HOW WAS JESUS A SACRIFICE WHEN HE GOT UP AND ROSE AGAIN?

[alissowack]

There is this sense that forgiveness is treated as this knee-jerk reaction that God is expected to have; that he has no control over it when put in a compromising situation; like an addiction He can't fight. If that is the case, then would it really be forgiveness? God would just be a pushover .

Being forgiving does not equate to being a push-over. Forgiveness is about letting go of resentment. There is the saying: forgive but do not forget. A person who is forgiving has more self control than someone who is not.

The Buddha teaches us,

"'He reviled me! He struck me!

He defeated me! He robbed me!'

They who gird themselves up with this,

For them enmity is not quelled.

Not by enmity are enmities quelled

Whatever the occasion here.

By the absence of enmity are they quelled.

This is an ancient truth."

There is a verse in the Bible in which God says that He chooses to be compassionate and merciful on those whom He pleases...

Why didn't God create only what pleases him? Isn't that what rational people do? Why did he knowingly create persons he chose to be a jerk towards, based off the inherent personalities he created them to have?

so who are we to say what God should or shouldn't do?

Well following from the theist's assertion of the nature of God, we can conclude what God would be like or do in certain situations. It would not be logical for him to do what is opposite of his nature. For instance, if the theist asserts that God is omniscient, it would not be logical to then say he does not know something.

Who are you to say God has the nature of existing?

You imply earlier that God is not a push-over. Who are you to say he shouldn't be? It sounds as if you want God to be some type of super hero for you.

The so-called church can do whatever it wants, but it doesn't mean they are doing God's Will by it. The reasons for the new and craftier ways of the church is because it doesn't believe that Jesus is enough. They want Jesus and something else. They want to sell people something else.

Why? Does God not at least have control over his own house?

Well...I didn't say that forgiveness equates to be a pushover. I'm saying how forgiveness is made out to be a "reaction" instead of a "choice". If someone wrongs you and asks for forgiveness, you don't find yourself tingling inside with a urge to forgive...and the urges are so strong that you just can't help but do it. If that's the case, you would be a pushover. You weigh in on the situation and determine whether or not someone deserves your forgiveness...or even wants to be forgiven.

Again...who are we to say what God should or shouldn't do? According to the Bible, we are supposedly His Creation. What position is anything created to say to it's creator, "What have you done?" or "Why didn't you just do this instead?" There have been a lot of man made things created that were terrible inventions and I am yet to see them unite in rebellion.

If God doesn't exist, then He doesn't exist. But, my responses to God's Existence was not made aimlessly. You already know that I am referencing God's Existence from the Bible so when I say things, it is under the assumption you know where I'm getting this from. You may not agree with what I have to say, but you know I'm not just saying it.

According to the Bible, God is always in control even when His People are not. I don't know the motive behind asking why, but it seems as if you are hoping that I would feel a certain way about someone questioning God...or to personalize it...my God. I see posts like this..."Why does/doesn't your god"...and see responses of offense because they feel as if they need to defend God. If God exist, the deity exist apart from whoever believes or not; whether someone defends or not. And if you don't agree, then let me put in another way. If the Buddha exists, then it should apart from whoever believes or not; whether someone defends or not. Whether I convert or not shouldn't add or take away from it's existence.

 

[Bodhi]

I'm saying how forgiveness is made out to be a "reaction" instead of a "choice". If someone wrongs you and asks for forgiveness, you don't find yourself tingling inside with a urge to forgive...and the urges are so strong that you just can't help but do it. If that's the case, you would be a pushover. You weigh in on the situation and determine whether or not someone deserves your forgiveness...or even wants to be forgiven..

Forgiveness is, again, letting go of resentment. This is a choice, by and large. In any case, it would be the right or at least benevolent choice as there is no beneficial feature of resentment in and of itself. This is the choice a supposed benevolent God would make.

What position is anything created to say to it's creator, "What have you done?" or "Why didn't you just do this instead?" There have been a lot of man made things created that were terrible inventions and I am yet to see them unite in rebellion.

