Bottom line.
A consequence that causes a man, ---- or a God, ----- to intentionally kill his children, or any child or human for that matter, for disobeying a command to stay with eyes shut when they can be opened, in ignorant bliss, ---- when the child can be bright, and forgo being as moral as God, then that man or God is a murderer and is without morals.
Christians follow such a God.
Regards
DL
DL. It’s just a story, a work of fiction. Star Trek fans have to suspend disbelief in some respects to enjoy the story. (e.g., How can they be zipping about the cosmos at multiple the spped of light and not become completely out of sinc in time with the rest of the Federation? They can’t. It’s impossible. But Star Trek fans ignore this, or come up with some jury rigged explanation, so as to enjoy the story.) Now in the God/Adam/Jesus story , the part of the story line which may be jury rigged, so to speak, but which makes the story not so immoral as you percieve it is the free will wild card. One has to assume that giving Man free will, took away from God’s omnipotence. God could not force Man to do what is best form himself, lest he take away the gift of free will. Free will includes, I think, the ability to make bad choices. Thus God’s omnipotence was compromised once again, by this wild card. God in creating Man with free will, had to provide the opportunity for Man to choose something that would not work out well for him, i.e., choosing knowledge of good and evil. Man made the choice to go for knowledge of good and evil, and it’s been a hell of a ride since (speaking within the story line). God could not take away the consequences of Man’s choice, without taking away free will, because free will includes living or dying with the consequences of one’s choices. But God still loved Man and wanted to help Man with the burdens that Man’s choice had lead to. How can this be done without taking away Man’s free will? By God making a art of himself become mortal, a human being with free will, Jesus. Jesus was a grown Man when he allowed himself to be sacrificed. He did this partly because God demanded it, but he didn’t have to do it. He did it to offer Man a way to relieve some of the burdens that Man’s use of free will had lead to.
So, I think that the story is not so terribly immoral as some atheists railing against the Christian belief system would have it be. My problem with the Christian belief system is not the internal consistency of story line, so much, (although it is rather simplistic and should stretch the limits of credulity of anyone who know much of anything) as it is that Christians base their lives and actions, in real life, on the belief that this elementary bit of fantasy represents absolute truth.
In the same sense, it seems egotistical to believe that God created Man in the 1st place. But to be fair to the internal consistency within the myth, God created Man with free will. Man, in using his free will, did something to separate himself from God. In order to rectify this divide, God made a part of himself into a Man, and that Man, also having free will, went along with giving up his mortal existence (painfully so), in order to re-connect Man with God.
That myth does not seem terribly immoral to me. And recognizing that it is egocentric is not a particular condemnation, IMO, as much of what humans do is egocentric.
What effectively condemns the belief system, IMO, is that it is so obviously a simplistic and erroneous explanation of our reality.
I agree but cannot understand why you say that embracing human sacrifice and the notion that people should profit from a God, in father persona having his son persona murdered to fill his own requirements is not terribly immoral.
I expected more from you.
Then I shall give you more. In the Jesus myth, Jesus, as an adult male of 33, had a choice as to whether to follow through with his father's directive. In reality, today, and through the ages, sons of actual living humans (younger than 33) have regularly been asked or directed to sacrifice their lives (in war) for "a greater cause". We don't typically complain that this is immoral. And in another sense, if someone chooses to sacrifice themselves to save someone else's life, we don't consider it immoral. In fact, such self sacrifice is often esteemed.
Indeed. When one dies at the hands of an enemy.
In this case the enemy is the son's father.
A huge difference. God set the conditions and then demanded that Jesus pay the price.
Regards
DL
One doesn't have to die at the hands of an enemy to be esteemed for self sacrifice. e.g., A fireman could die in a fire while saving a child. In the Christian story Jesus was the mortal manifestation of God himself. But as the mortal personification of God, and separate from God by this mortality as a human, Jesus could have decided not to do as God demanded.
No fireman's son will sit back as part of his third head and let the father head start a fire that will kill him as son's head.
