• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Greetings and Salutations

Gallowglass

Member
What do you believe atonement theology is?
What versions appear to be immoral, in your view?

Atonement theology is the concept that Jesus died for our sins. So...all of them.

Historian H. G. Wells said that a man’s greatness can be measured by ‘what he leaves to grow, and whether he started others to think along fresh lines with a vigor that persisted after him.’ Wells, although not claiming to be a Christian, acknowledged: “By this test Jesus stands first.”

By that argument, some of the evilest people are great. That doesn't mean they are good, or should be emulated.

Alexander the Great, Charlemagne (styled “the Great” even in his own lifetime), and Napoleon Bonaparte were powerful rulers. By their formidable presence, they wielded great influence over those they commanded. Yet, Napoleon is reported to have said: “Jesus Christ has influenced and commanded His subjects without His visible bodily presence.”

And how much of that is through fear? Funny you should mention Charlemagne, who carried out the Massacre of Verden, where he ordered the slaughter of 4,500 Saxons, after chopping down their holy symbol/meeting place, the Irminsul, all to Christianize the area.

Or St. Olaf who also Christianized by force, and when he heard people keeping their faith in secret, took their wives and children hostage and killws the people he pegged as "leaders" of the town in terribly vicious ways, like Raud the Strong, who Olaf had kidnapped, bound to a bard, and then was told that Olaf would be his best friend if he would be baptized. He bribed him with everything he could. When Raud refused, Olaf had a drinking horn placed into his mouth, and a snake placed in the horn. He then had the horn heated with red hot pokers, until the snake killed Raud after crawling into his mouth and trying to bite its way out.
Or Eyvind Kelve. Eyvind refused to convert. He was pricked with hot spikes or pins, had his fingers broken, his back scored with whips and fruit and salt poured into the wounds, and still refused to consent to baptism. He was deprived of food and sleep, and when he still refused, Olaf declared that if he would not take the waters of baptism, the waters would take him, and drowned. St. Olaf is considered a hero of early converters. They say Norway would have never gone to Christianity without him.
In Egypt there was also Hypatia, who was literally ripped to pieces, flayed with pieces of pottery by Christians because they thought she was causing the fights between two church leaders.

Christianity didn't grow as large as it is today honestly. Is that the fault of modern day Christians? No. However, the fact that many still try and do things like secretly baptize children against parents wills, try and take custody of children from non-Christian parents, or use the Bible as reasons to discriminate means that that power Jesus has over his followers isn't what he preached.

Then again, he did say he came to bring a sword and turn brother against brother...

What parts of his teachings do you see as problematic? Can you be specific?

Shall I number it?
1. No one comes to the Father, but through me: This is a huge one. It directly contradicts much of earlier Scripture and is intensely problematic, putting another barrier between humanity and God the Father.
2. Hell. The hell described by Jesus was a new idea, one not present in Judaism, and one that is utterly repugnant.
3. If Jesus was omniscient (which he wasn't) he could have opposed slavery, instead of "Just don't beat your slaves THAT hard. Even if you accept that it was cultural for the time, he could have spoken against it, even if it was just "Keep no slaves if you follow Me."
4. The destruction of the family unit over religious beliefs, as pushed by Jesus in Matthew 10 and 12.
5. Matthew 15 and Mark 7 show him as hateful.
6. Telling people to not sin, saying he comes not to break the law but to fulfill it, and then sinning all over the place. Disrespecting his mother, breaking the Sabbath, eating leavened bread at the Last Supper, I could go on.

Given the situation with the Jews when Jesus began his ministry, (and also given John the Baptist's stinging denunciation of them) why would an illegal trial be out of harmony with where the Jews were, spiritually speaking at that time? Jesus castigated the Pharisees at every opportunity, calling them hypocrites of the worst order, and condemning them to "gehenna".

None of which was new. None of that were things they hadn't heard before. Judaism has a huge system of argument and debate. If there is unanimous agreement on anything, they don't pass it. Heck, the Essenes had been doing it, and there were groups before them that did it. None of this was new. None of this was even particularly offensive for the time, historically speaking. Why would they risk their positions, their lives, and their souls on something they've all heard many times before? It makes no sense. There was always going to be another sect decrying them. Big whoop.

Pilate found him not guilty of any crime warranting death, but when he wanted to free Jesus according to Jewish custom, the Jews chose to free a convicted criminal and clambered for the death of an innocent man. Pilate washed his hands of this man's blood and handed him over for execution on the demands of the Jews who threatened Pilate's political career if he didn't do what they demanded.

What do you see as unrealistic in that scenario?

Oh, where to start.
1. Jesus had committed a crime worthy of death earlier, calling Herod Antipas a female fox. Denigrating a Herod like that was punishable by death by law at that time.
2. Pilate is never recorded as anything other than a prefect, which would have limited his judicial power to make decisions like washing his hands of the scenario. As prefect, legally he would not have had that option.
3. The Jews of the time had no influence over any Roman's career. That's WHY tensions were so high during times like Passover.
4. The sign he supposedly wrote would have been a death sentence for him, especially to have it shown so publicly.

This is super long. I just want to take this time to assure you I don't dislike Christians for being Christians. I never try to convert anyone, and I have no problem with Christianity or Christians existing. It's just terribly problematic and has too much blood on its' hands for me.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Thank you. I am gaining some insight into your understanding.

Atonement theology is the concept that Jesus died for our sins. So...all of them.

Atonement was part of the law of Moses. "At-one-ment" means like for like, or equivalency....seen in the law...."an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life..."

Can I ask how you understand what you were taught about how Jesus became an atonement for our sins?

By that argument, some of the evilest people are great. That doesn't mean they are good, or should be emulated.

The word "great" can be applied both negatively and positively in history. How it applies to Jesus is not negative. His teachings were clear and demonstrated how obeying God's law is not a matter of mere performance or ritual, but a matter of heart and conscience, governing everything a person does and every decision a person makes.

And how much of that is through fear? Funny you should mention Charlemagne, who carried out the Massacre of Verden, where he ordered the slaughter of 4,500 Saxons, after chopping down their holy symbol/meeting place, the Irminsul, all to Christianize the area.

Now we are getting to the nitty gritty. It is seen clearly in history that the actions of those who claimed to worship the God of the Bible were no less violent than those who worshipped other gods.

So how does that fit in with the Bible's narrative? What makes Jehovah the superior God if that was the case? And how did Jesus teach non violence among his disciples and still promote the worship of the same God?

Christianity didn't grow as large as it is today honestly. Is that the fault of modern day Christians? No. However, the fact that many still try and do things like secretly baptize children against parents wills, try and take custody of children from non-Christian parents, or use the Bible as reasons to discriminate means that that power Jesus has over his followers isn't what he preached.

This is a very important point. You are correct, but honesty is part and parcel of what Jesus taught. So what happened?

