|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 1, 2017 23:43:06 GMT
There have always been sinners where a standard has been broken. Who's standard and why is it considered a sin? Only chruchie's consider things sins, and not everyone believes in Christianity, or biblical based religions. Why should they? Religion has been the scourge of much suffering on this planet. Depends on the one making the rule. Sin is just a word and it's context is religious in nature obvious, but that is irrelevant What it means is wrongdoing and in order to know a wrong, you need to have a standard and standards have been around for as long as there has been society. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2017 23:49:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Nov 1, 2017 23:53:57 GMT
Everyone gets the benefit - past, present, & future. If Tutankhamun got the benefit of Jesus without praying to Jesus, will I get the same treatment if I do not pray to him? Tutankhamun didn't pray to Jesus; why should I bother? I'm gonna butt in here with a little help, Rodney.
"If Tutankhamun got the benefit of Jesus without praying to Jesus, will I get the same treatment if I do not pray to him?"
According to the theology that CoolJJS subscribes to, the answer is yes you will get the same treatment...BUT (and this is important) only if you die before God's chosen deadline. Then (like Tut and everybody else who already died) you'll wake up with a chance for a fresh start under God's rule.
But if you DON'T die before God's chosen deadline and you still haven't gotten with the right religion, then you're really screwed.
(What I mean by God's chosen deadline is another subject, but I hope this helps.)
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 2, 2017 0:08:18 GMT
If Tutankhamun got the benefit of Jesus without praying to Jesus, will I get the same treatment if I do not pray to him? Tutankhamun didn't pray to Jesus; why should I bother? I'm gonna butt in here with a little help, Rodney.
"If Tutankhamun got the benefit of Jesus without praying to Jesus, will I get the same treatment if I do not pray to him?"
According to the theology that CoolJJS subscribes to, the answer is yes you will get the same treatment...BUT (and this is important) only if you die before God's chosen deadline. Then (like Tut and everybody else who already died) you'll wake up with a chance for a fresh start under God's rule.
But if you DON'T die before God's chosen deadline and you still haven't gotten with the right religion, then you're really screwed.
(What I mean by God's chosen deadline is another subject, but I hope this helps.)
What else do I believe?  |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Nov 2, 2017 10:57:19 GMT
If Tutankhamun got the benefit of Jesus without praying to Jesus, will I get the same treatment if I do not pray to him? Tutankhamun didn't pray to Jesus; why should I bother? Dude, I don't really care one way or the other, but... You do see the difference between King Tut not praying to a Jesus that he didn't know existed and you choosing not to... right?  Also: I'm not sure that you are supposed to be praying to Jesus |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 2, 2017 11:21:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 2, 2017 12:39:05 GMT
I'm not saying that. I'm saying Jesus was never needed in the first place in Eden. God telling you not to do something is more than sufficient since he is Jesus' superior. This of course supposes that Jesus was not God... and it still does not address the fact that, in the story, Eden contains the principal representative of evil whispering to a prototype man and woman with no counterbalance to argue in favour of what was right. Not read Genesis 3:1-6 that closely, then huh? Eve or Adam tricked, it all works out the same: "That's a lie" the serpent hissed. "You'll not die! God knows very well that as soon as you eat it you will become like him. Your eyes will be opened. You will be able to know good from evil!" The woman was convinced. How lovely and fresh-looking it was! And it would make her so wise! So she ate some of the fruit and gave some to her husband. He ate it too..." See my observation, about JC above. It may also be observed that the Bible has plenty of examples of God using third parties. The point is all about moral balance 'on the ground' so to speak, but I have explained that issue already. As a story, from this viewpoint Genesis comes up short, since the choice made is subjected to a one-way influence. That does not effect the question of moral balance already mentioned. God is the judge here, setting the terms of engagement, yes - but not one who argues for the correct act with reasons. But then again God is not famous for explaining, or justifying, Himself I guess... And it is certainly known that there was a choice to be made in the myth of Eden, but one based with only one persuasive lobby (in favour of the wrong choice) around for company. Not if one sees the Xian God as necessarily the best, and most perfect example, of everything. It is arguable, as already mentioned, that having to later on offer a prime and most sorrowful human sacrifice (or to, er, sacrifice 'Himself') with all the agonies involved, rather than have Jesus appear and exercise influence at a much earlier, critical phase, is the most efficient way to deal with issues of good and evil. Let alone help bring all of the faithful to Him earlier and so ensuring God's will will be done. But, hey it's not my mythology as I said already. Er, but didn't you just say that it was best to "not bother speculating on things already known." ? Since God, it is claimed, made everything then I am sure He concerns Himself with it or this would be an uncaring deity. And, something done correctly and quickly would most likely be the most efficient would it not? Which is the point here. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Nov 2, 2017 13:54:25 GMT
tpfkar According to the story: You are not judged at the moment of your death. We don't die because we are bad. We die because we are naturally born "in sin", We all do: The good, the bad, the ugly... the Apostles, the liars, cheaters and thieves... the saints and the sinners. We are judged AFTER we are resurrected.. All of us. There is a period of time (1,000 years according to The Bible) for people to live and learn... and, then, we are judged according to how we choose to live. That resurrection is made possible by Jesus' life - a life not born "in sin" - being sacrificed. And a grotesquely immoral story it is. But how come the Catholics don't believe this 1000 year shyte?
