Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why did God forgive our sins?
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 136 of 479 (471163)
06-15-2008 7:18 AM


*bump* for iano
In Message 87 I asked:
quote:
will you finally admit that (a) your god doesn't forgive, he just tolerates if you pay the right price and (b) the whole atonement doctrine is just an ill-thought concoction of Christianity in order to claim its Jewish roots.
to which you replied with a tirade about rebellion-crushing and god existing outside time and how god's forgiveness bears no relation to what we define as forgiveness.
so, shall I take this as an impled acceptance of the above or is a more formal admission forthcoming?

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by iano, posted 06-15-2008 4:19 PM Legend has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 137 of 479 (471228)
06-15-2008 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Legend
06-15-2008 7:18 AM


Re: *bump* for iano
Legend writes:
"will you finally admit that (a) your god doesn't forgive, he just tolerates if you pay the right price"
to which you replied with a tirade about rebellion-crushing and god existing outside time and how god's forgiveness bears no relation to what we define as forgiveness.
The reference to rebellion merely indicated the timing of the forgiveness. That is, transgressions forgiven after the rebellion has been crushed. By all means complain that the timing be otherwise and to your liking. Not that I see how that in any way negates forgiveness as it happens to be made available. Nor that the forgiver is the one that pays for the transgression,
Your position seems to consist of a rebel demanding forgiveness whilst at the same time desiring to continue on with the fight. Does that not strike you as an impossible thing before breakfast?
Forgiveness always does involve the forgiver paying - in our realm and Gods. By all means provide any commoner garden example of forgiveness whereby the forgiver doesn't end up paying for the 'offence'/effects of the 'offence' - and I'll eat my hat.
Gods existance outside time merely refutes the common objection which attempts to implicate God in our free choices (which I'm assuming fallen man does have only for the sake of argument).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Legend, posted 06-15-2008 7:18 AM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Legend, posted 06-15-2008 6:35 PM iano has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 479 (471241)
06-15-2008 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Legend
06-12-2008 7:44 PM


Re: atonement, what atonement?
how lovely, your god doesn't just 'forgive', he breaks you down first and then 'forgives' you. Like many torturers, he has to break his victims' will before he can extract a confession... given that you describe your god as a petty, self-centred sadist, an eternal existence without him is by far the best option!
Forgive me for psychoanalyzing the situation here, but you seem like someone genuinely angered by the concept of the Judeo-Christian God. To me, this bespeaks of something that happened to you perhaps when you are younger.
Perhaps you grew up believing the Bible, and when you grew older, you became more and more disenchanted and dejected. Because if you think about it, people that despise the notion of the Judeo-Christian ethic obviously would only do so because they feel hurt by it. Perhaps they felt duped, lied to, and like a giant facade was revealed.
Not believing in God alone, shoulould not rationally illicit such hostility, and indeed, could easily be seen as evidence either to the contrary, or evidence of cognitive dissonance.
You ask very important questions, questions that have been hashed over a million times in seminaries and homes all over the world. You address the problem of evil, singularly the most devastating argument to all theology. These are honest and open, and I appreciate them.
But you might find, however, that crushing others beliefs, just because you had a personal problem with it, unnecessary. You are, of course, entitled to your opinions, but I wonder why such hostility? Can you shed some light on this?
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Legend, posted 06-12-2008 7:44 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Legend, posted 06-16-2008 5:49 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 139 of 479 (471249)
06-15-2008 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by ICANT
06-14-2008 5:16 PM


Re: Responsibility
With your definitions etc. you sound like a lawyer!!! Never a good sign on questions of morality.
Now my question to you is, how can God be a God of justice if He waves the rule for ONE person?
How can God be good and just if he makes laws and upholds laws that are evil?
Again - A truly good and just God would not need such tortuous explanations or justifications. You would not need lawyers tricks and dictionary definitions if your God were both good and just.
ICANT you are just plain wrong on this question.
Consider the following
If I were a ruler and I both created laws and decided upon the method of communicating those laws to my subjects - I personally would not condemn anyone to eternal damnation who was genuinely ignorant of those laws.
I might give a relatively minor punishment to demonstrate that the guilty party should make better effort to learn the law of the land in future. But I would also take some reponsibility for communicating my own laws to those who need to know them.
I certainly would not dish out the same punishment to those that are ignorant as those that willfully and knowingly break the law. I think this would be morally unjustified.
  • Would this make me an evil in your view?
  • Would this make me unjust in yor view?
    If not - how do you reconcile these answers with the answers you give with regard to your supposedly good and just God? Am I, in the example above, more or less just than your God?

