For God to condemn you just to die for you is ridiculous and immoral.

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 





For God to condemn you just to die for you is ridiculous and immoral


He gives you a way to opt out, if you don't take it, thats your fault and we'll be kicking the dust off our shoes and walking on.

As for me? I'll be walking the line.





posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


The bible is not uneditable. No matter what you say, the possibility that it has been edited will always be there. It would be so easy to do yet you seem so confident that it wasn't. How can you be so sure? You denying that possibility is ignore(ance). That is what you are doing, ignoring the possibility.
edit on 5-11-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


The bible is not uneditable. No matter what you say, the possibility that it has been edited will always be there. It would be so easy to do yet you seem so confident that it wasn't. How can you be so sure? You denying that possibility is ignore(ance). That is what you are doing, ignoring the possibility.
edit on 5-11-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)


The Pharisees and Saddusees were looking for a sign and Jesus told them they would only get the sign of Jonah. This is still true for us today. It's faith or it's fact. Has any axiom ever been fact? Never. The Earth has never been in the same place twice and the solar system is no different. Matter is in constant transition and nothing has ever been the same twice. All scientific observation is a matter of faith that laws will ensure predictability in observation. This is all you have and this is all any of us have. All you know is faith.

edit on 5-11-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


He never pointed any particular person or people out, in fact he said "a generation" meaning everyone in those times, but that's beside the point. The interesting thing to me is he said he would not give them (that generation) a sign EXCEPT the sign of Jonah. Why then, does he go on to perform at least 37 miracles? Did he lie to them? Or is it a contradiction someone overlooked while adding the miracles in? My bet is on the latter.

What is the sign of Jonah? Exaggerated claims maybe? The story of Jonah is one of the most illogical in the whole bible, no one is going to live in a fish for 3 days and survive. Maybe Jesus was poking fun at what he knew would happen, like people making exaggerated claims about him? Possibly.

You say laws are in place that prevent us from jumping up to a cloud yet you believe a man actually walked on water and spread 2 fish between 5,000 people? Come on, I can tell you're smarter than that. No offense.
edit on 5-11-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-11-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by Greatest I am
 




Thanks for all this but I did not see if you embrace the notion of human sacrifice or not or if you believe that to punish the innocent instead of the guilty is good justice or not.

Care to share?

P.S. Anyone who dances around a simple question like you are doing knows he is on the wrong moral foot or he would give a clear yes or no.

Regards
DL


All pretext is based on twisted context. Paradox is created in such cases and I am simply showing you the proper context to your thoughts. What is a pretext? A reason given in justification of a course of action that is not the real reason. In this case, you equate mankind as innocent.

This is possibly based on a previous conversation you were having, but I will jump in anyway. We are veiled from a previous existence on a planet that is for fallen beings. Saying we are innocent denies God's goodness for allowing baptism as repentance. On this point you are inferring that you are above God. Pride does this. Most of those who deny God's goodness here will fall into this trap. There are few Atheists. In reality, there are many that do not agree with God.

For me to answer the question, I need your context and not a hidden pretext. Explain your own view and I can then clarify my answer in relation.

edit on 4-11-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)


Thanks for all this but I did not see if you embrace the notion of human sacrifice or not or if you believe that to punish the innocent instead of the guilty is good justice or not.

Care to share?

P.S. Anyone who dances around a simple question like you are doing knows he is on the wrong moral foot or he would give a clear yes or no.

Regards
DL



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


I said for no reason, it's ok to kill in self-defense but only if you have no other choice but to kill.


Thanks for the caveat. I agree.

Regards
DL



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


Until you open up to the possibility that it's not infallible then you will never see. The bible is a book, books are written by the hands of men, men are prone to lying.

Where did you get the belief that the bible could never be edited? How can you be so sure that it hasn't been edited?


I will add these clips to the mix for your consideration. They show who put what in Jesus' mouth and how Christianity has been manipulated. The first which is part of the second speaks to my Gnostic Christian label and the second shows my view of religions overall and the Noble Lie that I think we and our governments should rescind. The third clip speaks to the reason that religions were invented in the first place as it shows why social control was required for city states that had to deal with the reality of finite resources. I see these city states as led by a timocratic king who through the religion that he would have created, also realized that there had to be a tyrannical part to his benevolent duty and created a religion to be just that.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

I see the King/God as having to have the morals shown in the Haigt clip.

blog.ted.com...

He would have to create his religion as expressed through his high priest/tyrant who would live by the first commandment of God, place no one above me as the enforcer of his King/God's rules and laws while still obeying his King. The larger Roman system would later assume the same system through the Noble Lie. First through the Flavians and later through Constantine.

www.simchajtv.com...

