God said "Apology not accepted"

Five Solas

Active member
Do U mean not trolling or you want to believe he is trolling and if so, why?
The link he posted was risible, so yes, for that reason I hope he was just messing with me. Context, though: I asked for an orthodox creed or formal statement of Church doctrine that demonstrates this as an accurate representation of Christianity:

Me: What? Why am I here? Who are you?
God: Look punk. I don't care what you did or did not do in your very, very, very short life, you inherited a debt and you did not propitiate to me to resolve it. I don't care that your culture did not introduce me to you, or that others that did choose me couldn't make any sense of it to your liking. I owed you no visitation or favors to explain this debt even though the debt was to me and I made the rules. Eternal torture in a lake of fire for you.... oh.... and no soup either.
 
Last edited:

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
The biblical era where that was possible ended in the iron age. It's all one way jabber and wait for some situationally detached transcendent sign now like cancer, aliens, or a Blue Jay showing up at the right moment... you know, solid stuff like that. Stuff that makes you feel real confident that you are in commune with God.
Jibber jabber.
 

Komodo

Active member
Ray Comfort uses the Court analogy. The Defendant says he knows the Judge is a Good man, and he tells the Judge that he's really, truly sorry; and throws himself on the Mercy of the Court. Ray Comfort tells us the Judge says it is precisely because he is a Good man that he has to find the Defendant Guilty. Biblically speaking, the Judge would be crooked if he didn't do his job. But when his fine is Paid and his sentence is served by the Defendant's friend, Justice has been satisfied...
Are we permitted/encouraged to discuss whether this analogy holds up, or would any such discussion end in a shrug of "well, in the end, it's a mystery"? :)
 

AprilRose

Member
Why would god not accept merely a sincere apology? He's omniscient, he would know if it was sincere. Why did he have to go and kill somebody for it?

If you apologize, can you guarantee that you will not repeat the same mistake again? If you repeated the same mistake, was your apology ever sincere to begin with?

What if I told you that every one of us will die someday? Soon it will be your turn. Do you want someone to take your place instead so that you will not suffer death anymore? Would you accept it or would you turn it down and die anyway?
 

docphin5

Active member
Why would god not accept merely a sincere apology? He's omniscient, he would know if it was sincere. Why did he have to go and kill somebody for it?
It is utter nonsense to think God wanted to kill a human in order to satisfy his anger. Utter nonsense!

Any rational, objective person can see how the scriptures were twisted by orthodoxy to make it say that. If you go to the verse that is often quoted (Hebrews 9:22), it is clear that the author is using an analogy from pagan rituals, as a type for heavenly events. The author explicitly says so. Therefore, Christ's sacrifice was a heavenly event not an earthly event.

Moreover, It is clear from the context of the whole book of Hebrews that the author is TRYING to transition Hebrew people to the intended meaning of scripture, by demonstrating how the literal meaning is type, figure, and allegory about something that occurred on a much greater scale, that is, a heavenly scale. The author apparently was a gnostic, a qabalahist, a mystic, who understood the allegorical meaning of scripture.

Earthly Copies of Heavenly ThingsAllegory, Type, Symbol >>>>>> True ThingsActual Heavenly Things = "true things"
Temple Sacrifices: "blood" of sheep, goats, birds, etc.

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life"
(Leviticus 17:11)
For since the law has but a shadow [copies] of the good things to come instead of the true form [heavenly] of these realities, ...(Hebrews 10:1)Heavenly Sacrifice: "life" of Christ's death

Hebrews 9
(22) Indeed, under the [Mosaic] law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

(23) Thus it was necessary for the COPIES of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites [animal blood], BUT the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices [in heaven] than these. For Christ has entered, NOT into holy places made with hands, which are COPIES of the true things, BUT in heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.

Hebrews 10
(4) For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.


>>> Instead we were sanctified by the death of Christ's cosmic body, the fall of Logos into matter (Singularity>Big Bang): "Logos became flesh (matter)" (John 1:14)

(10) we have been sanctified through the offering of the [cosmic] body of Jesus Christ once for all.

>>>
In a practical sense, it means that the transgression which resulted in the fall of our world "in the beginning" into materiality has been paid already. We are free from the original sin because the debt of transgression has already been paid. And the life that we live NOW is Christ made alive in us!

