentment and contempt, we should only expect God to treat us in the same fashion. That's serious food for contemplation.
Forgiveness is another matter. We must try to forgive eachother for what we do to eachother, but not because we are fundamentally "sinful" of nature. Just because it's the polite and best thing to do. The combo of "you are full of filthy sin" and "you must beg forgiveness for your despicable self always" has been used for central control since at least the first pope. That combo to me is pure poison in what it does to people and how they think, and what they accept doing and have done to them because of it.
i rarely ever contribute to these types of threads anymore. In fact, i haven't posted in this forum, at all, for months. Today i needed to keep my mind busy a little.
I value your contribution, truly. I wanted to hear what some would say to go against the glaring inconsistency (in my view) at the base of the whole premise of faith and the nature of God. Thing is, I dont see any need for christian trappings in acknowledging god and the divine. Major religions are all about controlling and directing how we think about that feeling and connecting to the divine. Thus the focus on sin, which is as fine a controlling tool as is ever invented.
For me, I acknowledge the divine when I touch it and feel it. But I never do in any religious setting, much more often when I'm out in nature, on top of a mountain, or when listening to music. I believe in that force of love and harmony, and that we should strive to make society based on those. The moment someone come along with a definite book on how we are allowed to think about those subjects, and how we can't think of them on threat of hell, that's it, really. From there on, it's just about power and control. And I have no faith in an afterlife, and dont even think it sounds that great. It sounds much better to me to disintegrate into the earth, and be eternally re-cycled into other life-forms or even rock. The circle of life. Cheesy, I know, but that's where my faith's at. I dont want to have to jump through several difficult hoops to justify it, just because someone a long time ago said something about it that was written down. Instead of playing long mindgames on why live innocent sacrifice is really grace and so on, I rather just ignore that old book as a source of truth, and see it for what it is: A historical record how people have thought of this subject before.
But I value both your input, even if it seems I'm trying to demolish you.
But I dont expect you to win me over on the christian side anytime soon. 18 years of baptist upbringing and influence couldn't do it, so...
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I am sensationalizing a bit with the bloodlust, I'll admit, but the whole concept of live sacrifice to me doesnt sound like an omnipotent creator of the universe. Why did someone have to die in our place? Why MUST god have a live innocent sacrifice? That doesnt at all add up with the rest of it, without accepting a leap or two of faith.
I value your contribution, truly. I wanted to hear what some would say to go against the glaring inconsistency (in my view) at the base of the whole premise of faith and the nature of God. Thing is, I dont see any need for christian trappings in acknowledging god and the divine. Major religions are all about controlling and directing how we think about that feeling and connecting to the divine. Thus the focus on sin, which is as fine a controlling tool as is ever invented.
For me, I acknowledge the divine when I touch it and feel it. But I never do in any religious setting, much more often when I'm out in nature, on top of a mountain, or when listening to music. I believe in that force of love and harmony, and that we should strive to make society based on those. The moment someone come along with a definite book on how we are allowed to think about those subjects, and how we can't think of them on threat of hell, that's it, really. From there on, it's just about power and control. And I have no faith in an afterlife, and dont even think it sounds that great. It sounds much better to me to disintegrate into the earth, and be eternally re-cycled into other life-forms or even rock. The circle of life. Cheesy, I know, but that's where my faith's at. I dont want to have to jump through several difficult hoops to justify it, just because someone a long time ago said something about it that was written down. Instead of playing long mindgames on why live innocent sacrifice is really grace and so on, I rather just ignore that old book as a source of truth, and see it for what it is: A historical record how people have thought of this subject before.
But I value both your input, even if it seems I'm trying to demolish you.
But I dont expect you to win me over on the christian side anytime soon. 18 years of baptist upbringing and influence couldn't do it, so...
Peace
Dan
Why must someone die in our place? It is so we don't have to. Again its called grace. Furthermore, according to Christian faith, Christ is a bit more than Human sacrifice. Christ is, in essence, God in Human flesh sent to earth for that specific purpose and not some randomly selected civilian. That's a bit different than just Human sacrifice.
