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.

 

Does God accept bribes, ransoms, indulgences and sacrifice of Jesus?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by micmerci
 
No because you teach a lie and one to cause people to suffer damnation by following it.
Jesus demands people to be good and he does not jump in and bleed for you every time you sin.
Jesus also does not present his own life in your stead, in judgement.
If you are not willing to defend your faith, then you should renounce it right now.
Or at least crawl off into a corner somewhere and stay off forums.
All you want to do is preach unopposed.
Do that at home.



I do not teach or preach anything. I do not try to police everyone's beliefs. I just state mine and if someone can gain some insight from them, great. If not, then they can just shake their heads and feel sorry for me. I do not try to lead people in any way. So you are saying that you are not capable of allowing a person to have their own personal beliefs??




posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Nothing highlights the primitive Bronze Age goat herder mentality of the bible better than the animal sacrifices in it

Genesis 8
20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.


Anybody reading this has got to be saying to themselves – wtf

God – or in this case “the LORD” can smell and he enjoys a barbecue?

God – sorry - the LORD – who we are told made man, is grousing on about man having an evil hart – well buddy maybe you shouldn’t have made man that way

God can be bribed not to kill everything >again< with a barbecue

And don’t get me started with that whole Jesus thing – if you are going to say Jesus is god, that would mean he’s immortal – how exactly does an immortal die* for anything including the sins of the world?
At best, all you can really say is Jesus had a bit of a nap for our sins

* ok in that movie an immortal could be killed by chopping his head off, but not by been nailed to stuff



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


Brother, I feel you may be wasting your time.

Matthew 7:6
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
Quickest route to figureing out what to do with various dogma:



36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" 37 And He said to him, " `YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' 38 "This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 "The second is like it, `YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' 40 "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."
studylight.org...:39&t=nas&st=1&new=1&sr=1&sc=1&l=en

Most Biblical laws are for the obvious benefit of society--or are about loving your neighbor as yourself. Indulgences do nothing about fixing the problem, but more excusing the bad behavior, ensuring that there is no religion staying true to it's core beliefs.


That most biblical laws 'obviously' are of societal benefit rests on the assumptions of

1/ Authority is always right (according to authority)

and

2/ Mankind is unable to develop any functional social rules by itself (the pro-theist argument usually being circular on that point).


*********

The golden rule, as applicated by many of the christianities are non-sense, not least from its semantic basis. What if "yourself" (in the context above) is a self-hating, authority-grovelling, sexual neurotic, with flagellantistic 'repenting sinner' practises. How could any 'neighbour' possibly want to be 'loved' on such premises?

PS These comments are not a criticism of your post.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 

Thanks. I believe the sacrifices of the OT were for the covering of sins. God himself made the first one by sacrificing the animals for skin as a covering for Adam and Eve after the fall. I believe Jesus was the first perfect sacrifice and was not for the covering of sins but for the redemption of mankind. I believe that is why God no longer requires sacrifices for the covering of sins. Because the price has been paid. We are seen as justified through the sacrifice of Jesus.


A symbolic star to you to encourage a theist use of the magical words "I believe", instead of the far too often pseudo-rational panic to become 'logically' housebroken.

But there will ofcourse always be the academic discussion, and the question of when a faith is offered, and when it's pushed.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by micmerci
 

So you are saying that you are not capable of allowing a person to have their own personal beliefs??
The thing is, I have a belief based on this:

It would be better for him to have a millstone tied around his neck and be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.

Whenever I see people like yourself and all the other members of your cult on this forum promoting sin, then I feel it is my duty to warn the "little ones" about those who laugh at millstones.
edit on 4-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by jmdewey60
 

I respectfully disagree. We could debate for eternity and accomplish nothing. We each have our beliefs. These verses support my belief. I do not want to force my beliefs on anyone. Please do likewise.
Hebrews 10:12
But this man, after he had offered one SACRIFICE for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Ephesians 5:2
And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a SACRIFICE to God for a sweetsmelling savour.
Last night I only responded to the part about forcing beliefs. I did not respond to the verses quoted in the post. Now that the exchange has died down, let's look at those. The first thing to notice is the sparseness of the backup to what seems such a central point. Another thing I just noticed is the note on this poster's mini-profile where he claims to be a sinner. This would be part of the reason why I would go to the trouble of refuting such posts. This is a philosophy of sinners going to heaven, and not people who had sinned in the past, but active sinners. Adherents to such philosophy believe that being a good person is "works" and will not get anyone into heaven, while ignoring all the verses that say sinners will not go to heaven. (also ignoring that works meant the things of the Mosaic Law which do nothing towards making a person better, for example tacking a little box on your door jam with a bit of parchment in it, usually with the text of the law written on it saying to place the law on your doorpost)
So, how do these people feel good about themselves while going about their normal course of the day doing sins as usual? They construct an elaborate philosophy with says that salvation is not based on works (holding the view that not sinning is "works") but by self proclamation. Saying you are saved, but with the right words, and said the right way (see Harry Potter) then you are done, considering the spell you just made on God lasts forever.
Now with this bit of background, here's one verse.

