PDA

View Full Version : God without religion (srs)



Dorich
12-23-2018, 10:25 AM
When I look at all three Abrahamic religions (Christianity/Judaism/Islam), they are so filled with absurdities and contradictions that I can't take them seriously.

To be clear, I could never be an atheist, for reasons (and experiences) very personal to me, but at the same time I can't seem to accept any of the Abrahamic religions as rational. At the same time, while certain other non-Abrahamic religions like Buddhism are more appealing and seem to make more sense, they too have many things which seem quite nonsensical. Then you have "religions" like Scientology which is a total joke and con-job.

I reject creationism, believe in Evolution, believe in divine intervention, believe in the effectiveness of certain prayer (extremely rare cases), believe in an afterlife, and believe in evil forces / evil spirits / demons.

But I have yet to find a single religion / belief system that seems to promote those concepts yet at the same time make sense as a "whole". It's easy to "believe" in Christianity, Islam, or Judaism, and at the same time ignore everything that's wrong, or make up excuses for the inconsistencies and contradictions. But that's not really believing, rather it's picking and choosing what appeals to you, and blindly following the church / priests / imams / rabbis / whatever other "scholars" are telling you. Blind faith is just terrible, especially when you believe in something just because you were raised that way, in a certain environment which affected you and formed your "beliefs" as you are growing up. But actually studying religions / belief systems, using critical thinking, ignoring how you were raised, trying to find something that makes sense to you, something for which you can logically conclude to be the truth, is an entirely different matter. It's the opposite to blind faith.

To cut to the chase, are there any posters here who believe in God but at the same time have difficulty accepting religion? I'm interested in the subject of God without organized religion. Deism is an interesting belief system, but at the same time deists seem to contradict each other when it comes to concepts such as divine intervention and prayer.

Just recently I've been reading about Philosophical Theism, and it's interesting:

Philosophical theism is the belief that a deity exists (or must exist) independent of the teaching or revelation of any particular religion.[1] It represents belief in a personal God entirely without doctrine. Some philosophical theists are persuaded of a god's existence by philosophical arguments, while others consider themselves to have a religious faith that need not be, or could not be, supported by rational argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_theism

Anyone else here who believes in the concept of a personal God yet at the same time rejects organized religion? If so, are there any belief systems which appeal to you at all?

Tamorlane
12-23-2018, 10:31 AM
religions like Buddhism are more appealing and seem to make more sense, they too have many things which seem quite nonsensical.

Most don't really know anything about buddhism. Even early practitioners can only intellectualize the four noble truths, they are something that insight is developed into as you learn the teachings, put them into practice, weigh the results vs how you view life typically and see the benefits. You'd be surprised how many Western intellectuals respected the Eastern religions: Einstein, Bohr, Oppenheimer. These are physicists who saw the compatibility between these ancient teachings and the observable universe.

Buddhism is about causation but particularly within the confines of the mind and experience. Do we ever think about what actually causes thoughts or feelings or urges to arise. The mind is constantly in a state of race, and meditation helps bring thought to a stop so you can better discern the arising and passing of those thoughts, feelings and urges.

Causation is the key to the truth. Old buddhism is scientific and methodical in it's approach to understanding the mind and stress.

Dorich
12-23-2018, 10:33 AM
Most don't really know anything about buddhism.
How would you know anything about what I know regarding Buddhism? Because I said some of its concepts seem nonsensical?

Lol.

Tamorlane
12-23-2018, 10:34 AM
How would you know anything about what I know regarding Buddhism? Because I said some of its concepts seem nonsensical?

Lol.

Because I know a lot about buddhism, I know who knows and who doesn't.

Reflexez
12-23-2018, 10:47 AM
Then you have "religions" like Scientology which is a total joke and con-job.

Surely based on your beliefs all religions are con-jobs? Just because one is via dianetics while the others are through the collection plate doesn't change their tax dodging, money making position.

More on topic, I'm not religious because I can't see how I can have been taught to look for evidence, to ask for facts and make decisions based on logic then be expected to believe any religion when I know the stories aren't accurate from the time (e.g. the Bible being written hundreds of years after events and then redacted much later), the sheer absurdity of how common certain events were which have never been experienced again and the totally contradictory/hypocritical positions holy books take (don't judge people but at the same time all these people are sinners, etc.)

I don't believe in "God" as such, I don't know who or what created us, why we're here or if we would even consider a creator as "God(s)" anymore than a cloned sheep could consider the human scientists as Gods. I'm okay with not knowing the answers to these and other questions, I was raised as a Christian but I don't think I gained anything morally from it, if anything my best friend at school being gay and having a priest stand and preach that gays needed to be "helped" was one of the things which got me to look at what I believed and why (another was me saying if I had a child it'd need to be baptised so it didn't go to hell and as soon as the words left my mouth thinking did I actually say something that dumb).

On topic of Buddhism, it's very interesting and I think it's one of the closest fits to how I view life, my gf is also a practising Buddhist with Gohonzon.

CalmWind
12-23-2018, 10:49 AM
Christianity, filled with absurdities and contradictions that I can't take them seriously.

Stopped reading right there.


There are no "absurdities or contradictions" in Christianity.


You just want to make yourself feel smart by saying lines like that.


Fun fact : I can't take you seriously when reading your post.

Dorich
12-23-2018, 10:49 AM
Surely based on your beliefs all religions are con-jobs? Just because one is via dianetics while the others are through the collection plate doesn't change their tax dodging, money making position.
Scientology is different. It appears to have been created only for grabbing money.


More on topic, I'm not religious because I can't see how I can have been taught to look for evidence, to ask for facts and make decisions based on logic then be expected to believe any religion when I know the stories aren't accurate from the time (e.g. the Bible being written hundreds of years after events and then redacted much later), the sheer absurdity of how common certain events were which have never been experienced again and the totally contradictory/hypocritical positions holy books take (don't judge people but at the same time all these people are sinners, etc.)

I don't believe in "God" as such, I don't know who or what created us, why we're here or if we would even consider a creator as "God(s)" anymore than a cloned sheep could consider the human scientists as Gods. I'm okay with not knowing the answers to these and other questions, I was raised as a Christian but I don't think I gained anything morally from it, if anything my best friend at school being gay and having a priest stand and preach that gays needed to be "helped" was one of the things which got me to look at what I believed and why (another was me saying if I had a child it'd need to be baptised so it didn't go to hell and as soon as the words left my mouth thinking did I actually say something that dumb).
In short, you're an atheist.

Dorich
12-23-2018, 10:52 AM
Stopped reading right there.