Also, Your idea of God "creating sin and then punishing us for it", i believe, is a bit off the mark as well. God didn't create sin per se, but rather free will which, admittedly, enables the potential for sin. In my opinion, and it may seem strange, it is necessary. What meaning would righteousness have if there were no potential for wickedness? None. What would be the meaning and value of love, if hatred were not an option. Again, absolutely none. We could not experience love if there was no potential for its opposite. We would not appreciate it. In fact, we would have no knowledge of it. We wouldn't even feel it. How can i appreciate happiness, if i were to never know sadness? What meaning would it have for me to do right, if i couldn't just as easily do wrong? Am i making sense? To me it all lends itself to the idea of God's divine wisdom. In a strange sort of way, i am thankful for sadness, hatred, transgression and pain for without them i would not know, joy, love, good, or pleasure.
i don't expect to win you over to the Christian side any time soon either. In fact, i'll not even try. i don't see that as my job and it certainly isn't my intention. Again, unless it were a conscious choice of your own, it would be meaningless anyway.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Why must someone die in our place? It is so we don't have to. Again its called grace. Furthermore, according to Christian faith, Christ is a bit more than Human sacrifice. Christ is, in essence, God in Human flesh sent to earth for that specific purpose and not some randomly selected civilian. That's a bit different than just Human sacrifice.
But why must there be sacrifice? You justify that he really sacrificed himself etc, but why did there have to be a sacrifice? It sounds as if god has made restrictions even he himself can't break, but can go around in this manner.
Also, Your idea of God "creating sin and then punishing us for it", i believe, is a bit off the mark as well. God didn't create sin per se, but rather free will which, admittedly, enables the potential for sin. In my opinion, and it may seem strange, it is necessary. What meaning would righteousness have if there were no potential for wickedness? None. What would be the meaning and value of love, if hatred were not an option. Again, absolutely none. We could not experience love if there was no potential for its opposite. We would not appreciate it. In fact, we would have no knowledge of it. We wouldn't even feel it. How can i appreciate happiness, if i were to never know sadness? What meaning would it have for me to do right, if i couldn't just as easily do wrong? Am i making sense? To me it all lends itself to the idea of God's divine wisdom. In a strange sort of way, i am thankful for sadness, hatred, transgression and pain for without them i would not know, joy, love, good, or pleasure.
I understand the need for opposites, etc. But I dont understand god's seeming incredulity at what he (allknowing and all) had made and what we'd do. It's free will, BUT you will go to HELL eternally if you dont behave this way here. Fair enough he created good and evil, but what's with that punishment of minute "evil" in the individuals. Whole cities must be eradicated to please him at times, not to mention the big flood. He doesn't sound all-knowing, and not really all-powerful either. He sounds suspiciously like a king+1 with the same vanities as kings are known to have (in other words, a god thought up by humans), and not like the omnipotent creator of the universe.
This is mostly OT stuff, and mostly in connection with jewish national mythical history. Which I deem as useless baggage in this time and age, although it probably served a purpose back in the day.
i don't expect to win you over to the Christian side any time soon either. In fact, i'll not even try. i don't see that as my job and it certainly isn't my intention. Again, unless it were a conscious choice of your own, it would be meaningless anyway.
You're one of the good christians, I'll give you that.
But I still feel no need to appease millennia-old dogmas of often questionable origin when dealking with the awesome divine. That's my main point I guess.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I remember a while back I was listening to Dr. Laura, who is an ultra-conservative god-pushing version of Dr. Phil.
So, this caller calls in and starts to talk about the urge to commit adultery, and how he refrains because it's wrong per the bible. But, he added that he still wants to commits adultery--hence the phone call.
So, Dr. Laura goes, "Tell me why adultery is wrong."
The caller goes, "Because the bible says it's wrong."
Dr. Laura says, "But, give me the secular reason. Other than what the bible says, why is adultery wrong?"
The caller responds, "Ugghh, hmmmm."
This caller seriously couldn't figure out what was wrong with adultery other than that it defies the word of god.
Obviously, adultery violates the trust that one's partner has so heavily invested into the marriage. If children are involved, adultery risks the dissolution of the family unit, which can have serious emotional consequences on impressionable victims.
But, I think for many people in this world, that kind of intuitive grasp on the difference between right and wrong is far beyond their capabilities. So, they turn to religion to explain to them why society is the way it is -- because god says it's that way.
But why must there be sacrifice? You justify that he really sacrificed himself etc, but why did there have to be a sacrifice? It sounds as if god has made restrictions even he himself can't break, but can go around in this manner.
