Ladies. Women and children last says God?

Ladies. Women and children last says God?

I know, I know, God can do whatever he wants because he is God. Regardless of this, we are supposed to emulate him and follow his example. I think, in this issue, his example is quite immoral and I would break the first commandment if told to sacrifice my son instead of me stepping up. I would tell God to go to hell real quick.

Mankind has collectively decided that in times where someone must die, women and children are to be placed above the needs or desires of men. Men are to step up and do the right thing of saving their women and especially their children.

Our standard then is that sons are to bury their fathers and not have the fathers take the un-natural and immoral position of placing themselves ahead of their sons and bury them.

If on earth as it is in heaven is to have meaning, should mankind reverse it‘s, to me, much better standard, or should we maintain our moral position and condemn the God who prefers to have his son be murdered instead of stepping up himself for the hard duty?

Regards
DL

I'm glad to see that your concerned with doing the right thing. Pat yourself on the back. Let me know what standard you're using to guide your life. The Bible?

Anyway, to get to your point. You seem to be saying that God the Father shouldn't have let God the Son be crucified. Maybe, but remember Jesus said "I and the Father are one."

If you feel like it, give me some more of your thoughts. I don't think you've proven your point yet (if I understand your point).

reply to post by Greatest I am


I'm not an authority on this type of thing, so keep that in mind

The purpose of God presenting an ultimate sacrifice was to atone for the sins (past and present) of the whole of humanity, so that no one would have to sacrifice to obtain forgiveness ever again.

If I understand correctly, the point of God sacrificing his son was that it was the ultimate sacrifice that could be made. As a parent (or in this case father) there can be no greater sacrifice - but it was one he was willing to make because of the depth of his love for all men/women.

Like I said, I'm by no means an expert on this - I just happen to attend a weekly Bible Study because of my interest in learning more about the bible and Christian beliefs.

The very "fact" the God required a sacrifice for atonement, in and of itself, is the height of hubris... Is God prone to hubris? Hmmmmm...

reply to post by LadySkadi


I admit, I'm far from having any explanations to offer - thought I'd just offer a quick and dirty explanation (as I understood it) before any "passionate" debate kicked off in here

As an objective observer, I think the understanding of all this is almost pyramidal and sequential - almost requiring the previous step to be understood and accepted before the next step can be understood and accepted... By that I mean:

* To understand why God sacrificed his son, you have to accept that he needed to make a sacrifice.
* To understand why God needed to make a sacrifice, you have to accept that this represented atonement.
* To understand that sacrifice represented atonement, you have to accept that sins require atonement.
* To understand sins requiring atonement, you have to accept that there are sins.
* To understand sins, you have to accept that God has - for want of a better word - rules.
* And on...

Just how I see it as someone who's dipping my toe in out of interest. And it has been interesting - I've enjoyed learning more about it all

reply to post by LadySkadi


Could you clear a couple of things up for me?

1st. How are you using "Hubris?" I know one meaning is "an exaggerated sense of self-importance," but I don't think that's what you mean. How could God's sense of self-importance (if he has one) be exaggerated?

2nd. I have heard of reincarnation, and Karma. I thought they both required penalties in some form for errors or "sins" commited. There may be other beliefs with the same basic idea. Might that not mean that the Universe requires "sacrifice" in some form?

Originally posted by charles1952
I'm glad to see that your concerned with doing the right thing. Pat yourself on the back. Let me know what standard you're using to guide your life. The Bible?

Anyway, to get to your point. You seem to be saying that God the Father shouldn't have let God the Son be crucified. Maybe, but remember Jesus said "I and the Father are one."

If you feel like it, give me some more of your thoughts. I don't think you've proven your point yet (if I understand your point).

Jesus also said, the father sent me.

Would you send your child or step up yourself?

Let me know what standard you're using to guide your life. The Bible that says fathers have sons murdered or secular humanity that places children above adults.

Shall we just thump at each other or talk morals?

Regards
DL

Originally posted by lizziejayne
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

I'm not an authority on this type of thing, so keep that in mind

The purpose of God presenting an ultimate sacrifice was to atone for the sins (past and present) of the whole of humanity, so that no one would have to sacrifice to obtain forgiveness ever again.

If I understand correctly, the point of God sacrificing his son was that it was the ultimate sacrifice that could be made. As a parent (or in this case father) there can be no greater sacrifice - but it was one he was willing to make because of the depth of his love for all men/women.

