If god knew.....

[Wotan]

"Why do you care?! If you don't believe, why in the world would it make any difference to you? Why waste your time? Unless, of course ... "

The reason SJ, as you very well KNOW (but so-o-o like to ignore) the reason is that belief in these myths has had and DOES have a profound effect on the believers. That effect leads to a determined and relentless effort to mold the surrounding culture into what the believers think is a better reflection of their beliefs.
And that effort affects us ALL. It alters the political balance of power in EVERY country were these myths have a significant following.

Christianity, as DuneMan has been honest enough to admit, is about power - POLITICAL POWER.
That is why what you guys believe matters. Otherwise, indeed none of us would bother to cross the street to give one of you guys a drink of water. Or spend a millisecond listening to your gibberish.

 

[McBell]

the problem is, the assumption is incorrect.

What assumption is incorrect?

Therefore the whole argument you're trying to make is moot. We can't discuss it, because there's nothing to discuss. It's like accusing a giraffe of being fundamentally wrong because it doesn't taste like an apple. What are we discussing? The qualities of apples, the nature of giraffes, or the discernability of the human palate?

um...
What the hell are you talking about?

I am talking about god, already knowing that man could not follow the 613 rules, setting up the 613 rule system.
Then god sends himself to earth as his own son so that he, as his son, could "save" man from mans failure of the 613 rule system by committing suicide.

This really has nothing to do with "breaking the 'rules.'" Therefore, since your premise has nothing in common with a proper Biblical concept, it can't be argued from the Biblical perspective to which you want to hold us. And if we stray from "the Bible," then we're accused of "picking-and-choosing what to believe." If you want to discuss theology, I'm all yours. If you want to argue from some other paradigm that has nothing to do with 1) the Bible, 2) Christian faith, or 3) theology, I'm not interested.

Again, what the hell are you going on about?

How is it MY fault that YOUR Bible can be used to argue against any Biblical position you would take?

As I have already stated:

I have never gotten anything but double talk and mental gymnastics in reply ... ...
​

 

[ninerbuff]

Well, the US is militarily "all powerful." We could utterly destroy the world, if we wanted to. We choose not to, however. Just because God is omnipotent doesn't mean that God must use that power all the time, in every instance. God chooses to limit God's actions in favor of cultivating a relationship with humanity. Of course God "has the power." But manipulation is a human paradigm, not a Divine paradigm (in Judeo-Xian theology).

We use that power as a deterrence. Even the most powerful military can be beaten by numbers. The US is only one country and if all the countries bonded to fight us, we would lose. Common sense let's us know it would be fruitless to try to ward of the whole world if we were the aggressor.

 

[sojourner]

The point is that god already knew before he set up the 613 rules that man would not be able to succeed.
He set up the 613 rules anyway.
Thus god purposely set man up to fail.

god didn't "set up" 613 rules. Humanity did that. Thus, your premise is wrong, and the argument, therefore, moot.

 

[sojourner]

The reason SJ, as you very well KNOW (but so-o-o like to ignore) the reason is that belief in these myths has had and DOES have a profound effect on the believers.

Yes, I do know, and, for your edification, I don't ignore it -- indeed, I have spent a significant amount of time and money thinking about, learning about, and dealing with that very issue. Belief does have a profound effect on believers. So glad you noticed.

That effect leads to a determined and relentless effort to mold the surrounding culture into what the believers think is a better reflection of their beliefs.

That might be what you think, and it might be true for some other religions, and of evangelical and imperial Xy as well, but that determined and relentless effort to mold the surrounding culture is no more "Christian" than the man in the moon. And for the very reason you list below:

And that effort affects us ALL.

Quite right! And I agree with your concern. This isn't about:

Christianity, as DuneMan has been honest enough to admit, is about power - POLITICAL POWER.

It's about building community. Some radicals might want to make it be about political power, but they're missing out on the whole method by which the Church becomes the Body of Christ. It's not through politics and salesmanship, but through adapting to the larger community.

That is why what you guys believe matters. Otherwise, indeed none of us would bother to cross the street to give one of you guys a drink of water. Or spend a millisecond listening to your gibberish.

Well, then, go ahead and spit at the radicals. but don't spit at me.

 

[sojourner]

What assumption is incorrect?

The assumption that it's all about "rules that God set up for us to fail."

um...
What the hell are you talking about?

I am talking about god, already knowing that man could not follow the 613 rules, setting up the 613 rule system.
Then god sends himself to earth as his own son so that he, as his son, could "save" man from mans failure of the 613 rule system by committing suicide.

That's precisely what I'm saying. That assumption you're stating above is an incorrect assumption. Therefore, any argument from that assumption is worthless. Kind of like arguing giraffes and apples.

Again, what the hell are you going on about?

See above.

How is it MY fault that YOUR Bible can be used to argue against any Biblical position you would take?

It is your fault if you misinterpret, utilize bad (or nonexistent) exegesis in order to form a premise for your argument. The Bible is extremely polyvalent, but that polyvalency still depends upon a proper interpretation. Your inability or unwillingness to do that isn't my fault.

As I have already stated:I have never gotten anything but double talk and mental gymnastics in reply ... ...

And yet you willingly erect the monkey bars and then blithely swing from them... and then gripe because we won't play on the monkey bars you erect.

 

[sojourner]

We use that power as a deterrence. Even the most powerful military can be beaten by numbers. The US is only one country and if all the countries bonded to fight us, we would lose. Common sense let's us know it would be fruitless to try to ward of the whole world if we were the aggressor.

You're misdirecting the argument. The issue isn't how the US uses its power. The argument is that ultimate power doesn't dictate the absolute use of that power.

