Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My bride gets angry when I buy Hunts instead of Heinz - says the Hunts is 'too sweet', but I like that Hunts has no HFCS, and the Heinz has gotten so dang expensive. I'm fine with either, so I guess my dilemma is will my bride be more angry because of empty bank account (from buying the more expensive one)?
My bride gets angry when I buy Hunts instead of Heinz - says the Hunts is 'too sweet', but I like that Hunts has no HFCS, and the Heinz has gotten so dang expensive. I'm fine with either, so I guess my dilemma is will my bride be more angry because of empty bank account (from buying the more expensive one)?
The answer is Trader Joe's organic ketchup. No HFCS & low priced.
Of course, there is no substitute for Duke's mayo.
Back to the Heinz dilemma - Sure, it could be justified to steal an overpriced medication. Do we dogmatically say sin is sin? Maybe, the real question is should we fear death?
Seriously though, I have lots of problems with conventional ethics.
For instance, why is withholding someone's pay a "civil matter" that the poor ripped-off employee can't afford to pursue? It's theft, pure and simple. But if you were to "withhold" something of the employer's until they paid you, that's criminal and punishable.
They are both theft. But everything is in favor of the employer.
Or the insurance companies that take your money, then find some fine-print legalese to not pay you, hidden in 40 pages of "disclosures".
I read the Heinz study but it seemed quite flawed to me. My decision is that God "looks at the heart" when he decides these matters. Sort of like "intent".
Here's a bizarre example: DH thinks it's OK to forge a signature if there is no "ill intent". Like my sister forging my signature on a check since I'm not there to do it. I'm not sure about that. Forgery can be a serious crime.
I was overthinking the Heinz Dilemma and I came to the conclusion that the husband was morally required to do whatever he had to do to protect his wife's life up to and including sacrificing himself. In the Heinz dilemma it was breaking a law and stealing. I can't think of another relationship where a sacrifice would be morally required. Most parents would lay down their life for their child but I can't say that it would be a moral must. People sacrifice themselves for others all the time but we praise them because we know that really is above and beyond, definitely not a requirement.
So if Christians are the Bride of Christ does it follow that Jesus was morally required to sacrifice Himself for Christians only or all of humanity?
As I believe Christ is the personification of the moral law, whatever He does is moral.
Regarding who benefits from His actions,
all of creation does.
Human definitions of ethics, may be another thing, of which Jesus is not obliged to consider.
It's like those stupid "What Would Jesus Do" sayings. We don't know because Jesus' thoughts are so beyond our human scope of understanding!
That is because few have bothered to learn the character (Holy Spirit) of Jesus as a human which is unambiguously revealed and demonstrated by His reactions and attitude toward the savagery and brutality of our ancestors. It should have been impossible to reconcile with our ancestors' belief in a wrathful and vengeful War God especially since wrath is one of the 7 deadly "sins."
Sadly, our human capacity for rationalization exceeded the constraints of the revelations of God's True Nature by Jesus, hence the convoluted nonsense of appeasement of God's wrath by the Cross. Any and all warnings that have been couched in the context of a wrathful punishing God are clearly WRONG! It should be easy for anyone to answer whether or not Jesus would EVER have meant them in that context.
1. Jesus—The Man
196:1.1 (2090.2) Jesus’ devotion to the Father’s will and the service of man was even more than mortal decision and human determination; it was a wholehearted consecration of himself to such an unreserved bestowal of love. No matter how great the fact of the sovereignty of Michael, you must not take the human Jesus away from men. The Master has ascended on high as a man, as well as God; he belongs to men; men belong to him. How unfortunate that religion itself should be so misinterpreted as to take the human Jesus away from struggling mortals! Let not the discussions of the humanity or the divinity of the Christ obscure the saving truth that Jesus of Nazareth was a religious man who, by faith, achieved the knowing and the doing of the will of God; he was the most truly religious man who has ever lived on Urantia.
196:1.2 (2090.3) The time is ripe to witness the figurative resurrection of the human Jesus from his burial tomb amidst the theological traditions and the religious dogmas of nineteen centuries. Jesus of Nazareth must not be longer sacrificed to even the splendid concept of the glorified Christ. What a transcendent service if, through this revelation, the Son of Man should be recovered from the tomb of traditional theology and be presented as the living Jesus to the church that bears his name, and to all other religions! Surely the Christian fellowship of believers will not hesitate to make such adjustments of faith and of practices of living as will enable it to “follow after” the Master in the demonstration of his real life of religious devotion to the doing of his Father’s will and of consecration to the unselfish service of man. Do professed Christians fear the exposure of a self-sufficient and unconsecrated fellowship of social respectability and selfish economic maladjustment? Does institutional Christianity fear the possible jeopardy, or even the overthrow, of traditional ecclesiastical authority if the Jesus of Galilee is reinstated in the minds and souls of mortal men as the ideal of personal religious living? Indeed, the social readjustments, the economic transformations, the moral rejuvenations, and the religious revisions of Christian civilization would be drastic and revolutionary if the living religion of Jesus should suddenly supplant the theologic religion about Jesus.
196:1.3 (2090.4) To “follow Jesus” means to personally share his religious faith and to enter into the spirit of the Master’s life of unselfish service for man. One of the most important things in human living is to find out what Jesus believed, to discover his ideals, and to strive for the achievement of his exalted life purpose. Of all human knowledge, that which is of greatest value is to know the religious life of Jesus and how he lived it.
