Former Bob Jones University Fundy becomes agnostic

[atheist SC]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I was talking about Paul - Saint Paul, you know, formerly Saul, blinded and converted by God to give God's unalloyed message via Jesus during an interview in heaven?

Hardly a primitive barbaric view. If we can't take Paul's Jesus - given word, whose word can we take?

In fact, speaking of primitive barbaric views, that is the best explanation for why we have religions anyway.

It is a power and money grab, That is what is really what makes the world go round.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Only a superficial knowledge of the science involved and the nature of the universe could account for such a cavalier dismissal.

Please yourself.

You seem to want to tie me to "supernatural" BS in order to facilitate your dismissal.

Whatever. I am simply not interesting in discussing it so yes, I dismissed it.

Since that means I know a lot about how the universe works . . . I will agree . . . since they are the same thing.

I think I need to quote, here, the questions I was asking.

"So, taking your 'result'... There was some evil or sin or whatever that prevented mankind from being saved.

MysticPhd

Sin is the primitive term for the problem. There was a discordant and un-harmonic nature to human consciousness vis-a-vis the God consciousness responsible for the universe's existence. They were incompatible . . . yes . . . because of the immature selfish and "unloving" frames of mind fostered primarily by our unsuppressed animal natures ("sinful natures").

(Arq) Yes. That is covered by 'whatever'. I'll leave aside the question of whether God was responsible for the 'whatever' but we appear to agree that there was something - You say "a discordant and un-harmonic nature to human consciousness vis-a-vis the God consciousness responsible for the universe's existence" that was preventing our being saved. I don't suppose it even matters much what we were saved for, but saved we had to be.

Jesus was crucified for whatever reason and the 'result' of that was to overcome this evil or sin that prevented man from being saved.

Mystic

The "whatever reason" was our barbarous and unloving natures and the desire to retain power and control among the religious leaders who were supposed to be harmonizing our natures with God's and failing miserably. Does that get you any "nearer?

arqNo further away, at least. The whatever 'reason' is actually not germane. What matters is that the crucifixion was done and it was very unpleasant but was neccessary for the overcoming of your "discordant and un-harmonic nature to human consciousness vis-a-vis the God consciousness"

I said

That is as near as I can get to Paul telling the truth about Jesus dying and the 'result' of that being to save mankind.

Before I go any further with this would you like to say that we are ok so far or is there anything you disagree with about this?"

So it looks like I got what I wanted: "but we appear to agree that there was something - You say "a discordant and un-harmonic nature to human consciousness vis-a-vis the God consciousness responsible for the universe's existence" that was preventing our being saved."

and

the crucifixion was done and it was very unpleasant but was neccessary for the overcoming of your "discordant and un-harmonic nature to human consciousness vis-a-vis the God consciousness"

That is as near as I need to Paul's telling the truth about Jesus dying and the 'result' of that being to save mankind.

Summation: There was something - You say "a discordant and un-harmonic nature to human consciousness vis-a-vis the God consciousness responsible for the universe's existence" that was preventing our being saved." and the crucifixion was done and it was very unpleasant but was neccessary for the overcoming of your "discordant and un-harmonic nature to human consciousness vis-a-vis the God consciousness"

Which effectively means that your assertion that "There was no promise that Jesus's "sacrifice" would in any way alleviate the difficulty of overcoming our animal natures." Is either wrong, if this in any way related to our salvation (and it seems that you clearly said that it was), or irrelevant if it is not. There was such a promise made by Paul and you accept that in 'primitive' and 'barbaric' terms, that promise was true.

So I now have to ask whether you take the view that Jesus was 'sent' by God in some way - either a spirit into a normal human or a man made, in some sense, by God - in order to accomplish that purpose, or not.

I am sure the rest of the atheists here on the board can see where this is going, and perhaps you do, too. But I'll show my cards anyway because I don't do rhetorical trickery and you should know what the arguments are going to be.