Would you let your father start a fire that you have to snuff out causing your death?
Of course not. You are not stupid.
So why think Jesus would be that stupid.
Regards
DL
To fairly use the fireman analogy for the story of God/Jesus, you would have to include the Adam backstory. It might be something like this: A wealthy nuclear scientist (God analog) creates a residential community for homeless people (Adam&Eve; analog). The wealthy man tells the no-longer homeless folks "This is all yours. Enjoy. Just be sure to never exceed the generating capacity of the compact nuclear reactor that powers your community." But of course, they do. (apple eating analog). The reactor breaks down, a fire starts there, and radiation is about to spew out so intensely as to wipe out everyone in the community. The wealthy scientist's son, a fireman (Jesus analog), who happens to also be knowledgeable about the compact nuclear reactor that his father built for the community, is sent by his father to put out the fire and prevent a total meltdown. The scientist father tells his son, "The radiation will kill you, but you are the only one that knows the reactor setup, well enough and also has the skills to put the fire out in time to save everyone else."
Now any analogy breaks down, but this is a more fair analogy to the God/Adam/Jesus story than: A father starts a fire and demands that his fireman son kills himself to put the fire out.
"The scientist father tells his son, “The radiation will kill you, but you are the only one that knows the reactor setup, well enough and also has the skills to put the fire out in time to save everyone else."
Not so. The Father has what it takes except he lacks the love his own son. He is just too self-centered.
Regards
DL
In the same sense, it seems egotistical to believe that God created Man in the 1st place. But to be fair to the internal consistency within the myth, God created Man with free will. Man, in using his free will, did something to separate himself from God. In order to rectify this divide, God made a part of himself into a Man, and that Man, also having free will, went along with giving up his mortal existence (painfully so), in order to re-connect Man with God.
That myth does not seem terribly immoral to me. And recognizing that it is egocentric is not a particular condemnation, IMO, as much of what humans do is egocentric.
What effectively condemns the belief system, IMO, is that it is so obviously a simplistic and erroneous explanation of our reality.
I agree but cannot understand why you say that embracing human sacrifice and the notion that people should profit from a God, in father persona having his son persona murdered to fill his own requirements is not terribly immoral.
I expected more from you.
Then I shall give you more. In the Jesus myth, Jesus, as an adult male of 33, had a choice as to whether to follow through with his father's directive. In reality, today, and through the ages, sons of actual living humans (younger than 33) have regularly been asked or directed to sacrifice their lives (in war) for "a greater cause". We don't typically complain that this is immoral. And in another sense, if someone chooses to sacrifice themselves to save someone else's life, we don't consider it immoral. In fact, such self sacrifice is often esteemed.
Indeed. When one dies at the hands of an enemy.
In this case the enemy is the son's father.
A huge difference. God set the conditions and then demanded that Jesus pay the price.
Regards
DL
One doesn't have to die at the hands of an enemy to be esteemed for self sacrifice. e.g., A fireman could die in a fire while saving a child. In the Christian story Jesus was the mortal manifestation of God himself. But as the mortal personification of God, and separate from God by this mortality as a human, Jesus could have decided not to do as God demanded.
No fireman's son will sit back as part of his third head and let the father head start a fire that will kill him as son's head.
Would you let your father start a fire that you have to snuff out causing your death?
Of course not. You are not stupid.
So why think Jesus would be that stupid.
Regards
DL
To fairly use the fireman analogy for the story of God/Jesus, you would have to include the Adam backstory. It might be something like this: A wealthy nuclear scientist (God analog) creates a residential community for homeless people (Adam&Eve; analog). The wealthy man tells the no-longer homeless folks "This is all yours. Enjoy. Just be sure to never exceed the generating capacity of the compact nuclear reactor that powers your community." But of course, they do. (apple eating analog). The reactor breaks down, a fire starts there, and radiation is about to spew out so intensely as to wipe out everyone in the community. The wealthy scientist's son, a fireman (Jesus analog), who happens to also be knowledgeable about the compact nuclear reactor that his father built for the community, is sent by his father to put out the fire and prevent a total meltdown. The scientist father tells his son, "The radiation will kill you, but you are the only one that knows the reactor setup, well enough and also has the skills to put the fire out in time to save everyone else."