I understand the need for opposites, etc. But I dont understand god's seeming incredulity at what he (allknowing and all) had made and what we'd do. It's free will, BUT you will go to HELL eternally if you dont behave this way here. Fair enough he created good and evil, but what's with that punishment of minute "evil" in the individuals. Whole cities must be eradicated to please him at times, not to mention the big flood. He doesn't sound all-knowing, and not really all-powerful either. He sounds suspiciously like a king+1 with the same vanities as kings are known to have (in other words, a god thought up by humans), and not like the omnipotent creator of the universe.
This is mostly OT stuff, and mostly in connection with jewish national mythical history. Which I deem as useless baggage in this time and age, although it probably served a purpose back in the day.
You're one of the good christians, I'll give you that.
But I still feel no need to appease millennia-old dogmas of often questionable origin when dealking with the awesome divine. That's my main point I guess.
Peace
Dan
The sacrifice was to save US. Furthermore, our, at times, bad behavior does not earn us a reservation in hell. If so, i'd be screwed. THAT is the core of Christian belief. All of that OT stuff you reference was changed by the new covenant. Because of Christ, there is no more need for the destruction of cities, great floods or pillars of salt. Our debts have been pre-paid so to speak. Our behavior neither damns nor saves us. THAT is Christianity in a nutshell. Christianity, truly, is not a religion. It is a faith. When religion is injected into that faith, it poisons it.
These conversations become circular which is the main reason i stay out of them anymore. You have, at least, been respectful. You are, apparently, one of the good heathens.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
I remember a while back I was listening to Dr. Laura, who is an ultra-conservative god-pushing version of Dr. Phil.
So, this caller calls in and starts to talk about the urge to commit adultery, and how he refrains because it's wrong per the bible. But, he added that he still wants to commits adultery--hence the phone call.
So, Dr. Laura goes, "Tell me why adultery is wrong."
The caller goes, "Because the bible says it's wrong."
Dr. Laura says, "But, give me the secular reason. Other than what the bible says, why is adultery wrong?"
The caller responds, "Ugghh, hmmmm."
This caller seriously couldn't figure out what was wrong with adultery other than that it defies the word of god.
Obviously, adultery violates the trust that one's partner has so heavily invested into the marriage. If children are involved, adultery risks the dissolution of the family unit, which can have serious emotional consequences on impressionable victims.
But, I think for many people in this world, that kind of intuitive grasp on the difference between right and wrong is far beyond their capabilities. So, they turn to religion to explain to them why society is the way it is -- because god says it's that way.
In all due respect, if you get your perceptions of people of faith through a caller on the DR. Laura, show, it says alot.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
I remember a while back I was listening to Dr. Laura, who is an ultra-conservative god-pushing version of Dr. Phil.
So, this caller calls in and starts to talk about the urge to commit adultery, and how he refrains because it's wrong per the bible. But, he added that he still wants to commits adultery--hence the phone call.
So, Dr. Laura goes, "Tell me why adultery is wrong."
The caller goes, "Because the bible says it's wrong."
Dr. Laura says, "But, give me the secular reason. Other than what the bible says, why is adultery wrong?"
The caller responds, "Ugghh, hmmmm."
This caller seriously couldn't figure out what was wrong with adultery other than that it defies the word of god.
Obviously, adultery violates the trust that one's partner has so heavily invested into the marriage. If children are involved, adultery risks the dissolution of the family unit, which can have serious emotional consequences on impressionable victims.
But, I think for many people in this world, that kind of intuitive grasp on the difference between right and wrong is far beyond their capabilities. So, they turn to religion to explain to them why society is the way it is -- because god says it's that way.
I'm going to actually agree with you here. We all use one map or another to understand reality...some use logic, others use intuitive or emotional types of maps, that don't translate logically.
The key issue on ALL of it, is when people think their map is right and the next guy's is wrong....it's like when someone points to the moon, and we are entranced by the finger doing the pointing. People arguing about why their map is superior is like arguing about the traits of the finger pointing at the moon. All the while the moon shines brightly, independant of the views that stop short of perceiving it, while mesmerized by their own egos.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm going to actually agree with you here. We all use one map or another to understand reality...some use logic, others use intuitive or emotional types of maps, that don't translate logically.
The key issue on ALL of it, is when people think their map is right and the next guy's is wrong....it's like when someone points to the moon, and we are entranced by the finger doing the pointing. People arguing about why their map is superior is like arguing about the traits of the finger pointing at the moon. All the while the moon shines brightly, independant of the views that stop short of perceiving it, while mesmerized by their own egos.
That's a great way of saying that people shouldn't compare and contrast each other's viewpoints and hopefully reach a consensus at some point.
