God is dying. Will he be dead?

[Joshua10]

If there is a God then there is the possibility that he can do anything he wants,how he wants whenever he wants,yes?

The Christian scriptures state that a God took on flesh and took the full blame for all atrocities ever committed throughout history up to now and in the future, even though this God was totally innocent.

If true,I’m still trying to figure out myself, how anyone could find fault with this God therefore.

My understanding is that we all have a choice to believe it or not.

I think your understanding of non-believers is a bit off. I base this conclusion on your choice of the wording "find fault", as if there is the implication that not believing in gods by one person makes the gods believed by another somehow lesser due to the nonbelief.

Listen,we can argue all day about whether each of our opinions are off.

It is my opinion (out of interest or not,that’s up to you) that the Christian claim is that the God spoken of in the Christian scriptures can do no more that what he has already done by taking the blame for all the atrocities committed in history or will be committed in history in the future by men/women,that he did not commit himself.The Christian claim is that,as he is a God of love,he was prepared to take on flesh inorder to take that blame.God can do what he wants right?

If true, then that is astounding,to me anyway.We are all going to pass on eventually, so hopefully we will find out for sure then.

I suppose we all have a choice at the end of the day to believe that he did or didn’t.

[Greatest I am]

If there is a God then there is the possibility that he can do anything he wants,how he wants whenever he wants,yes?

The Christian scriptures state that a God took on flesh and took the full blame for all atrocities ever committed throughout history up to now and in the future, even though this God was totally innocent.

If true,I’m still trying to figure out myself, how anyone could find fault with this God therefore.

My understanding is that we all have a choice to believe it or not.

I find fault with the immorality of the savior you describe.

Most moral people do.

I give this to Christians to try to make them think morals.

On Jesus dying for Christians. Try to think in a moral way.

It takes quite an inflated ego to think a god would actually die for us, after condemning us unjustly in the first place.

Christians have swallowed a lie and don’t care how evil they make Jesus to keep their feel good get out of hell free card.

It is a lie, first and foremost, because, like it or not, having another innocent person suffer or die for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

To abdicate your personal responsibility for your actions or use a scapegoat is immoral.

Christians also have to ignore what Jesus, as a Jewish Rabbi, would have taught his people.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Psa 49;7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

There is no way that Christians would teach their children to use a scapegoat to escape their just punishments and here you are promoting doing just that.

Jesus is just a smidge less immoral than his demiurge genocidal father, and here you are trying to put him as low in moral fiber as Yahweh. Tsk tsk.

Regards
DL

[Belindi]

gad-fly wrote: ↑

Back to the title. God is dying because human has advanced to the stage when they can re-invent themselves to the extent that increasingly they do not need God's helping hand. If I were God, i would say: Fine. Make my day.

That's what Nietzsche meant, and remains a matter for discussion.

It's high time humans stopped feeling certain that this world is orderly not chaotic. This is because pessimists who think this world is probably chaotic stand a better chance than optimists morally and technologically to progress. The human spirit( long may it endure!) will ensure that humans will continue to explore, risk, and adapt.

I say this but remain faithful to cosmic and ontic order. Pessimism and optimism are not polar opposites .Pessimism and optimism are relative to each other and to circumstances. Pessimism is the default for safety's sake, while optimism is faith in self and human adaptability. There are times and seasons to be an optimist and times and seasons to be a pessimist,

[Joshua10]

If there is a God then there is the possibility that he can do anything he wants,how he wants whenever he wants,yes?

The Christian scriptures state that a God took on flesh and took the full blame for all atrocities ever committed throughout history up to now and in the future, even though this God was totally innocent.

If true,I’m still trying to figure out myself, how anyone could find fault with this God therefore.

My understanding is that we all have a choice to believe it or not.

I find fault with the immorality of the savior you describe.

Most moral people do.

I give this to Christians to try to make them think morals.

On Jesus dying for Christians. Try to think in a moral way.

It takes quite an inflated ego to think a god would actually die for us, after condemning us unjustly in the first place.

Christians have swallowed a lie and don’t care how evil they make Jesus to keep their feel good get out of hell free card.

It is a lie, first and foremost, because, like it or not, having another innocent person suffer or die for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

To abdicate your personal responsibility for your actions or use a scapegoat is immoral.

Christians also have to ignore what Jesus, as a Jewish Rabbi, would have taught his people.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Psa 49;7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

There is no way that Christians would teach their children to use a scapegoat to escape their just punishments and here you are promoting doing just that.

Jesus is just a smidge less immoral than his demiurge genocidal father, and here you are trying to put him as low in moral fiber as Yahweh. Tsk tsk.

