How bad a heretic and who is with me?

[Akita Suggagaki]

So at 65 I think I have a pretty unique understanding. Let's start with creation. I think that since God is both transcendent and immanent, omnipresent, all creation is a manifestation or representation of some aspect of God. That includes each of us. So being "Son of God" is more a recognition or realization of relationship than an ontological status.

The suffering and death of Jesus was a sacrifice of love to show us how to live. It had nothing to do with appeasing an offended Father. We all have our own crosses, Jesus reminds us.

The Bible also is an expression of God written by inspired people over centuries with special relevance for the people of those times and places. But there is also much there to inspire, direct and motivate us.

Of course i am still sorting things out but i thought this is as good a place as any in a process with others.

 

[chevyontheriver]

So at 65 I think I have a pretty unique understanding. Let's start with creation. I think that since God is both transcendent and immanent, omnipresent, all creation is a manifestation or representation of some aspect of God. That includes each of us. So being "Son of God" is more a recognition or realization of relationship than an ontological status.

The suffering and death of Jesus was a sacrifice of love to show us how to live. It had nothing to do with appeasing an offended Father. We all have our own crosses, Jesus reminds us.

The Bible also is an expression of God written by inspired people over centuries with special relevance for the people of those times and places. But there is also much there to inspire, direct and motivate us.

Of course i am still sorting things out but i thought this is as good a place as any in a process with others.

There is that other option that God created creation and creation is not God.

 

[timothyu]

The suffering and death of Jesus was a sacrifice of love to show us how to live. It had nothing to do with appeasing an offended Father. We all have our own crosses, Jesus reminds us.

Hence His Gospel of the Kingdom of God.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The suffering and death of Jesus was a sacrifice of love to show us how to live. It had nothing to do with appeasing an offended Father. We all have our own crosses, Jesus reminds us.

That would be a direct contradiction of the Bible.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

There is that other option that God created creation and creation is not God.

That would have to mean it is other than God. It has being in and of itself. Are your words you? Only in the sense it is you breath that makes them and your intellect giving them meaning.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

That would be a direct contradiction of the Bible.

It depends on how you interpret it. And even then, I do not see the Bible as beat all end all.

 

[Rachel20]

It depends on how you interpret it. And even then, I do not see the Bible as beat all end all.

Even if you don't see it as "beat all end all", it's pretty consistent on this issue.

For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Leviticus 17:11

Something I learned from a sociopath - when asked if he knew what love is, he asked "you mean something I could point to and say 'that's love?". After thinking about that, it seemed to me that sacrifice was really the only thing you could point to in this life and say "that's love". So ultimately I agree with you, while still maintaining he was offended by sin and couldn't have maintained his own holiness/righteousness without this atonement in order to show the love/mercy he desired.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Even if you don't see it as "beat all end all", it's pretty consistent on this issue.

For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Leviticus 17:11

Something I learned from a sociopath - when asked if he knew what love is, he asked "you mean something I could point to and say 'that's love?". After thinking about that, it seemed to me that sacrifice was really the only thing you could point to in this life and say "that's love". So ultimately I agree with you, while still maintaining he was offended by sin and couldn't have maintained his own holiness/righteousness without this atonement in order to show the love/mercy he desired.

Most of the first Christians, including Paul who introduced pagans to Christianity, viewed the life and death of Jesus in OT context of blood sacrifices. I don't think that view of the death of Jesus really makes much sense or says much good about the Father. So I guess 1 count of heresy. Right there.

In Leviticus, so it is the blood of some animal that atones for the soul? Does that make sense to you?

 

[Rachel20]

In Leviticus, so it is the blood of some animal that atones for the soul? Does that make sense to you?

Yes, as a foreshadowing of the "lamb of God" that would take away sin, not just cover it (Genesis 22:8, John 1:29). Even though my visceral response is negative to the whole idea, I think a spiritual law is being taught through physical means. If you look at the Leviticus quote, it's the "life of the flesh" that's being destroyed in order that the soul might live. This is consistent with the NT, where it's the flesh that gives rise to sin and it's the flesh that must die even if just in the spiritual sense of being saved (Romans 8:10).

For some reason I always imagine the person objecting to the idea of someone/something having to die inorder that he/she can live doing so while eating a steak. Could be a plant too, same idea.

 

[chevyontheriver]

That would have to mean it is other than God.

Exactly.

It has being in and of itself.

And is not it's own creator.