 

[McBell]

god didn't "set up" 613 rules. Humanity did that. Thus, your premise is wrong, and the argument, therefore, moot.

Ah..
So you believe that the OT is not from god then?

 

[ninerbuff]

You're misdirecting the argument. The issue isn't how the US uses its power. The argument is that ultimate power doesn't dictate the absolute use of that power.

So god's power though ultimate, is possibly controlled by humans?

 

[sojourner]

Ah..
So you believe that the OT is not from god then?

Only in the sense that it was created by a community "in God."

 

[sojourner]

So god's power though ultimate, is possibly controlled by humans?

No. My considered opinion is that God defers to humanity quite often. Further, I think that God "depends" on us to work on God's behalf. But we don't "control" God's power.
I think, with regard to this particular topic, it was a definite interplay (as it so often is) between Divinity and humanity -- a "give-and-take," if you will.

Sure, Jesus could have run away. He could have recanted. He could have performed some kind of miracle. But how would that have helped the cause, in light of its dependence on human interpretation?

 

[JustWondering]

Only in the sense that it was created by a community "in God."

So you agree with me that the OT is manmade superstitous storytelling?

 

[sojourner]

So you agree with me that the OT is manmade superstitous storytelling?

No. The OT is made up of many different kinds of literature, originally passed down orally and later written, edited and compiled by people. Some of it is storytelling, but none of it would be classified as "superstitious." Rather, it is a theological treatment of how this group of people understood themselves in relationship with God.

 

[JustWondering]

No. The OT is made up of many different kinds of literature, originally passed down orally and later written, edited and compiled by people.

So do you believe the OT is the word of god, yes or no?

Some of it is storytelling, but none of it would be classified as "superstitious." Rather, it is a theological treatment of how this group of people understood themselves in relationship with God.

I would classify the OT as superstitious storytelling.

 

[search the scriptures]

ninerbuff: " So if no man can take it, and only he can take his own life, then that's suicide."

not unless he preformed the actual killing himself. He willingly was sacrificed for your sins, and was killed by the ones he died for.

Joh 6:51my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

being killed by men and not killing his own self.
He willingly out of love for you, allowed humans to take his life; if he did not allow this to happen, no human could have killed him in the flesh. in that light, he allowed himself to be killed and gave his own life(in the flesh).

ninerbuff: "The actual scripture states "only he can take his own life" "

Suicide (Latin suicidium, from sui caedere, "to kill oneself") is the act of a human being intentionally causing his or her own death

(wikipedia)

doesn't mean allowing.... it says causing... the physical cause of jesus' death was crucifiction, beating, stoning etc... none of wich did he physically do to himself. cause of death: humans other than himself torturing his physical body(flesh)....

" intentionally causing " =suicide

intentionally enduring the cause of death- being murdered by humans, out of love for human redemption= laying down your life...

 

[McBell]

Suicide:

The act of causing ones own death.

Suicide may be positive or negative and it may be direct or indirect. Suicide is a positive act when one takes ones own life.

Suicide is a negative act when one does not do what is necessary to escape death such as leaving a burning building.

Suicide is direct when one has the intention of causing ones own death, whether as an end to be attained, or as a means to another end, as when a man kills himself to escape condemnation, disgrace, ruin, etc.

Suicide is indirect (and not usually called suicide) when one does not desire it as an end or a means, but when one nevertheless commits an act which courts death, as in tending someone with SARS knowing that they may well succumb to the same illness.
​

Suicide definition - Medical Dictionary definitions of popular medical terms easily defined on MedTerms


So yes, Jesus did in fact commit suicide.

 

[Wotan]

No. The OT is made up of many different kinds of literature, originally passed down orally and later written, edited and compiled by people. Some of it is storytelling, but none of it would be classified as "superstitious." Rather, it is a theological treatment of how this group of people understood themselves in relationship with God.

Theology IS superstition.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

that jesus was going to die for our sins, and that resurrection was going to happen, then the question is how is this a "sacrifice" if the end result was jesus being raised from the dead? It's like he never died then.

You're forgetting that we didn't know. Is it really a sacrifice? If by 'sacrifice' you mean the person is dead...well, that did happen. If the raising from the dead, meaning the person is physically alive again, nullifies the 'sacrifice' then it's not a 'sacrifice'.
How is it a sacrifice? What does the whole passion tell you? Jesus was alive in the beginning, and alive at the end, but in a different way. What happened in the middle? A crucifixion. A death. Torture. Pain.
So what does that say? It says we can go through pain as still be alive at the end. We are alive in a different way, though, which implies a transformation. Jesus teaches us this transformation through his own actions. That is the sacrifice.

 

[Wotan]

"So what does that say? It says we can go through pain as still be alive at the end. We are alive in a different way, though, which implies a transformation. Jesus teaches us this transformation through his own actions. That is the sacrifice."

There needs no jewish zombie come hot from hell to tell us that!

Our 1st skinned knee and we KNOW pain is hurts and is temporary.

No mythology needed to grasp that.

 

[search the scriptures]

lay down one's life (for someone or something)
Fig. to sacrifice one's life for someone or something. Would you lay down your life for your country? There aren't many things for which I'd lay down my life.

mestimia: "Suicide is a negative act when one does not do what is necessary to escape death such as leaving a burning building.

Suicide is direct when one has the intention of causing ones own death, whether as an end to be attained, or as a means to another end, as when a man kills himself to escape condemnation, disgrace, ruin, etc. "


suicide is a selfish desire to die.

laying down your life(for a cause) is not suicide.

lay down one's life (for someone or something)
Fig. to sacrifice one's life for someone or something. Would you lay down your life for your country? There aren't many things for which I'd lay down my life.
lay down life - Idioms - by the Free Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
all our fallen soldiers commited suicide?