Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to Victim.

GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 10:04:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to Victim.

Sin, by it's very nature must have a victim. Without a victim, there is no sin.

The one sinned against has the first right of forgiveness.

If Jesus usurps that right then I think it would be unjust.

Closure is being denied the victim thus victimizing is twofold.

Jesus would not condone such a thing.

Secular law now demands a victim assessment report before sentence is given.

To think that Jesus would ignore this requirement is unthinkable.

This means that, "Why have you forsaken me? ", is answered by God with; because what you do is immoral. You deny the victim her or his rights. It is also unjust to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. In fact, that notion is insane.

In the scenario shown here the victim is ignored thus showing the flaw in the judge's ruling, if he accepts substitutionary atonement.

Regards
DL
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 10:40:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 10:26:29 AM, Koopin wrote:
Kfc

Mashed potatoes
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Clash
Posts: 220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 12:45:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is exactly what I think too. Why cannot an all-powerful God not just forgive us without killing and torture his only 'son', so our sins can be forgiven? This just don't make sense to me. It seems like there are something which I agree with Dawkin after all...
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 12:53:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 12:45:56 PM, Clash wrote:
This is exactly what I think too. Why cannot an all-powerful God not just forgive us without killing and torture his only 'son', so our sins can be forgiven? This just don't make sense to me. It seems like there are something which I agree with Dawkin after all...

This.

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character
in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; petty, unjust, unforgiving, control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevent bully.", says Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion p51.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 1:47:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 10:04:18 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to Victim.
Non sequitur: it's Jesus doing the forgiving, not the victim. The victim is free to be unforgiving to the sinner.

Sin, by it's very nature must have a victim. Without a victim, there is no sin.
So?

The one sinned against has the first right of forgiveness.
And it hasn't been taken away: see above.

If Jesus usurps that right then I think it would be unjust.
1) Your opinion on just isn't relevant here.
2) The victim's right to be unforgiving is never taken away.

Closure is being denied the victim thus victimizing is twofold.
Closure is a state that only the victim can arrive to himself; ergo, it cannot be denied.

Jesus would not condone such a thing.
Jesus specifically requested such a thing.

Secular law now demands a victim assessment report before sentence is given.
Secular law has nothing to do with sin.

To think that Jesus would ignore this requirement is unthinkable.
Obviously it isn't unthinkable if you thought of it. Also, what secular law requires and what God requires are quite different and separate.

This means that, "Why have you forsaken me? ", is answered by God with; because what you do is immoral. You deny the victim her or his rights. It is also unjust to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. In fact, that notion is insane.
Beautiful string of non sequiturs!

In the scenario shown here the victim is ignored thus showing the flaw in the judge's ruling, if he accepts substitutionary atonement.
God's law not equivalent to man's law.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 4:58:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 10:04:18 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to Victim.

Sin, by it's very nature must have a victim. Without a victim, there is no sin.

The one sinned against has the first right of forgiveness.

If Jesus usurps that right then I think it would be unjust.

Closure is being denied the victim thus victimizing is twofold.

Jesus would not condone such a thing.

Secular law now demands a victim assessment report before sentence is given.

To think that Jesus would ignore this requirement is unthinkable.

This means that, "Why have you forsaken me? ", is answered by God with; because what you do is immoral. You deny the victim her or his rights. It is also unjust to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. In fact, that notion is insane.

In the scenario shown here the victim is ignored thus showing the flaw in the judge's ruling, if he accepts substitutionary atonement.



Regards
DL

The first thing to understand is the difference betweeen Sin and sins:

Sin is our basic separation from God; spiritual death because we do not know God or His goodness, forgiveness, mercy etc -His character.

sins are the daily tresspasses we afflict one another with because of our Sin.

Consider:

John 13:10
Jesus answered, "Those who have had a bath need only to wash their feet; their whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you."


So, the bath He refers to is the Baptism of repentance, and the washing of feet indicates the work of the Holy Spirit at work in the life of the believer, changing the 'way he/she walks' (as we still have some bad habits from our old life)

Sin is dealt with at the cross of Jesus Christ:

John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!


*note Sin, not sins.

As Jesus is 'the visible image of the invisible Father', we Christians (through the gift of faith) are brought into relation with God as we now understand that God is good and full of mercy and forgiveness:

Luke 23:34
Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

Discussing day to sins while your Sin remains is simply putting the cart before the horse.
The Cross.. the Cross.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 8:09:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 1:47:36 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/10/2012 10:04:18 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to Victim.
Non sequitur: it's Jesus doing the forgiving, not the victim. The victim is free to be unforgiving to the sinner.

