Jesus and his sacrifice are Satan’s test of man’s morality.

[GreatestIam]

This is all about death for sure. Justice as well.

As above, so below.

If you only had one son and decided a death was required, would you send your son or would you step up yourself for the punishment you demand?

IOW. Who should bury who?

Should parents bury their children or should children bury their parents?

Regards
DL

Why do parents send their son into battle ? To win the war so that we shall live in peace.

Parents send their children to war because they are more fit and more likely to win.

In the case of Jesus or the father, they are both fit and that means that the father should have stepped up.

I guess that since you tried to dodge the question, you would put your life ahead of your own child's. Shame on you.

You prove to all here that Christianity corrupts a parents morals.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

Jesus and his sacrifice are Satan’s test of man’s morality.

Justice is when the guilty is punished. Injustice is when the innocent is punished.

Jesus, if you accept him as your savior, is you punishing the innocent instead of the guilty.

DL

---
You have an interesting point, from a logical perspective, but why dwell on ancient myths and imaginary demons/gods?

Religions have little to do with contemporary "morality", and everything to do with invented stories that supported the lifestyles of the ignorant "authorities".
And if you're uneducated & gullible, as were/are the believers, then you can enjoy the sugary thoughts about going to heaven after your body ceases to operate as a biological system, which includes your brain & mind.
.

I dislike the poor morals that Christians develop from their beliefs.

I am driven by a social conscience exemplified by this quote.

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

If I am to try to love my neighbor, I have to recognize it as my duty to correct his poor thinking.

I do unto others in the hope that they will also do unto me.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

Dad killing his kid bestows eternal life on dead people.

I remember thinking that when I was a child - that I didn't want anything to do with a "father" who would do that to his "only begotten son". And then to learn that he wasn't even "begotten".

Bizarre superstition.
Its a


Bizarre superstition.
Its a truly bizarre superstition.

And quite immoral if it were true.

Strange that no Christian wonders shy God sent a son instead of doing what a human would do and that is have the father die instead of the son as should happen.

Christian praise God for doing what they would condemn a man for doing.

That double standard shows just how corrupted Christian morality is.

Regards
DL

You made no point "greatest" other than provide evidence that you are
very shallow in your thinking. Christian theology sees Jesus as RETURNING
to his role as "son of God" in paradise---he played his role as a divine entity
on earth

A bit of R&R is hardly a sacrifice.

You say I think in a shallow way.

Let's test that shall we.

As above, so below.

If you only had one son and decided a death was required, would you send your son or would you step up yourself for the punishment you demand?

IOW. Who should bury who?

Should parents bury their children or should children bury their parents?

Regards
DL

now you are getting Idiotic------and engaging in ascribing human type forms
to God

Not at all.

I recognize as above so below.

Your deflection away from an honest answer to a straight forward question shows hat Satan has your soul.

Regards
DL

 

[irosie91]

Dad killing his kid bestows eternal life on dead people.

I remember thinking that when I was a child - that I didn't want anything to do with a "father" who would do that to his "only begotten son". And then to learn that he wasn't even "begotten".

Bizarre superstition.
Its a


Bizarre superstition.
Its a truly bizarre superstition.

And quite immoral if it were true.

Strange that no Christian wonders shy God sent a son instead of doing what a human would do and that is have the father die instead of the son as should happen.

Christian praise God for doing what they would condemn a man for doing.

That double standard shows just how corrupted Christian morality is.

Regards
DL

You made no point "greatest" other than provide evidence that you are
very shallow in your thinking. Christian theology sees Jesus as RETURNING
to his role as "son of God" in paradise---he played his role as a divine entity
on earth

A bit of R&R is hardly a sacrifice.

You say I think in a shallow way.

Let's test that shall we.

As above, so below.

If you only had one son and decided a death was required, would you send your son or would you step up yourself for the punishment you demand?

IOW. Who should bury who?

Should parents bury their children or should children bury their parents?

Regards
DL

now you are getting Idiotic------and engaging in ascribing human type forms
to God

Not at all.

I recognize as above so below.

Your deflection away from an honest answer to a straight forward question shows hat Satan has your soul.

Regards
DL

ROFLMAO just WHO is "SATAN" in your perverted mind? "as above, so below"<<<< what does that mean? "mrs god" is doing the laundry today
and has a pot roast in the oven?

 

[GreatestIam]

Yes they do. That was drilled into me as a R C for many years.

Are you saying that they did not and do not believe that they need a savior?