If you don't take the view that Jesus was in any way 'sent' or perhaps 'used' by God to accomplish this crucifixion - 'result', then I agree with you on that and so does Ken Pulliam, Ph.D. apparently, as he is now no longer a Christian believer and I'd be interested to find out why you still are.

If you do take the view that Jesus was in any way 'sent' or perhaps 'used' by God to accomplish this crucifixion - 'result', then I have to ask whether in your view this event was planned, set up, organized, intended or fortuitously utilized by God in order to accomplish this 'result'

If not...then I can only see salvation as the workings of some unintelligent natural power such as Karma is supposed to be, and the circumstances of a purely mundane act of crucifixion happened to accomplish this salvation 'result' quite accidentally without a god or anyone else intending it. I don't find that at all persuasive and I'll be surprised if you do. Of you did it would make any kind of belief in a personal god pointless.

So we are left with a crucifixion, which, you appear to accept, was extremely unpleasant, and which was arranged and planned by God - in which case, whether or not you use the term 'payment' or 'result' or, indeed, 'punishment' to refer to the saving effect of this crucifixion, it is a particular someone being done a lot of no - good at the instigation of God in order to achieve this result.

Thus I'd say that Pulliam's misgivings about the "justice of an innocent person (Christ) being punished in the place of the guilty parties (sinners)" are spot on.

Over to you.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by atheist SC

It is a power and money grab, That is what is really what makes the world go round.

Well,yes. I feel the same way about a lot of the occult and fringe science stuf that become profitable industries. However, they only become so because people buy into them.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Whatever. I am simply not interesting in discussing it so yes, I dismissed it.

Not surprised . . . since it refutes the very contention you seek to make.

I think I need to quote, here, the questions I was asking.

"So, taking your 'result'... There was some evil or sin or whatever that prevented mankind from being saved. MysticPhd

(Arq) Yes. That is covered by 'whatever'. I'll leave aside the question of whether God was responsible for the 'whatever' but we appear to agree that there was something - You say "a discordant and un-harmonic nature to human consciousness vis-a-vis the God consciousness responsible for the universe's existence" that was preventing our being saved. I don't suppose it even matters much what we were saved for, but saved we had to be.
Mystic

arqNo further away, at least. The whatever 'reason' is actually not germane. What matters is that the crucifixion was done and it was very unpleasant but was neccessary for the overcoming of your "discordant and un-harmonic nature to human consciousness vis-a-vis the God consciousness"

Jesus was crucified for whatever reason and the 'result' of that was to overcome this evil or sin that prevented man from being saved.
I said

So it looks like I got what I wanted: "but we appear to agree that there was something - You say "a discordant and un-harmonic nature to human consciousness vis-a-vis the God consciousness responsible for the universe's existence" that was preventing our being saved."

and

the crucifixion was done and it was very unpleasant but was neccessary for the overcoming of your "discordant and un-harmonic nature to human consciousness vis-a-vis the God consciousness"

That is as near as I need to Paul's telling the truth about Jesus dying and the 'result' of that being to save mankind.

Summation: There was something - You say "a discordant and un-harmonic nature to human consciousness vis-a-vis the God consciousness responsible for the universe's existence" that was preventing our being saved." and the crucifixion was done and it was very unpleasant but was neccessary for the overcoming of your "discordant and un-harmonic nature to human consciousness vis-a-vis the God consciousness"

The crucifixion was NOT necessary . . . Jesus, His message and example of the true nature of God, and His EVENTUAL death was necessary to achieve the desired result. There is no "punishment" we needed to be "saved" from . . . our species was simply "not getting it done" (our purpose in existing). We needed to be "saved" from our failure as a species to mature spiritually and join in the propagation of God's consciousness. Jesus corrected the wrong ideas about the nature of God and what we were supposed to do. Jesus exposed the false teaching of the "religious" leaders who were corrupting our spiritual development and evolution . . . and He achieved the perfection of consciousness for us ALL. The price (scourging and crucifixion He paid for doing that was entirely our fault!