Now any analogy breaks down, but this is a more fair analogy to the God/Adam/Jesus story than: A father starts a fire and demands that his fireman son kills himself to put the fire out.
"The scientist father tells his son, “The radiation will kill you, but you are the only one that knows the reactor setup, well enough and also has the skills to put the fire out in time to save everyone else."
Not so. The Father has what it takes except he lacks the love his own son. He is just too self-centered.
Regards
DL
The father is in France at the time. He is communicating with his son by cell phone. (God, not being mortal cannot Himself provide the sacrifice. Only a perfect mortal Man with free will can do so.)
You know, we might as well be arguing over whether the bulk of the elves were being unethical by abandoning Middle Earth, and sailing into the West, in the midst of the Mordor crisis.
Respect is gone as you do not see the immorality in the Abrahamic cults.
We are done here.
Regards
DL
Wow. Ease up. Take a chill pill if necessary. It's not that big of a deal, DL, unless I somehow threatened the foundations of your belief system. As I mentioned there is at least one story line, that I consider rather immoral in the "Abramic cults, and I expect that I could find many others. I am just not that into tearing down the internal consistency of story lines of, what I consider to be, the not very entertaining fiction/fantasy/historical stories of the Christians, Jews, and Muslims.
Respect is gone as you do not see the immorality in the Abrahamic cults.
We are done here.
Regards
DL
DL help me out here. I understand the questions “Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?"
Now you are bringing in the Abrahamic cults.
My understanding in the Abrahamic cults is that God is one. And that he used Jesus’ body. Jesus the god did not die. Only the body that he used while at earth. This is not my thinking this is from Christians defending their religion. I argued the blood of Jesus and all that, but I was told the sprit of God left the body before it died. That man is not able to kill God. If God died then the religion would be over, correct. But I view that as a Christian view only.
Because the dictionary has the definition “deicide" 1. a person who kills a god.
You would have to think that at sometime in history somebody was killing gods to have had the reason to come up with a name for it.
My thinking is that Jesus was trying to convert the people to the Gnostic way of thinking. There is no inherited sin that I am aware of. So it may have been his way to get rid of the sin so he could communicate his ideas one step at a time, sort of spoon feeding the people.
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).
I wonder if Jesus believed in Him? If so, why did he perish? Moreover, why have so many people who believed in God/Jesus perished in holy wars? And in spite of the rumored longevity of early man, science has not discovered any fossils of any 800 year old human. On the contrary, humans are living longer now than ever before in history.
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).
I wonder if Jesus believed in Him? If so, why did he perish? Moreover, why have so many people who believed in God/Jesus perished in holy wars?
Oddly, there are species who enjoy everlasting life without belief in a God.
Non-human biological longevity[edit]
Main article: List of long-living organisms
Currently living:
Methuselah: 4,800-year-old bristlecone pine in the White Mountains of California, the oldest currently living organism known.
Non-living:
Possibly 250 million year-old bacteria, bacillus permians, were revived from stasis after being found in sodium chloride crystals in a cavern in New Mexico. Russell Vreeland, and colleagues from West Chester University in Pennsylvania, reported on October 18, 2000 that they had revived the halobacteria after bathing them with a nutrient solution. Having supposedly survived for 250 million years, they would be the oldest living organisms ever recorded.[26] However, their findings have not been universally accepted.[27]
A bristlecone pine nicknamed "Prometheus", felled in the Great Basin National Park in Nevada in 1964, found to be about 4,900 years old, is the longest-lived single organism known.[28]
The quahog clam (Arctica islandica) is exceptionally long-lived, with a maximum recorded age of 507 years, the longest of any animal.[29] Other clams of the species have been recorded as living up to 374 years.[30]
Lamellibrachia luymesi, a deep-sea cold-seep tubeworm, is estimated to reach ages of over 250 years based on a model of its growth rates.[31]
Hanako (Koi Fish) was the longest-lived vertebrate ever recorded at 226 years.