The bolded is because man-made inventions have not gained consciousness to do so.

Let's say man has the ability to create a conscious being, perhaps a robot for the sake of argument, that could ask the underlined questions. What makes the robot's asking, preposterous?

According to the Bible, God is always in control.

Then the Bible is wrong. A universe infected with evil proves this point.

but it seems as if you are hoping that I would feel a certain way about someone questioning God...or to personalize it...my God. I see posts like this..."Why does/doesn't your god"...and see responses of offense because they feel as if they need to defend God. If God exist, the deity exist apart from whoever believes or not; whether someone defends or not. And if you don't agree, then let me put in another way. If the Buddha exists, then it should apart from whoever believes or not; whether someone defends or not. Whether I convert or not shouldn't add or take away from it's existence.

I'm not.

 

[jono]

I always thought, even as a former Christian, why doesn't god just simply forgive? Why does there need to be some kind of sacrifice?

It's a silly concept to me, always has been.

Some almighty, powerful god, creates everything we know and love, yet he's so bitter and weak, and requires a sacrifice to give his arrogant ass some sense of pride.

Makes no sense.

Unless, of course, you look at god and see he has human attributes, which means it is a man-made concept.

…exactly. God is endowed often with human emotions, human reasoning, human logic but hes supposed to be beyond all that.

 

[alissowack]

I'm saying how forgiveness is made out to be a "reaction" instead of a "choice". If someone wrongs you and asks for forgiveness, you don't find yourself tingling inside with a urge to forgive...and the urges are so strong that you just can't help but do it. If that's the case, you would be a pushover. You weigh in on the situation and determine whether or not someone deserves your forgiveness...or even wants to be forgiven..

Forgiveness is, again, letting go of resentment. This is a choice, by and large. In any case, it would be the right or at least benevolent choice as there is no beneficial feature of resentment in and of itself. This is the choice a supposed benevolent God would make.

What position is anything created to say to it's creator, "What have you done?" or "Why didn't you just do this instead?" There have been a lot of man made things created that were terrible inventions and I am yet to see them unite in rebellion.

The bolded is because man-made inventions have not gained consciousness to do so.

Let's say man has the ability to create a conscious being, perhaps a robot for the sake of argument, that could ask the underlined questions. What makes the robot's asking, preposterous?

According to the Bible, God is always in control.

Then the Bible is wrong. A universe infected with evil proves this point.

but it seems as if you are hoping that I would feel a certain way about someone questioning God...or to personalize it...my God. I see posts like this..."Why does/doesn't your god"...and see responses of offense because they feel as if they need to defend God. If God exist, the deity exist apart from whoever believes or not; whether someone defends or not. And if you don't agree, then let me put in another way. If the Buddha exists, then it should apart from whoever believes or not; whether someone defends or not. Whether I convert or not shouldn't add or take away from it's existence.

I'm not.

Well...since you know that forgiveness...the letting go of resentment...is a choice, then there shouldn't be a problem if God chooses not to forgive. I may wrong you in some way and I ask you for forgiveness. You are in no way obligated to accept my plea. It could quite possibly be a good thing to do, but you don't have to offer forgiveness. Your resentment could also be justified for all I know. I would have to deal with any actions taken against me. What makes you think that God can't be the same way?

When I made the "creator/creation" post, it meant it as dry humor. Of course, man made stuff can't communicate an opinion, but it is to say that there is an authority in which man has over it's inventions. Man does not need to feel like we need to lay down our crowns and submit to what our hands have made...though there is this thing called idolatry. We don't need to justify our intentions for the things we make. We use it however we want, whenever we want, and where ever we want.

The fact that there is evil doesn't prove that the Bible is wrong. For you to say that there is a such thing as evil, you would also have to say that there is a such thing as good. If there is a such thing as good, then you would have to say that there is a such thing as moral law. If there is a such thing as a moral law, then there has to be a moral law giver...which is God in this case. You disprove God, you get rid of the moral law giver, which gets rid of the moral law, which gets rid of good and evil.

