There is no proof of God ...

[otherbrother]

The original sin contends that every human life begins under the curse of the Abrahamic god. Which is another lie used to guilt, shame, and fear Mankind into subservience to Yahweh the Semitic war god.

Amir, I’m not a fan of original sin theology either . Would even agree that it caused spiritual disempowerment. Unnecessary guilt can stunt our growth. And create a negative self-fulfilling prophecy.

But why the emphasis on a war between gods? The projection of human tendencies onto external “gods” seems to be barking up a wrong tree. Has such a tribal feel to it, instead of psychological. I’m mostly interested in the psychology of religion. Projections need to be reclaimed as being parts/aspects of ourselves. IMO

 

[RJM]

I’m not a fan of original sin theology either . Would even agree that it caused spiritual disempowerment. Unnecessary guilt can stunt our growth. And create a negative self-fulfilling prophecy.

I believe the concept of original sin comes from the fact that as natural creatures we are forced to take the life of other natutral creatures in order to sustain our own -- even by breathing and drinking water we have to kill tiny living creatures. It is why the Jain religion is symbolised by wearing a facemask and carrying a broom to sweep ahead of one's feet, to avoid stepping on anything that lives

 

[otherbrother]

Can we get back to basics?

Can we agree:
As God transcends all determination, then seeking a 'proof' because proofs exist within the sphere of the determinable?

I liked the distinction between proof and evidence. Yes to the latter. No to the former.

 

[otherbrother]

I believe the concept of original sin comes from the fact that as natural creatures we are forced to take the life of other natutral creatures in order to sustain our own -- even by breathing and drinking water we have to kill tiny living creatures. It is why the Jain religion is symbolised by wearing a facemask and carrying a broom to sweep ahead of one's feet, to avoid stepping on anything that lives

Interesting information. Never thought of that angle, the whole having to kill thing.
But still does not define us. Any more than Schizophrenia defines a person who struggles with it.

 

[RJM]

Interesting information. Never thought of that angle, the whole having to kill thing.
But still does not define us. Any more than Schizophrenia defines a person who struggles with it.

What defines a human being?
We are all born, we all die, and we all have to eat and breathe and drink ...

(We all have original sin)

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

Amir, I’m not a fan of original sin theology either . Would even agree that it caused spiritual disempowerment. Unnecessary guilt can stunt our growth. And create a negative self-fulfilling prophecy.

But why the emphasis on a war between gods? The projection of human tendencies onto external “gods” seems to be barking up a wrong tree. Has such a tribal feel to it, instead of psychological. I’m mostly interested in the psychology of religion. Projections need to be reclaimed as being parts/aspects of ourselves. IMO

I'm not at war with any gods. I don't believe in external deities however, I do see the damage theistic religions have caused in mankind.

 

[otherbrother]

“The Good Unknown” as a theist’s nickname for what they believe to be a deity? and perhaps a formal name for atheists or non-theistic thinkers?
“Great” in the common phrase “The great unknown “ has little relevance. Could be a big to-do over nothing, but “good” is what we want, big or small and “call upon” or set our minds upon.
And if a good unknown, not a god who is wearing war paint—at least not once we evolve beyond the era of tribal warfare (in which your own side thinks it’s good to destroy the other side).

 

[otherbrother]

What defines a human being?
We are all born, we all die, and we all have to eat and breathe and drink ...

(We all have original sin)

Or original conditions akin to the existentialists notion of “thrownness” , which is not that far from “crucifixion” (nailed to… conditional, relativistic, realty). Trouble being fully integrated? Disrupted wholeness?
Sin puts too bad of a mark on God’s beautiful creations called human beings. If defined by sin, He wouldn’t have said it was very good.

 

[RJM]

Sin puts too bad of a mark on God’s beautiful creations called human beings. If defined by sin, He wouldn’t have said it was very good.

But He said that before the sin of Adam?

I see it as the descent of the perfect 'spirit' man into the dimension of nature -- time and space and death -- acquiring a coat of skin?

So concepts like 'original sin' and the tree of and knowledge of good and evil, and the God-Man-Spirit Trinity concept are a symbolic way of conveying spiritual truth to natural human beings. The problem may be taking them purely at face value, without allowing the deeper meaning, which goes on to many levels?

