Anyone one seen The Christ,

[shereads]

Yes, it is more than obvious that you come from a Baptist upbringing. As they emphasis reading the New Testement for the young in Sunday school, more than the Old Testement. And I understand why they take this approach as the Old Testement is pretty long winded when it comes to God's Laws, the begates, and all of that measuring stuff about the Ark of the Covenent, and the Temple, and add infinitum. (The Old Testement though is used more often out on the pulpit during services, for all of those fire, and brimstone sermons.) And the Baptists aren't the only ones who use this approach in Sunday School. And they do it for that time when as teenagers we start to question everything, even our God, and our faith, or even our need for a savior.

However, there was a good reason for this verbosity in the Old Testement. Especially concerning the Ark of the Covenent, and the Temple of God. They were to resemble as much as possible, down here on Earth, the one in heaven where God truely lives. Let me presume for a moment that you've seen the Indiana Jones movie: "Raider's of the Lost Ark." The Ark in Heaven is exactly the same as the real Ark down here, and sits right in front of God, just below this throne. As seen in the movie there are two Cherubs on top of it.

These two Cherubs have names, one is Justice, the other is Mercy. And again if you've seen the movie "Raider's of the Lost Ark," you know that they face each other constantly on top of the Ark. They are, in a manner of speaking, the character of God, and they are a constant reminder that his judgements, and laws are held responcible to them. And the consequence of disobeying any of God's Laws is death. (There is a reason for this, but you didn't ask for that.)

Justice sits atop the Ark to uphold the Laws of God. Justice therefore requires proof that the punishment of death has been satisfied, and the only proof it will accept is the blood of death. As any forensic doctor will tell you there is a difference between the blood of a living being, and the blood of a dead one. Thus when Adam and Eve were tricked into disobeying God they immediately were sentenced to death by Justice. Tricked or not they had free will, and ignorance as we all know is no excuse, or defense against the law. And like it or not that's just a fact of life. However they were not ignorant of this law.

On the other hand, there is the other Cherub atop of the Ark whose name is Mercy, right. And its power is as infinite as Justice's, as it too is the character of God, so to speak. Had God's Mercy not intervened Adam and Eve would have died no later than with the end of that day in payment for their sin of disobeying God's only Law concerning them at that time. Law#1 given by God only to Adam and Eve stated: "To not eat fruit of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil." Now they could eat any other fruit in the garden of Eden, even the fruit from the "Tree of Life," if they so wished. Just not from the "Tree of knowledge of good, and evil." Now since God's Mercy is also infinit, and just as demanding as Justice, God was forced to come up with a plan to first temporarily gratify Justice's demands for death, and still allow Adam, and Eve to live a full life, and later their offspring. God's wrath is fierce, but his love never is never ending. Now God has infinit wisdom too, so when he came up with the plan of using innocent blood to appease the demands of Justice, I have to believe that as an all knowing God it would have to be the best possible plan of all to satisfy both his sense of Justice, and Mercy both at the same time. And it does. So God replaced the figleaves that Adam and Eve had put on with the skins of dead innocent animals, and expelled them from the Garden of Eden so that they wouldn't be able to eat the fruit from the Tree of Life, and without eating that fruit their bodies would eventually die in corruption.

Now if your sensibilities abhore the sight of blood, and especially the blood of innocents I'm really sorry. (If you're an animal lover you're probably a vegetarian, right?) Imagine if you will what it does for a loving God, our real father in heaven, and the creator of all things. If you aren't one already, then imagin being a parent, and having your child misbehave, or say that they don't love you. Then multiply that by the amount of people who have ever lived, and those who will live after us. Your pain by comparison with God's would be as insignificant as a grain of sand on one dead and forgotten planet in a vast universe, wouldn't it. Yet your pain seldom lasts because the two of you eventually reconcile your differences. However as the adult you knew all along that your child didn't mean to disobey, nor did they stop loving you. It just hurt, and by God it hurt you a great deal when it happened, didn't it. In fact when we become parents we find that we become angry when our children disobey us, and more so when it is for no apparent reason. In fact we can get so irrationally angry at times that we have to litterally get away from the child, or send it to its room before we might end up doing any real harm to it for its transgression. We know that with a little time and space between us that when we do get back together we can assign a fair and just punishment for their offense. We also know that neither the child or us will like the punishment, but we at least know that it has to be given, and we also know that it is much less punishment than the offender really deserves.