There are no "absurdities or contradictions" in Christianity.

You just want to make yourself feel smart by saying lines like that.

Fun fact : I can't take you seriously when reading your post.
There are tons of absurdities and contradictions in Christianity.

Too many to list. One would not know where to begin discussing them, lol.

Reflexez
12-23-2018, 10:54 AM
There are no "absurdities or contradictions" in Christianity.

I'm glad the Bible isn't as vile as the Quran which has things like murdering babies:


Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.

Comes from Isaiah 13...wait...what do you mean Isaiah is the Bible and not Quran...oh fuk forget what you read...muh Muslim savages...etc...

Tamorlane
12-23-2018, 10:56 AM
In short, you're an atheist.

he’s agnostic if anything. He takes an “I don’t know” approach. An atheist believes there’s nothing in terms of god or most of the time, an afterlife. They almost always believe death is the end like before you were born.

Most beliefs from all people stem from a belief in their self. That’s why after death people speculate they will be something permanent or nothing.

CalmWind
12-23-2018, 10:56 AM
There are tons of absurdities and contradictions in Christianity.

Too many to list. One would not know where to begin discussing them, lol.

Pick one.

Should be easy to pick one if there's so many.

Reflexez
12-23-2018, 11:01 AM
Technically I'd be an agnostic atheist as the 2 things are separate so shouldn't be used as a replacement for one another.

Atheist because I don't believe in any Gods (I don't believe in any religions Gods), Agnostic because I don't have evidence to prove there isn't one (I don't think we can ever prove there's not one, but we can't prove a lot of supernatural claims, doesn't mean they should all be believed).

Dorich's view would be Agnostic Theist.

Dorich
12-23-2018, 11:04 AM
Pick one.

Should be easy to pick one if there's so many.
Not sure if srs.

There are numerous explicit contradictions in regards to events/numbers, but those details aside, more broadly speaking, there are various concepts that are completely absurd and contradictory.

Jesus being the God of the Old Testament now "in flesh" is absurd, as they are nothing alike. The former is a violent, vengeful God who even orders the deaths of innocent men women and children. The latter, supposedly the same God now in flesh, wants you to reject eye for an eye and turn the other cheek. Yet, they are the same God...... because of the concept known as Trinity which is never explicitly mentioned in the Bible, a concept rejected by early Christians (and for good reason).

Furthermore, the whole concept of "Believe in Jesus as God will give you eternal life" contradicts about 90% of everything taught in the Bible. You guys have to resort to extreme mental gymnastics to make sense of it. The sacrifice of Christ itself as the atonement of sins for the past present and future is not compatible with Yahweh's teachings regarding atonement in the Old Testament. And with that in mind, Jews are right when they cite their reasons for rejecting Christianity. If anyone knows the Old Testament inside and out, it's the Jews. They are the only experts on it.

But purely logically speaking, without taking scripture into account, the sacrifice itself is incoherent, since nothing was sacrificed, as Jesus was resurrected, and is alive both in spirit and flesh. Nothing was permanently lost when Jesus was crucified... so what was it that atoned for sins? Especially future sins?

One step further... what kind of sacrifice requires someone to accept it, in order for that sacrifice to be valid? If I sacrifice one thing so that another can live, it's over. That "another" will live, due to the sacrifice. But no, if I have to gain eternal life I need to believe that Christ died for my sins, plus a list of other things including Trinity, him being God in flesh, etc., and then I'll be granted eternal life. Yet... he was sacrificed for my sins. He clearly wasn't, because if I don't believe in A B C, I will be punished for my sins... even though he died for them (yet, is still alive).

It makes zero sense. None of it.

maniac4u
12-23-2018, 11:04 AM
op i sense you have a thing called ''pride''.....and what does the bible about that?...

Dorich
12-23-2018, 11:07 AM
inb4 CalmWind and other religious fanatics posting links / copy-pasting stuff with no original thoughts of their own

JRMoore82
12-23-2018, 11:08 AM
I'm glad the Bible isn't as vile as the Quran which has things like murdering babies:



Comes from Isaiah 13...wait...what do you mean Isaiah is the Bible and not Quran...oh fuk forget what you read...muh Muslim savages...etc...

But of course the context regarding Isaiah 13 means nothing.

But you were never one to be honest nor truthful anyways.

keyboardworkout
12-23-2018, 11:10 AM
We have no idea where we came from or where we are going. Anyone who says they know is lying.

Why is this so hard to grasp?

Dorich
12-23-2018, 11:11 AM
But of course the context regarding Isaiah 13 means nothing.

But you were never one to be honest nor truthful anyways.
There is no concept which can justify the murder of innocent men, women, children and babies.

The Qur'an has its faults, its controversial verses and violence, but it pales compares to the violence attributed to the Christian God of the Bible.

Leviticus 25:44-46
Numbers 31:17-18
Deuteronomy 13:6-11
Deuteronomy 20:13-20
1 Samuel 15:2-4
Hosea 13:16

And plenty more where that came from.

JRMoore82
12-23-2018, 11:16 AM
There is no concept which can justify the murder of innocent men, women, children and babies.

The Qur'an has its faults, its controversial verses and violence, but it pales compares to the violence attributed to the Christian God of the Bible.

Leviticus 25:44-46
Numbers 31:17-18
Deuteronomy 13:6-11
Deuteronomy 20:13-20
1 Samuel 15:2-4
Hosea 13:16

And plenty more where that came from.

Ok well first off I’ll say Isaiah 13 is a prophecy that reflex quoted and the person thrusting the sword was an end times verse regarding the Lord and His judgement.

Second of I’m aware of the versus you have issues with and the “many more” you will bring up. You are referring to various incidents regarding prophecy or the cananites who were sacrificing their own babies to hot iron statues but I’m sure that’s non of your business.

But guessing by your stand off you will just never accept a God who’s not on your terms. I’m guessing you don’t really grasp what God (let alone what the term means) is then since going off your OP and this one you think if God doesn’t conform to your standards it no longer is God.

Cherrio and good day and all that.

Dorich
12-23-2018, 11:21 AM
Ok well first off I’ll say Isaiah 13 is a prophecy that reflex quoted and the person thrusting the sword was an end times verse regarding the Lord and His judgement.

Second of I’m aware of the versus you have issues with and the “many more” you will bring up. You are referring to various incidents regarding prophecy or the cananites who were sacrificing their own babies to hot iron statues but I’m sure that’s non of your business.

