RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2014 11:45 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

RexRed wrote:
Romans 8:20
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
Correct translation is "creation"


Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator , who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Comment:
Did the old testament people serve the creature by making all the laws?

Did the law lead to pious vanity and radical judgement?

Did the law permit sexism, homophobia and racism?

Remember it was Hebrew law that led to the crucifixion of Jesus as you recall Pilot washed his hands of the matter. So Jesus was not judged by Roman law.

Did Jesus fulfill the law or prove it in error?

Was the God of the law the creature in disguise?

This is one of the only rational conclusions consider we are now err, "free from the law of sin and death"...

You can't have it both ways Neo...

Romans 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

Colossians 2:3 In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Comment:
Why hidden? Is this the occult?

Why would wisdom and knowledge need be hidden?
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2014 03:26 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

RexRed wrote:
Comment: Is/was the law imperfect? It does say not say the old laws will be incorporated into the new laws it says they shall be "done away". Sounds terminal... And what of the God of these laws? Shall this God be done away too?
The law did what it was created to do. It identified the messiah as he was the only one who could follow it. Once complete, we are no longer under law. Good thing, too. Otherwise, many of us would have been stoned to death by now.


Jesus did not wash his hands before eating, is that following the law? He did miracles on the Sabbath. Couldn't he have waited a day?

"God in three persons, blessed trinity" (old hymn)

According to the highest judges of the land, corporations are people.

Is God a person too? Is the creator, the created also?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2014 09:28 am
@RexRed,
There is a well known school of thought, Rex, that God is the creative impulse and, in the Faustian culture, exclusively phallic.

I don't expect you will have come across it as it is unfashionable these days for reasons associated with the matriarchal tendencies of industrial consumerism which I know you are an eager supporter of.

There is also the more well known school of the Triple Goddess (Triple Muse) which the Trinity replaced.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2014 12:00 pm
@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:
Jesus did not wash his hands before eating, is that following the law?
Find the account and reas it carefully to see if your observation is correct.
RexRed wrote:
He did miracles on the Sabbath. Couldn't he have waited a day?
Even the pharisees would not hesitate to save an animal in distress on the Sabbath. The Sabbath was originally intended to be a joyous, spiritually upbuilding time. But in their zeal to distinguish themselves from the Gentiles as much as possible, the Jewish religious leaders gradually made it a burdensome thing by greatly increasing the Sabbath restrictions. For example, catching a flea was forbidden as hunting. A sufferer could not be given relief unless death threatened. A bone could not be set, nor a sprain bandaged. The true purpose of the Sabbath was made void by these Jewish religious leaders, for they made the people slaves to tradition, instead of having the Sabbath serve men to the honor of God.
RexRed wrote:
"God in three persons, blessed trinity" (old hymn)
And your point is?
RexRed wrote:
According to the highest judges of the land, corporations are people.
And your point is?
RexRed wrote:
Is God a person too? Is the creator, the created also?
Are you referring to the fact that The first creation, Jesus, was allowed to continue the creation so that "by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, " (Colossians 3:16)
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2014 02:23 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

RexRed wrote:
Is God a person too? Is the creator, the created also?
Are you referring to the fact that The first creation, Jesus, was allowed to continue the creation so that "by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, " (Colossians 3:16)



Now you attribute creation to the created?

So the creator is a creature then...

In going full circle you have made my point.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2014 02:33 pm
@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:
Is God a person too? Is the creator, the created also?
neologist wrote:
Are you referring to the fact that The first creation, Jesus, was allowed to continue the creation so that "by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, " (Colossians 3:16)
RexRed wrote:
Now you attribute creation to the created?
No. The bible makes it plain that Jesus was given the privilege of creating. Read Proverbs ch. 8 and see if you can discern the role Jesus played from the beginning as a master worker.
RexRed wrote:
So the creator is a creature then...
Clumsy way of putting it.
RexRed wrote:
In going full circle you have made my point.
I wonder if you have learned it, however.
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2014 02:59 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

RexRed wrote:
Is God a person too? Is the creator, the created also?
neologist wrote:
Are you referring to the fact that The first creation, Jesus, was allowed to continue the creation so that "by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, " (Colossians 3:16)
RexRed wrote:
Now you attribute creation to the created?
No. The bible makes it plain that Jesus was given the privilege of creating. Read Proverbs ch. 8 and see if you can discern the role Jesus played from the beginning as a master worker.
RexRed wrote:
So the creator is a creature then...
Clumsy way of putting it.
RexRed wrote:
In going full circle you have made my point.
I wonder if you have learned it, however.


