It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Death and the God of life

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   
If God is the source of life he is also the source of death. God invented death.

The only question is who was the inept Gods Creator?

The Holy Spirit!!! There is a God, She is The Holy Spirit.




posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI



Originally posted by DISRAELI
I must admit that I haven't come prepared with an answer to this one.



Fair enough…but you do appear to be attempting to answer it…




Originally posted by DISRAELI
Firstly, the idea that God is the source of life is almost axiomatic for the Old Testament. That has to be the starting-point.
The simplest way of demonstrating it is by inviting you to focus on the word "blessing".

Look at the Creation story. God brings the various species into existence, which is in itself the act of giving them life. He does the same for the human species.

Then he "blesses" them, and says "be fruitful and multiply". These are not two different things. Being fruitful and multiplying is what is meant by "being blessed". A man is considered "blessed" when his estate is producing life in all directions, from his fields, from his herds, and from his wives.
Whenever men give thanks for the blessings they have received, they are assuming that God is the source of the blessings.


Well, bringing a child into the world, under normal circumstances, should be seen as a blessing…IMO



Originally posted by DISRAELI
So I suggest that the sin-offering actually relates to the general messiness of the birth-event itself.


But how can the “messiness”, of a woman giving birth be regarded as a sin. The “messiness” is just a natural part of giving birth…



Originally posted by DISRAELI
Note also that the uncleanliness is temporary, whereas the new life in her child is a semi-permanent effect. That again makes it difficult to connect the two.


That’s the funny thing though, the uncleanliness is only temporary, (1 week or 2, depending on the sex of the child) so why the need for a sin offering, after the allotted purification time has ended…?


- JC


(post by Theodosius removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Joecroft
But how can the “messiness”, of a woman giving birth be regarded as a sin. The “messiness” is just a natural part of giving birth…

I refer you again to Leviticus ch15 where a man's "discharge from his body" (that is, as a medical issue) makes him "unclean", and part of the cleansing process is what gets translated as a "sin offering".
I am suggesting, by analogy, that the same thought process which demands a sin offering for this event might have been operating in the case of the birth event.
Evidently their thought processes were mingling two concepts together, viz. literal physical uncleanliness, and unholiness in the eyes of God. This entanglement creates the demand for sin offerings as a form of hygiene.


That’s the funny thing though, the uncleanliness is only temporary, (1 week or 2, depending on the sex of the child) so why the need for a sin offering, after the allotted purification time has ended…?

The same thing happens in Leviticus ch15. It looks as though they want something to officially mark the end of the purification period. It's a kind of visual "certificate" to say "OK, this person is not unclean any more".

P.S. Sin offerings are part of the food supply of the priests. This may be relevant, if we are wondering why there are so many of them.


edit on 9-7-2016 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI



Originally posted by DISRAELI
At first glance, these might look like rules of hygiene.
Any doctor would advise washing the hands after touching a dead body.
But this goes beyond questions of hygiene.


I think that’s where the story should end and that it’s just a hygiene issue, that has become a tradition born out of superstition and experience over time. I think any addition on top of that is just extrapolating too much…IMO

Seems more likely to me that blood is the main issue here, in both the woman's uncleanness and that of dead bodies…And that the sin has nothing to do with life, or death…but contact with something unclean i.e. the blood of the woman or the dead body etc…

That’s seem like the most consistent parallel between the two…IMO



Originally posted by DISRAELI
The preparation of the “water of impurity” would not give it any particular antiseptic qualities, and its express purpose in the laws is “the removal of sin”.


But surely “water” has implied hygiene implications just on it’s own.

I don’t really see how you have demonstrated in your OP, that the “water” aspect is additionally for “removal of sin”…when it could just as easily be down to hygiene only.

Also how is it the “water of impurity” that removes sin. Isn't sin only removed through burnt offerings, and through praying for forgiveness directly from God…?


- JC



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft
The quote from the OP relates to the subject of death, and I added reasons why the taboo was going beyond a hygiene issue.
One being that close contact with death got in the way of coming close to God (the Nazirite, the priest), and God would not be affected by hygiene issues.
Another being that thinking about death (by mourning for the dead), and trying to speak to the dead, were both covered by the taboo. Thinking and speaking are not hygiene issues. They go beyond that.