But guessing by your stand off you will just never accept a God who’s not on your terms. I’m guessing you don’t really grasp what God (let alone what the term means) is then since going off your OP and this one you think if God doesn’t conform to your standards it no longer is God.

Cherrio and good day and all that.
You are, in a way, correct. I don't want to believe in a God who behaves like in Numbers 31:17-18:

Numbers 31:17-18 New International Version (NIV)

17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Not a single priest can convince me how this can be justified, just as no Imam can convince me regarding the genius of cutting off hands in Shariah Law and killing apostates.

When I think of God, I think of an entity that is above the level of some primitive ruler from hundreds of years ago.

And I didn't even get to the concept of eternal torture in Hell.

Reflexez
12-23-2018, 11:33 AM
But of course the context regarding Isaiah 13 means nothing.

But you were never one to be honest nor truthful anyways.

You're possibly the saltiest baby I've seen on these forums.

Waaaahaaaaa you linked scientific papers and ethered my opinion, waaaaaahaaaaaa I'm gonna cry every time I see you, want me to Paypal you some cash for my rent?

It comes as no surprise you'd be a religious fruit who likes to apply context to Christian matters but is happy to just make shyt up on other topics. Let me just clarify for you, my post was in reply to CalmWind, who routinely slates Islam and Muslims without any context beyond what they like to apply themselves, hence why I picked anything at random as who needs justification when we can just look at the bad words and say "das Christians mayne" like most do about other subjects.

Maestro
12-23-2018, 11:37 AM
When I look at all three Abrahamic religions (Christianity/Judaism/Islam), they are so filled with absurdities and contradictions that I can't take them seriously.


People have thought like you for thousands of years. Thats why there are protestant/presbyterian/lutheran/mormon/Later Day Saint/Baptist/Jehovah's Witness/Catholic sects of christianity alone.

Someone simply decided that there were some things they liked about christianity and some things they hated so they made their own religion. Unless trump get impeached and Pence becomes president there is no law stating you have to follow a religion. Just be a good person.

Dorich
12-23-2018, 11:38 AM
People have thought like you for thousands of years. Thats why there are protestant/presbyterian/lutheran/mormon/Later Day Saint/Baptist/Jehovah's Witness/Catholic sects of christianity alone.

Someone simply decided that there were some things they liked about christianity and some things they hated so they made their own religion. Unless trump get impeached and Pence becomes president there is no law stating you have to follow a religion. Just be a good person.
Cool but why did you write "trump" and not "Trump" ? Why no capital letter?

Maestro
12-23-2018, 11:42 AM
Cool but why did you write "trump" and not "Trump" ? Why no capital letter?

lol no reason, i'm typing from my phone.

Dorich
12-23-2018, 11:43 AM
lol no reason, i'm typing from my phone.
Okay.

numberguy12
12-23-2018, 11:51 AM
Not sure if srs.

There are numerous explicit contradictions in regards to events/numbers, but those details aside, more broadly speaking, there are various concepts that are completely absurd and contradictory.

Jesus being the God of the Old Testament now "in flesh" is absurd, as they are nothing alike. The former is a violent, vengeful God who even orders the deaths of innocent men women and children. The latter, supposedly the same God now in flesh, wants you to reject eye for an eye and turn the other cheek. Yet, they are the same God...... because of the concept known as Trinity which is never explicitly mentioned in the Bible, a concept rejected by early Christians (and for good reason).

Furthermore, the whole concept of "Believe in Jesus as God will give you eternal life" contradicts about 90% of everything taught in the Bible. You guys have to resort to extreme mental gymnastics to make sense of it. The sacrifice of Christ itself as the atonement of sins for the past present and future is not compatible with Yahweh's teachings regarding atonement in the Old Testament. And with that in mind, Jews are right when they cite their reasons for rejecting Christianity. If anyone knows the Old Testament inside and out, it's the Jews. They are the only experts on it.

But purely logically speaking, without taking scripture into account, the sacrifice itself is incoherent, since nothing was sacrificed, as Jesus was resurrected, and is alive both in spirit and flesh. Nothing was permanently lost when Jesus was crucified... so what was it that atoned for sins? Especially future sins?

One step further... what kind of sacrifice requires someone to accept it, in order for that sacrifice to be valid? If I sacrifice one thing so that another can live, it's over. That "another" will live, due to the sacrifice. But no, if I have to gain eternal life I need to believe that Christ died for my sins, plus a list of other things including Trinity, him being God in flesh, etc., and then I'll be granted eternal life. Yet... he was sacrificed for my sins. He clearly wasn't, because if I don't believe in A B C, I will be punished for my sins... even though he died for them (yet, is still alive).

It makes zero sense. None of it.

It's those explicit/numerical contradictions that should immediately convince any rational person that the bible is not some inerrant document. We see hundreds of passages contradicting:

-other passages
-science
-geography
-history

Many of these contradictions have been discussed at length in previous threads, so it's not worth rehashing them here. Another reason not to even bother: biblical defenders like the one you are talking with are playing a sort of game. They want you to provide a particular contradiction (there are countless), so they can "explain" it away with nonsense, as you find on any apologist site like Answers in Genesis. None of it is convincing. If you threw up a mathematical statement like 4+3=6, they would play their little of game of "explaining away"..... wait, wait wait 4+3 CAN really equal 6. It's a joke.

In fairness to the anonymous authors of the bible, its not surprising that it contains many contradictions. The bible is compilation of books, which were written in different time periods by different authors. In some cases different books/chapters describing the same purported events (see Kings/Chronicles, Exodus/Deuteronomy, Genesis chapters 1/2, the four gospels which mainly all describe the same small timespan of Jesus's life, etc.) These are the places that you tend to see the most obvious "passage to passage" type contradictions.

Dorich
12-23-2018, 11:54 AM
It's those explicit/numerical contradictions that should immediately convince any rational person that the bible is not some inerrant document. We see hundreds of passages contradicting:

-other passages
-science
-geography
-history

Many of these contradictions have been discussed at length in previous threads, so it's not worth rehashing them here. Another reason not to even bother: biblical defenders like the one you are talking with are playing a sort of game. They want you to provide a particular contradiction (there are countless), so they can "explain" it away with nonsense, as you find on any apologist site like Answers in Genesis. None of it is convincing. If you threw up a mathematical statement like 4+3=6, they would play their little of game of "explaining away"..... wait, wait wait 4+3 CAN really equal 6. It's a joke.