There is nothing egotistical about a person verbalizing his/her own viewpoint in the face of an opposing viewpoint.
And when it comes to the subject of human morality, appeals to emotion do in fact play a role in logic. This is because we as human beings are balanced by our own emotions. Without emotions, we cease to be a race of living things.
It is how we interpret those emotions and logically apply them to our day-to-day existence that balances out the spectrum of our existential intricacies.
That's a great way of saying that people shouldn't compare and contrast each other's viewpoints and hopefully reach a consensus at some point.
There is nothing egotistical about a person verbalizing his/her own viewpoint in the face of an opposing viewpoint.
It's great to acknowledge and assess all kinds of views! The ego part I refer to comes in when someone degrades another viewpoint, rather than in understanding the validity in it. I'm all for comparing and contrasting!
And when it comes to the subject of human morality, appeals to emotion do in fact play a role in logic. This is because we as human beings are balanced by our own emotions. Without emotions, we cease to be a race of living things.
It is how we interpret those emotions and logically apply them to our day-to-day existence that balances out the spectrum of our existential intricacies.
I always support integrated intelligences! And yet, most people operate from one natural preference or another, short of that integration. When people compare these "apples" and "oranges", and point disdainfully at the other person who sees differently than they do, again, we're not seeing intelligence integration (ie: emotional integration), we're seeing a lack of it.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
It's great to acknowledge and assess all kinds of views! The ego part I refer to comes in when someone degrades another viewpoint, rather than in understanding the validity in it. I'm all for comparing and contrasting!
...
and is it also great to dismiss anothers view once you have acknowledged that they have one and youve assessed it as being ridiculous and having no value to you whatsoever? or must we just simply accept the fantastic in order not to upset someone else?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
and is it also great to dismiss anothers view once you have acknowledged that they have one and youve assessed it as being ridiculous and having no value to you whatsoever? or must we just simply accept the fantastic in order not to upset someone else?
It's your choice, obviously. It's always valid for someone to see something from their perspective. And for many, they'll see how others are "wrong". That's fair enough...we're always entitled to our perspective.
I'm just saying if we're overly caught up in our own view, and are intolerant of views we don't appreciate, we're not going to see much beyond our limited selves. Which is what I refer to in terms of ego. We'll stay ego-centred. (edit: not that there's anything wrong with that...)
And still, the moon shines on....
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
It's your choice, obviously. It's always valid for someone to see something from their perspective. And for many, they'll see how others are "wrong". That's fair enough...we're always entitled to our perspective.
I'm just saying if we're overly caught up in our own view, and are intolerant of views we don't appreciate, we're not going to see much beyond our limited selves. Which is what I refer to in terms of ego. We'll stay ego-centred. (edit: not that there's anything wrong with that...)
And still, the moon shines on....
you say there is nothing wrong with being ego centred, but you say we remain so because we are intolerant of views we dont appreciate. why must we be tolerant of views we have already assessed and deemed, as ive said before, as being too ridiculous for us to contemplate them being absorbed into our views? why must i tolerate views i clearly see as being nonsensical when i clearly understand the WHY but see no value in the WHAT that they are? just because i am intolerant of a view doesnt mean i dont appreciate its reason for existing.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
You don't need to be forgiven for anything by anyone, especially by some group. Just be yourself. Enjoy life. Don't be a dick. Ok, you're good to go.
pretty much covers it 'Don't b a dick' everything then falls in line.....yet so many try to make it so complicated.....rules, holy books......silly humans.
you say there is nothing wrong with being ego centred, but you say we remain so because we are intolerant of views we dont appreciate. why must we be tolerant of views we have already assessed and deemed, as ive said before, as being too ridiculous for us to contemplate them being absorbed into our views? why must i tolerate views i clearly see as being nonsensical when i clearly understand the WHY but see no value in the WHAT that they are? just because i am intolerant of a view doesnt mean i dont appreciate its reason for existing.
In this regard, the term ego-centred literally refers to when one is centred purely in their ego. In their view. In their personal story. In their separation from others. Many people live this way. It's the common way at this time. To go beyond ego requires something different. There is a reason the vast majority does not do so at this time. Going beyond ego is about stepping beyond attachment to that story. It's our personal story that keeps us seeing the separation and difference.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
The sacrifice was to save US. Furthermore, our, at times, bad behavior does not earn us a reservation in hell. If so, i'd be screwed. THAT is the core of Christian belief. All of that OT stuff you reference was changed by the new covenant. Because of Christ, there is no more need for the destruction of cities, great floods or pillars of salt. Our debts have been pre-paid so to speak. Our behavior neither damns nor saves us. THAT is Christianity in a nutshell. Christianity, truly, is not a religion. It is a faith. When religion is injected into that faith, it poisons it.
