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.

 

If you accept this as universal morality, you will reject God.

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   
If you accept this as universal morality, you will reject God.

blog.ted.com...

God does not follow the first rule at all.

The bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or sin.

This shows that what many thinks is our number one moral value was completely ignored by God.

Is God immoral or has man gotten morality wrong?

If God was right, then are we to believe that fathers are to bury their children instead of the way people think in that children should bury their parents?

John 6:44
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”

On earth as it is in heaven.

If you had God’s power to set the conditions for atonement, would you step up yourself or would you send your child to die?

Regards
DL




posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


I'd do some theological research before making any broad assertions in the future. God and Jesus are the same person. The holy trinity remember? Also, man lived with God's blessing for 1000s of years. There was a loooong time between Adam and Jesus.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 

The bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or sin.

You are probably thinking of Revelation 13:8
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (NKJV)

The verse is written ambiguously to where you can translate it two different ways, as above, where it is the lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world, or as other tranlations, such as the one below has it, the names were put into the book before the foundation of the world.

and all those who live on the earth will worship the beast, everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was killed. (NetBible)

A look at the corresponding verse in Revelation 17:8 should convince anyone that the latter version is correct.

The beast you saw was, and is not, but is about to come up from the abyss and then go to destruction. The inhabitants of the earth – all those whose names have not been written in the book of life since the foundation of the world – will be astounded when they see that the beast was, and is not, but is to come.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by KnawLick


I'd do some theological research before making any broad assertions in the future. God and Jesus are the same person.


According to Christianity.

Besides Christians I think you would be hard pressed to find others that believe the same way.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by KnawLick
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


I'd do some theological research before making any broad assertions in the future. God and Jesus are the same person. The holy trinity remember? Also, man lived with God's blessing for 1000s of years. There was a loooong time between Adam and Jesus.


The Trinity concept is the dumbest issue that Constantine ever forced Christianity to adopt.

Originally Posted by animefan48
Well, the reality is most Christians do buy into the trinity doctrine because of persecution of the early Gnostics and non-Trinitarians, and the religious councils were dissenters were forced to agree to a Trinitarian theology. Many Unitarian and Universalist theologies argue that when Jesus said he was the way, he meant that he was an example of how to live to be united/reunited with God. As for the name, God does give other names for himself including the Alpha and Omega, as well as some believe a name that should not be written (or even spoken I believe). Honestly, I think using the name I Am That I Am would just be confusing and convoluted, seriously. I seriously do not believe that it is a continuation of Gnostic/mystical/Unitarian suppression. Even the Gnostic and mystical traditions within Islam and Christianity do not tend to use that name, and among the 99 Names of Allah, I did not find that one. Also, many Rastafarians believe that the Holy Spirit lives in humans and will sometimes say I and I instead of we, yet they don't seem to use the name I Am for God/Jah either, so I really don't think it can be related to suppressing mystical and Gnostic interpretations. I think that originally oppressing those ideas and decreeing them heretical are quite enough, the early Church did such a good job that after the split many Protestant groups continued to condemn mystical and later Gnostic sects and theologies.





Yup, the bishops voted and it was settled for all time!!1 (Some say the preliminary votes were 150 something to 140 something in favor of the trinity)

But then Constantine stepped in: After a prolonged and inconclusive debate, the impatient Constantine intervened to force an end to the conflict by demanding the adoption of the creed. The vote was taken under threat of exile for any who did not support the decision favored by Constantine. (And later, they fully endorsed the trinity idea when it all happened again at the council of Constantinople in AD 381, where only Trinitarians were invited to attend. Surprise! They also managed to carry a vote in favor of the Trinity.)

home.pacific.net.au...


Even a Trinitarian scholar admits the Earliest & Original beliefs were NOT Trinitarian!

The trinity formulation is a later corruption away from the earliest & original beliefs!

"It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed".
Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180

"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament".
R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173, 1980

The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament.
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 306.

"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective"
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299.

"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299).

"Fourth-century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary a deviation from this teaching" (The Encyclopedia Americana, p. 1956, p. 2941).

Was Jesus God to Paul and other early Christians? No. . . . .
(Source: How the Bible became the Bible by Donald L. O'Dell - ISBN 0-7414-2993-4 Published by INFINITY Publishing.com)

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
How about we all just live and get along?

Instead of this "If you do this, you're bad, but if you do that, you're good." Lets stop the two party devide and just be happy to know that we exist in the beauty that is this Earth.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by KnawLick
 

God and Jesus are the same person. The holy trinity remember?

The Trinity consists of three persons.
That is generally accepted by Christian theologies except for Oneness Pentecostals.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 

The trinity formulation is a later corruption away from the earliest & original beliefs!

Even if trinity was a bit fuzzy early on, it does not take away from the divinity of Jesus.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by KnawLick
 





I'd do some theological research before making any broad assertions in the future. God and Jesus are the same person. The holy trinity remember?


I would hit some scientific papers and do a little logical research before I made an assertion as absurd as that.

If God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit (Trinity, I know a girl by that name) are the same person then how was Jesus in heaven before he was born on earth. How did God say during Jesus' baptism "This is my son" while the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove was descending. All three in the same place but totally seperate.

If God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the same person then how come Jesus is, according to the Bible, going to sit on the right hand of the Father (God)?

There are so many more but I think you get the idea. Don't put someone down because you think you are more intelligent than them. If what you say is fact then God is a schizophrenic or has a multiple personality disorder.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by AaronWilson
How about we all just live and get along?

Instead of this "If you do this, you're bad, but if you do that, you're good." Lets stop the two party devide and just be happy to know that we exist in the beauty that is this Earth.


That would be nice but then we would have to ignore much and allow evil to grow.