Are you aware that Jesus and his apostles warned about just such a situation. (Acts 20:30; 2 Peter 2:1) An apostasy was foretold that would have the same result as it did in Judaism. By the time Jesus came, the Jews had repeatedly disobeyed the commands of their God and the prophets that God sent to correct them were routinely silenced. The last prophet God sent was his own son, but he also received the same reception. God's response? Having fulfilled his covenant with them, he abandoned them as his people. (Matthew 23:37-39) He chose a new nation. (Acts 15:14) These came from all nations, both Jews and Gentiles. But this wasn't going to last.....by the second century it was going 'belly up'.

What history records is the dishonest "Christianity" you mentioned. Most fail to recognise it for what it was.

When Jesus projected forward to the judgment time, it is those kinds of "Christians" that he says he "never knew". (Matthew 7:21-23) After the last apostle John died, there was nothing to stop the foretold apostasy from taking over. The "weeds" of Jesus parable became dominant in the "field" where they were "sown". (Matthew 13:36-43)

Then again, he did say he came to bring a sword and turn brother against brother...

Well, actually he said....
"Do not think I came to put peace upon the earth; I came to put, not peace, but a sword. For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a young wife against her mother-in-law. Indeed, a man’s enemies will be persons of his own household.” (Matt. 10:34-36)

That 'division' was to test a person's loyalty because right from the beginning of man's existence, loved ones were used by the devil to use emotion to separate humans from God. It worked with Adam, and it has been working ever since.

Jesus went on to say...
"Whoever has greater affection for father or mother than for me is not worthy of me; and whoever has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me. 38 And whoever does not accept his torture stake and follow after me is not worthy of me." (V37-39)

Your situation is proof that family or peer pressure can prompt people to live a lie....one way or another.

I would like to address some of your other points, but I am out of time for now. They are important and warrant a response.

Later......and thank you for your well considered points.
 

Gallowglass

Member
Thank you. I am gaining some insight into your understanding.

Atonement was part of the law of Moses. "At-one-ment" means like for like, or equivalency....seen in the law...."an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life..."

Can I ask how you understand what you were taught about how Jesus became an atonement for our sins?

It doesn't matter how he became atonement for our sins. As long as he is, the faith is inherently immoral. There is nothing that can make that okay.

Now we are getting to the nitty gritty. It is seen clearly in history that the actions of those who claimed to worship the God of the Bible were no less violent than those who worshipped other gods.

So how does that fit in with the Bible's narrative? What makes Jehovah the superior God if that was the case? And how did Jesus teach non violence among his disciples and still promote the worship of the same God?

Quick answer, he's not.

Well, actually he said....
"Do not think I came to put peace upon the earth; I came to put, not peace, but a sword. For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a young wife against her mother-in-law. Indeed, a man’s enemies will be persons of his own household.” (Matt. 10:34-36)

That 'division' was to test a person's loyalty because right from the beginning of man's existence, loved ones were used by the devil to use emotion to separate humans from God. It worked with Adam, and it has been working ever since.

Jesus went on to say...
"Whoever has greater affection for father or mother than for me is not worthy of me; and whoever has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me. 38 And whoever does not accept his torture stake and follow after me is not worthy of me." (V37-39)

Yes, and that is utterly repulsive and disgusting. Family should come first. Family should always come first.

Your situation is proof that family or peer pressure can prompt people to live a lie....one way or another.

Yes, because some "good Christians" in the world will set out to deliberately ruin or sabotage your life if you are not like them. Jesus set this up with his "sheep and goats." If you are not with us, you are against us. Monotheism by definition requires everyone else to be wrong, and most push you to convert the people who are not.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Hello everyone! I’m new here, and it looks interesting. I’m 30-going-on-31, and a practicing Heathen. However, most people who know me in real life outside of a select few think me a good Christian girl. I enjoy talking and debating about religion so I think i’ll enjoy myself here.
Welcome! It is interesting here. So many POV's!
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Charlemagne, who carried out the Massacre of Verden, where he ordered the slaughter of 4,500 Saxons

St. Olaf who also Christianized by force, and when he heard people keeping their faith in secret, took their wives and children hostage and killws the people he pegged as "leaders" of the town in terribly vicious ways

-- Versus -- "...love your enemies, and pray for those persecuting you." -- Jesus, at Matthew 5:44. Cf at John 15:14

[Does that really conflict with Jesus' statement, "I came to bring.... a sword"? Well, did Jesus go on to say his followers would be enemies (of others), or rather did he indicate that they would have enemies, even 'in their own household'? (Matthew 10:34-36) I think you can see what Jesus meant.]

Anyone can claim to be anything, but actions speak louder than words. Titus 1:16 bears this out.
(Of course, I mean deliberate, pre-meditated and habitual actions, as opposed to accidental.)
 

Gallowglass

Member
-- Versus -- "...love your enemies, and pray for those persecuting you." -- Jesus, at Matthew 5:44. Cf at John 15:14

[Does that really conflict with Jesus' statement, "I came to bring.... a sword"? Well, did Jesus go on to say his followers would be enemies (of others), or rather did he indicate that they would have enemies, even 'in their own household'? (Matthew 10:34-36) I think you can see what Jesus meant.]

Anyone can claim to be anything, but actions speak louder than words. Titus 1:16 bears this out.
(Of course, I mean deliberate, pre-meditated and habitual actions, as opposed to accidental.)

Actions do speak louder than words. I agree. I think we simply disagree on what actions are saying what.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Actions do speak louder than words. I agree. I think we simply disagree on what actions are saying what.
There's no doubt, the bloody reputation established by the clergy of Christendom has brought much reproach on Christ, going on for 1700 years now! But that certainly doesn't make them followers of Christ.... it just makes them wrong! Per Matthew 7:21-23.

Take care, and goodnight
 

Gallowglass

Member
There's no doubt, the bloody reputation established by the clergy of Christendom has brought much reproach on Christ, going on for 1700 years now! But that certainly doesn't make them followers of Christ.... it just makes them wrong! Per Matthew 7:21-23.

Take care, and goodnight

Well, when your faith is based on the idea of a scapegoat to avoid punishment, it’s hardly surprising. When your faith is based on the idea that everyone not believing as you do is damned, it’s predictable what will happen. It becomes us vs them and you have to make all of them an us.

That doesn’t clear Jesus of his behaviour either.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Gallowglass said:
Shall I number it?
1. No one comes to the Father, but through me: This is a huge one. It directly contradicts much of earlier Scripture and is intensely problematic, putting another barrier between humanity and God the Father.

You do understand that the Messiah was expected and his kingdom was prophesied in OT scripture?
The barrier between God and men is sin, not Jesus.

Jesus is the mediator, appointed so that sinful humans can still communicate with their God. I am having trouble understanding why this is problematic for you.

2. Hell. The hell described by Jesus was a new idea, one not present in Judaism, and one that is utterly repugnant.
You might find it interesting to note that "hell" as understood in Christendom is not scriptural. This horrible place was found in pagan religions and adopted by an apostate church to use fear to convert people. There is no such place.
"Sheol" and its Greek equivalent "hades" is nothing more sinister than the common grave....we all go to this "hell". It is a place of rest, not torture.

