Fitness said:

"To Christian the Christ dying on the cross is a moral story of salvation by a God who became man in order to save mankind from sin."

Actually - this is not true. What is correct is to say that a Christian believes that God became a man in order to redeem him from sin. He made no promises of "saving" man from sin - which I would take to mean that man would no longer sin. It just means that WHEN man sins, that those sins will be forgiven, and because of this, man is redeemed. But to someone who does not believe this is true - than to them, their wish comes true.

Eljay's explanation of the necessity of the crucifixion is very good. I would like to take a moment to address two of the other points that have been raised.

Regarding the sinfulness of man, it is our nature to transgress against God because we are blinded and corrupted by sin. It is an unwelcome houseguest in our hearts and in the world. Adam and Eve are responsible for inviting sin into the world. Its token presence from the beginning was necessary so that it was a valid choice. (If the opportunity to sin was not present, then the decision not to sin would have been meaningless. Man's "decision" to live in perfect harmony would have been as impressive as a slot car "deciding" to stay on the track.) In theory, we are capable of choosing not to sin, but like Adam and Eve, we continuously reaffirm the invitation of sin. As Eljay noted, in God's perception, the degree of our sin is absolute.

Regarding the sinlessness of Jesus, as Spidercmb noted, the Biblical flood was an exercise of God's judgment. It does not violate the 6th commandment because that commandment is actually "Thou shalt not murder." There is a clear demarcation throughout the Old Testament law between murder, war, and corporal punishment. God's judgment of man based on man's failure to keep God's law is just.

Abra;

You have stated this a number of times:

"If you actually read the teachings of Jesus with pantheism in mind you can clearly see that Jesus is speaking about the pantheistic view. However, you need to also keep in mind that what you are reading was NOT written by Jesus. What you are reading is hearsay by authors who were trying to interpret what Jesus was saying with respect to their dogmatic view of the world which was based on the stories of their God of the Old Testament."

What I find difficulty with is your assumptions that these men who wrote the scriptures and quoted what Jesus said - as in the case of the Sermon on the Mount, or the parables, or the lessons that he had for them when He walked amoungst them, were incapable of merely writing what he said. You state that they were trying to "interpret" what Jesus said, and got it wrong. Despite the fact that they were there and heard WHAT he said. And I would need you to explain to me why Jesus sinply didn't tell them they were getting it wrong, and tell them to write down what it actually was he said. And while you're at it, I need you to explaion to me what they got wrong, and tell me what it is they should have written that Jesus actually said. When you maske this statement in another post - which I know you will, will you do that for me?

I thank everyone who responded to my concerns, Spider, Eljay, Feral, and anyone else.

This picture of a sin-obsessed God is just making me ill. To me it’s an extremely negative picture of a God. It’s way too negative to be the slightest bit inviting for me. I think it’s a very perverted and disgusting picture of a God.

I’ll just leave it alone from now on, how’s that? That should make people happy.

I’m getting sick of talking about such terribly negative things anyway. The whole thing is nothing but blood and guts and sin. It’s despicable.

Like I say, I found a really beautiful picture of god in pantheism which makes far more sense, answers all questions without any contradictions or inconsistence and is all-loving. There isn’t even any need for a evil force in this picture. It’s just 100% beautiful all the way around.

So I’m going to leave people wallow in the pits of Christianity now, and start to focus on the positive picture of an all-loving god. Christianity has dragged my spirit down about as low as I dare let it go. It’s time to pump it back up again with positive thoughts of a genuinely loving god.

I can imagine several directions from which you might arrive at the conclusion that God is not genuinely loving. One common objection that is raised is that if God loves us so much, why doesn't he just let us into Heaven without all of the effort and mystery?

You object that God is obsessed with sin, but I don't think you have quite the right idea here. Sin is, by definition, a rejection of God and, by extension, his goodwill toward us. A fundamental component of our place in God's creation, however, is our freedom of choice. Rejecting God is one such choice. God does not deny us entry to Heaven or force Hell upon us. He merely respects our choice: Accept God or reject God. If somebody has rejected God, why would they want to dwell with Him for eternity? It is my opinion/interpretation that all those who make that choice will eventually realize that eternal separation from God is not as good as they had hoped. That, to me, is the torment of hell.

ephraimglass,

I don’t reject god. I think she’s great!

I just reject negative perversions of her is all.

I don’t see the point to them. They only breed negativity. What’s the point to that?

the point to that is that we can see what is so by the evidence of what is not so....


i think it's something humans do with what we are bound to be, and so being....


we can look and learn.....




hahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahaaa



omlog...in an ideal world......


see this is why i just don't believe. period.


ya wanna know why jesus had to die on the cross?

because he was orchestrated to fulfill a preordained destiny, to make the books look like they were real....


and anyway he didn't die... ahahhahahhahaaaa the conspiracy plot of the
Patriarchs thickens !!!!

i remember as a child... a saying.... oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive....

Alex has the eyes that can always recognize
the mangled gods and false façades
of doctrines filled with lies

They’re put here to confuse us
by men who would infuse us
with much deceit
and words that cheat
to purposely abuse us

Demean the mind with words maligned
and denigrate the soul
For every man’s a sinner
as pathetic as a troll

No man shall be commendable
it’s forbidden by the law!
For Everyone must grovel
with their spirit in withdraw

No man can ever look at God directly in the eye!
For every man’s despicable and no one can deny!