Regards
DL

No, he is our Savior due to he picked peace instead of war, I do not think he took my sins upon him, and I have never been taught that. I was taught we are responsible for our sins and need to confess them, and turn from them. I have heard many Protestants say Christ took our sins, that makes people very irresponsible in my opinion.
This is according to the RC teaching I had. You may of had different.

The doctrine is not taught in the Bible and is manifestly contrary to the nature of God, who is all goodness and who cannot punish the innocent, all-holy Son of God. This understanding of substitutionary atonement is not compatible with the Catholic faith. One can only say that Christ "took our punishment" in a poetic rather than in a literal sense.

An understanding of substitutionary atonement that is compatible with the Catholic faith is known as vicarious satisfaction. According to this view, Christ allowed himself to be killed by men (not by God) and by allowing himself to be killed he offered his life to God as a sacrifice of love. Because of the infinite merit of the sacrifice (due to his divinity), the Father accepted the sacrifice as making satisfaction for the sins of the world. Christ thus made satisfaction for us vicariously but was not "punished by God," who due to his omniscience cannot regard an infinitely holy Son as anything other than infinitely holy.

EWTN.com - The Divinity of Christ & Substitutionary Atonement

So you do not need a savior but accept him as such anyway, while changing the term. Rather semantic and hypocritical as seen from here.

If God/Jesus is divine then he cannot die.

Jesus also offered nothing as he was chosen and had no choice and he confirms that in scriptures by saying he was doing his fathers will and not his own.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

Without Jesus and his so called sacrifice. Catholics have no religion and no salvation which they say we need.

If you want to chat, do not lie or distort your dogma as you tried to do here.

Regards
DL

Dear GreatestIam
1. Jesus means Salvation in spiritual terms, or Justice in secular terms.
Don't people need to receive forgiveness and healing in order to maintain PEACE.
Don't all people need to work together to establishment agreement on JUSTICE.

Saying we don't need Jesus is like saying we don't need to forgive in order to receive Peace and Justice.
I find people cannot fully forgive all things WITHOUT DIVINE HELP.

2. Jesus can follow God's will and accept that his life is for the purpose of divine sacrifice
to break the vicious cycle of retribution

Why are you saying it cannot be both? Both God's will and a sacrifice?

3. RE: hiding immorality
GreatestIam are you projecting onto me?
Are you hiding some fault on your side, but telling yourself I am hiding something?
Is that a form of hiding your own?

I have answered fully and transparently
If you see something "immoral" in what I say or how I explain it,
can you please point it out SPECIFICALLY so it is NOT HIDDEN.

I would like all faults to be addressed openly so they can be fixed.
GreatestIam if you see something contradictory, please point it out
SPECIFICALLY so I can correct it. What do you see wrong in what I said?

Thanks GreatestIam

How do you figure that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is somehow justice?

Is that how you think our legal system should work?

Regards
DL

This is what is so humbling about Jesus, and why so many religions say that He is not the Messiah. Because of not acting like royalty, as a material king while He was growing up, and dying with 2 criminals on the cross.
He showed us a humble life that you don't have to be rich to secede.
As far as killing your own son..... it had to happen to build a bridge between us a sinning people and Holy God.

.

So now, to justify God's immoral action, you place limits on him and say he had no choice other than to punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

You speak with Satan's words and thus show who you follow.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

And quite immoral if it were true.

Strange that no Christian wonders shy God sent a son instead of doing what a human would do and that is have the father die instead of the son as should happen.

Christian praise God for doing what they would condemn a man for doing.

That double standard shows just how corrupted Christian morality is.

Regards
DL

You made no point "greatest" other than provide evidence that you are
very shallow in your thinking. Christian theology sees Jesus as RETURNING
to his role as "son of God" in paradise---he played his role as a divine entity
on earth

A bit of R&R is hardly a sacrifice.

You say I think in a shallow way.

Let's test that shall we.

As above, so below.

If you only had one son and decided a death was required, would you send your son or would you step up yourself for the punishment you demand?

IOW. Who should bury who?

Should parents bury their children or should children bury their parents?

Regards
DL

now you are getting Idiotic------and engaging in ascribing human type forms
to God

Not at all.

I recognize as above so below.

Your deflection away from an honest answer to a straight forward question shows hat Satan has your soul.

Regards
DL

ROFLMAO just WHO is "SATAN" in your perverted mind? "as above, so below"<<<< what does that mean? "mrs god" is doing the laundry today
and has a pot roast in the oven?

We will chat when you catch up by answering the question I asked above about you having your child die instead of you doing the right thing and dying ahead of your child.

Others will note how you try to deflect with the same type of garbage you just put here.

Keep it up. You do my work for me of showing your corrupted morals.

