This father should be reported to Children Protective Services immediately. It is too late to help these two sons, but current and future sons need to be protected from such an irresponsible parent.
IMO, it's a story, not literal/factual truth/reality.
But you raise intriguing questions about the culture(s) in which this story originated and survived up to the present time.
Some present day Christian fundamentalists have apparently lamented what they see as a trend toward atheism. Perhaps they could benefit from exercising the brains God gave them rather than subject more than six billion humans to mindless fearmongering. Just sayin'.
IMO, it's a story, not literal/factual truth/reality.
The events I am describing come from the bible. If you have another source you are referring to other than the bible, please share it with us.
I am not sure of your belief in the bible, but if you do, what passages do you consider factual, and which are not literal/factual truth/reality? What is your method for determining fact from story?
You say some modern day Christian fundamentalists lamented what they see as a trend toward atheism. Who are these folks and could you expound on how it relates to the subject A Loving Father?
And how do these people subject more than 6 billion humans to mindless fear mongering?
The events I am describing come from the bible. I know you're referring to bible stories. I didn't dispute that fact.
I am not sure of your belief in the bible. I accept that you're not sure of my belief in the bible. I'm okay with that. I'm not sure your certainly or lack thereof in my belief or unbelief is relevant to anything.
You say some modern day Christian fundamentalists lamented what they see as a trend toward atheism. Who are these folks and could you expound on how it relates to the subject A Loving Father? Is not your premise that God as a loving father is some kind of concept that doesn't fit with your understanding of life, or how the God of the bible should be understood?
And how do these people subject more than 6 billion humans to mindless fear mongering? Do you really not understand that Christian fundamentalism or Christian Nationalism or Dominionism is about imposing what those groups individually or collective interpret the be God's law(s)/moral system on world order one nation-state at a time? By definition, threat of punishment for not complying with church elders' interpretation thereof is contrary to self-determination (aka freedom)?
If I have misinterpreted the premise of your OP for this thread, by all means, clarify it for us (me included).
What would you say about a father who allowed his son to suffer unimaginablly and be finally murdered? And at any time, this father could have intervened and put a halt to all this pain. This father stood by and allowed his son to go through a mock trial, allowed false witnesses to testify against him, watched as he was whipped, and thorns put upon his head, and finally murdered.
And why did this son have to endure all this pain and death? Because previously, this same father, set up another son to fail. With the full knowledge his son would not successfully complete the task, he put his son through it anyway. This failure would not only affect this son, but all future sons throughout eternity. Because of this son’s failure, the second son had to die to overcome it.
This is not a good track record of a loving father; one son setup to fail, and the second setup to be murdered.
This father should be reported to Children Protective Services immediately. It is too late to help these two sons, but current and future sons need to be protected from such an irresponsible parent.
The SwisspsychoanalystCarl Jungargued thatarchetypalprocesses such as death and resurrection were part of the "trans-personal symbolism" of thecollective unconscious, and could be utilized in the task of psychological integration.[20][page needed]He also proposed that themythsof thepagangodswho symbolically died and resurrected foreshadowedChrist's literal/physical death and resurrection.[20][page needed]The overall view of Jung regarding religious themes and stories is that they are expressions of events occurring in the unconscious of the individuals – regardless of their historicity.[21]From the symbolic perspective, Jung sees dying and rising gods as anarchetypalprocess resonating with thecollective unconsciousthrough which the rising god becomes the greater personality in theJungian self.[9]In Jung's view, a biblical story such as the resurrection of Jesus (which he saw as a case of dying and rising) may be true or not, but that has no relevance to the psychological analysis of the process, and its impact.[21]
The analysis ofOsirispermeates the later religious psychology of Carl Jung more than any other element.[22]In 1950 Jung wrote that those who partake in theOsiris mythfestival and follow the ritual of his death and the scattering of his body to restart the vegetation cycle as a rebirth "experience the permanence and continuity of life which outlasts all changes of form".[23]Jung wrote that Osiris provided the key example of the rebirth process in that initially only thePharaohs"had an Osiris" but later other Egyptians nobles acquired it and eventually it led in the concept ofsoulfor all individuals in Christianity.[24]Jung believed that Christianity itself derived its significance from the archetypal relationship between Osiris and Horus versusGod the Fatherand Jesus, his son.[22]However, Jung also postulated that the rebirth applied to Osiris (the father), and not Horus, the son.[22]
The general applicability of the death and resurrection of Osiris to the dying-and-rising-god analogy has been criticized, on the grounds that it derived from the harvesting rituals that related the rising and receding waters of theNile riverand the farming cycle.[19][25][26]The cutting down of barley and wheat was related to the death of Osiris, while the sprouting of shoots was thought to be based on the power of Osiris to resurrect the farmland.[19][25][27]In general rebirth analogies based on the vegetation cycle are viewed as the weakest elements in the death-rebirth analogies.[9]
Edited by Bolshevik had to edit cause couldn't do it write the first time . . . someone should report this monster
What does dying and rising have to do with the god of the bible being a completely irresponsible father, specifically to, Adam and Jesus? And then passing this sin nature to the rest of his chosen children?