Sin, by it's very nature must have a victim. Without a victim, there is no sin.
So?

The one sinned against has the first right of forgiveness.
And it hasn't been taken away: see above.

If Jesus usurps that right then I think it would be unjust.
1) Your opinion on just isn't relevant here.
2) The victim's right to be unforgiving is never taken away.

Closure is being denied the victim thus victimizing is twofold.
Closure is a state that only the victim can arrive to himself; ergo, it cannot be denied.

Jesus would not condone such a thing.
Jesus specifically requested such a thing.

Secular law now demands a victim assessment report before sentence is given.
Secular law has nothing to do with sin.

To think that Jesus would ignore this requirement is unthinkable.
Obviously it isn't unthinkable if you thought of it. Also, what secular law requires and what God requires are quite different and separate.

This means that, "Why have you forsaken me? ", is answered by God with; because what you do is immoral. You deny the victim her or his rights. It is also unjust to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. In fact, that notion is insane.
Beautiful string of non sequiturs!

In the scenario shown here the victim is ignored thus showing the flaw in the judge's ruling, if he accepts substitutionary atonement.
God's law not equivalent to man's law.

True.

It is grossly inferior.

Not surprising as it comes from a religion based on human sacrifice. An immoral concept.

If Christians actually followed God's laws, society would be quick to throw most of them in jail.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 8:12:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 4:58:27 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 5/10/2012 10:04:18 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to Victim.

Sin, by it's very nature must have a victim. Without a victim, there is no sin.

The one sinned against has the first right of forgiveness.

If Jesus usurps that right then I think it would be unjust.

Closure is being denied the victim thus victimizing is twofold.

Jesus would not condone such a thing.

Secular law now demands a victim assessment report before sentence is given.

To think that Jesus would ignore this requirement is unthinkable.

This means that, "Why have you forsaken me? ", is answered by God with; because what you do is immoral. You deny the victim her or his rights. It is also unjust to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. In fact, that notion is insane.

In the scenario shown here the victim is ignored thus showing the flaw in the judge's ruling, if he accepts substitutionary atonement.



Regards
DL

The first thing to understand is the difference betweeen Sin and sins:

Sin is our basic separation from God; spiritual death because we do not know God or His goodness, forgiveness, mercy etc -His character.

sins are the daily tresspasses we afflict one another with because of our Sin.

Consider:

John 13:10
Jesus answered, "Those who have had a bath need only to wash their feet; their whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you."


So, the bath He refers to is the Baptism of repentance, and the washing of feet indicates the work of the Holy Spirit at work in the life of the believer, changing the 'way he/she walks' (as we still have some bad habits from our old life)

Sin is dealt with at the cross of Jesus Christ:

John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!


*note Sin, not sins.

As Jesus is 'the visible image of the invisible Father', we Christians (through the gift of faith) are brought into relation with God as we now understand that God is good and full of mercy and forgiveness:

Luke 23:34
Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

Discussing day to sins while your Sin remains is simply putting the cart before the horse.

Thanks for trying to deflect.
Sin is not at issue.

Forgiveness is.

We all know you had this paste reply in your files.
Get on topic if you want to chat.

Regards
DL
kyrani99
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 9:56:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 10:04:18 AM, Greatest I am wrote:
Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to Victim.

Sin, by it's very nature must have a victim. Without a victim, there is no sin.

The one sinned against has the first right of forgiveness.

If Jesus usurps that right then I think it would be unjust.

Closure is being denied the victim thus victimizing is twofold.

Jesus would not condone such a thing.

Secular law now demands a victim assessment report before sentence is given.

To think that Jesus would ignore this requirement is unthinkable.

Regards
DL

I agree with you but go further to say that the victim has the only right of forgiveness. However if the sin is a hate crime then society and God also have a say but that is in addition to and not instead of.

A simple sin, that being of one person doing a one off wrong to another, even if that be serious wrong, creates a debt and the victim has the right to collect on that debt in some way. I see this as a debt that is collected in the mind and does not involve doing something on the physical plane. Indeed the debt can be used to prevent an aggressor from further attack, when the person understand how to do that.

A hate crime or sin involves the community as well and it is also a wrong against the Oneness or God. So a triple debt is incurred. But the victim's portion is still their own.