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 133 by ICANT, posted 06-14-2008 5:16 PM ICANT has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 143 by ICANT, posted 06-15-2008 10:52 PM Straggler has replied

      
    Legend
    Member (Idle past 5006 days)
    Posts: 1226
    From: Wales, UK
    Joined: 05-07-2004


    Message 140 of 479 (471251)
    06-15-2008 6:35 PM
    Reply to: Message 137 by iano
    06-15-2008 4:19 PM


    Re: *bump* for iano
    iano writes:
    The reference to rebellion merely indicated the timing of the forgiveness. That is, transgressions forgiven after the rebellion has been crushed. By all means complain that the timing be otherwise and to your liking.
    .
    So, if I can follow your mental gordian knot (and I admit I'm struggling), you're suggesting that god waits until after the alleged rebellion in order to forgive?! is this correct?
    iano writes:
    Your position seems to consist of a rebel demanding forgiveness whilst at the same time desiring to continue on with the fight. Does that not strike you as an impossible thing before breakfast?
    err...no.. you are the one who brought up this rebellion business, not me. I'm simply asking 'if God is really forgiving/loving then why can't he just forgive Adam's transgression and let mankind back in?'
    It's a simple question. Predictably, once more you're unable to give a simple answer.
    iano writes:
    Forgiveness always does involve the forgiver paying - in our realm and Gods.
    But that's not the issue here. Whether or not the forgiver has to pay something or not is beside the point. The point is :
    quote:
    Forgiveness means that the forgiver gives up resentment of or claim to requital for the offence the forgiven has commited.
    In plain English that means that the forgiver doesn't make the forgiven sign IOUs and put up collateral for the cost the forgiver incurred. The forgiven just gets on with his life, he doesn't have to pay any price, he is forgiven. End of.
    So, if you break my window by playing football on the street and I forgive you, you can just walk away. You don't need to know how much it's going to cost me to replace my window. That's my business not yours. I'm not going to ask you for your credit card or any other payment. You are forgiven.
    Do you admit that your god is unable/unwilling to do that?

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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 137 by iano, posted 06-15-2008 4:19 PM iano has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 141 by iano, posted 06-15-2008 7:09 PM Legend has replied

      
    iano
    Member (Idle past 1941 days)
    Posts: 6165
    From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
    Joined: 07-27-2005


    Message 141 of 479 (471261)
    06-15-2008 7:09 PM
    Reply to: Message 140 by Legend
    06-15-2008 6:35 PM


    Re: *bump* for iano
    Legend writes:
    So, if I can follow your mental gordian knot (and I admit I'm struggling), you're suggesting that god waits until after the alleged rebellion in order to forgive?! is this correct?
    The rebellion will be finished one way or the other so 'after' isn't precise enough a term
    Forgiveness comes to those who God manages to squeeze a surrender out of. After they surrender the rebellion is over and forgiveness follows. It is worth noting that surrender is something achieved due to Gods action. God (in a manner of speaking) getting a grip and squeezing so hard that a person is compelled to yell "I surrender" is not that person paying so much as a red cent.
    For those who manage to evade Gods grip? Their rebellion ends at their death - they fought to the very bitter end and there is no forgiveness available to them. Only Gods wrath. God is wrath as well as love Legend.
    -
    I'm simply asking 'if God is really forgiving/loving then why can't he just forgive Adam's transgression and let mankind back in?'
    It's a simple question. Predictably, once more you're unable to give a simple answer.
    Rebellion began with Adam. Forgiving Adam his sin could only occur after Adams rebellion was over. Perhaps that happened - if so, that's a matter for God and Adam. That doesn't resolve Adams offsprings problem however - anymore than my rebellion ending solves the problem for any future children I may have.
    -
    In plain English that means that the forgiver doesn't make the forgiven sign IOUs and put up collateral for the cost the forgiver incurred. The forgiven just gets on with his life, he doesn't have to pay any price, he is forgiven. End of.
    And so it is with faith alone salvation (not that there is any other type). There is nothing to be 'put up' anything for the forgiveness. God gives it for free, there being nothing one has to do to get it (see surrender being squeezed out of you above - which eliminates notions of surrender being something you have to "do")
    'Getting it' is an ongoing affair too. I don't need to "do" anything to retain my righteous-in-Gods-sight-position before God. In Gods presence I shall be - irrespective of what sin I commit between now and the day I die.
    -
    So, if you break my window by playing football on the street and I forgive you, you can just walk away. You don't need to know how much it's going to cost me to replace my window. That's my business not yours. I'm not going to ask you for your credit card or any other payment. You are forgiven.
    Do you admit that your god is unable/unwilling to do that?
    I'd say unable - and for a very simple reason. There is the case of the window breaker insisting on paying for the window himself. Would you agree that the window breaker is entitled to attempt to pay for the damage himself? That God can't go around forcing people to accept his paying their bills?
    Certainly, his doing so would be incompatible with this notion of free will which we're (I'm assuming) assuming exists for the sake of argument.
    Edited by iano, : No reason given.
    Edited by iano, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 140 by Legend, posted 06-15-2008 6:35 PM Legend has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 147 by Legend, posted 06-16-2008 6:28 PM iano has replied