IMO, it's a story, not literal/factual truth/reality. We certainly agree on this point. It has become unimaginable to be that any father could even conceive of such a demented idea.
But you raise intriguing questions about the culture(s) in which this story originated and survived up to the present time.
Some present day Christian fundamentalists have apparently lamented what they see as a trend toward atheism. Perhaps they could benefit from exercising the brains God gave them rather than subject more than six billion humans to mindless fearmongering. Just sayin'.
if we are talking about the demented god mentioned above, I don’t believe many people would want any brains he might be giving out. One can only imagine what family life would be like, knowing your father was going to have you crucified in the hear future. Help CFS!
What does dying and rising have to do with the god of the bible being a completely irresponsible father, specifically to, Adam and Jesus? And then passing this sin nature to the rest of his chosen children?
You know who else is an irresponsible father? Geppetto. Total imbecile when it comes to protecting children. Especially animated wooden ones.
This is a response to the opening post (when quoted here it will be in bold blue font)- the premise is based on one’s interpretation of the Bible. An inference from a specific point of view. Two people might have the same facts, but with different points of view, they may each come to a different solution to the problem…That being said and considering myself all in to explore this idea – I should first mention if there is any legitimate concern that this father should be reported to Child Protective Services, one should do so ASAP.
In the U.S. "every state has its own CPS department. While there may be procedural and legislative differences, each one has the same goal: investigating reports of abuse, neglect and exploitation. If they find evidence of these crimes, they have a statutory duty to intervene and take all necessary measures to help the victims and prosecute those who are responsible. " From: When should you call child protective services
For the sake of brevity, I’m not going to get into comparing similar CPS systems in other countries – see Wiki – child protective services
If CPS has information that a child may be in danger, they have the authority to go to court to ask for a court order—like a search warrant—requiring that the person allows them access. CPS must give the person notice if they intend to do this, and that person has a right to go to that court hearing. In an emergency, CPS can also return with the police without a court order.
If the accused person is confident that there’s nothing to be seen in their home that raises red flags, they may want to allow entry, since denying entry may make the CPS official see them as uncooperative.
Defense attorneys may argue these are trumped-up charges based on false information or misinterpretation of the facts, or if it went further like going to court, it could also be deemed a frivolous lawsuit – which is a lawsuit that has no legal merit.
Some things mentioned in the opening statement reflect bias and speculation. For instance, concerning the first son - as stated in the opening post: “this same father, set up another son to fail. With the full knowledge his son would not successfully complete the task, he put his son through it anyway” Objection! There has been no evidence given to indicate the father had evil intentions or that he made absolutely certain something bad would happen – i.e., a project that was doomed to fail.
Furthermore, the accusation states the son did not successfully complete “the task” but fails to specify what the task was. The record DOES SHOW the son and his companion were given mandates of dominion and procreation – tasks which successfully continue to this day. There is nothing to indicate the son and his mate were coerced or acted under compulsion. There is no indication of abuse, neglect, or exploitation by the father. But rather it appears the son and companion acted on their own volition as they carried out their various tasks.
"This failure would not only affect this son, but all future sons throughout eternity. Because of this son’s failure, the second son had to die to overcome it." This statement alludes to the incident in Genesis 3, and is in error over the duration of the negative consequences – for the actions of the second son provide an option to nullify the consequences of the first son’s mistake. Furthermore, if the second son HAD TO DIE to overcome all that – it implies there was a necessity, an obligation or reciprocal justice measure-for-measure that already existed. Implicit in that obligation is the idea of a moral universe.
We find such compensatory ideas in many cultures - for example, in Exodus 21an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth – or in this case, a life for a life. Justice, in its broadest sense, is the principle that people receive that which they deserve, with the interpretation of what constitutes "deserving" coming from numerous fields, with many differing viewpoints and perspectives, including the concepts of moral correctness based on ethics, rationality, law, religion, equity and fairness.
“This is not a good track record of a loving father; one son setup to fail, and the second setup to be murdered.” I object again! As stated before, there has been no evidence offered to indicate the father had evil intentions. Considering the father’s past achievements and performance recorded in the Bible – I’d say he has an excellent track record of giving his offspring complete freedom to choose and shape their own destiny – something you’d expect from a loving parent desiring to see their children flourish. Also, to say the father setup the second son to be murdered suggests the father had malice aforethought and organized an unlawful premeditated killing of a human being.
