Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?

[French Patriot]

Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?

People who believe in the barbaric human blood sacrifice of theTriune Jesus/God must believe that the greatest force ever to exist decidedthat humans, lowly creations whom we aretold are infinitely inferior to God, are somehow more important than God’s ownlife and that he would give it up for believers.

That is like a slave master dying in place of his slave. A rather silly notion to me.

Jesus preached that we should develop a humble characterwith little self-pride.

How is placing your own life above Triune Jesus/God’sshowing a humble character as you think that he would die for you? That istaking self-pride to the maximum.

I think that those with good morals will know that no nobleand gracious God would demand the sacrifice of a so called son just to proveit's benevolence.

Yet Christians who think they are moral will believe thatGod would do such a despicable thing as having his son killed even asscriptures say that God prefers repentance to sacrifice and does not believe inasking or accepting a ransom.

Is thinking that to believe that God would die for you theepitome of an inflated ego?

If not, what could possibly inflate an ego more than that?

Regards
DL

 

[L Gilbert]

lol What difference would it make to a god who could resurrect anyone anytime? Why would it be egotistical to think a god would sacrifice for another lifeform if one knew that resurrection was possible? (Assuming gods n goblins exist in the first place and have anything like human traits).

 

[French Patriot]

It would not make a difference to a God, for all we can ever know, but it sure pumps up human egos to think that a God would even care about a species called human.

Regards
DL

 

[JLM]

Presumptuous for sure!

 

[Sal]

I think it is more symbolic to show the "greatness" of the love expressed...we would die for our off spring, we are "its" off spring, it would die for us...

convoluted maybe but it does follow a logical sequence

 

[WLDB]

lol What difference would it make to a god who could resurrect anyone anytime?

Yeah I found that to be a funny part of the story. Its not a sacrifice if you come back to life. A lot of people have suffered painful deaths to save friends or family and didnt come back. Id say thats more of a sacrifice.

Plus there is the fact that no matter what everyone dies eventually.

I think it is more symbolic to show the "greatness" of the love expressed...we would die for our off spring, we are "its" off spring, it would die for us...

Most people would be willing to die for their offspring. If I had any I would. I wouldnt die for my parents though for the simple reason that they wouldnt want me to.

 

[Sal]

Yeah I found that to be a funny part of the story. Its not a sacrifice if you come back to life. A lot of people have suffered painful deaths to save friends or family and didnt come back. Id say thats more of a sacrifice.

Plus there is the fact that no matter what everyone dies eventually.



Most people would be willing to die for their offspring. If I had any I would. I wouldnt die for my parents though for the simple reason that they wouldnt want me to.

even animals die for their offspring, so it's not unusual therefore the symbolism

 

[L Gilbert]

It would not make a difference to a God, for all we can ever know, but it sure pumps up human egos to think that a God would even care about a species called human.

Regards
DL

I suppose it does for some, but I think proper "faith" goes a bit deeper than that, especially if you believed your god sent a piece of itself in human form for a chat with people. Why would it do that if it didn't give a crap in the first place?

 

[captain morgan]

I think it is more symbolic to show the "greatness" of the love expressed...we would die for our off spring, we are "its" off spring, it would die for us...

convoluted maybe but it does follow a logical sequence

I don't think that FP will approve of your post here SLM as it doesn't pad his underlying assumption of egoism, etc.

Ultimately, his/her post was designed to discuss that element moreso than the issue of love for ones children

 

[Sal]

I don't think that FP will approve of your post here SLM as it doesn't pad his underlying assumption of egoism, etc.

Ultimately, his/her post was designed to discuss that element moreso than the issue of love for ones children

8O no?
lol, quite possibly you are right ... I am egotistical enough as it is though....so I am gonna tell ya, I ain't SLM although both of us are convinced we were separated at birth when discussing some issues and preferences... lol...:lol:

 

[French Patriot]

I think it is more symbolic to show the "greatness" of the love expressed...we would die for our off spring, we are "its" off spring, it would die for us...

convoluted maybe but it does follow a logical sequence

Indeed and that logic is counter to what God is said to have done.
God took the immoral path.