Regards
DL

My understanding is that the christian scriptures claim that Jesus gave up his own life of his own choice.He chose to give it up and take the blame for all atrocities carried out by man/woman, past/future, out of love.

The claim being he laid down his life freely and took his life back again.

Nobody took his life from him therefore because nobody had the power to do this.

Matthew 52 to 54

[Joshua10]

Sorry Matthew 26: 52-54

[Greatest I am]

If there is a God then there is the possibility that he can do anything he wants,how he wants whenever he wants,yes?

The Christian scriptures state that a God took on flesh and took the full blame for all atrocities ever committed throughout history up to now and in the future, even though this God was totally innocent.

If true,I’m still trying to figure out myself, how anyone could find fault with this God therefore.

My understanding is that we all have a choice to believe it or not.

I find fault with the immorality of the savior you describe.

Most moral people do.

I give this to Christians to try to make them think morals.

On Jesus dying for Christians. Try to think in a moral way.

It takes quite an inflated ego to think a god would actually die for us, after condemning us unjustly in the first place.

Christians have swallowed a lie and don’t care how evil they make Jesus to keep their feel good get out of hell free card.

It is a lie, first and foremost, because, like it or not, having another innocent person suffer or die for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

To abdicate your personal responsibility for your actions or use a scapegoat is immoral.

Christians also have to ignore what Jesus, as a Jewish Rabbi, would have taught his people.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Psa 49;7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

There is no way that Christians would teach their children to use a scapegoat to escape their just punishments and here you are promoting doing just that.

Jesus is just a smidge less immoral than his demiurge genocidal father, and here you are trying to put him as low in moral fiber as Yahweh. Tsk tsk.

Regards
DL

My understanding is that the christian scriptures claim that Jesus gave up his own life of his own choice.He chose to give it up and take the blame for all atrocities carried out by man/woman, past/future, out of love.

The claim being he laid down his life freely and took his life back again.

Nobody took his life from him therefore because nobody had the power to do this.

Matthew 52 to 54

God insured Jesus had a killer when he chose to have him murdered instead of doing the right thing and stepping up himself.

For Jesus to ask us to sin to be saved is immnoral.

Do try to think ot the immorality in this messianic concept that immorally punishes the innocent instead of the guilty.

Most Christians do not care about the immorality of their moral tenets but you might.

Most are moral cowards and refuse to judge.

Regards
DL

[Joshua10]

If there is a God then there is the possibility that he can do anything he wants,how he wants whenever he wants,yes?

The Christian scriptures state that a God took on flesh and took the full blame for all atrocities ever committed throughout history up to now and in the future, even though this God was totally innocent.

If true,I’m still trying to figure out myself, how anyone could find fault with this God therefore.

My understanding is that we all have a choice to believe it or not.

I find fault with the immorality of the savior you describe.

Most moral people do.

I give this to Christians to try to make them think morals.

On Jesus dying for Christians. Try to think in a moral way.

It takes quite an inflated ego to think a god would actually die for us, after condemning us unjustly in the first place.

Christians have swallowed a lie and don’t care how evil they make Jesus to keep their feel good get out of hell free card.

It is a lie, first and foremost, because, like it or not, having another innocent person suffer or die for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

To abdicate your personal responsibility for your actions or use a scapegoat is immoral.

Christians also have to ignore what Jesus, as a Jewish Rabbi, would have taught his people.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Psa 49;7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

There is no way that Christians would teach their children to use a scapegoat to escape their just punishments and here you are promoting doing just that.

Jesus is just a smidge less immoral than his demiurge genocidal father, and here you are trying to put him as low in moral fiber as Yahweh. Tsk tsk.

Regards
DL

My understanding is that the christian scriptures claim that Jesus gave up his own life of his own choice.He chose to give it up and take the blame for all atrocities carried out by man/woman, past/future, out of love.

The claim being he laid down his life freely and took his life back again.

Nobody took his life from him therefore because nobody had the power to do this.

Matthew 52 to 54

God insured Jesus had a killer when he chose to have him murdered instead of doing the right thing and stepping up himself.

For Jesus to ask us to sin to be saved is immnoral.

Do try to think ot the immorality in this messianic concept that immorally punishes the innocent instead of the guilty.

Most Christians do not care about the immorality of their moral tenets but you might.

Most are moral cowards and refuse to judge.

Regards
DL

The Christian scriptures state that Jesus said “The Father and I are one” …John 10:30….and so God did step up himself,did he not?