In US Criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding. Respectively, they refer to: the ability of the defendant to commit the crime, the reason the defendant felt the need to commit the crime, and whether or not the defendant had the chance to commit the crime. According to the Gospel accounts it was CERTAIN RELIGIOUS LEADERS who had A NUMBER OF REASONS to hate Jesus. THEY had Him arrested, THEY tried Him, and THEY brought Him before Pilate for a sentence of death.
"What would you say about a father who allowed his son to suffer unimaginably and be finally murdered? And at any time, this father could have intervened and put a halt to all this pain. This father stood by and allowed his son to go through a mock trial, allowed false witnesses to testify against him, watched as he was whipped, and thorns put upon his head, and finally murdered." I have no words to express the incredible love offered by the heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ. John 3:16 reveals the Father’s true intentions: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
A couple of passages show Jesus Christ volunteered for this “impossible mission” - and that His sacrificial death was not the end – for the resurrection would follow - No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father. John 10:17
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. Mark 10:45
Closing argument: Jesus Christ gave His life as a ransom – a price to be paid to redeem a slave or prisoner. This redemption did not involve payment to Satan – but to satisfy God’s justice – as I mentioned previously, speaking of a moral universe. Jesus Christ subjected Himself to the divine punishment against sin on our behalf.
Helping the aforementioned two sons is a moot point. What could we do to help the first son? And surely, it is we who are in need of help from the second son. But do current and future sons need to be protected from the heavenly Father? Is He an irresponsible parent? Has He shown a lack of concern for the consequences of His actions or for that matter, the actions of others? He gave mankind freedom and responsibility and created safety measures to protect and preserve justice for all – i.e., a moral universe. Based solely on the evidence of Scripture where are the passages that indicate the heavenly Father is guilty of abuse, neglect, and exploitation?
It is the opinion of this Grease Spotter that the premise of the opening statement was based on a misinterpretation of the Bible mixed with bias and speculation. If this premise should go to a hypothetical court, I would warn the jury to consider all of the evidence and not base their decision on a foregone conclusion.
Pinocchio has a lot of symbolism, Christian and Pagan.
But if we have to be more Bible the prodigal son would be an example. I think the guy with the bad father said it.
Earlier in life I thought the story was stupid. I sided with the son who didn't blow his inheritance. Why was the lazy bum getting a free pass? Later, I understood the father's viewpoint and changed my mind. I am amused that I remembered the story because I hated it once.
Arguing whether Pinocchio actually happened or is even possible is missing the point.
You're one to talk... about missing any point. If you want people to get your points, you might consider changing your approach. Cryptic and obtuse generally doesn't promote avoidance of misunderstandings.
Your one to talk... about missing any point. If you want people to get your points, you might consider changing your approach. Cryptic and obtuse generally doesn't promote avoidance of misunderstandings.
This is a response to the opening post (when quoted here it will be in bold blue font)- the premise is based on one’s interpretation of the Bible. An inference from a specific point of view. Two people might have the same facts, but with different points of view, they may each come to a different solution to the problem…That being said and considering myself all in to explore this idea – I should first mention if there is any legitimate concern that this father should be reported to Child Protective Services, one should do so ASAP.
In the U.S. "every state has its own CPS department. While there may be procedural and legislative differences, each one has the same goal: investigating reports of abuse, neglect and exploitation. If they find evidence of these crimes, they have a statutory duty to intervene and take all necessary measures to help the victims and prosecute those who are responsible. " From: When should you call child protective services
For the sake of brevity, I’m not going to get into comparing similar CPS systems in other countries – see Wiki – child protective services
If CPS has information that a child may be in danger, they have the authority to go to court to ask for a court order—like a search warrant—requiring that the person allows them access. CPS must give the person notice if they intend to do this, and that person has a right to go to that court hearing. In an emergency, CPS can also return with the police without a court order.
If the accused person is confident that there’s nothing to be seen in their home that raises red flags, they may want to allow entry, since denying entry may make the CPS official see them as uncooperative.
Defense attorneys may argue these are trumped-up charges based on false information or misinterpretation of the facts, or if it went further like going to court, it could also be deemed a frivolous lawsuit – which is a lawsuit that has no legal merit.
Some things mentioned in the opening statement reflect bias and speculation. For instance, concerning the first son - as stated in the opening post: “this same father, set up another son to fail. With the full knowledge his son would not successfully complete the task, he put his son through it anyway” Objection! There has been no evidence given to indicate the father had evil intentions or that he made absolutely certain something bad would happen – i.e., a project that was doomed to fail.
While the father may not have had evil intentions, he did have foreknowedge of the outcome:
Isiah 46:10
Only I Can tell you the future before it happens. Everything I plan will come to pass, for I do whatever I wish.
According to Isiah Adam failing was a part of the father’s plan.
Furthermore, the accusation states the son did not successfully complete “the task” but fails to specify what the task was. The record DOES SHOW the son and his companion were given mandates of dominion and procreation – tasks which successfully continue to this day. There is nothing to indicate the son and his mate were coerced or acted under compulsion. There is no indication of abuse, neglect, or exploitation by the father. But rather it appears the son and companion acted on their own volition as they carried out their various tasks.