Regards
DL

 

[irosie91]

You made no point "greatest" other than provide evidence that you are
very shallow in your thinking. Christian theology sees Jesus as RETURNING
to his role as "son of God" in paradise---he played his role as a divine entity
on earth

A bit of R&R is hardly a sacrifice.

You say I think in a shallow way.

Let's test that shall we.

As above, so below.

If you only had one son and decided a death was required, would you send your son or would you step up yourself for the punishment you demand?

IOW. Who should bury who?

Should parents bury their children or should children bury their parents?

Regards
DL

now you are getting Idiotic------and engaging in ascribing human type forms
to God

Not at all.

I recognize as above so below.

Your deflection away from an honest answer to a straight forward question shows hat Satan has your soul.

Regards
DL

ROFLMAO just WHO is "SATAN" in your perverted mind? "as above, so below"<<<< what does that mean? "mrs god" is doing the laundry today
and has a pot roast in the oven?

We will chat when you catch up by answering the question I asked above about you having your child die instead of you doing the right thing and dying ahead of your child.

Others will note how you try to deflect with the same type of garbage you just put here.

Keep it up. You do my work for me of showing your corrupted morals.

Regards
DL

what have you been snorting???

 

[GreatestIam]

A bit of R&R is hardly a sacrifice.

You say I think in a shallow way.

Let's test that shall we.

As above, so below.

If you only had one son and decided a death was required, would you send your son or would you step up yourself for the punishment you demand?

IOW. Who should bury who?

Should parents bury their children or should children bury their parents?

Regards
DL

now you are getting Idiotic------and engaging in ascribing human type forms
to God

Not at all.

I recognize as above so below.

Your deflection away from an honest answer to a straight forward question shows hat Satan has your soul.

Regards
DL

ROFLMAO just WHO is "SATAN" in your perverted mind? "as above, so below"<<<< what does that mean? "mrs god" is doing the laundry today
and has a pot roast in the oven?

We will chat when you catch up by answering the question I asked above about you having your child die instead of you doing the right thing and dying ahead of your child.

Others will note how you try to deflect with the same type of garbage you just put here.

Keep it up. You do my work for me of showing your corrupted morals.

Regards
DL

what have you been snorting???

You cannot argue your immoral position and now deflect to personal garbage.

Again, you show your satanic morals, Christian.

Regards
DL

 

[Eaglewings]

Parents send their children to war because they are more fit and more likely to win.

In the case of Jesus or the father, they are both fit and that means that the father should have stepped up.

I guess that since you tried to dodge the question, you would put your life ahead of your own child's. Shame on you.

You prove to all here that Christianity corrupts a parents morals.

Regards
DL

BTW: this was really stupid...

Parents send their children to war because they are more fit and more likely to win.

In the case of Jesus or the father, they are both fit and that means that the father should have stepped up.



.

 

[GreatestIam]

Parents send their children to war because they are more fit and more likely to win.

In the case of Jesus or the father, they are both fit and that means that the father should have stepped up.

I guess that since you tried to dodge the question, you would put your life ahead of your own child's. Shame on you.

You prove to all here that Christianity corrupts a parents morals.

Regards
DL

BTW: this was really stupid...

Parents send their children to war because they are more fit and more likely to win.

In the case of Jesus or the father, they are both fit and that means that the father should have stepped up.



.

I see nothing to refute what I said or an argument to the opposite.

My statements stand unopposed and thus true to the lurkers.

Regards
DL

 

[Eaglewings]

Parents send their children to war because they are more fit and more likely to win.

In the case of Jesus or the father, they are both fit and that means that the father should have stepped up.

I guess that since you tried to dodge the question, you would put your life ahead of your own child's. Shame on you.

You prove to all here that Christianity corrupts a parents morals.

Regards
DL

BTW: this was really stupid...

Parents send their children to war because they are more fit and more likely to win.

In the case of Jesus or the father, they are both fit and that means that the father should have stepped up.



.

I see nothing to refute what I said or an argument to the opposite.

My statements stand unopposed and thus true to the lurkers.

Regards
DL

Tellme a bit about your faith, and do you feel that there is a higher power greater than yourself?

 

[GreatestIam]

Parents send their children to war because they are more fit and more likely to win.

In the case of Jesus or the father, they are both fit and that means that the father should have stepped up.

I guess that since you tried to dodge the question, you would put your life ahead of your own child's. Shame on you.

You prove to all here that Christianity corrupts a parents morals.

Regards
DL

BTW: this was really stupid...

Parents send their children to war because they are more fit and more likely to win.

