Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

JesusistheKing said: 

"HE MEANT IT SYMBOLICALLY"

Ahh, the biggest cop out of them all.

To me, it's fine if they take it all as symbols, or if they take it all literally, but to pick and choose which to take literally and which to take as symbols turns every passage into a personal choice, rather than the Word of God. 

Well it is not a cop out If you are going to believe that everything that Jesus says in the holy scriptures is true,  you have to try to find out how both statements could possibly be true  In this case it seems like the first one had to have been symbolic,  or like specifically talking about drinking ritual wine

If I am to keep believing in Jesus then I am supposed to believe that "the fruit of the vine" specifically means ritual wine............  I do not like accepting this and it kind of bothers me,  but it is the only way to make it not a contradiction to him drinking the sour wine vinegar which was the Roman soldiers' drink and nonritual

IMOJesusistheKing said: 

HOW AM I GOING TO SURVIVE IF MY FAITH IS ABOUT TO COLLAPSE ?  I STILL WANT TO BE A GOOD PERSON I STILL WANT TO LIVE MY LIFE FOR THE BETTER,  I STILL WANT TO BECOME MORE COMPASSIONATE AND TO LEAVE THE MICHAEL AND SATAN THING IN THE PAST BUT LOOK,  LOOK

 

WHT AM I GOING TO DO,  WHAT IF I CANNOT GENUINELY CONVINCE MYSELF THAT HE ONLY MEANT IT SYMBOLICALLY ?  I AM HAVING A MENTAL BREAKDOWN OH MY GOSH

 

This was at the Passover feast at the Last Supper when he initiated the New Covenant Lord's Supper bread and wine Rituals

 

 

Matthew 26:29

29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.


Mark 14:25

25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.


Luke 22:18

18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

 

 

and then

 

John 19:28-30

28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.

29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.

30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

 

so he did this last part to fulfill prophecy from scripture,  but it seems like he lied and Idk how to trust him

 

 

 Fruit of the vine is grapes. Vinegar can be made of grains ect and things other than grapes. I know because jews specifically avoid this type of grain based Vinegar during passover for this very reason. In fact grapes and wine are often especially in the case of Jesus in Passover context symbolic for passover.  But you could see certain vinegar which is avoided during passover as the opposite. In the context of Jewish culture wine is symbolic for joy and sweetness and vinegar the opposite, bitterness and misery. Again vinegar is absolutely not in any way a contradiction of what he is saying here. If anything the symbolism backs up what he I saying even more.

BPD's are so reactive to their feelings. Why doesn't it ever occur to you in the heat of the moment your emotions aren't really that intuitive ?

Golden_Eagle said: 

BPD's are so reactive to their feelings. Why doesn't it ever occur to you in the heat of the moment your emotions aren't really that intuitive ?

 This.

JesusistheKing said: 

So it was Abram that lied to Isaac,  not God to Abram  God just gave a command,  and then later on said that following through on the command was not required anymore  God is free to do that it seems and it is not sinning

He made him go through something as psychopathic as killing his son to test his faith, only stopping him at the last minute when he was sure he would do it after having given him days to think about it. That's horrible, that to me sounds more like something demons might do. Have others been asked to potentially kill their firstborns like this for God to such a degree that Abraham saw this as normal, or did Abraham not really care about his son at all in lieu of his faith? 

We also have to ask if either of the figures in the story giving him commands can be trusted: Could the Angel perhaps simply be a Demon disguised as an Angel of Light, throwing everything off course of God's truly intended command, or perhaps the voice Abraham heard was not God, and the Angel came to stop him from doing a horrible thing. 

I also question from the authoring if he'd perhaps killed his son before the story was decidedly revised, as the outcome reminds me of how God tried to fix things after Job was tested; Having God kill his wife and take from him everything he loved in favor of new ones in higher supply later... as if God doesn't understand the value of sentimentality. Also notice how it abruptly stops talking about his son right after this, did his son perhaps lose his faith over this? 