Your use of "necessary" and "for" is your attempt to retain your desired and erroneous implication that it was MANDATED by God . . . it was NOT! Jesus was crucified because of our free will and dominion over the earth. THEY were the causative agents. God would not rescind his bestowal of EITHER to our species because they are essential to producing independent consciousnesses (NOT mindless robots). God ALLOWED our barbaric ancestors to make Jesus's death so horrible. If we had not been so barbaric . . . Jesus might have lived a fuller life and died a more normal death achieving the SAME end result for humankind. In fact, an extended teaching soujourn might have even eliminated so much of the nonsense perpetuated by the barbarous minds of His day.

Which effectively means that your assertion that "There was no promise that Jesus's "sacrifice" would in any way alleviate the difficulty of overcoming our animal natures." Is either wrong, if this in any way related to our salvation (and it seems that you clearly said that it was), or irrelevant if it is not.There was such a promise made by Paul and you accept that in 'primitive' and 'barbaric' terms, that promise was true.

Non sequitur. Of course nothing Jesus did eliminated our struggle with our animal nature and Paul never claimed it did. It just provides motivation for us to try and the grace (love of Jesus for us ALL) provides the method of achieving some minimum "harmonic" resonance with God's consciousness through "love of God and each other" in Jesus's perfect resonance.

So I now have to ask whether you take the view that Jesus was 'sent' by God in some way - either a spirit into a normal human or a man made, in some sense, by God - in order to accomplish that purpose, or not.

I am sure the rest of the atheists here on the board can see where this is going, and perhaps you do, too. But I'll show my cards anyway because I don't do rhetorical trickery and you should know what the arguments are going to be.

If you don't take the view that Jesus was in any way 'sent' or perhaps 'used' by God to accomplish this crucifixion - 'result', then I agree with you on that and so does Ken Pulliam, Ph.D. apparently, as he is now no longer a Christian believer and I'd be interested to find out why you still are.

If you do take the view that Jesus was in any way 'sent' or perhaps 'used' by God to accomplish this crucifixion - 'result', then I have to ask whether in your view this event was planned, set up, organized, intended or fortuitously utilized by God in order to accomplish this 'result'

If not...then I can only see salvation as the workings of some unintelligent natural power such as Karma is supposed to be, and the circumstances of a purely mundane act of crucifixion happened to accomplish this salvation 'result' quite accidentally without a god or anyone else intending it. I don't find that at all persuasive and I'll be surprised if you do. Of you did it would make any kind of belief in a personal god pointless.

So we are left with a crucifixion, which, you appear to accept, was extremely unpleasant, and which was arranged and planned by God - in which case, whether or not you use the term 'payment' or 'result' or, indeed, 'punishment' to refer to the saving effect of this crucifixion, it is a particular someone being done a lot of no - good at the instigation of God in order to achieve this result.

Thus I'd say that Pulliam's misgivings about the "justice of an innocent person (Christ) being punished in the place of the guilty parties (sinners)" are spot on.

Over to you.

[/quote]Your thick-headed reliance on the "salvation" terminology" telegraphed your agenda long before your admission. As you can see in my responses above the "crucifixion" part was NOT required . . . just inevitable and unavoidable because of our barbarity(sinfulness), free will and dominion over all things on the earth. However, sending Jesus was definitely part of the plan . . . it was prophesied and both God and Jesus knew what it would inevitably entail. Therefore God is guilty of KNOWING what men would do to Jesus and NOT stopping it. But he in no way REQUIRED it!

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Not surprised . . . since it refutes the very contention you seek to make.

More because it is totally irrelevant. If this is about a personal god, then I am only concerned with what is claimed to have been done and whether it is believable. If it is not about a personal god it is irrelevant. A deist God does not need us to be religious, perform acts of worship or believe anything, in particular.

The crucifixion was NOT necessary . . . Jesus, His message and example of the true nature of God, and His EVENTUAL death was necessary to achieve the desired result.