Yahweh the Semitic war god.

The early books of the Old Testament are certainly extremely violent and brutal -- especially if you didn't happen to be a Jew.

But there is also the context of the time, and the fact that the gods of defeated tribes were even more violent and brutal, demanding the sacrifice in the fire of children, etc?

 

[RJM]

removed
see #109 above

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

removed
see #109 above

What was?

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

But He said that before the sin of Adam?

I see it as the descent of the perfect 'spirit' man into the dimension of nature -- time and space and death -- acquiring a coat of skin?

So concepts like 'original sin' and the tree of and knowledge of good and evil, and the God-Man-Spirit Trinity concept are a symbolic way of conveying spiritual truth to natural human beings. The problem may be taking them purely at face value, without allowing the deeper meaning, which goes on to many levels?

The early books of the Old Testament are certainly extremely violent and brutal -- especially if you didn't happen to be a Jew.

But there is also the context of the time, and the fact that the gods of defeated tribes were even more violent and brutal, demanding the sacrifice in the fire of children, etc?

Is there anything more psychopathic than sacrificing your own Son for the World that You Created?

 

[talib-al-kalim]

Is there anything more psychopathic than sacrificing your own Son for the World that You Created?

- You are ridiculing God by screwing God down to human scale.

- The "sacrifice of His son" is a Christian interpretation of human cruelty and its outcome. I do not share all aspects of this interpretation, neither, in particular, your interpretation.

- In my belief, I am (hopefully) a son of God in the sense of Jesus. Jesus is the Messiah, the Messenger of the rulings of the Kingdom of God. "Son of God" is a traditional title of the Messiah; Jesus rather avoided to use this title. As I have said before, the advice which we have received from the prophets is directed only to us, to be constructive within the rules of the universe. The latter includes that if a bullet from a criminal's gun hits an excellent person, that excellent person will die. The same is true if you pin an excellent person to the cross. Even if you were to discard all the miracles and traditions, you would understand that if you were to follow this Word, there would be no such death. And that is why the Word endures and can never die, and gives life, because it is the essence of what sustains our life.

 

[RJM]

Is there anything more psychopathic than sacrificing your own Son for the World that You Created?

There are infinite layers of spiritual revelation, imo. If that's the level you choose to get off on, that's your right.

“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces. Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.”
Matthew 7:6-8

What was?

I combined my post with the one above it

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

There are infinite layers of spiritual revelation, imo. If that's the level you choose to get off on, that's your right.

“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces. Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.”
Matthew 7:6-8

I combined my post with the one above it

Don't you mean "There are infinite layers of . . . Apologetics"?
A religion based on scripture is only as good as its scripture . . .

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

- You are ridiculing God by screwing God down to human scale.

- The "sacrifice of His son" is a Christian interpretation of human cruelty and its outcome. I do not share all aspects of this interpretation, neither, in particular, your interpretation.

- In my belief, I am (hopefully) a son of God in the sense of Jesus. Jesus is the Messiah, the Messenger of the rulings of the Kingdom of God. "Son of God" is a traditional title of the Messiah; Jesus rather avoided to use this title. As I have said before, the advice which we have received from the prophets is directed only to us, to be constructive within the rules of the universe. The latter includes that if a bullet from a criminal's gun hits an excellent person, that excellent person will die. The same is true if you pin an excellent person to the cross. Even if you were to discard all the miracles and traditions, you would understand that if you were to follow this Word, there would be no such death. And that is why the Word endures and can never die, and gives life, because it is the essence of what sustains our life.

Yeshua (Jesus) was a heretical Jew and stood in a line of failed messiahs.

New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman, eloquently stated:
"To call Jesus the messiah was for most Jews completely ludicrous. Jesus was not the powerful leader of the Jews. He was a weak and powerless nobody—executed in the most humiliating and painful way devised by the Romans, the ones with the real power.”

Throughout history, there have been numerous figures who were regarded as messianic by certain groups but whose movements ultimately failed to achieve their intended goals. Some of these figures include Theudas in 58 C.E., Menachem ben Judah ben Hezekiah, Simon ben Kosevah, Moses of Crete, Abu Isa, Al-Ra'i ("the shepherd of the flock of his people"), and Saüra the Syrian, among others. These individuals led messianic campaigns that did not gain widespread recognition within Abrahamic faiths, and they were all met with resistance from Roman authorities, ultimately leading to their demise. Thus, according to historical accounts, there hasn't been a universally recognized Jewish messiah, as none of these figures succeeded in fulfilling the expectations associated with the messianic role.

