Human sacrifice

[Zzyzx]

.
Christians often condemn human sacrifice and use it as justification for slaughtering competing religious groups and societies.

However, Christians glorify the sacrifice (called "martyrdom") of their namesake and other religious notables. Supposedly the "martyrdom" was often done willingly "to serve god."

How is that different from "pagan" sacrifices to their "gods?"

[Divine Insight]

It seems to me that you have not even read the Bible, because it says:

The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, answered them, "Why are you reasoning so in your hearts? Which is easier to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you;' or to say, 'Arise and walk?' But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (he said to the paralyzed man), "I tell you, arise, and take up your cot, and go to your house." Immediately he rose up before them, and took up that which he was laying on, and departed to his house, glorifying God.
Luke 5:21-25

So, it was possible to forgive sins even before Jesus died and therefore your claims seem to be absurd.

My claims are absurd?

Look at the story you just posted. What could be more absurd than that?

You expect me to believe that these pharisees were witnessing supernatural miracles right before their eyes and they were still accusing Jesus of being a mere mortal man guilty of blaspheme?

Moreover, you seem to be totally forgetting that these scribes and pharisees where God's priests. They were clearly the caretakers of God's temples, even Jesus acknowledge them as such.

So to believe these absurd fables you need to believe that this God can't even keep his own priests in line.

And finally, your claim that forgiveness was available prior to Jesus flies in the face of him having sacrificed his life to save mankind. Clear forgiveness was already available to me without Jesus. So that blows away any need for Jesus to be crucified for our sins, or that his crucifixion would in any way be related to our salvation.

Also, I need to add, that if people weren't willing to obey this God before Jesus, then why should they suddenly be willing to obey this God after Jesus? What would have changed?

Clearly the Bible is what is absurd.

If you hold that we don't need Jesus for forgiveness, then you have just discounted Christianity entirely. Jesus would no longer be the "savior". What would we need him for if we can just ask the Father God for forgiveness directly?

Then any religion that claims to be worshiping the creator of the universe is cool. All we need to do is ask our creator to forgive us for anything we might have done that might have ticked him off. Piece of cake. And Jesus is totally unnecessary.

You've just demanded that Christianity is a totally unnecessary religion and that Jesus did not pay for anyone's sin or sacrifice himself for anyone.

According to you we don't need Jesus at all. God offers forgiveness directly and always has.

[1213]

Moreover, you seem to be totally forgetting that these scribes and pharisees where God's priests. They were clearly the caretakers of God's temples, even Jesus acknowledge them as such.

I disagree with that they were really God’s, because:

But you don't believe, because you are not of my sheep, as I told you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
John 10:26-27

Therefore Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came out and have come from God. For I haven't come of myself, but he sent me. Why don't you understand my speech? Because you can't hear my word. You are of your Father, the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and doesn't stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks on his own; for he is a liar, and the father of it. But because I tell the truth, you don't believe me. Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? He who is of God hears the words of God. For this cause you don't hear, because you are not of God."
John 8:42-47

...or that his crucifixion would in any way be related to our salvation.

I don’t think so. By being faithful to God till the death, he showed great example of how his disciples should be.

Also, I need to add, that if people weren't willing to obey this God before Jesus, then why should they suddenly be willing to obey this God after Jesus? What would have changed?

Jesus came for the lost “sheep�. Those who are not his sheep will not hear him anyway, because they don’t want to hear him or be loyal to him.

If you hold that we don't need Jesus for forgiveness, then you have just discounted Christianity entirely. Jesus would no longer be the "savior". What would we need him for if we can just ask the Father God for forgiveness directly?

God wanted to declare the forgiveness through Jesus. Therefore Jesus is needed. But forgiveness is not all and not helpful, if there is no improvement and change in persons heart for better. That is why Jesus came to teach about repentance, not just about forgiveness. Forgiveness is not helpful, if person continues in sin.

According to you we don't need Jesus at all. God offers forgiveness directly and always has.

I don’t say that. I say that forgiveness was possible before Jesus died and therefore his death was not needed to forgive sins.

[Divine Insight]

Forgiveness is not helpful, if person continues in sin.

Well this denies every Christian I have ever met or spoken with then. Because I have yet to meet a Christian who claims to be free of sin. On the contrary they all, each and every one of them, claim to continually fall to sin basically on a daily basis.

So according to you then forgiveness is not helpful for these Christian since they continue to live in sin.

Since you are the one who has made this claim I think it's fair to ask if you are currently sinless in terms of your daily life since you have accepted Jesus as your savior?

Are you now totally free of sin? Or do you continue in sin?

I think this is a fair question to put to you in light of the fact that you are claiming that forgiveness is not helpful if one continues in sin.

Are you then saying that you no longer sin? And that no "Real Christian" should ever be committing any sins at all once they have accept Christ as their Savior?

Actually I would be more than happy to agree with that philosophy. But like I say, I have yet to meet any Christians who claim to be sin free from the time they have accepted Jesus as their LORD and Savior.

Do you make this claim? If you do, then you are indeed a very unique Christian.

But I will conceded that this is what you necessarily must be if you are going to stand by your claims about this religion.

So do you stand by your claim or not?

[1213]

Because I have yet to meet a Christian who claims to be free of sin.

That is sad to hear, because according to the Bible Jesus came to free people from sin.

Jesus answered them, "Most assuredly I tell you, everyone who commits sin is the bondservant of sin. A bondservant doesn't live in the house forever. A son remains forever. If therefore the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.
John 8:34-36

Be it known to you therefore, brothers [The word for "brothers" here and where the context allows may also be correctly translated "brothers and sisters" or "siblings."], that through this man is proclaimed to you remission of sins, and by him everyone who believes is justified from all things, from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.
Acts 13:38-39

So, there is something wrong, if disciples of Jesus ("Christians") are still servants for sin.

So according to you then forgiveness is not helpful for these Christian since they continue to live in sin.

It depends on what they mean with sin and do they really live in sin.

For a righteous man falls seven times, and rises up again; But the wicked are overthrown by calamity.
Proverbs 24:16

It may be possible that even righteous person makes mistakes. But if he doesn’t reject God, or him who God sent (Jesus), then I think he has no sin. I understand sin as rejecting God, or living apart of or without God.

Since you are the one who has made this claim I think it's fair to ask if you are currently sinless in terms of your daily life since you have accepted Jesus as your savior?

Are you now totally free of sin? Or do you continue in sin?

I think this is a fair question to put to you in light of the fact that you are claiming that forgiveness is not helpful if one continues in sin.

As I have said, I understand sin as rejecting God, or living apart of or without God. I hope I have not rejected God, but I can’t witness for myself, because as Jesus said: “If I testify about myself, my witness is not valid�. (John 5:31)

What do you think, have I rejected God?

And that no "Real Christian" should ever be committing any sins at all once they have accept Christ as their Savior?

But I will conceded that this is what you necessarily must be if you are going to stand by your claims about this religion.

I think Bible says so, because it is written:

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

Eternal life is for righteous and that is opposite to sinful. And Kingdom of God can’t be entered, if person is not born anew.

Jesus answered him, "Most assuredly, I tell you, unless one is born anew, he can't see the Kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" Jesus answered, "Most assuredly I tell you, unless one is born of water and spirit, he can't enter into the Kingdom of God! That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Don't marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born anew.'
John 3:3-7

That is not my teaching, it is what the Bible tells. And in my opinion disciples of Jesus (“Christianity�) should not be defined by my words or by what I am, but by what Jesus told.

But that doesn’t mean that person must for example do all exactly as it is written in the Law of Moses to get into Kingdom of Heaven, because:

"Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill. For most assuredly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Mat. 5:17-19

If person breaks commandment, it does not necessary mean that all hope is gone, if you don’t reject the words that Jesus told according to the Bible.

And I think it is also good to notice that according to the Bible Law is fulfilled by this:

Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not give false testimony," "You shall not covet," [TR adds "You shall not give false testimony,"] and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love doesn't harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.
Romans 13:8-10

I want to live according to that, but it may be possible that I have not done that perfectly and I am sorry if it is so.

[bluethread]

[/quote]

See, you can post references after all. Now, I agree that the chief priests were corrupt and were involved in Yeshua's execution. However, I think that was because He was interfering with the partisan power structure, not because He was apposing HaTorah.

And my position is vindicated. It doesn't matter what the motivations were. The story still has this God's chief priests calling for the crucifixion of his own son.

So this is still a God who can't even keep his own temple and chief priests in order.

This is a religion where a God sends his only begotten son to the change his own commandments (i.e. violate the HaTorah) something that this God himself proclaimed to be an act of blaspheme. And he has his own corrupt priests of his own temples and his own religion calling for the crucifixion.