 

[Bodhi]

Well...since you know that forgiveness...the letting go of resentment...is a choice, then there shouldn't be a problem if God chooses not to forgive..

There is a problem with that. It contradicts God's supposed nature.

Man does not need to feel like we need to lay down our crowns and submit to what our hands have made...

One day man may have to.. But that is beside the point.

The fact that there is evil doesn't prove that the Bible is wrong..

But it disproves the existence of its God, which the entire book revolves around.

For you to say that there is a such thing as evil, you would also have to say that there is a such thing as good. If there is a such thing as good, then you would have to say that there is a such thing as moral law. If there is a such thing as a moral law, then there has to be a moral law giver...which is God in this case. You disprove God, you get rid of the moral law giver, which gets rid of the moral law, which gets rid of good and evil.

Not necessarily. Once the God theory is disposed of, the moral law giver becomes man, as he always has been.

 

[alissowack]

Well...since you know that forgiveness...the letting go of resentment...is a choice, then there shouldn't be a problem if God chooses not to forgive..

There is a problem with that. It contradicts God's supposed nature.

Man does not need to feel like we need to lay down our crowns and submit to what our hands have made...

One day man may have to.. But that is beside the point.

The fact that there is evil doesn't prove that the Bible is wrong..

But it disproves the existence of its God, which the entire book revolves around.

For you to say that there is a such thing as evil, you would also have to say that there is a such thing as good. If there is a such thing as good, then you would have to say that there is a such thing as moral law. If there is a such thing as a moral law, then there has to be a moral law giver...which is God in this case. You disprove God, you get rid of the moral law giver, which gets rid of the moral law, which gets rid of good and evil.

Not necessarily. Once the God theory is disposed of, the moral law giver becomes man, as he always has been.

The contradiction would be if God has no choice; that He has no will of His Own. What is forgiveness if there is no such thing as unforgiveness? What is evil if there is no such thing as good? Again, you are making God out to be a pushover...not that I take offense for even in the Bible, people did the same thing...but it's you wanting God to fit into your perspectives on life and living and He's just not doing that for you. He's definitely not doing it for me either so you don't feel left out.

The thing about man being the moral law giver is that...there is so many of us and everybody doesn't see eye to eye on everything. We might share some core common morals and values, but at the end of the day we do what works and if it means breaking a few rules, so be it. But who is going to actually stop those who have been breaking rules all of their lives and doing a good job getting away with it? Man? So far, man's attempt to remedy the situation hasn't worked effectively and it shows just about everywhere. If God doesn't exists, then man is ultimately responsible for the atrocities done whether it was in the name of religion or other causes. God would just be an empty catch phrase for whom what we place the blame on. We can just start blaming each other.

 

[Bodhi]

The contradiction would be if God has no choice; that He has no will of His Own. What is forgiveness if there is no such thing as unforgiveness? What is evil if there is no such thing as good?

I'm not taking the choice away. I'm saying given the idea that god is all benevolent and morally upstanding, he would make the benevolent and moral choice which is to forgive. 1 Corinthians says love is patience. If it is in God's nature to love, being infinitely benevolent, he would be infinitely patient. This does not imply that God would be a pushover.

But who is going to actually stop those who have been breaking rules all of their lives and doing a good job getting away with it? Man? So far, man's attempt to remedy the situation hasn't worked effectively and it shows just about everywhere.

This doesn't take away from the fact that man is the law giver of his own moral code

If God doesn't exists, then man is ultimately responsible for the atrocities done whether it was in the name of religion or other causes. God would just be an empty catch phrase for whom what we place the blame on. We can just start blaming each other.

Exactly.

 

[alissowack]

The contradiction would be if God has no choice; that He has no will of His Own. What is forgiveness if there is no such thing as unforgiveness? What is evil if there is no such thing as good?

