Original Sin?

The Original Sin ?
Sin never began in the garden of Eden; it began in heaven

Isaiah 14:12
How art thou falling from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cast down to the ground, which did weaken the nations!
For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:... (Sons of God, now)... and I will set also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north

It was Satan's ambition to be worshipped like God.
And now he is ready with his careful selected bride, educated by his own knowledge, (like Eve was)... with big buildings, big denominations, intellectual theology to deceive the whole world and become a god.
This is all heading up into the person of the antichrist, which is already crowned the vicar of God by his worldly-loving, scientific church.
She (refering to a woman as a type of the church), is made religious like him, and by his own interpretation of the Word of God as he did Eve, and as his son Cain did.
"Satan's son?".......Yes.
It's noteworthy to notice, at the beginning Seth and his children never went the scientific way. They were humble herdsmen, farmers, and so forth. But Cain's children did. Why? They were inspired by their father, the devil.
Cain's children were scientific; they were educated. They were the players of musical instruments, and the builders of cities.
Not one place in the Bible that Cain was ever called Adam's son.
Eve said; "I've gotten a man from the Lord", but thats because all life comes from God according to His laws...that if you plant a seed it has to grow.
God gives the increase.
The Bible said he was the son of that evil one: serpent's seed.
Notice what he did, and his thoughts.
He thought God dwelled in worldly beauty. Lucifer did that in heaven.
Sin never began in the garden of Eden; it began in heaven.... when Lucifer, the son of the morning, exalted himself in beauty and wanted a more beautiful kingdom than that of Michael. And he thought that God dwelled in beauty.
And notice Cain. He didn't want no blood sacrifice. He come down and offered the fruit of the fields of beauty upon his altar.
Very religious, done everything just exactly like Abel done, offered a sacrifice, fell down before God in worship, obedient in every way, but without the revelation of the Word. And the Word was from the beginning, God's plan. But God revealed by revelation the very thing that He vindicated and punctuated that that was right: not religion, not an altar, not belonging to church, not making a sacrifice, not being sincere, but by the revelation of the Word of God, God revealing to him that his mother Eve did not take a apple that a snake give her, but she had a sexual affair with the person of Satan in the form of the beast, the Serpent.
Not a reptile, but the smartest, subtlest of all the field, the image of man, only thing that the seed would mix in. Now, science is trying to find him. (The missing link between Man and the Apes), but they never will find him, because every bone in his body's changed. The Bible declares it to be so.

This is only a brief explanation of the real "original sin", and was taken from a message by Rev. William Branham titled "The God of this Evil Age", preached in 1965.
 
Last edited:
Godless said:
LOL!! you've got to be kidding! I know for sure now you hardly ever read your goddamn bible!!.

Mind you this is graphic. This are the instructions of what to do just to clean a bit of cum.

Leviticus:

15:16
And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even.
15:17
And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even.
15:18
The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even.

And if a chick is on her period wow!!

15:19
And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
15:20
And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.
15:21
And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
15:22
And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
15:23
And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even.

15:24
And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.
15:25
And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean.
15:26
Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation.
15:27
And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
15:28
But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean.
15:29
And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
15:30
And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.
15:31
Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle that is among them.

Now that!! is a isue agaist the natural phenomenon of just plain living.

BTW southstar,

I don't care about all the bull shiet you just wrote back! here is the issue as i see it: Two angels come to visit lot, and he gives them refuge in his house, correct? well why the hell would a host have to offer two virgin doughters to a croud, when supposedly the "omnipotent" jack ass upstairs sends two of his thugs to take care business, with us sinners? It's not a bit of thinking you have to do as to give up TWO OF YOUR DOUGHTERS to a croud only to please an unforgiving an unjustifiable god, for his actions. Is this MORAL in your blind liltle head?, is that morality of god?. Forgive me But that kind of morality I don't want it!!

Godless.
Click to expand...

Wow, if you had actually even read my reply you wouldn't even be saying this. No one in the Bible condoned Lot's action. No one claims it was moral, however, it really would be better if you would read the post.

On the same not however, since you are being so obstinate, I would like you remind you that for this same reason, the omnipotent God sent down His Son like a "lamb to the slaughter". Jesus didn't complain, stop being so adamant and just read the post, ok?
 
spidergoat said:
Original sin implies that as soon as we are born, there is some sin associated with us. Wether born into a law abiding society or not, babies are all born the same. So, to say humans are lawless does not really address this issue. What did a newborn baby do to deserve the label of "sinner"?
Click to expand...