broken dreams and alibis |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 2, 2017 14:25:55 GMT
FilmFlaneur This is not true whether Jesus is God or not. There was already counterbalnace by the rule being in place. The rule by the creator of it is already good. Let's look at it by modern standards. The US has a law in place that says you cannot murder someone. A murderer comes along and says you can murder people and it actually makes you a better person. Does that mean the government has to come back and prove that you can't murder someone? To me, the law is what stands. God had already implemented that, but you may have different views of what rules are. I've read it a lot. This rest of what you said makes no difference based on what I've already said a few times now. Him using third parties did not mean he could not represent himself which he had already done prior to the sin occurring. The moral is already balanced by it's existence. You can argue whether it's fair, but not that it wasn't there. I think the threat of death is pretty persuasive. It hinders most people, including Eve, enough to at least reflect on their actions enough to see if it's worth it. 1. That's the joke 2. You were speculating on something clearly written making it moot. I was speculating on something not explained at all or in detail. That is how speculation works. Point has been missed. I never said God was not concerned with his creation. Also, you created the rule regarding efficiency. I'm saying God and his creation have plenty of time to do things correctly. Maybe salvation from a state of sin is a slow process by human standards. I would rather eat ribs that have been smoked for 5 hours instead of microwaved for 30 minutes since there's no particular reason to think the fastest time is the most efficient time except maybe to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 2, 2017 16:01:09 GMT
This is not true whether Jesus is God or not. There was already counterbalnace by the rule being in place. The rule by the creator of it is already good. Let's look at it by modern standards. The US has a law in place that says you cannot murder someone.A murderer comes along and says you can murder people and it actually makes you a better person. Does that mean the government has to come back and prove that you can't murder someone? This is a false equivalence. To make out similar - if you insist on awkwardly comparing a fantastic myth to an unlikely real life instance - one would suppose that before a killing, an impressionable likely perp. was incited to act by an evil person, without the presence of a counterbalance from a local cleric, say. The government would still say murder was wrong whatever the situation, which indeed is the rule you mention. But this does not change the fact that the possible criminal only had one view put to him as to whether to proceed or not. I hope this helps. (The comparison is awkward since the Genesis myth was primarily composed as a moral allegory not a convincing real history.) As already mentioned, it is not my faith; I simply point out what is the elephant in the room to anyone else, at least one not too close to the tale: that the choice of Adam and Eve was not prompted by equal imperatives on the ground. The quote clearly shows the influence of the snake on the choice made by Eve, and through her, Adam, despite your claim that the serpent 'played no role in the trick'. QED. *sigh* Hence my wondering why it would not have been most efficient to have Jesus, er God, arguing against the snake when it most mattered then, rather than being sacrificed thousands of years later. This would not have invalidated the choice. In short, while God expounds the law in the myth, he does not linger to convince Adam and Eve in its favour. But I am not arguing that there is no moral to the Genesis story, originally I was just wondering why Jesus did not put in an appearance to good effect much earlier, rather than waiting and necessarily being sacrificed so painfully. And I still do. So that is a straw man from you. This seems rather grasping at straws when the lack of a equivalent counterbalance to the persuasiveness of the serpent is absent. (Not least since the threat of death was, ultimately, not that effective after all) In short, the story seems deliberately tilted towards a certain convenient outcome and so onto achieve a particular proselytizing purpose - understandable, given the needs to impress a primitive audience with a lesson. Since there is no 'good serpent' or equivalent, the point, then I am in fact speculating on something which was not written. You said that "God has no concern for time constraints ". Are not the constraints of time part of His creation? Also there are moments in scripture, EG 'I will return before this present generation passes away' say, where Jesus, er God, is very much concerned indeed with time constraints. And is the imperative to accept Christ as one's saviour, ask for salvation etc before it is too late a major time constraint? Then why not do things, such as introducing Jesus or 'a voice for good' into the garden which most likely prevents the later necessary sacrifice of Christ to put things right (and also the more precipitate drowning of almost the entire world, come to that)? The 'rule' that god is, necessarily, the most perfect, ultimate representation possible (of efficiency, here) is not mine, it springs from the Fourth Way of Aquinas, and that respected writer uses good logic to make the case. I would have thought such an important thing would be associated with urgency or the result would be more sin. The Bible certainly gives the impression that the acceptance of God is best achieved sooner rather than later. JC certainly thought so EG: " Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done!" etc But, as said, it's not my religion and so on that basis I am happy to go along with all of your special pleading in this exchange lol. Being the fastest, as you say, is not necessarily the same as being the most efficient. But it can be. Being timely certainly is. And, for believers, the Genesis story is made out to be a critical moment. |
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Nov 3, 2017 17:35:31 GMT
I'm gonna butt in here with a little help, Rodney. (text omitted)
But if you DON'T die before God's chosen deadline and you still haven't gotten with the right religion, then you're really screwed.
