ma1939

Sure he did! Just ask any Soviet citizen who lived through the Stalin period. I'm sure at that time most would not have questioned Stalin's right to "judge".

The knowledge by which to judge: All of the personal information about Soviet citizens gathered by spies and informers.

The intent for justice: His intent was to keep himself in power by thoroughly collectivizing and bolshevizing his own country trough terror and oppression. That was "justice" in his eyes.

The authority to judge: Sure, he had lots of authority. He judged the kulaks to be enemies of the state, and starved them into submission.

The standard by which to judge: His own standards.

Mageth

No. Neither does God.

You must be reading a different bible than me. Read Hebrews 9-10, among others. Here's 9:22:

"And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."

Hawkingfan

Man murdered god according to god's will. God sent his son to die on the cross in order for us to be forgiven. He would be unwilling to forgive us without blood.

In other words, we were saved by Roman soldiers...not God.

You need to re-read the old testament. Do you want me to site passages where god asks for blood?

Also--Jesus, "willing" to die for us, asked God, "Take this cup from me" (meaning "I don't want to do this. You have the the power to stop this. Please...") and he said, "Why has thou forsaken me?" (clearly words of an upset man disappointed by a god who requires him to go through something he didn't want to). Did he ask man, "Why has though forsaken me?" No.

Philosoft

Your incredulousness isn't going to make this any more sensible. If Jesus felt any actual pain, it was only because he wanted to. If God felt any mental anguish, it was only because he wanted to. I don't even know what it means to call Jesus God's "only son." Their relationship certainly doesn't resemble any father-son relationship we are aware of. And why is God limited to only one "child"? I'm sure he could make more "children" if he wanted.

It is a constant source of amazement (amusement?) watching Christians conveniently ignore the logical implications of omnipotence when it runs headlong into their emotionally-charged arguments.

Ricomise

SOMMS,

I appreciate your response to my comments. If I may,

I understand you when you say "IF" God exists, then the rest of your argument follows. I only couched it as an assumption as it appears that this discussion has become one regarding what morality, if any, flows as a counsequence of that existance. (The points raised here may certainly have an impact on the question of whether God actually exists, but I will leave that discussion for another time.)

It is useful to me to know that when you say God you mean an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being. (As I am sure you are aware, there are many definitions of God, and it is helpful to know which definition one is dealing with.)

O.K. then. So we are speaking of the tautological entity you describe, let's call him "G." (Not to diminish the concept, but to more easily refer to it.) G is, in your view, the objective moral standard. As you stated in your response to my post, he is "holy" in the sense that he is "without sin." I will take the risk of assuming that you equate sinlessness with "good," and therefore also equate "holiness" with "good."

If this is the case, then being the most like G would be being the most good. (Understanding, of course, that a human could never be just like G, due to the three omni-characteristics G possesses.)

Originally posted by SOMMS:
The above was your response to my assertion that if holiness has a meaning independant of G, it must be defined by humans. Please clarify for me if your mean you don't believe holiness has a meaning independant of G or if you mean it may have an independent meaning, but its not defined by humans. (I think you may mean both, but I don't want to jump to conclusions.)

Anyway, if it is true that being like G is being good, and being not like G is being evil, (G being the objective standard of good and evil, or "sinlessness and "sin") I wonder if this provides a useful system to determine the morality of actions. Given your tautology of G-- and assuming you are correct that G cannot have "evil intent," how are we to determine what actions are "good" and "evil."

One way, given the above, would be that if G does it, it is good. Problem here is again, how do we know what has been done by G, and not by some other entity? So leave that aside for now. Another way is if we were to take something as an authoritative description of G's will, it might help us. Then again, it would depend upon how clearly it delineated G's will. The Bible may be taken by some as such a descriptive device, but it seems to me to be a bit unclear on several points.

So I think we are left with this: If I want to be good I must be as much like G as possible. The problem is, other than the three tautological characteristics we have assigned him, I don't know much about him. I could try to be as potent, as scient, and as benevolent as possible, but I feel that that would be an inadequate system in which to make all my moral decisions. ( And may in some instances lead to some contradictory choices as well as those that many might consider "immoral.")

