The Lemon Fool

I'm not sure how much longer I will be posting here but I would like to offer this challenge to all Christians and other believers their central doctrine of faith who sincerely believe that God condemned the whole human race after Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden and the ONLY way to rectify that is to believe that God sent his only Son into the world to die on a cross to shed his blood in order that we may all be saved and receive Salvation and of course entry into heaven and any refusal will result in eternal damnation.

So the question that not one believer has been able to answer and I have asked many is this..

Why would most loving parents forgive their children ANYTHING they have done no matter how bad, because they love them and don't even need for them to say 'sorry, I messed up'? And yet they tell us that God won't accept that and demands we have to believe not just even a sorry God 'I messed up' but a human blood sacrifice to receive his forgiveness. ie and yet they will tell you, God's love is completely 'unconditional'?

I will leave you to ponder that one...Professors of theology have not been able to explain that either..

Its suggests that human love is far superior to God's love. And why I don't believe a word of it. I did once OK..

Does this matter? No if there are no consequences in doing so...But is it realistic the Church could still exist in its present form IF that wasn't true?

Well not all Christians believe in the concept of original sin. Some believe the entire thing was planned before the events in the Garden, and was created for us, not to necessarily condemn us.

I do like the analogy to a parent though.

RR

beeswax wrote: So the question that not one believer has been able to answer and I have asked many is this..

Why would most loving parents forgive their children ANYTHING they have done no matter how bad, because they love them and don't even need for them to say 'sorry, I messed up'? And yet they tell us that God won't accept that and demands we have to believe not just even a sorry God 'I messed up' but a human blood sacrifice to receive his forgiveness. ie and yet they will tell you, God's love is completely 'unconditional'?

I will leave you to ponder that one...Professors of theology have not been able to explain that either..

Its suggests that human love is far superior to God's love. And why I don't believe a word of it. I did once OK..

Does this matter? No if there are no consequences in doing so...But is it realistic the Church could still exist in its present form IF that wasn't true?

I think the question has been answered, but since the person answering simply didn't throw up their hands and say "gee, beeswax, you are correct", you just don't like the answer.

I don't think earthly parents would simply forgive a child anything without some sort of contrition or repentance on the part of the child. A loving parent will tell you the rules, and if you break them, sure there is forgiveness, but not without some sort of price. In Christianity, I think the simplest way to say it is Christ pays that price for us, regardless of who we are or what we believe. So your question is interesting, and actually instructive as being a parent, some believe, is the closest you can come to knowing God in a way.

Would an Earthly parent allow their first born to die to save 1000 people? 100? The analogy between God and our Earthly parents is intriguing, but not a direct equation.

The NT says for us to forgive "70 times 7". I don't believe it to be a specific number Christ was telling Peter, rather than the advice to forgive quite a bit.

Now, that is good advice for anyone, whether they believe or not. Surely, you, beeswax, can "forgive" people who are members of faith, and despite this, try and find common ground. Or is your wrath like this "God" of ours?

Hypothetical of course.

RR

beeswax wrote:Why would most loving parents forgive their children ANYTHING they have done no matter how bad, because they love them

Ahh, unconditional love. A ridiculous concept IMV, simply inviting abuse and a dreadful example. One's actions have consequences and you have an absolute responsibility to teach this to your children. Too many no longer bother, perhaps because it's hard work and emotionally challenging and the cost to society in various ways, is enormous.

Sussexlad wrote:

beeswax wrote:Why would most loving parents forgive their children ANYTHING they have done no matter how bad, because they love them

Ahh, unconditional love. A ridiculous concept IMV, simply inviting abuse and a dreadful example. One's actions have consequences and you have an absolute responsibility to teach this to your children. Too many no longer bother, perhaps because it's hard work and emotionally challenging and the cost to society in various ways, is enormous.

Getting off topic here but I think unconditional love of a child is an important concept. It doesn't mean that you don't teach the difference between right and wrong, but you criticise the child's action rather than withdraw your love from the child.

