Jesus names as evil those who think his Father would break heavenly law and have him

[Greatest I am]

I posted earlier in the thread, and it was a bit wordy, so I deleted it ...

I think Greater, if Christianity came about more as a means to honoring an ''ordinary'' man who was executed based on his rejection of religion (legalism, at the time), which could be the accurate tale, instead of the story that Christianity puts forth, and that is that Jesus was divine (one with God), and died for original sin/your sin, etc... -- you'd feel less angry over it.

When I first started reading your posts, I didn't understand why you were suggesting that God is an evil sadistic despot, who relishes in people sacrificing themselves for him. lol Now, I see your point. In other words, if someone follows the Bible/Christianity as literal truth (in your opinion) they are in essence, worshipping 'that kind of God.'

Exactly. Despot and slave master.

I just replied to another who went on about God giving A & E free will. He said that they had a choice of either being a slave to sin or a slave to God.

I asked him a question that Christians who promote that kind of slavery always run from.

I asked that if A & E had free will as we all do, why could they not chose to follow neither and be slave to their own free will.

He did not return with an answer.

Oh well. I have a knack for ending discussions abruptly.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Read some of the Gnostic books. There was one that liken the crucified Jesus to the Tree of Life and how he became the fruit of the Tree of Life, and we can "eat" him and live forever. If you really want to taste the fruit of the Tree of Life now is your opportunity, at the moment it is free of charge, a complete gift to you, but wait there's more ....

Slavery, cannibalism, washing in blood, human sacrifice etc. You guys never quit do you in trying to return humanity to barbarism.

Regards
DL

 

[Robittybob1]

Slavery, cannibalism, washing in blood, human sacrifice etc. You guys never quit do you in trying to return humanity to barbarism.

Regards
DL

What does it mean to you to eat Jesus' flesh and to drink his blood? What does this mean to you? You seem to think it is a form of cannibalism? No wonder you are as screwed-up as you are. You should become normal like me.
Maybe even come for dinner one Sunday.

 

[Great Old One]

What does it mean to you to eat Jesus' flesh and to drink his blood? What does this mean to you? You seem to think it is a form of cannibalism? No wonder you are as screwed-up as you are. You should become normal like me.
Maybe even come for dinner one Sunday.

It is an odd symbol for sure. Doesn't it mean to eat Jesus's flesh and drink his blood?

Some hold that this practice actually is sort of a minor miracle, nourishing a spiritual self...literally, although mystically feeding YOU.

The practice has certainly taken on a life of its own and historically has been used for exclusion, retention of power, etc...

It's not, 'normal' in the sense of natural although certainly a lot of people do it.

The disturbing 'cannibal' aspect IMO is this when it comes time to partake:

Jesus says, "If you do not sin, I died for nothing. Sin and replenish yourself through my sacrifice as an example of ritual slaughter".

 

[Greatest I am]

What does it mean to you to eat Jesus' flesh and to drink his blood? What does this mean to you? You seem to think it is a form of cannibalism? No wonder you are as screwed-up as you are. You should become normal like me.
Maybe even come for dinner one Sunday.

Don't you think we can move to the nomenclature of today instead of 2000 years ago to express our spirituality?

If Jesus returned do you think he would be pleased to see himself on a cross everywhere as Christians celebrate his murder so that they can shed their responsibilities onto Jesus as their scapegoat?

Jesus said bring the children to me and you think he would follow his Father and say put my chid to death because I want a blood sacrifice?

You would not make a good father and you make God just as vile of a father.

Regards
DL

 

[Robittybob1]

It is an odd symbol for sure. Doesn't it mean to eat Jesus's flesh and drink his blood?

Some hold that this practice actually is sort of a minor miracle, nourishing a spiritual self...literally, although mystically feeding YOU.

The practice has certainly taken on a life of its own and historically has been used for exclusion, retention of power, etc...

It's not, 'normal' in the sense of natural although certainly a lot of people do it.

The disturbing 'cannibal' aspect IMO is this when it comes time to partake:

Jesus says, "If you do not sin, I died for nothing. Sin and replenish yourself through my sacrifice as an example of ritual slaughter".

No, to me to eat his flesh and to drink his blood is to imitate his life and to follow his sayings, both in body and spirit. Body being the flesh and spirit being the blood.
To follow him in body and spirit is eating and drinking my Lord. Nothing enters my mouth at all. All the rest is a reminder of what we should do.

"If you do not sin, I died for nothing. Sin and replenish yourself through my sacrifice as an example of ritual slaughter". is similar to my "You sin when you sin-not. Do what is right and trust in the Lord to forgive."