3. If Jesus was omniscient (which he wasn't) he could have opposed slavery, instead of "Just don't beat your slaves THAT hard. Even if you accept that it was cultural for the time, he could have spoken against it, even if it was just "Keep no slaves if you follow Me."

It was part of the law that no Israelite was to mistreat their slaves, who were more like hired workers. Slavery was a cultural "norm" at the time and if you remember, even a rebellious son could be given corporal punishment. In decades past, parents and teachers could administer painful punishments to children and no one said boo about it. I believe it was accepted without much ado.
Nowadays, not so much. Times and attitudes change.

4. The destruction of the family unit over religious beliefs, as pushed by Jesus in Matthew 10 and 12.

As I said, family members could exert pressure to conform to 'their' way of thinking and force a member to live a lie....you are in that situation, but in reverse.....still doesn't make it right, does it?
Just because family doesn't like it, doesn't mean you have to fake being something that you are not, just to keep them off your back.

Having the courage of your convictions is important for anyone who is going against the tide in a family. No one has the right to tell you what to believe.

5. Matthew 15 and Mark 7 show him as hateful.

Seriously? How could Jesus be hateful? He was a champion for the truth, which means that he hated what his Father hated....hypocrisy.

6. Telling people to not sin, saying he comes not to break the law but to fulfill it, and then sinning all over the place. Disrespecting his mother, breaking the Sabbath, eating leavened bread at the Last Supper, I could go on.

You could go on and you'd still be wrong. Show us where Jesus sinned "all over the place"? How did he disrespect his mother? When did he break the Sabbath? When did he eat leavened bread at the Passover? He did none of those things. Who told you that he did?

Be careful about how Jewish customs and idioms are translated into English. Bad translations fail to give accurate reading of the situation as it applied back then.

None of which was new. None of that were things they hadn't heard before. Judaism has a huge system of argument and debate. If there is unanimous agreement on anything, they don't pass it. Heck, the Essenes had been doing it, and there were groups before them that did it. None of this was new. None of this was even particularly offensive for the time, historically speaking. Why would they risk their positions, their lives, and their souls on something they've all heard many times before? It makes no sense. There was always going to be another sect decrying them. Big whoop.

The Jewish religious system began when God rescued his people from slavery in Egypt. As a fulfilment of his promise to Abraham, (that his descendants would produce the Seed of promice resulting in blessings for all the nations) these became the nation of Israel and were liberated under Moses leadership. The history of Israel was not without problems because imperfect humans cannot live up to perfect law. It was given to them as a constant reminder of their need for their Messiah.
History kept repeating because the Israelites failed to accept the correction that God's prophets were sent to give them. Their treatment of God's final prophet merited a spiritual 'divorce'.

Christianity was forced to separate from that apostate system.

In this time of the end, the "wheat" would also need to separate themselves from the "weeds". So instead of looking at denominations who all hold to the same erroneous teachings under different labels, we should be looking for those who are completely different, in the same way that Christ's teachings differed from apostate Judaism.

There are more points I would like to cover as well. I beg your patience.....
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
These.....
Oh, where to start.
1. Jesus had committed a crime worthy of death earlier, calling Herod Antipas a female fox. Denigrating a Herod like that was punishable by death by law at that time.

Who had greater authority than Herod, or any other earthly ruler for that matter? Jesus calling Herod "that fox" was a comment about his cunning. Herod had John the Baptist beheaded. John too had made comments about Herod's adulterous relationship with his brother's wife. Herod was not a good man and God's representatives had every right to correct him.

2. Pilate is never recorded as anything other than a prefect, which would have limited his judicial power to make decisions like washing his hands of the scenario. As prefect, legally he would not have had that option.

Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea during Jesus’ earthly ministry. (Luke 3:1) After Herod the Great’s son Archelaus was removed from being ethnarch over Judea, provincial governors were appointed by the emperor to rule the province, Pilate evidently being the fifth of these. Tiberius appointed him in 26 C.E., and his rule lasted ten years.

3. The Jews of the time had no influence over any Roman's career. That's WHY tensions were so high during times like Passover.

When Pilate presented Jesus to the Jews as an innocent man, he said, "see your king!" Their response was "we have no king but Caesar".

In John's account we find out why Pilate agreed to hand Jesus over to the executioners.....

"For this reason Pilate kept trying to find a way to release him, but the Jews shouted: “If you release this man, you are not a friend of Caesar. Everyone who makes himself a king speaks against Caesar.” (John 19:12) By accusing Pilate of 'speaking against Caesar' they threatened his political career, as this was an act of treason....if proven, it was a capital offence.

4. The sign he supposedly wrote would have been a death sentence for him, especially to have it shown so publicly.

What sign did Jesus write?

This is super long. I just want to take this time to assure you I don't dislike Christians for being Christians. I never try to convert anyone, and I have no problem with Christianity or Christians existing. It's just terribly problematic and has too much blood on its' hands for me.

There is much to discuss. You make good points for discussion.

Believe it or not, too much blood on the hands of Christianity, is also a problem for God. (Isaiah 1:15)

In fact, I believe that if you did some research apart from Christendom's awful interpretation of the Bible, you might find much to agree with. :)
 

Gallowglass

Member
You do understand that the Messiah was expected and his kingdom was prophesied in OT scripture?
The barrier between God and men is sin, not Jesus.

Jesus is the mediator, appointed so that sinful humans can still communicate with their God. I am having trouble understanding why this is problematic for you.

You do realize that Judaism does not hold with the idea that the messiah is going to die for anyone's sin, right? And that God hates human sacrifice?
see, Ezekiel 18:1-4; 20-24; 26-27, Deuteronomy 24:16, Jeremiah 31:29-30, Deuteronomy 12:30-31, Jeremiah 19:4-6, Psalm 106:37-38.

And if Jesus's sacrifice is necessary for us to communicate with God, that makes God a liar, because he sets up the forgiveness of an entire city in Jonah 3 without any blood being shed at all, and says in Deuteronomy that if you seek him with your whole heart and soul you will find him, no Jesus required. This idea is mirrored in Job 33:26, Psalm 34:14, Psalm 34:18, Psalm 40:6, Psalm 51:16-17, Hosea 14:2 all of which state sacrifice is unnecessary and unwanted.

But morally, all that aside, accepting someone else dying for your mistakes is repugnant.

You might find it interesting to note that "hell" as understood in Christendom is not scriptural. This horrible place was found in pagan religions and adopted by an apostate church to use fear to convert people. There is no such place.
"Sheol" and its Greek equivalent "hades" is nothing more sinister than the common grave....we all go to this "hell". It is a place of rest, not torture.

Mark 9:3, Matthew 10:28, Luke 12:5. Unquenchable fire and destruction of the soul? What pagan religion supposedly had this? Seriously, I'm wondering where you think the idea of hell derived from, because I can't think of a single pagan religion that has hell.