These conversations become circular which is the main reason i stay out of them anymore. You have, at least, been respectful. You are, apparently, one of the good heathens.
This is the talk of real christians in my view. But sadly, that does not go for all. The bible is a problematic piece of writing, and fundamentalist interpretations are very troubling in my view.
I'm still not convinced, of course, but I didn't expect to be. I have a lot of problems with the biblical presentation of God, OT specifically. The acts and words of Jesus is often a lot more in line with my humanistically motivated socialism. Buit we go for heaven here, not in a theoretical afterlife.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
In this regard, the term ego-centred literally refers to when one is centred purely in their ego. In their view. In their personal story. In their separation from others. Many people live this way. It's the common way at this time. To go beyond ego requires something different. There is a reason the vast majority does not do so at this time. Going beyond ego is about stepping beyond attachment to that story. It's our personal story that keeps us seeing the separation and difference.
you didnt answer my questions. maybe you find me antagonistic and am just goading you into a confrontation. it wouldnt surprise me. but its not what i am doing. well... maybe just a little. i ask the questions i do in order to understand.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
This is the talk of real christians in my view. But sadly, that does not go for all. The bible is a problematic piece of writing, and fundamentalist interpretations are very troubling in my view.
I'm still not convinced, of course, but I didn't expect to be. I have a lot of problems with the biblical presentation of God, OT specifically. The acts and words of Jesus is often a lot more in line with my humanistically motivated socialism. Buit we go for heaven here, not in a theoretical afterlife.
Peace
Dan
i always believed jesus was a socialist. ive always believed he was an historically real person. ive NEVER believed he was divine, in that he was the son of God. he was antiestablishment and therefore had to be gotten rid of. and in doing so he was martyred. if history had been written differently and he was recognised as a philosopher only, that would have been a great thing imo. it would certainly be less divisive thats for sure.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Comments
this thread ended with post #2 right here ^^^^
The Sentence Above Is False
I'm not even arguing God here, only stating that a principle of innocent sacrifice as somehow the best kind there is, sounds pretty warped to me. Sounds suspiciously like something man came up with himself...
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
sadly tho...the animals did not 'choose' to die as jesus did. but we humans are always put our lives above other animals.
however, i really enjoyed reading what you wrote. i never quite read or thought about it in that way, granted it's been a really long time since i put any serious thought to it, period.
funny, as a child i always dreaded going to confession...the whole process sorta scared me, and yet i always felt *better* afterwards. i cannot even remember the last time i went to confession, probably in HS.....and imagine that is where it will end.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
plus he has horns.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
It's a difficult concept. Basically, Adam and Eve deserved to die for what they did, but God spared them and promised that one day there would be someone who lived a perfect live and never sinned to take their punishment for them and all of their descendants. God is a just God. There had to be some kind of consequence for sin. Through one man (Adam) came death, and so through one man (Jesus) would come life. That's basically it.
It's sad, too, that animals had to be sacrificed, but again, it was basically symbolism for what God had promised Adam and Eve. Sacrificing an animal showed people's acknowledgement that their sin required death, repentance from that sin, and faith in the future sacrifice from God, who would bear their penalty.
Adam and Eve's sin, bringing death into the world, changed the nature of their descedants to be susceptible to sin. In that respect, we are all born with a sinful nature. Once a child gets to an age where they know right from wrong, they begin using their free will, and eventually, they will sin.
It's not real....
He sounds like a blood-thirsty and jealous god. (Especially the OT) And we do die. Adam and Eve died. God just didn't kill them at once. I will say that I have no faith whatsoever in the christian/bible depiction of God, particularly the OT version.
As for sin, that is to me one of the most poisonous concepts ever invented, not to mention the concept of original sin which is even worse. The definition of sin seems to be anything we naturally do and wish for. Making for an eternal guilt trip on each of us, which also have a nice side-effect in making us more accepting to authority and punishment. (Since we know we deep down deserve it)
Good and bad exists, but neither in any pure form, and both based on value judgements anyway. I'm not an atheist at all, believe it or not, but my image of God/the divine lies in a very different direction. I dont believe there is a man in the sky watching our every move and deciding who's been good or who's been bad. God, or the god-force to me is best manifested in love and harmony between people, and between people and nature. I believe much more that everything IS God, in the sense that God is everything, and we are just as much part of him as everything else is. And I dont need to have a book-reference to know or feel these things. That part of christians I believe in, that feeling of connecting to God. But it is in my view a mistake to mix that with the dusty old story-book which contains how people thought of these things 4000 years ago. We have evolved our thinking a lot in those years, so we should no longer get caught up in how racist and sexist patriarchs manipulated the sense of God thousands of years ago.
Anyway, I wanted to hear how you can justify God's bloodlust, but I'm not expecting an answer I'll accept. It's defintiely a matter of belief and leap of faith to accept that inconsistency. I prefer not to be shackled with old inconsistencies that have accumulated over the milennia from an inferior starting point, compared to where we find ourselves now. The leap of faith should be about acknowledging the divine, not in brushing glaring old logical inconsistencies under the carpet for fear of evolving from the stagnant old dogmas and ideas. (like 3=1 for instance, or god giving orders in violation of his own commandments)
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
When God told Adam and Eve that the day that they ate of the fruit, they would die; he was laying out the penalty for sin. He told them in no uncertain terms what would happen. God created the universe and humans, and he made the rules. Sin brings death. No, they did not die immediately after eating the fruit, but their actions brought death into the world, not only of themselves but of every human being that would come after them.
It is interesting that within moments of of Adam and Eve tasting the fruit, God already decided that he would have mercy and provide a sinless sacrifice to atone for them. Some call it substitution. It doesn't mean that God is bloodthirsty, wanting to kill people. He is a God of holiness and justice, and so he could not just let the sin go, since he had already determined beforehand that the punishment for sin was death. What is amazing is that he took that punishment - the punishment he himself had created and demanded - on himself, since he is also a God of love who desires to have mercy on those he has created. People die anyway because even though our sins are ultimately atoned for, we don't necessarily escape their consequences. Jesus forgave the criminal crucified next to him who repented, but he didn't take him down off the cross.
Since God created life, only God has the right to take life. That's why he forbade humans from killing each other. They did not have the right to take another human life, because only God has that right.
As for the Bible being a historically reliable text, that's a completely different topic, but I will say this. When one really begins to read and study the Bible, it becomes clear that God is not any different from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Even though the Bible is really 66 individual books, written on two (or possibly three) continents, in three different languages, over a period of approximately 1500 years, by more than 40 authors (who came from many walks of life), it remains one unified book from beginning to end. In it we see how a loving, merciful, and just God deals with sinful people in all kinds of situations. God’s love for His creation, especially for humanity, is evident all through the Bible. Throughout the Bible we see God lovingly and mercifully calling people into a special relationship with Himself, not because they deserve it but because He is a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in loving-kindness and truth. Yet we also see a holy and righteous God Who is the judge of all those who disobey. You can see that in both the Old and the New Testaments. The Old Testament describes God punishing people for sin, but also having mercy on people. The New Testament describes God's boundless love, but also his judgment. His characteristics are revealed in both Testaments.
It isn't bloodlust. In fact, its quite the opposite. If it we're bloodlust, we would all be gone. The bible states that the wages of sin is death. Not a death from old age and natural causes, but immediate death not in just the physical sense but the spiritual sense as well. This was the ultimate mission of Christ coming to earth. This is from a Christian vantage point, of course, which i realize, understand and respect that you reject. i'm in no way pushing beliefs here, but rather attempting to explain them as i don't think you quite understand them. It is not bloodlust at all, but grace! Undeserved and unconditional grace. The polar opposite of bloodlust. We as humans are fallible and imperfect. Period. No one is righteous or "good enough" to achieve Godly standards. Because of this we would be doomed to physical and spiritual death. God, according to Christian belief, took on human flesh, came to earth to, first of all, take part in the human experience. Pain, suffering, anger, rejection, temptation,betrayal and yes, of course, death. Brutal torturous death. All of the things we as humans experience, Christ experienced as well, yet led a virtually blameless life. The idea of Christ as "sacrificial lamb" is of course, metaphor. Christ suffered and died in our place. He took the weight and punishment of our shortcomings upon himself. That's called grace. It isn't called "bloodlust". It's a gift that we ,according to Christian belief, simply need to accept. It isn't a loophole to excuse despicable behavior. It is a recognition and understanding that we has humans with wonderfully and brilliantly God given free-will, are going to fuck up from time to time, regardless of how hard we try not to.