"This failure would not only affect this son, but all future sons throughout eternity. Because of this son’s failure, the second son had to die to overcome it." This statement alludes to the incident in Genesis 3, and is in error over the duration of the negative consequences – for the actions of the second son provide an option to nullify the consequences of the first son’s mistake. Furthermore, if the second son HAD TO DIE to overcome all that – it implies there was a necessity, an obligation or reciprocal justice measure-for-measure that already existed. Implicit in that obligation is the idea of a moral universe.
We find such compensatory ideas in many cultures - for example, in Exodus 21an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth – or in this case, a life for a life. Justice, in its broadest sense, is the principle that people receive that which they deserve, with the interpretation of what constitutes "deserving" coming from numerous fields, with many differing viewpoints and perspectives, including the concepts of moral correctness based on ethics, rationality, law, religion, equity and fairness.
“This is not a good track record of a loving father; one son setup to fail, and the second setup to be murdered.” I object again! As stated before, there has been no evidence offered to indicate the father had evil intentions. Considering the father’s past achievements and performance recorded in the Bible – I’d say he has an excellent track record of giving his offspring complete freedom to choose and shape their own destiny – something you’d expect from a loving parent desiring to see their children flourish. Also, to say the father setup the second son to be murdered suggests the father had malice aforethought and organized an unlawful premeditated killing of a human being.
In US Criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding. Respectively, they refer to: the ability of the defendant to commit the crime, the reason the defendant felt the need to commit the crime, and whether or not the defendant had the chance to commit the crime. According to the Gospel accounts it was CERTAIN RELIGIOUS LEADERS who had A NUMBER OF REASONS to hate Jesus. THEY had Him arrested, THEY tried Him, and THEY brought Him before Pilate for a sentence of death.
"What would you say about a father who allowed his son to suffer unimaginably and be finally murdered? And at any time, this father could have intervened and put a halt to all this pain. This father stood by and allowed his son to go through a mock trial, allowed false witnesses to testify against him, watched as he was whipped, and thorns put upon his head, and finally murdered." I have no words to express the incredible love offered by the heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ. John 3:16 reveals the Father’s true intentions: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
A couple of passages show Jesus Christ volunteered for this “impossible mission” - and that His sacrificial death was not the end – for the resurrection would follow - No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father. John 10:17
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. Mark 10:45
Closing argument: Jesus Christ gave His life as a ransom – a price to be paid to redeem a slave or prisoner. This redemption did not involve payment to Satan – but to satisfy God’s justice – as I mentioned previously, speaking of a moral universe. Jesus Christ subjected Himself to the divine punishment against sin on our behalf.
Helping the aforementioned two sons is a moot point. What could we do to help the first son? And surely, it is we who are in need of help from the second son. But do current and future sons need to be protected from the heavenly Father? Is He an irresponsible parent? Has He shown a lack of concern for the consequences of His actions or for that matter, the actions of others? He gave mankind freedom and responsibility and created safety measures to protect and preserve justice for all – i.e., a moral universe. Based solely on the evidence of Scripture where are the passages that indicate the heavenly Father is guilty of abuse, neglect, and exploitation?
It is the opinion of this Grease Spotter that the premise of the opening statement was based on a misinterpretation of the Bible mixed with bias and speculation. If this premise should go to a hypothetical court, I would warn the jury to consider all of the evidence and not base their decision on a foregone conclusion.
While the father may not have had evil intentions, he did have foreknowedge of the outcome:
Isiah 46:10: Only I Can tell you the future before it happens. Everything I plan will come to pass, for I do whatever I wish. ...According to Isiah Adam failing was a part of the father’s plan.
Only I can tell you the future before it even happens. Everything I plan will come to pass, for I do whatever I wish. Isaiah 46:10 NLT
I guess that’s one way to look at it. I do like the NLT translation – but it kinda makes the father in question sound fickle or that he operates arbitrarily… maybe he does, but what do I know…other translations have the word “purpose” instead of “plan” – like
I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please. Isaiah 46:10 NIV
If you click on hyperlink – you’ll find other translations listed…purpose and plan what’s the diff? and does it matter?
According to wiki diffpurpose is the why, the goal, an intention and plan is a set of intended actions usually mutually related.
Maybe Adam failing was one possibility under consideration in the father’s contingency planning - designed to take a possible future event or circumstance into account.
Either way purpose or plan – I don’t see the connection you’re seeing.
Could you walk me through your logic?
I’m not trying to go all over the map or derail your thread – but just want to point out there’s different theories / viewpoints concerning God’s sovereignty and man’s freedom of will / responsibility which invariably drives the discussion into divine knowledge…in my opinion, open theism seems to make the most sense – where created beings have freedom to make real choices and therefore since total knowledge of the future would imply a fixity of events – future decisions cannot be exhaustively foreknown. This was the reasoning behind my previous post.