They’re all a bunch of hopeless pigs
lesser than the swine
Even apes and monkeys
are closer to divine



Sorry, I’ve already rejuvenated my spirit and I’m feeling better now.

Eljay wrote:

"To Christian the Christ dying on the cross is a moral story of salvation by a God who became man in order to save mankind from sin."

Actually - this is not true. What is correct is to say that a Christian believes that God became a man in order to redeem him from sin. He made no promises of "saving" man from sin - which I would take to mean that man would no longer sin. It just means that WHEN man sins, that those sins will be forgiven, and because of this, man is redeemed. But to someone who does not believe this is true - than to them, their wish comes true.

Well I stand corrected with respect with that part of my arguement. My understanding was that of that act of sacarafice made mankind see that with out sacarafice there is no salavation. But I'm suprise you didn't mention the other half of my arguement is that there is a view by non-christians, outsiders with their own personal beliefs, that one man can not pay for sins of mankind. That's the miscommuication that I understand by the original poster so "Is the cruification of Christ needed in the first place if their no hope of being saved by that act?"

Fitnessfanatic,

"that one man can not pay for sins of mankind"

That is very true, but it's deeper than that. One man cannot pay for the sins of even one other man or himself. So there is no way to heaven when you depend on yourself or another. That's the lesson that the Law is intended to teach. That every person must depend upon a savior, because we cannot reach the level of perfection that is required by God. Jesus is a valid sacrifice for our sins, because Jesus IS God. Only God, being perfect and without sin, could possibly be a sufficient sacrifice for the sins of all humanity.

I got here late, I have not read this thread other than the original question, so I'm going to limit myself to asnwer that question, as far as my limited knowledge allows me.

My Lord had to die because He needed to resurrect, so if we understand the concept of resurrection, He needed to die first.
Fairly, simple and logic for us who believe that my Lord's resurrection is a historical fact, for those who think it's a fairy tale or a myth, well what can i do.
NOw the real question would be why the resurrection had to happen?
My Lord's resurrection it's the flame and the power that have kept christianity alive for 2000 years, it's the force that have divided time in before and after Christ. It's the strength the keeps me faithful and strong after seeing what i love the most is under attack from everywhere, and mercilessly.

Simple just as 2+2=4

"there are somethings that are true whether you believe them or not" - City of Angels

Why do so many Get this wrong?
Man kind had always sacrofised {Pardon the spelling} a pure animal, The Blood of God was 1.stop killing animals 2. So we would be able to speak to God.
Before Jesus Died to pay for our sins only the high Priests could go to the temple and see the face of God, when Jesus Died it Rent{Tore}the temples devider in two.
It would not have been possable to have "passed out" as Wench had said because of a few things.
1. He was up on the cross hanging with basicly Railroad spikes thought his hands his feet would have been broken to put nails through both his feet causing him to shift weight up on his arms and becoming very exsausted in a short time.
2.When Jesus Died He had his heart Punctured with spear{s}when they stabbed him in the heart it is written that Blood and water flowed.

For blood and water to flow like that would be if he had a heart attack before they Stabbed his heart.
He was hemorrhaging Blood from his skin meaning that he was bleeding internally.

So he could not have just simply passed out and then just Got up and even walked anywhere just simply because, even if he did pass out he would have died from blood loss alone and a puncture wound to the heart.

Josh, why did God change the rules? Anyone, why was it necessary?

If the original law that stood for thousands of years was also the inspired word of God, why did it have to change?

who siad God changed the rules?????

Ya need a sacrifice before Jesus dies

Jesus dies and guess what you no longer need the animal sacrifice

Was this not a rule changing?

Before Jesus there were rules for diet, how food was prepared, when you cold sleep with your wife, how to treat criminals, who was a criminal, please consult some good Jewish practitioners for more details.

The point is that some rules stayed and some didn't. Some say there are many more than 10 commandments, were there more before Jesus? And the stories that were not included in the Christian Old Testament, is it because what they taught no longer pertained? If that's so, why are some, that no longer pertain still included?

So the rules did change, but none of that change hardly represents a valid reason for God to take human form, preach ambiguously, bow to persecution, and suffer torments of the flesh.

That is because the Jews in the old testament had all these rules and laws...(Mosiac Law) that they were very stringent in keeping. But because of Jesus dying on the cross....the mosiac law was no longer required. It was odd at first to especially for the Jews and the Gentiles.......But thats why.

Very interesting views.....

Bottom line is Dad is Boss and our Boss is our Father.

How many of you have parents?
It's okay if that question stumped you at first reading...

Did your parents ever 'lay down the law' to you?
Maybe even change rules depending on your own behavior, situations, circumstances?

Well my Father does that.... rules change in life, eh?

Alas, the Bible does not change.

Our interpretation of the Holy Book for each of us is individual, it is a direct letter to each of us.. Just as individualistic as He made us. Not one of us here walking neathe the clouds are the same... why would our interpretations be the same too.

GOD NEVER CONTRADICTS HIMSELF and myself personally... I don't want to disappoint my Father.

Malachi 3:6 -- "For I am the Lord, I CHANGE NOT; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed" -- MEANS what it says. Hebrews 13:8 -- "Jesus Christ THE SAME yesterday, and to day, and for ever" -- MEANS what it says.

Here's a thought....

Let the Bible Interpret the Bible....



Here's another lasting thought....

The New Testament lies hidden in the Old, and the Old Testament is revealed in the New