God vs Human Rights

Furion

Well-known member
Sin is a Christian concept, not a Buddhist one. The cause of death is birth. Jesus was born, and He died. Everyone that is born, dies.
Then you'll just get run over in your inability to acknowledge your sin.

Dude, you can't start complaining about God, how unfair it all is, and then try to weasel out of sin. It's juvenile. I'm being nice about it.

Take all of God and deal with it, or none at all. No one is talking about your Buddha.
 

rossum

Well-known member
Then you'll just get run over in your inability to acknowledge your sin.
I do not acknowledge anybody's sin. All I acknowledge are their wise actions and their unwise actions.

Dude, you can't start complaining about God, how unfair it all is, and then try to weasel out of sin. It's juvenile. I'm being nice about it.
I do not have to "weasel out" of something that does not exist. Your beliefs are not mine.

No one is talking about your Buddha.
Welcome to Zen Buddhism. "What is the sound of no one talking about the Buddha?" :)
 

Furion

Well-known member
I do not acknowledge anybody's sin. All I acknowledge are their wise actions and their unwise actions.


I do not have to "weasel out" of something that does not exist. Your beliefs are not mine.


Welcome to Zen Buddhism. "What is the sound of no one talking about the Buddha?" :)
Well there is nothing about the fat man that holds anyone's interest here, and you'll forever be background noise on a Christian board.
 

Howie

Well-known member
To be clear here, I am not telling God what he should be doing. I am pointing out a logical contradiction in Christianity which on the one hand posits a loving God, someone we would expect to act perfectly morally, including upholding basic human rights, and on the other hand a petty, vindictive tyrant who chooses to torture anyone who dares not to love
Christianity doesn't posit that. Your "logic and reasoning," so-called, driven by your emotions have posited that. You are an emotionally driven fellow. I hear it in your writing. I'm still waiting to see any real logic in your writing.
 

Howie

Well-known member
So you think telling someone to do something, and torturing them if they fail to do so is compatible with love?
Do you think God, taking flesh upon Himself, to partake in the experience of the weakness, frailty and infirmities of human flesh, and who came into the world for the purpose of giving His life for yours, knowing full-well at that time that you would reject Him, call Him names, mock Him, disrespect Him, deny Him is compatible with love?
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Do you think God, taking flesh upon Himself, to partake in the experience of the weakness, frailty and infirmities of human flesh, and who came into the world for the purpose of giving His life for yours, knowing full-well at that time that you would reject Him, call Him names, mock Him, disrespect Him, deny Him is compatible with love?
It could be, but not necessarily, but it could have been to encourage more people to worship him. To be frank, that makes more sense than Jesus giving his life for mine. What does that actually mean? People die just as much after Jesus was crucified as they did before. There was no effect on physical death. God could defeat Satan, forgive sins, etc. without Jesus dying. So why did Jesus have to die?

If God is all-powerful, why did he need Jesus' death to do something? The nly purpose I can see that actually makes sense is that it was a spectacle designed to draw attention to Jesus' message, which was to love God with all your heart, mind and soul.
 

Howie

Well-known member
It could be, but not necessarily, but it could have been to encourage more people to worship him. To be frank, that makes more sense than Jesus giving his life for mine. What does that actually mean? People die just as much after Jesus was crucified as they did before. There was no effect on physical death. God could defeat Satan, forgive sins, etc. without Jesus dying. So why did Jesus have to die?

If God is all-powerful, why did he need Jesus' death to do something? The nly purpose I can see that actually makes sense is that it was a spectacle designed to draw attention to Jesus' message, which was to love God with all your heart, mind and soul.
 

rossum

Well-known member
Not that. That He forfeits the claim to being loving.
So when the Bible says "great love for us" it does not mean "great love for us". Isn't theology wonderful, words don't mean what they say, but what the theologian wants them to say. That is why all theologians everywhere always agree on what the Bible says. NOT!
 

Howie

Well-known member
So when the Bible says "great love for us" it does not mean "great love for us".
Depends on the context. I would imagine the context of that quote is the church and not Christ rejecting Buddhists, murderers and thieves. 🙂
Isn't theology wonderful, words don't mean what they say, but what the theologian wants them to say.
🙄 Context is everything, rossum
That is why all theologians everywhere always agree on what the Bible says. NOT!
If you say so ...
 

rossum

Well-known member
Depends on the context.
Thank you for confirming that the Bible is not the absolute truth. It cannot be absolute because what it say depends on the context. An absolute truth is true whatever the context. Hence the Bible is not absolute truth.
 

Algor

Well-known member
It could be, but not necessarily, but it could have been to encourage more people to worship him. To be frank, that makes more sense than Jesus giving his life for mine. What does that actually mean? People die just as much after Jesus was crucified as they did before. There was no effect on physical death. God could defeat Satan, forgive sins, etc. without Jesus dying. So why did Jesus have to die?

If God is all-powerful, why did he need Jesus' death to do something? The nly purpose I can see that actually makes sense is that it was a spectacle designed to draw attention to Jesus' message, which was to love God with all your heart, mind and soul.
I think the way that makes the most sense to me is that the crucifixion can be seen as a gesture of solidarity with human suffering. When one goes to a play, the simple fact that actions are portrayed can be a source of comfort and catharsis and carries the communication that somehow the spectator is understood and is connected to other people. I think this is related to the attraction of humanism, and of many collectivist political movements as well: actions carried out on the theme of shared experience have a binding, comforting and healing effect.
 
Top