[Sy Borg]

It's mythology, Joshua. There were no magic events back then, just as there are none now. The Bible's accounts are infused with the symbolism and imagination of ancient people.

[Joshua10]

It's mythology, Joshua. There were no magic events back then, just as there are none now. The Bible's accounts are infused with the symbolism and imagination of ancient people.

But is it mythology Sy Borg? You have absolutely no means of definitively proving that it is.Sound philosophy states that all you have is a hope in the belief that it is.

There isn’t definitive scientific proof to confirm your claims you see.

All you have is a belief system like everyone else.

Which is the more probable?
That miracles(interventions by God in history) happened, or that a people believed in magic ?

[Sy Borg]

It's mythology, Joshua. There were no magic events back then, just as there are none now. The Bible's accounts are infused with the symbolism and imagination of ancient people.

But is it mythology Sy Borg? You have absolutely no means of definitively proving that it is.Sound philosophy states that all you have is a hope in the belief that it is.

There isn’t definitive scientific proof to confirm your claims you see.

All you have is a belief system like everyone else.

Which is the more probable?
That miracles(interventions by God in history) happened, or that a people believed in magic ?

Clearly it's more likely that ancient people believed in magic. They believed that infections were demonic possession too.

There is zero chance that actual miracles actually occurred as written, where an anthropomorphic deity intervened to bend physics.

[Sculptor1]

I find fault with the immorality of the savior you describe.

Most moral people do.

I give this to Christians to try to make them think morals.

On Jesus dying for Christians. Try to think in a moral way.

It takes quite an inflated ego to think a god would actually die for us, after condemning us unjustly in the first place.

Christians have swallowed a lie and don’t care how evil they make Jesus to keep their feel good get out of hell free card.

It is a lie, first and foremost, because, like it or not, having another innocent person suffer or die for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

To abdicate your personal responsibility for your actions or use a scapegoat is immoral.

Christians also have to ignore what Jesus, as a Jewish Rabbi, would have taught his people.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Psa 49;7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

There is no way that Christians would teach their children to use a scapegoat to escape their just punishments and here you are promoting doing just that.

Jesus is just a smidge less immoral than his demiurge genocidal father, and here you are trying to put him as low in moral fiber as Yahweh. Tsk tsk.

Regards
DL

My understanding is that the christian scriptures claim that Jesus gave up his own life of his own choice.He chose to give it up and take the blame for all atrocities carried out by man/woman, past/future, out of love.

The claim being he laid down his life freely and took his life back again.

Nobody took his life from him therefore because nobody had the power to do this.

Matthew 52 to 54

God insured Jesus had a killer when he chose to have him murdered instead of doing the right thing and stepping up himself.

For Jesus to ask us to sin to be saved is immnoral.

Do try to think ot the immorality in this messianic concept that immorally punishes the innocent instead of the guilty.

Most Christians do not care about the immorality of their moral tenets but you might.

Most are moral cowards and refuse to judge.

Regards
DL

The Christian scriptures state that Jesus said “The Father and I are one” …John 10:30….and so God did step up himself,did he not?

It ain't necessarily so.


"He" (whoever that might be) did not, no.
This story is not coherent on any level.

[Joshua10]

My understanding is that the christian scriptures claim that Jesus gave up his own life of his own choice.He chose to give it up and take the blame for all atrocities carried out by man/woman, past/future, out of love.

The claim being he laid down his life freely and took his life back again.

Nobody took his life from him therefore because nobody had the power to do this.

Matthew 52 to 54

God insured Jesus had a killer when he chose to have him murdered instead of doing the right thing and stepping up himself.

For Jesus to ask us to sin to be saved is immnoral.

Do try to think ot the immorality in this messianic concept that immorally punishes the innocent instead of the guilty.

Most Christians do not care about the immorality of their moral tenets but you might.

Most are moral cowards and refuse to judge.

Regards
DL

The Christian scriptures state that Jesus said “The Father and I are one” …John 10:30….and so God did step up himself,did he not?

It ain't necessarily so.


"He" (whoever that might be) did not, no.
This story is not coherent on any level.

You don’t know that….you can only hope it’s a no …because you ain’t got definitive proof to the contrary …..all you have is a hopeful belief like everyone else.

It makes perfect sense to a lot of people even if you ain’t figured it out yet.

[Sculptor1]

God insured Jesus had a killer when he chose to have him murdered instead of doing the right thing and stepping up himself.

For Jesus to ask us to sin to be saved is immnoral.

Do try to think ot the immorality in this messianic concept that immorally punishes the innocent instead of the guilty.

Most Christians do not care about the immorality of their moral tenets but you might.

