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

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

Joined: May 16th, 2012, 12:04 am

June 9th, 2012, 1:19 pm #1

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

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

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 Gods power to set the conditions for atonement, would you step up yourself or would you send your child to die?

Regards
DL


Quote
Like
Share

Iceman
Iceman

June 9th, 2012, 2:31 pm #2

People are burying their children all the time because of the belief in God. Superstitious HATE and want of being right is paramont in the world.

If there were a jesua, and he was killed as alledged, then it is simply the example of the waste of religion.
Quote
Share

Joined: May 16th, 2012, 12:04 am

June 9th, 2012, 4:13 pm #3

No argument here my friend.

Regards
DL
Quote
Like
Share

Tim
Tim

June 10th, 2012, 5:53 am #4

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

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

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 Gods power to set the conditions for atonement, would you step up yourself or would you send your child to die?

Regards
DL

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

I say its God trying to relate to His creation and trying to get the creation related to Him.

Its like a human relating to a dog, you have to step down to their level to get any connection.

The same with an adult relating to a child, you have to step down to their level to communicate with understanding.

The same thing with God and mankind.

Matthew3:3
3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness,

Mark1:3
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness,

Luke3:4
4 As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness,

John1:23
23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness,

How would you like it if you had children who completely ignored you?
I think you would be a father crying to the wind in the wilderness with no one to listen to you.

Tim




Quote
Share

Joined: December 8th, 2003, 1:16 am

June 10th, 2012, 7:44 am #5

... where a perfect all-knowing, benevolent, omnipotent God created something that turned against him but he loved them so much that he first killed all of them except for "8 souls" ... and then again ... had to have his own son sacrificed in order to "reach" the off-spring of those chosen 8 -- again, because of "love" ... is patently illogical and absurdly ridiculous. No arguments attempting to support this paradigm can make any sense. If God is all-knowing and all powerful he couldn't make such a mistake in the first place and in the second place ... he might as well have killed the surviving 8 and started over again.

What modern Christianity consistently omits from its teaching is that the "ancients" were under no "illusion" that "God" was a single entity. As I've pointed out many times ... "God" in the English OTestament was "Elohim" and "God" in the NTestament was "Theos". Different languages originally but the same concept of God as a large corporate entity.

The evidence for the multi-entitied God is shown all THROUGHOUT the Bible ... if people would just stop and look (or even ... KNOW their Bibles a little bit).

The Hebrew god Jahveh was CONSTANTLY ranting about jealousy over his chosen people worshiping OTHER gods. How could he be jealous of his own creation?

It's true that for the Hebrews there was but ONE god (and only for their new Jahveistic religion introduced at the time of king Josiah) ... but that was a CHOICE of gods and not a listing of gods. For them there was only Jahveh whom they would pledge to obey and worship (which gave the priests consolidated power over the people).

But otherwise, there was ALWAYS the perception of a multitude of gods (also called "the host of heaven in the OTestament).

This is totally evident in the OTestament everywhere you look ... but also in the NTestament ... where Paul -on Mars Hill- tells the people that he is introducing to them ... the "unknown god." (Acts 17:23)

OK then ...

When you put the Bible into the context of MULTI-gods ... it all makes logical sense and there's no more of the ridiculousness being promulgated by modern Christianity.

If there are many gods ... no ONE god has absolute control of anything ... and it becomes a competition.

Then the ONE chosen god enlists or needs the help of people (whom ALL the gods contributed to creating).

Then ... sending a son to die for the sins of the people ... makes sense ... as Paul described in 1 Cor. 2:6-8

[Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.]


"World" is translated from the Greek "aion" ... which meant "age" or era.
"Princes" is translated from the Greek "archons" which meant rulers.

Paul is speaking of a cosmic occurrence where the gods were fooled by killing the cosmic son of the gods -Jesus- because they didn't know that he would then manage to become alive again ... with even greater power than before.

You see, when you look at it in the myth setting ... that story is very common: a god was killed and then came to life again miraculously with even greater power than before.

-Vince

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 16th, 2012, 12:04 am

June 10th, 2012, 5:22 pm #6

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

I say its God trying to relate to His creation and trying to get the creation related to Him.

Its like a human relating to a dog, you have to step down to their level to get any connection.

The same with an adult relating to a child, you have to step down to their level to communicate with understanding.

The same thing with God and mankind.

Matthew3:3
3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness,

Mark1:3
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness,

Luke3:4
4 As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness,

John1:23
23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness,

How would you like it if you had children who completely ignored you?
I think you would be a father crying to the wind in the wilderness with no one to listen to you.

Tim



Why would a God who created man need to get at his level to relate to him?
As our creator he would have to already know us intimately.

As to sending Jesus, if he wanted to know man then he would have arranged to live in order to do so.

You cannot justify God first condemning us then sending his son to die for us.
You are trying to justify insanity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott15j2 ... re=related

Regards
DL
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 16th, 2012, 12:04 am

June 10th, 2012, 5:26 pm #7

... where a perfect all-knowing, benevolent, omnipotent God created something that turned against him but he loved them so much that he first killed all of them except for "8 souls" ... and then again ... had to have his own son sacrificed in order to "reach" the off-spring of those chosen 8 -- again, because of "love" ... is patently illogical and absurdly ridiculous. No arguments attempting to support this paradigm can make any sense. If God is all-knowing and all powerful he couldn't make such a mistake in the first place and in the second place ... he might as well have killed the surviving 8 and started over again.