You see, we were made in the image of God, and like him Justice, and Mercy are a part of our character they always sit before us staring at each other demanding our attention. Oh sure, many people manage to cover them up so that they don't see them, but they never go away. And they never stop demanding. Hey, he could have made us like robots. But God didn't want Robots folks, he wants our loving companionship. That's one of the reasons why he gave us free will, and made us in his image of himself. And something my dad always said was: "You want to live in my house? Then you live by my rules!"

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

Thank you, DM. You are a far more interesting preacher than any of the ones that used to put me to sleep on Sundays.

Meanwhile: do you want that green running dollop-thing AV, or not? It sure wants you.

 

[shereads]

I'm going to skip it. I don't handle violence well and fainting in the aisle will not have any positive impact on my faith.

No, but it would make a good story and might inspire some other movie-goers.

I'm going to give it a miss because I can't even handle the sound effects. Even closing my eyes during torture and brutality scenes doesn't help. I had more nightmares about the stabbing scene in "Lookiing for Mister Goodbar" than any other movie I can remember, and there was very little to see.

Whenever I watch realistic brutality on film, even if it's tongue-in-cheek as in Pulp Fiction, I find myself wondering if there isn't a tiny percentage of viewers who are enjoying the torture, wanting to try it on someone. The headlines tell us there are people like that. I'm not saying I'm in favor of censorship; I don't "blame" the movies for the actions of sick people. But I get too much pain from the daily news - the real-life stories about serial killers and animal torturers and child rapists, to subject myself to that sick feeling when I'm watching a movie that I volunteered to see.

 

[Dirt Man]

Thank you, DM. You are a far more interesting preacher than any of the ones that used to put me to sleep on Sundays.

Meanwhile: do you want that green running dollop-thing AV, or not? It sure wants you.

Actually, I'm not a preacher. Just a brother of Christ. As for the AV, I saw you using it here so I use it on another site. Hope you don't mind. It's less confusing this way.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[Pure]

Hi DM

Now they could eat any other fruit in the garden of Eden, even the fruit from the "Tree of Life," if they so wished. Just not from the "Tree of knowledge of good, and evil." Now since God's Mercy is also infinit, and just as demanding as Justice, God was forced to come up with a plan to first temporarily gratify Justice's demands for death, and still allow Adam, and Eve to live a full life, and later their offspring. God's wrath is fierce, but his love never is never ending. Now God has infinit wisdom too, so when he came up with the plan of using innocent blood to appease the demands of Justice, I have to believe that as an all knowing God it would have to be the best possible plan of all to satisfy both his sense of Justice, and Mercy both at the same time. And it does. So God replaced the figleaves that Adam and Eve had put on with the skins of dead innocent animals, and expelled them from the Garden of Eden so that they wouldn't be able to eat the fruit from the Tree of Life, and without eating that fruit their bodies would eventually die in corruption.

First of all, blood for blood (of the parties). That's a primitive concept, which the Jews were abandoning. I kill someone; their relatives kill me. The Jews already had cities of refuge for some of these cases, since in its crudest form, even the accidental killing of someone could bring retaliation.

Second, I sort of see blood for blood, for non parties in some other cases. I kill you. Your relatives, unable to find me, kill my son in return. Mine was innocent, but his blood 'pays' for the blood I shed. But it is unfair. It doesn't sound like a 'divine' plan.
It still sounds unfair if it's your son I killed, and mine dies in return.

Now coming to God's plan. There are men's sins. There are also ways that people repent. It's all through the OT. As you say, repentence, in the presence of God's gracious love, works. Eg., in Hosea.

If they repent, make amends, there's no need of blood:
Changing one's ways, and making amends, turning to God, receiving the gift of forgiveness is quite sufficient in the OT for most things.

