People first, God second. Should people put themselves above

Post Reply New Topic

I can see why you resigned. You cannot deal with questions.

Seems your God was quite thrifty when giving you knowledge and a backbone.

Jews are sually brighter.

Regards
DL

Humans who die stay dead.

If God became human, then he is dead and could not have resurrected, --- as humans do not resurrect.

Most want to believe he did for his salvific gift.

As Ingersoll said; 'no man would be fit for heaven who would consent that an innocent person should suffer for his sin.'

Do you agree with that?

Regards
DL

I do not agree, as Christ was both God and man, therefore he was resurrected after he ascended from Hell after preaching to the spirits there.

Many people have tried to put the light out.

Pharasee questioned him
In truth so did I.
First as an Jew, then as an agnostic.

Now as in John - I believe

"1 The Word (Christ) was in the beginning. The Word was with God. The Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 He made all things. Nothing was made without Him making it. 4 Life began by Him. His Life was the Light for men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness. The darkness has never been able to put out the Light."

Love and prayers

Me aka Zvii

Welcome to the club. Are you associated with any particular church?

Yes.

I do not agree, as Christ was both God and man, therefore he was resurrected after he ascended from Hell after preaching to the spirits there.[/quote]

So you think a God can die. Interesting.

Your reply though speaks to dogma, not morality.

I can appreciate why you would ignore the immorality of your belief and just hang on to what you think is a free gift from your imaginary God.

Let me try again to have you think of your immoral position.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL

Some would see what you put as drivel.

Your religion begins by saying that God is unknowable and unfathomable so how can you or your lying priests or preachers know that any of what you put is true when they say they cannot know the truth of it themselves?

Do you even know how your foolish belief in the WORD started?

Let this Bishop try to educate you out of your delusional thinking.

Start it up at the 18 min. mark if you are short of time but you should really listen to all of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUmKEH9jnu8

Regards
DL

Yes. I AM.
Yes I am foolish.
Also a bad speller.

My high iq has not prevented this righter from writing or saying the wrong thing.

Like a leaky faucet sometimes the O ring of my typing fingers or mouth needs cleaning or replacing.

"“Nothing pays off like restraint of tongue and pen.", is an interesting concept. It is easily read, while tricky to practice.
So is not having to be correct or the desire to correct other people.

I used to be afraid of being laughed at.

NOW
As a humorist if I only make one person laugh, my set needs revision.
Him First.
When I'm wrapped up in me I make a small package.
My wife says I'm over dressed and my set / show isn't so good.
Back to rehearsal for a gig tonight.

Yes I AM.




Yes I am foolish.
What doesn't kill me, becomes fodder for my routines.

So you think a God can die. Interesting.

Your reply though speaks to dogma, not morality.

I can appreciate why you would ignore the immorality of your belief and just hang on to what you think is a free gift from your imaginary God.

Let me try again to have you think of your immoral position.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL[/quote]

So you put limits on God? If God chooses to die then be resurrected, then he can do that.
And yes, Christ was innocent but payed the cost for humanity's sins and failings. That's the whole point. Call it dogma if you want.

Thanks for showing how you ignore your own bibles few points of wisdom.

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

Seems that you do not love your neighbor.

Regards
DL

So you put limits on God? If God chooses to die then be resurrected, then he can do that.
And yes, Christ was innocent but payed the cost for humanity's sins and failings. That's the whole point. Call it dogma if you want.[/quote]

If God chooses to die then he would stay dead.

The following 5 quotes are why I call what God did murder, if he actually needs a blood sacrifice. As you can see, a sacrifice was not required.

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.

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

As you can see, especially those last two quotes, all are saved without a sacrifice.

Let me add.

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

Common decency and morality, something you are ignoring for your get out of hell free card, is what this Bishop is talking about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKNup9g ... gest-vrecs

Regards
DL

Shalom

It is complete
It is finished.

God First and Last.

Thanks for all of you posters for reminding me of that.
You are all appreciated by
Me aka Zvii.

On my reading table.
Mark.

In my brain popped in...Mark Time sequence from
The Firesign Theater.


Shalom

On the other hand, if God is the source of all things, then God is the creator of all evil, suffering and sin, no matter how you define those things.

Perhaps a God facing a universe of its creation not just full of error but full of horror might wish to punish itself? Perhaps it might create some vehicle for experiencing the trauma of life as one its flawed creations and through wish it could experience the punishment its unfathomably huge guilt (as author of all suffering, all hate, all cruelty, etc.) seemed to require.

If I recall correctly the myth of the great flood speaks of a God who "repented" of his creation and wanted a do-over.

Infallibility people tie themselves in knots over this, but who allowed there to be a war in heaven and who created a heavenly host who would wage war on each other? The story is rife with suggestions that creation is not perfect and the creator makes mistakes.

Such an anthropomorphized god concept doesn't really make sense, but if one is working within the framework of Christian imagery and myth, then the idea of God's repentance and self-punishment makes a kind of sense and doesn't seem immoral. It might get you branded a heretic in some quarters, I suppose.

I have no problem with God punishing himself for his own incompetence, but he should have made that clear and should not have tried to sell himself off as our savior and hero.

Regards
DL

Well, extending the heretical model, perhaps God, having repented and punished itself, came to recognize that the urge toward self-punishment for failings was going to be universal in the sentient beings that emerged from the creation, patterned as they are, in some way, after their source...

Perhaps the savior stuff is the imprefect understanding within this mythological framework of the idea that that God has tried to communicate to the beings that have emerged from its work to tell them to cut themselves some slack. The rest is distortion because God neglected to directly communicate with every being... or something like that.

It might be presumed while considering such a system that given the lack of direct communication with the creator, created beings will tend to use myths about the creator in their power games and create hierarchies, etc. and that such institutions might bend the mythology in every way toward the extension of their power and authority.

"I alone can tell you what God wants, and God wants you to do as I say!"