It was part of the law that no Israelite was to mistreat their slaves, who were more like hired workers. Slavery was a cultural "norm" at the time and if you remember, even a rebellious son could be given corporal punishment. In decades past, parents and teachers could administer painful punishments to children and no one said boo about it. I believe it was accepted without much ado.
Nowadays, not so much. Times and attitudes change.

As I said, even if it was cultural at the time, by not speaking out against it, by indeed, actually saying "just don't beat them too badly," Jesus is saying slavery is okay. As he is supposed to be God on earth, this means he thinks slavery is okay, especially as God does not change.

As I said, family members could exert pressure to conform to 'their' way of thinking and force a member to live a lie....you are in that situation, but in reverse.....still doesn't make it right, does it?
Just because family doesn't like it, doesn't mean you have to fake being something that you are not, just to keep them off your back.

Having the courage of your convictions is important for anyone who is going against the tide in a family. No one has the right to tell you what to believe.

I think you misunderstand. My family supports me, it's everyone else, society outside of my family, that does not. Given that we explicitly see elsewhere in the NT that entire households had to be baptized, that doesn't hold much water.

Seriously? How could Jesus be hateful? He was a champion for the truth, which means that he hated what his Father hated....hypocrisy.

Did you read the verses? Specifically Matthew 15:22-27? First he just gives the woman the cold shoulder, then he calls her a dog. That's hateful. Same in Mark 7:25-28. It's disgusting behaviour.

How did he disrespect his mother?

John 2:4, Luke 2:49

When did he break the Sabbath?

Luke 6:2. Unless they were going to keel over in actual starvation, picking the grain (from firelds that did not belong to him) was breaking the sabbath. You can break the sabbath to save someone's life, but I sincerely doubt that they were that starved.

When did he eat leavened bread at the Passover?
Matt. 26:26. Jesus specifically uses bread that is called "artos" in the Last Supper. This is leavened bread. If he had been using unleavened bread, it would have been "azumos"' And it isn't that the original Greek doesn't use azumos at all, in the same chapter when referring to the "Festival of Unleavened Bread,' the author specifically uses azumos. So the proper word was known, and yet the author tells us that Jesus used artos.

Be careful about how Jewish customs and idioms are translated into English. Bad translations fail to give accurate reading of the situation as it applied back then.

Good thing I don't use translations then :)

Who had greater authority than Herod, or any other earthly ruler for that matter? Jesus calling Herod "that fox" was a comment about his cunning. Herod had John the Baptist beheaded. John too had made comments about Herod's adulterous relationship with his brother's wife. Herod was not a good man and God's representatives had every right to correct him.

Yes, but speaking rationally, he could have been put to death for that alone, especially since he calls Herod a FEMALE fox. So the idea that he did nothing worthy of a death sentence is wrong, for the laws at the time.

Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea during Jesus’ earthly ministry. (Luke 3:1) After Herod the Great’s son Archelaus was removed from being ethnarch over Judea, provincial governors were appointed by the emperor to rule the province, Pilate evidently being the fifth of these. Tiberius appointed him in 26 C.E., and his rule lasted ten years.

The Bible calls him a governor, historically and archaeologically, he was a prefect. We can read this on the Pilate Stone.

What sign did Jesus write?

Not Jesus, Pilate. If Pilate wrote the sign hung on the cross, as is said in the Bible, he would have been put to death, or at least lost his position, because it was illegal.

In fact, I believe that if you did some research apart from Christendom's awful interpretation of the Bible, you might find much to agree with. :)

I've done much research. Unless you're going to tell me that Jesus didn't die for the sins of everyone, you're not going to make me think it's suddenly moral.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I am seeing in your responses, the same things that I was taught in church. My studies have shown me, not that the Bible or God are wrong, but how the church interpreted the scriptures is totally in error. All part of the foretold apostasy.

You do realize that Judaism does not hold with the idea that the messiah is going to die for anyone's sin, right? And that God hates human sacrifice?
see, Ezekiel 18:1-4; 20-24; 26-27, Deuteronomy 24:16, Jeremiah 31:29-30, Deuteronomy 12:30-31, Jeremiah 19:4-6, Psalm 106:37-38.

Understanding the mechanics of the "ransom" that Jesus paid for the human race is important here. All the animal sacrifices that were part of God's law, gave Israel a temporary forgiveness of their sins. Each week sacrifices had to be made and blood was an important part of those sacrifices. Why?

The apostle Paul tells us why..."....according to the Law nearly all things are cleansed with blood, and unless blood is poured out no forgiveness takes place." Blood symbolized life, but the blood of these animals did not cover the human life lost for Adam's children. Temporary sacrifices served a purpose....but only until Messiah came.

There was a superior, permanent sacrifice coming....as Paul explains....

"He [Jesus] entered into the holy place, not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time, and obtained an everlasting deliverance for us." (Hebrews 9:21; 22)

All your cited scripture pertains to fathers and sons, where the sins of the fathers mean that their children are not held accountable....UNLESS....they follow in the footsteps of their father and sin in the same way that he did. Likewise in reverse....the fathers were not held responsible for the sins of the sons...UNLESS....the sons were reflecting the way their fathers had taught them. Each person has choices about their own behavior.
No one is excused because they are following a bad example.

“Jehovah, Jehovah, a God merciful and compassionate, slow to anger and abundant in loyal love and truth, 7 showing loyal love to thousands, pardoning error and transgression and sin, but he will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, bringing punishment for the error of fathers upon sons and upon grandsons, upon the third generation and upon the fourth generation.” (Exodus 34:6-7)

And if Jesus's sacrifice is necessary for us to communicate with God, that makes God a liar, because he sets up the forgiveness of an entire city in Jonah 3 without any blood being shed at all, and says in Deuteronomy that if you seek him with your whole heart and soul you will find him, no Jesus required. This idea is mirrored in Job 33:26, Psalm 34:14, Psalm 34:18, Psalm 40:6, Psalm 51:16-17, Hosea 14:2 all of which state sacrifice is unnecessary and unwanted.

Jesus' sacrifice has nothing to do with our communication with God. He is the appointed "mediator", which means that he has always been the "go between" for us to communicate with God...even before his earthly mission. How else could pre-Christian men and women have communicated with their God?

Forgiveness is dependent upon repentance, which God demonstrated with Nineveh. But the repentance has to be ongoing. Even after its reprieve when Jonah was sent to preach its judgment and destruction, it thereafter relapsed into its former ways and was later destroyed.

But morally, all that aside, accepting someone else dying for your mistakes is repugnant.

Again, you have to understand the law of God regarding "redemption". Someone sold into slavery by a parent who had incurred a debt was a way for that parent to remain out of debt and to support his remaining family members. The son or daughter "sold" to pay the debt (placed into service not the cruel slavery of the nations) could be redeemed by the parent at a later date or some other benefactor who paid for their release. The debt was cancelled and the servant walked free.

To illustrate it another way.....if someone is standing condemned before a firing squad for something that wasn't their fault....and a loving friend steps in front of them to take the bullet instead of them, giving his life for theirs....that is what Jesus did.