Are your words you? Only in the sense it is you breath that makes them and your intellect giving them meaning.

Is the Carbon Dioxide I exhale me?

 

[hedrick]

So at 65 I think I have a pretty unique understanding. Let's start with creation. I think that since God is both transcendent and immanent, omnipresent, all creation is a manifestation or representation of some aspect of God. That includes each of us. So being "Son of God" is more a recognition or realization of relationship than an ontological status.

The suffering and death of Jesus was a sacrifice of love to show us how to live. It had nothing to do with appeasing an offended Father. We all have our own crosses, Jesus reminds us.

The Bible also is an expression of God written by inspired people over centuries with special relevance for the people of those times and places. But there is also much there to inspire, direct and motivate us.

Of course i am still sorting things out but i thought this is as good a place as any in a process with others.

This is a pretty typical mainline Protestant understanding. You might find it interesting to look up panentheism.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

This is a pretty typical mainline Protestant understanding. You might find it interesting to look up panentheism.

Yes, I like it.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Yes, as a foreshadowing of the "lamb of God" that would take away sin, not just cover it (Genesis 22:8, John 1:29). Even though my visceral response is negative to the whole idea, I think a spiritual law is being taught through physical means. If you look at the Leviticus quote, it's the "life of the flesh" that's being destroyed in order that the soul might live. This is consistent with the NT, where it's the flesh that gives rise to sin and it's the flesh that must die even if just in the spiritual sense of being saved (Romans 8:10).

For some reason I always imagine the person objecting to the idea of someone/something having to die inorder that he/she can live doing so while eating a steak. Could be a plant too, same idea.

Don't we need to ask how? Is God somehow so pleased by this blood that S/He is motivated to forgive?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Exactly.

And is not it's own creator.

Is the Carbon Dioxide I exhale me?

Weak analogy. So we do not create the CO2. It already existed. We just recycle it with some new meaning.

 

[timothyu]

That would be a direct contradiction of the Bible.

Don't confuse the Bible with the religion. One pursues the Kingdom of God while the other pursues itself.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So at 65 I think I have a pretty unique understanding. Let's start with creation. I think that since God is both transcendent and immanent, omnipresent, all creation is a manifestation or representation of some aspect of God. That includes each of us. So being "Son of God" is more a recognition or realization of relationship than an ontological status.

The suffering and death of Jesus was a sacrifice of love to show us how to live. It had nothing to do with appeasing an offended Father. We all have our own crosses, Jesus reminds us.

The Bible also is an expression of God written by inspired people over centuries with special relevance for the people of those times and places. But there is also much there to inspire, direct and motivate us.

Of course i am still sorting things out but i thought this is as good a place as any in a process with others.

I guess if that view works for you, go with it. These items are neither here nor there in having utmost priority for any theology that I think affects salvation. So, if you're good with this and you feel it helps you in your faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior, then go with it.

 

[Rachel20]

Don't we need to ask how? Is God somehow so pleased by this blood that S/He is motivated to forgive?

His love came first John 3:16. If the cross is an offense to you, why object when sin is an offense to him?

I'm agreeing with you quite a bit, but the cross wasn't an act of love to show us how to live (although it does do that), it was an act of love inorder that we might live. I think it's an extremely important distinction.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

inorder that we might live.

But how does that work? to earn forgiveness?

I see it this way. Jesus was true to his call and his own teaching. Part of that was the concept that love fulfills the law more than the written word. The Jewish leaders could not handle that and his death was the result. That holds true for all of us. We all must die to ourselves to be faithful the his great command, 'Love". And that means we can forgive each other. The Father does not need to see that blood. But we do because it is a symbol of the love of Christ. It was his love for us that kept him faithful to his mission. That mission was, of course, to proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom of God. A kingdom of love and forgiveness.

 

[Rachel20]

But how does that work? to earn forgiveness?...The Father does not need to see that blood. But we do because it is a symbol of the love of Christ.

But I think he does need to see it. Not because he takes pleasure in seeing blood, but because it signifies that the righteous demand of the law has been met. This way, God can both both save and maintain his holiness and righteousness.

For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you. Exodus 12:23

Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Romans 7:12

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Romans 8:3-4

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

But I think he does need to see it. Not because he takes pleasure in seeing blood, but because it signifies that the righteous demand of the law has been met. This way, God can both both save and maintain his holiness and righteousness.

I know scripture supports this but it really makes no common sense. God's hands seem tied by his own law and righteousness. Too OT for me.