      
    ICANT
    Member
    Posts: 6769
    From: SSC
    Joined: 03-12-2007
    Member Rating: 1.5


    Message 142 of 479 (471305)
    06-15-2008 10:38 PM
    Reply to: Message 135 by Legend
    06-15-2008 6:56 AM


    Re: Interference
    Legend writes:
    Hold on, im Re: Interference (Message 130) you said that God has delegated this job to his church! Are you changing your mind now?!
    I will clarify:
    All mankind is a child of the devil.
    A person when is born is protected by God until they reach the age they know good and evil as the first man in the garden when he ate the fruit.
    At that point they become accountable for themself.
    Anyone dying after this point in life without receiving the free full pardon offered by God will spend eternity in the lake of fire.
    You are wanting God to interfer with peoples lives in order for them to be saved.
    I said that job was delegated to the Church. Not the phoney churches.
    So today it is the job of the New Testament Church to preach the gospel and the Holy Spirit convicts man of his need for salvation at which point he can receive or reject God's offer.
    Now it does not matter whether I like the plan or not. That is God's plan today. You don't have to like it either but neither one of us can change it.
    Legend writes:
    NO HE DIDN'T! When Jesus was asked what is the one thing that man needs to do in order to be saved
    I do not find the word saved anywhere in that conservation.
    I find where the man wanted to know what he had to do to inherit eternal life.
    No one will inherit eternal life. It is a gift of God.
    You want to try to earn it have fun.
    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."

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 135 by Legend, posted 06-15-2008 6:56 AM Legend has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 144 by Brian, posted 06-16-2008 9:59 AM ICANT has not replied
     Message 149 by Legend, posted 06-16-2008 7:13 PM ICANT has replied

      
    ICANT
    Member
    Posts: 6769
    From: SSC
    Joined: 03-12-2007
    Member Rating: 1.5


    Message 143 of 479 (471307)
    06-15-2008 10:52 PM
    Reply to: Message 139 by Straggler
    06-15-2008 6:25 PM


    Re: Responsibility
    Hi Straggler,
    I am not going to reply to any of this message and I will explain why.
    Last Sunday we had a young lady visit our church I would say she is about 25. She brought her 3 children to Sunday School (Bible Lesson)
    and stayed for Church. She came back Sunday Night and brought her husband along with the kids.
    Her and the kids came again today and tonight she brought her husband.
    I asked her why she came to church as I was interested in finding out her reasons for attending.
    Her answer was I felt like I needed to go and take the children.
    I asked have you been to Church before she said no my mom and dad did not believe in God and never took me to Church or sent me and last Sunday was the first time I have ever been in Church.
    I asked why did you come to our Church and she said I knew where the Church was and something just told me that was where I needed to go.
    So in light of all that Maybe God does have a way of conveying to people what they need to do.
    But it is still the Church's job to preach the gospel and let the Holy Spirit convict mankind.
    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."

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 139 by Straggler, posted 06-15-2008 6:25 PM Straggler has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 157 by Straggler, posted 06-18-2008 8:23 PM ICANT has replied

      
    Brian
    Member (Idle past 4959 days)
    Posts: 4659
    From: Scotland
    Joined: 10-22-2002


    (1)
    Message 144 of 479 (471355)
    06-16-2008 9:59 AM
    Reply to: Message 142 by ICANT
    06-15-2008 10:38 PM


    Re: Interference
    A person when is born is protected by God until they reach the age they know good and evil as the first man in the garden when he ate the fruit.
    Which Bible can I find this in?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 142 by ICANT, posted 06-15-2008 10:38 PM ICANT has not replied

      
    Legend
    Member (Idle past 5006 days)
    Posts: 1226
    From: Wales, UK
    Joined: 05-07-2004