Whether the verse has plan or purpose, to me, is neither here nor there.
God had the ability to make a perfect world when he introduced Adam, because we are told that is what is going go happen at the end of time, so he knew how to do it. Why force a son to suffer and be crucified just to remedy a situation that happened years before the son was even born?
I am really not attempting to find a way to justify, or not justify, Adam or Jesus. My purpose is to point out the whole story is so ludicrous it is not believable.
Plan would be how to achieve the purpose . A wise planner would have contingency plans in case something went wrong…many folks get life insurance - just in case they die, there’s some financial relief to assist their beneficiaries.
What makes you think God made an IMPERFECT world when he introduced Adam?
What is your idea of a perfect world?
In your idea of a perfect world - do the people have free will? What if someone deliberately decides to disregard the plan for maintaining a perfect world? Is it possible the designer of this perfect world might have a contingency plan for such an event?
What makes you think God FORCED his son to suffer in order to remedy a situation that happened way before he was born?
My earlier post cited verses that show Jesus FREELY GAVE his life for the cause.
Well if you want to talk about what is ludicrous and unbelievable - there’s dumb schmoes like me that fall for this story! I mean to say I have no proof there is a higher power, no proof Jesus Christ ever existed. The one thing for me that seems to validate the redemption story is how screwed up things have become.
In my opinion what’s ludicrous and unbelievable is that there’s anything beyond this screwed up world. But as far as redemptive stories go I think the Bible’s story is fairly coherent. Again that’s just my opinion - I was raised a Roman Catholic… so I get into the whole spiritual-battle-and-overcoming-evil thing…deep down - I don’t know if any of this stuff is true - but it helps me make sense of my little world. Maybe that’s the big attraction of any religion.
So, don’t get me wrong, Stayed Too Long - I always enjoy our discussions cuz you force me to think a lot deeper…sorry if I missed the point you were trying to make. I know this thread is in the questioning faith section - but I thought you were going for a philosophical discussion of the redemption story. Depending on one’s point of view it could be ludicrous and unbelievable.
Whether the verse has plan or purpose, to me, is neither here nor there.
God had the ability to make a perfect world when he introduced Adam, because we are told that is what is going go happen at the end of time, so he knew how to do it. Why force a son to suffer and be crucified just to remedy a situation that happened years before the son was even born?
I am really not attempting to find a way to justify, or not justify, Adam or Jesus. My purpose is to point out the whole story is so ludicrous it is not believable.
I'm not sure how the "real world" is less insane than stories.
According to evolution, we are relatives to all the food we eat. We eat our family every day. Evolution is driven by the elimination of failed lives. There is no purpose but to pass on genes by any means. That's disturbing and nuts.
When you realize the gods and their stories come from the collective minds of many generations, what exactly are you calling ludicrous and not believable?
When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, enlightenment brought them shame. That's a short story with many layers. That's talented writing for ancient people. Don't think that truth has changed today.
I'm not sure how the "real world" is less insane than stories.
According to evolution, we are relatives to all the food we eat. We eat our family every day.
I must be quite evolved. I stopped eating my family quite a while ago. Lucky for them, huh?
Evolution is driven by the elimination of failed lives. There is no purpose but to pass on genes by any means. That's disturbing and nuts.
When you realize the gods and their stories come from the collective minds of many generations, what exactly are you calling ludicrous and not believable?
When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, enlightenment brought them shame. That's a short story with many layers. That's talented writing for ancient people. Don't think that truth has changed today.
God made up for any worldly injustice to his Son Jesus Christ by raising Him from the dead, while letting Jesus walk around on earth for a number of days. In addition, allowing Jesus Christ to have a new spiritual body so that He can do the spiritual equivalent of flying to heaven to be on the right side of God His Father. I do NOT think their will be any argument between God and Jesus Christ because God has now delegated ALL authority under Jesus Christ His Son for the salvation of humanity. And in the future death will be destroyed with all under Jesus Christ the Son of God. Then Jesus Christ will turn this authority back to God His Father so that God can or may be all in all. This is read in I Corinthians 15:20-28.
As respectfully as I can address a premise I now find ridiculous...
How do we account for a God who creates a tree whose main purpose in existing is to kill man, places it in a garden, then creates man.... and places him in the same F---ing garden? He could have put the tree in Australia. Or some other life-supporting planet in some other solar system. But no. Puts the tree right in front of the man and says don't eat of the delicious fruit of this here yummy tree.
You did WHAT?!?!?!
Well, without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin... according to whom? Who came up with THAT idea? Doesn't God get to decide the wages of sin? Why couldn't the wages of sin be $1.50. Because that wouldn't be just??? Who said shedding blood is just? Isn't it just because He said it is? I thought He decides what is just and what is not. The notion that the death of Christ served some independent standard of justice neglects Him as the author of justice.