(YLT, Revelation 13:8) the life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world;
 
Last edited:

Komodo

Active member
Sure; go ahead...
OK; for Comfort, IIRC, the analogy goes on to say that while the Judge must punish offenses, so he can't let the criminal off the hook, he can have the punishment taken by his son. But saying that justice will still be maintained that way, because "the offense" has been punished, makes no sense. Offenses don't have any consciousness, so they can't be punished. (What would the offense be punished for? Committing an offense? Then you would have to punish the offense's offense, ad infinitum!) You can only punish a person -- hopefully, the person who is guilty of the offense. This doesn't happen in the analogy, so where is "justice" in this scheme?

Moreover, the judge "must" inflict the punishment established by law, because the judge is subject to the law, is a servant of the law. That's not the case with God. And the law itself is seen by citizens as a good and necessary thing because, without it, society would break down. That isn't the case in the afterlife. Or, if justice is seen as good in itself, because wrongdoers deserve retribution and it would just be a bad thing if they didn't get it, then the Christian system does not supply that good.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
OK; for Comfort, IIRC, the analogy goes on to say that while the Judge must punish offenses, so he can't let the criminal off the hook, he can have the punishment taken by his son. But saying that justice will still be maintained that way, because "the offense" has been punished, makes no sense. Offenses don't have any consciousness, so they can't be punished. (What would the offense be punished for? Committing an offense? Then you would have to punish the offense's offense, ad infinitum!) You can only punish a person -- hopefully, the person who is guilty of the offense. This doesn't happen in the analogy, so where is "justice" in this scheme?

Moreover, the judge "must" inflict the punishment established by law, because the judge is subject to the law, is a servant of the law. That's not the case with God. And the law itself is seen by citizens as a good and necessary thing because, without it, society would break down. That isn't the case in the afterlife. Or, if justice is seen as good in itself, because wrongdoers deserve retribution and it would just be a bad thing if they didn't get it, then the Christian system does not supply that good.
I see a couple of things I disagree with; but I'm about to start working. You seem like a polite Thinker. It may or may not take me a while to get back to you...
 

5wize

Well-known member
It is utter nonsense to think God wanted to kill a human in order to satisfy his anger. Utter nonsense!
I never said anything about anger. I merely consider it a "method"
Any rational, objective person can see how the scriptures were twisted by orthodoxy to make it say that. If you go to the verse that is often quoted (Hebrews 9:22), it is clear that the author is using an analogy from pagan rituals, as a type for heavenly events. The author explicitly says so. Therefore, Christ's sacrifice was a heavenly event not an earthly event.

Moreover, It is clear from the context of the whole book of Hebrews that the author is TRYING to transition Hebrew people to the intended meaning of scripture, by demonstrating how the literal meaning is type, figure, and allegory about something that occurred on a much greater scale, that is, a heavenly scale. The author apparently was a gnostic, a qabalahist, a mystic, who understood the allegorical meaning of scripture.

Earthly Copies of Heavenly ThingsAllegory, Type, Symbol >>>>>> True ThingsActual Heavenly Things = "true things"
Temple Sacrifices: "blood" of sheep, goats, birds, etc.

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life"
(Leviticus 17:11)
For since the law has but a shadow [copies] of the good things to come instead of the true form [heavenly] of these realities, ...(Hebrews 10:1)Heavenly Sacrifice: "life" of Christ's death

Hebrews 9
(22) Indeed, under the [Mosaic] law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

(23) Thus it was necessary for the COPIES of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites [animal blood], BUT the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices [in heaven] than these. For Christ has entered, NOT into holy places made with hands, which are COPIES of the true things, BUT in heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.

Hebrews 10
(4) For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.


>>> Instead we were sanctified by the death of Christ's cosmic body, the fall of Logos into matter (Singularity>Big Bang): "Logos became flesh (matter)" (John 1:14)

(10) we have been sanctified through the offering of the [cosmic] body of Jesus Christ once for all.

>>>
In a practical sense, it means that the transgression which resulted in the fall of our world "in the beginning" into materiality has been paid already. We are free from the original sin because the debt of transgression has already been paid. And the life that we live NOW is Christ made alive in us!