By the first century A.D., the Jews sought charismatic leaders capable of liberating them from Roman rule. The Essenes conceived the notion of a messianic figure who would fulfill this role. Following the demise of Jewish King Herod, who was aligned with the Romans, several Jewish leaders aspired to assume leadership. A prerequisite for messiahship was lineage tracing back to King David. However, none of the purported descendants of King David or their followers achieved success, and many met fatal ends.

 

[RJM]

"To call Jesus the messiah was for most Jews completely ludicrous. Jesus was not the powerful leader of the Jews. He was a weak and powerless nobody—executed in the most humiliating and painful way devised by the Romans, the ones with the real power.”

@'Amir Alzzalam
You need to quote this passage in full context. Please provide a link to the full passage by Bart Ehrman

 

[Thomas]

New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman, eloquently stated:
"To call Jesus the messiah was for most Jews completely ludicrous. Jesus was not the powerful leader of the Jews. He was a weak and powerless nobody—executed in the most humiliating and painful way devised by the Romans, the ones with the real power.”

Ehrman is right ... and wrong ... if he were more cognisant of the prophecies of Isaiah, he might see things differently. Similarly, if His audience were more mindful of their own prophetic heritage, they might have been expecting a Jewish Messiah, and not primarily political leader.

Isaiah 53 – sorry to cite at length, but it is relevant:

"Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? And he shall grow up as a tender plant before him, and as a root out of a thirsty ground: there is no beauty in him, nor comeliness: and we have seen him, and there was no sightliness, that we should be desirous of him: Despised, and the most abject of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with infirmity: and his look was as it were hidden and despised, whereupon we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows: and we have thought him as it were a leper, and as one struck by God and afflicted. But he was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our sins: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray, every one hath turned aside into his own way: and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was offered because it was his own will, and he opened not his mouth: he shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter, and shall be dumb as a lamb before his shearer, and he shall not open his mouth. He was taken away from distress, and from judgment: who shall declare his generation? because he is cut off out of the land of the living: for the wickedness of my people have I struck him. And he shall give the ungodly for his burial, and the rich for his death: because he hath done no iniquity, neither was there deceit in his mouth. And the Lord was pleased to bruise him in infirmity: if he shall lay down his life for sin, he shall see a long-lived seed, and the will of the Lord shall be prosperous in his hand.

Because his soul hath laboured, he shall see and be filled: by his knowledge shall this my just servant justify many, and he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I distribute to him very many, and he shall divide the spoils of the strong, because he hath delivered his soul unto death, and was reputed with the wicked: and he hath borne the sins of many, and hath prayed for the transgressors."

 

[RJM]

New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman, eloquently stated:
"To call Jesus the messiah was for most Jews completely ludicrous. Jesus was not the powerful leader of the Jews. He was a weak and powerless nobody—executed in the most humiliating and painful way devised by the Romans, the ones with the real power.”

Ehrman is right ... and wrong ... if he were more cognisant of the prophecies of Isaiah, he might see things differently. Similarly, if His audience were more mindful of their own prophetic heritage, they might have been expecting a Jewish Messiah, and not primarily political leader.

IMO Ehrman didn't stop there but went on to expand that, in spite of all this, Jesus became an extraordinary figure. Ehrman believes Jesus was an apocalyptic end-times preacher. Whoever Jesus was, Ehrman is absolutely not dismissive of Jesus or His legacy.

I'd still like to see a link to the above Bart Ehrman comment in context

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

@'Amir Alzzalam
You need to quote this passage in full context. Please provide a link to the full passage by Bart Ehrman

Do I?

The Failed Messiah Movement

During the time of Jesus, Jews hungered for a strong leader who would overthrow the tyrannical rule of the Romans and deliver them from persecution and oppression. A fanatical, extremely pious, Jewish sect called the Essenes were obsessed with the concept of a messianic strong man, probably influenc

www.linkedin.com