I'm not taking the choice away. I'm saying given the idea that god is all benevolent and morally upstanding, he would make the benevolent and moral choice which is to forgive. 1 Corinthians says love is patience. If it is in God's nature to love, being infinitely benevolent, he would be infinitely patient. This does not imply that God would be a pushover.

But who is going to actually stop those who have been breaking rules all of their lives and doing a good job getting away with it? Man? So far, man's attempt to remedy the situation hasn't worked effectively and it shows just about everywhere.

This doesn't take away from the fact that man is the law giver of his own moral code

If God doesn't exists, then man is ultimately responsible for the atrocities done whether it was in the name of religion or other causes. God would just be an empty catch phrase for whom what we place the blame on. We can just start blaming each other.

Exactly.

In the Bible, the devil was doing the same thing. He was tempting Jesus to prove that he was the Son of God by throwing himself off the temple...and using the Bible in a way to say that he should honor what the Bible says; in sense saying...The Bible says it, now do it or that means you are not the Son of God. Then Jesus turns around and uses scripture that says to not put The Lord to the test. Don't worry, everybody does it is some way shape or form and it doesn't have to be in a religious setting. By the way...there is more to love than just patience.

I'm not saying that morals are lost because of the law breakers. But, what would be the basis for keeping the law in the first place...especially in a world where being good doesn't mean you get something good in return. Why do good or consider the things that are good if there is no objective reason to do them. We might as well do bad things. It makes no difference. It may bother our conscious, but hey...we all are gonna die someday and hopefully our guilty conscious will die along with us...right?..and I guess it doesn't really bother you that man would be responsible...I'll let it be.

 

[Bodhi]

In the Bible, the devil was doing the same thing. He was tempting Jesus to prove that he was the Son of God by throwing himself off the temple...and using the Bible in a way to say that he should honor what the Bible says; in sense saying...The Bible says it, now do it or that means you are not the Son of God. Then Jesus turns around and uses scripture that says to not put The Lord to the test.

I don't see what this has to do with anything said.

By the way...there is more to love than just patience.

I know. But patience is a crucial part of it.

I'm not saying that morals are lost because of the law breakers..

I didn't accuse you of doing so.

 

[alissowack]

In the Bible, the devil was doing the same thing. He was tempting Jesus to prove that he was the Son of God by throwing himself off the temple...and using the Bible in a way to say that he should honor what the Bible says; in sense saying...The Bible says it, now do it or that means you are not the Son of God. Then Jesus turns around and uses scripture that says to not put The Lord to the test.

I don't see what this has to do with anything said.

By the way...there is more to love than just patience.

I know. But patience is a crucial part of it.

I'm not saying that morals are lost because of the law breakers..

I didn't accuse you of doing so.

Well...are you essentially saying that because God hasn't proven to you that He is the God of Love, according to 1 Corinthians 13:1-13, that He is not God (or that God doesn't exists)? You may not be aware that you did this, but you are not an exception. We do this to ourselves. We manipulate "set in stone" rules to appeal to a person's lack of carrying it out. It's a way of questioning authority that shows there is a lack of respect and you have your reasons for that lack of respect.

You saying patience is a crucial part is like saying the hand is greater than the foot. All parts of love is important. It's possible for patience to turn into tolerance.

The accusation comes when you say that man does not lose the moral code in respect to being the law givers. I agree that people have the capability to do good, but what would be the basis for doing anything at all? Why not do bad things? What is man to do if someone does something that is considered bad?

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

I am wary of people who seek the devil outside themselves.

 

[StoneColdMikey]

idiot

 

[Bodhi]

You may not be aware that you did this, but you are not an exception. We do this to ourselves. We manipulate "set in stone" rules to appeal to a person's lack of carrying it out.

If these "rules" were set in stone by one who themselves does not bother to carry them out, that person is then what we call a hypocrite. In fact, these are not necessarily "rules" per se but definitions of what love is. If the Bible gives the correct definition of love, what the Bible God does is in direct condradiction with his own definition. This is not manipulation of rules by me; it is the absence of something defined.

