Did Jesus die in vain?

I would have to make that assumption if I were to alter my current position about Ianos arguement re: the sacrifice of Jesus. No it would not; however the question Heinrik asked me was whether Ianos explaination of Jesus's sacrifice had made me change my mind.

Hi Larni, Larni I was asking why would you would make the assumption since you do not Believe in God or the Bible.Sorry if I confused you.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi ICANT.I think the confusion lies in the nature of the GD I had with Iano. During this debate I assumed that the xian god was real and that the bible more or less is accurate.I assumed all this for the sake of arguement i.e. so I could debate with Iano (and I enjoyed it very much as being a nay sayer all the time can get boring) about his take on Romans.Then, when Heinrik asked if I had changed my mind as a result of the debate and could I (I assume that's what Heiniken meant) now make the assumption that the xian god was real, I replied to the effect that I could not make the assumptions I made for the sake of arguement.No appologies necessary Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

Er...Romans.

Yoinks!*looks around for a carpet to sweep that little error under**walks away wistling*

You do realize you're portraying God as an obsessive-compulsive who's hostage to his neuroses and who has to invent petty self-justification mechanisms in order to circumvent his own rules, don't you ?!

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

You err/spin1) God is hostage to is own holiness. Sin cannot be swept under the carpet anymore than God can create a immovable-by-him object. God being hostage in the ways he is, is a good thing - it means there is such a thing as absolutes.2) It's not self-justification mechanisms he invents but a sinner-justification mechanism he invented. He planned for it before the world began, there being no time like the present.. in eternity3) God doesn't circumvent his own law. He upholds it. Sin attracts punishment and that punishment is separation from God and all that that entails. Either sinners pay for their sin or God pays for sinners sin. But sin will be paid for - come hell or high water. A vital by-product of God paying the price for you, is Gods fulfilling of the conditions involved when anyone fully forgives anyone else, to whit: the offended pays the whatever cost of the offence is, themselves.All offences forgiven, there is no separation between a man and God anymore. That's what I was portraying.Edited by iano, : change you to sinner

pelican writes:

quote:

---

Did Jesus truly die for our sins? It seems we are to be eternally grateful and yet the world is full of sin. Does this make sense?

---

This assumes that Jesus had anything to do with sin in the first place. It is quite conceivable that the mythology surrounding Jesus is simply incorrect. It may very well be that there is somebody who could "die for our sins" but that Jesus was not it.Let's not forget: Jesus was of the opinion that the world was going to end a couple thousand years ago. He directly tells people that they will live to see the end. Well, unless we're going to say that there are 2000-year-old people running around, then perhaps it's because Jesus was not what people claim him to be.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Now you're just playing with words. God isn't a neurotic obsessive who has his little rules and rituals and just has to straighten out the forks on the dinner table, has to arrange all his shoes facing north and just has to deal with sin. It's not even as if sin is a third-party force that God has to deal with or else! Sin is just a definition in God's vocabulary. how can it not be self-justification when God doesn't have to justify anything to anyone but himself?So he decides to punish himself (Jesus) for our sins in order to justify us to himself (Father) to stop himself from letting us rot in (his) hell? can't you see how absurd this is ?! Ofcourse he does! If his own law says that sinners must be punished then why aren't the sinners punished? Why does he punish himself (Jesus) instead, in order to look like he's upholding his law?Your theology makes God look like a petty despot who wants to appear to be just and fair while dishing out favours through the back door. Really?! Tell me what exactly is it this price that God is 'paying'? What is this thing that God is giving up as 'payment'? And who is receiving it?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

I think it was a fair assumption to make as christians do believe this to be true. I used to sing hymms about jesus dying for us and I did believe it.My personal opinion concerning the life of jesus has radically changed from that I had ingrained in me as a child. It seems you too have a different perception of the teachings of jesus.
I no longer believe jesus died for our sins at all. I now find it quite ludicrous to know I did believe it, without question. What about you?

quote:

---

1) God is hostage to is own holiness. Sin cannot be swept under the carpet anymore than God can create a immovable-by-him object. God being hostage in the ways he is, is a good thing - it means there is such a thing as absolutes.