God's law demanded "a life for a life" and the perfect, sinless life that Adam lost for his children was paid by the only other human on earth who had the a life of equivalent value.... 'a sinless life for a sinless life'.

Mark 9:3, Matthew 10:28, Luke 12:5. Unquenchable fire and destruction of the soul? What pagan religion supposedly had this? Seriously, I'm wondering where you think the idea of hell derived from, because I can't think of a single pagan religion that has hell.

Oh dear. Pagan religions are noted for teaching red-hot hells. The ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Phoenicians, Persians, Grecians and Hindus taught flaming hells. The Buddhists teach a hell wherein people cook and sizzle in blazing kettles. But what Jesus said about "Gehenna" is nothing to do with that.

"Gehenna" is erroneously translated as "Hell" in many Bibles. When Jesus referred to "Gehenna", it was well understood by first century Jews. You may remember that Jeremiah condemned the Israelites for sacrificing their children in the fire to a false god. These sacrifices were performed in the Valley of Hinnom.If God condemned them for doing that, why would he do it himself?

Jesus said...."if your right hand is making you stumble, cut it off and throw it away from you. For it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to land in Ge·henʹna."

Gehenna was a place for "bodies" not souls. The Valley of Hinnom was turned into Jerusalem's rubbish dump where the fires were kept burning day and night to consume the refuse. What the flames missed, the maggots finished off. The carcasses of dead animals and the bodies of executed criminals were also cast into the flames for disposal.
For a human body to be cast into Gehenna meant that the person was not worthy of a decent burial and hence had no memorial tomb with their name and family lineage inscribed. To a Jew, this meant not being remembered by God in the resurrection of the dead. Since the ancient Jews had no teaching of an immortal soul, the only way to regain life under Messiah's Kingdom was by resurrection.....a reinstating of one's former life, right here on earth as Jesus demonstrated with his friend Lazarus. (John 11:11-14) Where did Jesus say that Lazarus was? He said he was "sleeping". He also said that he would call all of the dead from their graves when he ruled as King. (John 5:28-29)

As I said, even if it was cultural at the time, by not speaking out against it, by indeed, actually saying "just don't beat them too badly," Jesus is saying slavery is okay. As he is supposed to be God on earth, this means he thinks slavery is okay, especially as God does not change.

Again, an overview of where humans were in the stream of time back then will help to put things into perspective.
The Jews were a very oppressed people when Jesus walked the earth. He made no attempt to rectify the plight of his own people who were under pagan Roman domination at the time. The Jewish Zealots were plotting against the Roman government but Jesus did not make any attempt to rectify the situation. Do you know why?

He spoke of "the appointed times of the nations" and said that they had to be "fulfilled". In Luke 21:20-24 he prophesied about Jerusalem and said that Jerusalem (the symbolic place of God's worship) was going to be trampled on until that period came to its completion. Do you know what period he was talking about? If you did, you would understand why he did nothing to alter the situation under which the Jews were chafing.....including the slavery.

I think you misunderstand. My family supports me, it's everyone else, society outside of my family, that does not. Given that we explicitly see elsewhere in the NT that entire households had to be baptized, that doesn't hold much water.

In a small number of cases entire households were baptized, but usually it was individuals who presented themselves for baptism. Do you know what baptism is for?

Did you read the verses? Specifically Matthew 15:22-27? First he just gives the woman the cold shoulder, then he calls her a dog. That's hateful. Same in Mark 7:25-28. It's disgusting behaviour.

Its "disgusting" only if you misunderstand the words and the culture.

This is a prime example of misinterpretation. Recognizing that Jesus was sent exclusively to "the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" meant that Jews were his primary focus. The Greek woman with whom he had that conversation demonstrated great faith as Jesus acknowledged. It was not yet time for Gentiles to receive a witness.
Under the Mosaic Law, dogs were deemed to be unclean animals. (Leviticus 11:27) But did Jesus mean to insult this Greek woman and other non-Jews?

Not at all. Jesus’ point, as he explained to his disciples, was that his priority at that time was to help the Jews. So he illustrated the point, saying to the Greek woman: “It is not right to take the bread of the children and throw it to the little dogs.” (Matthew 15:21-26; Mark 7:26) Among the Greeks and Romans, the dog was often a beloved pet that lived in its owner’s house and played with the children. So the expression “little dogs” might have called to mind a warm, endearing picture. The Greek woman picked up on Jesus’ words and replied: “Yes, Lord, but really the little dogs do eat of the crumbs falling from the table of their masters.” Jesus commended her faith and healed the woman’s daughter. (Matthew 15:27-28) She was not insulted but knew what he meant.

When you look for faults, you will find them. But a deeper study will reveal the truth.

More later....
 
Last edited:

Gallowglass

Member
Understanding the mechanics of the "ransom" that Jesus paid for the human race is important here. All the animal sacrifices that were part of God's law, gave Israel a temporary forgiveness of their sins. Each week sacrifices had to be made and blood was an important part of those sacrifices. Why?

You do realise that there were always options for sacrifices where blood was not required, right? And that scripture talks about it over and over, even in the very dedication of the temple, that blood sacrifice was the weakest form of atonement..

"He [Jesus] entered into the holy place, not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time, and obtained an everlasting deliverance for us."
(Hebrews 9:21; 22)

All your cited scripture pertains to fathers and sons, where the sins of the fathers mean that their children are not held accountable....UNLESS....they follow in the footsteps of their father and sin in the same way that he did. Likewise in reverse....the fathers were not held responsible for the sins of the sons...UNLESS....the sons were reflecting the way their fathers had taught them. Each person has choices about their own behavior.
No one is excused because they are following a bad example.

“Jehovah, Jehovah, a God merciful and compassionate, slow to anger and abundant in loyal love and truth, 7 showing loyal love to thousands, pardoning error and transgression and sin, but he will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, bringing punishment for the error of fathers upon sons and upon grandsons, upon the third generation and upon the fourth generation.” (Exodus 34:6-7)[/QUOTE

Okay, two issues here.
1. That Hebrews scripture made God a liar, because if the rules change upon Jesus's death, then the cevenant is not eternal, is it? He changed the rules.

2. That second scripture is a misunderstanding on your part. It is referring, in context, to children who see what the sins of their fathers and grandfathers do and repeat those sins. The fourth generation was the cut off, because after that the sinner that started it would no longer be present as an example.

Jesus' sacrifice has nothing to do with our communication with God. He is the appointed "mediator", which means that he has always been the "go between" for us to communicate with God...even before his earthly mission. How else could pre-Christian men and women have communicated with their God?

He apparently had no problem talking to them before. Of course, if God isn't omnipotent, as you are suggesting, then it makes slightly more sense.

Again, you have to understand the law of God regarding "redemption". Someone sold into slavery by a parent who had incurred a debt was a way for that parent to remain out of debt and to support his remaining family members. The son or daughter "sold" to pay the debt (placed into service not the cruel slavery of the nations) could be redeemed by the parent at a later date or some other benefactor who paid for their release. The debt was cancelled and the servant walked free.

