Let's Talk About True Sacrifice

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by adjensen

 

But if he's omniscient, then what doesn't he know?

What does omniscient mean?

Why don't you just consult a dictionary?

omniscient
om·nis·cient
adjective
1. having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.
noun
2. an omniscient being.
3. the Omniscient, God. (Source)

Guess that covers it. Complete knowledge, awareness or understanding.

Does he have to be mortal to understand the concept? Do you have to be in China to grasp that there is such a place as China?

Could you recreate all of China from what you've seen?

What does that have to do with anything? You claimed that he couldn't understand the concept of mortality, because he is not mortal. To create a mortal being, you simply create an immortal one, leaving off the characteristic of immortality.

What do you even know about omniscience or omnipotence?

Well, unlike you, I at least know the definitions.

What I don't understand about you is your obsession with Christianity when you are so devoid of knowledge as regards it. You've never read the Bible, you base your arguments on misconstrued aspects of the religion that are only held by a minuscule part of it, and when you're presented with realistic answers, you apparently put your fingers in your ears and go "wah wah wah", because I can't see where you've ever demonstrated any accumulated knowledge of what Christianity is, as opposed to your fantasy view.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by tinhattribunal

 

I'm looking for a serious answer here.

In truth there is no contradiction.

You ended your initial post with these words:
""What Would God Do? Heh heh heh...""
And the phrase:
""Let the Game Begin""

The first poster gave an answer and you promptly and rudely replied:
""I'm looking for a serious answer here""

You had best look deeply within yourself
at the basic schism and split,
contradiction that is deep within
your own personality.

Find it, heal it and your question will be answered.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Dear AfterInfinty,

I had to step away from the thread for awhile and, upon returning, decided I should read it again from the beginning.

The headline you chose is "Let's Talk About True Sacrifice." In reviewing the thread it appears that you don't have any real interest in that. Your talk very quickly became "God is illogical." I'm left with some unpleasnt thoughts about this thread, so I'd like you to clear it up.

1.) You wanted to talk about sacrifice but became immediately distracted and lost the train of your own thought.
2.) You didn't want to talk about sacrifice, but about God and needed a catchy headline.
3.) You wanted to get Christians to say silly things.
4.) You wanted to prove God doesn't exist and thought you'd found a way to do it.
5.) You wanted to pick a fight and are continuing to make the same arguments without listening to others.
6.) You wanted to talk about something in a serious manner, but God and sacrifice was not it.

I'm asking for your help. What do you want to do with this thread? I'll try to help you reach any reasonable goal, but I don't see one anymore. Are any of the above six statements true? If not, what are you trying to accomplish?

With respect,
Charles1952

56. And We send not the Messengers except as giver of glad tidings and
warners. But those who disbelieve,
dispute with false argument, in order
to refute the truth thereby. And they
treat My Ayat (proofs, evidences,
verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.), and that with which they are
warned, as jest and mockery!

57. And who does more wrong than he who is reminded of the Ayat
(proofs, evidences, verses, lessons,
signs, revelations, etc.) of his Lord, but
turns away from them forgetting what
(deeds) his hands have sent forth.
Truly, We have set veils over their hearts lest they should understand
this (the Qur'an), and in their ears,
deafness. And if you (O Muhammad ) call them to guidance, even then they will never be guided.
58. And your Lord is Most Forgiving, Owner of Mercy. Were He to call them
to account for what they have earned,
then surely, He would have hastened
their punishment. But they have their
appointed time, beyond which they
will find no escape.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Or you just hate Christianity so that no explanation of it is acceptable?

Yep I think you got it here.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

5.) You wanted to pick a fight and are continuing to make the same arguments without listening to others.

Your post was very considerate and sincere, so I figured I would chime in here. I would think #5 best describes AfterInfinity's approach to Christian matters in general.

My experience with AfterInfinity's anti-Christianity posts is that it is just a "gotcha" game for him or them*. The OP is just AfterInfinity's latest "gotcha" attempt. As he once said to me on another Christianity-bashing thread of his, he was off to hunt more prey.