    (1)
    Message 145 of 479 (471410)
    06-16-2008 5:49 PM
    Reply to: Message 138 by Hyroglyphx
    06-15-2008 5:09 PM


    Re: atonement, what atonement?
    NJ writes:
    Forgive me for psychoanalyzing the situation here, but you seem like someone genuinely angered by the concept of the Judeo-Christian God.
    No, I've never been angered by a concept.
    And yes, I do forgive you for your biased, condenscending and judgemental attempt at psycho-analysis.
    N.B>Note to iano: see what I just did there? I forgave Nemesis. I didn't ask for anything back, I just forgave him. Isn't that cool? shame your god can't do that!
    NJ writes:
    To me, this bespeaks of something that happened to you perhaps when you are younger.
    sorry to dissapoint but no, I had a pretty average and indistnctive ubringing.
    NJ writes:
    Perhaps you grew up believing the Bible, and when you grew older, you became more and more disenchanted and dejected.
    I grew up believing the Bible. As I kept studying it more and more I started seeing it for what it really is.
    NJ writes:
    Because if you think about it, people that despise the notion of the Judeo-Christian ethic obviously would only do so because they feel hurt by it.
    excuse me??! I can't believe you just said that. Is it also your opinion that people who despise the notion of the Nazi ethic only do so because they feel hurt by it ?!
    NJ writes:
    Perhaps they felt duped, lied to, and like a giant facade was revealed.
    or perhaps they just saw it for what it really is. The Emperor's new clothes.
    NJ writes:
    Not believing in God alone, shoulould not rationally illicit such hostility, and indeed, could easily be seen as evidence either to the contrary, or evidence of cognitive dissonance.
    I didn't exhibit any hostility in my postings on this thread. Intensity? perhaps. Desparation at the mental gymnastics some posters resort to in order to justify their faith? certainly. But no, no hostility here.
    NJ writes:
    But you might find, however, that crushing others beliefs, just because you had a personal problem with it, unnecessary. You are, of course, entitled to your opinions, but I wonder why such hostility? Can you shed some light on this?
    Putting someone on the spot isn't an act of hostility. Everyone's entitiled to their faith but if one puts their views up on a public forum they have to be prepared for some critical deconstruction of them.
    I appreciate that you find someone like me threatening to your worldview. To you, a Christian who gave up their faith could only have done so through insanity or some major childhood trauma. To you, it seems incomprehensible that someone who's actually felt the intense high -higher than any drug can give you- that comes with complete faith, can even think about abandoning it.
    So you have to rationalise it. You have to tell yourself that Legend isn't pointing out what you spent your whole Christian life trying to avoid but he's just angry because he's lost his faith due to some event or some other.
    If that makes you feel safer then keep believing it. Nothing could be further from the truth though.

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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 138 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2008 5:09 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 146 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-16-2008 6:25 PM Legend has not replied
     Message 148 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-16-2008 6:31 PM Legend has replied

      
    Hyroglyphx
    Inactive Member


    Message 146 of 479 (471416)
    06-16-2008 6:25 PM
    Reply to: Message 145 by Legend
    06-16-2008 5:49 PM


    Re: atonement, what atonement?
    Double post
    Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 145 by Legend, posted 06-16-2008 5:49 PM Legend has not replied

      
    Legend
    Member (Idle past 5006 days)
    Posts: 1226
    From: Wales, UK
    Joined: 05-07-2004


    (1)
    Message 147 of 479 (471417)
    06-16-2008 6:28 PM
    Reply to: Message 141 by iano
    06-15-2008 7:09 PM