In fairness to the anonymous authors of the bible, its not surprising that it contains many contradictions. The bible is compilation of books, which were written in different time periods by different authors. In some cases different books/chapters describing the same purported events (see Kings/Chronicles, Exodus/Deuteronomy, Genesis chapters 1/2, the four gospels which mainly all describe the same small timespan of Jesus's life, etc.) These are the places that you tend to see the most obvious "passage to passage" type contradictions.
Well said.

And I agree that the contradictions are not surprising due to the different authors, but they become troublesome when someone says that the Bible as a whole is "inspired by God".

NKWulf
12-23-2018, 12:18 PM
Loki is laughing at this thread.

jtaylor2010
12-23-2018, 12:28 PM
Yes, I have a strong faith in God without subscribing to any particular religion. However, most of them appeal to me in one way or another. If you’re looking for something that you agree with 100% you aren’t going to find it, and even if you do it’ll probably be something you don’t agree with 100% in a few years. Just take the concepts you agree with and come up with your own views. In my experience it’s much better to approach things with an open mind then take the stuff you find meaningful with you while discarding what seems nonsensical. You’ll get a lot more out of stuff that way than you would waiting for someone to explain things to you in a way that you agree with 100%. Most of my views are pretty concrete now but I do bounce around as far as what interests me. Are you looking for a system to base your life/actions around or more-so just fascinating concepts to mentally masturbate with?

sawoobley
12-23-2018, 01:37 PM
Not sure if srs.

There are numerous explicit contradictions in regards to events/numbers, but those details aside, more broadly speaking, there are various concepts that are completely absurd and contradictory.

Jesus being the God of the Old Testament now "in flesh" is absurd, as they are nothing alike. The former is a violent, vengeful God who even orders the deaths of innocent men women and children. The latter, supposedly the same God now in flesh, wants you to reject eye for an eye and turn the other cheek. Yet, they are the same God...... because of the concept known as Trinity which is never explicitly mentioned in the Bible, a concept rejected by early Christians (and for good reason).

I agree it is difficult to reconcile the two. However, I still believe they are one in the same. If you read the old testament under the assumption they are the same God as the new Testament indicates you can see the same qualities in both. However, one must take into account the different time periods being discussed, the different cultures being interacted with, and look at things from the perspective of God (an eternal perspective) instead of our limited, mortal, narrow human perspective. I agree the modern day understanding of the Trinity is more mysterious than it should be.


Furthermore, the whole concept of "Believe in Jesus as God will give you eternal life" contradicts about 90% of everything taught in the Bible. You guys have to resort to extreme mental gymnastics to make sense of it. The sacrifice of Christ itself as the atonement of sins for the past present and future is not compatible with Yahweh's teachings regarding atonement in the Old Testament. And with that in mind, Jews are right when they cite their reasons for rejecting Christianity. If anyone knows the Old Testament inside and out, it's the Jews. They are the only experts on it.

If one understands belief and faith in Jesus Christ as more than a simple acknowledgement of Him but rather a willingness to follow His teachings and become His disciple then it does make sense IMO. I don't know why you think the teachings of the atonement don't make sense. The followers in the old testament were going through rituals which look forward to an atonement which hadn't happened yet but that would and others would be born after that event. Yes, the Jews are the experts in the Old Testament yet they are the ones who rejected Jesus because they were mistaken in some of their understanding of the O.T.


But purely logically speaking, without taking scripture into account, the sacrifice itself is incoherent, since nothing was sacrificed, as Jesus was resurrected, and is alive both in spirit and flesh. Nothing was permanently lost when Jesus was crucified... so what was it that atoned for sins? Especially future sins?

Jesus mortal life was sacrificed. He was a perfectly innocent person like a little baby and yet He was killed unjustly. The immense weight of the sins of mankind was placed on him which made him suffer emotional, physical, mental, and spiritual pain, more than a mortal can suffer. Only God's Son, who came from an immortal Father, would have a body and soul which could endure that much pressure without passing out or dying. You don't consider that a sacrifice? He was in no way guilty of the sins he suffered for. He was not obligated to go through all of that for us. His position in God's kingdom was secure. The permanency of Jesus sacrifice is irrelevant from a live or die scenario. He did for us what we could not. His love for us transcended the unimaginable price which was required for atonement. The fact He overcame sin and death and survived is a testament to who He is and His power over all His enemies and His ability to save us. He continues His work to act on our behalf to save us if we will but listen to His teachings.

What was atoned for is our current and future sins and flaws, according to the foreknowledge of God, which keep us from God and the eternal peace and happiness He promised us. We can draw strength from Christ atonement, improve ourselves and through His sacrifice and teachings become worthy of heaven.


One step further... what kind of sacrifice requires someone to accept it, in order for that sacrifice to be valid? If I sacrifice one thing so that another can live, it's over. That "another" will live, due to the sacrifice. But no, if I have to gain eternal life I need to believe that Christ died for my sins, plus a list of other things including Trinity, him being God in flesh, etc., and then I'll be granted eternal life. Yet... he was sacrificed for my sins. He clearly wasn't, because if I don't believe in A B C, I will be punished for my sins... even though he died for them (yet, is still alive).

It makes zero sense. None of it.

Jesus purchased our debt, the debt we were unable to pay. In order for this arrangement to take effect we must consent to it and accept the conditions Jesus sets forth. In short, to love God and love our neighbors. To come forward with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, take upon us His name, and follow Him. In this way Jesus leads us down a path where the Holy Spirit works upon our souls and purifies our hearts. Where we fall short Jesus makes up the difference and we become worthy and able to live in heaven where God dwells. A place where peace, harmony, unity, and righteousness exist.

Dorich
12-23-2018, 02:20 PM
I agree it is difficult to reconcile the two. However, I still believe they are one in the same. If you read the old testament under the assumption they are the same God as the new Testament indicates you can see the same qualities in both. However, one must take into account the different time periods being discussed, the different cultures being interacted with, and look at things from the perspective of God (an eternal perspective) instead of our limited, mortal, narrow human perspective.
This seems like a classic case of special pleading, how we're unable to understand God's actions through "human" reasoning and logic. But I'm afraid that's a cop-out. The Old Testament God orders massacres of men, women, and children. He also supports slavery on many occasions, and encourages taking captive female spoils of war. The God of the New Testament is the complete opposite, yet we're supposed to believe it's the same God now in "flesh". It makes zero sense, and the time period excuse doesn't cut it IMO. And while we're at it... why do Christians say that Jesus never killed anyone? If he is God, and the same God of the OT, then Jesus did indeed order massacres of men, women and children.