In order to address the "his own temple and chief priests" accusation, we have to look at what is commanded by HaTorah and what is recorded in the rest of the Tanakh. First, Adonai never commanded that a Temple be built Adonai commanded the construction of the Mishkan(Tabernacle). As a concession to David and Shlomo, Adonai permitted the first Temple to be built. It was destroyed by the Neo-Babylonians because of Israel's apostasy. The temple was rebuilt by Ezra on the authority of Artaxerxes king of Persia(Ezra 7:4). Herod then added the "court of the gentiles" which is mentioned nowhere in HaTorah. Now, I am not saying that those thing were wrong, they just were not things that Adonai directed.

Regarding the actions of the priests, it is my view that the original plan was for the firstborn to be the priests of their households. (Ex.19) However, the people of Israel were fearful of approaching Adonai, so Adonai appointed the Levites to serve in their place. This would not mean that the firstborn would be perfect either, but if the firstborn of each household served in courses, as the government in Athens did, there might have been less corruption. The point is that the Levitical priesthood was a concession and that might very well be why it passed away as Paul notes in Hebrews.

Third, Adonai did not send Yeshua to change His commandments, but to present the proper interpretations of them. That is why they had to try Him in an illegal manner, out of the public eye and have Him executed in an illegal manner, at the hands of the Romans. He was challenging their rabbinics and not HaTorah.

As far as I'm concerned this is an absolutely absurd religion. It's a story of a God who can't keep his own church under control. Moreover, even if there were any truth to the fables of this inept God why should anyone believe that any church or priests can be trusted? This story of Jesus tells us that God's own temples and priests are corrupt and untrustworthy. If the Jewish Priests are corrupt then why should anyone trust the Catholic Papacy? And if the Catholic Papacy is corrupt why should anyone trust the Protestants who not only protest against the papacy but also protest against each others completely divisive views and claims about what this God supposedly wants?

In short, this is a God that no one can trust. Especially in terms of trusting anyone who preaches this religion or claims to speak for God.

I agree. I do not trust the Papacy or the "reformers", I trust HaTorah, which Yeshua upheld. Someone who claims to be speaking for Adonai, according to HaTorah, is taking his life in his hands. If what is said does not come to pass or violates HaTorah, that person faces the death penalty. They could not prove this, in the case of Yeshua, so they convicted Him on trumped up charges.

The woman at the well? You might want to check your reference on that. If you are referring to the woman accused of adultery, that was an illegal trial, but in spite of that, after being badgered, Yeshua went ahead and followed the commandments regarding due process. I can go through that in detail with you, if you like. Either way, He did not say that no one was to cast the first stone. He said, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." He was clearly talking to the "witnesses", because according to HaTorah, it is they who must throw the first stone. No stone was thrown, so there were no reliable witnesses. Case closed, Torah preserved.

I'm sorry bluethread but this case is nowhere near closed in the way that you have just imagined.

If the trial of the woman was an illegal trial why didn't Jesus just point that out? That would have been the intelligent thing to do and it would have made it perfectly clear what Jesus was talking about.

That might have been what He was writing on the ground, but they continued to badger Him, until He responded.

You say:

"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." He was clearly talking to the "witnesses", because according to HaTorah, it is they who must throw the first stone. No stone was thrown, so there were no reliable witnesses. Case closed, Torah preserved.

This actually violates your claim that he was objecting to the trial being legitimate. Why would he tell anyone to cast the first stone if the trial was illegitimate? Even a person without sin would be out of line if the trial was illegitimate. So your apology here makes no sense.

However, there were no witnesses. You are arguing a hypothetical and not the facts of the case. What Yeshua did was apply HaTorah to what they were actually doing.

Secondly you say, "No stone was thrown, so there were no reliable witnesses. Case closed, Torah preserved."

I say baloney. In fact, when I first read this parable it caused me to stop and think. Suppose I was actually there, and Jesus said, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Would I pick up a stone and cast it at the woman? I consider myself to be without sin. But here is the irony. I would not pick up a stone and cast it at the woman precisely because I'm not the kind of person who would do something like that. That's when I realized how utterly stupid these words of Jesus truly are. People who are without sin don't go around accusing others of being sinners and wanting to stone them to death in the first place.

No, you are analyzing this based on your modern prospective and not that of the crowd. If you were an Jew of the time, you would not pick up the stone, because you knew you would be taking your life in your hands, if you were a false witness.

There more! I'm not done yet.

Jesus says, "He who is without sin cast the first stone"

If that was a criteria for stoning sinners to death, then this God should have never commanded men to stone sinners to death in the first place. Didn't this God know that there is no such thing as a sinless man in this religion?

So it comes full-circle. You can't claim that Jesus is clarifying God's Law when this law would make no sense in any case. If the only men who are permitted to stone someone to death in this religion that it would have been utterly foolish for God to have commended sinful men to stone anyone to death.