---

Actually God can create such an object in a simple 2-step process. First He'd create an object - megalith or feather - it doesn't matter. Second, He'd promise not to move it.Good work, iano. I can't think of much to add at this time. Jesus died and rose from the grave in order to make salvation possible.

pelican responds to me:

quote:

---

I think it was a fair assumption to make as christians do believe this to be true.

---

True, but to accept that assumption makes the whole thread pointless. If we're going to accept Christian theology as accurate, then it necessarily follows that Jesus did not die "in vain" for our sins because that is what the theology insists. Christian theology rests upon the idea that Jesus, and specifically Jesus, "died for our sins." How can that possibly be "in vain" since that was the entire reason for Jesus' existence?If we're going to consider the possibility that the death of Jesus failed to redeem mankind, then we must consider the possibility that it was because Jesus wasn't the one to do it. There are other things that we need to consider, yes, but that the mythology of Jesus is inaccurate is one of them.

quote:

---

What about you?

---

My religious opinions are for me and me alone. I take very strong care not to say what they are here because I do not wish people to have people say, "Well, of course you would say that...you're an X."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Ah, I've done it again. Apologies. I meant the 'concept' of christian theolgy as believed by many. To those who believe it, it is true. For those who don't, it is a concept. Maybe the entire reason for jesus' existence is a concept. Maybe the existence of sin is a concept. Maybe the existence of god is a concept. They are not provable or disprovable until obseved in reality.The accuracy of the bible is not in question in this thread. The debate is concerned with the concepts and interpretations of the bible, which are deadly serious. The assumptions of the meanings are those which I wish to dispute. Well, you are entitled to keep your own council. However, I feel if I personally am not prepared to stand up for my beliefs then I have no right to dispute anothers'. I've been called far worse than an x, mostly on this forum, but I know it is the name caller who has these thoughts, not I. Regards

pelican responds to me:

quote:

---

The accuracy of the bible is not in question in this thread.

---

Which, again, makes the entire thread pointless. If you're working with an A -> B and we are seeing ~B, then we have to consider the possibility that we have ~A as well as the possibility that A -/> B.

quote:

---

The debate is concerned with the concepts and interpretations of the bible, which are deadly serious.

---

But if you're going to accept the Bible, then there is no point in having the discussion because the Bible tells you what Jesus was here for and what his death was for. If you're going to question the outcome, then you necessarily question the premise.You will note that I have not said that it is clear that Jesus wasn't the guy. I simply pointed out that one of the possible reasons is that Jesus wasn't the guy and that we need to take that possibility into account.

quote:

---

The assumptions of the meanings are those which I wish to dispute.

---

But apparently not all the way.

quote:

---

However, I feel if I personally am not prepared to stand up for my beliefs then I have no right to dispute anothers'.

---

Hah!My penis is doing just fine, thank you. This has nothing to do with me. It has to do with responding to what I actually say, not what people wish I would say or expect me to say based upon their preconceived notions of what a person of a certain category are like. As soon as it becomes important for me to tell you what I do or do not believe, I'll let you know. Until then, get used to disappointment.This isn't about me. I'm not the one making the claim. My statements stand or fall regardless of what I believe or don't. Why do you feel the need to know? How would you respond if I told you I was Bahai? Would the veracity of my statements change if you found out I were a member of the clergy? Would it matter which denomination? If not, then one has to wonder why you are so eager to find out. To what possible use could you put it?If you didn't want a response to your question, then you shouldn't have asked it in a forum that invites response.

quote:

---

I've been called far worse than an x

---

Again, my penis is doing just fine, thank you. It has nothing to do with me wishing to avoid having my feelings hurt. It has to do with me wishing to avoid the thread being derailed by others' preconceived notions of what a person of a particular category thinks and feels, having them respond to those internally generated fantasies of what someone of that category thinks rather than to what was actually said.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.