It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.
They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Belief in fantasy is evil.

www.youtube.com...

They also do much harm to their own.

African witches and Jesus
www.youtube.com...

Jesus Camp 1of 9
www.youtube.com...

Promoting death to Gays.
www.youtube.com...

For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.
Fight them when you can. It is your duty to our fellow man.

Regards
DL



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Greatest I am
 

The trinity formulation is a later corruption away from the earliest & original beliefs!

Even if trinity was a bit fuzzy early on, it does not take away from the divinity of Jesus.


No divine Jesus would allow the 9.5 million who starve and die of other preventable causes yearly.
If you think a divinity would endorse or participate in a barbaric human sacrifice, that we are to ptrofit from, then you might want to question what morality is all about.

Regards
DL



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 

If you think a divinity would endorse or participate in a barbaric human sacrifice, that we are to ptrofit from, then you might want to question what morality is all about.
The sacrifice was one made by God in giving up His son to the violence of the world to condemn it.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


The bible declares the trinity , the church reaffirmed this declaration that is all. If one can not see the trinity in Gods book then their reading skills are lacking .



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azadok2day
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


The bible declares the trinity , the church reaffirmed this declaration that is all. If one can not see the trinity in Gods book then their reading skills are lacking .


Back in the times of individual books and no compilation of the 66 books into one, there existed no trinity in the writings of Jesus. Everyone that studied the process for forming the Bible learns the Trinity concept was forged into John, the only area Trinity is mention on the Bible Narratives.

So, history supports that you have not done your homework and make false claims. imho



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Greatest I am
 

If you think a divinity would endorse or participate in a barbaric human sacrifice, that we are to ptrofit from, then you might want to question what morality is all about.
The sacrifice was one made by God in giving up His son to the violence of the world to condemn it.


These days most people have gone to look to see what this god of Abraham was about and discovered a superior being that was bascally called the Clan of Anu or the Elohim. It comes from the Book of Enoch, you know the Book the Bible makers didn't want included because it showed the superior being wasn't anything about a value god concept.

When one finds that, wha one finds is a false concept for god.

Thus, making your claim look rather silly, as that isn't god in correct vogue for the literacy of today.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by KnawLick
 

God and Jesus are the same person. The holy trinity remember?

The Trinity consists of three persons.
That is generally accepted by Christian theologies except for Oneness Pentecostals.



Got you here. Three persons is correct! Three persons in the Babylon Trinity was the root of Sun worship

Which means----no god concept.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 

. . . making your claim look rather silly, as that isn't god in correct vogue . . .

I am basing my view on the New Testament, mainly the 7 authentic letters of Paul, Hebrews, and the Gospels of Mark and John.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 

. . . making your claim look rather silly, as that isn't god in correct vogue . . .

I am basing my view on the New Testament, mainly the 7 authentic letters of Paul, Hebrews, and the Gospels of Mark and John.


Clearly, that view reduced to three humans pretending to be god. Leaving Jesus no more than a profit that likely also took up worship for Daddy god (Abba term) that also ends up being bogus.

Too late for excuses.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 

Clearly, that view reduced to three humans pretending to be god. Leaving Jesus no more than a profit that likely also took up worship for Daddy god (Abba term) that also ends up being bogus.

Too late for excuses.
I don't see my sources giving any particular credence to the Old Testament description of God.
The book (OT) is used to give illustrations to concepts that the NT (according to my canon of Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon, Hebrews, Mark and John) is presenting about God.
Obviously there is a new paradigm about God, and His relationship with man, being brought forth in the NT (JMDewey version) so all your references to Abraham or whatever is irrelevant in my eyes for criticizing the Christian god.
I don't see how a so-called comparison with what you are calling a Babylonian trinity has anything to do with the Christian doctrine of trinity.
edit on 10-6-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Greatest I am
 

If you think a divinity would endorse or participate in a barbaric human sacrifice, that we are to ptrofit from, then you might want to question what morality is all about.
The sacrifice was one made by God in giving up His son to the violence of the world to condemn it.


The violence that he himself creates.


Thomas Paine, in Age of Reason, wrote:
If I owe a person money, and cannot pay him, and he threatens to put me in prison, another person can take the debt upon himself, and pay it for me. But if I have committed a crime, every circumstance of the case is changed. Moral justice cannot take the innocent for the guilty even if the innocent would offer itself. To suppose justice to do this, is to destroy the principle of its existence, which is the thing itself. It is then no longer justice. It is indiscriminate revenge.

This single reflection will show that the doctrine of redemption is founded on a mere pecuniary idea corresponding to that of a debt which another person might pay; and as this pecuniary idea corresponds again with the system of second redemptions, obtained through the means of money given to the church for pardons, the probability is that the same persons fabricated both the one and the other of those theories; and that, in truth, there is no such thing as redemption; that it is fabulous; and that man stands in the same relative condition with his Maker he ever did stand, since man existed; and that it is his greatest consolation to think so.
Emphasis mine.

So not only is the killing of an innocent man immoral, but it shows that the redemption allegory being used is that of a financial debt. Which is an interesting parallel to the practice of purchasing 'pardons'.



[It is] not good that the man should be alone ; I will make him an help meet for him. (Gen. 2:18) KJV Story book

Free will to me is the ability to make a choice without coercion.
A choice made while under coercion, (especially under threat of pain and suffering), is not a freely made choice, ergo it is not free will. In fact there is a name for it; it's called extortion and it is a criminal offense precisely for the reason that it is not a free choice but a forced one.

"Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense." Wikipedia

"Test all things"
1 Thessalonians. 5:21

No noble and gracious God would demand the sacrifice of a so called son just to prove it's benevolence.

Regards
DL




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join