No, you have conveniently cut out part of the circle. The responsibilities of witnesses is not an insignificant factor, it is the crux of the matter. They were "tempting him, that they might have to accuse him". They were bearing false witness in order to trap Yeshua. Stoning people is not the issue, the issue is due process and His advise to this woman to "go , and sin no more".

In fact, if you stop and think about this in the context of the entire bible and religious philosophy why would any omniscient perfect God who knows what's in the hearts and mind of reallocate the duty of judging men and stoning them to death to mere mortal humans who are themselves supposed to be sinner and certainly can't know what's in the hearts or minds of their fellow man.

This God should have never commanded men to pass judgments on each other in the first place. Much less to kill other men because of these judgements.

And isn't this the same God who had commanded men, "Thou shalt not kill?"

This religion is nothing but a complex web of extreme contradictions and absurdities. And clearly Jesus was trying to put an end to this absurd ideals.

I contend that this is what is behind you desire to force your interpretation onto this passage. You do not like the ratsach, murder, commandment. It is you who is introducing "a complex web of extreme contradictions and absurdities", based on a modern humanist model, that are historically, grammatically and literally out of context, for your own purposes.

The religion of the Scribes and the Pharisees, No. As Yeshua said, Mt. 5:20 "I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

And this too is an extremely stupid thing for Jesus to have said. Jesus sat around and accused the Scribes and Pharisees of all many of sins and proclaimed them to be hypocrites of the highest order. Therefore what would it take for someone to surpass the righteousness of these corrupt hypocrites?

Not much.

And therefore telling someone that their righteousness needs to surpass the righteousness of this Pharisees that Jesus himself ranted against is hardly saying much.

That is precisely the point. The Pharisees were presumed by many, including themselves, to be righteous. Yeshua is pointing out that that is not true. They were merely self righteous.

Now religion that is in accordance with HaTorah and the teachings Of Yeshua, that is a different story, and it is not impossible. In fact, HaTorah says, Deut. 30:11-14 "Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it."

But according to Jesus no man can stone anyone to death ever unless they are completely without sin.

So Jesus just made it impossible to obey the HaTorah unless they are completely without sin.

No, you did not. Yeshua said no such thing. You just presumed that He did, based on interpretations that leave out an important parts of HaTorah.

In fact, I just showed how utterly absurd that is.

If I am to judge my neighbors to be sinners and cast the first stone because I am the accuser (even if done in a formal court of law), then two things are necessarily true.

1. I would myself need to be a sinner in order to obey this commandment. Therefore I should be stoned to death myself.

No, a truthful witness that casts the first stone, after a proper trial has not broken any commandment.

OR

2. Being without sin I could qualify to obey this commandment of God, but I would refuse to obey it. I have no desire to judge other people and stone them to death and I refuse. But now I have just become a sinner because I have refused to obey the command of God.

No, there is a commandment that a truthful witness come forth at trial and after that trial cast the first stone.

So the whole thing is an oxymoronic absurdity.

