Why did God need to sacrifice Jesus to forgive sin?

What I witnessed was an impressionistic intensity. It had no depth or breadth that I could calculate but appeared in transition. Not being taken away but moving toward some other part.

I think we had the discussion about whether mineral was alive. I think you side with not although I could be remembering incorrectly. The body is mineral which is obvious when animus no longer animates. The body is a communication device, mineral circuitry. Nothing is taken away from the body but the body moves from dust to dust.

Beyond perception does not mean looking into an abyss. You cannot distinguish infrared with the naked eye but with special apparatus or specific states of consciousness you can apprehend what cannot be perceived by eyes nor ears. Perception is not knowledge. Information does not rely on perception to be what it is.

 

thedope:

I don't doubt your experience. The imperceptible nature of past particulars, that form is not static, has us arrive at our own decisiveness of action; there is no instinct to calculate where we can guess.

The self does not distinguish between its means of communication and the information. There is simply no need to advance mind over matter.
The intent, the desire that life matter, is enough.

Beyond perception means nothing. Perception is knowledge. Information is nothing if not perceived to be so.

 

You are not your body just as you are not the clothes you wear. There is a rub as far as integrity/self congruity concerning this fact. As we emerge spontaneously over and again we seem to have no deep recollections as to the historic process of our arrival. Everything we know of our conceptual beginning is second hand. A lineage taught by those who are here to those who appear anew.

This break in continuity is caused by the fact that in a single life we had not developed a permanent I. The I that calls the body it's home cannot account for taste and it is moved willy nilly by diverse desires that do not develop hand in hand and do not know each other. The person that is full of enthusiasm for one thing when he goes to sleep, is not the same person that wakes up the next morning, big enthusiastic plans all but forgotten.

It is as if we were a crucible filled with stratified powders, that disperse and reassemble diversely upon dis-incorporation. However with effort toward a desired aim heat is produced which can liquify the powders and produce an alloy that is much more durable. This is the reason for resurrection technology, to maintain conscious integrity. Not to escape the body but that there be no more going in and going out and only life everlasting.

 

I am my body, and more, my love of it. I can strip away clothes, but not the language of my self.

The integrity of consciousness, let alone its continuation, is not broken by sleep, but renewed. Not so by death. To tire is not necessarily to decay.

 

You may learn many languages.

I didn't mean to suggest that it was. The analogy of resolve when you go to sleep overcome by the apparent expediency of the following mornings mood has an experiential conjugation. The point was not that sleep wiped out the resolve, but that the resolve was not fixed to begin with.

 

Relaxxx, relax.

Jesus was not God or a form of
God, Jesus was just God's son the first of Go's creations.

Actually the Bible is also filled with many men who were faithful to God. So what you say is not true of all men.

Please remember God is the Father of mankind and a good father will go a long way to call his wayward children back home.

Do you believe that if you went for a hike, that if all the "lower"forms of fora and fauna were gone, your hike would be more enjoyable? I personally enjoy the "lower" forms and do not see that they in any way make the universe a WORSE place

God did not and can not exist in any form other than the one he has always been in. So no, God did not exist in a "lower" form and was not his own sacrifice.

It doesn't make sense to you because you don't really want it to make sense.

Neither is better, a good person is a good person regardless of his "reasoning" on the matter.

But I would say that it would be harder for the second or B person to be Good because for him there is no objective way for him to know what good is.

Atheism is so transparent! It is a man made excuse to commit bad deeds and kill, and sleep good at night with blood stained hands. Because there is no such thing as a bad deed and who's to say killing is wrong. It is nastiness disguised as intellectualism.

 

thedope:

Yes. No self without selves. No life without lifeforms.

The resolve, a permanent I, is never fixed, but in flux. 'Technically', the self has no interest in first causes. Resurrection can only take place amongst the living.

 

God's first creation was light. I and my father are one.

An eye for an eye is so transparent. It is a man made excuse to commit bad deeds and kill, and sleep good at night with blood stained hands. Because an eye for an eye is just and divine retribution. It is nastiness disguised as devotion to god.

 

Actually no other without forms.

There is a still space inside of you that has not been touched by any event in your life, as pristine as the moment you were born, however in most instances this is forgotten because of the predominance of the accusations against us, from every quarter including ourselves.

Technically the self has interest in extension/continuity, I am not talking about first causes.

 

.

 

If God and Jesus were the same being , then who did Jesus pray to in the Garden , and theres so many times in the Bible that jesus mentions God , the Father

 

You and I are not physically the same person but when we share our thoughts, we are of the same mind. To emulate christ we let the mind be in us that is in christ. The original creation, light, is the light of mind, consciousness. The light by which all other light, sun, moon, and stars is apprehended.
The eye is the lamp of the body, if the eye be sound the whole body will be full of light. but if the light in you be darkness, then how great the darkness.

This is not specifically related to your question but,
as for the account in the garden it is good to be circumspect. If jesus went off some distance away from his companions and they could not for the life of themselves, stay awake, then who recorded the conversation? The account is the authors idea about what jesus must have been going through.
There are many accounts that claim the voice of the first person but are obviously speculative on the part of the authors. The journey into the wilderness, alone to be tempted, is one such account that comes to mind.

As to jesus being gods only begotten son, John was very taken by the exceptional nature of christ, but jesus was succinct in sharing his inheritance, as in, Our father who art in heaven. God is creator not biological replicator. The father image is an analogy to describe the nurturing relationship between the creator and the created. A physically apprehended relationship to describe a mystical one.

 

Interesting , this is a totally new concept to me .
Thanks for posting this !

 

OWB,

Very well then. I shall have to conclude that the idea of God choosing, or choosing not, to foresee events is one of your own fabrication, presumably for the purpose of fitting your square peg into a round hole.

 

I hope you do not necessarily believe what I have said but that you let your own experience describe what rings true to you. Alternative images can open space in the mind as long as you don't carve them in stone.

 

I honestly enjoy seeing other points of view , and all sides of things...Ive learned a lot just by seeing things the way other folks see them.

 

refreshing

 

Which is what this whole idea of god sacrificing his son to pay for sin, is an attempt to do. An attempt to explain how the supposed messiah could end up being crucified by the romans. How could god let this happen if it were not gods will.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mII6-IyaT3o"]Mr. Deity and the Identity Crisis - YouTube

 

If I can author shit, so can anyone else.. so basically you answered my question quite well.... yes.

Dude this entire topic is hardly at all related to the title - maybe for the first couple of pages, but it's just fallen into a constant battle of pointless opinions about religion.. props to you though dude, you seem to be very dedicated to this topic. I'm just a bit unsure about what you're defending.. is it your religion or your ego?