He also said he used to be Christian, so I guess he is negatively reacting to this now rather than really trying to have an intelligent considerate conversation with Christians - at least that has been my experience in reading many of his posts. I sometimes agree with his content, but it often comes across bitterly and adolescently, so its impact is greatly weakened, in my opinion.

I am not sure why people bother, but that is not really my concern. I did however feel obliged to say the above though.

* www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by logical7


The Bible is not proof of itself.

reply to post by charles1952

The headline you chose is "Let's Talk About True Sacrifice." In reviewing the thread it appears that you don't have any real interest in that. Your talk very quickly became "God is illogical." I'm left with some unpleasnt thoughts about this thread, so I'd like you to clear it up.

I asked if "God" would be willing to sacrifice himself for the greater good. The response was that he is unable to lose. My response is that if you are unable to lose, then you have risked nothing. That makes every act of generosity worthless because you have not shown you are willing to suffer.

"God" went so far as to send an incarnation of himself, rather than personally visit Earth. He wasn't willing to sacrifice himself. He crafted a pawn to send in place of himself. There is no honor is sending your prince to die in your place. This is where the 'God is illogical' part comes in. He didn't sacrifice himself because he had to contend with the rules of logic to even begin along that course. Being an illogical being, he had to remain as distant as possible while still fulfilling his agenda. What agenda was this? Obtain the allegiance of mankind.

His nature contradicts the nature of this universe, which makes him illogical by the standards of this universe. As a result, he is unable to do anything more than play from a distance. Either that...or he doesn't exist at all. It is said that the Elohim created this universe, and that "God" is one of many. So if he were to die, that would leave us to operate by our own devices. Instead of floating around and waiting for a miracle, perhaps we should start swimming. We can only be lead by the hand for so long before we must learn to run on our own.

1.) You wanted to talk about sacrifice but became immediately distracted and lost the train of your own thought.

If you wanted me to clarify my train of thought, then you should have asked instead of making accusations. As you can see, I'm more than willing to explain.

2.) You didn't want to talk about sacrifice, but about God and needed a catchy headline.

I'm into leaders who are willing to give up their happiness for that of others. That's true love. That's what I call sacrifice.

3.) You wanted to get Christians to say silly things.

They do that on their own just fine, thank you very much.

4.) You wanted to prove God doesn't exist and thought you'd found a way to do it.

No. I wanted to prove - or, in the event of failure, explore - one or more of three things: 1) God doesn't exist, 2) God can't exist in this universe, 3) God is an imperfect and selfish being. The question I posted at the beginning of the thread addresses all three angles if you probe deeply enough.

5.) You wanted to pick a fight and are continuing to make the same arguments without listening to others.

I have listened. What am I not listening to?

6.) You wanted to talk about something in a serious manner, but God and sacrifice was not it.

"God" is the only leader who has ever existed (supposedly) who has not lost something irreparable or irreplaceable in the course of saving his people. In fact, here's a quote from Star Trek that expresses my feelings quite well:

James T. Kirk: [to Spock] The test itself is a cheat, isn't it? I mean, you programmed it to be unwinnable.
Spock: Your argument precludes the possibility of a no-win scenario.
James T. Kirk: I don't believe in no-win scenarios.
Spock: Then not only did you violate the rules, you also failed to understand the principal lesson.
James T. Kirk: Please enlighten me.
Spock: You of all people should know, Cadet Kirk, a captain cannot cheat death.
James T. Kirk: [reminiscing] I of all people...
Spock: Your father, Lieutenant George Kirk, assumed command of his vessel before being killed in action, did he not?
James T. Kirk: I don't think you like the fact that I beat your test.
Spock: Furthermore, you have failed to divine the purpose of the test.
James T. Kirk: Enlighten me again.
Spock: The purpose is to experience fear, fear in the face of certain death, to accept that fear, and maintain control of oneself and one's crew. This is the quality expected in every Starfleet captain.