That does not change my point. The point is not whether only Crucifixion would have served but did God require Jesus' death to achieve this 'result'? Did God intend that Jesus had to die, by some means or other? If he did, my argument stands. And you say below that he did. "God is guilty of KNOWING what men would do to Jesus and NOT stopping it"

There is no "punishment" we needed to be "saved" from . . . our species was simply "not getting it done" (our purpose in existing).

You can't change the point by just putting it different words. There was something that was stopping us being saved. Jesus' death served to overcome that 'something' and the question you have to answer is, do you believe that God intended Jesus to die to accomplish that? If not, Christianity is pointless and if you do, my argument stands. God did this to Jesus. And, as I say, you state below that he did.

We needed to be "saved" from our failure as a species to mature spiritually and join in the propagation of God's consciousness. Jesus corrected the wrong ideas about the nature of God and what we were supposed to do. Jesus exposed the false teaching of the "religious" leaders who were corrupting our spiritual development and evolution . . . and He achieved the perfection of consciousness for us ALL. The price (scourging and crucifixion He paid for doing that was entirely our fault!

Leaving aside the old Problem of Evil point that we are as we were (supposedly) made, If as you say, we needed to be 'saved' from something (our animal natures perhaps, you need to clarify that, as I set out below) the 'Salvation' factor is in place.

The question is not who is to blame for the method of Jesus' death but, I suppose, whether God could have done it another way. Frankly, if He couldn't, it makes God, trapped into a course of action He would rather not do and unable to do it any other way...well, it makes God look a bit unlike the Doer of Everything we had be led to believe in. What do you think?

Your use of "necessary" and "for" is your attempt to retain your desired and erroneous implication that it was MANDATED by God . . . it was NOT! Jesus was crucified because of our free will and dominion over the earth. THEY were the causative agents. God would not rescind his bestowal of EITHER to our species because they are essential to producing independent consciousnesses (NOT mindless robots). God ALLOWED our barbaric ancestors to make Jesus's death so horrible.

Despite your attempts above to lay the blame on us (one of the things I loathe most about Christian theology) you pretty much 'fess up here that God did it to Jesus. He ALLOWED it, as you say.

If we had not been so barbaric . . . Jesus might have lived a fuller life and died a more normal death achieving the SAME end result for humankind. In fact, an extended teaching soujourn might have even eliminated so much of the nonsense perpetuated by the barbarous minds of His day. Non sequitur. Of course nothing Jesus did eliminated our struggle with our animal nature and Paul never claimed it did.

This is a question about whether the act of Jesus' death and Paul's assurance that it would 'save' us was true, and you agreed that, within it's 'primitive and barbaric' terminology, it was true. If what we are being saved from is to do with our 'animal natures', then it is inescapable that Jesus death either released us from it or it didn't. If it didn't then what Paul promised was not true and Jesus' death was meaningless, as well as the Bible and you being wrong in saying that it was true.

If our 'animal nature' is not what we are being saved from as the 'result' of Jesus' death, then it is a red herring and is not relevant to the discussion and I have to ask what, in your view, is the 'result' accomplished through Jesus' death. If anything.

It just provides motivation for us to try and the grace (love of Jesus for us ALL) provides the method of achieving some minimum "harmonic" resonance with God's consciousness through "love of God and each other" in Jesus's perfect resonance.

I gather this is about Jesus' life. But that is not what we are talking about. We are discussing whether Jesus' death was neccessary, whether it had to be horrible death, and whether God could have done it another way but didn't or couldn't have done it another way. And, of course, whether he can lay feasibly the blame for what he did or did not do on His own creation.

Your thick-headed reliance on the "salvation" terminology" telegraphed your agenda long before your admission. As you can see in my responses above the "crucifixion" part was NOT required . . . just inevitable and unavoidable because of our barbarity(sinfulness), free will and dominion over all things on the earth. However, sending Jesus was definitely part of the plan . . . it was prophesied and both God and Jesus knew what it would inevitably entail. Therefore God is guilty of KNOWING what men would do to Jesus and NOT stopping it. But he in no way REQUIRED it!