Who did Christ's death pay? God? Why not just forgive the debt? What do you mean, he can't? Sure he can. He's omnipotent. Of course he can.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
12
19
39
16
Popular Days
Jun 2
24
Jun 3
16
Jun 11
10
Apr 30
9
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 12 posts
Stayed Too Long 19 posts
Bolshevik 39 posts
Nathan_Jr 16 posts
Popular Days
Jun 2 2022
24 posts
Jun 3 2022
16 posts
Jun 11 2022
10 posts
Apr 30 2022
9 posts
Popular Posts
cman
As a father I want the best for my kids. That involves letting them think for themselves a lot, even if they are wrong. From my children's perspective I am both good and bad, depends on the day,
Bolshevik
Maybe you're not familiar with the opportunity cost of money? Wayworld's debt policy was silly. Anyway sacrifice is everywhere when you think about it. So is death. Everything dies. No except
Bolshevik
I'm trying to decode it. . . . I think mermaids are genderfluid. . .
Posted Images
Rocky
IMO, it's a story, not literal/factual truth/reality.
Edited by RockyBut you raise intriguing questions about the culture(s) in which this story originated and survived up to the present time.
Some present day Christian fundamentalists have apparently lamented what they see as a trend toward atheism. Perhaps they could benefit from exercising the brains God gave them rather than subject more than six billion humans to mindless fearmongering. Just sayin'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stayed Too Long
The events I am describing come from the bible. If you have another source you are referring to other than the bible, please share it with us.
I am not sure of your belief in the bible, but if you do, what passages do you consider factual, and which are not literal/factual truth/reality? What is your method for determining fact from story?
You say some modern day Christian fundamentalists lamented what they see as a trend toward atheism. Who are these folks and could you expound on how it relates to the subject A Loving Father?
And how do these people subject more than 6 billion humans to mindless fear mongering?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying-and-rising_deity
Edited by Bolshevikhad to edit cause couldn't do it write the first time . . . someone should report this monster
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stayed Too Long
What does dying and rising have to do with the god of the bible being a completely irresponsible father, specifically to, Adam and Jesus? And then passing this sin nature to the rest of his chosen children?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stayed Too Long
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You know who else is an irresponsible father? Geppetto. Total imbecile when it comes to protecting children. Especially animated wooden ones.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Poor kid started turning into a donkey. Got lost at sea!
Disney made a movie out of it. Corporate greed. Marionettes can't talk!! All LIES.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
This is a response to the opening post (when quoted here it will be in bold blue font)- the premise is based on one’s interpretation of the Bible. An inference from a specific point of view. Two people might have the same facts, but with different points of view, they may each come to a different solution to the problem…That being said and considering myself all in to explore this idea – I should first mention if there is any legitimate concern that this father should be reported to Child Protective Services, one should do so ASAP.
In the U.S. "every state has its own CPS department. While there may be procedural and legislative differences, each one has the same goal: investigating reports of abuse, neglect and exploitation. If they find evidence of these crimes, they have a statutory duty to intervene and take all necessary measures to help the victims and prosecute those who are responsible. " From: When should you call child protective services
For the sake of brevity, I’m not going to get into comparing similar CPS systems in other countries – see Wiki – child protective services
If CPS has information that a child may be in danger, they have the authority to go to court to ask for a court order—like a search warrant—requiring that the person allows them access. CPS must give the person notice if they intend to do this, and that person has a right to go to that court hearing. In an emergency, CPS can also return with the police without a court order.
If the accused person is confident that there’s nothing to be seen in their home that raises red flags, they may want to allow entry, since denying entry may make the CPS official see them as uncooperative.
Defense attorneys may argue these are trumped-up charges based on false information or misinterpretation of the facts, or if it went further like going to court, it could also be deemed a frivolous lawsuit – which is a lawsuit that has no legal merit.
Some things mentioned in the opening statement reflect bias and speculation. For instance, concerning the first son - as stated in the opening post: “this same father, set up another son to fail. With the full knowledge his son would not successfully complete the task, he put his son through it anyway” Objection! There has been no evidence given to indicate the father had evil intentions or that he made absolutely certain something bad would happen – i.e., a project that was doomed to fail.
Furthermore, the accusation states the son did not successfully complete “the task” but fails to specify what the task was. The record DOES SHOW the son and his companion were given mandates of dominion and procreation – tasks which successfully continue to this day. There is nothing to indicate the son and his mate were coerced or acted under compulsion. There is no indication of abuse, neglect, or exploitation by the father. But rather it appears the son and companion acted on their own volition as they carried out their various tasks.