In the answer above of the differences between Sin and sins, I think this is really something that was created to justify the story of the cross. (I agree here in a rare instance with R.Dawkins since I am a theist and he an atheist.)

IMO we are not in reality separated from God because the spark of Divinity is what gives life. Even in the most extreme case, that of evil people who hate God and who act unjustly towards other people in defiance of God as God haters, they are still not separated while ever they are alive. Certainly they have chosen that separation after death, so they have chosen eternal aloneness with only their rage. And in this case ie with respect to evil people we can see that there is no reality to a story of Jesus as a son of God dying on the cross to offer these forgiveness because apart from anything else they are all guilty of blasphemy which is not forgivable

And further more the "sin of the world" cannot be taken to mean our separation from God because there is a collective and all are different.
My findings on disease and my solutions
https://kyrani99.wordpress.com...
Suqua
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 10:59:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 10:04:18 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to Victim.

Sin, by it's very nature must have a victim. Without a victim, there is no sin.

The one sinned against has the first right of forgiveness.

If Jesus usurps that right then I think it would be unjust.

Closure is being denied the victim thus victimizing is twofold.

Jesus would not condone such a thing.

Secular law now demands a victim assessment report before sentence is given.

To think that Jesus would ignore this requirement is unthinkable.

This means that, "Why have you forsaken me? ", is answered by God with; because what you do is immoral. You deny the victim her or his rights. It is also unjust to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. In fact, that notion is insane.

In the scenario shown here the victim is ignored thus showing the flaw in the judge's ruling, if he accepts substitutionary atonement.



Regards
DL

I'm sure glad he accepts substitutionary atonement or else I would not exist !
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 11:15:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 9:56:10 AM, kyrani99 wrote:
At 5/10/2012 10:04:18 AM, Greatest I am wrote:
Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to Victim.

Sin, by it's very nature must have a victim. Without a victim, there is no sin.

The one sinned against has the first right of forgiveness.

If Jesus usurps that right then I think it would be unjust.

Closure is being denied the victim thus victimizing is twofold.

Jesus would not condone such a thing.

Secular law now demands a victim assessment report before sentence is given.

To think that Jesus would ignore this requirement is unthinkable.

Regards
DL

I agree with you but go further to say that the victim has the only right of forgiveness. However if the sin is a hate crime then society and God also have a say but that is in addition to and not instead of.

A simple sin, that being of one person doing a one off wrong to another, even if that be serious wrong, creates a debt and the victim has the right to collect on that debt in some way. I see this as a debt that is collected in the mind and does not involve doing something on the physical plane. Indeed the debt can be used to prevent an aggressor from further attack, when the person understand how to do that.

A hate crime or sin involves the community as well and it is also a wrong against the Oneness or God. So a triple debt is incurred. But the victim's portion is still their own.

In the answer above of the differences between Sin and sins, I think this is really something that was created to justify the story of the cross. (I agree here in a rare instance with R.Dawkins since I am a theist and he an atheist.)

IMO we are not in reality separated from God because the spark of Divinity is what gives life. Even in the most extreme case, that of evil people who hate God and who act unjustly towards other people in defiance of God as God haters, they are still not separated while ever they are alive. Certainly they have chosen that separation after death, so they have chosen eternal aloneness with only their rage. And in this case ie with respect to evil people we can see that there is no reality to a story of Jesus as a son of God dying on the cross to offer these forgiveness because apart from anything else they are all guilty of blasphemy which is not forgivable

And further more the "sin of the world" cannot be taken to mean our separation from God because there is a collective and all are different.

I like your sense of justice except where your theistic side pops out.

I would say that you are a good candidate for Gnosticism.
I call myself a Gnostic Christian.

They, like you, recognize the spark of God within all of us but they generally draw the line at belief in a miracle working super absentee God.

Your view is Jewish enough to put you above Christians but you have yet to recognize that super God is a myth.

Regards
DL
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 11:18:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 10:04:18 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to Victim.

Sin, by it's very nature must have a victim. Without a victim, there is no sin.

Not necessarily.

The one sinned against has the first right of forgiveness.

Again, you are assuming that every sin involves two parties: it could, however, involve no victims, one victim, or many. And who said the one sinned against has "first right"?

If Jesus usurps that right then I think it would be unjust.

Well, I'll agree that you "think" it.

Secular law now demands a victim assessment report before sentence is given.

No, it doesn't.

To think that Jesus would ignore this requirement is unthinkable.

What requirement?

Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 11:19:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 10:59:21 AM, Suqua wrote:


I'm sure glad he accepts substitutionary atonement or else I would not exist !

Satan loves to hear that you are willing to sell your soul to him by lining up to profit from God having his son needlessly murdered.

It was God's plan from the beginning to have Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or God damned sin.

If God had not intended humans to sin from the beginning, why did he build into the Creation this "solution" for sin? Why create a solution for a problem you do not anticipate?

God knew that the moment he said "don't eat from that tree," the die was cast. The eating was inevitable. Eve was merely following the plan.

This then begs the question.

What kind of God would plan and execute the murder of his own son when there was absolutely no need to?

Only an insane God. That's who.

The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice, thus showing it‘s immorality.

One of Christianity's highest form of immorality is what they have done to women.
They have denied them equality and subjugated them to men.

Regards
DL

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 11:30:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 11:18:43 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/10/2012 10:04:18 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to Victim.

Sin, by it's very nature must have a victim. Without a victim, there is no sin.

Not necessarily.


An example or three please.

The one sinned against has the first right of forgiveness.

Again, you are assuming that every sin involves two parties: it could, however, involve no victims, one victim, or many. And who said the one sinned against has "first right"?


Who determines when they have been sinned against?
The potential victim does and that is first right.
Who but him can say if he has been offended or not?


If Jesus usurps that right then I think it would be unjust.

Well, I'll agree that you "think" it.


I hope you will not continue to be a dick.
If you think otherwise then lay out your logic.
Chastisement without correction is just showing cruelty.


Secular law now demands a victim assessment report before sentence is given.

No, it doesn't.


Are you suggesting that judges do not consider the victims and any contributing negative factors?
If so, you would not make much of a judge.

To think that Jesus would ignore this requirement is unthinkable.

What requirement?


That of considering the victim and what circumstances he must now live with.

Regards
DL
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 11:41:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
@GreatestIAm

I am not sure whose interpretation of specifically Matt 27, as well as some of the the Genesis creation count you used, but I do not agree with either. I would love to discuss the interpretations with you if you would like.
Suqua
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 12:05:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 11:19:34 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 5/12/2012 10:59:21 AM, Suqua wrote:


I'm sure glad he accepts substitutionary atonement or else I would not exist !

Satan loves to hear that you are willing to sell your soul to him by lining up to profit from God having his son needlessly murdered.

It was God's plan from the beginning to have Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or God damned sin.

If God had not intended humans to sin from the beginning, why did he build into the Creation this "solution" for sin? Why create a solution for a problem you do not anticipate?

God knew that the moment he said "don't eat from that tree," the die was cast. The eating was inevitable. Eve was merely following the plan.

This then begs the question.

What kind of God would plan and execute the murder of his own son when there was absolutely no need to?

Only an insane God. That's who.

The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice, thus showing it‘s immorality.

One of Christianity's highest form of immorality is what they have done to women.
They have denied them equality and subjugated them to men.







Regards
DL

Regards
DL

Where is Love (God's love) and free will to play a part in your response?
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 12:56:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 11:41:42 AM, stubs wrote:
@GreatestIAm

I am not sure whose interpretation of specifically Matt 27, as well as some of the the Genesis creation count you used, but I do not agree with either. I would love to discuss the interpretations with you if you would like.

Let's do that below please.

http://www.debate.org...

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 1:04:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 12:05:44 PM, Suqua wrote:
At 5/12/2012 11:19:34 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 5/12/2012 10:59:21 AM, Suqua wrote:


I'm sure glad he accepts substitutionary atonement or else I would not exist !

Satan loves to hear that you are willing to sell your soul to him by lining up to profit from God having his son needlessly murdered.

It was God's plan from the beginning to have Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or God damned sin.

If God had not intended humans to sin from the beginning, why did he build into the Creation this "solution" for sin? Why create a solution for a problem you do not anticipate?

God knew that the moment he said "don't eat from that tree," the die was cast. The eating was inevitable. Eve was merely following the plan.

This then begs the question.

What kind of God would plan and execute the murder of his own son when there was absolutely no need to?

Only an insane God. That's who.

The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice, thus showing it‘s immorality.

One of Christianity's highest form of immorality is what they have done to women.
They have denied them equality and subjugated them to men.







Regards
DL

Where is Love (God's love) and free will to play a part in your response?

God's love?
What love?

If you think a genocidal son murderer can love then meet me below.

http://www.debate.org...