You saying patience is a crucial part is like saying the hand is greater than the foot. All parts of love is important. It's possible for patience to turn into tolerance.

I wouldn't say it's equivalent to claiming the hand greater than the foot. But I would agree that all parts of love are important, which is why I said patience is a crucial part of it, like all others are as well.

The accusation comes when you say that man does not lose the moral code in respect to being the law givers.

I don't see how you pull that accusation from what I said. Maybe you misinterpreted my words. When I say that man is his own law giver, I mean that nothing is good or bad until man deems it so. Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet, "There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so". What I mean by this is that man creates and carries out his own law.

 

[alissowack]

You may not be aware that you did this, but you are not an exception. We do this to ourselves. We manipulate "set in stone" rules to appeal to a person's lack of carrying it out.

If these "rules" were set in stone by one who themselves does not bother to carry them out, that person is then what we call a hypocrite. In fact, these are not necessarily "rules" per se but definitions of what love is. If the Bible gives the correct definition of love, what the Bible God does is in direct condradiction with his own definition. This is not manipulation of rules by me; it is the absence of something defined.

You saying patience is a crucial part is like saying the hand is greater than the foot. All parts of love is important. It's possible for patience to turn into tolerance.

I wouldn't say it's equivalent to claiming the hand greater than the foot. But I would agree that all parts of love are important, which is why I said patience is a crucial part of it, like all others are as well.

The accusation comes when you say that man does not lose the moral code in respect to being the law givers.

I don't see how you pull that accusation from what I said. Maybe you misinterpreted my words. When I say that man is his own law giver, I mean that nothing is good or bad until man deems it so. Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet, "There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so". What I mean by this is that man creates and carries out his own law.

But the issue isn't whether or not someone is being hypocritical. It's whether the one accusing someone of being a hypocrite is doing it with bad intentions. Usually hypocrites find themselves telling on themselves by their actions and there is almost no need to point it out. It is when the finger pointers point out wrongs to satisfy any selfish motives that becomes just as suspect as the hypocrite's actions. I believe when people criticize religions, they do so claiming that it is a great concern and having legit reasons for doing so, but behind closed doors they don't like the idea that there is a deity (or deities) is out there in control of their lives. It is to say this...is your questioning of God's Love really because you have a legit pursuit for the truth, or is it for something else? You could probably ask me the same question.

 

[Bodhi]

But the issue isn't whether or not someone is being hypocritical.

That is the issue. In fact, that is what my argument is premised on.

It's whether the one accusing someone of being a hypocrite is doing it with bad intentions..is your questioning of God's Love really because you have a legit pursuit for the truth, or is it for something else?

My intentions don't matter. That is not relevant to the argument.

Usually hypocrites find themselves telling on themselves by their actions

This is my argument.

 

[alissowack]

But the issue isn't whether or not someone is being hypocritical.

That is the issue. In fact, that is what my argument is premised on.

It's whether the one accusing someone of being a hypocrite is doing it with bad intentions..is your questioning of God's Love really because you have a legit pursuit for the truth, or is it for something else?

My intentions don't matter. That is not relevant to the argument.

Usually hypocrites find themselves telling on themselves by their actions

This is my argument.

What I was posted was not meant as an argument about the hypocrites...it's about the people who use rules to manipulate them for selfish gain. You think it is the hypocrites that are the only guilty parties. The "temptation of Jesus" post was meant to show that we will even use morals or what someone said to cover up bad intentions. We use the hypocrites as the scapegoat for what we don't want to face up to ourselves. Your use of 1 Corinthians 13:1-13 is coming from place where you are hoping to maintain a certain presupposed perspective you already have about the God of the Bible.

Intentions do matter. If the purpose of me coming on this thread is to see if I can win this argument instead of a genuine concern for the truth, then I might as well stop. Winning an argument serves no purpose if the truth is lost in the process. However, it is none of my business to know what your intentions are. I just know that there is more to your disagreement about God's Existence than just what you read in the Bible.