 

[Aqueous Id]

It is an odd symbol for sure. Doesn't it mean to eat Jesus's flesh and drink his blood?

Some hold that this practice actually is sort of a minor miracle, nourishing a spiritual self...literally, although mystically feeding YOU.

In the early Christian church (before some of the Protestants ended the ritual) is was (an in the remaining branches still is) practiced as a sacrament.

The practice has certainly taken on a life of its own

I think it's one of the oldest of rituals that distinguish Christians from other religions. It merely seems to have been handed down, like all other religious ideas.

and historically has been used for exclusion, retention of power, etc...

How so? The congregations were (and are) encouraged to participate. It's one of the focal points of all Christian worship since its inception.

It's not, 'normal' in the sense of natural although certainly a lot of people do it.

Of course it's normal to eat bread and drink wine. That leaves it to the individual to decide what the ritual means beyond the innocuous physical act. If I'm not mistaken they go through some kind of training to prepare them psychologically for how to interpret what it means.

The disturbing 'cannibal' aspect IMO is this when it comes time to partake:
Jesus says, "If you do not sin, I died for nothing. Sin and replenish yourself through my sacrifice as an example of ritual slaughter".

I don't make the connection to cannibalism, but to the difference between older rituals of animal sacrifice and this newer relatively harmless practice. This resembles a Bible quote but I'm assuming it's your interpretation. It's a little oblique so I didn't quite follow you.

 

[Great Old One]

No, to me to eat his flesh and to drink his blood is to imitate his life and to follow his sayings, both in body and spirit. Body being the flesh and spirit being the blood.
To follow him in body and spirit is eating and drinking my Lord. Nothing enters my mouth at all. All the rest is a reminder of what we should do.

I'm thinking more of 'transubstantiation' in terms of the 'minor miracle'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

I know this is not common amongst all facets of Christianity. In the protestant setting I am most aware of it is just like you said...more like a, 'pious reminder' to follow in Jesus's footsteps.

"If you do not sin, I died for nothing. Sin and replenish yourself through my sacrifice as an example of ritual slaughter". is similar to my "You sin when you sin-not. Do what is right and trust in the Lord to forgive."

I don't see your interpretation as evil or bad or anything from your perspective...and I would like to say for my own belief that I think the teachings of Jesus in terms of how people should generally behave seem obviously true, and without need of verification by witnessing a miraculous 'rising from the dead'. Still, as a whole I find the symbolic practice of the sacraments odd/disturbing which I will spell out my personal take in a subsequent post because I see somebody else has commented on the specifics of what I said as well

My comment on 'if you do not sin I died for nothing' refers to my feeling that Jesus is held up as a sacrifice when that was not required (Jesus's death on the cross IMO).

 

[Great Old One]

How so? The congregations were (and are) encouraged to participate. It's one of the focal points of all Christian worship since its inception.

I'm referring to the withholding of the sacraments to people who were found heretical or fell out of favor with the powers that were.

I don't make the connection to cannibalism, but to the difference between older rituals of animal sacrifice and this newer relatively harmless practice. This resembles a Bible quote but I'm assuming it's your interpretation. It's a little oblique so I didn't quite follow you.

There used to be sacrifices to atone for bad acts, like say a murder with an unknown perpetrator. They would go to the nearest town (supposedly) and sacrifice a cow and ask God to not hold the murder against them (this part is actually in the bible, but I don't have a quick reference on hand although I am sure one could be produced). Personally, I see a parallel between this line of thinking and looking at Jesus as a 'perfect sacrifice' who died for the sins of mankind.

I don't think that Jesus would have intended this ritual to take on the life that it did. My statement was not a bible quote. It's in reference to my take on the analogy of Jesus as the sacrifice which atones for the sins of mankind like the sacrificed cow might have for the murder where the murderer was unknown.

I don't think that Christian's take in mind that they are doing cannibalism or anything...certainly not. But they are indeed perpetuating the idea that Jesus was a sacrifice that atoned for mans sin. The ritualistic sacraments to me appear as symbols that it would be OK for a person to serve as a sacrifice in this way. I have always had trouble with the idea that you could sacrifice something else, not of your own, to make up for a problem you created.

Bundling up the idea of Jesus as the son of God conjures the bizarre idea that God would give up his son in a sacrifice, horrific to me, and the followers who take comfort in this by taking the sacraments are, to me, doing symbolic cannibalism because they are enjoying the spiritual rewards of a human sacrifice and in practice ingesting symbols like 'the body of Christ' and 'the blood of Christ'.

Obviously this is not the way the Christians have seen this, but I find it disturbing.

I think it goes beyond replicating the fellowship of the last supper and remembering Jesus in terms of the symbols and words involved...this is my subjective take.

