₦airaland Forum

fntekim:
blummer, she should be tied to a stake and shot!

According to the Biblical accounts, Jesus died and resurrected. Jesus said he had to die ~ and in his conversation the purpose of this death was to prove the following: Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13
Jesus himself never said his blood or his death was in order to save them (this story began after his death) BUT Jesus was prepared anyway to be killed by the people he loved, for the things he believed in ~ and for the good he was doing in people's lives. His death was thus representing the extent of his love for us. Then the resurrection on the other hand would have been necessary to prove that he was actually an innocent man.

The many Pauline and Johanine accounts (their letters and gospels) in the Bible make attempts to draw parallels to the Old Testament practices of blood sacrifice and label it the "final sacrifice" that achieved what the blood of animals could not do but in my understanding its not in this sense ~ whereas the OT blood sacrifices were a religious rite, they were markedly different from the form of this sacrifice. The person who makes an OT sacrifice understands what he is doing and his own will is remorsefully brought into subjection in line with the poor animal that takes the blame. When we sacrificed Jesus, we did not understand what we were doing, we had no remorse (until the sacrifice had fully expiated) and our will was NOT brought in line with that of this scapegoat - the man Jesus.

After about 30 seconds, an old preacher with a head of short-cropped, woolly white hair stood up in the back of the audience. "Docta Tillich, I got one question," he said as all eyes turned toward him. He reached into his lunch sack and pulled out an apple and began eating it. "Docta Tillich (CRUNCH MUNCH), my question is a simple one (CRUNCH MUNCH). Now, I ain't never read them books you read (CRUNCH MUNCH), and I can't recite the Scriptures in the original Greek (CRUNCH MUNCH). I don't know nothin' about Niebuhr and Heidegger (CRUNCH MUNCH). He finished the apple. "All I wanna know is: This apple I just ate -- was it bitter or sweet?"

Dr. Tillich paused for a moment and answered in exemplary scholarly fashion: "I cannot possibly answer that question, for I haven't tasted your apple." The white-haired preacher dropped the apple core into his crumpled paper bag, looked up at Dr. Tillich and said calmly, "Neither have you tasted my Jesus."

I believe the ultimate goal of mankind is to reunite with purpose of walking in love, whether its Christians or Muslims. I have not once read where Jesus condemned a religion or another. Rather he condemned wrong motives and intentions, wrong hearts and deceptive manoeuvres.

[b]I believe teaching/tenet/belief/practice may be referred to as doctrine and yes I concede it is possible ~ absolutely speaking ~ for a doctrine to be wrong. This is because doctrines are dynamic in nature ~ ever changing ~ and whoever is the pointman of change can manipulate the doctrine to their taste. At that state, the doctrine is not much more different from the heart of that pointman. When I first said doctrines are not right or wrong, I confess I wasn't considering it absolutely.

I believe religious doctrines are of three types:

•the exoteric (commonly known) doctrines on relating with God
•the exoteric doctrines on laws, principles and conduct among men
•the esoteric (hidden) doctrines

In each category it is possible for a man who has been placed in a key position to manipulate the religious adherents into unknowingly satisfying esoteric (secret) doctrines that he believes in by making them engage in some exoteric practices that have been extrapolated - or else to advance some personal vendetta. So the masses move along like pawns in a war front. [/b]