I am afraid a lot of people have suddenly taken a liking to not reading my posts. I have already said, it is NOT Biblical and those who wish to say otherwise would have a hard time showing me any scripture that accuses infants.

I will restate again:

The Doctrine of Original Sin IS heresy.
 
spidergoat said:
I don't think there was ever a human community that didn't have a set of rules of conduct, even if they weren't written down. If laws were never violated there would be no need for them. In a situation with an absence of laws, people invent them. Almost by definition, humans are animals with laws.
Click to expand...

Lawless
1 : not regulated by or based on law
2 a : not restrained or controlled by law : UNRULY

Im afraid you are misunderstanding me. Lawless does not mean without law. As you can see from the definition, the laws are simply averted. That is what lawless means.

1 Timothy 1
8We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
 
Eve had a sexual affair with Satan? Wow, you really are something else..

--------------------

Maybe I need to clarifiy something here for you....
What I am saying is the Serpent species originaly was not a snake, but a humaniod, man-like race, the closest to man.....between man and the apes, and capable of interbreeding.
Satan is a spirit that inhabits a host....in this case the Serpent, and then later the serpent's offspring through Cain. He couldn't inhabit Adam as a host because Adam was made in the image of God, as a vessel for God's Spirit....
This is the result, or physical manifestation of the original sin which as I stated above really began in heaven when Lucifer desired a more beautifull kingdom than Micheal and passed this thinking to Eve to get her away from the protection of God's word in the garden that allowed Satan to infiltrate the human race.
 
Last edited:
And praytell, where did you get this novel information?

------------------

As I posted at the top of this page - This is only a brief explanation of the real "original sin", and was taken from a message by Rev. William Branham titled "The God of this Evil Age", preached in 1965.
William Branham was considered by millions to be the prophet that was to forerun the second coming of Christ, and had the most supernatural ministry since Jesus walked the earth. Being a prophet, this information was given to him by divine revealation.
 
Last edited:
Wow, and you believe this quack? That is not even Scripturally accurate why are you providing it?
 
It is written in the Word of God all throughout the bible - once you know where to look for it.
For a few examples -
Trees represent people, God (the word) was the tree of life.....(proverbs - the words of a rightous man are as the fruits of the tree of life)
You are the fruit or offsring of your mother - the friut of her womb.
Jesus called the pharisees "offsring of the serpent"
John the Baptist called them "generation of Vipers".....
Paul wrote "as the Serpent begiled Eve"....ect...
Begiled means seduced.
Proverbs say; " The ways of an adulterous woman - she eateth and wipeth her mouth and saith..I've done nothing."
In Genesis when God cursed them after the fall, she was cursed where she sinned.....not her mouth for eating some apple, but in her childbearing.....
This is a key revealation to unlocking the understanding of the rest of the scriptures.
 
Wow, you really do know how to take verses out of context.

"Generation of vipers" only referred to their tongues, which they used in blasphemy. This was an analogy to vipers, who are filled with poison. (See verses on the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit)
------------
"the serpent beguiled Eve"
More taking out of context? This word actually means "decieved".

3But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

Obviously he was not talking of any seduction, but of walking away from Christ.
-------
" The ways of an adulterous woman - she eateth and wipeth her mouth and saith..I've done nothing."

The Bible never says that Eve lied to God about eating the fruit. Actually, she told God that the serpent made her do it. There is a discrepancy here. The rest of your arguments follow the same error of taking verses out of context which I hope you will be able to reconcile.

In Christ,
 
I'm sorry you can't see it, not everyone will....
Man was made in the image of God...as the "Sons of God".
When the Serpent impegnated Eve with Cain this created another race called the "Sons of Men".
This then left two races, the godly line of Seth....with lifespans of over 900 years, and the carnal, fleshly, ungodly line of Cain....whose lifespans are not even recorded - look for yourself....The two races stayed seperate right up till before the flood....then they mixed.
Man as he is today....is a mixture, a triune being.
Body, spirit, and soul.
The difference today is on the inside....the soul.
The "Son's of God" today can receive revealation from God, and be led by the Spirit.....and the rest can not and will be deceived by denominations or their own ideas.
Paul wrote "They that are led by the Spirit of God are called the "Son's of God". It's that simple... God hides himself in such simplicity, from the wise and prudent and reveals Himself to Babes....(babies of God) or "Son's of God"...such as are willing to learn.
That is why Jesus called the Pharisee's the "offspring of the serpent"
They held to the traditions of Men, and denied the truth of the Word of God when it was revealed .
The beast was the original serpent, and as an animal...like the herd of pigs Jesus cast the legion of demons into....a host for evil spirits.