While this material comes from a science fiction movie, most elements of which have not yet been invented and might never be, morals such as the one above are scattered throughout. The essence of that excerpt is that death and decay are a natural part of life. When you are responsible for the well-being of even a ship, let alone an entire universe, you must be able to accept the possibility of failure. When you are unable to fail, what is the point of trying? There's no risk, no challenge, no triumph, and no reward.

That's why I ask about sacrifice. If "God" is unwilling to sacrifice himself, and himself truly, for us...why should we give ourselves for him? Jesus does not count. Anyone can grab their friend and throw them in the path of a bullet. It takes true character to end yourself for the continuation of another.

So tell me, why should any of us respect someone who is unwilling to lose for us?

Double post.

Is everyone finished discussing this then? I had hoped to explore the matter in deeper detail...

Well there is an allegory to the sacrifice of mother, mother earth. But I see Mother as equality and the way back home, and sacrifice as dark side.

reply to post by Unity_99


Could you explain that in more detail?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

. . . It is said that the Elohim created this universe . . .

I don't think it says that anywhere, if by "it is said", you mean in the Bible.
The universe already existed before any gods came on the scene.
I don't understand why it is that no one seems to get that.
Let me make a statement and I really hope that we are all grown up enough to accept it.
Just because a preacher or Sunday school teacher at church says something, it does not necessarily mean that the Bible also says so.
Sometimes people say things just because they think so.
I see it all the time.
Do you even go to church? Anyway, that's not the point, and I don't mean just you, or maybe not you at all.
I've told you before that I think if you want to criticize what people say in church, you should find out what the Bible says.
You seem to not have any interest in that, and continue going in circles about what 'someone' says.

reply to post by jmdewey60


If that's the case, then most of the preachers in my area have not a damn clue what they're talking about. Are you telling me that, according to scriptures, "God" only created the Earth? That he has no responsibility for the rest of the universe's existence?

I don't think it says that anywhere, if by "it is said", you mean in the Bible.
The universe already existed before any gods came on the scene.
I don't understand why it is that no one seems to get that.

I believe the first few lines of the Bible will explain that.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Care to tell us your interpretation? Because apparently, you know more about it than the rest of us. And by "us", I mean everyone I've talked to who has read the Bible and possesses a rudimentary knowledge of scripture as shared by both peers and teachers.

I've told you before that I think if you want to criticize what people say in church, you should find out what the Bible says. You seem to not have any interest in that, and continue going in circles about what 'someone' says.

I've just shown you what the Bible has to say on the matter. It would appear that you don't read or believe in the same Bible everyone else does.

Dear AfterInfinity,

Most important is my gratitude for your response to my last post. I can understand that you could (were?) upset by my post, but in spite of that you were thoughtful and courteous. Thank you very much.

There seems to be so much misunderstanding between us that I will try to be extra careful. My list of six possibilities was not, as you believe, a series of accusations but of choices. I asked which applied to you, and if none, I asked for a further explanation which you supplied by this:

No. I wanted to prove - or, in the event of failure, explore - one or more of three things: 1) God doesn't exist, 2) God can't exist in this universe, 3) God is an imperfect and selfish being. The question I posted at the beginning of the thread addresses all three angles if you probe deeply enough.

Thank you. If you are serious about this, I am willing to return to the beginning, if you are.

First, what are you talking about when you use the word "God?" Is it the traditional Christian definition of "God" with all His attributes, or something else? If something else, you'll have to provide your definition.

Second, if you are using the traditional definition of "God," does that include the concept of the Trinity? If it does, the quickest response is that God did sacrifice Himself for us, experiencing death, thereby disproving the three propositions you wish to discuss. If it doesn't, and you want to explore Trinitarianism, that's fine with me.

But it seems that you do reject Trinitarianism because

"God" went so far as to send an incarnation of himself, rather than personally visit Earth. He wasn't willing to sacrifice himself. He crafted a pawn to send in place of himself. There is no honor is sending your prince to die in your place.

You must know that in traditional Christian thought there are at least five statements which would be argued with there.