Like I said, I'm by no means an expert on this - I just happen to attend a weekly Bible Study because of my interest in learning more about the bible and Christian beliefs.

edit on 2/3/11 by lizziejayne because: (no reason given)

If the God you know needed or wanted an ultimate barbaric blood sacrifice in the first place, then he is an ass hole and ignores his own Bible.

www.youtube.com...

Any God who kills or demands it when he can just as easily find another cure is quite immoral.

Regards
DL

Dear Greatest I am,

Please forgive me, I wasn't intending to "thump" you. I don't have any reason to criticize you. I don't even know what I said that was a "thump." I am really glad when anyone places something ahead of their own desires of the moment as their guide to the moral life. You do deserve a pat on the back. And I was honestly wondering about what guide you had found that works well for you. Many people use the Bible (or say they do) and I was only curious.

Please let me throw out a few thoughts. They aren't as organized as you deserve, so I apologize in advance. Also, I am not attacking you in any of these ideas, just exploring.

The question of the Trinity is always thorny. How can there be one God with three distinct persons? I'm not sure, but it bears directly on our question.

Remember "In the beginning was the Word: the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things came into being, not one thing came into being except through Him." That's in the first chapter of John. I think the Word was the Son. Reading the rest of that chapter and the Genesis accounts made me think that unlike God (the Father), God (the Son) has some special connection to humanity. We were made in God's (I think the Son's) image.

If the world became screwed up through the sin of mankind in the Garden, it's not too surprising that mankind should fix it. That's where I think God (the Son) comes in. God (the Father) isn't human in the way the Son is. he Son was the only real choice among the Trinity to go. But in a sense, God was sending himself.

Why send any God at all to "fix" Adam and Eve's sin? One simple response is that before the first humans sinned they were morally perfect. So the person who was to restore the situation had to be morally perfect as well. There was only one person who could take the role of a morally perfect human, and that was God (the Son).

About this "sent" business. Yes, he was, but there were several references to Jesus volunteering to be sacrificed. He must have thought it was a good deal.

Anyway, of course there's more, but I wanted to get my apology to you as quickly as I could.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by LadySkadi

 

Could you clear a couple of things up for me?

1st. How are you using "Hubris?" I know one meaning is "an exaggerated sense of self-importance," but I don't think that's what you mean. How could God's sense of self-importance (if he has one) be exaggerated?

2nd. I have heard of reincarnation, and Karma. I thought they both required penalties in some form for errors or "sins" commited. There may be other beliefs with the same basic idea. Might that not mean that the Universe requires "sacrifice" in some form?

I suppose I was considering hubirs as exaggerated self-importance, though I admit that I had not considered the idea of re-incarnation. That is very interesting point and well worth the pondering...

reply to post by Greatest I am

If the God you know

Like I said earlier, I've no vested interest - I'm just an impartial observer interested in learning more about why people believe and view things the way they do.

If the God you know needed or wanted an ultimate barbaric blood sacrifice in the first place, then he is an ass hole

Obviously you're very passionate this If you genuinely want to establish or debate the Christian rationale behind this belief, why don't you find out more about what they believe and why? For example, in this instance, ask why did God require a blood sacrifice?

I don't know the answer to that BTW, but I figure what I'm trying to say is that if you truly want to debate the issue, employing a slightly different approach may lead to a less conflicted and more open & positively productive discourse. Just my 2p.

As an aside, you asked a biblical question and I was attempting to explain where the biblical answer would come from/how it would be rationalised. I figured it would be more helpful towards any debate and/or information exploration if that basis could be explained impartially by a party without bias

Peace

reply to post by charles1952


"There was only one person who could take the role of a morally perfect human, and that was God (the Son)."

You are going far from the O P.

Are you saying that God the father or the holy spirit are not worthy or able to replace Jesus?

As to the original sin you speak of, do you think it a sin to reach out for the knowledge that will allow you to emulate God the way scripture says we should?
A & E used that knowledge to develop a moral sense.

Would you give up yours?

Regards
DL

reply to post by lizziejayne


Thanks for the comments.
I have tried to be less aggressive with theists and have begun posts with a view to debate but all I get is a turn or burn.

I have asked why God is said to demand blood even as scripture says he does not but to those who want to profit from the murder of an innocent man do not care. They ignore their own scriptures to maintain their foolish desires for a hero.

www.youtube.com...

I give the above to those who demanded blood and get silence.

If you want to show off your skills, not a challenge BTW, I can introduce you to a literalist and view your success or not, in dissuading her of her barbaric notions.

Regards
DL

Dear Greatest I am,

Forgive me for not communicating well.

The opening post spoke of the moral problem involved in God (the Father) sending God (the Son) instead of Himself. I tried to explain that perhaps God (the Son) had to go because He was the manifestation of God that was most closely human. (Indeed, when he was here, He was human.) That was why He went (or why God the Father sent Him).