In the case of Jesus or the father, they are both fit and that means that the father should have stepped up.



.

I see nothing to refute what I said or an argument to the opposite.

My statements stand unopposed and thus true to the lurkers.

Regards
DL

Tell me a bit about your faith, and do you feel that there is a higher power greater than yourself?

If one wishes to be greater than me, all they have to do is show how they are greater.

Jesus, the Jews and I all believe in a Divine Council and the supremacy of man over the Gods.

I am a Gnostic Christian, but our beliefs are not what Christianity says they are. We lost the God wars and they distorted our belief system. The lies have been known since the findings of our scriptures and myths at Nag Hammadi.

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html

Gnostic Christianity is a teaching system from Jesus but not the one the church ever dares to teach. It frees us from religion and that is of course not what religions want. They never want the student to graduate as they might lose revenue and people.

Here is a bit of history as well as a nutshell version of how that freedom is gained.

Gnostic Christians are perpetual seekers after God. God here I define as the best laws and rules to live life with.

We believe that those laws and rules, as Jesus said, are found in our minds/hearts. I use the following to try to illustrate this notion. A bit of history and then a mindset and method to do what I promote.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D

The thinking shown below is the Gnostic Christian’s goal as taught by Jesus but know that any belief can be internalized to activate your higher mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

This method and mind set is how you become I am and brethren to Jesus, in the esoteric sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y

When you can name your God, I am, and mean yourself, you will begin to know the only God you will ever find. Becoming a God is to become more fully human and a brethren to Jesus.

Regards
DL

 

[emilynghiem]

RC's do not believe in Substitutionary Atonement.

Yes they do. That was drilled into me as a R C for many years.

Are you saying that they did not and do not believe that they need a savior?

Regards
DL

No, he is our Savior due to he picked peace instead of war, I do not think he took my sins upon him, and I have never been taught that. I was taught we are responsible for our sins and need to confess them, and turn from them. I have heard many Protestants say Christ took our sins, that makes people very irresponsible in my opinion.
This is according to the RC teaching I had. You may of had different.

The doctrine is not taught in the Bible and is manifestly contrary to the nature of God, who is all goodness and who cannot punish the innocent, all-holy Son of God. This understanding of substitutionary atonement is not compatible with the Catholic faith. One can only say that Christ "took our punishment" in a poetic rather than in a literal sense.

An understanding of substitutionary atonement that is compatible with the Catholic faith is known as vicarious satisfaction. According to this view, Christ allowed himself to be killed by men (not by God) and by allowing himself to be killed he offered his life to God as a sacrifice of love. Because of the infinite merit of the sacrifice (due to his divinity), the Father accepted the sacrifice as making satisfaction for the sins of the world. Christ thus made satisfaction for us vicariously but was not "punished by God," who due to his omniscience cannot regard an infinitely holy Son as anything other than infinitely holy.

EWTN.com - The Divinity of Christ & Substitutionary Atonement

So you do not need a savior but accept him as such anyway, while changing the term. Rather semantic and hypocritical as seen from here.

If God/Jesus is divine then he cannot die.

Jesus also offered nothing as he was chosen and had no choice and he confirms that in scriptures by saying he was doing his fathers will and not his own.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

Without Jesus and his so called sacrifice. Catholics have no religion and no salvation which they say we need.

If you want to chat, do not lie or distort your dogma as you tried to do here.

Regards
DL

Dear GreatestIam
1. Jesus means Salvation in spiritual terms, or Justice in secular terms.
Don't people need to receive forgiveness and healing in order to maintain PEACE.
Don't all people need to work together to establishment agreement on JUSTICE.

Saying we don't need Jesus is like saying we don't need to forgive in order to receive Peace and Justice.
I find people cannot fully forgive all things WITHOUT DIVINE HELP.

2. Jesus can follow God's will and accept that his life is for the purpose of divine sacrifice
to break the vicious cycle of retribution

Why are you saying it cannot be both? Both God's will and a sacrifice?

3. RE: hiding immorality
GreatestIam are you projecting onto me?
Are you hiding some fault on your side, but telling yourself I am hiding something?
Is that a form of hiding your own?

I have answered fully and transparently
If you see something "immoral" in what I say or how I explain it,
can you please point it out SPECIFICALLY so it is NOT HIDDEN.

I would like all faults to be addressed openly so they can be fixed.
GreatestIam if you see something contradictory, please point it out
SPECIFICALLY so I can correct it. What do you see wrong in what I said?

Thanks GreatestIam

How do you figure that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is somehow justice?

Is that how you think our legal system should work?