Third, when you use the word "Universe," do you mean the material, natural, scientific Universe? If no, then what do you take it to mean.

Fourth, what do you mean by sacrifice? At first, I thought you meant total, eternal, annihilation. But then

I'm into leaders who are willing to give up their happiness for that of others. That's true love. That's what I call sacrifice.

Fifth, what do you mean by "leader?" God is not known as a leader, but the Person led to.

Sixth, what do you mean by "fail," as in

When you are unable to fail, what is the point of trying?

What was God trying to do that he could not fail at? Bring all souls to Him for eternity? Perhaps you meant

What agenda was this? Obtain the allegiance of mankind.

In that case He certainly can fail.

Seventh, what do you mean by "for us" or "saving us?" Do you mean for our continued physical survival, eternal happiness, what?

Not surprisingly, I disagree with some of the conclusions you've reached and statements you've made, but that's for later. First, let's make sure we can progress with a minimum of further misunderstanding. (And I really admire your patience.)

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by AfterInfinity


In the history of the universe, we have seen not a single example of something creating its own opposite.

No-thingness appears as some-thingness.
Emptiness is form.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


You say that God would not sacrifice himself so sent his son instead but you do not realize that God is the formless, the unmanifest, the source of all that is.
Christ is the form of God.
From nothing comes everything.
Jesus was the man (manifest).
God is ever present as the unmanifest and Christ (consciousness) is the manifest.

What is seen right now is present. What is seeing now is also present.
The seen/scene (appearing as light) is seen by the all seeing, all knowing, ever present presence.

There is nothing else but this presence - the light and the light is seen.

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good."

In deep sleep there is just God (awareness) - there is nothing appearing, there is no light.
On waking one (ness) becomes conscious and light appears (Christ consciousness).
The Father and Son are one.
Without the seeing aspect (God) no thing could ever appear.
It is what is happening eternally as presence.

The light goes on and the light goes off, the light goes on and the light goes off - what knows this?

The illusion that you are an individual person is what causes the suffering. The individual is never divided from the whole (presence) but it dreams that it is - it dreams of other times when it 'was' or when it 'will be'. In the dreams it dreams it suffers from it's fear of extinction, it struggles to survive because it thinks it is a thing that has been made and can then be destroyed. All the while it dreams in time to preserve itself or prove itself - it wants to 'become' more and have more. It causes neediness and greediness. This neediness and greediness is generated by an illusion - a voice that says 'I can become.............'
'Becoming' is dependent on time.


Are you ever separate from the presence? Can you ever get out of the present moment? This moment is happening all by itself. The whole of the universe is moving and no one has found out what moves it - a word like gravity will never explain how the universe and all the flowers and bees and all of the blood pumping and the amazing way it all works. It is happening right now - all in unison. It is being.
'Being' - to 'be' - is not dependent on time. What is happening presently - always presently is timeless being. This is aliveness.

It is the individual that must die (Jesus the man) to be one with the presence of the lord.
The person is just a 'me story' based on time and ideas - when there is only ever presence.
The individual person was never real so nothing really dies.
It is an astounding joke God plays with himself.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

I believe the first few lines of the Bible will explain that.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Care to tell us your interpretation? Because apparently, you know more about it than the rest of us. And by "us", I mean everyone I've talked to who has read the Bible and possesses a rudimentary knowledge of scripture as shared by both peers and teachers.

The Gospel of John starts out with a story and the subject of it is a man named John.
Of course there was already a Gospel (that we call, Mark) that starts out in the same way, but it says that John was doing what he was doing because prophecy said that he would.
The John version says it differently by, instead of saying "according to Isaiah" (while actually quoting Malachi), describing it as "Light coming into the world". So it is giving this idea of prophecy, not based on the authority of someone named Isaiah (which would be completely meaningless to gentiles) but as Logos (something that gentiles would be able to attach meaning to).
So instead of things coming about (the actual meaning of the Greek word, and not "creation" as shows up in the English translation) because of some old book, things happen because the Logos moves people to do them.
The result of this way of describing events is to give a more sensible explanation for why things happened the way that they did. John the Baptist was not preaching at the Jordan River because he read a book, but because the Logos entered into him to share the light that the Logos had for humanity, the light that would provide life to us.