However, I'm quite content to leave the ceremonial around birth as a hygiene issue.


I don’t really see how you have demonstrated in your OP, that the “water” aspect is additionally for “removal of sin”…when it could just as easily be down to hygiene only.

I did, by referring to the fact that Numbers calls it a water for the removal of sin.
I can't remember whether I recited the text, but if not I can come back and fill that gap.

Here we are, the ceremonial about the burning of the ashes;
These ashes "shall be kept for the congregation of the people of Israel for the water of impurity, for the removal of sin" (Leviticus ch19 v9).
This is the same "water of impurity" that is being used a couple of verses later to cleanse those who have come into contact with death.



edit on 9-7-2016 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Water doesn't really have any power to remove sin, it just gets you clean.

The repentance and acceptance of is all up to God. There is nothing scientific about it, it is in the mind.

Does water wash away sin when you get baptized and don't mean it?

Not likely.

Why does forgiveness need to be symbolized?

That is idolatry. Water only has health benefits and you can't clean yourself of sin with bleach if you aren't sorry.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 03:59 PM
link   
I get the need for rituals like baptism, they are placebos though.

If you think you are forgiven and people tell you you are forgiven, you feel forgiven.

But progress should have been made in the past 2000 years that hasn't because we have been told generation after generation that if you believe that Jesus died for your sins you are justified by that alone.


Now how does baptism forgive sins that faith has already accomplished? Or vice versa.

Faith, water, Jesus and God all save?

That's confusing. And illogical.
edit on 9-7-2016 by Theodosius because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI



Originally posted by Joecroft
I don’t really see how you have demonstrated in your OP, that the “water” aspect is additionally for “removal of sin”…when it could just as easily be down to hygiene only.




Originally posted by DISRAELI
I did, by referring to the fact that Numbers calls it a water for the removal of sin.


Yeah, I read that part in your OP, but I don’t see how it separates the two out. How do you know it’s not just for hygiene only. The taboo could just as easily be for hygiene purposes only and the same could apply for the “water of impurity”…which may have evolved from traditions over time as having good hygiene benefits, unbeknown to the Israelites at that time.

Also, even if the ““water of impurity” is removing sin which seems strange to me (see my question further down)…which sin is it removing…?

You’re assuming it’s removing sin from the dead because of the Death issue since the fall of Adam etc…. But it could just as easily be for unclean contact with blood or a dead body type sin removal instead…

Also I don’t get the whole ““water of impurity” removing sin aspect…

Which is why I asked you this question below in my previous post; which for some reason you didn’t give an answer too…



Originally posted by Joecroft
Also how is it the “water of impurity” that removes sin. Isn't sin only removed through burnt offerings, and through praying for forgiveness directly from God…?



- JC



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 04:55 PM
link   
And, if "the wages of sin is death" then when sin is "removed" by the water then death should be too.

Anyone find the fountain of youth yet?

If water could remove sin then you could diagnose sin as an illness and prescribe water as a cure.

And if it was the cause of death, you would then live forever.


These archaic beliefs might have been useful in 700 BC when they started writing the Bible but in 2016 they sound stupid.

PLUS sin was atoned for on Yom Kippur by killing two goats.

Baptism wasn't about forgiveness, just RITUAL PURITY.

Even John says it's inadequate and inferior to Spirit and fire Baptism.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Joecroft
The taboo could just as easily be for hygiene purposes only and the same could apply for the “water of impurity”…which may have evolved from traditions over time as having good hygiene benefits, unbeknown to the Israelites at that time.

I offered in the opening post and repeated in the previous post some reasons why the taboo could not have been just a question of hygiene.
Shall I offer them a third time?
If people who are intending to please or come close to God (like the Nazirites and the priests) need to make a special point of avoiding association with death, that is hardly going to be for medical reasons.
If some people are banned from carrying out ceremonies of mourning, and the people at large are forbidden to attempt contact with the spirits of the dead, that will not be for medical reasons.
We are looking at the idea that God does not like being associated with death, and that fits in very well with the standard Old Testament belief that he is the source of life.

I'm not convinced that the ashes of a heifer would have had any noticeable medical or antiseptic effect.
And if they did have this effect, they would surely have been used for cleansing purposes in other medical situations.
But the laws regarding cleansing from "discharges", and even the laws about the cleansing of lepers, just use ordinary water (Leviticus chs 14 & 15). I have not noticed the "water of impurity" being used for any other purpose except the cleansing of those who have made contact with death. This appears to be a special case.


