Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

LOL.

Human sacrifice. Yummy.

God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

I think that the notion that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty perpetrator is immoral. Be it a willing sacrifice as some believe with Jesus or unwilling victim.

I also think that God, who has a plethora of other options, would have come up with a moral way instead of an immoral and barbaric human sacrifice.

I agree with scriptures that say that we are all responsible for our own righteousness as well as our own iniquity and that God cannot be bribed by sacrifice.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Psalm 49:7
None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

I believe as I do because I believe that the first rule of morality is harm/care of children.

blog.ted.com...

Do you agree that the notion of substitutionary atonement is immoral and that God’s first principle of morality is harm/care and that this would prevent him from demanding the death of his son?

Regards
DL

reply to post by Greatest I am


I was just asking you to look into it with an open mind, even from Jesus' perspective, who threaded the needle (was not murdered). Also Jesus could interpret verses in Psalms as he wished, since all authority was granted to him by the father.

Furthermore, the salvation offered as a free gift of grace contains imbedded within it a transformative evolutionary principal by which the desire to sin is broken.

You just don't get it, but what's worse, is the degree to which you presume to already know everything and are thus unwilling to give it a second look.

"There is a principal which is a bar against all information and proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man (or woman) in everlasting ignorance. That principal is - contempt, prior to investigation."
~ Herbert Spencer, scientist.

reply to post by Greatest I am


So, you think it's immoral. That's your prerogative. We all die because we all sin. Christ's death made a way for us to spend eternity with His Father in heaven rather than Hell separated from them. And I love them both for that. Like I said, it's impossible to create free moral agents and expect all of them will reciprocate that love back.

It would have been immoral to create us without free choice to make our own decision.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Haha.. look at my sig for his brother's quote.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

I was just asking you to look into it with an open mind, even from Jesus' perspective, who threaded the needle (was not murdered). Also Jesus could interpret verses in Psalms as he wished, since all authority was granted to him by the father.

Furthermore, the salvation offered as a free gift of grace contains imbedded within it a transformative evolutionary principal by which the desire to sin is broken.

You just don't get it, but what's worse, is the degree to which you presume to already know everything and are thus unwilling to give it a second look.

"There is a principal which is a bar against all information and proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man (or woman) in everlasting ignorance. That principal is - contempt, prior to investigation."
~ Herbert Spencer, scientist.

Take your fantasy and--------

Regards
DL

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

So, you think it's immoral. That's your prerogative. We all die because we all sin. Christ's death made a way for us to spend eternity with His Father in heaven rather than Hell separated from them. And I love them both for that. Like I said, it's impossible to create free moral agents and expect all of them will reciprocate that love back.

It would have been immoral to create us without free choice to make our own decision.

See the post just above.

Regards
DL

reply to post by Greatest I am


So like i said earlier, this apparently is just a bait thread so you can troll. Couldn't you just have bumped one of your many others?

reply to post by Greatest I am

Listen up pal, that you do not, cannot or will not understand it or seek to understand it, isn't our problem. We've obviously gone to great lengths to show you or invite you to look into it from a new perspective and in a new light, but you adamantly refuse, while calling yourself "The Greatest I am".. put it together..

On the one hand you say that we cannot help but do evil, and on the other refuse the resolution to the paradox by which we are invited into the good for goodness' sake, along with a radical, transformative forgiveness by which evil loses it's hold and is broken.

It's in your blind spot.

Don't you see that the human being (in totality) cannot remain forever a "house divided" against itself?

My definition of good and evil is a bit different than yours (cooperating / competing).

To me, good is supporting free-will, bad is taking it away.

It is entirely possible to live your life without stepping on another's free-will.

It would also be entirely possible to live without (unwanted) competition if we didn't live by money, but by generosity.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

Listen up pal, that you do not, cannot or will not understand it or seek to understand it, isn't our problem. We've obviously gone to great lengths to show you or invite you to look into it from a new perspective and in a new light, but you adamantly refuse, while calling yourself "The Greatest I am".. put it together..

On the one hand you say that we cannot help but do evil, and on the other refuse the resolution to the paradox by which we are invited into the good for goodness' sake, along with a radical, transformative forgiveness by which evil loses it's hold and is broken.

It's in your blind spot.

Don't you see that the human being (in totality) cannot remain forever a "house divided" against itself?

edit on 1-8-2012 by NewAgeMan because: edited

The only thing you want me to understand is that your swollen headed view is right and all others are wrong.

I guess that you have failed to notice that your house is divided into hundreds of sects and that they are all wrong except yours.

Take the log out of your eye and see what your genocidal son murderer is before you point to the sliver in mine and then we can talk as your immoral morals will have been discarded.

I will think your way when like you, I sell my soul to Satan.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by arpgme
My definition of good and evil is a bit different than yours (cooperating / competing).

To me, good is supporting free-will, bad is taking it away.

It is entirely possible to live your life without stepping on another's free-will.

It would also be entirely possible to live without (unwanted) competition if we didn't live by money, but by generosity.

Yes but it is not workable in the real world where we compete for resources.
You can only be generous if you have more than you need and for that you must work and finding that work involves denying the free will of others and their free will that says they want to work.

The last time you competed for a job let's say. You may have won but created a loser of the one who did not get the work. He would see evil in this because if he has a long string of loses and cannot find someone to beat out for a job, he will eventually die.

You could have done the empathic or kind generous thing and let him win but then you would be the loser and if you continued to do this you would be the one to eventually die.

You have to compete and win and create a loser and thus do evil from his POV or you will die. You like all who want to survive must do evil in this sense.

This seems to make it impossible for you to " live your life without stepping on another's free-will."

If not then show how your system could possibly work.
It would be great but I see it as pie in the sky.

Regards
DL

reply to post by Greatest I am


We don't need to compete, there is enough for everybody. It is the money that creates starving people in other countries. If everyone just allowed the earth to keep growing free fruit and stuff, there would be enough for everyone.

Oh no....another one of those, 'I don't know what the *#ck's going on', trolling threads...

Why would you care what anyone thinks? You obviously have all the answers to your questions!

Your Free Will to follow those answers will reap (according to any cosmological treatise) what you sow.
What others do/think, then, is none of your business...because you already KNOW.

Your 'arguments' are wholly referenced to a christian perspective...you question thier validity based on a credence you accept from them, then question thier validity...in effect questioning yourself...a confused mess!

A99

reply to post by Greatest I am


There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

We don't need to compete, there is enough for everybody. It is the money that creates starving people in other countries. If everyone just allowed the earth to keep growing free fruit and stuff, there would be enough for everyone.

You do not understand my job scenario then.

Your reply says that you do not believe in evolution then as evolution has both competition and cooperation. Ok.
Darwin will not be pleased.
You should stop competing then and stop creating victims that see your success as evil from their POV.
I do not think you can and only offer a simplistic un-workable solution.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by akushla99
Oh no....another one of those, 'I don't know what the *#ck's going on', trolling threads...

Why would you care what anyone thinks? You obviously have all the answers to your questions!

Your Free Will to follow those answers will reap (according to any cosmological treatise) what you sow.
What others do/think, then, is none of your business...because you already KNOW.

Your 'arguments' are wholly referenced to a christian perspective...you question thier validity based on a credence you accept from them, then question thier validity...in effect questioning yourself...a confused mess!

A99

Thanks for ignoring the issue.
Who's the troll?

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.

No argument.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.

Yes there is. The inherent qualities of nature is FREEDOM. There is no natural reason to believe that one human is better than another and should be able to do whatever they want and control another, and even the word "better" is ambiguous and needs to be defined.

Anything going against FREE-WILL which is something that ALL are born with is evil. ALL beings are born being able to make their own choices UNTIL another being FORCES itself into their life and make their decisions for them by force.

reply to post by arpgme


Freewill is debatable.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by arpgme

 

Freewill is debatable.

It's not debatable, we are not robotic automatons. We can choose Godliness and holiness or rebellion and wickedness. We are free to choose, and will one day give an account for the choices we make.