Thank you. I appreciate your honesty. God and Jesus according to you both knew that death by some means was 'part of the plan'. I might ask whether a peaceful death by slitting the Holy Wrists in a warm bath and sipping Falernian as He gradually expired would have achieved the 'result' or whether only something really nasty would have worked. In which case, Crucifixion as the nastiest method of death outside China would, indeed, have been 'neccessary'. What do you think? Would an easy death have achieved the 'result'?

As to 'salvation' terminology. I had to use the terms in the Bible. When you suggested other forms of wording, I used them. I am playing with your pieces.

It seems to be, yet again, that the chat is heading towards the 'Problem of Evil'. Prof. Pulliam gives one example of the problem that caused him to deconvert. The evil that God did to Jesus and which he did not deserve. The problem is: what justice is that?

Two answers (which you hint at here) are that it was God doing it to himself (you say that Jesus saw it coming as much as God did) and that it was all our fault anyway.

The first makes God look pretty limited and that in itself is a doubt about this 'God' we are supposed to worship. The second brings up the old 'We are as you made us' retort which is pretty much valid whichever way you slice it and the 'can the clay dictate to the potter' get - out just adds a bit of nasty bullying to it.

I don't wonder that Pulliam deconverted and I only wonder why more people don't.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

More because it is totally irrelevant. If this is about a personal god, then I am only concerned with what is claimed to have been done and whether it is believable. If it is not about a personal god it is irrelevant. A deist God does not need us to be religious, perform acts of worship or believe anything, in particular.

If the reason for our existence is to propagate God's eternal consciousness (as our body's cells propagate our own consciousness by their short life and death) . . . then achieving the right "generic character" (love) is essential. I suspect your fixation on Pulliam has entrapped your thought processes about the concept of God and is preventing an open-minded consideration of the concept. I assure you . . . retaining our ancestors' primitive concepts will continue to generate confusion about the underlying reality of them.

That does not change my point. The point is not whether only Crucifixion would have served but did God require Jesus' death to achieve this 'result'? Did God intend that Jesus had to die, by some means or other?

Jesus is fully human . . . what other fate did you imagine He would have?

If he did, my argument stands. And you say below that he did. "God is guilty of KNOWING what men would do to Jesus and NOT stopping it".

You can't change the point by just putting it different words. There was something that was stopping us being saved. Jesus' death served to overcome that 'something' and the question you have to answer is, do you believe that God intended Jesus to die to accomplish that? If not, Christianity is pointless and if you do, my argument stands. God did this to Jesus. And, as I say, you state below that he did.

Leaving aside the old Problem of Evil point that we are as we were (supposedly) made, If as you say, we needed to be 'saved' from something (our animal natures perhaps, you need to clarify that, as I set out below) the 'Salvation' factor is in place.

You are stuck in the "salvation" from some horrific eternal fate mode . . . quite frustrating. Our species has a spiritual "maturation" sequence just as we individually do as members of it. You might be more inclined to use the words spiritual "evolutionary sequence" to accompany the physical. We certainly were incapable of our purpose as bacterial life or early hominid life. It might help to reorient your thinking about all this if you were to see the evolution of all life on earth as the "pregnancy" stage of conscious life.

I know abstract thought is not your forte . . . but perhaps a little tidbit from Revelation 12:1 will help:

. . . And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon was under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars. And being with child, she cried out in her travail and was in the anguish of delivery.

The question is not who is to blame for the method of Jesus' death but, I suppose, whether God could have done it another way. Frankly, if He couldn't, it makes God, trapped into a course of action He would rather not do and unable to do it any other way...well, it makes God look a bit unlike the Doer of Everything we had be led to believe in. What do you think?

Any Calvinist or other views about God as the Doer of Everything are illogical claptrap. Free will (within God's design and limitations of the universe) and Dominion mean exactly what they say! We are NOT mindless robots and we MUST independently develop or we are useless to God's propagation.