As requested, the above is my interpretation of the three verses that you quoted. The key to interpreting them is understanding the concept of multivalent words, which is what those three verses are made up of, which in practical terms, means 'context is everything'.
That no one other than myself is going to tell you that is the very problem that I was talking about in my last post, that a teaching develops because of things like church officials hunting for arguments to support a doctrine like the Trinity, and they are sitting there in the Western Empire, reading the New Testament written out in Latin, rather than in Greek, and thinking, "Great, here is a verse that seems to be saying there was a trinity, if we just understand it like this . . ."

reply to post by charles1952

First, what are you talking about when you use the word "God?" Is it the traditional Christian definition of "God" with all His attributes, or something else? If something else, you'll have to provide your definition.

The traditional definition.

Second, if you are using the traditional definition of "God," does that include the concept of the Trinity? If it does, the quickest response is that God did sacrifice Himself for us, experiencing death, thereby disproving the three propositions you wish to discuss. If it doesn't, and you want to explore Trinitarianism, that's fine with me.

I have already addressed this, though perhaps I was not clear enough. Jesus, traditionally speaking, is still alive and well. He died and rose again after three days. This is not a sacrifice, anymore than getting your pants so dirty that you have to send them to the dry cleaners for a few days. If your pants come back clean and fresh, there's no harm done. If Jesus comes back healed and healthy, then the sacrifice wasn't a true sacrifice.

I'm talking about "God" giving up something that is intrinsically part of himself, forever. Sacrificing his happiness for ours.

"God" went so far as to send an incarnation of himself, rather than personally visit Earth. He wasn't willing to sacrifice himself. He crafted a pawn to send in place of himself. There is no honor is sending your prince to die in your place.

You must know that in traditional Christian thought there are at least five statements which would be argued with there.

Third, when you use the word "Universe," do you mean the material, natural, scientific Universe? If no, then what do you take it to mean.

Fourth, what do you mean by sacrifice? At first, I thought you meant total, eternal, annihilation.

The material universe, yes. You seem to be implying that there is an under or overuniverse, where the laws of physics we have observed do not apply. Do you have any empirical evidence for such a universe?

When the people sacrificed animals or harvest, that offering was gone. Destroyed. Never again reclaimed. Should "God" sacrifice something for our gain, why should it be any less permanent?

Fifth, what do you mean by "leader?" God is not known as a leader, but the Person led to.

Sixth, what do you mean by "fail," as in

When you are unable to fail, what is the point of trying?

What was God trying to do that he could not fail at? Bring all souls to Him for eternity? Perhaps you meant

What agenda was this? Obtain the allegiance of mankind.

In that case He certainly can fail.

5. He is treated as a leader. Semantics aside, he acts as a leader, is treated as a leader, regarded as a leader, and hailed as a leader. Regardless of what you want to call him, he is the equivalent of a leader. Otherwise, why call him king?

6. Responses at the beginning of this thread showed quite clearly that many people believe "God" is incapable of losing. This, to me, is a travesty - any leader must be capable of losing, otherwise they have risked nothing. And risk is a crucial part of being a leader, for you must know what everything is worth and what you are willing to do. In addition, being unable to fail deprives you of a particular perspective in understanding the imperfect natures of your creations...or, in other words, the weaknesses of your people.

If he is perfect and incapable of failure, then he can never truly understand what it is to be human. But of course...maybe that's just it. He doesn't care for the human condition. But if he is unwilling to give the sacrifices necessary of leading the human race, then why should we give him anything?

Seventh, what do you mean by "for us" or "saving us?" Do you mean for our continued physical survival, eternal happiness, what?

Eternal happiness.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Sorry, but I don't see the relevance. Maybe you could run it by me again, verse by verse, and explain how it is connected.