I do acknowledge that how you have twisted this passage through omission and commission creates an oxymoronic absurdity. However, interpreting what the passage actually says based on what HaTorah actually says makes perfect sense.

~~~~~~

Yes, something is wrong and it is the fact that you did not include the entire quote. This is an other example of you applying a commandment regarding judicial proceedings and applying it to interpersonal relationships. To be fair, that is probably what some of the Pharisees were doing, since this is in the middle of a list of rabbinic interpretations. The verses following what you quoted makes this clear,

[40] And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
[41] If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
[42] Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

The fact that He refers to being sued shows that it is not implied in the principle to begin with. So, He is telling the victim to avoid trouble, including judicial proceedings, if at all possible. This is not a violation of HaTorah since HaTorah does not require the victim to sue or retaliate. It just gives judicial instructions.

No. You're trying to make this into a modern legal matter and trying to claim that a person simply doesn't need to press charges if they don't want to. But that's not what the HaTorah says:

Leviticus 24:
[19] And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
[20] Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.
[21] And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.
[22] Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God.

Leviticus isn't saying, "Hey you can be lenient on people if you want to, I'm just making some suggestions here concerning what you can ask for if you sue someone.

No, no, no.

This God is demanding that these things be done. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, no exceptions. Because this is the justice that this God is demanding.

It's not up to you do decide that you'll be more lenient than God.

Yes, there is one LAW. This is legal instruction, not direction in personal morality.

So Jesus is flat-out rejecting the HaTorah here.

He is rejecting the commandments of the Jewish God, and instead he's preaching forgiveness and leniency.

How can you obey both? You can't obey both Jesus and the God of the HaTorah simultaneously. You can only follow the directives of one of them.

Jesus is telling you not to press charges at all and to even to the criminals favors. The God of the HaTorah is demanding consistent justice and does not leave any room for you to decide for a lesser action to take.

So I disagree with your apology.

Jesus was a blasphemer. He rejected the directives of the God of the HaTorah and instead preached leniency and forgiveness. Just the opposite of the God of the HaTorah.

You can disagree, but the law in the United States also sets out penalties for various crimes, but it is not crime for the victim to decide not to press charges. If your apology were correct, women would be routinely forced to testify in rape cases. However, that is not the case.

Here's another example from the HaTorah to confrim my case:

Deuteronomy 19
[19] Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.
[20] And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.
[21] And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

"so shalt thou put the evil away from among you" and "And thine eye shall not pity". This is flat-out denying Jesus' plea for leniency and forgiveness. The idea being preached in the HaTorah is that you can't let people get away with things because you need to "Put the evil away from among you".

Jesus is rebelling against Deuteronomy 19:21.

Who is the "you" in that passage. It is clearly not his brother. The you is a third person, a witness, society as a whole. These are instruction on jurisprudence, not personal morality.

Jesus refuses to obey the HaTorah and instead preaches leniency and forgiveness. Thus allowing the evil to continue to exist among you.

Jesus was preaching blaspheme against the HaTorah.

On a personal note I actually agree with the philosophy or Jesus above the philosophy of the HaTorah, but that's a totally moot point. Jesus was preaching against the teachings of the HaTorah and that is blaspheme against the word of God.

I think that your personal note is not really an aside, but the crux of your argument. You do not like HaTorah, so you insist on a singular view of things that fits that template. Though Yeshua's accusers thought that they were protecting HaTorah, they were actually insisting on a singular view of things that fit their rabbinic template as you are doing.

[Divine Insight]

So, there is something wrong, if disciples of Jesus ("Christians") are still servants for sin.

I agree.

It may be possible that even righteous person makes mistakes. But if he doesn’t reject God, or him who God sent (Jesus), then I think he has no sin. I understand sin as rejecting God, or living apart of or without God.

Well, non-believers in God cannot reject God. They can't reject something they don't even believe exists.

Also according to Jesus himself there is no need to believe in Jesus.

John.12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

So according to Jesus himself, there is no need to believe in him or his words.

And if we're going to give the words of Jesus any respect as being worthy of truth, then we cannot hold that it is important to believe in Jesus.

As I have said, I understand sin as rejecting God, or living apart of or without God. I hope I have not rejected God, but I can’t witness for myself, because as Jesus said: “If I testify about myself, my witness is not valid�. (John 5:31)

What do you think, have I rejected God?

I think these words of Jesus are absurd. Only you can know whether or not you reject a God. No one else can tell you that. I know for certain that I have not rejected any God. But what I have rejected are absolutely absurd male-chauvinist, highly bigoted, and obviously ignorant biblical fables written by a clearly troubled and immoral culture. That is indeed quite easy to reject.

Moreover, I hold that it should be rejected by any decent moral person.

And that no "Real Christian" should ever be committing any sins at all once they have accept Christ as their Savior?

I think Bible says so, because it is written:

Eternal life is for righteous and that is opposite to sinful. And Kingdom of God can’t be entered, if person is not born anew.

Again, this makes sense, and I agree that this is the way it must be in this fairy tale.

Jesus answered him, "Most assuredly, I tell you, unless one is born anew, he can't see the Kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" Jesus answered, "Most assuredly I tell you, unless one is born of water and spirit, he can't enter into the Kingdom of God! That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Don't marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born anew.'
John 3:3-7

That is not my teaching, it is what the Bible tells. And in my opinion disciples of Jesus (“Christianity�) should not be defined by my words or by what I am, but by what Jesus told.

Actually Jesus most likely got these ideas from Buddhism because this is what the Buddha taught. In Buddhism being "Born again in spirit" is called "Spiritual enlightenment". These are exactly the same ideals. And clearly the Buddha was teaching this long before Jesus was ever born.

But that doesn’t mean that person must for example do all exactly as it is written in the Law of Moses to get into Kingdom of Heaven, because:

"Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill. For most assuredly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Mat. 5:17-19

If person breaks commandment, it does not necessary mean that all hope is gone, if you don’t reject the words that Jesus told according to the Bible.

Also ironically, if you pay very close attention Jesus is suggesting here that there will be a hierarchy of social classes in Heaven. Clearly there will be those who are "least" in heaven. And that also means that they will never be truly forgiven of their sins. So even of those who go to heaven there will be many who will be shamed for eternity in heaven. So it won't be much of a Heaven for them.

I might also add here that the North American Indians had a very similar belief. They believed in an eternal life after death too. Their eternal life is called "Summerland" because it's always summer in heaven, never and bitter cold winters to have to struggle through.

But like Jesus they too taught that if people shame themselves in this life, then in heaven "Summerland" they will forever be shamed. I think the fact that different cultures often come up with the same times of imagined afterlife says something profound about how all of these religions beliefs are nothing more than the imaginations of men.

And I think it is also good to notice that according to the Bible Law is fulfilled by this:

Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not give false testimony," "You shall not covet," [TR adds "You shall not give false testimony,"] and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love doesn't harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.
Romans 13:8-10

I want to live according to that, but it may be possible that I have not done that perfectly and I am sorry if it is so.

Well, Buddha would be proud of you because he taught this exact came ideal.

[1213]

Well, non-believers in God cannot reject God. They can't reject something they don't even believe exists.

Also according to Jesus himself there is no need to believe in Jesus.

John.12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

So according to Jesus himself, there is no need to believe in him or his words.

Yes, but that continues by this:

…He who rejects me, and doesn't receive my sayings, has one who judges him. The word that I spoke, the same will judge him in the last day.
John 12:47-48

If you reject Jesus by not receiving his words, that is problem. And if you reject Jesus, you reject God, because according to Jesus, he spoke the words that God had commanded him to speak.

For I spoke not from myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. I know that his commandment is eternal life. The things therefore which I speak, even as the Father has said to me, so I speak."
John 12:49-50

So, to reject God, it means that you don’t receive his words. You don’t have to believe that God is, to receive his words.

And according to Bible eternal life is for righteous, which is more than actions or belief.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

Only you can know whether or not you reject a God. No one else can tell you that.

And if I claim that I have not done so, how could you know it is true?

And clearly the Buddha was teaching this long before Jesus was ever born.

What makes you believe that?

And that also means that they will never be truly forgiven of their sins.

I don’t think so. I think in heaven highest places are for those who are willing to act according to that position. And I think it will be demanding and therefore it is understandable, if only those who are ready for it get the position.

If we think for example the position of Jesus, he will be the King. Should I be ashamed if I am not the King instead of Jesus? I don’t think so. And I think it does not mean that I am not forgiven. More likely it would only mean that I have done more things that should be forgiven; after all, Jesus didn’t have anything to be forgiven.

And actually all high positions are service functions.

"If any man wants to be first, he shall be last of all, and servant of all."
Mark 9:35

So even of those who go to heaven there will be many who will be shamed for eternity in heaven.

As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Romans 9:33

If one is not world’s fastest runner, should he be ashamed? If one is not words best at obeying the Law of Moses, should he be ashamed? I don’t think so and I think it is amazing if you think so.

[Divine Insight]

Yes, but that continues by this:

…He who rejects me, and doesn't receive my sayings, has one who judges him. The word that I spoke, the same will judge him in the last day.
John 12:47-48

If you reject Jesus by not receiving his words, that is problem. And if you reject Jesus, you reject God, because according to Jesus, he spoke the words that God had commanded him to speak.

No that's false.

Here are the words that Jesus spoke:

Luke.6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

I judge no one. Not because Jesus said not to but simply because I have no desire to judge others.

I condemn no one. Not because Jesus said not to condemn anyone, but simply because I have no desire that anyone should be condemned.

