Why did God need to sacrifice Jesus to forgive sin?

Good catch. I did correct it after reading it.

 

Are you still insisting he must be dead?
There is no death of magnanimous intent. We may share the mind that is in christ.

For the life of biological body, this is true.
For the life of mind this is not. Look at the words on this page, weighty words.

It is memory that holds the world that you see, in place.
Who wants to be nothing more than a piece of meat?

Is dionysus also against the enduring, crucified or not?

Follows, love is what you are.

 

You don't seem to understand the effects of your own precepts.
If it was gods will that jesus died the people who killed him were servants only of gods will.
You can't tell the difference between pain and joy!

To be fair you put off an air of extreme intellectual dishonesty, but I think you just don't get it.

You do pick and choose which questions you will respond and at what length.
I have asked you several questions which you seem to have simply ignored.

Which makes it all the more suspicious.

 

It's not like god could sacrifice himself, there would be nothing left.

 

Which is why self sacrifice is not the same as giving.

 

The metaphor is the Paschal lamb, which had to be killed by bleeding to death in commemoration of the Passover event, in which the blood of a sacrificed lamb had to be sprinkled on the doorposts of the Israelites to protect the males from the Angel of Death. The animal had to be male and without blemish. We ordinarily don't speak of the death of a lamb as "murder" and the Romans considered the killing of Jesus to be an execution. For metaphorical purposes, the killing was "necessary".

 

And practically was it necessary?

 

thedope:

Still? You mistake my meaning. I insist on no-ones death, not even that of the dead. I am not of the 'opinion' that death is a consequence for them, remember? :-D

But I ask again, do you think he is alive?

We? The phrase 'the mind that is in christ' makes no sense to me.

Biology is not needfully perishable for the life of the mind. I have seen levity brought to the heaviest things.

So you understand? I'm not sure. Wanting to be more than flesh is not wanting to be less than it either. I understand the saying "I desire mercy, not sacrifice"----if you get around to understanding the saying "Dionysus against the crucified!", tell me!
;-D

Dionysus is an idea allied with the one that holds that it is not the endurance of an idea that is valuable, but that the individual endures.

 

So you do not insist that jesus died of his wounds?

We are an agglomerate, yes.

The I am I call myself is the same I am you call yourself. Love your brother as yourself.

Biology is not needful for the life of the mind. The choreography of the planets is mindful.

A body with life is lively, a biological body without life, is a piece of meat. I am not my flesh at all. The body is a communication device, a machine.

You mean it is a myth?

There are no individuals we are an agglomerate. Human body is a reproductive strategy of the gene. The universe is made of information.

 

thedope:

No.

That's not what I'm asking. Everyone is alive.
But do you think Jesus is individually present?

My love for people remains, even if they are not present, but it is better when they are. I share the mind that is in me, not 'christ'. I may have my presumptions like anyone, but I lead from the head. Anyone who thinks that doesn't take heart has likely lost it. :-D

What, after all, is ultimately needful? Biology is desirable for the life of anything.
What are the planets mindful of?

The body is not a machine. You are more than your flesh. The notion that you are not your flesh at all is but a consolation in the face of death. You seem to be insisting there is something I do not grasp about the function of the mind?

?

What do you think makes up an agglomerate? No self without selves.

You are a 'christian' thedope! Regardless of your lacking denomination. I mean it as no kind of condemnation, but a compliment. :-D We go different ways, but I always remain your friend.

 

I see now why it seemed so important to you for me to answer your question, so you could try to berate with it. But if I remember correctly, the jury is still out on that whole "me thinking Jesus needed to be killed" thing. Maybe you've mistaken me for some one else.

It is you that doesn't seen to be able to keep up. So are you sick or just "dimly lit"?

No, I'm right here still listening to your tirades, you sound a little like a child that can't get his way.

Yes and no questions can be quite misleading. For instance, tell me yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife? Just yes or no.

No, pretending. My opinion on the matter is I have no opinion, no pretending involved.

I don't know and that hasn't changed in the last 24 hours.