As far as the original question regarding sin and forgiveness, just because we as humans are inclined to mess up occasionally, doesn't mean forgiveness isn't required. It doesn't mean we need not sincerely seek it for ourselves and, perhaps more importantly, offer it to others who wrong us. Christ instructed his followers to pray for God to "forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us". That doesn't say forgive us BECAUSE we forgive others. It is basically asking God to forgive us IN THE SAME MANNER as we forgive others. In other words, if we choose not to forgive those that wrong us, but rather hold grudges and harbor feelings of resentment and contempt, we should only expect God to treat us in the same fashion. That's serious food for contemplation.
i rarely ever contribute to these types of threads anymore. In fact, i haven't posted in this forum, at all, for months. Today i needed to keep my mind busy a little.
You argue well enough, but to me it fails already on the first premise. God is not amazing and all-good for inventing sin, punishing us for doing it (as he would know we would since he created us) and having an itch for a sacrifice to atone for the inevitable. Just that removes any chance that he would be my god. To see god as a force of love and harmony makes much more sense, without having to drag on old biblical and church dogma. A jealous, vengeful, sacrifice-craving god is something very different from my perception of god and the divine. I know christians interpret that differently, but I can't get around the demand of sacrifice from the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good god. That he makes arrangements is not good enough an excuse.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Forgiveness is another matter. We must try to forgive eachother for what we do to eachother, but not because we are fundamentally "sinful" of nature. Just because it's the polite and best thing to do. The combo of "you are full of filthy sin" and "you must beg forgiveness for your despicable self always" has been used for central control since at least the first pope. That combo to me is pure poison in what it does to people and how they think, and what they accept doing and have done to them because of it.
I value your contribution, truly. I wanted to hear what some would say to go against the glaring inconsistency (in my view) at the base of the whole premise of faith and the nature of God. Thing is, I dont see any need for christian trappings in acknowledging god and the divine. Major religions are all about controlling and directing how we think about that feeling and connecting to the divine. Thus the focus on sin, which is as fine a controlling tool as is ever invented.
For me, I acknowledge the divine when I touch it and feel it. But I never do in any religious setting, much more often when I'm out in nature, on top of a mountain, or when listening to music. I believe in that force of love and harmony, and that we should strive to make society based on those. The moment someone come along with a definite book on how we are allowed to think about those subjects, and how we can't think of them on threat of hell, that's it, really. From there on, it's just about power and control. And I have no faith in an afterlife, and dont even think it sounds that great. It sounds much better to me to disintegrate into the earth, and be eternally re-cycled into other life-forms or even rock. The circle of life.
But I value both your input, even if it seems I'm trying to demolish you.
But I dont expect you to win me over on the christian side anytime soon. 18 years of baptist upbringing and influence couldn't do it, so...
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Why must someone die in our place? It is so we don't have to. Again its called grace. Furthermore, according to Christian faith, Christ is a bit more than Human sacrifice. Christ is, in essence, God in Human flesh sent to earth for that specific purpose and not some randomly selected civilian. That's a bit different than just Human sacrifice.
Also, Your idea of God "creating sin and then punishing us for it", i believe, is a bit off the mark as well. God didn't create sin per se, but rather free will which, admittedly, enables the potential for sin. In my opinion, and it may seem strange, it is necessary. What meaning would righteousness have if there were no potential for wickedness? None. What would be the meaning and value of love, if hatred were not an option. Again, absolutely none. We could not experience love if there was no potential for its opposite. We would not appreciate it. In fact, we would have no knowledge of it. We wouldn't even feel it. How can i appreciate happiness, if i were to never know sadness? What meaning would it have for me to do right, if i couldn't just as easily do wrong? Am i making sense? To me it all lends itself to the idea of God's divine wisdom. In a strange sort of way, i am thankful for sadness, hatred, transgression and pain for without them i would not know, joy, love, good, or pleasure.
i don't expect to win you over to the Christian side any time soon either. In fact, i'll not even try. i don't see that as my job and it certainly isn't my intention. Again, unless it were a conscious choice of your own, it would be meaningless anyway.