Colossians 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:


Comment: The verse you posted giving Jesus "creation abilities" seems to disappear when read in the King James version.

In fact it seems to say only God can create.

And I did not need to add the word "other"...

One needs to also believe in the preexistence of Jesus to even entertain the idea. There are many scriptures that deny this preexistence.

But in all of this you open the possibility that the creature can also be the creator.

If this is the case, by the same token then, we are creators and we perhaps we created God for our own pleasure...
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2014 04:09 pm
@RexRed,
Uuuh . . . . Rex . . .!?
Colossians 1:!5
Quote:
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Paul is speaking of Jesus here.

Proverbs, chapter 8 should be required reading for all those who cling to the trinity. Here is vs 22 and 23
Quote:
22The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
As far as we being creators, we have been made in God's image, having free will and, hence, the ability to create limited only by our lesser power.
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2014 06:59 pm
@neologist,
According to the Bible we were also with God in the beginning.

Ephesians 1:4
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Comment:
Does that mean we preexisted because God foreknew us?

And also, my Bible implies Adam was the firstborn of every human.

Unless you are talking about angelic creatures...

So if Jesus was an angel would that still make him a man?

The redemption of mankind required a human sacrifice.

It was supposedly humans that sinned against God in the garden according to Genesis and it would legally take humans to pay for this sin.

That would be like having someone else go to jail for your crimes.

Romans 8:3
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

If Jesus was "like" a human he could not have paid for our sins. He had to be a human through and through, or, was his suffering all an act?

An angel cannot pay for the sins of humans. Humans have to pay for their own sins. Should you pay for the sins of others Neo? Would that be right in the eyes of the law? Jesus apparently paid for the sins of the collective of all humanity.

Was Jesus an angel or a human? He can't be both or we would need to be both.

Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Romans 5:15
But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many [men].

Romans 5:19
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one [man] shall many be made righteous.

Comment:
How many men and women preexist their birth Neo?

Either God is a trickster and he implicates humans in sin then uses a non human to pay for these sins or, Jesus was as much a man as any other man.

If God has used tricks to pay for sin has our redemption really been paid in full?

Put lipstick on a pig and it is still a pig.

Jesus would have to be a man in all aspects of the word to pay for sins in the human stead.

A god/man would not count only unless Adam himself was also a God man.

Jesus had to be a human to pay for human sin...

Using a God/man in place of a human is cheating... No court of law in any land is going to allow the use of one kind of species to pay for original sins of another kind of species.

Even Bible law needs to stand up to basic legal scrutiny.

What am I saying here?

That the Bible is so ambiguous I can find the opposite of nearly anything you put forth as rock solid doctrine...

Not much is "solid" when it comes to biblical doctrine.
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2014 07:15 pm
@RexRed,
...continued

Tell me that "God is love" and I will show you equal and opposite Bible scriptures of the most unkind and spiteful God ever penned on a page.

Tell me that God is pro life and then explain all the innocent children and mothers carrying innocent unborn fetus' that God aborted in the great flood.

Tell me that God is just and then weight the great "men of God" like David and Saul that indiscriminately murdered people in sexist and racist raids.

Guilt by association it is a called.

God caused it to rain and God caused the sun to shine. Did God cause the Tsunami of Japan and Earthquake of Haiti?

The moment you apply faith to a verse of scripture you are sinning against an equal and opposite verse of scripture.

Uncertainty is the ONLY real biblical TRUTH.

Biblical certainty and FAITH is the greatest of sins.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2014 07:23 pm
@RexRed,
Good observation, but I find it fascinating how christians are able to see all the good and none of the negatives that directly contradicts the good message.

Amazing! I see it in my own siblings.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2014 07:26 pm
@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:
According to the Bible we were also with God in the beginning.