See, what stinks is that the only reason you even asked me the question was to try and berate me for my answer. You don't care about the truth, all you want is an answer so you can twist it to try and make someone look bad, much like the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus day tried to do to Jesus and that puts you in the same group that killed jesus.

 

Because I don't know one way or the other and quite honestly haven't ever given it much thought.

It's not whether it lacks Biblical backing or not, it's whether I have thought about it before or not and whether in entails some crucial theological point or not. Free will is a point that bothered me and from all the discussions I've had about it, it seems to have bothered many others and in fact some have come to deny God exists on the basis of their beliefs about free will.

As for whether Jesus needed to be killed or not, it's not something I've thought about in the past and this is the first time that I've discussed it and personally not knowing has never bothered me and still doesn't. Also I know of no one who has ever reasoned the nonexistence of God on the basis of whether Jesus had to be killed or not.

Maybe someday I will turn may attention to it but quite frankly, right now I don't feel like spending the time needed to answer Dejavu's question on the matter, because he really doesn't want an answer, he just wants more fodder for his gist mill.

 

I am not trying to be obtuse. I do as you, if a man asks you to go a mile with him, go with him two. Example: "the body cannot be in a billion places at once", "there are more than a billion places in the body". The world suddenly got much larger.

No one is isolated in presence. Every thing that has ever lived is present. Our mammalian brain is carried on the back of our lizard brain.

Because you have fashioned an ego for them that resides in their body. When they are "not present", you insist that a measure of them is not here. It is not their measure it is yours. To the extent that you deny the existence of a loved one, to that extent you will be unaware of their existence.

Here you throw up the body as a barrier that gives you distinction and makes it possible for you to say, you are not me and therefor your interests are not as important as mine and if it's got to be me or you, your ass is grass.
Not saying at all that you would consciously entertain that thought, but premise does have it's logical conclusions.

Gravity= magnanimous intent.

I am not dead. Not the function of mind, the stuff of mind.

??

Knowledge is being shared, nothing stands alone

I am energetic expression and we are never apart.

 

Exactly, that is just another reason that Jesus could not have been God.

 

Good point, thanx.

 

And there would be nothing left of christ if he had sacrificed himself.

 

And I would ask you the same question, given that it is metaphorically necessary, that is to fit with the story, is it also practically necessary for life?

 

OWB:

Yes they can be misleading. But are you willing them to be so? No I have not stopped beating my wife. Does it interest you that I never started?

Not asking if you know. Read again. What do you think most likely?

I want your answer, because it looks bad for you that you have none. You make yourself look bad. Innocent until proven guilty mean anything to you?

 

thedope:

You are exceptional, that is beyond doubt. :-D

Not so. I only make the distinction of physical presence. I want to be surrounded by more than just the thought of my loved ones. I do not deign to will them into existence. I trust in their own love for that. Knowing I can only love others as myself I love them as others. I speak as the lover who wants to know the beloved.

Not more important, only different. My love carries my respect. If my mind is to be shared, how could it be otherwise that I be the one to share it?

Not necessarily, gravity can occur unconsciously. Levity however...:-D

What about the body do you think I don't comprehend? The stuff of mind is no machine.

Knowledge is being shared, there is no way I could dispute it even unknowingly. But if nothing stands alone, how does the universe exist in itself? Not suggesting you would entertain the thought, but premises having logical conclusions, your thought on higher 'platforms' for life than biology suggest nothing short of disembodiment. If I am a prophet of anything, it is a profit of life!

????

If that expression is your very own, then it's true.

 

You want to perceive the beloved, but you know them sight unseen.

It is one mind, there is no time when you do not share it, you may be silent but you emerge regardless.

Gaseous expansion.

Diversification.

I don't remember saying higher platforms than biology. I think I said or meant that there are other platforms for mind. The symbols on this page for example. They are not disembodied, they are constituted of matter, but there effect is communication of the naturally abstract mind. Like I said, I will admit to the necessity of embodiment, if any body will do.

Sorry friend. It's all greek, (mythology), to me.

If you see me, who's novelty are you experiencing?