We could assign other characteristics to G, so as to better understand what it is to be like him, but such characteritics may end up being arbitrary, and I will decline to do so as you have expressed a wish to deal with this particular version of G.

Sorry for the length of this post, thanks for your time, and I look forward to any comments you may have.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Mageth,
Same Bible. Different concepts. The passage you cite is referring to is the ritualistic law that God gave Moses who decreed it to the Hebrew nation after they had left Egypt. In fact, this passage is about Moses. Including a few more verses...


Hebrews 9:19
19
When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people.

20
He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep."

21
In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies.

22
In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.


Like I said ritualistic Hebrew law.


This isn't saying that Gods only son had to die.


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Mageth

This isn't saying that Gods only son had to die.

It plainly says that without blood (signifying life, or the sacrifice thereof), there is no remission. Can't get much clearer than that. And, taken in context with the rest of the chapter, and the rest of Hebrews, that the only sacrifice that will work for all, for all time, is the purest sacrifice of all - JC himself, the only truly pure sacrifice, as he was born without sin, and didn't sin.

You can follow that major underlying Christian theme through the rest of the bible (from A&E, Cain and Abel, Abraham (blood covenant + Isaac's near-sacrifice), Moses, the passover, the giving of the Law, forwards). A brief outline:

1) we sin - all of us
2) someone has to die for that sin. Looks like us.
3) wait, you can sacrifice pure animals to appease god, at least for a bit.
4) big plan revealed: God's only Son will die for the remission of all of our sins. Someone's gotta do it, and he's the only worthy (i.e. sinless) one, so that's the only way we can escape the sin, and god's wrath.

Read v. 26 of the same chapter:

"For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. "

Sheesh, that's all basic sunday school stuff.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Hawkingfan,
No. Not all all. God could have just said 'ok...all you guys are off the hook' and simply left it at that.

In truth, God forgave mankind of all its sins once and for all. Christ is the testament of this forgiveness...often referred to as the new covenant.





No need. I am well versed in the ritualistic law the Hebrews kept. However, we aren't talking about Old Testament Hebrew ritualistic law. We are talking about Christ...the new covenant God made with man...in which all one need do to be forgiven is accept God's forgiveness.



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Mageth

No. Not all all. God could have just said 'ok...all you guys are off the hook' and simply left it at that.

In truth, God forgave mankind of all its sins once and for all. Christ is the testament of this forgiveness...often referred to as the new covenant.

You have a bit of a strange understanding of scriptures. When A&E sinned, god had apparently set the system up so that death would enter the world (as a result, or judgment, on the sin). "On the day that you eat that fruit, you will surely die. They, we, and everyone instantly faced certain death, from the moment A&E sinned on - god's word made sure of that.

Under god's system, according to the bible, someone has to die for sin - god said so ("surely you will die). There is no remission without blood. That's the way god set it up.

Abel pleased god when he offered a "blood" sacrifice. Cain pissed god off when he offered a salad.

Then god established the Law, and the ritual of blood sacrifice for the remission of sins (violations of the Law), which, of course, is symbolic of what's to come - the ultimate, final sacrifice.

And god had planned, according to the bible, from before the beginning, that that someone would be Jesus.

IMO, it's totally unsupportable to conclude from the (xian) bible that JC didn't have to die. I don't believe a word of it, but it's clear that that is what the bible says.

Mageth

No need. I am well versed in the ritualistic law the Hebrews kept. However, we aren't talking about Old Testament Hebrew ritualistic law. We are talking about Christ...the new covenant God made with man...in which all one need do to be forgiven is accept God's forgiveness.

Jesus himself said he came not to end the law, but to fulfill the law - i.e. he had to die.

The forgiveness, of course, only granted through Jesus, because of his sacrifice (no forgiveness without that - someone had to die). He is the new covenant, and "fulfilled" the old covenant, which was a foreshadowing of what was to come, by becoming the perfect High Priest and perfect sacrifice.

Read and study Hebrews thoroughly.