I forgive everyone. Not because Jesus said that I should but because it's simply who I am.

I don't need Jesus for anything. I don't need to believe in him or in his words.

In fact, if he is God, or even the son of God, he would not be able to condemn me by his own words, lest he would be a liar. If Jesus condemns me then he's a liar because I have condemned no one.

For I spoke not from myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. I know that his commandment is eternal life. The things therefore which I speak, even as the Father has said to me, so I speak."
John 12:49-50

Fine, that takes it all the way to the top then. Even God can't condemn me without being a liar.

So, to reject God, it means that you don’t receive his words. You don’t have to believe that God is, to receive his words.

The Biblical God cannot condemn me without being a liar himself. Jesus said, "Condemn not and ye shall not be condemned". It doesn't get any simpler than this. I condemn no one. Therefore neither Jesus, nor God, can condemn me without becoming liars themselves.

And according to Bible eternal life is for righteous, which is more than actions or belief.

Clearly Jesus isn't in agreement with you on that one. You're on your own there.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

Eternal punishment would certainly be a condemnation. But Jesus cannot condemn me without his own words being lies.

Moreover, if condemnation in Christianity means "eternal punishment" then I'm as safe as I can possibly be. I most certainly do not wish eternal punishment on anyone, even the most wicked of criminals. So this just verifies beyond a shadow of a doubt that I condemn no one.

Thus according to Jesus I cannot be condemned lest Jesus himself be a liar.

Only you can know whether or not you reject a God. No one else can tell you that.

And if I claim that I have not done so, how could you know it is true?

I don't claim to know anything about you. Where did you ever get that idea?

Your relationship with any God that might exist is your affair not mine.

Jesus has exonerated me by his words in Luke 6:37.

I don't need to even believe in Jesus or these words. All I need to point out is that if those words are true then neither Jesus nor God can condemn me. And if those words are lies, well, then Jesus was a liar. So there's no way to get around it.

It's impossible for me to be condemned but this religion whether it's a mere fable or if it's true. I cannot be condemned according to words attributed to Jesus.

I don't need to believe in Jesus for that to be true. All I need to do is look at what the fairytale has to say for itself.

And clearly the Buddha was teaching this long before Jesus was ever born.

What makes you believe that?

Because I've studied these religions.

And that also means that they will never be truly forgiven of their sins.

I don’t think so. I think in heaven highest places are for those who are willing to act according to that position. And I think it will be demanding and therefore it is understandable, if only those who are ready for it get the position.

If we think for example the position of Jesus, he will be the King. Should I be ashamed if I am not the King instead of Jesus? I don’t think so. And I think it does not mean that I am not forgiven. More likely it would only mean that I have done more things that should be forgiven; after all, Jesus didn’t have anything to be forgiven.

Well, if Jesus has nothing that needs to be forgiven then he could not have lied when he said that if a person does not condemn others they will not be condemned. And therefore my point has been made.

And actually all high positions are service functions.

Service in heaven?

Sounds like slavery to me.

What's up with a God who needs to have so many "servants"?

With all due respect don't you think it's ridiculous that a supposedly omnipotent omniscient God who can do anything would need to have meager humans pets as obedience "servants"?

That implies that this God needs your servitude in some way.

Moreover if all you are permitted to do in heaven is to "serve God" then you can't have any free will of your own because if you were exercising your own free will you wouldn't be doing the will of God.

"If any man wants to be first, he shall be last of all, and servant of all."
Mark 9:35

Well, that most certainly wouldn't apply to me. I insist on being the very last to enter into heaven. And I refuse to enter until every soul this God had ever created is in heaven.

That's my criteria. And this really places this God in a pickle now. Because he has already said that if I condemn no one I shall not be condemned. Therefore he can't condemn me without becoming a liar. He can't even allow me to condemn myself, because he didn't say that he wouldn't condemn me, he said that I shall not be condemned period. So he can't even allow me to condemn myself. And I would never do that anyway, so to claim that I did would itself be yet another lie.

So even of those who go to heaven there will be many who will be shamed for eternity in heaven.

As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Romans 9:33

Now you're quoting from Paul, not Jesus.

Jesus said that men who have not kept all the commandment will be called the "least" in heaven. That has to carry with it some degree of shame. So Paul himself has rejected the teachings of Jesus.

If one is not world’s fastest runner, should he be ashamed? If one is not words best at obeying the Law of Moses, should he be ashamed? I don’t think so and I think it is amazing if you think so.

But I'm not the one who thinks so. Jesus is the one who said that such men will be the least in heaven.

I question that this makes any sense.

But please, don't try to push this onto me. Jesus is the one who said that they will be the least in heaven, not me.

On the contrary, I hold that if people are to be forgiven their sins then they should indeed be forgotten entirely. If they are still having them held over their heads for the rest of eternity then they have hardly been forgiven at all.

So I actually see Jesus' stance on this point as being contradictory to the hopes and dreams of most Christians.

Jesus is basically saying that he's not going to ever forget that they have sinned and he will hold this over their heads for the rest of eternity.

That's not the "Heaven" they were hoping for I'm sure.