I agree the modern day understanding of the Trinity is more mysterious than it should be.
I don't think it's mysterious at all. I think a strong case can be made that it is non-Biblical and was made up by the Church in order to resolve inconsistencies between Jesus and God. Without the Trinity, you'd have trouble explaining how Jesus can say "I and the Father are One" and then later "My Father is greater than I", but with the made-up Trinity you have a cool explanation, how with the former he was speaking as God and in the latter he was speaking as a human, and how he's both 100% God and 100% man. Although the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are used in the Bible, there is no explicit mention of the Holy Trinity, nor a teaching how these three are all "one", nor how belief in it is necessary for salvation. Look at the Athanasian creed which explains Trinity in detail, and show me something remotely close to that in the Bible.


If one understands belief and faith in Jesus Christ as more than a simple acknowledgement of Him but rather a willingness to follow His teachings and become His disciple then it does make sense IMO. I don't know why you think the teachings of the atonement don't make sense. The followers in the old testament were going through rituals which look forward to an atonement which hadn't happened yet but that would and others would be born after that event. Yes, the Jews are the experts in the Old Testament yet they are the ones who rejected Jesus because they were mistaken in some of their understanding of the O.T.
The sacrifice of Jesus is invalid according to the OT, for many reasons. So it is invalid by the laws of God who inspired the OT. The OT requires that the sacrifice be without any physical blemish, yet Jesus was beaten, whipped, dragged before being crucified. The OT says that sacrificial sin only atones for unintentional sins (with some exceptions), and sins only committed prior to the sacrifice, not future sins. The OT also forbids human sacrifices, yet Jesus was both God AND man. There are other problems as well. I'd argue Jews rejected the NT precisely because of their correct understand of the OT. I can provide verses for what I'm saying.


Jesus mortal life was sacrificed. He was a perfectly innocent person like a little baby and yet He was killed unjustly. The immense weight of the sins of mankind was placed on him which made him suffer emotional, physical, mental, and spiritual pain, more than a mortal can suffer. Only God's Son, who came from an immortal Father, would have a body and soul which could endure that much pressure without passing out or dying. You don't consider that a sacrifice? He was in no way guilty of the sins he suffered for. He was not obligated to go through all of that for us. His position in God's kingdom was secure. The permanency of Jesus sacrifice is irrelevant from a live or die scenario. He did for us what we could not. His love for us transcended the unimaginable price which was required for atonement. The fact He overcame sin and death and survived is a testament to who He is and His power over all His enemies and His ability to save us. He continues His work to act on our behalf to save us if we will but listen to His teachings.
You are talking basic theology. I'm aware of all that. It's just that it doesn't make sense looking at the larger picture. It's just repeating various mantras without addressing the issues. His mortal life was clearly not sacrificed if he was raised both physically and spiritually from the dead. Something's wrong with this picture. It doesn't make sense neither logically nor biblically.


What was atoned for is our current and future sins and flaws, according to the foreknowledge of God, which keep us from God and the eternal peace and happiness He promised us. We can draw strength from Christ atonement, improve ourselves and through His sacrifice and teachings become worthy of heaven.
More of the same. Yes, I'm aware of what Franklin Graham and others are preaching. The problem is, the biblical God has stated that only unintentional sins can be atoned for, with very few exceptions listed in Leviticus. And only sins prior to the sacrifice. That's only a small part of the problem. Either way, there was never a necessity to accept/believe in a sacrifice in order for it to be valid, which is why the following you wrote makes no sense...


Jesus purchased our debt, the debt we were unable to pay. In order for this arrangement to take effect we must consent to it and accept the conditions Jesus sets forth. In short, to love God and love our neighbors. To come forward with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, take upon us His name, and follow Him. In this way Jesus leads us down a path where the Holy Spirit works upon our souls and purifies our hearts. Where we fall short Jesus makes up the difference and we become worthy and able to live in heaven where God dwells. A place where peace, harmony, unity, and righteousness exist.
I suggest you read the OT and lookup the basics on sin atonement. Even if through some miracle Jesus was an extraordinary sacrifice that atones for all sins, then this sacrifice could only atone for sins committed prior to the sacrifice, not for sins after the sacrifice for people born after the sacrifice. You guys can't put the OT and NT in the same book (Holy Bible) and then ignore the most basic laws set up by Yahweh in the OT, while at the same time claiming Jesus is Yahweh in flesh. But regarding the specific paragraph you wrote, there is nothing in the Bible which supports the idea that one needs to believe that a sacrifice occurred in order for that sacrifice to atone for his sins. What you keep repeating over and over again is just classic church doctrine.

mightyporgy
12-23-2018, 02:42 PM
Read some Spinoza

sawoobley
12-23-2018, 03:31 PM
This seems like a classic case of special pleading, how we're unable to understand God's actions through "human" reasoning and logic. But I'm afraid that's a cop-out. The Old Testament God orders massacres of men, women, and children. He also supports slavery on many occasions, and encourages taking captive female spoils of war. The God of the New Testament is the complete opposite, yet we're supposed to believe it's the same God now in "flesh". It makes zero sense, and the time period excuse doesn't cut it IMO. And while we're at it... why do Christians say that Jesus never killed anyone? If he is God, and the same God of the OT, then Jesus did indeed order massacres of men, women and children.

You misunderstand. I never said we are unable to understand God's actions through human reasoning. Only that we must try and think like God, an eternal all-powerful and benevolent being who looks at things on a much grander scale. God never supports slavery. He allows it and gives commandments which effectively phases it out. Yes, God orders certain people to be massacred who wage a blood oath against Him and His people. Yet, the massacres and genocides are never carried out or attempted too as ordered which suggest the Israelites understood God's command differently than if they same things were said to us.

The question is whether God has the right to order the death of certain people and if His orders are just. I would say yes He has the right as God and given who he ordered to die and why, yes He acted rightly if you think about it.


I don't think it's mysterious at all. I think a strong case can be made that it is non-Biblical and was made up by the Church in order to resolve inconsistencies between Jesus and God. Without the Trinity, you'd have trouble explaining how Jesus can say "I and the Father are One" and then later "My Father is greater than I", but with the made-up Trinity you have a cool explanation, how with the former he was speaking as God and in the latter he was speaking as a human, and how he's both 100% God and 100% man. Although the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are used in the Bible, there is no explicit mention of the Holy Trinity, nor a teaching how these three are all "one", nor how belief in it is necessary for salvation. Look at the Athanasian creed which explains Trinity in detail, and show me something remotely close to that in the Bible.

I don't have a lot of disagreement with you here. I don't see the point of rehashing my disagreements with how some people perceive the Trinity.