As to free will.
It is not at issue here except perhaps Jesus exercising his free will to usurp the rights of a victim and going against his free will to be the one to forgive.

Regards
DL
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 1:05:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 12:56:44 PM, GreatestIam wrote:


Let's do that below please.

http://www.debate.org...

Regards
DL

Already have posted in that forum. I stopped when certain things you said were such a gross interpretation of the text.
kyrani99
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 1:05:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 11:15:55 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
I like your sense of justice except where your theistic side pops out.

I would say that you are a good candidate for Gnosticism.
I call myself a Gnostic Christian.

They, like you, recognize the spark of God within all of us but they generally draw the line at belief in a miracle working super absentee God.

Your view is Jewish enough to put you above Christians but you have yet to recognize that super God is a myth.

Regards
DL

My "sense of justice" has been the result of evil people trying to attack me and the realizations I have had about the power we hold in the mental realm. This creation involves choice and when people offend against us, even in the intent to do a crime a debt is created. We can use this to prevent them from attacking us. If the person forgives the attackers they are essentially throwing away the weapon they have to defend themselves. That is why any willy nilly forgiveness is wrong. I suspect there were political reasons that the Roman had in the times following the life of Jesus to insist that people forgive their enemies. I doubt very much that Jesus said such a thing. It was Paul who made up Christianity. It sounds like he was working for the Romans. The Romans were the ones that did the crimes of the times and they wanted to get off with what they were doing.

Also we can choose conditions that limit offenders and stop them from affecting our lives. Most people don't realize this and neither did I prior to the war that is being waged against me.

I would call myself a gnostic.. but Christian? I don't think so. I believe Jesus was a prophet or maybe even an avatar of God but not God. And I don't buy the story about the cross.

I'm not sure what you mean by super God. I do not believe in a personal God.
"I've had"???? "I" was altogether gone.. but anyway mystical experiences there have been and the realization that God is outside of creation.. It's a whole different level, not physical, not even non-physical.. can't describe. But the net result is an unshakeable belief/realization of God.
My findings on disease and my solutions
https://kyrani99.wordpress.com...
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 1:18:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 1:05:19 PM, stubs wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:56:44 PM, GreatestIam wrote:


Let's do that below please.

http://www.debate.org...

Regards
DL

Already have posted in that forum. I stopped when certain things you said were such a gross interpretation of the text.

Then prove your case there.
I love to learn.
You running away just makes my position that much stronger.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 1:31:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 1:05:32 PM, kyrani99 wrote:
At 5/12/2012 11:15:55 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
I like your sense of justice except where your theistic side pops out.

I would say that you are a good candidate for Gnosticism.
I call myself a Gnostic Christian.

They, like you, recognize the spark of God within all of us but they generally draw the line at belief in a miracle working super absentee God.

Your view is Jewish enough to put you above Christians but you have yet to recognize that super God is a myth.

Regards
DL

My "sense of justice" has been the result of evil people trying to attack me and the realizations I have had about the power we hold in the mental realm. This creation involves choice and when people offend against us, even in the intent to do a crime a debt is created. We can use this to prevent them from attacking us. If the person forgives the attackers they are essentially throwing away the weapon they have to defend themselves. That is why any willy nilly forgiveness is wrong. I suspect there were political reasons that the Roman had in the times following the life of Jesus to insist that people forgive their enemies. I doubt very much that Jesus said such a thing. It was Paul who made up Christianity. It sounds like he was working for the Romans. The Romans were the ones that did the crimes of the times and they wanted to get off with what they were doing.

Also we can choose conditions that limit offenders and stop them from affecting our lives. Most people don't realize this and neither did I prior to the war that is being waged against me.

I would call myself a gnostic.. but Christian? I don't think so. I believe Jesus was a prophet or maybe even an avatar of God but not God. And I don't buy the story about the cross.

I'm not sure what you mean by super God. I do not believe in a personal God.
"I've had"???? "I" was altogether gone.. but anyway mystical experiences there have been and the realization that God is outside of creation.. It's a whole different level, not physical, not even non-physical.. can't describe. But the net result is an unshakeable belief/realization of God.

Good.
Close enough to Gnostic for me.

We have a choice on how we deal with those who offend us.
Positive or negative.

Whatever you decide you have to apply to the one, yourself, and to the many.

Looking at the result will determine the right course of action.

If all forgive sin against us, and our sins against others are forgiven. It would seem to me that most would be shed of much psychological issues. Blame and guilt would disappear.