What modern Christianity consistently omits from its teaching is that the "ancients" were under no "illusion" that "God" was a single entity. As I've pointed out many times ... "God" in the English OTestament was "Elohim" and "God" in the NTestament was "Theos". Different languages originally but the same concept of God as a large corporate entity.

The evidence for the multi-entitied God is shown all THROUGHOUT the Bible ... if people would just stop and look (or even ... KNOW their Bibles a little bit).

The Hebrew god Jahveh was CONSTANTLY ranting about jealousy over his chosen people worshiping OTHER gods. How could he be jealous of his own creation?

It's true that for the Hebrews there was but ONE god (and only for their new Jahveistic religion introduced at the time of king Josiah) ... but that was a CHOICE of gods and not a listing of gods. For them there was only Jahveh whom they would pledge to obey and worship (which gave the priests consolidated power over the people).

But otherwise, there was ALWAYS the perception of a multitude of gods (also called "the host of heaven in the OTestament).

This is totally evident in the OTestament everywhere you look ... but also in the NTestament ... where Paul -on Mars Hill- tells the people that he is introducing to them ... the "unknown god." (Acts 17:23)

OK then ...

When you put the Bible into the context of MULTI-gods ... it all makes logical sense and there's no more of the ridiculousness being promulgated by modern Christianity.

If there are many gods ... no ONE god has absolute control of anything ... and it becomes a competition.

Then the ONE chosen god enlists or needs the help of people (whom ALL the gods contributed to creating).

Then ... sending a son to die for the sins of the people ... makes sense ... as Paul described in 1 Cor. 2:6-8

[Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.]


"World" is translated from the Greek "aion" ... which meant "age" or era.
"Princes" is translated from the Greek "archons" which meant rulers.

Paul is speaking of a cosmic occurrence where the gods were fooled by killing the cosmic son of the gods -Jesus- because they didn't know that he would then manage to become alive again ... with even greater power than before.

You see, when you look at it in the myth setting ... that story is very common: a god was killed and then came to life again miraculously with even greater power than before.

-Vince
I agree that it is a senseless myth if read literally.

Not just from a theological view but a moral one.


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
Quote
Like
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

June 10th, 2012, 6:47 pm #8

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

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

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 Gods power to set the conditions for atonement, would you step up yourself or would you send your child to die?

Regards
DL

<em>"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. . . . If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. . . . If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" -- Epicurus</em>



Schematic:

If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
There is evil in the world.
Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist.
See Epicurus

Refinement:

God exists.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
An omnipotent being has the power to prevent evils from coming into existence.
A being that knows every way in which evil can come into existence; able to prevent evil from coming into existence; and wants to do so, would prevent the existence of evil.
If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being, then no evil exists.
Evil exists.
Therefore, an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god does not.
 

As Epicurus put it:

<em>"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"</em>

 
<p align="center">- propositions which imply their own negation are necessarily false whereas propositions implied by their own negation are necessarily true -


rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -

New!! Improved!! Now With CDEH-Formula!!


CD: short for inevitability
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 8th, 2003, 1:16 am

June 10th, 2012, 7:10 pm #9

I agree that it is a senseless myth if read literally.

Not just from a theological view but a moral one.


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
... but people are easily fooled into believing there's some justice to it.

Even the Bible says that children cannot be held responsible for the sins of their parents ... and yet ... it's being done in the modern world all the time ... ie ... saddling children with their "parent's debt".

But ... that's how mafia-type organizations operate. They force debt and then claim that children are responsible for paying it ... and that way they can keep everyone "owing them" perpetually.

We see a classic example of the "redemption-by-blood" in 2 Samuel 21. There was a famine in Israel so David "enquired of the Lord" as to what might be the cause. "the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites."

So David called the Gibeonites and asked them what they wanted. They said they wanted 7 descendants of Saul to be given to them so that they could hang them. David never blinked an eye; he picked 7 innocent men and handed them over and they were hanged on high. Later, David treated the bones with utmost respect and the god of Israel was satisfied that justice had been done.

So that's the "redemption-by-blood" principle.

Question is ... does this make any sense in our world today? Did it EVER make real sense? It looks to me like pure revenge -- hurting "someone" back real bad for the way their relatives hurt you ... and then you feel better and all is "forgiven."

-Vince
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 16th, 2012, 12:04 am

June 10th, 2012, 8:33 pm #10

<em>"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. . . . If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. . . . If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" -- Epicurus</em>



Schematic:

If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
There is evil in the world.
Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist.
See Epicurus

Refinement:

God exists.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
An omnipotent being has the power to prevent evils from coming into existence.
A being that knows every way in which evil can come into existence; able to prevent evil from coming into existence; and wants to do so, would prevent the existence of evil.
If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being, then no evil exists.
Evil exists.
Therefore, an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god does not.
 

As Epicurus put it:

<em>"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"</em>

 
<p align="center">- propositions which imply their own negation are necessarily false whereas propositions implied by their own negation are necessarily true -


rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -

New!! Improved!! Now With CDEH-Formula!!


CD: short for inevitability
No argument.

Regards
DL
Quote
Like
Share