All of this testing otherwise should be unnecessary if God knows all and sees all of time and space, knows all that could be known, so why did He need to have Abraham prove to him that he'd kill his son if he already knew he would in advance? Seems like needless sadism to me. 

I'd understand more if this story was more meant to sus out false voices, like if the test was for him to not kill his son on his own from recognizing that a God who is Good would never ask such a thing. The message the actual story sends is... yeah, needless sadism. 

JesusistheKing said: 

Turncoat said: 

JesusistheKing said: 

"HE MEANT IT SYMBOLICALLY"

Ahh, the biggest cop out of them all.

To me, it's fine if they take it all as symbols, or if they take it all literally, but to pick and choose which to take literally and which to take as symbols turns every passage into a personal choice, rather than the Word of God. 

Well it is not a cop out If you are going to believe that everything that Jesus says in the holy scriptures is true,  you have to try to find out how both statements could possibly be true  In this case it seems like the first one had to have been symbolic,  or like specifically talking about drinking ritual wine

Finding out how both statements could be true within the confines of your faith I assume you meant? 

Turncoat said: 

JesusistheKing said: 

So it was Abram that lied to Isaac,  not God to Abram  God just gave a command,  and then later on said that following through on the command was not required anymore  God is free to do that it seems and it is not sinning

He made him go through something as psychopathic as killing his son to test his faith, only stopping him at the last minute when he was sure he would do it. That's horrible, that to me sounds more like something demons might do. Have others been asked to potentially kill their firstborns like this for God to such a degree that Abraham saw this as normal, or did Abraham not really care about his son at all in lieu of his faith? 

We also have to ask if either of the figures in the story giving him commands can be trusted: Could the Angel perhaps simply be a Demon disguised as an Angel of Light, throwing everything off course of God's truly intended command, or perhaps the voice Abraham heard was not God, and the Angel came to stop him from doing a horrible thing. 

I also question from the authoring if he'd perhaps killed his son before the story was decidedly revised, as the outcome reminds me of how God tried to fix things after Job was tested; Having God kill his wife and take from him everything he loved in favor of new ones in higher supply later... as if God doesn't understand the value of sentimentality. 

All of this testing otherwise should be unnecessary if God knows all and sees all of time and space, knows all that could be known, so why did He need to have Abraham prove to him that he'd kill his son if he already knew he would in advance? Seems like needless sadism to me. 

 Both of you are idiots with no understanding of the torah

Delora said: 

Turncoat said: 

JesusistheKing said: 

So it was Abram that lied to Isaac,  not God to Abram  God just gave a command,  and then later on said that following through on the command was not required anymore  God is free to do that it seems and it is not sinning

He made him go through something as psychopathic as killing his son to test his faith, only stopping him at the last minute when he was sure he would do it. That's horrible, that to me sounds more like something demons might do. Have others been asked to potentially kill their firstborns like this for God to such a degree that Abraham saw this as normal, or did Abraham not really care about his son at all in lieu of his faith? 

We also have to ask if either of the figures in the story giving him commands can be trusted: Could the Angel perhaps simply be a Demon disguised as an Angel of Light, throwing everything off course of God's truly intended command, or perhaps the voice Abraham heard was not God, and the Angel came to stop him from doing a horrible thing. 

I also question from the authoring if he'd perhaps killed his son before the story was decidedly revised, as the outcome reminds me of how God tried to fix things after Job was tested; Having God kill his wife and take from him everything he loved in favor of new ones in higher supply later... as if God doesn't understand the value of sentimentality. 

All of this testing otherwise should be unnecessary if God knows all and sees all of time and space, knows all that could be known, so why did He need to have Abraham prove to him that he'd kill his son if he already knew he would in advance? Seems like needless sadism to me. 

 Both of you are idiots with no understanding of the torah

What's your take on the story? 

God was simply testing Abraham.