Clariman wrote:

Sussexlad wrote:Ahh, unconditional love. A ridiculous concept IMV, simply inviting abuse and a dreadful example. One's actions have consequences and you have an absolute responsibility to teach this to your children. Too many no longer bother, perhaps because it's hard work and emotionally challenging and the cost to society in various ways, is enormous.

Getting off topic here but I think unconditional love of a child is an important concept. It doesn't mean that you don't teach the difference between right and wrong, but you criticise the child's action rather than withdraw your love from the child.

My take is that ALL relationships are conditional, including that with God, if you accept there is a God ! The problem with faith is that it's all one-way i.e. you do this and that and ignore any tragedy that comes your way and somewhere down the line, you will be rewarded ! That isn't a loving relationship, that's abuse.

Sussexlad wrote:My take is that ALL relationships are conditional, including that with God, if you accept there is a God ! The problem with faith is that it's all one-way i.e. you do this and that and ignore any tragedy that comes your way and somewhere down the line, you will be rewarded ! That isn't a loving relationship, that's abuse.

It it certainly can seem that way. That is why I say that making comparisons to Earthly parents with a Heavenly parent is limited in a way. However, parallels can be drawn of course.

Clariman wrote:Getting off topic here but I think unconditional love of a child is an important concept. It doesn't mean that you don't teach the difference between right and wrong, but you criticise the child's action rather than withdraw your love from the child.

I agree, but unfortunately a child most of the time doesn't understand the rules and limitations a parent places on them are for their protection. Growing up, especially during the teenage years, they misinterpret it as being controlling or domineering and sometimes a punishment as being a sign that their parents don't love them.

It is not that off topic really, imo.

RR

Its no problem teaching children things. Its all part of growing up. My challenge was that no matter what your kids do, you don't abandon them and you don't insist on them giving you a thing in return. Not a sausage! You love them that is why but also in general terms people forgive others the whole time too. That IS 'unconditional' love and 'unconditional' forgiveness.

Its completely the opposite with Christianity where their central doctrine of membership is that God is angry based wholly on the biblical Adam 's disobedience to him in the Garden. They then say that you HAVE to believe in a human sacrifice re Jesus in order that God will forgive you so you can enter heaven. That is obviously highly conditional and its worse than that. IF you don't believe it. There is another punishment that God has for you and that is to torment you not just for a day or a week or even a year. But for ever and ever..

I have decided that is complete nonsense with not an ounce of truth in it and made up by ignorant men who needed a bogie man to get you to join their gang! It also does a great dis-service to God for those that do believe in him but are not Christians..Its actually an evil doctrine!

The challenge still stands and its virtually 'check mate'...as no right thinking person could possibly come up with any other rational explanation and none have so far..Does it really matter nowadays though? That is up to others to decide? I think it matters a lot and another reason why I reject the Church's and Paul's view on this as I'm not convinced Jesus actually taught that at all. In fact he was forgiving people the whole time before he went to the Cross and even the Lord's prayer mentions forgiving others as well.

beeswax wrote:I think it matters a lot and another reason why I reject the Church's and Paul's view on this as I'm not convinced Jesus actually taught that at all.

Much of the Christian religion was set up by Paul of Tarsus. I believe his "letters" to various Mediterranean cities pre-date the actual Gospels, which were written to give the back story as a dramatisation.

beeswax wrote: You love them that is why but also in general terms people forgive others the whole time too. That IS 'unconditional' love and 'unconditional' forgiveness.

I accept that people can get along amiably after a spat, that is not IMV akin to loving them, unless of course you are suggesting there is a fundamental principle that we all love our fellow man. Looking from the other POV, I'm not sure I'd want to be loved 'unconditionally' anyway. I want to be loved because they find something special about me. I just think all relationships incur responsibilities and without that, some form of abuse is almost inevitable.

Sussexlad wrote:

beeswax wrote: You love them that is why but also in general terms people forgive others the whole time too. That IS 'unconditional' love and 'unconditional' forgiveness.

I accept that people can get along amiably after a spat, that is not IMV akin to loving them, unless of course you are suggesting there is a fundamental principle that we all love our fellow man. Looking from the other POV, I'm not sure I'd want to be loved 'unconditionally' anyway. I want to be loved because they find something special about me. I just think all relationships incur responsibilities and without that, some form of abuse is almost inevitable.