Originally posted by Joecroft
Also how is it the “water of impurity” that removes sin. Isn't sin only removed through burnt offerings, and through praying for forgiveness directly from God…?

Well, the laws of the Pentateuch offer several different routes to the removal of sin, so evidently the Israelites had not bought into the idea that there was only one way.
The "scapegoat" sent off into the wilderness is yet another approach to the problem.


edit on 9-7-2016 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)


(post by Theodosius removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: Joecroft
The taboo could just as easily be for hygiene purposes only and the same could apply for the “water of impurity”…which may have evolved from traditions over time as having good hygiene benefits, unbeknown to the Israelites at that time.

I offered in the opening post and repeated in the previous post some reasons why the taboo could not have been just a question of hygiene.
Shall I offer them a third time?
If people who are intending to please or come close to God (like the Nazirites and the priests) need to make a special point of avoiding association with death, that is hardly going to be for medical reasons.
If some people are banned from carrying out ceremonies of mourning, and the people at large are forbidden to attempt contact with the spirits of the dead, that will not be for medical reasons.


Superstition or hygeine?

Well, if this God fella doesn't like people "associating with death" the Bible tells a different story.

God created death. And he requires ritual slaughter of animals and even the occasional human(s) TO GET CLOSER to him.



We are looking at the idea that God does not like being associated with death,


I have to lol here. God LOVES being associated with death. He requires the death of his own son as atonement for the few who find him (according to the Bible and Christianity).



and that fits in very well with the standard Old Testament belief that he is the source of life.

I'm not convinced that the ashes of a heifer would have had any noticeable medical or antiseptic effect.
And if they did have this effect, they would surely have been used for cleansing purposes in other medical situations.
But the laws regarding cleansing from "discharges", and even the laws about the cleansing of lepers, just use ordinary water (Leviticus chs 14 & 15). I have not noticed the "water of impurity" being used for any other purpose except the cleansing of those who have made contact with death. This appears to be a special case.


Well, the laws of the Pentateuch offer several different routes to the removal of sin, so evidently the Israelites had not bought into the idea that there was only one way.
The "scapegoat" sent off into the wilderness is yet another approach to the problem.



The prescribed by God approach is what you call scapegoat, and is ACTUALLY a sacrifice to Azazel.

And they knew when they were forgiven when the red string turned white.

No water required, sorry.

Just push a goat off a cliff or leave it to die in the wilderness and you are forgiven when your red string turns white.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 08:59 PM
link   
I find it awesome that people can use a stupid Biblical ritual concocted by human beings that doesn't make any sense today, and try and make it apply to their religion today as if God planned it this way from the beginning.

Great plan. It has been working so well. 3 religions who all worship the same God (Saturn) under whatever name they use are cause of most wars today.

Geniuses.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Over in the Catholics are not Christian? thread I read a post that grabbed my attention:


originally posted by: Seede
Remarkable indeed. Great teaching. Had never heard it explained in that manner.
Once again, thanks for your input DISRAELI------------


That post caused me to search out the post he was responding to (quoted below) which lead me to this thread:


originally posted by: DISRAELI
The word "murder", incidentally, is emotively inaccurate.
In Biblical terms, God is the source and owner of life. It is his property, that is the important point.
Murder is defined as the act of stealing his property, without his permission.
So it is not logically possible for God to be guilty of murder, any more than it is possible for a man to steal from his own orchard. It is his property, he is entitled to take it whenever he likes.
In fact, in principle, he is the ultimate cause of death in general, when he takes back to himself the life he gave in the first place.
As I observed in my "Death and the God of life" thread;

There is a paradox here. The God who is the source of Life is also, necessarily, the final cause of Death, because it takes place whenever he withdraws the life which he has given (as he is entitled to do).



I have to agree with what Seede said, very powerful stuff!

I've always struggled to understand what God was trying to say through A. A. Allen's message "God Is A Killer" and others like it.

Your explanation brings things into a much better focus, thanks...



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid
I'm glad it was helpful. In the OP, the argument is completed by the reminder that God has promised to abolish death altogether.




top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join