That doesn't make it morally right. That doesn't make using someone else's death and suffering okay. Tat doesn't make the parent who sold their child any less of a horrible person.

To illustrate it another way.....if someone is standing condemned before a firing squad for something that wasn't their fault....and a loving friend steps in front of them to take the bullet instead of them, giving his life for theirs....that is what Jesus did.

God's law demanded "a life for a life" and the perfect, sinless life that Adam lost for his children was paid by the only other human on earth who had the a life of equivalent value.... 'a sinless life for a sinless life'.

Funny then, that the religion that originally came up with Adam and sin, and Messiah doesn't have a concept of original sin. Also, any God that would institute original sin, isn't exactly morally right.


Oh dear. Pagan religions are noted for teaching red-hot hells. The ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Phoenicians, Persians, Grecians and Hindus taught flaming hells. The Buddhists teach a hell wherein people cook and sizzle in blazing kettles. But what Jesus said about "Gehenna" is nothing to do with that.

Someone taught you very strange things about pagan faiths, because...this isn't true. None of these religions have fiery hells, at least not like the "unquenchablre fire," Jesus talks about.
1. Egyptians - Assuming their hearts were weighed and found wanting, the Egyptian "Hell" was simply destruction of the soul, rather than getting to live on in Duat, or the Underworld. The only thing fiery about Duat is that Ra goes there regularly to fight with Apophis.
2. Babylonians- Irkalla - You went through nine gates, giving up something of yours each time. It is dark and gloomy and everyone eats and drinks only dust. No fire.
3. Phonecians- Didn't have a hell at all. This is why they were buried with grave goods. In fact, Phonecians (and other Canaanite regions) practiced ancestor veneration, where they asked their ancestors for aid.. Mot was just a different world.
4. Greeks- If you were bad and did something really horrible, you went to Tartarus, where you were punished in accordance to your actions, and what you had done. This was not eternal, and not particularly hot or fiery overall. Someone who froze someone to death, or burned someone to death, might experience fiery-ness, but Tartarus in and of itself isn't fiery. The most famous punishment was someone who had killed his son and fed him to the gods, who was punished by having to sit by a river and a brilliant fruit tree, with fresh fruit, and unable to eat or drink.
5. Hindus - Narak - There are multiple levels to this Hindu hell, and each realm is different. However, you choose your own sufferings. No fire if you don't feel you need it.
6- Persians - Have the House of Lies, where you were made as ugly as your actions were in life. Following that those damned by their actions are forced to feast on foul food, completely isolated in the darkness and surrounded by the smell of decay.
"Gehenna" is erroneously translated as "Hell" in many Bibles. When Jesus referred to "Gehenna", it was well understood by first century Jews. You may remember that Jeremiah condemned the Israelites for sacrificing their children in the fire to a false god. These sacrifices were performed in the Valley of Hinnom.If God condemned them for doing that, why would he do it himself?

It's exactly what he does to Jesus, except he hangs him on a cross instead of sacrificing him to a fire. Frankly, I think crucifixion is worse.

Its "disgusting" only if you misunderstand the words and the culture.

This is a prime example of misinterpretation. Recognizing that Jesus was sent exclusively to "the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" meant that Jews were his primary focus. The Greek woman with whom he had that conversation demonstrated great faith as Jesus acknowledged. It was not yet time for Gentiles to receive a witness.
Under the Mosaic Law, dogs were deemed to be unclean animals. (Leviticus 11:27) But did Jesus mean to insult this Greek woman and other non-Jews?

Not at all. Jesus’ point, as he explained to his disciples, was that his priority at that time was to help the Jews. So he illustrated the point, saying to the Greek woman: “It is not right to take the bread of the children and throw it to the little dogs.” (Matthew 15:21-26; Mark 7:26) Among the Greeks and Romans, the dog was often a beloved pet that lived in its owner’s house and played with the children. So the expression “little dogs” might have called to mind a warm, endearing picture. The Greek woman picked up on Jesus’ words and replied: “Yes, Lord, but really the little dogs do eat of the crumbs falling from the table of their masters.” Jesus commended her faith and healed the woman’s daughter. (Matthew 15:27-28) She was not insulted but knew what he meant.

When you look for faults, you will find them. But a deeper study will reveal the truth.

More later....

The expression little dogs does not bring a warm picture. The words used, are in fact, negative. There are multiple words for dogs, and he picked one that was an insult.

But I feel as if we are talking in circles.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Gallowglass said:
But I feel as if we are talking in circles

It appears as if you have made up your mind, so I will trouble you no further. If God is so immoral and disgusting to you, then there is no way for him to redeem himself in your eyes.....and you know what? He doesn't have to. I believe that he has well established plans for this earth and the living beings he created to live here.
We can choose to be a part of those plans....or not. They will go ahead, with us or without us.

If your gods are real then they must demonstrate their existence to you in some way.....and if that is enough, then you are free to make whatever choice will satisfy your heart. It appears as if you are way more forgiving to them than you are to the God you have judged so harshly.

Further discussion is a waste of time.
 

Gallowglass

Member
It appears as if you have made up your mind, so I will trouble you no further. If God is so immoral and disgusting to you, then there is no way for him to redeem himself in your eyes.....and you know what? He doesn't have to. I believe that he has well established plans for this earth and the living beings he created to live here.
We can choose to be a part of those plans....or not. They will go ahead, with us or without us.

If your gods are real then they must demonstrate their existence to you in some way.....and if that is enough, then you are free to make whatever choice will satisfy your heart. It appears as if you are way more forgiving to them than you are to the God you have judged so harshly.

Further discussion is a waste of time.

I feel as if I have offended you, and that was never my intention. I started out telling you I felt that atonement theology was immoral.

I guarantee you that I am no less harsh to my deities. They, however, never make any claims of being perfect and sinless. They never suggest they don’t make mistakes, and they never ask me to accept a human sacrifice as a way into paradise.

I won’t say there is no way for the Christian god to redeem himself in my eyes, but there would have to be a lot of questions answered —with answers that don’t make it worse. But you’re right, he doesn’t have to do so. If he is omniscient, he knows exactly what is necessary to convert me. If he chooses not to do that, than that is his decision.

I will say that if Christianity is true, I would gladly take the weight of any of my sins from Jesus, in order to spare him even the slightest bit of pain. That, for me, would be the only moral option.

All the same, I wish you well, and I hope that you don’t now think me a bad person.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I feel as if I have offended you, and that was never my intention. I started out telling you I felt that atonement theology was immoral.

I am not offended, but I can't say the same for the God I serve.
He is used to it however. He gets blamed for all sorts of things by people who want to judge his actions by their own limited understanding.

There is no way for my God to act in an immoral fashion. He is not capable of immorality or injustice, both of which he created in humankind as part of being 'made in his image and likeness'. You honestly think any human can be more moral or just than the Creator? I believe he would interpret that as being somewhat arrogant.

I guarantee you that I am no less harsh to my deities. They, however, never make any claims of being perfect and sinless. They never suggest they don’t make mistakes, and they never ask me to accept a human sacrifice as a way into paradise.