Regards
DL

GreatestIam Did you read my post?
No, it's not, it's injustice.
That's why we need redemption in Restorative Justice
to correct the wrongs CAUSING the injustice. So this injustice doesn't happen again,
the cycle of abuse is BROKEN.

The point of Christ Jesus is to BREAK the cycle of wrongful retribution!
NOT to continue it.
Got it? Get it, good!

 

[emilynghiem]

THat is the Rc view. Take or leave it. The Jews had Jesus killed. I have quoted you from ewtn. I think they should know!

Strange how you run and hide the moment I use the bible to refute your garbage.

Regards
DL

just for curiosity-----what are you calling "garbage" """greatest,"""? ie---what did
you refute?

The notion that Catholics , like all Christians, would reject the sacrifice of Jesus and not try to ride that scapegoat into heaven.

All who fly the cross want to ride Jesus into heaven.

As scriptures say, the whole world will be deceived by Satan. I modify that to the whole Christian world, by the immorality of substitutionary atonement in this case.

It is immoral yet all Christians think it moral.

Satan wins.

Regards
DL

Hi GreatestIam From this message ^ I can see what you are saying is wrong.
Yes, it is wrong to think that you can just let Jesus' sacrifice "magically save you"
while not changing yourself, taking up the cross, and really incorporating the way of salvation.

You are right, that is the wrong way to think Jesus is some magic word or genie to get everyone off the hook.

We all still have to choose and use the path of forgiveness, correction and healing in Christ Jesus to complete the path. The plan is there, but walking the steps is a whole process, and it cannot be done "vicariously" by saying Jesus did it, so we can do "whatever" and ride on that.

The Baptists are still right, we are saved by Grace and faith in advance; without that we don't even have a path to follow, because we cannot even receive the map of God's will planned for us if we don't even agree and accept there is one. Once we accept it, God's will is going to be done, but we still follow the plans, we still go through all the motions and steps. The script of life doesn't just play out itself, we are the ones who play out the actions and scenes in the script or the map of God's will, plans and purpose for humanity to reach maturity and peace.

And the Catholics and others would be right if they are following the map in that spirit.

However, you are pointing out some people don't have the right spirit to begin with.
They are missing the point.
They think as long as the map is there, they are already saved, whether they follow it or not? They can follow PARTS of the map and that counts because the map will magically save them?

To save humanity, we all have to get on the same page on the map. We may have different parts to cover but we are supposed to be JOINED IN CHRIST.

So whatever part of the map you are seeing, where you can tell there are lost folks wandering in the wilderness, thinking they have it, we still need to put all our knowledge together and get this mapping down.

I finally ran into someone CLAIMING to be Roman Catholic who doesn't get the Bible.
Just follows the Pope on helping the poor as the one corner of the map that makes sense and is easier to do.
Just wants to follow God directly, but doesn't get if other Christians offer a rebuke or correction in Christ by scripture, and doesn't see how that has anything to do with establishing God's will and plans on the map.

I had never run into this before. I had run into stubborn fundamentalists who put the Bible before reason instead of reconciling the two. But here I found someone who believes in God and the Pope but not the Bible.
Does not understand how to love all neighbors equally in Christ, but just believes helping the poor is enough.

So this may be what you mean, GreatestIam
I have no idea how to talk with such a person who doesn't get anything I am saying
Maybe you can explain.
My RC friend said not to depend on the Bible because of the Roman Empire and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Do you know what that refers to, what about these two things means rejecting the Bible?

Thanks and I hope you can explain more how this Catholic thing is being taught,
because this is the first time I've run into it. I was warned that Catholics focus on works,
but I never thought it meant this, that you can do whatever you want as long as you help the poor? What?

 

[Fishlore]

The long-standing consensus of scholars of all Christian denomination about the dates when the New Testament books were composed make it clear that Jesus was not a Christian He was a pious, radical Jew from Galilee who lived and died within the apocalyptic branch of Judaism. The neo-Platonic subtleties debated outside the Jerusalem community led by Jesus' brother, James, are a completely separate issue.

it is not entirely clear to me that "James" is an historic figure in the minds of
all or most Christian scholars

That is very interesting. There are, as I am sure you know, several key references to James as a member of the inner circle of disciples and as the leader of the Jerusalem followers after the death of Jesus. Are the scholars you mention denying the accuracy of these passages, or what?