"This failure would not only affect this son, but all future sons throughout eternity. Because of this son’s failure, the second son had to die to overcome it." This statement alludes to the incident in Genesis 3, and is in error over the duration of the negative consequences – for the actions of the second son provide an option to nullify the consequences of the first son’s mistake. Furthermore, if the second son HAD TO DIE to overcome all that – it implies there was a necessity, an obligation or reciprocal justice measure-for-measure that already existed. Implicit in that obligation is the idea of a moral universe.
We find such compensatory ideas in many cultures - for example, in Exodus 21 an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth – or in this case, a life for a life. Justice, in its broadest sense, is the principle that people receive that which they deserve, with the interpretation of what constitutes "deserving" coming from numerous fields, with many differing viewpoints and perspectives, including the concepts of moral correctness based on ethics, rationality, law, religion, equity and fairness.
“This is not a good track record of a loving father; one son setup to fail, and the second setup to be murdered.” I object again! As stated before, there has been no evidence offered to indicate the father had evil intentions. Considering the father’s past achievements and performance recorded in the Bible – I’d say he has an excellent track record of giving his offspring complete freedom to choose and shape their own destiny – something you’d expect from a loving parent desiring to see their children flourish. Also, to say the father setup the second son to be murdered suggests the father had malice aforethought and organized an unlawful premeditated killing of a human being.
In US Criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding. Respectively, they refer to: the ability of the defendant to commit the crime, the reason the defendant felt the need to commit the crime, and whether or not the defendant had the chance to commit the crime. According to the Gospel accounts it was CERTAIN RELIGIOUS LEADERS who had A NUMBER OF REASONS to hate Jesus. THEY had Him arrested, THEY tried Him, and THEY brought Him before Pilate for a sentence of death.
"What would you say about a father who allowed his son to suffer unimaginably and be finally murdered? And at any time, this father could have intervened and put a halt to all this pain. This father stood by and allowed his son to go through a mock trial, allowed false witnesses to testify against him, watched as he was whipped, and thorns put upon his head, and finally murdered." I have no words to express the incredible love offered by the heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ. John 3:16 reveals the Father’s true intentions: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
A couple of passages show Jesus Christ volunteered for this “impossible mission” - and that His sacrificial death was not the end – for the resurrection would follow - No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father. John 10:17
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. Mark 10:45
Closing argument: Jesus Christ gave His life as a ransom – a price to be paid to redeem a slave or prisoner. This redemption did not involve payment to Satan – but to satisfy God’s justice – as I mentioned previously, speaking of a moral universe. Jesus Christ subjected Himself to the divine punishment against sin on our behalf.
Helping the aforementioned two sons is a moot point. What could we do to help the first son? And surely, it is we who are in need of help from the second son. But do current and future sons need to be protected from the heavenly Father? Is He an irresponsible parent? Has He shown a lack of concern for the consequences of His actions or for that matter, the actions of others? He gave mankind freedom and responsibility and created safety measures to protect and preserve justice for all – i.e., a moral universe. Based solely on the evidence of Scripture where are the passages that indicate the heavenly Father is guilty of abuse, neglect, and exploitation?
It is the opinion of this Grease Spotter that the premise of the opening statement was based on a misinterpretation of the Bible mixed with bias and speculation. If this premise should go to a hypothetical court, I would warn the jury to consider all of the evidence and not base their decision on a foregone conclusion.
Edited by T-Bonerevision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
All STORIES. Isn't humankind all about stories?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I agree.
Arguing whether Pinocchio actually happened or is even possible is missing the point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Pinocchio has a lot of symbolism, Christian and Pagan.
But if we have to be more Bible the prodigal son would be an example. I think the guy with the bad father said it.
Earlier in life I thought the story was stupid. I sided with the son who didn't blow his inheritance. Why was the lazy bum getting a free pass? Later, I understood the father's viewpoint and changed my mind. I am amused that I remembered the story because I hated it once.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
You're one to talk... about missing any point. If you want people to get your points, you might consider changing your approach. Cryptic and obtuse generally doesn't promote avoidance of misunderstandings.
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
*You're
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Noted and corrected.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stayed Too Long
Edited by Stayed Too LongLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Only I can tell you the future before it even happens. Everything I plan will come to pass, for I do whatever I wish. Isaiah 46:10 NLT
I guess that’s one way to look at it. I do like the NLT translation – but it kinda makes the father in question sound fickle or that he operates arbitrarily… maybe he does, but what do I know…other translations have the word “purpose” instead of “plan” – like
I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please. Isaiah 46:10 NIV
If you click on hyperlink – you’ll find other translations listed…purpose and plan what’s the diff? and does it matter?
According to wiki diff purpose is the why, the goal, an intention and plan is a set of intended actions usually mutually related.
Maybe Adam failing was one possibility under consideration in the father’s contingency planning - designed to take a possible future event or circumstance into account.
Either way purpose or plan – I don’t see the connection you’re seeing.
Could you walk me through your logic?