No blood is need to cleanse them.

I suppose you may say, "repentance doesn't work on its own"; man is too corrupt; the repentance needs the vital blood supplement. Yet that is not consistent with the OT. No blood was needed; certainly nothing extraordinary.

As you can see, this is a version of the 'people/sinners before Christ' problem. Are you saying the divine process of justice wasn't working? That too many were getting a raw deal? (too harsh penalty). If sinners before Christ were treated justly, it's plain no 'extra' acts (including bloodshed) or such are needed.
Did a Jew before Jesus never get a 'just' reward or consequence of his or her life?

In all, the blood game seems pointless: Since God makes the rules of the game (requirements of justice) he can as easily change the rules, as go through a complicated 'sacrifice' procedure of an innocent (a procedure he set up as allegedly just).

If you were talking the Furies of ancient Greece, who exist alongside the gods, yes they had to be appeased. A god's forgiveness is not enough. But in Christian monotheism there is nothing apart from God, setting requirements.

Just some thoughts, for your wisdom.

J.

 

[English Lady]

Pure..yup repentance has always worked but back in the OT it was a temporary thing till you sinned again and every little sin is the same in God's eyes and man doesn't always see his sin as a sin.

"No hunny your bum doesn't look big in that" although the right answer if you don't believe it 100% it's a lie. A lie is a sin and Pop! there goes your eternal life.


God knew that the repenting thing was not going to work in the long run. Nope he had to come up with a better plan and in comes Jesus. One sacrifice to cover all sins. The ultimate redemption.

 

[Dirt Man]

Hi DM

Now they could eat any other fruit in the garden of Eden, even the fruit from the "Tree of Life," if they so wished. Just not from the "Tree of knowledge of good, and evil." Now since God's Mercy is also infinit, and just as demanding as Justice, God was forced to come up with a plan to first temporarily gratify Justice's demands for death, and still allow Adam, and Eve to live a full life, and later their offspring. God's wrath is fierce, but his love never is never ending. Now God has infinit wisdom too, so when he came up with the plan of using innocent blood to appease the demands of Justice, I have to believe that as an all knowing God it would have to be the best possible plan of all to satisfy both his sense of Justice, and Mercy both at the same time. And it does. So God replaced the figleaves that Adam and Eve had put on with the skins of dead innocent animals, and expelled them from the Garden of Eden so that they wouldn't be able to eat the fruit from the Tree of Life, and without eating that fruit their bodies would eventually die in corruption.

First of all, blood for blood (of the parties). That's a primitive concept, which the Jews were abandoning. I kill someone; their relatives kill me. The Jews already had cities of refuge for some of these cases, since in its crudest form, even the accidental killing of someone could bring retaliation.

First of all, God only gave mankind 10 commandments to live by. So whatever you're trying to imply here about an eye for an eye crap is just nonesense. But then so was most of the Mosaic laws.

Second, I sort of see blood for blood, for non parties in some other cases. I kill you. Your relatives, unable to find me, kill my son in return. Mine was innocent, but his blood 'pays' for the blood I shed. But it is unfair. It doesn't sound like a 'divine' plan.
It still sounds unfair if it's your son I killed, and mine dies in return.

Now coming to God's plan. There are men's sins. There are also ways that people repent. It's all through the OT. As you say, repentence, in the presence of God's gracious love, works. Eg., in Hosea.

If they repent, make amends, there's no need of blood:
Changing one's ways, and making amends, turning to God, receiving the gift of forgiveness is quite sufficient in the OT for most things.

No blood is need to cleanse them.

I suppose you may say, "repentance doesn't work on its own"; man is too corrupt; the repentance needs the vital blood supplement. Yet that is not consistent with the OT. No blood was needed; certainly nothing extraordinary.

As you can see, this is a version of the 'people/sinners before Christ' problem. Are you saying the divine process of justice wasn't working? That too many were getting a raw deal? (too harsh penalty). If sinners before Christ were treated justly, it's plain no 'extra' acts (including bloodshed) or such are needed.
Did a Jew before Jesus never get a 'just' reward or consequence of his or her life?