"But when this priest had offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, he sat down at the right hand of God, "

What this ignores is the context, which is this bit, two verses earlier, which instills the essence of the chapter,

"He does away with the first to establish the second."

So Jesus is not dying to pay the debt to the old covenant but does away with that covenant and his sacrifice provides the blood to inaugurate the New Covenant.

OK, next verse:

"and live in love, just as Christ also loved us and gave himself for us, a sacrificial and fragrant offering to God. "

My question was not if Jesus sacrificed himself because that is plain to see just by the fact that he died on the cross when he easily could have avoided it if he wanted to. The question is if he made a substitutionary sacrifice, for you, on an individual basis.
edit on 4-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
If he does thats great and we can go to heaven and it will be great. If not then we all get punished and it will be painfull. so the question is which one would you rather believe?



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Doublemint
 
If all you care about is this world then eat drink and be merry and don't even think about what comes later.
If you do care about what may happen after you die, then think about what would get you stopped at the gate to the better place, what you are doing now, and think if it is worth it, in relation to eternity.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


I thought we were talking about God accepting bribes such as Jesus dieing for our sins. Lets stick with that example if God does accept bribes then we will be able to be forgiven if God doesn't accept bribes then we will all be punished unless you can prove to God you have never sinned.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doublemint
reply to post by jmdewey60
 
I thought we were talking about God accepting bribes such as Jesus dieing for our sins. Lets stick with that example if God does accept bribes then we will be able to be forgiven if God doesn't accept bribes then we will all be punished unless you can prove to God you have never sinned.
What God accepts is Jesus.
God brought Jesus up to heaven and basically made him god of all those who will be in his kingdom.
So what we have is God stepping back in a manner of speaking and letting Jesus run things up to some distant future point. Metaphorically it is described as a thousand years but that was a way of saying a long time but a time that does have a calculable end. Jesus and the saints who were made perfect in their lifetime up to just before being martyred, will sit in judgement.
The idea being that without this particular person, Jesus there would be no judgement, and no punishment, we would all just cease to exist because we all are guilty of some sort of sin. Since we do have this person as our judge, then we are judged on a different bases, which is not the written law but the law of faith, which is the guidance of the Holy Spirit into righteousness. Jesus will know his own when judgement comes because of that connection through the spirit. Those he does not know will be condemned because they never took that guidance to start with, and are then obviously guilty.
edit on 4-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


So, what happens when Jesus and the saints aren't proven perfect? and how many need to be perfect?
edit on 4-9-2011 by Doublemint because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doublemint
reply to post by jmdewey60
 

So, what happens when Jesus and the saints aren't proven perfect? and how many need to be perfect?
There is a God and He has infinite power, so what needs to get done will, as far as Jesus being to save. That's why you have the angel of Jesus telling John in Revelation that all power and authority has been given him to keep those who will be saved.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by micmerci
It seems as if you are equating various churches dogma with the very nature of God. Just because a church leader says something is acceptable to God does not make it necessarily so. The selling of indulgences was big in early Roman Catholic church history when there was a political and religious power struggle going on between the 5 major cities of the early church which included Rome.
IMO these and other scriptural passages indicate that God will not accept a ransom from man because of sin. Only His blameless Son could be a substitute for the redemption of the sins of mankind.


You used the word substitute. That is the same as a ransom in this case.
You say God does not take a bribe, and then show him doing just that ??
If God will only accept his son, then he advocates the murder of innocent people to pay for the guilty. Yuk.
No justice in that.

Regards
DL



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by The GUT
It's all about Love. But there's no love where justice doesn't exist.

Paul juxtaposed against James used to seem rather contradictory to me, but now I see how perfectly harmonious they are.

And love covers a multitude of sins. I better love.


Love is a shared thing.
You can choose to love all you want but it is not true love unless it is returned.
Try that love with an absentee God and you will see how useless it is unless returned.