(YLT, Revelation 13:8) the life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world;
A child can see that it was the mythology of the iron age Hebrew that wanted an explanation for the difficulty of the world. It segued quite nicely into the age of the prophets where they used supernatural means as a science to further get their "earthy house in order" as the rush of a tribal conquest was of course being naturally challenged over time. This segued into a clumsy attempt to fulfill a prophesy of a messiah that netted nothing. It was all nothing more than a very mundane history. Gnosticism was just another supernatural angle to apologize for it all. The Gnostic also wanted answers why a God they believed in was not manifest in the world so they invented a different narrative, a whole different world in fact. Convenient how our make believe comports with what we think.... "There now, isn't that better?" It was a history that was happening all over the world at that time, spun into a supernatural cloak of "chosen" tribal arrogance around their war lord Yahweh. Stop pushing a narrative that this was any more than that so we can get on with what is really going on here.
 

5wize

Well-known member
If you apologize, can you guarantee that you will not repeat the same mistake again? If you repeated the same mistake, was your apology ever sincere to begin with?

What if I told you that every one of us will die someday? Soon it will be your turn. Do you want someone to take your place instead so that you will not suffer death anymore? Would you accept it or would you turn it down and die anyway?

That has nothing to do with the OP. This post is about God's methodologies. I assume he makes the rules.
 

5wize

Well-known member
Please tell me you're trolling. I really want to believe it. :)
Was that serious reply to what was in the study? How so? You think I don't believe what I say? Is that your excuse to not engage or have you been shown something about what you believe?
 

5wize

Well-known member
I would like to have a sincere discussion with an atheist, but I have found that more times than not, they think it's fun to jerk people around.

My cousin is Dan Barker. He and his wife Annie Laurie Gaylor run the FFRF (freedom from religion foundation). They are not capable of such a discussion. I could say more, but I don't want to upset his children, should they see this.
That was pretty vague. You can have such a discussion with me without Dan or his kids getting involved in it. I fail to see the insincerity in any post I made. Try me. You think I don't actually believe what I say?
 

Komodo

Active member
I see a couple of things I disagree with; but I'm about to start working. You seem like a polite Thinker. It may or may not take me a while to get back to you...
No problem, looking forward to it.

We've actually interacted a few times before, under the older names.
 

5wize

Well-known member
The link he posted was risible, so yes, for that reason I hope he was just messing with me. Context, though: I asked for an orthodox creed or formal statement of Church doctrine that demonstrates this as an accurate representation of Christianity:

Me: What? Why am I here? Who are you?
God: Look punk. I don't care what you did or did not do in your very, very, very short life, you inherited a debt and you did not propitiate to me to resolve it. I don't care that your culture did not introduce me to you, or that others that did choose me couldn't make any sense of it to your liking. I owed you no visitation or favors to explain this debt even though the debt was to me and I made the rules. Eternal torture in a lake of fire for you.... oh.... and no soup either.
I think the problem here Five Solas might be that as a Christian you have enjoyed a certain cultural acceptance, a taboo to not approach, questions of God with too much rhetorical trespass. What you don't understand is that conscious study of the topic is starting to break down to the quintessential core belief and not so much discussions over triune nature, dunk, pour, or sprinkle, or justification by works or grace. And we are seeing that the belief itself is a trespass and it would not be trolling to treat it as such if I see it as such. Is it my paraphrasing of what I see as a truth? Is it my rhetoric?

Would you like a data point?

Nope, we don't. The "Capital debt" you OWE to GOD is there regardless of what we say, or don't say.

YOU (and I) both have SINNED AND FALLEN SHORT OF GOD"S GLORY. That's the simple TRUTH, whether you happen to like it or not.

If you DON'T take advantage of Jesus' SIN OFFERING which cleanses you for your SIN, you'll perish in HELL, and then the Lake of fire. NOT because "we say so", but simply because that's the way the creation works.

What WE do is WARN YOU of the problem you face.

Tenet or not, do not try to pass here that Christians really do not believe this.

Trolling would be popping in, given something to respond to, and popping out with the self justification you employed.

Risable? The ball is teed up F.S. How so in the face of the above?
 