In other words: I must convert to your religion TODAY or I risk rotting in Hell for all eternity. Fire and brimstone. That sounds like a door-to-door salesman, "You've gotta buy this today because the price goes up 20% tomorrow." Somebody, please tell me: to what religion should I convert so I can be saved? Please tell me quicky as I have a pain in my left arm. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 3, 2017 17:39:22 GMT
I'm gonna butt in here with a little help, Rodney. (text omitted)
But if you DON'T die before God's chosen deadline and you still haven't gotten with the right religion, then you're really screwed.
In other words: I must convert to your religion TODAY or I risk rotting in Hell for all eternity. Fire and brimstone. That sounds like a door-to-door salesman, "You've gotta buy this today because the price goes up 20% tomorrow." Somebody, please tell me: to what religion should I convert so I can be saved? Please tell me quicky as I have a pain in my left arm. Interesting, you responded to a dude pretending to talk for me, but didn't respond to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Nov 3, 2017 18:40:36 GMT
In other words: I must convert to your religion TODAY or I risk rotting in Hell for all eternity. Fire and brimstone. That sounds like a door-to-door salesman, "You've gotta buy this today because the price goes up 20% tomorrow." Somebody, please tell me: to what religion should I convert so I can be saved? Please tell me quicky as I have a pain in my left arm. First order of business: I take it that I satisfactorily answered your question about all those people (like Tut) who are dead. You didn't mention it.
Now then: "I must convert to your religion TODAY" It's not MY religion at all (personally, I am an atheist). And it's not "today". More like "before it's too late". (I note that CoolJGS complains that I am "pretending to talk for" him. For the record, I did no such thing. As I first said, my answer is according to the theology that he subscribes to. And that is accurate.)
"Fire and brimstone" Nope. Not part of that theology. Just the rotting for eternity part. But you wouldn't be conscious of it anyway. "Please tell me quicky as I have a pain in my left arm." Relax. If you drop dead of a heart attack today you're in luck. As I already told you, if you die before God's chosen deadline then you and Tut and all those other dead people will wake up resurrected with the chance for a fresh start. You're only screwed if you're ALIVE when the deadline arrives and you're not with the right religion.
"what religion should I convert so I can be saved?" I'm not going to tell you. It's more fun that way. You can always ask CoolJGS, but I doubt he'll tell you. (His inability to speak plainly is well known). The funny thing is that he is not actually an official member. It's just their theology he accepts.
|
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Nov 4, 2017 4:44:48 GMT
But pre-Jesus people get the added benefit of not being in a position to reject Jesus, which most of them would have if given the chance. The benefit is not salvation. It's the opportunity to accept or reject God. They won't be in any different position as those living after Jesus' preaching. Accepting God's standards leads to salvation but we already know most people don't want that. Does that mean they where roasting in the eternal damnation of Hell until then? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 4, 2017 13:18:49 GMT
The benefit is not salvation. It's the opportunity to accept or reject God. They won't be in any different position as those living after Jesus' preaching. Accepting God's standards leads to salvation but we already know most people don't want that. Does that mean they where roasting in the eternal damnation of Hell until then? Nope. |
|
|
|
Post by mrellaguru on Nov 4, 2017 16:42:58 GMT
The idea that the universe is set up so that you have to somehow pick the right god/religion or go to hell is pretty ridiculous if you think about it.
I like how South Park parodied this crap.
|
|