A Bowhead Whale killed in a hunt was found to be approximately 211 years old (possibly up to 245 years old), the longest lived mammal known.[32]
Tu'i Malila, a radiated tortoise presented to the Tongan royal family by Captain Cook, lived for over 185 years. It is the oldest documented reptile. Adwaitya, an Aldabra Giant Tortoise, may have lived for up to 250 years.
Biological immortality[edit]
Main article: Biological immortality
Certain exotic organisms do not seem to be subject to aging and can live indefinitely. Examples include Tardigrades and Hydras. That is not to say that these organisms cannot die, merely that they only die as a result of disease or injury rather than age-related deterioration (and that they are not subject to the Hayflick limit).
Oddly, there are species who enjoy everlasting life without belief in a God.
Non-human biological longevity[edit]
Main article: List of long-living organisms
Currently living:
Methuselah: 4,800-year-old bristlecone pine in the White Mountains of California, the oldest currently living organism known.
Non-living:
Possibly 250 million year-old bacteria, bacillus permians, were revived from stasis after being found in sodium chloride crystals in a cavern in New Mexico. Russell Vreeland, and colleagues from West Chester University in Pennsylvania, reported on October 18, 2000 that they had revived the halobacteria after bathing them with a nutrient solution. Having supposedly survived for 250 million years, they would be the oldest living organisms ever recorded.[26] However, their findings have not been universally accepted.[27]
A bristlecone pine nicknamed "Prometheus", felled in the Great Basin National Park in Nevada in 1964, found to be about 4,900 years old, is the longest-lived single organism known.[28]
The quahog clam (Arctica islandica) is exceptionally long-lived, with a maximum recorded age of 507 years, the longest of any animal.[29] Other clams of the species have been recorded as living up to 374 years.[30]
Lamellibrachia luymesi, a deep-sea cold-seep tubeworm, is estimated to reach ages of over 250 years based on a model of its growth rates.[31]
Hanako (Koi Fish) was the longest-lived vertebrate ever recorded at 226 years.
A Bowhead Whale killed in a hunt was found to be approximately 211 years old (possibly up to 245 years old), the longest lived mammal known.[32]
Tu'i Malila, a radiated tortoise presented to the Tongan royal family by Captain Cook, lived for over 185 years. It is the oldest documented reptile. Adwaitya, an Aldabra Giant Tortoise, may have lived for up to 250 years.
Biological immortality[edit]
Main article: Biological immortality
Certain exotic organisms do not seem to be subject to aging and can live indefinitely. Examples include Tardigrades and Hydras. That is not to say that these organisms cannot die, merely that they only die as a result of disease or injury rather than age-related deterioration (and that they are not subject to the Hayflick limit).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longevity
But we're not talking about longer lives on earth. We're talking about "everlasting life." when the bible speaks of everlasting life it means life after death, not before. It is not referring to biological life.
Lois
I know but if you never die is that not everlasting life? After death can we call that life? Life after death seems a little conflicting. Is the soul a life form? If yes, then is god a life form? If it is a life form can it be everlasting and/or eternal? Round n Round we go.
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).
I wonder if Jesus believed in Him? If so, why did he perish? Moreover, why have so many people who believed in God/Jesus perished in holy wars?
Perversity. Sadism. Cruelty.
Lois
and lots and lots of wine
Hehe, now I’m hooked on the mythical gods and their fascinating and disturbingly familiar emotional characters.