How can a god be of less virtue than a human? How can a deity be morally at the same level as mere mortals? What is the point of being a god if you hold no moral superiority over your worshippers?

I have examined Norse mythology and the deities worshipped in heathenry and for the life of me, I cannot understand how any rational person can take them seriously. They are the stuff of cartoons to me.

I won’t say there is no way for the Christian god to redeem himself in my eyes, but there would have to be a lot of questions answered —with answers that don’t make it worse.

It is my opinion that, like so many others, you seem to want to bring today's standards into the conversation like they should apply to the actions and attitudes of people who lived thousands of years ago. Culture dictates the activities and attitudes of man down through the centuries. Today's sensitivities do not apply to ancient times. Even compare human standards of the Victorian era to today.....there is no comparison!

But you’re right, he doesn’t have to do so. If he is omniscient, he knows exactly what is necessary to convert me. If he chooses not to do that, than that is his decision.

John 6:44 is interesting on this point. It is partly his decision.
Jesus said.....
"No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him".....this to me, indicates that God chooses us as much as we think we choose him. "Drawing" someone to the teachings of his son, means that God is looking for a certain type of person to become part of his earthly family. We either fit the criteria, or we don't. He will either "draw" us, or he won't....."sheep or goats".

I will say that if Christianity is true, I would gladly take the weight of any of my sins from Jesus, in order to spare him even the slightest bit of pain. That, for me, would be the only moral option.

You seem especially hung up on the morality of things for some reason. Yet you can't seem to understand where humans get their moral sense from.
Jesus didn't need to be asked to redeem mankind....he volunteered. Those who qualify to have the merits of his sacrifice applied to them will be rewarded.....but those who treat his sacrifice with disrespect will never have to worry about it because it never applied to them anyway. You don't have to appreciate what you never wanted. Isn't that fair?

All the same, I wish you well, and I hope that you don’t now think me a bad person.

It matters little what I think of anyone. I am not their judge. I am just a messenger. I believe that we are approaching the most catastrophic event in the history of mankind and it's our job to inform people of God's intentions. There is no heaven or hell in the Bible's scenario....there is just life or death....we will either be here enjoying what God planned for us in the beginning...or we won't. End of story.

Go in peace, I apparently have nothing of interest to offer to you.
 

Gallowglass

Member
I am not offended, but I can't say the same for the God I serve.
He is used to it however. He gets blamed for all sorts of things by people who want to judge his actions by their own limited understanding.

There is no way for my God to act in an immoral fashion. He is not capable of immorality or injustice, both of which he created in humankind as part of being 'made in his image and likeness'. You honestly think any human can be more moral or just than the Creator? I believe he would interpret that as being somewhat arrogant.

Well, he calls himself cruel and jealous, and I hardly consider those moral. He sends evil and lying spirits and hardens people's hearts, and I don't consider that moral either.

How can a god be of less virtue than a human? How can a deity be morally at the same level as mere mortals? What is the point of being a god if you hold no moral superiority over your worshippers?

Why does it have to be about superiority? What about love and care and wanting the best for someone?

I have examined Norse mythology and the deities worshipped in heathenry and for the life of me, I cannot understand how any rational person can take them seriously. They are the stuff of cartoons to me.

I can't understand how anyone can truly study the Bible, spend hours poring over the books, desperate to understand, and come out of it saying what you do, so I suppose neither of us can understand the other. I don't understand what is cartoonish to you. If you are willing, I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you, but I imagine you are happy with your idea of them as cartoonish. It's up to you.

It is my opinion that, like so many others, you seem to want to bring today's standards into the conversation like they should apply to the actions and attitudes of people who lived thousands of years ago. Culture dictates the activities and attitudes of man down through the centuries. Today's sensitivities do not apply to ancient times. Even compare human standards of the Victorian era to today.....there is no comparison!

If Jesus is omniscient, then he knows all. If slavery is wrong, then it was equally wrong in the first century. Whether it is culturally acceptable or not. If God is so hemmed in by human culture he can't point at something that is wrong, like the institution of slavery, and say, "Slavery is wrong. Only God may own men," then yes we have to square that. Here are the options I see.

1. Slavery is not wrong.
2. Jesus knew slavery was wrong. However, he chose to give it tacit approval, by instructing people to not beat their slaves too hard.
3. Jesus knew slavery was wrong, said nothing against it, gave his tacit approval for it, because it was part of the culture.
4. Jesus did say something about it, but the Bible is flawed and it wasn't recorded because people liked their slaves.
I don't see any other option. You can apply this to any of those things you are saying is a cultural problem. Which of those four do you see as accurate? Or do you have another option?

John 6:44 is interesting on this point. It is partly his decision.
Jesus said.....
"No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him".....this to me, indicates that God chooses us as much as we think we choose him. "Drawing" someone to the teachings of his son, means that God is looking for a certain type of person to become part of his earthly family. We either fit the criteria, or we don't. He will either "draw" us, or he won't....."sheep or goats".

This I agree on, and is partially why I oppose proselytising in any form. If a god or gods want us to know them, or him, they will find the needed ways to convince us. When you have experienced gods in your life, when they've been there for you when you need it, anything else will seem absurd. Men cannot lead people to god or gods, only god or gods can change someone's heart and mind. It is up to the deity to make the choice to prove himself, or herself, or themselves to you. They have abilities we do not.

You seem especially hung up on the morality of things for some reason. Yet you can't seem to understand where humans get their moral sense from.
Jesus didn't need to be asked to redeem mankind....he volunteered. Those who qualify to have the merits of his sacrifice applied to them will be rewarded.....but those who treat his sacrifice with disrespect will never have to worry about it because it never applied to them anyway. You don't have to appreciate what you never wanted. Isn't that fair?

If God has given me my moral sense, and his actions offend my moral sense...then?

Why would an omnipotent God choose to make it so that only blood sacrifice could cover for sin? If he's omnipotent, that was a choice. He could have stayed with the idea that a broken and contrite heart was enough, that repentance and teshuvah was enough. There is an option in scripture for every offering to be carried out without blood. Meal offerings, incense, fasting, etc. Even in the very dedication of the temple, where the sacrifices were carried out they say blood is unnecessary.

You talked about how God hated that parents would sacrifice their children. If the children had volunteered, would that be all right then? Because you're saying that because Jesus chose to sacrifice himself, a human sacrifice for your sins is okay.

It matters little what I think of anyone. I am not their judge. I am just a messenger. I believe that we are approaching the most catastrophic event in the history of mankind and it's our job to inform people of God's intentions. There is no heaven or hell in the Bible's scenario....there is just life or death....we will either be here enjoying what God planned for us in the beginning...or we won't. End of story.

Go in peace, I apparently have nothing of interest to offer to you.

Why is death such a bad thing? Maybe this is just because I came to terms with the reality of death at a young age, but I do not see what is desirable about eternal life in the first place.

Peace be with you, and may you find all you need.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Well, he calls himself cruel and jealous, and I hardly consider those moral. He sends evil and lying spirits and hardens people's hearts, and I don't consider that moral either.