 

[Robittybob1]

I'm thinking more of 'transubstantiation' in terms of the 'minor miracle'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

I know this is not common amongst all facets of Christianity. In the protestant setting I am most aware of it is just like you said...more like a, 'pious reminder' to follow in Jesus's footsteps.



I don't see your interpretation as evil or bad or anything from your perspective...and I would like to say for my own belief that I think the teachings of Jesus in terms of how people should generally behave seem obviously true, and without need of verification by witnessing a miraculous 'rising from the dead'. Still, as a whole I find the symbolic practice of the sacraments odd/disturbing which I will spell out my personal take in a subsequent post because I see somebody else has commented on the specifics of what I said as well

My comment on 'if you do not sin I died for nothing' refers to my feeling that Jesus is held up as a sacrifice when that was not required (Jesus's death on the cross IMO).

Transubstantiation is baloney to me. By taking emblems it is confirming your vow to follow in body and spirit. The best we see in most cases is in "Name".
You ought to look at the two prophetical statements about sin and forgiveness and work out what they mean. I don't think you got it yet.
Where did this phrase come from? "If you do not sin, I died for nothing. Sin and replenish yourself through my sacrifice as an example of ritual slaughter".

 

[Great Old One]

Transubstantiation is baloney to me.

I agree.

By taking emblems it is confirming your vow to follow in body and spirit. The best we see in most cases is in "Name".
You ought to look at the two prophetical statements about sin and forgiveness and work out what they mean. I don't think you got it yet.
Where did this phrase come from? "If you do not sin, I died for nothing. Sin and replenish yourself through my sacrifice as an example of ritual slaughter".

I explained my view at length. If it means nothing to you don't worry about it.

 

[Robittybob1]

I agree.



I explained my view at length. If it means nothing to you don't worry about it.

So I re-read it and it is your own feelings. OK so you might be like me coming up with these prophetic statements.
Mine are words from a dream but if your words are from your heart that is fine, they gel with me.

 

[Great Old One]

So I re-read it and it is your own feelings. OK so you might be like me coming up with these prophetic statements.
Mine are words from a dream but if your words are from your heart that is fine, they gel with me.

I'm not attempting to share mystic wisdom. I have none. I struggle like any curious person to understand life. I can attribute no importance to my comments beyond whatever lead up to you reading them.

You're words are from a dream? These?
"You sin when you sin-not. Do what is right and trust in the Lord to forgive."

What do you think that means?

The only religiously interesting dreams I've had were quite dark. Something I had attributed to...well I have no idea.

 

[Robittybob1]

I'm not attempting to share mystic wisdom. I have none. I struggle like any curious person to understand life. I can attribute no importance to my comments beyond whatever lead up to you reading them.

You're words are from a dream? These?
"You sin when you sin-not. Do what is right and trust in the Lord to forgive."

What do you think that means?

The only religiously interesting dreams I've had were quite dark. Something I had attributed to...well I have no idea.

It is virtually synonymous with ""If you do not sin, I died for nothing. Sin and replenish yourself through my sacrifice"

What "You sin when you sin-not. Do what is right and trust in the Lord to forgive." means to me is that we must not concern ourselves whether something is sin but whether what we should do is the right thing.
Like if the right thing to do was to do something, but it might contravene some Law (like one of the 10 commandments), it is sin if you don't break the commandment. For the only reason you wouldn't break the commandment was that you didn't trust in the sacrifice made by Jesus, you didn't show that you trusted that God would forgive you.

As I see the Church today they accept (they say) that Jesus has died for the sin of the World, but everyone is still scared to sin (when doing good) for they are still bound back in the Old testament days of following some of the Laws of Moses (but not all of them).

Would you murder someone who was stabbing your wife? - If you hesitated and thought; "No I can't for murder is a sin", and your wife dies, it is you who has sinned more than the murderer. Do what is right and trust that the Lord will forgive.

 

[Greatest I am]

I'm thinking more of 'transubstantiation' in terms of the 'minor miracle'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

I know this is not common amongst all facets of Christianity. In the protestant setting I am most aware of it is just like you said...more like a, 'pious reminder' to follow in Jesus's footsteps.



I don't see your interpretation as evil or bad or anything from your perspective...and I would like to say for my own belief that I think the teachings of Jesus in terms of how people should generally behave seem obviously true, and without need of verification by witnessing a miraculous 'rising from the dead'. Still, as a whole I find the symbolic practice of the sacraments odd/disturbing which I will spell out my personal take in a subsequent post because I see somebody else has commented on the specifics of what I said as well

My comment on 'if you do not sin I died for nothing' refers to my feeling that Jesus is held up as a sacrifice when that was not required (Jesus's death on the cross IMO).