~~~~~

The whole religion is absurd 1213 precisely because it's a religion that has a creator God creating feeble inept humans and then holding this against them for the rest of eternity.

That's ridiculous. This religion proclaims that humans aren't even capable of being righteous without this God, yet they are being held responsible for being in this absolutely hopeless position.

This is why I am 100% certain that this religion is nothing more than a very underhanded and devious brainwashing scam created by men to keep the superstitious public under the thumb of their churches.

Any God who would create totally inept people who can't be righteous on their own without his help and then hold them responsible for being in this hopelessly impossible situation would himself be an extremely immoral entity.

I wouldn't play that sort of dirty trick on a dog.

And he's supposedly going to cast the ones who don't come to him for help into a state of eternal "punishment'.

That's worst than merely immoral. It's outright sadistic.

But this God can't condemn me without becoming a liar himself.

Can he condemn you without becoming a liar?

You seem to be trying very hard to make a case that I should be condemned by this God if I fail to believe in Jesus.

Yet I say unto you that this is impossible.

This God named Yahweh and his demigod son named Jesus in this Christian mythology cannot condemn me by the words of this God's very own demigod son.

I cannot be condemned in this religion without Jesus being a liar.

Can you say the same thing?

It's impossible for either the Christian God or his demigod son Jesus to condemn me by his very own words.

My salvation is guaranteed in this mythology.

And I don't even need to believe in the mythology in order for this to be true, so says Jesus.

[1213]

Yes, but that continues by this:

…He who rejects me, and doesn't receive my sayings, has one who judges him. The word that I spoke, the same will judge him in the last day.
John 12:47-48

If you reject Jesus by not receiving his words, that is problem. And if you reject Jesus, you reject God, because according to Jesus, he spoke the words that God had commanded him to speak.

No that's false.

Don’t you see that now you have judged Jesus as liar? And now there is right to judge you the same way.

All I need to do is look at what the fairytale has to say for itself.

And I think that is same as receiving the words that Jesus told, in this:

…He who rejects me, and doesn't receive my sayings, has one who judges him. The word that I spoke, the same will judge him in the last day.
John 12:47-48

Service in heaven?

Sounds like slavery to me.

What's up with a God who needs to have so many "servants"?

With all due respect don't you think it's ridiculous that a supposedly omnipotent omniscient God who can do anything would need to have meager humans pets as obedience "servants"?

I think God doesn’t need servants or anything from humans. But people that love others serve others, because they want to do well to others.

Jesus said that men who have not kept all the commandment will be called the "least" in heaven. That has to carry with it some degree of shame. So Paul himself has rejected the teachings of Jesus.

For example that I answer here to your questions is in my opinion service for all those who read these. And I do it because God has done well for me.

On the contrary, I hold that if people are to be forgiven their sins then they should indeed be forgotten entirely. If they are still having them held over their heads for the rest of eternity then they have hardly been forgiven at all.

I don’t agree with that. And I think sin really is that person rejects God, not necessary that he doesn’t do everything according to the Law of Moses.

So I actually see Jesus' stance on this point as being contradictory to the hopes and dreams of most Christians....

...The whole religion is absurd 1213 precisely because it's a religion that has a creator God creating feeble inept humans and then holding this against them for the rest of eternity.

...That's ridiculous. This religion proclaims that humans aren't even capable of being righteous without this God, yet they are being held responsible for being in this absolutely hopeless position.

...This is why I am 100% certain that this religion is nothing more than a very underhanded and devious brainwashing scam created by men to keep the superstitious public under the thumb of their churches.

I think in that you make also many judgments.

Any God who would create totally inept people who can't be righteous on their own without his help and then hold them responsible for being in this hopelessly impossible situation would himself be an extremely immoral entity.

I think that is also judgment.

Can he condemn you without becoming a liar?

Yes. If He tells that I am not righteous, because… …I think that is not judgment, it can be just the truth. And I think eternal life is a gift for righteous people and if he shows that I am not righteous, I think it is then ok, if he doesn’t give that gift for me.

And if I don’t have judged, I think it doesn’t mean that I should not be judged. I think it means that I should be judged same way as I would judge. If I would be merciless, then my judge has right to be merciless or if I would make not righteous judgments, then my judge would be allowed to make judgments the same way. So I think the matter is not about has person judged, but how would that person judge, if he would judge.

[Willum]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

I learned this little tid-bit obscured from modern scholars, but not from TV horror movies interestingly.
A pentacle/pentagram/star is representative of the head, arms and legs of a man being sacrificed, which is why you see it in cheesy horror movies, and of course the origin of why it is reviled.
The six pointed star represents animal sacrifice, in this case head, tail and four legs. Just a nit I found interesting that is not common knowledge.

I suppose (from that mythology) you'd sacrifice a bird on a cross, a fish on a plank. But I wasn't able to run down the controversial history of piscine sacrifice.