Despite your attempts above to lay the blame on us (one of the things I loathe most about Christian theology) you pretty much 'fess up here that God did it to Jesus. He ALLOWED it, as you say.

God DID nothing . . . "allowing" is implicit in the granting of "free will and Dominion" and essential to the development of independent consciousnesses. Mindless robots acting out a pre-determined script would be useless. Knowledge of the actions is not the same as requiring them.

This is a question about whether the act of Jesus' death and Paul's assurance that it would 'save' us was true, and you agreed that, within it's 'primitive and barbaric' terminology, it was true. If what we are being saved from is to do with our 'animal natures', then it is inescapable that Jesus death either released us from it or it didn't. If it didn't then what Paul promised was not true and Jesus' death was meaningless, as well as the Bible and you being wrong in saying that it was true.

::sigh:: What it "saved" us from is the necessity to PERFECTLY control our animal natures to be successful in our purpose. The connection of human consciousness to God's consciousness has been achieved for ALL humankind by Jesus. We now have a more achievable goal in our evolving spiritual maturity.

If our 'animal nature' is not what we are being saved from as the 'result' of Jesus' death, then it is a red herring and is not relevant to the discussion and I have to ask what, in your view, is the 'result' accomplished through Jesus' death. If anything.

You have not been reading . . . or if you have . . . you have not been comprehending . . . because of your biased expectations from Pulliam's nonsense.

I gather this is about Jesus' life. But that is not what we are talking about. We are discussing whether Jesus' death was neccessary, whether it had to be horrible death, and whether God could have done it another way but didn't or couldn't have done it another way. And, of course, whether he can lay feasibly the blame for what he did or did not do on His own creation.

This has ALL been answered already. ALL human death is necessary or we cannot be reborn as Spirit and join God's consciousness. It did NOT have to be a horrible death . . . but it was inevitable given the state of humankind's spiritual development at the time Jesus was sent to reveal God's true nature and correct the erroneous impressions created by the veil of ignorance surrounding the reading of the OT.

Thank you. I appreciate your honesty. God and Jesus according to you both knew that death by some means was 'part of the plan'. I might ask whether a peaceful death by slitting the Holy Wrists in a warm bath and sipping Falernian as He gradually expired would have achieved the 'result' or whether only something really nasty would have worked. In which case, Crucifixion as the nastiest method of death outside China would, indeed, have been 'neccessary'. What do you think? Would an easy death have achieved the 'result'?

Suicide would never be acceptable. Nothing nasty was REQUIRED . . . but it certainly was unavoidable given our barbarity and absurd notions of God. God simply could not "make it so" . . . or any pretense of free will and Dominion for humankind would be null and void.

As to 'salvation' terminology. I had to use the terms in the Bible. When you suggested other forms of wording, I used them. I am playing with your pieces.

It seems to be, yet again, that the chat is heading towards the 'Problem of Evil'. Prof. Pulliam gives one example of the problem that caused him to deconvert. The evil that God did to Jesus and which he did not deserve. The problem is: what justice is that?

Two answers (which you hint at here) are that it was God doing it to himself (you say that Jesus saw it coming as much as God did) and that it was all our fault anyway.

The first makes God look pretty limited and that in itself is a doubt about this 'God' we are supposed to worship. The second brings up the old 'We are as you made us' retort which is pretty much valid whichever way you slice it and the 'can the clay dictate to the potter' get - out just adds a bit of nasty bullying to it.

I don't wonder that Pulliam deconverted and I only wonder why more people don't.

There is no "Problem of Evil." God DID nothing to Jesus except send Him to aid us ultimately in achieving our spiritual purpose as a species. WE did everything.

Jesus COULD have "smote" them all and "saved Himself" . . . but it would have solidified the already erroneous concept of God under which the savages were operating . . . and negated the entire purpose of His mission. It also would not have advanced our understanding that physical death is NOT the end and is not to be feared. It is our goal to eventual rebirth as Spirit.

