Is accepting Jesus as messiah a sin?

Is accepting Jesus as messiah a sin?

It seems to me, that to accept Jesus as our messiah or scapegoat, means abdication our responsibility for our sins and placing it on the messiah or scapegoat.

I think that to use a scapegoat is a sin.

If you are religious, is this the sin that you think you did to deserve hell? If not, what is it that causes you to sin to be saved?

Regards
DL

 

When it comes to creatively twisting a theology or scripture to weaponize Christian dogma into a suicide bomb, you never disappoint. Your premise is trash and what follows is smelly garbage but I imagine you will get lots of clicks and a lot of trash talk between the theists and antitheists. The posts that follow probably will not disappoint you.

 

It may seem that way to you but there is absolutely no logic or rational thinking behind that conclusion. I'm not even religious but that is so far in the gutter than I had to respond for the sake of logic.

Good for you! There is no logic or rational basis for your conclusion but if you're happy, I'm happy.

Hmmm, the real question is, does Genesis 12:2, Joshua 19:4, and Luke 6:7 really lead to 1 Peter 3:2? LOL! I laugh every time I see that one.

 

I do find it immoral to think you can escape moral responsibility by believing somebody else's suffering makes up for it or pays for it or whipes it clean, but I dont know if that qualifies as "sin".

 

Um not sure you understand how this 'God's forgiveness' thing is actually supposed to work in the world. I am not sure forgiveness of sin can be equated with escaping moral responsibility at all. My understanding is that your 'moral responsibility' is unaffected by whether you are forgiven or whether you are shown mercy. That is not what gets 'washed away'

The single most misunderstood and misplaced virtue in modern society is 'mercy' so I understand how it can be a bit confounding to the modern American, because we are taught to seek and idolize justice instead of mercy. They are not synonymous.

 

.

Sin [which the Bible defines as transgression of God's laws] is still duly punished.

The death of Jesus [God incarnate] enabled God to remarry ALL 12 Israelite tribes [most of whom God divorced in the OT for their sins] under a New Covenant [new marriage contract.] In other words, Jesus' blood paid the bride price.

.

 

When looked at that way, I think such mercy actually directly conflicts with justice. Especially if such mercy is afforded to people based on their endorsing or accepting the suffering of an innocent other.

I am in no position to judge what should and should not be called a " sin", but I do think using another's suffering to gain mercy and escape punishment one deserves is an immoral thing to do. I cant see many, even Christians, accepting this framework as moral outside of the religious context.

 

Do you folks not find the idea of blood, suffering and death being used to "pay a price" (demanded by a being said to be "good") to be at least a little bit disturbing?

It would make more sense to me if the wrongdoer was made to do good deeds to make up for their wrongs, or something along those lines.

 

I emboldened the sentences with which I agree. Mercy is about waiving justice ( when people receive their due , not more or less, than their due, for grievances contrary to either God's law or man's law. The scales of justice seek to weigh the breach with the penalty . Mercy is about forbearance of that penalty as an act of compassion or kindness. The only pure application of 'mercy' in our entire legal system that I am aware of, is a granted application for 'compassionate release' from a sentence due to chronic and often terminal illness. The 20 year sentence is still seen as just, but we forebear the balance of the sentence out of compassion.

So if God is extending his mercy and forgiveness under circumstances that involved the suffering of his 'only begotten son' and an innocent party, what do you expect Christians to do except accept his decision and submit to his will? they can't undo history, and they don't have a whole lot of clout to negociate with God after the fact. Do they organise a protest march, boycott the houses of worship, demand he pay whatever is left of Jesus in every prayer, a lot of aurreus coins as a sort of pain and suffering settlement? Are they to refuse Gods 'deal' on principle, and demand he turn back time 2000 plus years and come up with a better one if he wants their obedience to his laws?

 

If they truly feel the deserve punishment, then they should demand they be punished. Anything less is them walking away from personal responsibility.

Also, that their God would send somebody else to suffer and take that suffering as reason to have mercy on the wrongdoers, is a pretty stark demonstration that their God isn't morally good or just.

 

Though you may trespass against your fellow man. The sin is against the light of truth and conscience, which is God. So when you sin, it is against God. So your "responsibility" is to him. What you know of your sins is his knowledge of you. You are inextricably tied to God, as he is your victim and your savior. Your "scapegoat" is your first, last and only hope. The privacy of your reflections are before him. Your procrastination, bliss, and unfolding of the days of your life, minus divine consequence or intervention, is his forbearance, patience and mercy. He is all the best of what you are or could be. He does not force....only lights the way and obliges your choices. He is the least, the unseen and ever vigilant servant.

 

What twist?

Did a moral question throw you that far off?

I know Christians almost always run from moral discussions, given that they have satanic morals that they cannot defend.

You have seen it, and perhaps done that yourself.

Regards
DL

 

The rational is that the guilty should be punished and not the innocent.

Do you agree with that logic, reason and justice position?

If you do not agree, you are the irrational one.

Regards
DL

 

Yet promote the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty.

You do know you go directly against Jewish laws that Jesus would have taught. Right?

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

Regards
DL

 

A sacrifice that does not stay dead is not a sacrifice.

As to god's garbage laws of using genocide, homophobia and misogyny, you know where I will tell you to shove those.

Would you go to Hitler for punishment rules?

If not, why go to Hitler's greatest hero?

Regards
DL

 

Mercy is the victims prerogative and not the G D judge who was not a victims.