I’m not trying to go all over the map or derail your thread – but just want to point out there’s different theories / viewpoints concerning God’s sovereignty and man’s freedom of will / responsibility which invariably drives the discussion into divine knowledge…in my opinion, open theism seems to make the most sense – where created beings have freedom to make real choices and therefore since total knowledge of the future would imply a fixity of events – future decisions cannot be exhaustively foreknown. This was the reasoning behind my previous post.
Edited by T-Boneformatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Maybe Isaiah 46:10 is an attempt to point out apparent contradictions. This of course was handled, like a hand in a glove, in The Class.
Or, there's also Pinocchio.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinocchio_paradox#:~:text=For Pinocchio%2C "my nose grows,now because of that lie.
The opening post seems to imply that death and suffering serve no purpose.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stayed Too Long
Whether the verse has plan or purpose, to me, is neither here nor there.
God had the ability to make a perfect world when he introduced Adam, because we are told that is what is going go happen at the end of time, so he knew how to do it. Why force a son to suffer and be crucified just to remedy a situation that happened years before the son was even born?
I am really not attempting to find a way to justify, or not justify, Adam or Jesus. My purpose is to point out the whole story is so ludicrous it is not believable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Purpose would indicate intent or a goal.
Plan would be how to achieve the purpose . A wise planner would have contingency plans in case something went wrong…many folks get life insurance - just in case they die, there’s some financial relief to assist their beneficiaries.
What makes you think God made an IMPERFECT world when he introduced Adam?
What is your idea of a perfect world?
In your idea of a perfect world - do the people have free will? What if someone deliberately decides to disregard the plan for maintaining a perfect world? Is it possible the designer of this perfect world might have a contingency plan for such an event?
What makes you think God FORCED his son to suffer in order to remedy a situation that happened way before he was born?
My earlier post cited verses that show Jesus FREELY GAVE his life for the cause.
Well if you want to talk about what is ludicrous and unbelievable - there’s dumb schmoes like me that fall for this story! I mean to say I have no proof there is a higher power, no proof Jesus Christ ever existed. The one thing for me that seems to validate the redemption story is how screwed up things have become.
In my opinion what’s ludicrous and unbelievable is that there’s anything beyond this screwed up world. But as far as redemptive stories go I think the Bible’s story is fairly coherent. Again that’s just my opinion - I was raised a Roman Catholic… so I get into the whole spiritual-battle-and-overcoming-evil thing…deep down - I don’t know if any of this stuff is true - but it helps me make sense of my little world. Maybe that’s the big attraction of any religion.
So, don’t get me wrong, Stayed Too Long - I always enjoy our discussions cuz you force me to think a lot deeper…sorry if I missed the point you were trying to make. I know this thread is in the questioning faith section - but I thought you were going for a philosophical discussion of the redemption story. Depending on one’s point of view it could be ludicrous and unbelievable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I'm not sure how the "real world" is less insane than stories.
According to evolution, we are relatives to all the food we eat. We eat our family every day. Evolution is driven by the elimination of failed lives. There is no purpose but to pass on genes by any means. That's disturbing and nuts.
When you realize the gods and their stories come from the collective minds of many generations, what exactly are you calling ludicrous and not believable?
When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, enlightenment brought them shame. That's a short story with many layers. That's talented writing for ancient people. Don't think that truth has changed today.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stayed Too Long
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
God made up for any worldly injustice to his Son Jesus Christ by raising Him from the dead, while letting Jesus walk around on earth for a number of days. In addition, allowing Jesus Christ to have a new spiritual body so that He can do the spiritual equivalent of flying to heaven to be on the right side of God His Father. I do NOT think their will be any argument between God and Jesus Christ because God has now delegated ALL authority under Jesus Christ His Son for the salvation of humanity. And in the future death will be destroyed with all under Jesus Christ the Son of God. Then Jesus Christ will turn this authority back to God His Father so that God can or may be all in all. This is read in I Corinthians 15:20-28.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
As respectfully as I can address a premise I now find ridiculous...
How do we account for a God who creates a tree whose main purpose in existing is to kill man, places it in a garden, then creates man.... and places him in the same F---ing garden? He could have put the tree in Australia. Or some other life-supporting planet in some other solar system. But no. Puts the tree right in front of the man and says don't eat of the delicious fruit of this here yummy tree.
You did WHAT?!?!?!
Well, without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin... according to whom? Who came up with THAT idea? Doesn't God get to decide the wages of sin? Why couldn't the wages of sin be $1.50. Because that wouldn't be just??? Who said shedding blood is just? Isn't it just because He said it is? I thought He decides what is just and what is not. The notion that the death of Christ served some independent standard of justice neglects Him as the author of justice.
Who did Christ's death pay? God? Why not just forgive the debt? What do you mean, he can't? Sure he can. He's omnipotent. Of course he can.
Unless the plot prohibits it.
That's the only thing that makes sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.