In all, the blood game seems pointless: Since God makes the rules of the game (requirements of justice) he can as easily change the rules, as go through a complicated 'sacrifice' procedure of an innocent (a procedure he set up as allegedly just).

If you were talking the Furies of ancient Greece, who exist alongside the gods, yes they had to be appeased. A god's forgiveness is not enough. But in Christian monotheism there is nothing apart from God, setting requirements.

Just some thoughts, for your wisdom.

J.

Adding dozens of subtle questions, and inuendo, and then giving your own answer afterwards as if trying to corral me into agreeing with anything that you've said above is ridiculous. I've already explained everything anyone needs to know about the requirements of blood sacrifices. I'm not asking anyone to believe it, and I'm certainly not telling people to start blood sacrifices in any way shape or form. And for your information, what the basic reason for the Old Testement was is that it pointed to Jesus Christ's coming. But then I've met many people like you in my life. You don't even realize it when you are persecuting others for their beliefs. I pity you. How empty your life must be. You don't even know the reason for man's existance, do you?

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[Pure]

Hi Dirt M,

the basic reason for the Old Testement was is that it pointed to Jesus Christ's coming.

The Jews, of course, being unaware of this. Of course, while professing to admire the OT, you cast aside some of its central teachings. You imply that 'sinners' before Christ had inadequate means available, for salvation. Was Moses, for example, 'saved'?

How would that be done without Jesus 'blood'?

Why do I need Jesus' blood, and Moses not**?

But then I've met many people like you in my life. You don't even realize it when you are persecuting others for their beliefs.

How so?

I pity you.

Thanks, sir. I was lacking my morning dose.

How empty your life must be. You don't even know the reason for man's existance, do you?

According to you, it's useless to ask the rabbis. Hey, maybe it's

to do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with the Lord. {{Mic 6:8}}

Naw, couldn't be!.. That's so... how do I say this delicately... Jewish?


Best,

J.

**I know, I'm not Moses, but how about righteous Joe Doe who lived next door to Moses. Did he get 'saved' without Jesus' blood?

 

[KenJames]

No, but it would make a good story and might inspire some other movie-goers.

I'm going to give it a miss because I can't even handle the sound effects. Even closing my eyes during torture and brutality scenes doesn't help. I had more nightmares about the stabbing scene in "Lookiing for Mister Goodbar" than any other movie I can remember, and there was very little to see.

Whenever I watch realistic brutality on film, even if it's tongue-in-cheek as in Pulp Fiction, I find myself wondering if there isn't a tiny percentage of viewers who are enjoying the torture, wanting to try it on someone. The headlines tell us there are people like that. I'm not saying I'm in favor of censorship; I don't "blame" the movies for the actions of sick people. But I get too much pain from the daily news - the real-life stories about serial killers and animal torturers and child rapists, to subject myself to that sick feeling when I'm watching a movie that I volunteered to see.

Happily, I was able to give first aid to a guy who suffered a potentially life-threatening cut in a camping accident and didn't feel dizzy or sick until afterwards.

I've learned to stay away from movies where I know there will be that level of graphic violence. "Last Temptation" was an excellent movie, but I spent too many moments with my head between my legs hoping I wouldn't pass out completely.

Real life is bad enough without subjecting myself to movie violence. I made the mistake of reading a "Passion" thread on AOL and was disturbed to see how many people thought it was their holy duty to take their young children to see it.

 

[Pure]

//it was their holy duty to take their young children to see it.//

If they're to be 'washed in the blood' best to see lots of it.

 

[English Lady]

This is where I wish i had a better memory for bible verses OR i had my old bible that was nicked when I was burgled a few years back .



Well I used to go to a youth group at a church in a very posh area. Alot of the members were university students so when you got them together (especially the lads) it always ended in debate. I remember one was over exactly what you've just said...how will the old testament Men and women of God be saved? Now I went home and talked ot my mother about it and she told me a verse...now i think it was in Johns letters or revelation(I just can't remember) and in it it explains that God would judge on wether these people would have accepted Christ and his death and ressurection. God would know, he knows everything *S*

Now maybe someone can help me out and quote the verse i'm on about to prove I'm not making it up.

But Pure..you're bound to pick some holes in it anyway...so you might as well do it now as to wait for the bible reference

 

[Guest]

I'm quite pleased that this movie has been made, because it could lead to a serious reconsideration of the sadomasochistic male homoerotic aspect of Pauline Christianity. But I doubt it, frankly.

The comical sexual prurience, combined with the revelling in cruelty and violence is something that Europeans often remark on in U.S. movies; thank God I live in a country that prefers sex to violence!

On the positive side, the film has served to "out" a number of closet antisemites on both sides of the Atlantic, as well as exposed a hysterical paranoia in certain quarters of the Jewish population. This airing of attitudes can only be constructive in the long run.

 

[shereads]

I'm quite pleased that this movie has been made, because it could lead to a serious reconsideration of the sadomasochistic male homoerotic aspect of Pauline Christianity.

Unless I'm mistaken - and note that I'm an agnostic, so I have no particular axe to grind here - Pauline Christianity is a female impersonator who works the clubs in South Beach. She's not into violence at all. It's true that she was the passive cause of a few bar fights last season, but she's cleaned up her act since then.

Or are you thinking of someone else altogether?

 

[Pure]

It's true Pauline was at one time classed as a female impersonator, but now having had gender reassignment surgery, ''he" is now simply "Paul".... or "Saint Paul" to those who admire "his" legendary self restraint.

sher said,
//Unless I'm mistaken - and note that I'm an agnostic, so I have no particular axe to grind here - Pauline Christianity is a female impersonator who works the clubs in South Beach. She's not into violence at all. It's true that she was the passive cause of a few bar fights last season, but she's cleaned up her act since then. //

 

[Guest]

Pauline Christianity was a punk rocker in the eighties in the Bay Area. Into body-piercing in a big way.

She had a disgusting stage act with her band "Jesus Fucking Christ", which she would perform to their rendition of "How Beatiful are the Feet" from Handel's Messiah

 

[Pure]

English said, "But Pure..you're bound to pick some holes in it anyway...so you might as well do it now as to wait for the bible reference "

Tattered Christian dogmas hardly require my efforts to poke holes; vicarious atonement, incarnation, virgin birth, and body resurrection are long-questioned, e.g., by some quakers and mennonites, and dubiously related to the original gospel material so far as it can be known.

 

[Dirt Man]

Hi Dirt M,

the basic reason for the Old Testement was is that it pointed to Jesus Christ's coming.

The Jews, of course, being unaware of this. Of course, while professing to admire the OT, you cast aside some of its central teachings. You imply that 'sinners' before Christ had inadequate means available, for salvation. Was Moses, for example, 'saved'?

How would that be done without Jesus 'blood'?

Why do I need Jesus' blood, and Moses not**?

But then I've met many people like you in my life. You don't even realize it when you are persecuting others for their beliefs.

How so?

I pity you.

Thanks, sir. I was lacking my morning dose.

How empty your life must be. You don't even know the reason for man's existance, do you?

According to you, it's useless to ask the rabbis. Hey, maybe it's

to do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with the Lord. {{Mic 6:8}}

Naw, couldn't be!.. That's so... how do I say this delicately... Jewish?


Best,

J.

**I know, I'm not Moses, but how about righteous Joe Doe who lived next door to Moses. Did he get 'saved' without Jesus' blood?

I have never IMPLIED ANYTHING. But since you have brought up the subject. Right at the very beginning, when Adam, and Eve sinned, and were thrown out of the Garden of Eden, they were told by God that they would die, and return to the dirt from whence they came. But that Eve would be the mother of all mankind, and bare an heir to the kingdom of heaven who would one day raise them out of iniquity. Her third son, Seth was that child. His linage in the bible is traced to King David, and King David's linage is traced to Jesus Christ. That's why all those begats are in the Holy Bible. The Hebrews knew this because they kept up the cronicals, but the rest of mankind had long forgotten. They knew that when the Messiah came he would raise the dead of all those who had been faithful to the Lord God unto death for that day when Jesus would take them out of Sheol, and the corruption of Earth into the presence of God in Heaven. As I said, the whole Old Testement points to Jesus Christ. When Jesus rose up from death, and returned to his heavenly father he took all of those faithful souls with him who had died up to that point, including Adam, and Eve. As for Moses, most figure that he was taken up to heaven, spirited away if you will by God after bringing the Hebrews out of the wilderness. Moses basically disappears from written word once the Hebrews cross the Jordan river. However if he wasn't spirited away, then he arose with the rest of the faithful when Jesus returned to heaven.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[Dirt Man]

English said, "But Pure..you're bound to pick some holes in it anyway...so you might as well do it now as to wait for the bible reference "

Tattered Christian dogmas hardly require my efforts to poke holes; vicarious atonement, incarnation, virgin birth, and body resurrection are long-questioned, e.g., by some quakers and mennonites, and dubiously related to the original gospel material so far as it can be known.

Your grasp of the obvious is a terrifying whirlwind to behold indeed. Now if you will kindly direct us to these Quakers, and Mennonites of yours we'd really appreciate it. Oh gees, you can't, because they don't use computers, do they. But perhaps you can give us their addresses, eh?

Now I don't know about any Christian dogma being tattered as you say. According to my bible a church translates into people, and imparticularly people who believe on the name Jesus Christ as their savior. What building they get together in, or how they chose to worship is really up to each individual. Christianity isn't really a religion in respects to how religion basically states that if you're good enough you can get to heaven. We already know humans can never be good enough, and that only one person equaled the task, and that he was God incarnent. By faith alone, in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ are we healed, and santified before God.

As for poking holes, you'll have to do better than what you've done so far. LOL Your abusive, arrogant tone towards christian beliefs could use a bit more brewing, and a lot more investigating, don't you think? Hell, even the Devil can quote scripture to try to prove his point. But then that's never worked either because he always pulls it out of context, doesn't he.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[English Lady]

Pure...I second what DM's just said. *nods head*


oh and DM..I love what you say about The church...*nods head*

 

[snooper]

No

I have not seen this film. I shall not see it for some time, as I have given up going to the cinema for Lent.

 

[Pure]

Hi Dirt Man,

Thanks for your voluminous expositions. They are just brimming with Christian love and forgiveness.

Hell, even the Devil can quote scripture to try to prove his point. But then that's never worked either because he always pulls it out of context, doesn't he.

I knew you'd have a problem with

"what does the Lord require of you? To do justly, to love mercy, and walk humbly with the Lord." {Micah 6:8}

Perhaps you can inform us what's wrong with it as God's life direction and why you say it's been pulled out of context.

Now if you will kindly direct us to these Quakers, and Mennonites [who reject certain mainstream dogmas, like vicarious atonement] of yours we'd really appreciate it. Oh gees, you can't, because they don't use computers, do they. But perhaps you can give us their addresses, eh?

Just use this address and thread here, Dirt Man. I am a Quaker.

J.

(Note: Even many Amish, with whom you confuse us, are using computers these days.)

 

[English Lady]

Pure..sometimes Christian love and forgiveness is not that nice. It's honest and in your face.


you're completely contrary-wise but we forgive you for it anyway

 

[Dirt Man]

Hi Dirt Man,

Thanks for your voluminous expositions. They are just brimming with Christian love and forgiveness.

Hell, even the Devil can quote scripture to try to prove his point. But then that's never worked either because he always pulls it out of context, doesn't he.

I knew you'd have a problem with

"what does the Lord require of you? To do justly, to love mercy, and walk humbly with the Lord." {Micah 6:8}

Perhaps you can inform us what's wrong with it as God's life direction and why you say it's been pulled out of context.

Now if you will kindly direct us to these Quakers, and Mennonites [who reject certain mainstream dogmas, like vicarious atonement] of yours we'd really appreciate it. Oh gees, you can't, because they don't use computers, do they. But perhaps you can give us their addresses, eh?

Just use this address and thread here, Dirt Man. I am a Quaker.

J.

(Note: Even many Amish, with whom you confuse us, are using computers these days.)