They do the same thing today - the mark in the forehead represents what you believe.....your doctrine, the mark in the right hand represents what you do..who you fellowship with, and shake hands in agreement with.....see, it's the right hand of fellowship.

For all the world will be deceived whose names where not written on the Lamb's book of Life from before the foundation of the world.
Please take time to look into what I've told you more closely, before you just laugh it off.
 
Last edited:
why are people arguing so much, do you all have different versions of the Bible or something? :D

the Bible is quite clear on this. the blame is put on eve. women are more evil as a result. everybody inherits the sin. Jesus had to die to get rid of the sin :rolleyes: .

as a result of what the Bible said about the sin being womens fault in Europe women were treated very badly and told they should be ashamed of their dress and even more so they're beauty. the should always ask for repentance for being a woman etc.

as quoted by Enyclopedia Biblica "Woman was represented as the door of hell, as the mother of all human ills. She should be ashamed at the very thought that she is a woman. She should live in continual penance on account of the curses she has brought upon the world. She should be ashamed of her dress for it is the memorial of her fall, she should be especially ashamed of her beauty for it is the most potent instrument of the devil........."

It is good for a man not to touch a woman,"13 "She gave one of the tree and I did eat",14 "But if they cannot contain let them marry for it is better to marry than to burn",15 "If a woman have concealed a seed, and born a male child; then she shall be unclean seven days................But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean
two weeks...",16 "...... For it is a shame for women to speak in the church ".17

READ SOURCES

13. ( I Corn 7:1)
14. (Genesis 3:12)
15. (1 Corn 7:7-9)
16. (Leviticus 12: 1-5)
17. ( Corn 14: 34-35)
 
@ Preacher X

I continually marvel at your impossible ignorance. The Bible never says "women are more evil".

Verses
13) You have left out: "Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me:"

As any ignorant person trying to twist what the Bible says, you take the phrase out of context to suit you. Obviously that statement was made in respect to previous topics raised on the issue of marriage. Don't be silly and make that mistake again.

14) This one is even sillier than the last. Does Eve not also blame the serpent for her trouble?

15) Another stupid attempt by you to take the verse out of context. The verse ends with "burn with passion." You obviously don't know that this is also written concerning marriage, telling the audience that marriage is better than being celibate and yet lusting. Don't make such a stupid mistake again.

16) This is your stupidest argument yet. The adjective 'unclean' simply refers to the "unavailability" of the mother for sex during the time period. Of course, Islam might teach differently.

17) Wow are you really this ignorant? This text reveals that the women, who would congregate in the back of the church, would gossip and interrupt services. Why don't you actually read the chapter before taking things out of context.
 
TheVisitor said:
I'm sorry you can't see it, not everyone will....
Man was made in the image of God...as the "Sons of God".
When the Serpent impegnated Eve with Cain this created another race called the "Sons of Men".
This then left two races, the godly line of Seth....with lifespans of over 900 years, and the carnal, fleshly, ungodly line of Cain....whose lifespans are not even recorded - look for yourself....The two races stayed seperate right up till before the flood....then they mixed.
Man as he is today....is a mixture, a triune being.
Body, spirit, and soul.
The difference today is on the inside....the soul.
The "Son's of God" today can receive revealation from God, and be led by the Spirit.....and the rest can not and will be deceived by denominations or their own ideas.
Paul wrote "They that are led by the Spirit of God are called the "Son's of God". It's that simple... God hides himself in such simplicity, from the wise and prudent and reveals Himself to Babes....(babies of God) or "Son's of God"...such as are willing to learn.
That is why Jesus called the Pharisee's the "offspring of the serpent"
They held to the traditions of Men, and denied the truth of the Word of God when it was revealed .
The beast was the original serpent, and as an animal...like the herd of pigs Jesus cast the legion of demons into....a host for evil spirits.

They do the same thing today - the mark in the forehead represents what you believe.....your doctrine, the mark in the right hand represents what you do..who you fellowship with, and shake hands in agreement with.....see, it's the right hand of fellowship.

For all the world will be deceived whose names where not written on the Lamb's book of Life from before the foundation of the world.
Please take time to look into what I've told you more closely, before you just laugh it off.
Click to expand...

Are you therefore accepting that the verses I listed, you did actually take them out of context simply to make a case for your argument? Because I methodically refuted each of your claims concerning those verses.
 