The sacrifice of Jesus is invalid according to the OT, for many reasons. So it is invalid by the laws of God who inspired the OT. The OT requires that the sacrifice be without any physical blemish, yet Jesus was beaten, whipped, dragged before being crucified. The OT says that sacrificial sin only atones for unintentional sins (with some exceptions), and sins only committed prior to the sacrifice, not future sins. The OT also forbids human sacrifices, yet Jesus was both God AND man. There are other problems as well. I'd argue Jews rejected the NT precisely because of their correct understand of the OT. I can provide verses for what I'm saying.

You are taking the sacrifices of the old Testament far too literally. The sacrifice of an animal without any physical blemish is to represent the sacrifice of Jesus who was without sin, without any blemish on His soul. Clearly God cares more about what is in a man's soul and heart compared to the outward appearance of his physical body.

The OT makes plenty of references to atonement for intentional sins: Leviticus 6:2,6 Leviticus 19: 20-22 Leviticus 5:5-6. The symbolism applies to the individual of the time who the sacrifice is made for. It is to look forward to the atonement of Christ and salvation. It was not meant to be an all-encompassing symbolism to teach all which can be taught about the subject. They could have inferred those things had they pondered about it themselves.

Of course the OT forbids human sacrifices. No man has the right to take the life of another. What was done to Jesus was wrong and frankly an outrage considering the laws that were broken to carry out His execution. The circumstances of Jesus's unjust murder was a necessary part of God's plan. God uses the wicked to accomplish His work. Notwithstanding all of that a sacrifice of a sinful human being would not be very good symbolism for atonement since such a sacrifice would be invalid. Can one sinful man atone for the sins of another and satisfy God's law? No!


You are talking basic theology. I'm aware of all that. It's just that it doesn't make sense looking at the larger picture. It's just repeating various mantras without addressing the issues. His mortal life was clearly not sacrificed if he was raised both physically and spiritually from the dead. Something's wrong with this picture. It doesn't make sense neither logically nor biblically.

His mortal life was clearly sacrificed as He was no longer mortal after His death. I think you are focusing too much on His death and not enough on the sacrifice of mind, body, spirit etc. Hence the blood dripping from every pore in Gethsemane and the additional agony suffered on the cross.


More of the same. Yes, I'm aware of what Franklin Graham and others are preaching. The problem is, the biblical God has stated that only unintentional sins can be atoned for, with very few exceptions listed in Leviticus. And only sins prior to the sacrifice. That's only a small part of the problem. Either way, there was never a necessity to accept/believe in a sacrifice in order for it to be valid, which is why the following you wrote makes no sense...

See response above. What you are saying makes no sense. A faithful Israelite would not follow the law of Moses or offer up sacrifices if they did not believe or have faith. The purpose of the law of Moses and their rituals was to point their hearts towards Christ and that future event when the Savior would come and save them from their sins. They trusted in the spirit of prophecy from those who taught them the law and about things which were to be.


I suggest you read the OT and lookup the basics on sin atonement. Even if through some miracle Jesus was an extraordinary sacrifice that atones for all sins, then this sacrifice could only atone for sins committed prior to the sacrifice, not for sins after the sacrifice for people born after the sacrifice. You guys can't put the OT and NT in the same book (Holy Bible) and then ignore the most basic laws set up by Yahweh in the OT, while at the same time claiming Jesus is Yahweh in flesh. But regarding the specific paragraph you wrote, there is nothing in the Bible which supports the idea that one needs to believe that a sacrifice occurred in order for that sacrifice to atone for his sins. What you keep repeating over and over again is just classic church doctrine.

If you accept the Jewish interpretation of the bible then follow them.

It is a little bewildering to me how you are trying to place restrictions about what God could do through Jesus. How is it logical in you mind to say God who knows the past, present, and future could not put the sins of all mankind (past, present, and future) on Jesus when He was on the earth?

The sacrifices in the OT applied to the people of that time period. It is what they were commanded to do as they waited for the atonement to occur. After the atonement there was no reason to look forward but rather to look back, hence the reason to institute the sacrament of the blood and wine.

SteadyWayfarer
12-23-2018, 03:33 PM
Seems like Deism a bit to me. At that point it just seems like you are looking to believe in something more than yourself and the natural World. I don't see a problem with it, if it somehow helps you, but I don't see any evidence, or how you would technically prove why Deism is more likely than the God of any other religion. Sure the religious texts have errors and contradictions, but one could argue that it's because of the fallibility of the men that recorded the errors, and not their God, and then you would be in the same faith-based, lack of evidence position as all the other religious people.

iifymbro
12-23-2018, 03:48 PM
it's called being agnostic, although that's maybe a bit too neutral for your stance

CalmWind
12-23-2018, 04:41 PM
Jesus being the God of the Old Testament now "in flesh" is absurd, as they are nothing alike.

The entire OT is a foreshadowing of the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ. I can show you many things in the OT that point to Jesus in the future. It all fits in perfectly.

For example,

During the Jewish Passover, when the Jews were slaves in Egypt, and God was sending curses upon the Pharoah and all of Egypt.... the Angels of God told the Jews to mark their foreheads and their doors with the blood of a lamb.... so that when the angel of death sees it, it will pass over their house and leave them alone.

Do you know what that symbol was? It was the letter Tav. In ancient Hebrew. Do you know what the ancient Tav looks like?

If you had a time machine, and went back in time to that night, you would have seen Jews drawing CROSSES on their foreheads. The blood of the lamb painted in the sign of a Cross to protect them.

https://i.imgur.com/p0l6Ejt.jpg



The former is a violent, vengeful God who even orders the deaths of innocent men women and children. The latter, supposedly the same God now in flesh, wants you to reject eye for an eye and turn the other cheek. Yet, they are the same God...... because of the concept known as Trinity which is never explicitly mentioned in the Bible, a concept rejected by early Christians (and for good reason).

You're an idiot, srs.

God never commanded the death of any innocent man or woman or child.

If you're talking about the wars in the Old Testament, where God commanded the Israelite army to kill every living thing in the town, it was because they weren't humans.

They were the spawn of Nephilim, and they were inherently evil abominations that were corrupting humanity. The reason to kill all of the inhabitants IN THOSE PARTICULAR CITIES IN CANAAN, was to cleanse it.




But purely logically speaking, without taking scripture into account, the sacrifice itself is incoherent, since nothing was sacrificed, as Jesus was resurrected, and is alive both in spirit and flesh. Nothing was permanently lost when Jesus was crucified... so what was it that atoned for sins? Especially future sins?

