Is it entirely unnecessary and insulting to inform people...

[William]

Is it entirely unnecessary and insulting to inform people...That they are evil in the sight of GOD and bound for hell?

As a human being, how is such theology acceptable and a good and reasonable thing to be stating or even implying of others, on a debate forum or even in day to day life?

Are people right to be able to take a stand against such theology and call it out for being dated, dark, based upon information from dark ages, based in ignorance and evil of intent?

What gives individuals the right to say such things about others?

Is it a form of abuse?

Should others have to take that kind of abuse about their persons without protesting it?

[William]

[Replying to post 88 by ttruscott]

I fail to see in your post content why it is entirely necessary to insult people with the doctrine...that they are evil in the sight of GOD and bound for hell which was created by GOD and where GOD sends them, to endure the flames of suffering and torment for an eternity.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 83 by For_The_Kingdom]

So, like I said; the sacrificial atonement was was a dual act of love, on both the Father and the Son's part. Believers acknowledge this..and if you can't acknowledge this as an act of love, then Christianity will continue to not be for you.

No. You missed the whole point. The need for Jesus to be killed was apparently set down by his father, the ultimate arbiter of all things. The fact that he required such a brutal and bloodthirsty act in order to be able to forgive us is what is barbaric and heinous. True love would not require such a scenario. Christians spin the whole event into an act of love in order to justify the worship of a god that is simply not justified. For Jesus to bounce back, good as new a few hours later, simply compounds the absurdity of it all.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 85 by ttruscott]

The orthodox interpretation of this story is indeed clear but it leads to such bad theology that I cannot countenance it with any understanding.

Much interpretation of the Bible leads to bad theology. That is the hallmark of Christianity as far as I am concerned. People create their own version of the Bible based on what they want it to say rather than what it might actually be saying.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 89 by For_The_Kingdom]

The idea is; "this (Jesus' suffering) should be you (us)". Well, if it should be me, I'd rather be thankful for the grace/mercy of the "judge" for offering me a way out, and ensure myself that I won't put myself in a situation where it WOULD be me.

And that way out was for God/Jesus to have a bad weekend. If the suffering should be us but Jesus took our place, then Jesus should be spending eternity in Hell. Seems like God wants to have his cake and eat it too.

[ttruscott]

The need for Jesus to be killed was apparently set down by his father, the ultimate arbiter of all things.

While on earth Jesus talked like this but in Trinitarian terms, the economy of the Trinity is that all three Persons are in complete accord due to their personal commitment to expressing only the absolute highest morality, ie the personal expression of self, in all things.

There is no need for an arbiter of anything if all three persons always completely agree as to what is best, naturally, without any discussion needed. If blood atonement was chosen as the preferred method of redeeming HIS sinful elect then they all knew completely from the first impulse to create that it would be implemented if necessary as the most righteous way to proceed.

[marco]

If blood atonement was chosen as the preferred method of redeeming HIS sinful elect then they all knew completely from the first impulse to create that it would be implemented if necessary as the most righteous way to proceed.

I understand some central Americal tribes sacrificed humans. It is generally accepted this is barbarous. If we accuse gods of acting like barbarous tribes then we do the gods no favours. One would hope that the designers of black holes and quarks and the African elephant were a tad more enlightened than our ancient fighters. But maybe not.

[brunumb]

The need for Jesus to be killed was apparently set down by his father, the ultimate arbiter of all things.

While on earth Jesus talked like this but in Trinitarian terms, the economy of the Trinity is that all three Persons are in complete accord due to their personal commitment to expressing only the absolute highest morality, ie the personal expression of self, in all things.

There is no need for an arbiter of anything if all three persons always completely agree as to what is best, naturally, without any discussion needed. If blood atonement was chosen as the preferred method of redeeming HIS sinful elect then they all knew completely from the first impulse to create that it would be implemented if necessary as the most righteous way to proceed.

I did not mean arbiter in the sense that God made the final decision for the three Christian gods. If God designed and made everything then he chose all consequences for the actions he didn't like. To require blood sacrifices where living things are killed to appease him is barbarous and far from the behaviour of an infinitely loving god. It is easier to understand that it is an evolution of primitive practices carried out by earlier civilisations. Also, a conniving priesthood acting as as intermediaries for God demanding the slaughter of the best animals to be presented to them is a clever way to get a good feed without effort.

[ttruscott]

If God designed and made everything then he chose all consequences for the actions he didn't like.

Yes...unless of course HE was constrained by HIS character and the purpose for which HE created us.

HIS purpose constrained HIM create us with a free will, able to choose both (either) good or evil. While we have no idea whether HE was also constrained to offer Himself as a blood sacrifice, Christians assume we will find out why that was the best way to redeem the sinful elect even if it is merely a way to separate the elect from the non-elect.

[brunumb]

If God designed and made everything then he chose all consequences for the actions he didn't like.

Yes...unless of course HE was constrained by HIS character and the purpose for which HE created us.

If God is constrained by his character then he does not have complete free will. That begs the question of why not having complete free will is necessarily all bad.

Another question. For what purpose did God create us? A close look at our vast universe and then this messy little planet does not suggest that an intelligent being would have made all this with a purpose in mind. Some Christians answer that our purpose is to worship God. Now that is truly laughable. What else then?

[ttruscott]

If God designed and made everything then he chose all consequences for the actions he didn't like.

Yes...unless of course HE was constrained by HIS character and the purpose for which HE created us.

If God is constrained by his character then he does not have complete free will. That begs the question of why not having complete free will is necessarily all bad.

Of course HE is constrained by HIS commitment to loving righteousness and there is nothing against HIS free will in that at all. HE has the free will to ignore HIS character and do evil but never will because HE is holy, that is, totally committed to the goodness of HIS character. Constraint doesn't always mean no free will.

HE did not need to (was not forced to) create us with a free will but HE needed our free will because HE wanted us to be able to freely love and enter a real marriage with HIM - constrained as to HIS purpose, not constrained due to a lack of free will.

Another question. For what purpose did God create us?

The Bible ends with the marriage between GOD and HIS holy family / church. This would seem to be the culmination of the Bible tory of HIS sinful elect being cured of their addiction to evil an then this reality being cleansed from evil by the day of judgement. Therefore it is no great leap of faith to consider that this marriage is the point, the purpose of our creation, the heavenly marriage we enter only by by our own free will.

As for the whole great physical universe, if it is not burnt in a moment and rebuilt, it will be our eternal playground as we explore it in constant emotive, empathic (loving) and telepathic communication with GOD and everyone else in the heavenly communion.

As an unproven hope it beats believing life is a brief flash of awareness gone forever....