196:1.4 (2090.5) The common people heard Jesus gladly, and they will again respond to the presentation of his sincere human life of consecrated religious motivation if such truths shall again be proclaimed to the world. The people heard him gladly because he was one of them, an unpretentious layman; the world’s greatest religious teacher was indeed a layman.
196:1.5 (2091.1) It should not be the aim of kingdom believers literally to imitate the outward life of Jesus in the flesh but rather to share his faith; to trust God as he trusted God and to believe in men as he believed in men. Jesus never argued about either the fatherhood of God or the brotherhood of men; he was a living illustration of the one and a profound demonstration of the other.
1. Jesus—The Man
196:1.1 (2090.2) Jesus’ devotion to the Father’s will and the service of man was even more than mortal decision and human determination; it was a wholehearted consecration of himself to such an unreserved bestowal of love. No matter how great the fact of the sovereignty of Michael, you must not take the human Jesus away from men. The Master has ascended on high as a man, as well as God; he belongs to men; men belong to him. How unfortunate that religion itself should be so misinterpreted as to take the human Jesus away from struggling mortals! Let not the discussions of the humanity or the divinity of the Christ obscure the saving truth that Jesus of Nazareth was a religious man who, by faith, achieved the knowing and the doing of the will of God; he was the most truly religious man who has ever lived on Urantia.
196:1.2 (2090.3) The time is ripe to witness the figurative resurrection of the human Jesus from his burial tomb amidst the theological traditions and the religious dogmas of nineteen centuries. Jesus of Nazareth must not be longer sacrificed to even the splendid concept of the glorified Christ. What a transcendent service if, through this revelation, the Son of Man should be recovered from the tomb of traditional theology and be presented as the living Jesus to the church that bears his name, and to all other religions! Surely the Christian fellowship of believers will not hesitate to make such adjustments of faith and of practices of living as will enable it to “follow after” the Master in the demonstration of his real life of religious devotion to the doing of his Father’s will and of consecration to the unselfish service of man. Do professed Christians fear the exposure of a self-sufficient and unconsecrated fellowship of social respectability and selfish economic maladjustment? Does institutional Christianity fear the possible jeopardy, or even the overthrow, of traditional ecclesiastical authority if the Jesus of Galilee is reinstated in the minds and souls of mortal men as the ideal of personal religious living? Indeed, the social readjustments, the economic transformations, the moral rejuvenations, and the religious revisions of Christian civilization would be drastic and revolutionary if the living religion of Jesus should suddenly supplant the theologic religion about Jesus.
196:1.3 (2090.4) To “follow Jesus” means to personally share his religious faith and to enter into the spirit of the Master’s life of unselfish service for man. One of the most important things in human living is to find out what Jesus believed, to discover his ideals, and to strive for the achievement of his exalted life purpose. Of all human knowledge, that which is of greatest value is to know the religious life of Jesus and how he lived it.
196:1.4 (2090.5) The common people heard Jesus gladly, and they will again respond to the presentation of his sincere human life of consecrated religious motivation if such truths shall again be proclaimed to the world. The people heard him gladly because he was one of them, an unpretentious layman; the world’s greatest religious teacher was indeed a layman.
196:1.5 (2091.1) It should not be the aim of kingdom believers literally to imitate the outward life of Jesus in the flesh but rather to share his faith; to trust God as he trusted God and to believe in men as he believed in men. Jesus never argued about either the fatherhood of God or the brotherhood of men; he was a living illustration of the one and a profound demonstration of the other.
There is a great deal of inspired wisdom in the Urantia book amidst a plethora of unnecessary and unsupportable claims and speculation about the supposed state of Reality. I believe the following questions are indeed WHY mainstream Christianity ignores the True Nature of God as revealed and demonstrated by Jesus on the Cross:
"Do professed Christians fear the exposure of a self-sufficient and unconsecrated fellowship of social respectability and selfish economic maladjustment? Does institutional Christianity fear the possible jeopardy, or even the overthrow, of traditional ecclesiastical authority if the Jesus of Galilee is reinstated in the minds and souls of mortal men as the ideal of personal religious living? Indeed, the social readjustments, the economic transformations, the moral rejuvenations, and the religious revisions of Christian civilization would be drastic and revolutionary if the living religion of Jesus should suddenly supplant the theologic religion about Jesus.
I was overthinking the Heinz Dilemma and I came to the conclusion that the husband was morally required to do whatever he had to do to protect his wife's life up to and including sacrificing himself. In the Heinz dilemma it was breaking a law and stealing. I can't think of another relationship where a sacrifice would be morally required. Most parents would lay down their life for their child but I can't say that it would be a moral must. People sacrifice themselves for others all the time but we praise them because we know that really is above and beyond, definitely not a requirement.
So if Christians are the Bride of Christ does it follow that Jesus was morally required to sacrifice Himself for Christians only or all of humanity?
I cannot comment on your Heinz Dilemma question. But know this seriously, Being the Bride of Christ has to be awarded on the day of judgement. We cannot assume if we call ourselves Christians here on earth we are the Brides of Christ, currently or expected. We cannot toast the cup with Jesus on that day of Sukkot unless it is truly awarded to us. Then and only then will we have that title. Yes that is the goal and his loving intention. And yes, Jesus did sacrifice himself for all humanity so we would all have an opportunity to be saved by the Day of Judgement and earn the serious title you asked about.
A woman was on her deathbed. There was one drug that the doctors said would save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: “No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's laboratory to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
This is The Bride of Christ:
Revelation 21- 9And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