Again, you're an idiot. srs. You have no understanding of entry level basic Christianity.


Jesus' sacrifice was to bear the punishment for our sins. Why? Because SOMEONE HAD TO BE PUNISHED FOR OUR SINS or else there is no Justice, and God would be mocked as Creator. Sinners had to be punished. But, Jesus took the punishment in place of us.






One step further... what kind of sacrifice requires someone to accept it, in order for that sacrifice to be valid?
It makes zero sense. None of it.

Just... lol.

My gosh.

I feel embarrassed for you.

numberguy12
12-23-2018, 05:00 PM
^^^ gymnastics on cue, as predicted. LOL

CalmWind
12-23-2018, 05:03 PM
^^^^ dismissive attitude, no substance to posts

predictable

Dorich
12-23-2018, 05:08 PM
The entire OT is a foreshadowing of the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ. I can show you many things in the OT that point to Jesus in the future. It all fits in perfectly.
No, it does not. Nothing fits. The OT and NT have been forced to fit together, but they only "fit" artificially. The "prophecies" you can cite have been refuted by Jews years ago. And there is nothing in the OT which talks about the necessity for a man-god to come and take away everyone's sins. Most of the things I said in earlier posts clearly went over your head, obviously.


For example,

During the Jewish Passover, when the Jews were slaves in Egypt, and God was sending curses upon the Pharoah and all of Egypt.... the Angels of God told the Jews to mark their foreheads and their doors with the blood of a lamb.... so that when the angel of death sees it, it will pass over their house and leave them alone.

Do you know what that symbol was? It was the letter Tav. In ancient Hebrew. Do you know what the ancient Tav looks like?

If you had a time machine, and went back in time to that night, you would have seen Jews drawing CROSSES on their foreheads. The blood of the lamb painted in the sign of a Cross to protect them.
Which has nothing to do with anything. But more importantly, the paschal/passover lamb was never offered to remove sins. It was actually a festive offering, lol. Yet, Christians will refer to Jesus as the passover lamb, which is incoherent, not to mention the fact that a better time for the sin offering would've been on the Day of Atonement / Yom Kippur.


You're an idiot, srs.
Turn the other cheek please.


God never commanded the death of any innocent man or woman or child.
Yes, he did, plenty of times. You obviously never read the Bible.


If you're talking about the wars in the Old Testament, where God commanded the Israelite army to kill every living thing in the town, it was because they weren't humans.

They were the spawn of Nephilim, and they were inherently evil abominations that were corrupting humanity. The reason to kill all of the inhabitants IN THOSE PARTICULAR CITIES IN CANAAN, was to cleanse it.
Lol... the babies, too? How pathetic of an excuse to justify murder. What about the command to put to death anyone who goes on to worship "other gods", aka the killing of apostates almost exactly like in Shariah Law, by stoning them to death? You live in a fantasy world.


Again, you're an idiot. srs.
Turn the other cheek please.


You have no understanding of entry level basic Christianity.
That would be you, actually.


Jesus' sacrifice was to bear the punishment for our sins. Why? Because SOMEONE HAD TO BE PUNISHED FOR OUR SINS or else there is no Justice, and God would be mocked as Creator. Sinners had to be punished. But, Jesus took the punishment in place of us.
Nothing in the OT indicates this. And even in the NT, aside from Paul's teachings (which are very suspicious), you will not find Jesus' specific words aside from "I am the way" (which you guys are twisting to fit your narrative) which indicate what you just stated. At one point, Jesus was asked directly how to gain eternal life, and he gave an entirely different answer today's preachers would give...

Luke 10:25-28 New International Version (NIV)

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

Pretty straightforward question, and straightforward answer. No need to believe in Trinity, no need to believe in Jesus as God, no need to believe in Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice either.

You guys are following the teachings of Paul, not Jesus.


Just... lol.

My gosh.

I feel embarrassed for you.
You have not made a single statement worthy of anything. You're a joke.

numberguy12
12-23-2018, 05:10 PM
^^^^ dismissive attitude, no substance to posts

predictable

Already explained in my earlier post why not going into specific contradictions in the Bible (there are too many to count, google is your friend): Because no matter what anyone says, apologists like you will perform your strange mental gymnastics, leading to very, very unconvincing, and to be frank, incorrect, rebuttals. From previous discussions in other threads, I know it's not worth the time.

Dorich
12-23-2018, 05:17 PM
To add to my previous post, the OT is so incompatible with the NT that it's not even funny. The entire passage of Ezekiel 18 refutes not only the original sin concept but also pokes holes in the "you need God to die for you so you can be saved" concept:

1Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 2“What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:

‘The fathers eat sour grapes,

but the children’s teeth are set on edge’?

3As surely as I live, declares the Lord GOD, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. 4Behold, every soul belongs to Me; both father and son are Mine. The soul who sins is the one who will die.

5Now suppose a man is righteous and does what is just and right:

6‘He does not eat at the mountain

or look to the idols of the house of Israel.

He does not defile his neighbor’s wife

or approach a woman during her period.

7He does not oppress another,

but returns his pledge to the debtor.

He does not commit robbery,

but gives his bread to the hungry

and covers the naked with clothing.

8He does not engage in usury

or take excess interest,

but he keeps his hand from iniquity

and executes true justice between men.

9He follows My statutes

and faithfully keeps My ordinances;

he is righteous;

surely he will live,’

declares the Lord GOD.

10Now suppose that man has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these things, 11though the father has done none of them:

‘Indeed, the son eats at the mountain

and defiles his neighbor’s wife.

12He oppresses the poor and needy,

he commits robbery and does not restore a pledge.

He lifts his eyes to idols;

he commits abominations.

13He engages in usury

and takes excess interest.’

Will this son live? He will not! Since he has committed all these abominations, he will surely die; his blood will be on his own head.

14Now suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father has committed, considers them, and does not do likewise:

15‘He does not eat at the mountain

or look to the idols of the house of Israel.

He does not defile his neighbor’s wife.

16He does not oppress another,

or retain a pledge, or commit robbery.

He gives his bread to the hungry

and covers the naked with clothing.

17He withholds his hand from iniquitya

and takes no interest or usury.

He keeps My ordinances

and follows My statutes.’

Such a man will not die for his father’s iniquity. He will surely live.

18As for his father, he will die for his own iniquity, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother, and did what was wrong among his people.

19Yet you may ask, ‘Why should the son not bear the iniquity of the father?’

Since the son has done what is just and right, carefully observing all My statutes, he will surely live.