Most are moral cowards and refuse to judge.

Regards
DL

The Christian scriptures state that Jesus said “The Father and I are one” …John 10:30….and so God did step up himself,did he not?

It ain't necessarily so.


"He" (whoever that might be) did not, no.
This story is not coherent on any level.

You don’t know that….you can only hope it’s a no …because you ain’t got definitive proof to the contrary …..all you have is a hopeful belief like everyone else.

It makes perfect sense to a lot of people even if you ain’t figured it out yet.

Actually I do know that.
I stated that a myth written by a semi-literate nearly 2000 years ago, written without any evidence "ain't necessarily so".
It might make perfect sense to many indoctrinated people who have not learned to think for themselves with the skill of critical thinking yes. But that does not make it sensible or rational.
It remains incoherent by virtue of reason.

[Sy Borg]

Joshua, consider the possibility that ancient people did not have today's knowledge or terminology, so they were far more liberal in their use of metaphor.

Throughout history, humans imparted knowledge and concepts to next generations. It's only natural to want to share what we learn from our mistakes so others can avoid those mistakes. These ideas are often shared as stories to make the concepts more memorable. It doesn't mean that the tales were literally real, just as Aesop's fables are are not historical accounts, but stories designed to provide life lessons.

To that end, invoking fear of an omniscient, omnipresent, all-powerful being has been used as a form of control over people throughout parts of history. You can see the dynamic at play in this experiment:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... s_Cheating

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21377689/

Two child groups (5-6 and 8-9 years of age) participated in a challenging rule-following task while they were (a) told that they were in the presence of a watchful invisible person ("Princess Alice"), (b) observed by a real adult, or (c) unsupervised. Children were covertly videotaped performing the task in the experimenter's absence. Older children had an easier time at following the rules but engaged in equal levels of purposeful cheating as the younger children.

Importantly, children's expressed belief in the invisible person significantly determined their cheating latency, and this was true even after controlling for individual differences in temperament. When "skeptical" children were omitted from the analysis, the inhibitory effects of being told about Princess Alice were equivalent to having a real adult present. Furthermore, skeptical children cheated only after having first behaviorally disconfirmed the "presence" of Princess Alice. The findings suggest that children's belief in a watchful invisible person tends to deter cheating.

[Joshua10]

Joshua, consider the possibility that ancient people did not have today's knowledge or terminology, so they were far more liberal in their use of metaphor.

Throughout history, humans imparted knowledge and concepts to next generations. It's only natural to want to share what we learn from our mistakes so others can avoid those mistakes. These ideas are often shared as stories to make the concepts more memorable. It doesn't mean that the tales were literally real, just as Aesop's fables are are not historical accounts, but stories designed to provide life lessons.

To that end, invoking fear of an omniscient, omnipresent, all-powerful being has been used as a form of control over people throughout parts of history. You can see the dynamic at play in this experiment:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... s_Cheating

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21377689/

Two child groups (5-6 and 8-9 years of age) participated in a challenging rule-following task while they were (a) told that they were in the presence of a watchful invisible person ("Princess Alice"), (b) observed by a real adult, or (c) unsupervised. Children were covertly videotaped performing the task in the experimenter's absence. Older children had an easier time at following the rules but engaged in equal levels of purposeful cheating as the younger children.

Importantly, children's expressed belief in the invisible person significantly determined their cheating latency, and this was true even after controlling for individual differences in temperament. When "skeptical" children were omitted from the analysis, the inhibitory effects of being told about Princess Alice were equivalent to having a real adult present. Furthermore, skeptical children cheated only after having first behaviorally disconfirmed the "presence" of Princess Alice. The findings suggest that children's belief in a watchful invisible person tends to deter cheating.

Hey Sy Borg…it is not my intention to put the fear of a God into you or anyone honestly….who am I? I am in the same position as you or anyone else.

However,I am not going to stay ignorant of the fact that I may need to fear a God because he has always made a distinction between good and bad.

The issue for me is that man has always claimed that good is bad and bad is good i.e there is no difference and then tried to make up the rules himself that are not absolutes because he changes these rules at will.

I take the view that if there is a God and he gives individuals the choice to believe in him or not then he will build this concept into natures workings as well and our very being.

I argue that if you directly transpose good and bad into the 4 magnetic interactions then good (1) is bad (0) and bad (0) is good (1) doesn’t apply to all 4 possible magnetic interactions.

I believe that this is significant….you obviously disagree.

I take the view that all sciences are interconnected and nature allows for belief and unbelief.It allows for all individuals choices.

Amazing really, but I agree, quite scary as well.To me anyway.