Does he? Where does he say that he is "cruel"? And what is your definition of the word? If criminals who defy the law are sentenced to appropriate punishment....is that cruel? If you understand a penalty before you commit a crime, then how can you complain about it?

"Jealous"? Yes he does say that he is jealous, but it's not the kind of negative jealousy that humans can express. Its more like the protective jealousy a husband feels for his wife, not wanting any harm to come to her. He calls it "Godly jealousy".
Words in one language do not often translate well into another.

Why does it have to be about superiority? What about love and care and wanting the best for someone?

What makes you think that God is not loving and caring? Do you have life, (albeit a difficult one)? Do you have air to breathe? Delicious food to eat and to enjoy the aroma of it cooking? Eyes to see, and beautiful things to look at? Ears to hear and wonderful sounds to hear? Does he exclude the wicked from these things out of spite? Are the ugly problems of this world created by God? Or by people who have abandoned his laws?

Your focus always seems to be on negative things where God is concerned.....there are way more positive things to appreciate. And there are good reasons in the big picture for why he has stood back to allow all humans to make their own choices in everything without his intervention. The Bible is God's record of his dealing with humans, both individually and collectively.....but it all depends on how you interpret that record.
You and I are proof that reading the same book can divide people....that, I believe is its job.

I can't understand how anyone can truly study the Bible, spend hours poring over the books, desperate to understand, and come out of it saying what you do, so I suppose neither of us can understand the other. I don't understand what is cartoonish to you.

Again, it all depends on what you are looking for. If all you see are faults, based on your own interpretation of what 'you' think God should be, then I guess he will disappoint you. Understanding where this is all going, and what the final outcome will be, brings everything into focus. The churches have no idea. It's just heaven or hell....that was never the purpose of our creation.

If Jesus is omniscient, then he knows all

Jesus is not omniscient. He is not God incarnate, but a created being who worked alongside of his Father in creation. He had the ability to read minds and to discern intentions however....a good quality to have when endowed with holy spirit, which was given to him at his baptism. Until that time he was just Jesus, the carpenter's son....no supernatural abilities.

If slavery is wrong, then it was equally wrong in the first century. Whether it is culturally acceptable or not. If God is so hemmed in by human culture he can't point at something that is wrong, like the institution of slavery, and say, "Slavery is wrong. Only God may own men," then yes we have to square that.

You don't seem to understand why Jesus changed nothing except the Jewish perception of God (which had been corrupted by the Pharisees and their favoured oral traditions,) and he reiterated God's requirements for his people during his brief ministry on earth.

I asked you about the time period that Jesus spoke about....."the appointed times of the nations"? Since you ignored that reference, I will assume that you have no knowledge of it. I never heard it mentioned in church either. But these "Gentile times" (as they are sometimes translated) had a beginning and an end.....when Jesus walked the earth the domination of Gentile powers over God's people had not yet concluded. This has reference to Daniel's prophesies regarding the "time of the end" and the last ruling power over mankind before "the end" would come and God would reintroduce his rulership in dramatic fashion. (Daniel 2:44)

We are living in the time of the last ruling world power before God establishes his kingdom on earth....the one Jesus taught us to pray for in The Lord's Prayer.

This I agree on, and is partially why I oppose proselytising in any form. If a god or gods want us to know them, or him, they will find the needed ways to convince us.

This is true. But from the Bible's perspective, God invites his people to present his message to others....it is both good news and bad news. Jesus said it would be 'just like the days of Noah'. (Matthew 24:37-39)

Noah was told about God's intentions to eradicate serious demonic influence in the world of that time. Violence, immorality and bloodshed were the order of the day and because it took mankind to the outer limits of wickedness way too soon, God stepped into slow things down, but it was not yet his time to act as the finale of this world ruled by the devil. We are now living in the time when it is his time to act.

Something even more catastrophic than the global flood is coming and it will accomplish the same thing....a total cleansing of this earth....only permanently. That is my belief.

When you have experienced gods in your life, when they've been there for you when you need it, anything else will seem absurd. Men cannot lead people to god or gods, only god or gods can change someone's heart and mind. It is up to the deity to make the choice to prove himself, or herself, or themselves to you. They have abilities we do not.

Well you see, I believe that there are only two "gods" in this world competing for our worship. One of them is the only true God, (John 17:3) and the other is a chameleon, masquerading as any god you want him to be. The Bible says that he can 'transform himself into an angel of light' so people can easily be fooled. He is a god who will cater to your every whim, but lead you to nowhere but to death. He knows he cannot win, but he will take as many down with him as he can. Being forewarned is being forearmed.

If God has given me my moral sense, and his actions offend my moral sense...then?

I believe it is how you interpret the exercise of his morality. You are looking for reasons not to find him moral and perhaps your gods are helping you do that......

Why would an omnipotent God choose to make it so that only blood sacrifice could cover for sin? If he's omnipotent, that was a choice. He could have stayed with the idea that a broken and contrite heart was enough, that repentance and teshuvah was enough.

Do you honestly think that this life is how God intended us to live?

Do you understand what happened in Eden to warrant the necessity for Jesus' sacrifce to even be required? The original purpose in putting humans on earth was not to train them for heaven. God already had a large family there. He put material creatures on this planet to enjoy life in his creation. He made one of them like himself to act as caretaker for the rest. They were endowed with his qualities so that they would act as his representatives....All he asked was that they obey him in one small but very important command.

But....they were influenced by a third party who made disobeying God seem like the right thing to do. Truth is, he wanted them to treat 'him' like a god....to believe him and to do what he said. By obeying him they set the wheels in motion for mankind to test drive free will in a whole new way....with no brakes. The life we have now is the consequence of their actions. Everything we do is a test of how we use this priceless gift.

Seeing the big picture give us a whole new perspective.....or at least it does for those who 'get it'.

You talked about how God hated that parents would sacrifice their children. If the children had volunteered, would that be all right then? Because you're saying that because Jesus chose to sacrifice himself, a human sacrifice for your sins is okay.

People today are not averse to sacrificing their children on the alter of war, are they? Political agendas dressed up with good propaganda always make people proud of their sacrifice.....what is the difference? Does the fact that they volunteer make it OK?
If the cause is seen as just, people will accept the sacrifice and praise it.

Why is death such a bad thing? Maybe this is just because I came to terms with the reality of death at a young age, but I do not see what is desirable about eternal life in the first place.

That's just the point. God is not cruel and he doesn't torture people in hell for all eternity. Death is all there is. There is nothing to fear if that is what you expect. I'm sure the atheists won't be disappointed, but I can't say the same for worshippers of false gods. There is no soul departing from the body at death to go anywhere, so that means that all who have died in ignorance will be sleeping peacefully in their graves, awaiting the promised resurrection (John 5:28129).....this is what the ancient Jews believed. (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10)

Peace be with you, and may you find all you need.

There is no end to the subject matter, but sharing is what this site is all about. Thanks for sharing.
 
Top