Regards
DL



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
[ Yet, if you read Paul's words, you see that it's by faith and not works. YES!!!! Because Christ is the one one who could have done what we cannot. This was the point. It's the larger context that matters. Paul had it right.



Now I know why you refuse to answer my simple question.

You are trying to teach when you should be learning.

www.youtube.com...

You have yet to write the laws of God on your heart and thus idol worship a book.

Regards
DL



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
This is where I take a more Swedenborgian approach to scripture. I do not think that most Christians are correct in stating Jesus died for our sins. Sin is not transferred in such a manner. Rather, I believe that for Jesus to die on the cross was the last temptation necessary for him to become merged with the divine. See, evil works on people through temptation, and the only way God will fight this type of evil at the moment is through us humans. This is partly why Jesus had to die on the cross, although it may still seem counter intuitive the way I explain it, lol.

It still confuses me, although sometimes I think I have a good grasp on things. If anyone is interested in actually having this belief explained in a way that does it justice, look up the work of Swedenborg, who was someone who claimed that he had dreams where he was shown certain things by God. While others, like Smith of the Mormon faith, among others, have made claims like this, Swedenborg was quite different. Not only in one area either. There were even some psychic type events that were documented relatively well that occurred with him, which may bolster his claims to some. He really was quite different from most people we would think of today as charlatans, and he was opposed, it would seem, to organized religion to some degree. Maybe not organized religion itself, but certain types of it.


Said of Gnostic and Christian reading practices.

“Both read the Bible day and night; but you read black where I read white.”
William Blake.

Gnostic Christians like myself have always been at odds with much of the interpretations and messages given in scriptures and taken up by Christians.

We see then calling evil good and as is the case here, we take the opposing moral view on human sacrifice and the notion that the innocent should be punished instead of the guilty. That is why we reject the whole sacrificed for us scenario.

I believe that all scriptures were written to initiate thought and the seeking of God. That is why most scriptures contradict themselves in the bible. To make us choose which God we would follow.

Goats will reject the Christian self-serving scapegoat riding scenario and the punishment of the innocent while Christians have embrace human sacrifice to save their miserable souls. Miserable because they call evil good.

They do not recognize that they follow an Anti-Christ more than a Christ or just do not care and just follow whoever will save them.

Thinkers know that none are ever lost to God but Christians are hampered in their thinking by fear and thus take the moral low ground.

Regards
DL



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by 0mage
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


for you to take the word so literally and unimaginatively is what's ridiculous!

2 cents not paid.


I agree that literal reading is ridiculous but if I am to engage literalist readers, I have to get into their game.

As a book of wisdom, the bible is quite good but only if one has an opened mind when reading it. I like that book of wisdom as it helped me form my morality and was instrumental in helping me push my apotheosis. It is a consolidation of many of the older wisdom sayings but the way Christianity thinks must be reversed from what they think as they call the evil of the scriptures good thanks to their dogma.

Regards
DL



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by Greatest I am
 





For God to condemn you just to die for you is ridiculous and immoral


He gives you a way to opt out, if you don't take it, thats your fault and we'll be kicking the dust off our shoes and walking on.

As for me? I'll be walking the line.



You cannot walk the line while ridding your scapegoat Jesus.
But hey, if you think God will accept you that way then by all immoral means, keep on ridding.
You, like Jesus, will ask God on your way to hell,----why have you forsaken me?
His answer will be because you have chosen the immoral path and tried to take advantage of the murder of an innocent man.

Regards
DL



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


I agree 100%, my thought is that Josephus is the one who was commissioned to alter the story. He is the only other source other than the bible to mention John the Baptist. For someone who had such a huge influence during his life, it's strange that there is only one other mention of him throughout history, and that source is a Roman.

My thought is that John the Baptist wasn't a real person, only a place-holder name for Mary, Jesus' mother. A woman who had that much of an influence in a mainly male-dominated era? Very dangerous indeed.

Why did DaVinci paint John the Baptist with feminine qualities? Why is John the Baptist always in his paintings with Jesus and Mary? Why is he or someone else pointing at him in many of his paintings? Maybe because he was a ghost invented by the Romans.

Take a look at "Salvator Mundi" by Leonardo, it looks as if the face of Jesus doesn't really belong with the head. If you look close enough, you'll notice what looks like breasts on Jesus as well. The curly hair at the on "his" shoulders looks very womanly too. Maybe DaVinci really did have a secret he wanted to get out but could only do it through his paintings.

My guess (as of now) is that the real Jesus was Mary. Jesus' baptism by John was actually Mary baptising her son, they just switched the names around for this instance in my opinion.

edit on 6-11-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-11-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join