Regards
DL



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by AQuestion
You clearly cannot understand any answer you would be given.


Which tell me that there is nothing that you can refute well in the O P.
Thanks for the compliment.

Regards
DL



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
This may be a trivial point, but I've never heard of anyone (with the possible exception of the opening poster) who believed you can bribe God, let alone any church that taught it.

What are you planning on bribing God with? A Klondike bar? Be serious. He doesn't need anything that we can put in a collection plate.


If God has no needs, and i agree that he does not, then why the fit and cursing us to hell if we do not believe in him or love honor and obey his sorry ass?

Regards
DL



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
Quickest route to figureing out what to do with various dogma:



36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" 37 And He said to him, " `YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' 38 "This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 "The second is like it, `YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' 40 "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."
studylight.org...:39&t=nas&st=1&new=1&sr=1&sc=1&l=en

Most Biblical laws are for the obvious benefit of society--or are about loving your neighbor as yourself. Indulgences do nothing about fixing the problem, but more excusing the bad behavior, ensuring that there is no religion staying true to it's core beliefs.


I agree that no one can live up to core beliefs.
They are designed for just that.
There is no $$$ in it from those who have no need of it.
Religions cannot have that as it would dry up revenues.

Regards
DL



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by micmerci
It seems as if you are equating various churches dogma with the very nature of God. Just because a church leader says something is acceptable to God does not make it necessarily so. The selling of indulgences was big in early Roman Catholic church history when there was a political and religious power struggle going on between the 5 major cities of the early church which included Rome.
IMO these and other scriptural passages indicate that God will not accept a ransom from man because of sin. Only His blameless Son could be a substitute for the redemption of the sins of mankind.


You used the word substitute. That is the same as a ransom in this case.
You say God does not take a bribe, and then show him doing just that ??
If God will only accept his son, then he advocates the murder of innocent people to pay for the guilty. Yuk.
No justice in that.

Regards
DL
You see the problem with this kind of explanation.
Any way you look at it, it has to be wrong, either from a normal ethical standpoint, or a biblical standpoint.
There is something that was formulated into a religion but you have this system being set up where you have to go through it to obtain your salvation. In establishing this earthly system that everyone by necessity have to come to in order to obtain forgiveness, it does so by ignoring the true understanding that Jesus died to do away with the old concept of debt and payment.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


The nature of God is revealed best in the story of Abram being asked to sacrifice Issac.

When Abram was told to sacrifice Issac, He did so willingly to follow God in obedience and faith. At the last moment, God stopped him and provided a lamb in place of Issac. Abram was willing to give up what he loved most in the world. For us, this is the idol of our own selfish pride. God changed Abram's name to Abraham by adding the Hebrew letter 'Hey' to his name. In the Ancient Hebrew pictographs, the letter hey represent a man with his arms outstretched to God in faith and praise. When we are willing to look to God as our strength as a father, we allow Him to shepherd us instead of using our pride as the guide in life. The other pictograph for HEY is the shepherd's staff. This represents the leading of God in the wilderness of life. We reside in the tent (body / Temporary house). LINK

The point here is that we must love God and love others. Like Abraham, this is the ultimate act of humility before God. We do this by offering God our pride in exchange for His holiness. By doing this, the lamb is exchanged for what we offer to God. In the end, we keep what we offer. God never needed our works. Faith, hope and love is the point. He has done everything for us, including the act of sending His Son as the lamb for sacrifice. In other words, we receive salvation through our faith. Faith is looking to God with trust and not pride and bias.

As for the indulgences of the church, this brought the Bible to the masses through the proliferation of the printing press. Luther recognized the error of the apostate church and stood for truth. The reformation allowed 70 million people to leave Europe for freedom in America. This brought the industrial revolution and the very worlds being typed at this very moment. Apart from God's hand in history, none of this would be possible. The printing of the Bible in English and the new freedom in American brought literacy to the masses. In the end, God took the error and made a blessing to mankind.

Romans 8:28

28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.





edit on 3-9-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)


Abraham did not have or need faith.
Faith is belief in the unknown and unseen.
God was not these to Abraham. He was real and if he would have been a man of God, and did unto others, he would have told God where to go with his stupid sacrifice, that was not required for anything.

The story of Abraham has been judged by most over time to be the story of an idiot God.
And you base your theology on it.
No wonder then that you happily follow a God who would have his own son murdered.
You should really consider why you would want to profit from the murder of an innocent victim by his father.

Keep up the poor morals.

Regards
DL



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join