I really don't think I was drifting far from the topic at all, but if I was, please re-explain the OP to me.

In regard to your second point, God (the Son) was the appropriate one to go. He was the head, if you will, of the Human Department. It wasn't a question of whether the other persons of the Trinity were worthy of going or able to go. (All just my first impression and opinion, of course.)

Concerning Adam and Eve's sin; if you were as close to God on a daily basis as they were and God told you there was one thing you shouldn't do, would you do it? (I probaly would have, I'm a real sinner.)

Originally posted by Greatest I am
reply to post by charles1952

 

As to the original sin you speak of, do you think it a sin to reach out for the knowledge that will allow you to emulate God the way scripture says we should?
A & E used that knowledge to develop a moral sense.

Would you give up yours?

Sorry, this confuses me. Second sentence first. Are you saying that violating God's command gave Adam & Eve a moral sense? Are you saying that that violation was a good thing?

First sentence. I think Adam & Eve committed a sin, yes. Is it wrong for us to look to the scripture (which Adam & Eve didn't have) for wisdom in emulating God? No. Sorry, I'm still confused.

Would I give up my moral sense? I don't know how to. There is a natural law ( I don't know the technical term.) in our hearts. And the Bible and other books are available to help us with moral guidance.

reply to post by Greatest I am


Cheers Greatest I am

I won't take you up on your offer because I remain far from qualified in the skills department. Plus I'm a bit of a wuss

I have tried to be less aggressive with theists and have begun posts with a view to debate but all I get is a turn or burn.

I totally get where you're coming from here. From my observations, it appears that most discussions touching such closely-held beliefs (and indeed disbeliefs) often tend to veer away from the issue at hand; with the debate getting muddied by proclamations and accusations that add no value to the purpose of the discussion.

I wish you luck in finding the answers that you seek

reply to post by charles1952


Reference please as to Jesus being the head of the human department.

You say A & E where close to God. If so why did God allow Satan to tempt his two young human prototypes?

“”Are you saying that violating God's command gave Adam & Eve a moral sense?””

That is what God indicates. They became as Gods, knowing good and evil. That is developing a moral sense.

“” Are you saying that that violation was a good thing?””

Absolutely. How else could they know they were autonomous and how else could they learn morals.

“”I think Adam & Eve committed a sin, yes. Is it wrong for us to look to the scripture (which Adam & Eve didn't have) for wisdom in emulating God?””

Yet they had better from what you say. God right there to question.
Do you think that they thought they were not to emulate God?

Do fathers not want their children to be better than whatever they are?
Yes they do and so would God.

Regards
DL

Considering who wrote the bible........it wasn't God btw...

I wouldn't put too much stock in "Gods word" according to the bible...

those arn't Gods words...they're mans.

Originally posted by Akragon
Considering who wrote the bible........it wasn't God btw...

I wouldn't put too much stock in "Gods word" according to the bible...

those arn't Gods words...they're mans.

I agree.

Opine if you will on whose morality is better in terms of the O P issue?
The Bible or modern man?

Regards
DL

I may have to just watch this new direction develop.

The moral question in the OP and following discussion was based on accepting the Bible writings. Feel free to discard that assumption. But it seems like you're left with "Some guy dreamed up a story about Adam and Eve along time ago, then another guy dreamed up a story about Jesus. Those two dreamed up stories don't make any sense to us more modern people and we've figured out a better story."

I'm not trying to be harsh, honestly. But aren't you just left with the opinions of Old Testament men, New Testament men, and Current men? How are you planning on choosing the best? What standard are you going to use to decide? Why even bother? I'm guessing a large number of ATSers, and maybe both of you will say "I will decide the best path for me."

Originally posted by charles1952
I may have to just watch this new direction develop.

The moral question in the OP and following discussion was based on accepting the Bible writings. Feel free to discard that assumption. But it seems like you're left with "Some guy dreamed up a story about Adam and Eve along time ago, then another guy dreamed up a story about Jesus. Those two dreamed up stories don't make any sense to us more modern people and we've figured out a better story."

I'm not trying to be harsh, honestly. But aren't you just left with the opinions of Old Testament men, New Testament men, and Current men? How are you planning on choosing the best? What standard are you going to use to decide? Why even bother? I'm guessing a large number of ATSers, and maybe both of you will say "I will decide the best path for me."

Certainly. Do you not always decide what the best path for you is and if not, who does?
And why would you follow someone else without judging what has been given as the logic of the choice?

Regards
DL