Yahweh and Allah. Are they moral and ethical Gods?

Post Reply New Topic

The bible says that once God says a thing, it is forever, so if you accept a new testament, you are going against your own bible. You are insinuation, indirectly, that there was something wrong with what God had drawn up as a covenant.

As to what the scribes put in Jesus' mouth, you will note how he goes against the holy books by allowing a man to work on the Sabbath with impunity by saying that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.

This also infers that religions and God are made for man and not man for Gods.

Now. To your immoral use of Jesus as your scapegoat. Care to discuss the morality of what you are doing and asking your God to accept. First a link for you then an argument if you care about your immoral stance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKNup9g ... gest-vrecs

Human sacrifice is evil and God demanding one and accepting one is evil.

Those trying to profit from that evil are evil. Do just a bit of thinking and you will agree.

Imagine you have two children. One of your children does something wrong – say it curses, or throws a temper tantrum, or something like that. In fact, say it does this on a regular basis, and you continually forgive your child, but it never seems to change.

Now suppose one day you’ve had enough, you need to do something different. You still wish to forgive your child, but nothing has worked. Do you go to your second child, your good child, and punish it to atone for the sins of the first?

In fact, if you ever saw a parent on the street punish one of their children for the actions of their other child, how would you react? Would you support their decision, or would you be offended? Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.

Interestingly, some historical royal families would beat their slaves when their own children did wrong – you should not, after all, ever beat a prince. The question is: what kind of lesson does that teach the child who actually did the harm? Does it teach them to be a better person, to stop doing harm, or does it teach them both that they won't themselves be punished, and also that punishing other people is normal? I know that's not a lesson I would want to teach my children, and I suspect it's not a lesson most Christians would want to teach theirs. So why does God?

For me, that’s at least one significant reason I find Jesus’ atonement of our sin to be morally repugnant – of course, that’s assuming Jesus ever existed; that original sin actually exists; that God actually exists; etc.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?
If not, please show how it is morally and legally good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, bearing in mind that all legal systems think that punishing the guilty is what is justice.

Regards
DL

Thanks for your detailed reaction!
Still I guess there's something missing: God was not just punishing another child, Jesus is the incarnation of God on earth, God is himself taken the burden of our guilt and not just anybody else.

Gnostics perhaps deny the divinity of Jesus, but in "traditional" Christianity there's no problem with the dogma that Jesus is carrying the punishment, cause it's God himself carrying it on his own shoulders.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

You go ahead and think that God chose himself, to sacrifice himself, to himself, to appease his own wrath, if you like, ---- but that notions is not exactly intelligent.

All good justice seeks to punish the guilty instead of the innocent so how do you see punishing the innocent as good justice?

Regards
DL

This is a difficult one, don't think too easy about it

In Christianity there are two things that are both important, there's a dynamic between them:
- On the one side there's the belief that we humans are so filled with injustice, that you will lose all hope of being redeemed, but rather expect severe punishment from God.
- On the other side there's the belief that God's grace is so strong, that it is open to everyone.
- One moment you can belief that you're so full of injustice, accepting grace would feel like "stealing" it, because you don't deserve it
- Another moment you can belief it's also there for you, even if you don't deserve it, because of grace
- On the one side this leads to a deeper knowledge of sin
- On the other side you can get a deeper sense of God's grace
- One thing we learn in the Old Convenant
- The other in the New

I guess the dynamic between these two things is imporant. You see, these two things are two extremes. And an individual has only a limited ability to tolerate extremes. When a person is put too much or too long between two extremes, this leads to a state wherein the individual will cannot act, cannot choose, and where another will then can assume control. God's will can assume control.

In Gnosticism this balance seems lost in some way, when you skip the Old Convenant

So difficult that you ignored the issue.

Not surprising that you would try to deflect from it like all good hypocritical Christians seem to do.

Regards
DL

Job 38 comes to mind

It's long
Read it if you have time


https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2038

Chutzpah-Ly yours

Zvi

Christians read the same bible to promote slavery as well as fight it and you think an unsupported reading of your garbage we will both understand the same way.



Regards
DL

Perhaps WP readers might like The Screw Tape Letters

Zvi
"Reader and Righter"

Besides, both Jew and Muslim have the same common ancestors: Jacob and Esau. When Jacob stole the blessing from Issac meant from Esau, it fulfilled the promise JHWH made to their mother Rebekah, as documented in Genesis 25.

As far as I'm concerned, the Jews and the Muslims will continue to make war against each other as both Jacob (Israel) and Esau fought during their lifetimes.

Jacob at the end saw Esau coming with lots of people.

Jacob started bowing and expected bad things happening

Esau was ready to forgive and even refused Jacob's offering
He did come to accept them after many refusals as per tradition of the time.

Things do go on and on and on and on and on...

Arabs, and Jews, have a common ancestry. Not "Muslims and Jews".

Or at least the two ethnic groups have a mythological common ancestry from a single family described in the Bible.

Jews are both a religion, and ethnic group. Muslims are a religion, but not an ethnic group.Arabs are an ethnic group, but not a religion.

And Islam did not exist until almost three thousand years after the time that Jacob and Esau lived according to the Bible.

Not so, at least did not intend to. I'll put your statements and mine together



I say:
- we humans are filled with injustice = no one is innocent
- you can lose all hope of being redeemed, but rather expect severe punishment from God = no one can escape suffering

But on the other side there's the belief that God's grace is so strong, that it is open to everyone = our escape



So I say:
- One thing we learn in the Old Convenant
- The other in the New
- The Old Convenant teaches us knowledge of sin and your injustice
- The New Convenant teaches us grace



it teaches us children that we need both:
- with getting knowledge of sin and injustice, we understand that we just cannot "steal" grace, we're unworthy
- with getting a sense of the depth of Gods grace, we understand that we just cannot reject it, because that would be an offence too
from that position we come to accept we cannot chose, our individuel will is useless, it cannot guide us, and we can finally come to accept God's will; our lack of control, his control

this is what in reformed theology is called "steps of grace", spiritual guide
also explains why there is first one convenant and than, later, another: first comes a sense of injustice, later a sense of grace, and then it's the dynamic between the two

of course you don't have to agree, you can find your arguments better than mine, that's fine; I just don't like the suggestion that in "traditional" Christianity people didn't think about these issues, justice and injustice, they just look for the solution elsewhere
You know, I would admit the gnostic solution to this problem is not an unintelligent one, but it presupposes a certain duality (benevolent God - malevolent Yahweh), and though this seems a solution to explain injustice, then they need arguments to explain this duality

This is a moral and legal issue and nowhere do you touch those issues.
Get thee behind me Satan.

Regards
DL

That's offensive.

You know, that's exactly how corporations sell products... convince you that you're flawed, and then offer the solution.

Yaweh = Allah except on a set of measure zero. They are the same Semitic Abrahamic Deity. The Abrahamic god is extremely unpleasant. The Christians latched on to a gnostic god, God the Father who is more pleasant but is probably senile which is why he has turned over operations to the Son....

The Gnostic God is not God the Father.

The Gnostic God is I am, and yes, we mean that man is the supreme creature and entity here.

The father and son thing is just metaphors we use to seek Gnosis within us.

Regards
DL