 

[Fishlore]

THat is the Rc view. Take or leave it. The Jews had Jesus killed. I have quoted you from ewtn. I think they should know!

why would "they know"??? ----they rely on a book written and edited by a
tyrannical murderer who just happened to be an apologist for all things roman---
like "lion lunch for fun and amusement" and barbaric exploitation of conquered
people and enslavement there of. -----and crucifixtion. The NT is an excellent
source-------for people who can manage to accept the fact that it did not fall from
heaven and just WHO wrote it and why-------EXCELLENT

Who is this tyrannical murderer??

You don't know? Constantine,,,,,,,,<<such a bloody roman barbarian that there
are some Christian theologians who refuse to accept him as a Christian.....
or a "saint"

I didn't know Constantine was canonized by anyone. His story, as far as I remember, comes to us from Eusebius and doesn't present the guy as very spiritual. His various dreams and visions, including the famous cross in the sky, fit in much better with contemporary pagan beliefs than with the teachings of the Christian churches.

 

[GreatestIam]

Yes they do. That was drilled into me as a R C for many years.

Are you saying that they did not and do not believe that they need a savior?

Regards
DL

No, he is our Savior due to he picked peace instead of war, I do not think he took my sins upon him, and I have never been taught that. I was taught we are responsible for our sins and need to confess them, and turn from them. I have heard many Protestants say Christ took our sins, that makes people very irresponsible in my opinion.
This is according to the RC teaching I had. You may of had different.

The doctrine is not taught in the Bible and is manifestly contrary to the nature of God, who is all goodness and who cannot punish the innocent, all-holy Son of God. This understanding of substitutionary atonement is not compatible with the Catholic faith. One can only say that Christ "took our punishment" in a poetic rather than in a literal sense.

An understanding of substitutionary atonement that is compatible with the Catholic faith is known as vicarious satisfaction. According to this view, Christ allowed himself to be killed by men (not by God) and by allowing himself to be killed he offered his life to God as a sacrifice of love. Because of the infinite merit of the sacrifice (due to his divinity), the Father accepted the sacrifice as making satisfaction for the sins of the world. Christ thus made satisfaction for us vicariously but was not "punished by God," who due to his omniscience cannot regard an infinitely holy Son as anything other than infinitely holy.

EWTN.com - The Divinity of Christ & Substitutionary Atonement

So you do not need a savior but accept him as such anyway, while changing the term. Rather semantic and hypocritical as seen from here.

If God/Jesus is divine then he cannot die.

Jesus also offered nothing as he was chosen and had no choice and he confirms that in scriptures by saying he was doing his fathers will and not his own.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

Without Jesus and his so called sacrifice. Catholics have no religion and no salvation which they say we need.

If you want to chat, do not lie or distort your dogma as you tried to do here.

Regards
DL

Dear GreatestIam
1. Jesus means Salvation in spiritual terms, or Justice in secular terms.
Don't people need to receive forgiveness and healing in order to maintain PEACE.
Don't all people need to work together to establishment agreement on JUSTICE.

Saying we don't need Jesus is like saying we don't need to forgive in order to receive Peace and Justice.
I find people cannot fully forgive all things WITHOUT DIVINE HELP.

2. Jesus can follow God's will and accept that his life is for the purpose of divine sacrifice
to break the vicious cycle of retribution

Why are you saying it cannot be both? Both God's will and a sacrifice?

3. RE: hiding immorality
GreatestIam are you projecting onto me?
Are you hiding some fault on your side, but telling yourself I am hiding something?
Is that a form of hiding your own?

I have answered fully and transparently
If you see something "immoral" in what I say or how I explain it,
can you please point it out SPECIFICALLY so it is NOT HIDDEN.

I would like all faults to be addressed openly so they can be fixed.
GreatestIam if you see something contradictory, please point it out
SPECIFICALLY so I can correct it. What do you see wrong in what I said?

Thanks GreatestIam

How do you figure that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is somehow justice?

Is that how you think our legal system should work?

Regards
DL

GreatestIam Did you read my post?
No, it's not, it's injustice.
That's why we need redemption in Restorative Justice
to correct the wrongs CAUSING the injustice. So this injustice doesn't happen again,
the cycle of abuse is BROKEN.

The point of Christ Jesus is to BREAK the cycle of wrongful retribution!
NOT to continue it.
Got it? Get it, good!

I will only tolerate your ignorance when you actually answer my questions.

But thanks for showing all the lurkers here how ignorant and ill mannered a Christian can be.

Regards
DL

 

[emilynghiem]

No, he is our Savior due to he picked peace instead of war, I do not think he took my sins upon him, and I have never been taught that. I was taught we are responsible for our sins and need to confess them, and turn from them. I have heard many Protestants say Christ took our sins, that makes people very irresponsible in my opinion.
This is according to the RC teaching I had. You may of had different.