Regards
DL

I suppose it does for some, but I think proper "faith" goes a bit deeper than that, especially if you believed your god sent a piece of itself in human form for a chat with people. Why would it do that if it didn't give a crap in the first place?

Proper faith??

We may not know what that means as Jesus said any that had it could do greater things than he did.

I guess that no one has had any faith at all since Jesus took his 3 days of R & R.

Faith without facts is for fools.

Regards
DL

I don't think that FP will approve of your post here SLM as it doesn't pad his underlying assumption of egoism, etc.

Ultimately, his/her post was designed to discuss that element moreso than the issue of love for ones children

Wrong. I gave him a thumbs up and your post is off the marc.

Psychobabble is so useless.

Regards
DL

 

[L Gilbert]

Proper faith??

We may not know what that means as Jesus said any that had it could do greater things than he did.

"Could" being a key word there. I think that depends upon what one thinks "great" means, too.

I guess that no one has had any faith at all since Jesus took his 3 days of R & R.

I'm pretty sure that Mother Theresa, Buddha, Tenzin Gyatso, etc. have reached more people that Yeshua did in his lifetime (assuming he existed in the first place).

Faith without facts is for fools.

Regards
DL

Then a lot of faith is foolish as facts are glaringly non-evident/non-existent concerning gods n goblins.

Cheers.

 

[damngrumpy]

The whole religion thing is like a bad movie, first we have the sinners and those who
won't repent, then we have the Saviour come and save them all through sacrifice.
Of course the hero has to die to make everyone feel like part of the team.
in the end the hero emerges to demonstrate he is more powerful than death.
I think a couple of other problems might have been around too The regional district
where he lived outlawed open burning and it wasn't politically correct to just bur
without a permit. The second problem goes with the burning thing in sacrifice.
Animal rights groups of the day were out to save the sheep, or sheep were in short
supply and or the whole thing was out of fashion. No Kill God that will make the
Stonehenge times front page alright. In the end God wins and everyone goes home
from the picnic a winner.
In fact God came and behaved like our legal system, instead of laying down the law on
following the law, he decided to hold a sacrifice weekend and demonstrate the current
situation was unacceptable. Today every weekend we hold a worship service with praise
the Lord. that first weekend they all wanted to kill him remember?

 

[L Gilbert]

lol.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Faith without facts is for fools.

Faith with facts is not really faith in the sense you mean it, it's a belief based on evidence. Faith as you're using it means belief in the absence of evidence.

 

[French Patriot]

Faith with facts is not really faith in the sense you mean it, it's a belief based on evidence. Faith as you're using it means belief in the absence of evidence.

Faith may not exist, so to speak, where facts are because then one does not need faith as one has belief. You cannot really have both on the same issue.

Regards
DL

Thanks G B.

Regards
DL

 

[JLM]

Not if the Father is anything like the Son! -

 

[French Patriot]

Not if the Father is anything like the Son! -

No.
Son's know that they should be burying their fathers and not fathers burying them.
Only God seems to not have heard that that is the right way of things.

Regards
DL

 

[L Gilbert]

Or at least the usual course of life.

 

[hunboldt]

No.
Son's know that they should be burying their fathers and not fathers burying them.
Only God seems to not have heard that that is the right way of things.

Regards
DL

Why do you feel that this occurance is more important thatn the ethic of Christianity?

One of the Salient points of Islam is that Allah did not sactrifice Yeshua the Prophet, but lifted him into heaven , substituting a criminal in his place.

"Could" being a key word there. I think that depends upon what one thinks "great" means, too.

I'm pretty sure that Mother Theresa, Buddha, Tenzin Gyatso, etc. have reached more people that Yeshua did in his lifetime (assuming he existed in the first place).

Then a lot of faith is foolish as facts are glaringly non-evident/non-existent concerning gods n goblins.

Cheers.

Quite true.

I was kicked off of Catholic Match ten years ago in a n'online Heresey trial" (!!@!) for arguing that following ritual rather than the ethic of Christ was a delusion, at best.

the big debaTE WAS OVE R SUBSTANTION VRS THE 'FALSEPpROTESTANT DOCTRINE OF CON-SUBSTANTIATION'.

a detail 95 5 % of Catholics quietly don't give a Ratz butz over.....