Wow, if you had actually even read my reply you wouldn't even be saying this. No one in the Bible condoned Lot's action. No one claims it was moral, however, it really would be better if you would read the post.
Click to expand...

I read it, I just don't agree with it! get it?.

Your post, did nothing for me, it did not sway my opinion of giving up my doughters to be gang raped ok!. I rather die at the hands of the croud, than "sacrifice" my kids just to protect someone at my own home.

God's intellegent design is flawed, it's not intelegent at all, it did not create the universe, or wrote the bible because if it did, then god's a fuck up! see that's why Lot had to suffer!!.

http://www.usbible.com/God/intelligent_designer.htm

he Intelligent designer

On the presumption that the universe must have a first cause, the latest fad in religious apologetics is the argument that the universe is so exceedingly complex that it could only come from the mind of a super intelligent being, namely God. Underlying this argument is the second presumption that the Bible is the word of the same God that created the universe.

Certainly the universe is awesome. But I'm going to bypass trying to explain the nature of existence because it is unexplainable. The God argument doesn't explain how God came into existence. To say that God always existed doesn't explain how God could exist in a universe that didn't exist. For all we know the universe always existed beyond bounds that can’t be seen.

Rather than go in circles let's turn our attention to the second presumption that the biblical God created the universe. If there is such thing as a super intelligent God then we should see some evidence of it in the Bible. The short answer is that the biblical God turns out to be ignorant and stupid. What follows are the reasons why:

1. When the biblical God said he created the recognizable universe in six days he was off by at least twelve billion years.

2. No sooner did God create his perfect Eden when along came a talking snake who outwitted him. His design failed from the get-go.

3. The second generation produced a murderer, Cain. For his misdeed God put a protective mark on Cain’s head that made him rich and famous.

4. As time passed, things got so bad that he decided to flood the world and start over. He chose Noah and his family as the most righteous people in the world thinking that they would produce righteous progeny.

5. The people in Sodom and Gomorrah proved him wrong. So he destroyed the city.

6. He offered Abraham a deal to make his offspring the most powerful people in the world. Things went well with Abraham's offspring, Isaac and Jacob until he made a great famine that forced Jacob and his children to migrate to Egypt. Within 400 years Jacob's descendants were pressed into slavery. Oops, he goofed again.

7. So he chose Moses to take the Israelites to the Promised Land. No sooner were the people free from Egyptian slavery when Moses proved to be even more oppressive. When the people rebelled, God made them wander in the desert for forty years until a new generation was of age. Even Moses was not allowed to set foot in the Promised Land.

8. Feeling strong, God helped Joshua murder and pillage the original occupants of the Promised Land. But glory days didn’t last long. After Joshua, the period of Judges had mixed success that ended in a war between the tribes.

9. The people wanted a king. So God had Samuel anoint Saul as the first king. Saul lasted about twenty years until he went astray. So God had him commit suicide and told Samuel to replace him with David. With David and Solomon, the tiny nation of Israel prospered. But contrary to his promise to Abraham, Israel was surrounded by more powerful neighbors.

10. Under Solomon's successor, Rehoboam, the people complained about their forced labor. Rehoboam responded with more oppression. So there was a civil war and Israel split into two kingdoms, Israel and Judah. God's dream fell apart.

11. Poor God, he couldn't get respect. The people of Israel couldn't please him to he handed them over to the Assyrians. The people of Judah disappointed him, so he gave them to the Babylonians. It didn’t pay to be God’s chosen.

12. Finally, his fury got so intense that he murdered his son, Jesus. And to this day he hasn't stopped blaming man for his mistakes.

In conclusion, there is no way to reconcile the existence of a God who created the universe with the bumbling God in the Bible. Only men could have created such a creature.

And tha'ts about the nudge of it!!

Godless.
 
Original Sin is an amoral concept created to control the ignorant masses.

"Damnation is the start of your morality, destruction is its purpose, means and end. Your code begins by damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a good which it defines as impossible for him to practice. It demands, as his first proof of virtue, that he accepts his own depravity without proof. It demands that he start, not with a standard of value, but with a standard of evil, which is himself, by means of which he is then to define the good: the good is that which he is not.

It does not matter who then becomes the profiteer on his renounced glory and tormented soul, a mystic God with some incomprehensible design or any passer-by whose rotting sores are held as some explicable claim upon him - it does not matter, the good is not for him to understand, his duty is to crawl through years of penance, atoning for the guilt of his existence to any stray collector of unintelligible debts, his only concept of a value is a zero: the good is that which is non-man.

The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin. A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man's sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man's nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.

Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a 'tendency' to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free.