If none forgive for sins done to us or the sins that we have done to others, then we would all be holding much guilt, shame and resentment towards others.

FMPOV. I like the idea of shedding psychological issues and not harboring grudges or guilt and shame.

You seem to have landed on the other option.

I have seen harboring grudges have a negative impact on some close to me and would not recommend it to anyone.

Regards
DL
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 1:33:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 1:18:21 PM, GreatestIam wrote:


Then prove your case there.
I love to learn.
You running away just makes my position that much stronger.

Regards
DL

I'll gladly message you about it. I don't see the point of posting on a public forum the correction for things that are so simply wrong. That's like if I said 2+3=9 and you didn't respond to me, that makes my position much stronger. It does not logically follow in any way.
kyrani99
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 2:50:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 1:31:43 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Good.
Close enough to Gnostic for me.

We have a choice on how we deal with those who offend us.
Positive or negative.

Whatever you decide you have to apply to the one, yourself, and to the many.

Looking at the result will determine the right course of action.

If all forgive sin against us, and our sins against others are forgiven. It would seem to me that most would be shed of much psychological issues. Blame and guilt would disappear.

If none forgive for sins done to us or the sins that we have done to others, then we would all be holding much guilt, shame and resentment towards others.

FMPOV. I like the idea of shedding psychological issues and not harboring grudges or guilt and shame.

You seem to have landed on the other option.

I have seen harboring grudges have a negative impact on some close to me and would not recommend it to anyone.

Regards
DL

Psychological issues are never due to not forgiving but ongoing harm through toxic relationships. (this sorts of things https://kyrani99.wordpress.com... as I am documenting on my blog). There is no need for shame or grudges or guilt, resentment etc. It is all a matter of perspective.

If the matter is a one off offense then you consider it on a single basis and decide to forgive or not. If the person deserves to be forgiven then forgive them. If they don't deserve it, don't. Walk away from it and think nothing more of it. It's that simple.

However if you are dealing with evil /toxic people then you need to recognize that you are in a war.. not because you want to be but because that is the attitude of the offenders. In a war as a warrior (on the side of good ) there is no personal position to take. You can't point at the enemy and say that was unfair. It's laughable. The enemy is the enemy. You have to be smart on how you defend yourself. Only fools throw away their weapons and get sacrificed. What for?

There is nothing psychological about it. In any case psychological has no real foundation. It is pseudo-science.. quackery.
My findings on disease and my solutions
https://kyrani99.wordpress.com...
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2012 9:48:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 8:12:28 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 5/12/2012 4:58:27 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 5/10/2012 10:04:18 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to Victim.

Sin, by it's very nature must have a victim. Without a victim, there is no sin.

The one sinned against has the first right of forgiveness.

If Jesus usurps that right then I think it would be unjust.

Closure is being denied the victim thus victimizing is twofold.

Jesus would not condone such a thing.

Secular law now demands a victim assessment report before sentence is given.

To think that Jesus would ignore this requirement is unthinkable.

This means that, "Why have you forsaken me? ", is answered by God with; because what you do is immoral. You deny the victim her or his rights. It is also unjust to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. In fact, that notion is insane.

In the scenario shown here the victim is ignored thus showing the flaw in the judge's ruling, if he accepts substitutionary atonement.



Regards
DL

The first thing to understand is the difference betweeen Sin and sins:

Sin is our basic separation from God; spiritual death because we do not know God or His goodness, forgiveness, mercy etc -His character.

sins are the daily tresspasses we afflict one another with because of our Sin.

Consider:

John 13:10
Jesus answered, "Those who have had a bath need only to wash their feet; their whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you."


So, the bath He refers to is the Baptism of repentance, and the washing of feet indicates the work of the Holy Spirit at work in the life of the believer, changing the 'way he/she walks' (as we still have some bad habits from our old life)

Sin is dealt with at the cross of Jesus Christ:

John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!


*note Sin, not sins.

As Jesus is 'the visible image of the invisible Father', we Christians (through the gift of faith) are brought into relation with God as we now understand that God is good and full of mercy and forgiveness:

Luke 23:34
Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

Discussing day to sins while your Sin remains is simply putting the cart before the horse.

Thanks for trying to deflect.
Sin is not at issue.

Forgiveness is.

Forgiveness of what?

We all know you had this paste reply in your files.
Get on topic if you want to chat.

No, it's in my heart!

Regards
DL

I am a little flattered that I'm the ONLY person you avoid/run from!
The Cross.. the Cross.