Father gods
by Micha F. Lindemans
The term for supreme gods who, in certain pantheons, have a prominent place and who from themselves, or with one or more partners, engendered children). The father god resides in heaven and is usually the personification of that heaven. Thus he is at the same time the sky-god, ruler of the sun and rain, thunder and lightning, and as such a fertility god (who brings warmth and water). Finally, the father gods are also the creators of mankind, which he punishes or rewards. Prototypes of father gods are Uranus and Zeus, Yu-huang, and Ahura Mazda. These gods are usually represented as a bull, ram, phallus, or ithyphallic god; all symbols of their life-giving force.
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/f/father_gods.html
and while I was reading I started to substitute the word potential for the word god every time it appeared in the story.
The results are fascinating, check the difference below.
The term for supreme potentials who, in certain plenums have a prominent place and who from themselves, or with one or more partners, engendered children). The father potential resides in heaven (plenum) and is usually the personification of that heaven. Thus he is at the same time the sky-potential, ruler of the sun and rain, thunder and lightning, and as such a fertility potential (who brings warmth and water). Finally, the father potentials are also the creators of mankind, which he punishes or rewards. Prototypes of father potentials are Uranus and Zeus, Yu-huang, and Ahura Mazda. These potentials are usually represented as a bull, ram, phallus, or ithyphallic potential; all symbols of their life-giving force.
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/f/father_gods.html
Tales and experiences all relate to emotionally. It touches all of us emotionally, it is a common spirit.
PHTHONOS (or Phthonus) was the spirit (daimon) of envy and jealousy. He was associated in particular with the jealous passions of love. In one ancient Greek vase painting he even appears in the guise of an Eros (winged love-god) in the company of Aphrodite.
The female counterpart of Phthonos was Nemesis, goddess of jealous retribution, who was often concerned with matters of love, as well as indignation at undeserved good fortune.
http://www.theoi.com/Daimon/Phthonos.html
Trying to think of possible common denominators which could be addressed as a shared spirituality, it seems to me that mythology is actually a very accurate account of common denominators and behaviors in humans, even at that time.
In mythology a lot of gods represent common human nature, a species with a common potential, which by most is assumed to be a god or spirit.
But substitute the word potential for those two and knowledge of the human psyche becomes apparent.
Now when I read about mythology I automatically substitute the word 'potential' for god or spirit. And then it all makes sense. Mythology is (was) based on available knowledge of things which man had observed. And some the philosophers at that time were very sophisticated thinkers (giants even).
Respect is gone as you do not see the immorality in the Abrahamic cults.
We are done here.
Regards
DL
DL help me out here. I understand the questions “Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?"
Now you are bringing in the Abrahamic cults.
My understanding in the Abrahamic cults is that God is one. And that he used Jesus’ body. Jesus the god did not die. Only the body that he used while at earth. This is not my thinking this is from Christians defending their religion. I argued the blood of Jesus and all that, but I was told the sprit of God left the body before it died. That man is not able to kill God. If God died then the religion would be over, correct. But I view that as a Christian view only.
Because the dictionary has the definition “deicide" 1. a person who kills a god.
You would have to think that at sometime in history somebody was killing gods to have had the reason to come up with a name for it.
My thinking is that Jesus was trying to convert the people to the Gnostic way of thinking. There is no inherited sin that I am aware of. So it may have been his way to get rid of the sin so he could communicate his ideas one step at a time, sort of spoon feeding the people.
You have the Christian dogma about right for most of the Jesus cults. Christians are one of the Abrahamic cults so I did not make a new introduction. I just renamed then in this O P.
Their God is supposed to be one for sure yet they have him sacrificing the son persona to the father persona. That is two.
If only one, then we all know that it is impossible to sacrifice one's self to one's self.
You are correct in Jesus being a Gnostic. If he was real. But without all the fantasy, miracles and magic.
Jesus is only real to me in the esoteric sense. He is not really real.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y
Regards
DL
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).
I wonder if Jesus believed in Him? If so, why did he perish? Moreover, why have so many people who believed in God/Jesus perished in holy wars? And in spite of the rumored longevity of early man, science has not discovered any fossils of any 800 year old human. On the contrary, humans are living longer now than ever before in history.
