Did God not create the rules, according to you? And if not to satisfy himself, why did he send himself in Jesus form?

(June 20, 2015 at 10:33 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 20, 2015 at 10:20 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: That is the story of jesus, god sent himself in human form to die in order to fulfill the sacrificial law that he created.

That's the basic Christian message. According to John, Jesus said it this way:

14 "Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him. 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God."

Not sure these even comes close to addressing what I was talking about.

(June 20, 2015 at 5:56 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 20, 2015 at 5:14 pm)Won2blv Wrote: Do catholics say that priests hold the ultimate moral authority? The elders in my religion are just looked at as men that we can trust to guide us in a spiritually mature way but that it would almost be comical to expect perfection out of them

I came across John 7:28, 29 in my studies. What do you think about that? Its in the same gospel as John 1:1 and it seems again to show that Jesus views himself separate from God

(June 20, 2015 at 10:36 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 20, 2015 at 10:20 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: That is the story of jesus, god sent himself in human form to die in order to fulfill the sacrificial law that he created.

This is true, but I've never heard it that way. "Satisfy yourself?", "Circumvent rules you created?"

This does not portray an accurate account of what happened.

---

(June 20, 2015 at 10:25 pm)whateverist Wrote: So I take it you agree it is ridiculous but don't see how anyone can take that away from church doctrine?

I'll let someone who is up on their scriptures make that link.  I find it pretty funny myself.

It is not being portrayed accurately.

---

(June 20, 2015 at 10:33 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: That's the basic Christian message. According to John, Jesus said it this way:

14 "Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him. 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God."

^Yes.

(June 20, 2015 at 10:54 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(June 20, 2015 at 10:36 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: This is true, but I've never heard it that way. "Satisfy yourself?", "Circumvent rules you created?"

This does not portray an accurate account of what happened.

---

It is not being portrayed accurately.

---

^Yes.

Can you tell me why its not accurate?

(June 20, 2015 at 6:53 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 20, 2015 at 6:40 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I give money to the Church too, I guess that means I am guilty of materially supporting child molesters...

Don't sweat it.

Parkers doesn't withhold any portion of the income taxes he is required to pay each year.

Consequently, he has blood on his hands for all the drone strikes that have killed innocent children.

Are your tithes to the church enforced by point of law? Can you freely choose not to pay them or will you be thrown in prison, your freedoms stripped from you. If you'll be imprisoned, I guess you have a point.

(June 20, 2015 at 10:56 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: Can you tell me why its not accurate?

When you say "to satisfy Himself" it gives off the perception of selfishness and self gratification. Yes, it does make Him happy to see us happy with him in Heaven because He loves us so much. So technically, it is "satisfactory" in that sense. But it's like giving someone you love a great gift and then being happy to see them happy with it. Would you call your motives "self satisfying?"

Also, God could have "circumvented" the laws anyway He wanted. But none would have made such an impression and shown such love as coming down to die a horrible death for us on the cross. That was a physical way for us to see how much we mean to Him and what He's willing to do for us. Showing us this love helps bring more people in too, which is ultimately what He wants.

---

(June 20, 2015 at 10:38 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Did God not create the rules, according to you?  And if not to satisfy himself, why did he send himself in Jesus form?

Please see above.

(June 20, 2015 at 7:02 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I probably would have been ok with it too. But that's not the point.

That is exactly the point. You're trying to argue moral absolutism which, by the very fact that morality changes over time, is proven wrong. If morality were objective, we'd still be keeping slaves from the nations 'round about us and thinking nothing of it.

(June 20, 2015 at 11:04 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(June 20, 2015 at 7:02 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I probably would have been ok with it too. But that's not the point.

That is exactly the point. You're trying to argue moral absolutism which, by the very fact that morality changes over time, is proven wrong. If morality were objective, we'd still be keeping slaves from the nations 'round about us and thinking nothing of it.

No it is not. I could have been ok with enslaving Africans and burning women who get raped, and plenty of people have been and still are ok with one or both of those. But that doesn't make it actually ok. It makes the people who believe it's ok, horribly wrong.

Americans did used to own slaves. It didn't make it ok then, as it is not ok now. And slavery still exists. So does the burning of rape victims.

(June 20, 2015 at 8:05 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: If you look at the entirety of the bible, particularly the teachings of Jesus, you will see that absolutely, killing children is wrong.

(emphasis is mine)

He had no problem with slavery though...

Morality is subjective to to time and society you live in. What may have been moral yesterday is not necessarily moral today. What is immoral today may be moral tomorrow.