20The soul who sins is the one who will die. A son will not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father will not bear the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will fall upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked man will fall upon him.

21But if the wicked man turns from all the sins he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. 22None of the transgressions he has committed will be held against him. Because of the righteousness he has practiced, he will live. 23Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Lord GOD. Would I not prefer he turn from his ways and live?

24But when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and practices iniquity, committing the same abominations as the wicked, will he live? None of the righteous acts he did will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness and sin he has committed, he will die.

25Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’

Hear now, O house of Israel: Is it My way that is unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust?

26When a righteous man turns from his righteousness and practices iniquity, he will die for this. He will die because of the iniquity he has committed.

27But if a wicked man turns from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he will save his life. 28Because he considered and turned from all the transgressions he had committed, he will surely live; he will not die.

29Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’

Are My ways unjust, O house of Israel? Is it not your ways that are unjust?

30Therefore, O house of Israel, I will judge you, each according to his ways, declares the Lord GOD. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, so that your iniquity will not become your downfall. 31Cast away from yourselves all the transgressions you have committed, and fashion for yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. Why should you die, O house of Israel?

32For I take no pleasure in anyone’s death, declares the Lord GOD. So repent and live!

Dorich
12-23-2018, 05:34 PM
You misunderstand. I never said we are unable to understand God's actions through human reasoning. Only that we must try and think like God, an eternal all-powerful and benevolent being who looks at things on a much grander scale. God never supports slavery. He allows it and gives commandments which effectively phases it out. Yes, God orders certain people to be massacred who wage a blood oath against Him and His people. Yet, the massacres and genocides are never carried out or attempted too as ordered which suggest the Israelites understood God's command differently than if they same things were said to us.
Actually, God does support slavery. I can cite you the verses which are pretty straightforward. Furthermore, he did order mass killings to be carried out, and has also ordered death to apostates, and taking female spoils of war captive. It makes no sense for this God to be the God of the New Testament, and frankly it makes no sense for him to have such human attributes, full of anger, aggression, jealousy, and even sadism.


The question is whether God has the right to order the death of certain people and if His orders are just. I would say yes He has the right as God and given who he ordered to die and why, yes He acted rightly if you think about it.
Just because he has "power" doesn't mean everything he does is just. Eternal punishment for finite transgressions is unjust, for example. No matter how you slice it and dice it, it is unjust.


I don't have a lot of disagreement with you here. I don't see the point of rehashing my disagreements with how some people perceive the Trinity.
Fair enough.


You are taking the sacrifices of the old Testament far too literally. The sacrifice of an animal without any physical blemish is to represent the sacrifice of Jesus who was without sin, without any blemish on His soul. Clearly God cares more about what is in a man's soul and heart compared to the outward appearance of his physical body.
Now you are just in other words saying that the laws of the OT in regards to sacrifice are insignificant and shouldn't apply to Jesus. But there is no strong argument to support this.


The OT makes plenty of references to atonement for intentional sins: Leviticus 6:2,6 Leviticus 19: 20-22 Leviticus 5:5-6. The symbolism applies to the individual of the time who the sacrifice is made for. It is to look forward to the atonement of Christ and salvation. It was not meant to be an all-encompassing symbolism to teach all which can be taught about the subject. They could have inferred those things had they pondered about it themselves.
I did mention exceptions in Leviticus, but they are irrelevant in this case. If you dig into Levitical law, you see that there is forgiveness not only through blood sacrifice, but also through water, burning flour, money, releasing an animal into the wild, or anointing with oil. The vast majority of Christians are unaware of this.


Of course the OT forbids human sacrifices. No man has the right to take the life of another. What was done to Jesus was wrong and frankly an outrage considering the laws that were broken to carry out His execution. The circumstances of Jesus's unjust murder was a necessary part of God's plan. God uses the wicked to accomplish His work. Notwithstanding all of that a sacrifice of a sinful human being would not be very good symbolism for atonement since such a sacrifice would be invalid. Can one sinful man atone for the sins of another and satisfy God's law? No!
You are twisting it to mean that a man cannot sacrifice another man, but that's not what is said. It is said that human sacrifices are prohibited. If Jesus was both God and man, there are obviously issues, especially taking into account everything else I mentioned.


His mortal life was clearly sacrificed as He was no longer mortal after His death. I think you are focusing too much on His death and not enough on the sacrifice of mind, body, spirit etc. Hence the blood dripping from every pore in Gethsemane and the additional agony suffered on the cross.
How was it sacrificed if he resurrected physically, and is alive both in flesh and spirit? What was it that is "permanently gone" after the crucifixion? What was permanently sacrificed on the cross which atones for every single sin of all humankind, past present and future?


See response above. What you are saying makes no sense. A faithful Israelite would not follow the law of Moses or offer up sacrifices if they did not believe or have faith. The purpose of the law of Moses and their rituals was to point their hearts towards Christ and that future event when the Savior would come and save them from their sins. They trusted in the spirit of prophecy from those who taught them the law and about things which were to be.
There is nothing in the OT which indicates the need for such a thing, except extreme mental gymnastics, the twisting of various passages.


If you accept the Jewish interpretation of the bible then follow them.
No, I reject the traditional interpretations of all three Abrahamic religions.


It is a little bewildering to me how you are trying to place restrictions about what God could do through Jesus. How is it logical in you mind to say God who knows the past, present, and future could not put the sins of all mankind (past, present, and future) on Jesus when He was on the earth?
It's not me putting restrictions. It is the God of the Old Testament.


The sacrifices in the OT applied to the people of that time period. It is what they were commanded to do as they waited for the atonement to occur. After the atonement there was no reason to look forward but rather to look back, hence the reason to institute the sacrament of the blood and wine.
So what is the point of the world continuing? If Jesus' death atoned for all sins, past present and future... why are we still here?

Dorich
12-23-2018, 05:44 PM
Seems like Deism a bit to me. At that point it just seems like you are looking to believe in something more than yourself and the natural World. I don't see a problem with it, if it somehow helps you, but I don't see any evidence, or how you would technically prove why Deism is more likely than the God of any other religion. Sure the religious texts have errors and contradictions, but one could argue that it's because of the fallibility of the men that recorded the errors, and not their God, and then you would be in the same faith-based, lack of evidence position as all the other religious people.
I'm not into looking for scientific evidence which proves that a creator exists outside of the physical universe.

I already believe in a God and divine intervention, like I said in the OP, because of personal experiences, private which I'd rather not share.

I'm just looking to see if there are belief systems which make sense, unlike traditional interpretations of Abrahamic religions which are downright insulting.