John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
Seems that no believer has stepped up for 2,000 years.
My guess is that none exist.
Regards
DL
But we're not talking about longer lives on earth. We're talking about "everlasting life." when the bible speaks of everlasting life it means life after death, not before. It is not referring to biological life.
Lois
I do not agree after reading the myth.
The tree of life was for biological consumption and the dogma says that if A & E had eaten of it they would still be with us.
If eternity was to be non-biological then it should not have that biological requirement to activate our immortality.
Regards
DL
Greatest I AM Post #54
You points are very clear.
Look at data outside the bible.
The conclusion is the Jesus was a real man.
At the time of Jesus the Jews of Judah were hanging on by a string. Many of the people had changed to different religions. The contract in the OT was up and God reneged on his part of the contract.
Jesus was not alone in pushing the people to the Gnostic ways. Others were there before him. And Jesus was no longer a Jew; we know this because of the burial methods which started before Jesus but only carried on by just a few after Jesus.
Salem was known as the city of the Gods and was open to all religions sort of a hot spot for the many religions. When David built the City of David next to Salem he renamed the city Jerusalem.
If Jesus went to college in Egypt to learn religion, he would have been taught healing, banking and a lot of ceremonial rituals. Remember everything that had made Egypt great at the time of Jesus had came out of India at some time, the connections were huge. If he was real. But without all the fantasy, miracles and magic.
Egypt was still a land of superstitions, a land of fantasy, miracles and magic. Jesus would have been taught these exact items at college as part of his learning.
It was all part of being a healer. Look at the mind set of the people in Egypt. The god of War, “L" name was never written down. That was so nobody could put a spell on him. Just writing a name down had magic in itself.
Save yourself sometime and look at Jesus as being a real man.
The Christians stories, well they were all written sometime latter in a different country. Stay away from the junk.
Greatest I AM Post #54
You points are very clear.
Look at data outside the bible.
The conclusion is the Jesus was a real man.
At the time of Jesus the Jews of Judah were hanging on by a string. Many of the people had changed to different religions. The contract in the OT was up and God reneged on his part of the contract.
Jesus was not alone in pushing the people to the Gnostic ways. Others were there before him. And Jesus was no longer a Jew; we know this because of the burial methods which started before Jesus but only carried on by just a few after Jesus.
Salem was known as the city of the Gods and was open to all religions sort of a hot spot for the many religions. When David built the City of David next to Salem he renamed the city Jerusalem.
If Jesus went to college in Egypt to learn religion, he would have been taught healing, banking and a lot of ceremonial rituals. Remember everything that had made Egypt great at the time of Jesus had came out of India at some time, the connections were huge.
If he was real. But without all the fantasy, miracles and magic.
Egypt was still a land of superstitions, a land of fantasy, miracles and magic. Jesus would have been taught these exact items at college as part of his learning.
It was all part of being a healer. Look at the mind set of the people in Egypt. The god of War, “L" name was never written down. That was so nobody could put a spell on him. Just writing a name down had magic in itself.
Save yourself sometime and look at Jesus as being a real man.
The Christians stories, well they were all written sometime latter in a different country. Stay away from the junk.
Jesus, a man, perhaps. Perhaps just a make believe one.
I don't think we can ever know for sure.
I prefer to embrace the scriptures as I know where they likely came from. Rome.
I like to argue with Christians and try to save them and to do so I find it handy to know more of their works than they do so that I can use it against them. It is not like a lot of it makes moral sense and they should be made aware of this fact.
I just finished this book and found it compelling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJgvws0ZYUE
Regards
DL
I think that a historical, non-supernatural Jesus, most likely, did exist.
Indeed. It was a common name apparently.
The Jesus ossuary or bone box has Jesus written on it but as far as I know, Jesus was Joshua ben Joseph.
Even with that, it cannot be right as that is our interpretation of his name.
Imagine way back then having those in the Middle East called Peter, Paul and Mary. How droll.
Regards
DL