I understand the need for opposites, etc. But I dont understand god's seeming incredulity at what he (allknowing and all) had made and what we'd do. It's free will, BUT you will go to HELL eternally if you dont behave this way here. Fair enough he created good and evil, but what's with that punishment of minute "evil" in the individuals. Whole cities must be eradicated to please him at times, not to mention the big flood. He doesn't sound all-knowing, and not really all-powerful either. He sounds suspiciously like a king+1 with the same vanities as kings are known to have (in other words, a god thought up by humans), and not like the omnipotent creator of the universe.
This is mostly OT stuff, and mostly in connection with jewish national mythical history. Which I deem as useless baggage in this time and age, although it probably served a purpose back in the day.
You're one of the good christians, I'll give you that.
But I still feel no need to appease millennia-old dogmas of often questionable origin when dealking with the awesome divine. That's my main point I guess.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
So, this caller calls in and starts to talk about the urge to commit adultery, and how he refrains because it's wrong per the bible. But, he added that he still wants to commits adultery--hence the phone call.
So, Dr. Laura goes, "Tell me why adultery is wrong."
The caller goes, "Because the bible says it's wrong."
Dr. Laura says, "But, give me the secular reason. Other than what the bible says, why is adultery wrong?"
The caller responds, "Ugghh, hmmmm."
This caller seriously couldn't figure out what was wrong with adultery other than that it defies the word of god.
Obviously, adultery violates the trust that one's partner has so heavily invested into the marriage. If children are involved, adultery risks the dissolution of the family unit, which can have serious emotional consequences on impressionable victims.
But, I think for many people in this world, that kind of intuitive grasp on the difference between right and wrong is far beyond their capabilities. So, they turn to religion to explain to them why society is the way it is -- because god says it's that way.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
These conversations become circular which is the main reason i stay out of them anymore. You have, at least, been respectful. You are, apparently, one of the good heathens.
Dr. Laura show is as legit as the bible.
The key issue on ALL of it, is when people think their map is right and the next guy's is wrong....it's like when someone points to the moon, and we are entranced by the finger doing the pointing. People arguing about why their map is superior is like arguing about the traits of the finger pointing at the moon. All the while the moon shines brightly, independant of the views that stop short of perceiving it, while mesmerized by their own egos.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
That's a great way of saying that people shouldn't compare and contrast each other's viewpoints and hopefully reach a consensus at some point.
There is nothing egotistical about a person verbalizing his/her own viewpoint in the face of an opposing viewpoint.
And when it comes to the subject of human morality, appeals to emotion do in fact play a role in logic. This is because we as human beings are balanced by our own emotions. Without emotions, we cease to be a race of living things.
It is how we interpret those emotions and logically apply them to our day-to-day existence that balances out the spectrum of our existential intricacies.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I always support integrated intelligences! And yet, most people operate from one natural preference or another, short of that integration. When people compare these "apples" and "oranges", and point disdainfully at the other person who sees differently than they do, again, we're not seeing intelligence integration (ie: emotional integration), we're seeing a lack of it.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
and is it also great to dismiss anothers view once you have acknowledged that they have one and youve assessed it as being ridiculous and having no value to you whatsoever? or must we just simply accept the fantastic in order not to upset someone else?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I'm just saying if we're overly caught up in our own view, and are intolerant of views we don't appreciate, we're not going to see much beyond our limited selves. Which is what I refer to in terms of ego. We'll stay ego-centred. (edit: not that there's anything wrong with that...)
And still, the moon shines on....
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
you say there is nothing wrong with being ego centred, but you say we remain so because we are intolerant of views we dont appreciate. why must we be tolerant of views we have already assessed and deemed, as ive said before, as being too ridiculous for us to contemplate them being absorbed into our views? why must i tolerate views i clearly see as being nonsensical when i clearly understand the WHY but see no value in the WHAT that they are? just because i am intolerant of a view doesnt mean i dont appreciate its reason for existing.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I'm still not convinced, of course, but I didn't expect to be. I have a lot of problems with the biblical presentation of God, OT specifically. The acts and words of Jesus is often a lot more in line with my humanistically motivated socialism. Buit we go for heaven here, not in a theoretical afterlife.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
you didnt answer my questions. maybe you find me antagonistic and am just goading you into a confrontation. it wouldnt surprise me. but its not what i am doing. well... maybe just a little.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i always believed jesus was a socialist. ive always believed he was an historically real person. ive NEVER believed he was divine, in that he was the son of God. he was antiestablishment and therefore had to be gotten rid of. and in doing so he was martyred. if history had been written differently and he was recognised as a philosopher only, that would have been a great thing imo. it would certainly be less divisive thats for sure.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say