What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge - he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil - he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor - he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire - he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy - all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man's fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was - that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love - he was not man.

Man's fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he's man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives. They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man." Ayn Rand

Godless.
 
Godless wrote....

1. When the biblical God said he created the recognizable universe in six days he was off by at least twelve billion years.

2. No sooner did God create his perfect Eden when along came a talking snake who outwitted him. His design failed from the get-go.

-------------------

Clearly the name fits.........although I'd add another moniker for you....."Clueless"
 
the omnipotent God sent down His Son like a "lamb to the slaughter".
Click to expand...

Funny you should speak of this here's a good interpretation of The Passion movie that recently came out:

Crime of Passion

Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
—anonymous source

However people perceive the Mel Gibson movie, "The Passion of Christ," there is universal agreement on its brutality. I won't see the movie, but here is how it is described.

Out of its two hours and seven minutes length, one reviewer counted an hour and 45 minutes of watching a man being tortured to death. Sound and graphics enhance the sensory impact of the torture.

Jesus' backside and front is flogged to a bloody pulp with sticks and barbed cat-o'-nine-tails. While he is being jeered, the thorns of a crown are pressed into his temple causing blood to stream down his face. Then he is whipped some more while he carries the heavy cross. Watchers are treated to every blow of the spikes driven into his limbs; one arm was torn from its socket. Blood is everywhere. The same reviewer called it the equivalent of a slasher movie.

The Romans reserved the cross for their worst offenders. The method inhibits breathing so the victim dies by slow suffocation. Three gospels are in direct agreement about Jesus flogging (scourging). Luke vaguely calls it “chastise,” but in a later verse Jesus clarifies what “chastise” meant. The intensity was a product of Gibson's imagination. Some reviewers were skeptical that any human could survive Gibson’s portrayal of the flogging.

26Then he released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, delivered him to be crucified. (Matt. 27:26)

15So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas; and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified. (Mark 15:15)

16I will therefore chastise him and release him.” (Luke 23:16)

33they will scourge him and kill him, and on the third day he will rise.” (Luke 18:33)

1Then Pilate took Jesus and scourged him. (John 19:1)

As barbaric as it seems to me, Jesus' suffering has a powerful emotional affect on Christians' love for him. It goes back to John 3:16, "God so loved he world that he gave his only son." They truly feel they owe him a debt of gratitude. For the reasons to follow, I hope there are marginal Christians who might be turned off in disgust.

Let's forget the arguments about the nonexistence of God and Jesus and treat the events of the crucifixion as if they really happened. We'll treat this the way Christian theology tells it, that God the Father sent his Son to atone for the sins of mankind. The most important character doesn't appear in the movie: God.

Let me rephrase John 3:16 a few different ways without the piety. The Creator screwed up, so rather than take personal responsibility he used his son as a scapegoat. Because mankind wasn't living up to his expectations, he took his revenge out on his son by putting him in harms way. A man gets pissed at his wife, so he throws his son in a lion's cage. A man gets fired from his job, so in anger he pushes his son in front of a speeding car. It would be just as dastardly if the son offered to give his life to please his father, and his father assented.

Romanticizing the language doesn't change the nature of the crime. Whether the action is initiated by a god or a human it is the same morality. Simply stated, God took his vindictiveness out on the one he loved the most. The most innocent person was sent to die because the masses weren’t conforming to God’s expectations. It reverses the meaning of justice. Christians won't see it this way because they refuse to judge God. Their response is cowardly.

One reviewer preferred the classical movies on Christ because they presented a "positive" message. Billy Graham said "it was our sins that caused his death." A recent email comment I got was that I "haven't imagined why Christians welcomed a horrible death for love of Jesus." Years ago I was stunned when a Christian explained to me how grateful he was because the injustice of Jesus' sacrifice was so extraordinary. Christians see Jesus as the savior who taught and died for them.

And yet the enemy who threatens them is God. This is something we see in political history where a despot is so powerful and vindictive that his subjects are afraid to think questionable thoughts out of fear they might be punished. So out of fear they learn to love him. Compared to God, Hitler doesn’t seem so bad.

As a footnote, the sacrifice of children and virgins was not an uncommon practice in primitive cultures. It makes me think: Despite vast technological improvements since biblical days, the human body has hardly changed.

And again I say to you, tha I wouldn't sacrifice my only son, for the sin of others, this is not morality it's an insult to justice, a slap to morality.
This is the code of your moral:

Sacrifice the ideal to the non-ideal, virtue for vice.

Godless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top