Ephesians 1:4
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Comment:
Does that mean we preexisted because God foreknew us?
No. You have much less facility with scripture than formerly, Rex
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2014 07:28 pm
@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:
Uncertainty is the ONLY real biblical TRUTH.
It is your escape to moral license, I suspect.
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2014 07:34 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

RexRed wrote:
Uncertainty is the ONLY real biblical TRUTH.
It is your escape to moral license, I suspect.


Or immoral biblically imposed purgatory... You can slice it either way.

I don't need a license to be who I am. Yet, you need a license to deny scientific realities.

You also need big money religious lobbies and a err, "creation museum" to subvert scientific fact...

Because your biblical faith and truth are contradictory to scientific proofs.

Where is your moral license?
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2014 02:48 am
Jesus had a sex life: Gay and straight
http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/jesus-had-sex-life-gay-and-straight170414

"Friend of publicans and sinners"

As much as I would like to ascribe to Jesus a sex life I personally think the Gospel might also (maybe more accurately) be translated as the "Gospel of Jesus' Bride"

That might take on a more ethereal connotation than wife.

To me, the fact that Jesus had so many (unmarried) men at this side was even more of a curiosity than his possible marriage to a woman.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2014 04:04 am
@cicerone imposter,
I don't think the Bible was written for those who have a shibboleth about consistency, contradiction and uncertainty. Life contains all three in good measure. Seeking consistency seems a bit juvenile imo.

Consistency and certainty are idealist totalitarian characteristics.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2014 10:09 am
@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:
Where is your moral license?
I do not take a moral license. At least I endeavor not to. My moral imperative comes from the scriptures whether it fits my preference or not.

Like Paul, I do not always succeed.
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2014 10:32 am
Quote:
RexRed said: To me, the fact that Jesus had so many (unmarried) men at this side was even more of a curiosity than his possible marriage to a woman.

The disciple Peter had a mother-in-law (Matt 8:14) so he must have been married, and a little more detective works suggests that some other disciples were married to0, they were probably the ones who kept looking at their watches to make sure they were home in time to take their wife out to dinner.
Generally speaking, we holy men and women don't bother getting married, for example monks/nuns are happy to live celibate lives in monasteries and convents, and I never got married myself, so I can't imagine Jesus wanting to get hitched either.
I bought myself an £1100 (1600 US dollars) super-duper computer last week, I'd never have been able to do that with a wife controlling the family purse strings..Smile
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2014 05:29 pm
@spendius,
Not maintaining consistency, even a Stephen King book maintains stringent consistency. Continuity and consistency are the first lessons in creative writing. The Bible has succeeded in portraying the most schizophrenic deity of all time. If this was the intent, well, it was successful.

A simple rule, that a pronoun should relate back to the the previous person named in a sentence.

This should be the case even when sentences are written from right to left. Smile

I agree about the certainty and totalitarian comparison.

Hitler had the certainty of a religious fanatic.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2014 05:39 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Quote:
RexRed said: To me, the fact that Jesus had so many (unmarried) men at this side was even more of a curiosity than his possible marriage to a woman.

The disciple Peter had a mother-in-law (Matt 8:14) so he must have been married, and a little more detective works suggests that some other disciples were married to0, they were probably the ones who kept looking at their watches to make sure they were home in time to take their wife out to dinner.
Generally speaking, we holy men and women don't bother getting married, for example monks/nuns are happy to live celibate lives in monasteries and convents, and I never got married myself, so I can't imagine Jesus wanting to get hitched either.
I bought myself an £1100 (1600 US dollars) super-duper computer last week, I'd never have been able to do that with a wife controlling the family purse strings..Smile


Peter was off gallivanting the countryside with Jesus and other various disciples. There is no mention of his wife in the upper room or any other text (that I know of). Why Peter would leave his father and family at the sea of Galilee and follow a man into the great beyond speaks volumes.

Celibacy was a way the pagan kings could keep virgins chaste and on call for their harems...

And Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me?" and Peter answered, "Yes, I do love you lord." then Jesus replied, "Feed my lambs.".
 

Related Topics

Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
Is "God" just our conscience? - Question by Groomers123
believe in god! - Question by roammer
The existence of God - Question by jwagner
Are Gods Judgments righteous? - Discussion by Smileyrius
What did God do on Day 8? - Question by HesDeltanCaptain
What do you think about world? - Question by Joona
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Does God Exist?
  3. » Page 63
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 11/28/2024 at 08:01:46