The doctrine is not taught in the Bible and is manifestly contrary to the nature of God, who is all goodness and who cannot punish the innocent, all-holy Son of God. This understanding of substitutionary atonement is not compatible with the Catholic faith. One can only say that Christ "took our punishment" in a poetic rather than in a literal sense.

An understanding of substitutionary atonement that is compatible with the Catholic faith is known as vicarious satisfaction. According to this view, Christ allowed himself to be killed by men (not by God) and by allowing himself to be killed he offered his life to God as a sacrifice of love. Because of the infinite merit of the sacrifice (due to his divinity), the Father accepted the sacrifice as making satisfaction for the sins of the world. Christ thus made satisfaction for us vicariously but was not "punished by God," who due to his omniscience cannot regard an infinitely holy Son as anything other than infinitely holy.

EWTN.com - The Divinity of Christ & Substitutionary Atonement

So you do not need a savior but accept him as such anyway, while changing the term. Rather semantic and hypocritical as seen from here.

If God/Jesus is divine then he cannot die.

Jesus also offered nothing as he was chosen and had no choice and he confirms that in scriptures by saying he was doing his fathers will and not his own.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

Without Jesus and his so called sacrifice. Catholics have no religion and no salvation which they say we need.

If you want to chat, do not lie or distort your dogma as you tried to do here.

Regards
DL

Dear GreatestIam
1. Jesus means Salvation in spiritual terms, or Justice in secular terms.
Don't people need to receive forgiveness and healing in order to maintain PEACE.
Don't all people need to work together to establishment agreement on JUSTICE.

Saying we don't need Jesus is like saying we don't need to forgive in order to receive Peace and Justice.
I find people cannot fully forgive all things WITHOUT DIVINE HELP.

2. Jesus can follow God's will and accept that his life is for the purpose of divine sacrifice
to break the vicious cycle of retribution

Why are you saying it cannot be both? Both God's will and a sacrifice?

3. RE: hiding immorality
GreatestIam are you projecting onto me?
Are you hiding some fault on your side, but telling yourself I am hiding something?
Is that a form of hiding your own?

I have answered fully and transparently
If you see something "immoral" in what I say or how I explain it,
can you please point it out SPECIFICALLY so it is NOT HIDDEN.

I would like all faults to be addressed openly so they can be fixed.
GreatestIam if you see something contradictory, please point it out
SPECIFICALLY so I can correct it. What do you see wrong in what I said?

Thanks GreatestIam

How do you figure that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is somehow justice?

Is that how you think our legal system should work?

Regards
DL

GreatestIam Did you read my post?
No, it's not, it's injustice.
That's why we need redemption in Restorative Justice
to correct the wrongs CAUSING the injustice. So this injustice doesn't happen again,
the cycle of abuse is BROKEN.

The point of Christ Jesus is to BREAK the cycle of wrongful retribution!
NOT to continue it.
Got it? Get it, good!

I will only tolerate your ignorance when you actually answer my questions.

But thanks for showing all the lurkers here how ignorant and ill mannered a Christian can be.

Regards
DL

Hi DL GreatestIam
1. I did answer your assertions as best I could, but I will clarify again, see below
Please let me know if this answers your questions more clearly.
2. I did not see anyone here being ignorant or ill mannered
I think we are misunderstanding each other's questions or meanings
but this is not out of ill manners. This is very common for people of
different backgrounds to interpret things differently, and think the other
person means something else.
3. I am saying you misunderstand the CORRECT teaching of Jesus
as BREAKING the cycle of injustice
not promoting the injustice of punishing the innocent.

Am I allowed to say that question is already loaded?
GreatestIam
You ASSUME that faith in Jesus means supporting punishing the innocent.
I am saying you set up that question to be loaded.
So I asked to UNLOAD the question.

If you are asking if I support that IDEA of punishing the innocent as justice,
of course, I answer NO I don't believe in that either!

But this isn't what Jesus means in the context of Restorative Justice.
Can we start by separating those two?
The false teachings YOU are pointing out as unjust.
vs the true type of justice you and I should both believe in (and
it appears we do by your questions and mine, we both reject the injustice)

Can we agree there are two different interpretations of Jesus
and the one YOU POINT OUT is wrongful, I agree. That IS unjust as you describe it.

So to answer your question
NO I do NOT agree with the idea of punishing the innocent as justice.

Is that answering more clearly?
Thanks! And sorry if any of us came across as ignorant or ill mannered.
I disagree with that assertion also.

I think we all have the right intentions "of establishing truth" but we miscommunicate
and misunderstand because our backgrounds are clearly different.
This happens all the time, and is not meant to be disrespectful.