You make a good point above what 'love' actually means..

Jesus said to his disciples to love each other as he has loved them...question, what did love mean there?

He also said to love our neighbours as we love ourselves. What does that mean? I have often wondered how many people actually 'love' themselves anyway? I also wonder if something was lost in the translations?

We are told to Love God? Because he loves us. What does that mean? When there is so much suffering in the world?

I think the only way we can perhaps understand 'love' is how we think of the ones we care for in our families and how many of us would give our own lives for them if that was needed? Maybe that is what Jesus was alluding too?

One thing I have never agreed with is to 'love' our enemies? WHY? Why should I forgive someone who may have raped and murdered my wife or child? Why should any Jew forgive the Natzi's for murdering 6 million of them during the war? Indeed why would God himself forgive them? Jesus was supposed to have asked God to forgive those who nailed him to the Cross as they didn't know what they were doing.

I think the word 'love' means different things and maybe where our neighbours and others is concerned, maybe the word 'respect' would be better? Of course for some people the word 'love' can mean carnal love which adds to the confusion.

Alaric wrote:

beeswax wrote:I think it matters a lot and another reason why I reject the Church's and Paul's view on this as I'm not convinced Jesus actually taught that at all.

Much of the Christian religion was set up by Paul of Tarsus. I believe his "letters" to various Mediterranean cities pre-date the actual Gospels, which were written to give the back story as a dramatisation.

Yes, Paul's doctrines are taught more than Jesus, especially sacrificial atonement and Mosaic Law. Where Paul said Jesus was the new Covenant and overturned the law. Jesus and his disciples said and did the opposite. Its why in reality IF people were to follow the teachings of Jesus, they would be Jews and not Pauline Christianity.

Historians say Paul's letters were were written about 50-60 AD ie 20-30 years after the crucifixion which is quite surprising and the first Gospel written was Mark and the rest later with John's Gospel written towards the end of the first century. And why arguably its so different to the synoptics and reflected and inflated the idea that Jesus was God. Again something Jesus himself would never have said or agreed with.

Jesus's message was really quite simple and it took Paul and the emerging mostly hierarchal Church to mess it all up..

Most Christians believe the Gospels to have been written by the Disciples. Most if not all serious historians, including Christians say none of the writers were identified and were anonymous by non eye witnesses. Most of the disciples would have died before they were written.

One thing I think about is IF Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus three years after he was crucified, then WHY didn't he appear to Muhammad in the 6th century that would avoided all the conflicts and deaths between the competing groups? We still don't know why Muslims want to kill Jews and Christians other than their Jihad? ie to convert or destroy the opposition.

I tried to add this to my previous post and was told I have run out of time and wonder why so little time to do that? Obviously part of the software but just guessing?

beeswax wrote:One thing I think about is IF Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus three years after he was crucified, then WHY didn't he appear to Muhammad in the 6th century that would avoided all the conflicts and deaths between the competing groups? We still don't know why Muslims want to kill Jews and Christians other than their Jihad? ie to convert or destroy the opposition.

Perhaps because it was all made up by men for their own purposes?

I tried to add this to my previous post and was told I have run out of time and wonder why so little time to do that? Obviously part of the software but just guessing?

There is a five minute window for editing. Much better than TMF that allowed no editing and sufficient to correct silly typos or add a quick afterthought. Unlimited editing though could make a nonsense of threads as posters could re-edit posts that have already been replied to and change their meaning.

John

Hi John, re editing...Yes, that makes sense and much better than TMF..

ATB

Mike

beeswax wrote:Historians say Paul's letters were were written about 50-60 AD ie 20-30 years after the crucifixion which is quite surprising and the first Gospel written was Mark and the rest later with John's Gospel written towards the end of the first century.

The historical context being an ultimately successful attempt to spread the new religion to the Roman Empire in Europe. Hence the removal of bans on European staples such as pork.

The Christian church has an interesting history which raises all sorts of questions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-38562679