Was God a good Father when --- ? As above, so below says the Lord’s Prayer. God’s first legal decision has him demanding that Jesus be a human sacrifice to rescind God’s own condemnation of his own creation. 1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. Quite good for Christians, --- while quite evil to others who do not condone human sacrifice, --- just because a God whose reality has yet to be shown demands it. The main point is; would any father or mother who reads this O. P., ever choose such a sacrifice, given that other venues were available as they were with God? Your own answer says that you would expect a Father to find another way and that such a God is not a worthy God. Do you agree that to call God, Father, is to insult the word father, --- as no human father would be so evil. Is it foolish to call God, Father? Regards DL
Pretty much all your threads are about how the traditional christian God is evil. Why in earth make 200 different threads about it??
1. Billions are not saved anyway. So Jesus wasn't really a savior per se. For billions of people Jesus's presence on earth and crucifixion were completely pointless because they're doomed anyway. 2. Sacrificing a son?? How is that remotely moral?
yea really if you hate the fact that Jesus died so much can you please just stop posting in the Christianity forum about it?
Most likely that human father would not have been stupid enough to condemn them in the first place. Jesus did not save billions. except to those who have embraced barbaric human sacrifice as good justice. Have you? Regards DL
I hate the fact that so many can be lied to without their realizing it. There is nothing to show that a Jesus died as described in scriptures. There is much to show that it is all lies but even if real, it would be an immoral way for a God to behave. No God who teaches that human sacrifice is good can be a good God. He would be more of a Satan. Regards DL
No. And I think you knew that already. Even if I would though, I would still regard your multiple threads about it as utterly pointless. But of course I'm not trying to evangelize or ridicule other people's beliefs. I think you are a bad example for both gnostic christians and adding to the negative stereotype of religious people in general (could be on purpose, as you're kind of trolling the forums with all these threads after all).
You think god is structured on a template of morality and action? Gods the guy that you cant see, hes the guy that explains quantum physics without explaining anything.
I think that "GOD" s a force that runs through all things......and some people find the god in themselves quicker than others, is all..... That force is not separated from everything else.
I think your points such as this are largely a waste of good air and sadly as well your opportunity for meaningful access among an audience of your peers.
but...I still cannot get passed the force that has animals have to tear other animals apart for food...... and we are the only species that we know of that even contemplate such things.....
You got yourself all worked up for nothing. There is evidence that Jesus died as described in scriptures--e.g., the Scriptures. You may doubt them, but the people who wrote them are in agreement on that point. I wouldn't consider it strong evidence, but it's not "nothing" and it certainly isn't inconsistent with Roman practice. One reason for believing it is that it runs against the prevailing Jewish expectation that the Messiah wouldn't be executed as a common criminal. Jewish scripture said that a person who is crucified is cursed. Why, then, would Jesus' followers make something like that up, unless it were true and sufficiently well-known that they had to own it? The only accounts to the contrary are from Gnostic sources which claim that some kind of holographic projection or a substitute ringer for Jesus was on the cross instead of Him, or that He didn't really die but was spirited away. Those fantastic explanations, based on the notion that Jesus wasn't really human, are quite extraordinary, requiring extraordinary evidence for support. So put up, or shut up. As for God teaching human sacrifice yada yada yada, that contention involves believing a misguided theological interpretation of the crucifixion based on a misinterpretation of Paul dating to Saint Anselm's Cur Deus Homo? which argues for substituionary atonement. According to Borg and Crossan: "The death of Jesus as God's Son is a parable of God's love for us, and parables should never be literalized--to do so would miss the point. Parables are about meaning." They argue that when the parable is literalized: " It suggests that the cross was part of God's 'plan'...To think this is strange theology. What kind of God would require the death of this extraordinary human?" Borg and Crossan, The First Paul,p. 145. That many Christians believe this is unfortunate.
Funny, I was just going through a private debate about the flaw of existential belief which assumes the moral faith that I am: "in the world", and the perfection of believing that I exist which judges the World to exist (in being) unbelievably that I go on believing. :bigcry:
