Is it foolish to call God, “Father”?

[Gnostic Bishop]

Is it foolish to call God, “Father”?

As above, so below says the Lord’s Prayer.

God’s first legal decision has him demanding that Jesus be a human sacrifice to rescind God’s own condemnation of his own creation.

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

Quite good for Christians, --- while quite evil to others who do not condone human sacrifice, --- just because a God whose reality has yet to be shown demands it.

The main point is; would any father or mother who reads this O. P., ever choose such a sacrifice, given that other venues were available as they were with God?

Your own answer says that you would expect a Father to find another way and that such a God is not a worthy God.

Do you agree that to call God, Father, is to insult the word father, --- as no human father would be so evil.

Is it foolish to call God, Father?

Regards
DL

[spin]

Come now, you are not entering into the spirit of things. At the time of the emergence of christianity there was a theologico-philosophical issue that needed to be dealt with: how do we explain the apparently fallen state of humanity for the many? This was partially resolved by the theory of sin which appeared in various religions. Sin requires humanity to do things to return to a sinless state. This gave rise to two notions in the Jewish context, 1) a communal means of temporarily removing sin through the performance of sacrifices including the scapegoat, and 2) messianism, ie through the military prowess of god's chosen foreign oppression could be overcome and the state of the Jewish people could be returned to one healthy enough to take up its relationship with god again. There were other developments in Judaism, based on suffering and perseverence in meticulously observing the torah, and in the region, with the development of mystery religions.

Mystery religions involved developing a personal relationship with a savior through the performance of rituals and through contemplation. The savior had himself performed deeds (involving death) that would allow the salvation of adherents. One can see the confrontation between Jewish thought on salvation and that of the mystery religions. The dying savior, related to the sacrifice of the pascal lamb, mapped onto the Jewish messianism, provides the basis of the myth of salvation performed through the act of self-sacrifice of the savior who willingly gives up his own life in order to allow the salvation of all who adhere to god and his new dispensation. There is no "demanding that Jesus be a human sacrifice". It would not work if it were a demand. Jesus had to act willingly out of love for those he sacrifices himself for, otherwise the sacrifice would be in vain. That allows humanity to accept the sacrifice and turn to god. If he were forced or coerced into sacrifice, then the sacrifice would have been pointless. God did not demand sacrifice by his chosen one. Death was the result of sin. It is the act of lovingkindness in which one offers oneself in place of another and that is what the christian myth attests to. It may have been god's plan, but it could only be executed by someone willing to perform it. Hence, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life" (Jn 3:16) would not have been possible without the willing consent of Jesus.

But you guys will sin. That means you are going to die for it. But I have a really clever way for you to get out of it. So don't believe I'm not looking out for you. I'm like a father to you.

[Sheshbazzar]

Christianity makes papa Yahweh like an aging Don Corleone, Godfather. He has to retire into obscurity and spend the rest of eternity puttering around in his garden, so that Sonny Jebus god can take over the running of the 'Family' business.

It's just plain stupid.
An eternal and never aging, never changing 'god' (EL) as Yahweh, (who is NOT a man) has absolutely no need of a son to ever replace him or take over running his business.
Hellenistic Mafia human politics were imposed upon ancient Semitic texts.

[John T]

In the spirit of Spin.

Better yet, why didn't the Jews embrace the philosophy of Jesus and do good and not evil? Who in their right mind would say it is good to murder someone because they believe God is their father?

Just think of it.

With Jesus as Lord and savior who paid the price for sin once and for all, why didn't the Jews latch onto the idea like a tick on a scapegoat? Day in and day out, sacrifices were made and they could be very, very expensive. Why with Christianity, you wouldn't have to take a couple of weeks off from work just to go to the temple and give 10% of your hard earned crops to a priest. Just think of the savings in the laundry bill from no longer paying a priest to spray bird blood on your clothes to affirm your leprosy was cured.

Sadly, the myth of Judaism never had any real value for society. Every intelligent person back then (just like now) knows that Moses in the Bible did not exist but was a myth. I'm surprised the scam worked as long as it did. So, we should thank Jesus for exposing the hypocrisy of Judaism, whether you believe Jesus is the Son of God or not.

Just like Spin, you guys will sin. That means you are going to die for it. But I have a really clever way for you to get out of it. So don't believe I'm not looking out for you. I'm like a father to you. I can tell you how to deal with your sin for free and you don't have to call me Father.

Did I get the spirit of Spin right?

In sarcasm of Spin,

John T

[John T]

It's just plain stupid. An eternal and never aging, never changing 'god' (EL) as Yahweh, (who is NOT a man) has absolutely no need of a son to ever replace him or take over running his business.

No, it is not plain stupid at all but the expression; 'stupid is as stupid does', seems to fit your misunderstanding of the Hebrew God. The Hebrew God, did indeed change, at least his name changed. At first he was called Yahweh and then Elohim and according to early Hebrew scripture he had a wife. So, it is only natural to believe that a husband and wife (be they gods or not) can have a son.

Likewise, who said the son is taking over the business, couldn't he just be expanding the family business? I hear God says he needs his Son to manage the growing new franchise called hell.

[Gnostic Bishop]

Come now, you are not entering into the spirit of things. At the time of the emergence of christianity there was a theologico-philosophical issue that needed to be dealt with: how do we explain the apparently fallen state of humanity for the many? This was partially resolved by the theory of sin which appeared in various religions. Sin requires humanity to do things to return to a sinless state. This gave rise to two notions in the Jewish context, 1) a communal means of temporarily removing sin through the performance of sacrifices including the scapegoat, and 2) messianism, ie through the military prowess of god's chosen foreign oppression could be overcome and the state of the Jewish people could be returned to one healthy enough to take up its relationship with god again. There were other developments in Judaism, based on suffering and perseverence in meticulously observing the torah, and in the region, with the development of mystery religions.

Mystery religions involved developing a personal relationship with a savior through the performance of rituals and through contemplation. The savior had himself performed deeds (involving death) that would allow the salvation of adherents. One can see the confrontation between Jewish thought on salvation and that of the mystery religions. The dying savior, related to the sacrifice of the pascal lamb, mapped onto the Jewish messianism, provides the basis of the myth of salvation performed through the act of self-sacrifice of the savior who willingly gives up his own life in order to allow the salvation of all who adhere to god and his new dispensation. There is no "demanding that Jesus be a human sacrifice". It would not work if it were a demand. Jesus had to act willingly out of love for those he sacrifices himself for, otherwise the sacrifice would be in vain. That allows humanity to accept the sacrifice and turn to god. If he were forced or coerced into sacrifice, then the sacrifice would have been pointless. God did not demand sacrifice by his chosen one. Death was the result of sin. It is the act of lovingkindness in which one offers oneself in place of another and that is what the christian myth attests to. It may have been god's plan, but it could only be executed by someone willing to perform it. Hence, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life" (Jn 3:16) would not have been possible without the willing consent of Jesus.

But you guys will sin. That means you are going to die for it. But I have a really clever way for you to get out of it. So don't believe I'm not looking out for you. I'm like a father to you.

Jesus' death you attribute to sin.

What sin did he do?

I have a couple in mind but wish to see what you see.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

Christianity makes papa Yahweh like an aging Don Corleone, Godfather. He has to retire into obscurity and spend the rest of eternity puttering around in his garden, so that Sonny Jebus god can take over the running of the 'Family' business.

It's just plain stupid.
An eternal and never aging, never changing 'god' (EL) as Yahweh, (who is NOT a man) has absolutely no need of a son to ever replace him or take over running his business.
Hellenistic Mafia human politics were imposed upon ancient Semitic texts.

I agree that it is plain stupid. I hate to think of how many are stupid enough to believe it.

Regards
DL

[spin]

Come now, you are not entering into the spirit of things. At the time of the emergence of christianity there was a theologico-philosophical issue that needed to be dealt with: how do we explain the apparently fallen state of humanity for the many? This was partially resolved by the theory of sin which appeared in various religions. Sin requires humanity to do things to return to a sinless state. This gave rise to two notions in the Jewish context, 1) a communal means of temporarily removing sin through the performance of sacrifices including the scapegoat, and 2) messianism, ie through the military prowess of god's chosen foreign oppression could be overcome and the state of the Jewish people could be returned to one healthy enough to take up its relationship with god again. There were other developments in Judaism, based on suffering and perseverence in meticulously observing the torah, and in the region, with the development of mystery religions.

Mystery religions involved developing a personal relationship with a savior through the performance of rituals and through contemplation. The savior had himself performed deeds (involving death) that would allow the salvation of adherents. One can see the confrontation between Jewish thought on salvation and that of the mystery religions. The dying savior, related to the sacrifice of the pascal lamb, mapped onto the Jewish messianism, provides the basis of the myth of salvation performed through the act of self-sacrifice of the savior who willingly gives up his own life in order to allow the salvation of all who adhere to god and his new dispensation. There is no "demanding that Jesus be a human sacrifice". It would not work if it were a demand. Jesus had to act willingly out of love for those he sacrifices himself for, otherwise the sacrifice would be in vain. That allows humanity to accept the sacrifice and turn to god. If he were forced or coerced into sacrifice, then the sacrifice would have been pointless. God did not demand sacrifice by his chosen one. Death was the result of sin. It is the act of lovingkindness in which one offers oneself in place of another and that is what the christian myth attests to. It may have been god's plan, but it could only be executed by someone willing to perform it. Hence, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life" (Jn 3:16) would not have been possible without the willing consent of Jesus.

But you guys will sin. That means you are going to die for it. But I have a really clever way for you to get out of it. So don't believe I'm not looking out for you. I'm like a father to you.

Jesus' death you attribute to sin.

Yup, but not his. If he had sinned, he couldn't be a suitable proxy. He would have been liable for death in his own right and his death would have been inconsequential to us. It is the self-sacrifice available only to the sinless one that provides the mechanism for the myth. Paul's message is christ crucified. He had to be worthy to take the place of other humans under the law. It is the lamb without blemish.

What sin did he do?

I have a couple in mind but wish to see what you see.

Regards
DL

[John T]

Spin posted: "Paul's message is christ crucified."

No! You have left out the result of that event which is Paul's real message, Christ resurrected!
Romans 10:9&12 "because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved...For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him.

1 Corinthians 15:17 "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.

Spin, is it too much to ask that you at least try to learn the basic doctrines of Christianity before you trash/misquote it?

Sincerely,

John T

[Gnostic Bishop]

Come now, you are not entering into the spirit of things. At the time of the emergence of christianity there was a theologico-philosophical issue that needed to be dealt with: how do we explain the apparently fallen state of humanity for the many? This was partially resolved by the theory of sin which appeared in various religions. Sin requires humanity to do things to return to a sinless state. This gave rise to two notions in the Jewish context, 1) a communal means of temporarily removing sin through the performance of sacrifices including the scapegoat, and 2) messianism, ie through the military prowess of god's chosen foreign oppression could be overcome and the state of the Jewish people could be returned to one healthy enough to take up its relationship with god again. There were other developments in Judaism, based on suffering and perseverence in meticulously observing the torah, and in the region, with the development of mystery religions.

Mystery religions involved developing a personal relationship with a savior through the performance of rituals and through contemplation. The savior had himself performed deeds (involving death) that would allow the salvation of adherents. One can see the confrontation between Jewish thought on salvation and that of the mystery religions. The dying savior, related to the sacrifice of the pascal lamb, mapped onto the Jewish messianism, provides the basis of the myth of salvation performed through the act of self-sacrifice of the savior who willingly gives up his own life in order to allow the salvation of all who adhere to god and his new dispensation. There is no "demanding that Jesus be a human sacrifice". It would not work if it were a demand. Jesus had to act willingly out of love for those he sacrifices himself for, otherwise the sacrifice would be in vain. That allows humanity to accept the sacrifice and turn to god. If he were forced or coerced into sacrifice, then the sacrifice would have been pointless. God did not demand sacrifice by his chosen one. Death was the result of sin. It is the act of lovingkindness in which one offers oneself in place of another and that is what the christian myth attests to. It may have been god's plan, but it could only be executed by someone willing to perform it. Hence, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life" (Jn 3:16) would not have been possible without the willing consent of Jesus.

But you guys will sin. That means you are going to die for it. But I have a really clever way for you to get out of it. So don't believe I'm not looking out for you. I'm like a father to you.

Jesus' death you attribute to sin.

Yup, but not his. If he had sinned, he couldn't be a suitable proxy. He would have been liable for death in his own right and his death would have been inconsequential to us. It is the self-sacrifice available only to the sinless one that provides the mechanism for the myth. Paul's message is christ crucified. He had to be worthy to take the place of other humans under the law. It is the lamb without blemish.

What sin did he do?

I have a couple in mind but wish to see what you see.

Regards
DL

My sin, my death.
Jesus has no right to take my punishment. It is mine and for him to just take it would be theft.
He has no right to forgive us as we did not choose him for that.

Your God might set and take bribes and you may think that just but it shows how corrupt your God is.

Regards
DL