 

[irosie91]

Jesus and his sacrifice are Satan’s test of man’s morality.

Justice is when the guilty is punished. Injustice is when the innocent is punished.

Jesus, if you accept him as your savior, is you punishing the innocent instead of the guilty.

Most, perhaps all Christians believe the dogma that says that it is good to accept Jesus’s sacrifice.

That is exactly like saying that it is good to somehow gain from punishing an innocent man.

If you believe the Christian dogma of substitutionary atonement, then you pass Satan’s test and are ready for hell.

Are you ready?

Regards
DL

RC's do not believe in Substitutionary Atonement.

Yes they do. That was drilled into me as a R C for many years.

Are you saying that they did not and do not believe that they need a savior?

Regards
DL

THat is the Rc view. Take or leave it. The Jews had Jesus killed. I have quoted you from ewtn. I think they should know!

why would "they know"??? ----they rely on a book written and edited by a
tyrannical murderer who just happened to be an apologist for all things roman---
like "lion lunch for fun and amusement" and barbaric exploitation of conquered
people and enslavement there of. -----and crucifixtion. The NT is an excellent
source-------for people who can manage to accept the fact that it did not fall from
heaven and just WHO wrote it and why-------EXCELLENT

Who is this tyrannical murderer??

You don't know? Constantine,,,,,,,,<<such a bloody roman barbarian that there
are some Christian theologians who refuse to accept him as a Christian.....
or a "saint"

I didn't know Constantine was canonized by anyone. His story, as far as I remember, comes to us from Eusebius and doesn't present the guy as very spiritual. His various dreams and visions, including the famous cross in the sky, fit in much better with contemporary pagan beliefs than with the teachings of the Christian churches.

the eastern Orthodox canonized Constantine-----the man whose

The long-standing consensus of scholars of all Christian denomination about the dates when the New Testament books were composed make it clear that Jesus was not a Christian He was a pious, radical Jew from Galilee who lived and died within the apocalyptic branch of Judaism. The neo-Platonic subtleties debated outside the Jerusalem community led by Jesus' brother, James, are a completely separate issue.

it is not entirely clear to me that "James" is an historic figure in the minds of
all or most Christian scholars

That is very interesting. There are, as I am sure you know, several key references to James as a member of the inner circle of disciples and as the leader of the Jerusalem followers after the death of Jesus. Are the scholars you mention denying the accuracy of these passages, or what?

The scholarly evaluation of James refers to the account of james in the NT---which
seems to state that he was judged by the "SANHEDRIN" to be executed by stoning, --------at a time when Christian scholars INSIST that the Sanhedrin had
been deprived of the right to execute ANYONE by the ruling romans. My reading
of the NT however------deficient though it might be is that what it really says
is that James was stoned by something like a lynch mob. I cannot name names
for you

 

[irosie91]

THat is the Rc view. Take or leave it. The Jews had Jesus killed. I have quoted you from ewtn. I think they should know!

why would "they know"??? ----they rely on a book written and edited by a
tyrannical murderer who just happened to be an apologist for all things roman---
like "lion lunch for fun and amusement" and barbaric exploitation of conquered
people and enslavement there of. -----and crucifixtion. The NT is an excellent
source-------for people who can manage to accept the fact that it did not fall from
heaven and just WHO wrote it and why-------EXCELLENT

Who is this tyrannical murderer??

You don't know? Constantine,,,,,,,,<<such a bloody roman barbarian that there
are some Christian theologians who refuse to accept him as a Christian.....
or a "saint"

I didn't know Constantine was canonized by anyone. His story, as far as I remember, comes to us from Eusebius and doesn't present the guy as very spiritual. His various dreams and visions, including the famous cross in the sky, fit in much better with contemporary pagan beliefs than with the teachings of the Christian churches.

Constantine was canonized in the EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH. His
contribution to CANON LAW----was codified in JUSTINIAN LAW and includes
those laws which legalized the Inquisition. The Inquisition was responsible for
the genocide of something like 100s of millions in that it justified the genocides
that-----POPE FRANCES acknowledged recently that took place in the
Americas. Constantine's contribution also form the basis for the shariah laws
of DHIMMIA and Adolf's Nuremburg laws. <<< Not a nice guy. His mother,
Helen----seems to be the more popular saint amongst the eastern orthodox----
but Constantine is DEFINITELY a big shot saint for the eastern orthodox.
He saw a giant cross in the air------I still remember the picture of that event
in my ninth grade history text book ------in days of very olde, or yore----or
whenever it was that I was in the ninth grade