Last edited:

docphin5

Active member
I never said anything about anger. I merely consider it a "method"

A child can see that it was the mythology of the iron age Hebrew that wanted an explanation for the difficulty of the world. It segued quite nicely into the age of the prophets where they used supernatural means as a science to further get their "earthy house in order" as the rush of a tribal conquest was of course being naturally challenged over time. This segued into a clumsy attempt to fulfill a prophesy of a messiah that netted nothing. It was all nothing more than a very mundane history. Gnosticism was just another supernatural angle to apologize for it all. The Gnostic also wanted answers why a God they believed in was not manifest in the world so they invented a different narrative, a whole different world in fact. Convenient how our make believe comports with what we think.... "There now, isn't that better?" It was a history that was happening all over the world at that time, spun into a supernatural cloak of "chosen" tribal arrogance around their war lord Yahweh. Stop pushing a narrative that this was any more than that so we can get on with what is really going on here.
I told you what was going on (before orthodoxy made myths/superstitions historical). The Greek philosophers were interested in cosmogenesis and the “Good One”. Jews had been Hellenized for three hundred years. Subsequently, educated People like Paul understood scripture as originally written allegorically about the archetypes of creation originating with the Egyptians. Paul wants to persuade his Jewish brothers of scriptures actual meaning (kind of like me with Christian orthodoxy). Hence the demonstration HOW the original myths/superstitions are types for something else pertaining to us. Message: Animal sacrifice = the death of cosmic Christ. His audience was Jewish orthodoxy. The type is the things of the Mosaic Law. The intended meaning is us and our cosmos. This really isn’t that hard.
 

5wize

Well-known member
I told you what was going on (before orthodoxy made myths/superstitions historical). The Greek philosophers were interested in cosmogenesis and the “Good One”. Jews had been Hellenized for three hundred years. Subsequently, educated People like Paul understood scripture as originally written allegorically about the archetypes of creation originating with the Egyptians. Paul wants to persuade his Jewish brothers of scriptures actual meaning (kind of like me with Christian orthodoxy). Hence the demonstration HOW the original myths/superstitions are types for something else pertaining to us. Message: Animal sacrifice = the death of cosmic Christ. His audience was Jewish orthodoxy. The type is the things of the Mosaic Law. The intended meaning is us and our cosmos. This really isn’t that hard.
Then why didn't Paul say that?
 

docphin5

Active member
Then why didn't Paul say that?
He did. He tried as hard as I do but it is nearly impossible to transition people (raised from childhood to believe myths) away from believing that superstitions and myths were historical events. Then to transition them to abstract ideas about cosmogenesis is no easy task. Most people could care less. With the Greeks he had a willing audience. The Greeks valued philosophy kind of like our modern generation who value science. It is why I have hope for our generation more so than previous generations.

Paul tried to enlighten his Jewish brothers to Greek understanding of the cosmic Christ but was met with resistance.
>> "For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through [cosmic] Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts." (2 Corinthians 3:14)

>> "For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but NOT according to knowledge." (Romans 10:2)

Paul tried to explain the archetypes in scripture but only found success among the Greeks. His Jewish brothers were stuck in myths/superstitions.
>> "Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses [in scripture], even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a TYPE of the one who was to come." (Romans 5:14)

>> "Now this may be interpreted allegorically:" (Galatians 4:24)

Paul explicitly described the cosmic Christ/Logos/Sophia from Hebrew and Greek myths.
>> "...making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in the [cosmic] Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite ALL THINGS in him, things in heaven and things on earth [all things = cosmos]. (Ephesians 1:10)

>> "but Christ is all, and in all [cosmos]." (Colossians 3:11)

Then something terrible happened after Paul died. The "proto-orthodox" got a hold of the mythical stories of Jesus in the Gospels and did the very same thing that the Jews did with their scriptures, they made them historical. For a few hundred years the gnostics held their ground until a Roman Emperor took a side. He sided with the orthodoxy and made their erroneous interpretation of the scriptures THE LAW, under penalty of imprisonment, exile, or death. Fast forward two thousand years and modern science (equivalent to Greek philosophy), freedom (equivalent to Greek times), peace (equivalent to Greek times), has created the same opportunity for educated people today that Hellenized Paul had in his day. To actually have a rational explanation of who we are in relation to the "Good One" by interpreting the archetypes in scripture.
 
Last edited:

Five Solas

Active member
Is it my paraphrasing of what I see as a truth? Is it my rhetoric?
There we go. This characterization I am okay with, even if you want to term it as your reductio ad absurdum. No problem at all with that.

enjoyed a certain cultural acceptance, a taboo to not approach, questions of God with too much rhetorical trespass.

May be true of some folk, 5. I'm not one of them. Cheers.
 
Top