As an aside . . . God has NO NEED of our worship . . . it is entirely to aid US in developing our spiritual self. God NEEDS nothing from us except our successful spiritual maturation and rebirth as Spirit.

[TRANSPONDER]

I have to agree that your brand of Christianity is somewhat remote from what has been preached at me by other theists and, after reading it I begin to think that it is so remote from the ideas that Pulliam had as a Fundy that it is perhaps irrelevant to the problems he had - which is what the thread is about.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

If the reason for our existence is to propagate God's eternal consciousness (as our body's cells propagate our own consciousness by their short life and death)

And 'if' not? Why does there have to be a reason for our existence (other than we 'just growed')?

. . . then achieving the right "generic character" (love) is essential. I suspect your fixation on Pulliam has entrapped your thought processes about the concept of God and is preventing an open-minded consideration of the concept. I assure you . . . retaining our ancestors' primitive concepts will continue to generate confusion about the underlying reality of them.

The 'fixation' about Pulliam is because that is what this thread is about. Your take on this whole Jesus thing is way beyond the Bible and only tenuously has any relation with Paul's promises about salvation and the problem of evil. Thus Pulliam's problem (and that of any other who takes the Bible contents as fact) is what it is and I'll have to leave it to them to consider your alternative theology.

Jesus is fully human . . . what other fate did you imagine He would have?

(what did I post?)

"(did) God require Jesus' death to achieve this 'result'? Did God intend that Jesus had to die, by some means or other?"

If your remark related to all humans dying, you must see that is not what I was asking. Which was, did Jesus have to die (before his time) to obtain this 'result'? (still don't know exactly what) you imply that he did, since both he and God knew about it and they still went ahead.

You are stuck in the "salvation" from some horrific eternal fate mode . . .

I am stuck in 'salvation' as that is a Christian teaching and, as a Fundy, Pulliam belived in that. You have also said that what Paul said was true and he was talking about salvation. You can use any term you like but we are still talking about whether God did something unpleasant to a human in order to achieve a result for all of us. What you have posted so far implies that you do and blaming our animal nature for it won't do. If God did it it's his doing.

If God didn't and just decided to intervene...well, that's another theology entirely and I have to say that it is the one Pulliam was concerned with that is relevant to this thread. If you don't believe the idea of a god that made everything and the idea of Jesus saving us from something by a nasty death, then your views are really not relevant to discussing why Pulliam could not accept the implications of those views held formerly by him and by all Fundy Christians.

quite frustrating. Our species has a spiritual "maturation" sequence just as we individually do as members of it. You might be more inclined to use the words spiritual "evolutionary sequence" to accompany the physical. We certainly were incapable of our purpose as bacterial life or early hominid life. It might help to reorient your thinking about all this if you were to see the evolution of all life on earth as the "pregnancy" stage of conscious life.

That's a very interesting theory but is not really relevant to the subject of this thread.

I know abstract thought is not your forte . . . but perhaps a little tidbit from Revelation 12:1 will help:

. . . And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon was under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars. And being with child, she cried out in her travail and was in the anguish of delivery.

No. That piece of End-times mythical imagery seems quite irrelevant to this thread.

Any Calvinist or other views about God as the Doer of Everything are illogical claptrap.

I agree and so does Pulliam now, being an atheist. But the whole point of this thread is the implications of Fundamentalist Christians who do believe it.

Free will (within God's design and limitations of the universe) and Dominion mean exactly what they say! We are NOT mindless robots and we MUST independently develop or we are useless to God's propagation. God DID nothing . . . "allowing" is implicit in the granting of "free will and Dominion" and essential to the development of independent consciousnesses. Mindless robots acting out a pre-determined script would be useless. Knowledge of the actions is not the same as requiring them. ::sigh:: What it "saved" us from is the necessity to PERFECTLY control our animal natures to be successful in our purpose. The connection of human consciousness to God's consciousness has been achieved for ALL humankind by Jesus.

Sorry, we are still in the same ballpark. Axiom: 'Free Will does not get God off the hook.' Not if God created us as we are.