You do know what victim reports are, I take it.

-------

Yahweh chose to volunteer his son.

Tell us please, who should have been chosen or stepped up, Jesus or Yahweh?

FMPOV, the father should have stepped up to his own demand. Son's should bury fathers and not fathers sons.

Yahweh, again, shows his hate fore all including his own son whom he would not die for.

Would you step up of have your child killed?

Regards
DL

 

Quite the picture and lie.

So if I rape a man, Yahweh feels my huge member. Interesting.

Who has first dibs at forgiving, the victim or judge?

Regards
DL

 

Who will not show up to feed the starving.

Quite the G D servant.

Was he serving humankind when using genocide against us?

Regards
DL

 

I suppose it depends on which definition of 'scapegoat' you're referring to. The 'common usage' of the term suggests that a scapegoat is blamed for wrongdoing for which it was not responsible. I would agree that trying to blame others for ones own sin is probably a sin. But that's because of the deception involved in false blame. No one (that I'm aware of) 'blames' Jesus for our sins. In Biblical context, a 'scapegoat' is "a goat upon whose head are symbolically placed the sins of the people after which [the goat] is sent into the wilderness in the biblical ceremony for Yom Kippur." There is no suggestion made that the goat is being blamed for having committed the sins of the people. It seems to me that in Biblical context, 'scapegoat' is synonymous with sacrifice and only contextually relevant in ceremony, rather than being a sort of actual 'fall guy.' It seems to me that the crux of this issue is symbolism. I personally believe that Jesus' sacrifice was, at least in part, symbolic, or perhaps an attempt at translating what happened in the spiritual realm to a near-equivalent situation here in the physical realm that can actually be described and comprehended. After Jesus' death, it is stated that He 'went to preach to the imprisoned.' Why The Bible does not go into further detail on this (what I consider extremely important and relevant) passage is endlessly debatable... but it seems to me this was an integral part of Jesus' 'defeat' of hell. Crucifixion, as terrible as it might be, is no suitable replacement for the endless torment described as 'hell.' It makes sense to me that Jesus 'sacrifice' was a symbolic means by which He was able to 'go to' hell and fundamentally alter the spiritual dynamic of the relationship between God, man, sin and redemption that may not be fully translatable to beings currently limited to experiencing our single, physical reality. To put another way, suppose Jesus had travelled transdimensionally or perhaps even extrachronologically to defeat a universal spiritual deception of hopelessness, how would such an event best be explained in a manner that could be be meaningfully understood by all peoples of all cultures throughout all ages? It would probably need to be simplified quite a lot...

 

Simplify it by saying, truthfully, that he was a dick to knowingly create such a situation.

Use whatever definition you like, scapegoat, whipping boy, ransomed, etc.

just tell us if it is moral to abdicate your responsibilities for your action and let another suffer in your place.

Regards
DL

 

It is not immoral to accept forgiveness.

 

it is when someone hates the source of the forgiveness

 

if you accept misrepresentation as fact as you do, perfectly understandable.
it means path, providing a path to obtain remedy not the remedy in itself, but then hatred has an amazing way of skewing the facts.

no kidding

true
complete ignorance by context fallacy
extreme hatred does that to people

OT Jewish law, you think that is the same as NT Christian law?

out of context again

I never thought of stalin as god

No need, we have that in the US, now that the rights of the people have been all converted to state privileges

 

My take on all of this is a little unusual....... (to say the least I would guess).



Since the mid to late 1979's I was fasting on Yom Kippur and hearing sermons in the Worldwide Church of God about hidden meaning in Yom Kippur and the other Jewish high Holy Days.


https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/rom/9/1/s_1055001


"For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:" (Romans 9:3)

I assumed that the Apostle Paul must be referring to possible hidden meaning in Yom Kippur, (The Day of Atonement).

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/lev/16/1/t_bibles_106010

"but the goat on which the lot fell for Aza'zel shall be presented alive before the LORD to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Aza'zel."


By 1990 I was going through a pretty serious philosophical crisis as I confronted evidence in near death experience accounts that what I had been taught about Soul Sleep was a serious error.......


"In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old." (Isaiah 63:9)


I began to worry about The Ancient of Days the Heavenly Father because with five billion people on the earth at that time it would seem that YHWH was going through terrible difficulties while doing something of a Vulcan Mind Meld with five billion humans on earth..... (and also much cattle).....!


So..... I was in the process of separating from the WWCG anyways and I decided to put in a (proposed investment, wager, bet, payment toward what I assumed to be the debt / guilt of Azazel).... as implied in Leviticus chapter sixteen. I assumed at that time that perhaps Azazel may have been another name for Lucifer but... that was incorrect and I found out more later on in The Book of Enoch.

So anyway.... I prayed and in my mind walked past Messiah Yeshua - Jesus and in my mind directly asked the Ancient of Days the Father if He had any use for a "volunteer Yom Kippur goat" in these latter days???????

The thought was on my mind that perhaps the two witnesses of the Book of Revelation might equal the two goats of Leviticus 16....... so assuming that Messiah Yeshua - Jesus had Passover totally and completely fulfilled.......

I was wondering if I could volunteer to come back to this earth an infinite number of times......... live out my life...... and lead more and more and more and more people to repentance / teshuvah..... and thus........ pay off the debt and guilt of Azazel????????

My apologies to whatever degree my theory is off.....
but it seemed like a legimite question back then........ and to my mind still is!





Why Fast?

 

because its healthy?