I don't really see what point you're trying to make here Pure. Unless throughout this thread you've gotten the idea somehow that I'm in favor of blood sacrifices, or even that God is. I find it interesting that you quote Micah: 6:8 though. It pretty much sums up the 10 commandments in a nut shell. Of course taken out of context it doesn't show why God said this to his people Israel at the time he said it, now does it. But I won't belabor the issue. And I don't ever remember the Amish being brought into the conversation before now either. Nor do I appreciate you putting words in my mouth, or adding them to what I say.

As for your being a Quaker, I don't know why that would be germaine to this conversation unless you represent the vast majority of their faith on this subject, and were trying to stand on a theolgical issue. For instance when you properly translate the commandments from the Hebrew it actually should read: "Thou shalt not Murder," and not "Thou shalt not Kill." And that makes more sense when God later tells the Isrealits to kill. But as I said, I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[Pure]

Hi DirtM


You said, Now if you will kindly direct us to these Quakers, and Mennonites [who reject certain mainstream dogmas, like vicarious atonement] of yours we'd really appreciate it. Oh gees, you can't, because they don't use computers, do they. But perhaps you can give us their addresses, eh?

Pure:
Just use this address and thread here, Dirt Man. I am a Quaker.

You reply:

DM: As for your being a Quaker, I don't know why that would be germaine to this conversation unless you represent the vast majority of their faith on this subject, and were trying to stand on a theolgical issue.

In simple terms. We were talking about dogmas, and 'vicarious atonement' (Jesus' blood as cleansing mankind, permitting salvation; Jesus in death, serving as an effective substitute for mankind, who now no longer need to 'die' in the eternal sense).

I said Quakers don't buy it.

You asked for an address and name. You got it. You didn't ask before about 'vast majority', and Quakers do not have much that could be called dogma; no one officially 'represents' anyone in that area. But in fact the vast majority of Conservative and General Conference Quakers reject 'vicarious atonement'.

So have at it my man. Why didn't Moses, whom you say was taken up, require Jesus' blood? Does Jesus' blood give me a 'leg up' on salvation? An advantage I wouldn't have, if as a Jew I simply followed 'do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with the Lord.?' {Micah}

Just for the record and the lurkers, this is not a dispute for the sake of theology. Mel Gibson's movie is soaked in quarts of Jesus blood.

And presumably that's because he thinks it efficacious in saving mankind (an old [Mel-ish] Catholic, as well as new Catholic dogma**); indeed, his mom is shown taking the blood onto her lips, if not tasting or drinking it.

I hope you will enlighten all of us.



**One shared by many protestants, as Dirt M apparently is.

 

[NoJo]

To be honest, neither do I. Jesue did the miracles for the Jews of that time to complete the prophesy of his coming as their Messiah. The miracles were done for the purpose of identifying himself as the true Christ, the embodyment of God. The Hebrews, the very chosen of God, have always required miracles from God. It is just their way. And these miracles of Jesus did turn many Jews of that time into acknowledging Jesus as God incarnet. So they weren't completely wasted by any means.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

"the true Christ, the embodyment of God", are, to many Christians, two different things. Christos just means "anointed". Whether Jesus was the embodiment of God has been hotly debated among Christians for centuries. It's clearly not going to get resolved by production of irrefutable evidence.

DM, The best you can really do is state that you believe it to be so. In which case it's probably a good idea to show a little humility and respect for the majority of the world's population, who either disagree with you, or could not care one way or the other about the existence of Christ, let alone his divinity.

 

[rgraham666]

I'm not going to see it. I'm not into snuff films.

And as far as religion goes, the only one I would be a member of is fictional.

It's Holy Book is called The Universal Book of Truths and Other Humourous Anecdotes.

This book contains such pieces of wisdom as the 17th Psalm of Indifferent Contentment which states, "Mankind is without a doubt the most conceited race in the Universe. Who else believes that God has nothing better to do but sit around and help him out of tight spots?"

And Matthewson's 23rd edict, "To be angered by evil is to partake of it, stupid."

I prefer a religion with a sense of humour.