I read the sacrifice as God not only wanting to be our creator but so hungry for love and adoration that he wasted a son to pamper his over inflated ego.

There is a hymn that calls Adam's sin a necessary and a happy fault.

Strange how God wants to make sure that all heads end up, up his ass, so to speak.

Good morals are usually centered on others and here is God saying it is all about me.

[video=youtube;RmwqnqL3Hbg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmwqnqL3Hbg[/video]

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

I think it goes beyond replicating the fellowship of the last supper and remembering Jesus in terms of the symbols and words involved...this is my subjective take.

My kingdom for such eloquence. You are a pleasure to read and I wish I had your education. Now I know two that humble me. How sweet life is becoming. I would not give up the way I think but would tweak the expression.

The last super is a great show of fellowship the way most Christians see it for sure. Unfortunately, if you look at the actual language of the passing of the sop to Judas, you will realize that Jesus is begging his best of friends and disciples to betray him. In a sense that is the greatest fellowship between Jesus and Judas but not between the others who ate but could not be counted on to do for Jesus what he craved.

Post 37 has two clips that relate to this.

I find it interesting that Christian have chosen to think that Jesus made a mistake in choosing his disciples and would have ended with a traitor instead of a BFF.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

You ought to look at the two prophetical statements about sin and forgiveness and work out what they mean. I don't think you got it yet.
Where did this phrase come from? "If you do not sin, I died for nothing. Sin and replenish yourself through my sacrifice as an example of ritual slaughter".

Your first is quite funny when speaking to one who can mop the floor with you in terms of getting most things.

To your last. Perhaps it was one of Martin Luther's. He had similarly stupid statements.

“Be a sinner and sin strongly, but more strongly have faith and rejoice in Christ.”

And my favorite and one that women especially like.

“If a woman grows weary and, at last, dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing - she is there to do it.”
- Martin Luther

Regards
DL

 

[wellwisher]

Have you embraced human sacrifice and do you plan to try to ride your scapegoat Jesus into heaven, --- on your way to hell?

One thing you left out in your logic is Jesus did not die, only his human body died. The traditions say he rose again. Your logic does not apply. You are arguing from the modern atheist POV that death is death and then ignore the traditions. You can't apply atheist rules to judge religion. This is like the revisionist history taught in atheist public schools. One uses the rules of today, to judge the past, thereby breaking the cause of effect of time.

It is like saying if a parent does not allow their children access to the internet, this is being mean. One hundred years ago, all parents did not allow their children access to the internet and therefore all parent of 100 years ago were mean. This is an example of revisionist history. One needs to remain within the context of a given time to maintain logic. In this proper time context, one would conclude the conclusion of all parents were mean due to no internet, does not apply to the parents of 100 years ago. The internet was not yet available.

 

[Greatest I am]

Would you murder someone who was stabbing your wife? - If you hesitated and thought; "No I can't for murder is a sin", and your wife dies, it is you who has sinned more than the murderer. Do what is right and trust that the Lord will forgive.

A poor example. That is not murder and no intelligent person would call it that and no one would be found culpable of anything except for the rapist.

Unlike God, man demands that you have an evil heart or intent when doing a crime and you obviously would have been motivated by defence and love and not an evil hating mind.

I would have thought that you would have known this. Perhaps you are a bit too Christian. They tend to have problems with moral issues.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

One thing you left out in your logic is Jesus did not die, only his human body died. The traditions say he rose again. Your logic does not apply. You are arguing from the modern atheist POV that death is death and then ignore the traditions. You can't apply atheist rules to judge religion. This is like the revisionist history taught in atheist public schools. One uses the rules of today, to judge the past, thereby breaking the cause of effect of time.

It is like saying if a parent does not allow their children access to the internet, this is being mean. One hundred years ago, all parents did not allow their children access to the internet and therefore all parent of 100 years ago were mean. This is an example of revisionist history. One needs to remain within the context of a given time to maintain logic. In this proper time context, one would conclude the conclusion of all parents were mean due to no internet, does not apply to the parents of 100 years ago. The internet was not yet available.

If only the human body dies and God was just riding it as one would ride a mule, then where is the sacrifice? So what if the mule dies? There are many more mules available to a God who can make many mules.

Further, who did Jesus sacrifice himself to?
To himself as the judge Father who is accepting a sacrifice or bribe to sell his just integrity. Right?

Is God giving us a good example of a judge by showing us he is a judger whose integrity can be bought off?

Would you trust such a judge to do good justice?

Only if you are as insane as he is.

Regards
DL