 

[Bodhi]

Your use of 1 Corinthians 13:1-13 is coming from place where you are hoping to maintain a certain presupposed perspective you already have about the God of the Bible.

My "presupposed perspective" that I "have about the God of the Bible" comes from the text itself. I have no other source of knowledge on the nature of this God. My use of 1st Corinthians was for the purpose of shining light on the contradictions within that text.

Intentions do matter. If the purpose of me coming on this thread is to see if I can win this argument instead of a genuine concern for the truth, then I might as well stop. Winning an argument serves no purpose if the truth is lost in the process. However, it is none of my business to know what your intentions are. I just know that there is more to your disagreement about God's Existence than just what you read in the Bible.

Truth defends itself.

 

[Bodhi]

What I was posted was not meant as an argument about the hypocrites...We use the hypocrites as the scapegoat for what we don't want to face up to ourselves.

If your argument is not about the hypocrite (I'm arguing that the hypocrite, in this case, is the bible god), then you have no point in discussing anything else.

My argument is more in the line of the hypocrite (god) using man as the scapegoat in order to escape his own mistakes, not the other way around.

 

[alissowack]

Your use of 1 Corinthians 13:1-13 is coming from place where you are hoping to maintain a certain presupposed perspective you already have about the God of the Bible.

My "presupposed perspective" that I "have about the God of the Bible" comes from the text itself. I have no other source of knowledge on the nature of this God. My use of 1st Corinthians was for the purpose of shining light on the contradictions within that text.

Intentions do matter. If the purpose of me coming on this thread is to see if I can win this argument instead of a genuine concern for the truth, then I might as well stop. Winning an argument serves no purpose if the truth is lost in the process. However, it is none of my business to know what your intentions are. I just know that there is more to your disagreement about God's Existence than just what you read in the Bible.

Truth defends itself.

My point is not whether there are "other sources". My point is that along life's journey you have developed viewpoints and perspectives that have shaped how you view the world...which in turn shape how you read or interpret things. You already have presuppositions way before you started reading the Bible and greatly effects how you perceive what is being said. So, to say that there isn't any bias towards what you read is to deceive yourself. I even have biases that I hope don't take away or add to what the Bible is saying.

Though I agree with the whole "Truth defends itself" post, I don't see the point in using it there. It seem misplaced...like maybe you thought I was making the case for the truth.

...and just so I don't waste valuable data space, the point of my argument is to show that there are two sides of every story. There are arguments and counter arguments and if all you are concerned about is what hypocrites do, then you will miss the entire picture. What about the people who are calling out the hypocrites? What is their story?

 

[Bodhi]

My point is not whether there are "other sources". My point is that along life's journey you have developed viewpoints and perspectives that have shaped how you view the world...which in turn shape how you read or interpret things. You already have presuppositions way before you started reading the Bible and greatly effects how you perceive what is being said. So, to say that there isn't any bias towards what you read is to deceive yourself. I even have biases that I hope don't take away or add to what the Bible is saying.

There aren't many ways to interpret the excerpts that are up for discussion. If there is another way to interpret it in order to avoid having the Bible god appear to be the hypocrite that the text portrays him as, have at it.

Though I agree with the whole "Truth defends itself" post, I don't see the point in using it there. It seem misplaced...like maybe you thought I was making the case for the truth.

You seem to be worried about "the truth" being "lost" in an argument. I'm saying don't worry about the truth. The truth can handle itself. In other words, leave it alone.

if all you are concerned about is what hypocrites do, then you will miss the entire picture. What about the people who are calling out the hypocrites? What is their story?

It doesn't matter what their "story" is. The hypocrite is a hypocrite by his actions, irregardless of whether or not someone points it out. You're either a hypocrite or not. It doesn't matter who brings it to your attention or what their personal background happens to be. It seems you are wanting to take the blame off of the Bible god and place it on someone else. This won't do.. No one is above responsibility.