If, of course, you say He didn't..well,then it should be 'he' with a small 'h' and your theology is not related to the problems that Pulliam had which is the subject of this thread.

We now have a more achievable goal in our evolving spiritual maturity. You have not been reading . . . or if you have . . . you have not been comprehending . . . because of your biased expectations from Pulliam's nonsense. This has ALL been answered already. ALL human death is necessary or we cannot be reborn as Spirit and join God's consciousness.

That is not what the Bible says, nor Paul. Human death is not neccessary to ..."be reborn as Spirit and join God's consciousness". Human death, the Bible tells us, is a result of disobedience and burdens us with sin (according to the 'claptrap' as you put it) and Jesus died (as Paul said, and you said that he told the truth) in order to achieve the 'result' (your term) of overcoming this.

I don't know whether Jesus put on a display of death in order to make us realize something about why we die and it seems that you have a theology remote from Christianity and its doctrine of salvation through Jesus' death. If so, as I said, it is not Christianity and is some religion of your own, loosely based on the Bible. That's fine. I'm not particularly interested in it, mind, but the main thing is that it is irrelevant to the subject of this thread - the reasons why a Fundy deconverted.

It did NOT have to be a horrible death . . . but it was inevitable given the state of humankind's spiritual development at the time Jesus was sent to reveal God's true nature and correct the erroneous impressions created by the veil of ignorance surrounding the reading of the OT. Suicide would never be acceptable. Nothing nasty was REQUIRED . . . but it certainly was unavoidable given our barbarity and absurd notions of God.

One is inclined to ask whether it might have been better to wait until the spiritual development had moved on a bit. However, it still looks either that God was in control so it was what he did. 'did not do' is just a way of saying the same thing - since he did 'send' Jesus even if it was only letting him know what was going to happen.

God simply could not "make it so" . . . or any pretense of free will and Dominion for humankind would be null and void.

I think the point here is that God doesn't need to 'make it so' (in relation to Jesus) but not to do anything. Not to send Jesus. Not to put him is the position where he would be killed in order to achieve this result. Not to be 'guilty' (your term) of doing this thing. It seems a bit unconvincing to suggest that only the nastiest possible death was an inevitable outcome when people at the time died in much less horrible ways. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that God had other options but chose 'not to do' them. I cannot find your views very persuasive, even if they were relevant to this thread.

There is no "Problem of Evil." God DID nothing to Jesus except send Him to aid us ultimately in achieving our spiritual purpose as a species. WE did everything.

I find that as convincing as Pol Pot saying he never killed anyone. If God set it up then he is guilty. If he didn't and he had little or no input into this, then this theology is quite irrelevant to the thread and God is quite irrelevant to us.

Jesus COULD have "smote" them all and "saved Himself" . . . but it would have solidified the already erroneous concept of God under which the savages were operating . . . and negated the entire purpose of His mission. It also would not have advanced our understanding that physical death is NOT the end and is not to be feared. It is our goal to eventual rebirth as Spirit.

I can see your theology here. It looks a bit airy - fairy to me as it doesn't seem to have accomplished much to change our view of God. You are the only one, it seems, to have really understood what was really going on and everyone else is still stuck in the primitive, barbaric and thickheaded view of God. That's ok. So far as I can see, the only one who subscribes to a view that the gospel -writers adapted an original Jesus story is me. Numbers proves nothing.

Nevertheless, as I say, since that view and the problems with it is the subject of this thread, any theology that regards it as 'Calvinist claptrap' is not really relevant and I commend you to your own invented religion and I hope you make plenty of converts to it. I, however, am concerned with the mainstream theology and encouraging believers to think about the problems with it.

As an aside . . . God has NO NEED of our worship . . . it is entirely to aid US in developing our spiritual self. God NEEDS nothing from us except our successful spiritual maturation and rebirth as Spirit.

He's not going to get it either as any god that I am prepared to admit as a 'First cause' possibility certainly needs nothing from me.