    the God-Father
    Legend writes:
    So, if I can follow your mental gordian knot (and I admit I'm struggling), you're suggesting that god waits until after the alleged rebellion in order to forgive?! is this correct?
    iano writes:
    The rebellion will be finished one way or the other so 'after' isn't precise enough a term
    So god will hand-out forgiveness eventually...or maybe he's done it already....we just don't know.. god exists outside of time you see.
    are you related to Nadia Komaneci in any way?
    iano writes:
    Forgiveness comes to those who God manages to squeeze a surrender out of. After they surrender the rebellion is over and forgiveness follows. It is worth noting that surrender is something achieved due to Gods action. God (in a manner of speaking) getting a grip and squeezing so hard that a person is compelled to yell "I surrender" is not that person paying so much as a red cent.
    ??!! to transfer this to my 'guy-playing-football-breaks-window' example I would have to chase after the window breaker with a baseball bat, beat him black & blue until he yells "I surrender" and then and only then would I forgive him!
    have I already told you that you desribe god as a mafia henchman?
    iano writes:
    For those who manage to evade Gods grip? Their rebellion ends at their death - they fought to the very bitter end and there is no forgiveness available to them. Only Gods wrath.
    what a cute way of saying 'if you don't believe in God he's going to break your legs'!
    have I already told you that you desribe god as a mafia henchman?
    iano writes:
    Rebellion began with Adam. Forgiving Adam his sin could only occur after Adams rebellion was over. Perhaps that happened - if so, that's a matter for God and Adam. That doesn't resolve Adams offsprings problem however - anymore than my rebellion ending solves the problem for any future children I may have.
    Triple back-flip with front aerial twisting layout!
    what do the judges think? 10-10-10
    well done! you don't make any sense but damn fine mental manoeuvring!
    iano writes:
    There is nothing to be 'put up' anything for the forgiveness. God gives it for free, there being nothing one has to do to get it
    Oh goody! So noone has to accept Jesus as their saviour then! Phew that's a relief, I thought i was going to have to do that before I'm forgiven. Thanks for clearing that up.

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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 141 by iano, posted 06-15-2008 7:09 PM iano has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 153 by iano, posted 06-17-2008 6:10 AM Legend has not replied

      
    Hyroglyphx
    Inactive Member


    Message 148 of 479 (471418)
    06-16-2008 6:31 PM
    Reply to: Message 145 by Legend
    06-16-2008 5:49 PM


    Re: atonement, what atonement?
    No, I've never been angered by a concept.
    quote:
    see what I just did there? I forgave Nemesis. I didn't ask for anything back, I just forgave him. Isn't that cool? shame your god can't do that!
    Yeah, I guess you have me convinced...
    sorry to dissapoint but no, I had a pretty average and indistnctive ubringing.
    Sometimes people repress these things, and aren't consciously aware of the their own psychological state.
    I grew up believing the Bible. As I kept studying it more and more I started seeing it for what it really is.
    Did you feel duped and angry as if people had intentionally mislead you about something so serious? This is a serious question. I only ask because I've met a lot of people who felt that way. They masked some of their pain by lashing out in anger. I'm not saying that this is what you are necessarily doing, I'm just examining the possibility.
    quote:
    Because if you think about it, people that despise the notion of the Judeo-Christian ethic obviously would only do so because they feel hurt by it.
    excuse me??! I can't believe you just said that. Is it also your opinion that people who despise the notion of the Nazi ethic only do so because they feel hurt by it?!
    There is a central difference here. Nazi's existed, and you claim that God does not. If God doesn't exist then surely you can't be upset with that which does not exist. That would be irrational.
    or perhaps they just saw it for what it really is. The Emperor's new clothes.
    Who is the Emperor?
    I didn't exhibit any hostility in my postings on this thread. Intensity? perhaps. Desparation at the mental gymnastics some posters resort to in order to justify their faith? certainly. But no, no hostility here.
    Well, then I apologize if it seemed hostile to me. I'm just noticing a trend, as this is not an isolated incident.
    Putting someone on the spot isn't an act of hostility. Everyone's entitiled to their faith but if one puts their views up on a public forum they have to be prepared for some critical deconstruction of them.
    The delivery of said critical deconstruction usually gives away the intent. Far be it from me to belabor the obvious, but there are a lot of people that get their jollies by making others feel inferior. If this is not you, then let it roll off your back like water on a duck's feathers.
    I appreciate that you find someone like me threatening to your worldview.
    I don't have much of a worldview to begin with that it might be threatened in the first place.
    To you, a Christian who gave up their faith could only have done so through insanity or some major childhood trauma. To you, it seems incomprehensible that someone who's actually felt the intense high -higher than any drug can give you- that comes with complete faith, can even think about abandoning it.
    It is not a mystery that some people take it hard, whether they can admit it to themselves or not. This isn't a bad thing, its just an observation. What is bad, in my estimation, is trying to bring everyone down with you because you had a bad experience. I think that's more than just a little mean-spirited.
    So you have to rationalise it. You have to tell yourself that Legend isn't pointing out what you spent your whole Christian life trying to avoid but he's just angry because he's lost his faith due to some event or some other.
    There just seems to be a general hostility in you. If I am mistaken, then I apologize. But I am just making observations. You seem to be fascinated with the Judo-Christian faith in an unhealthy way. For a non-believer I find this fascination to be a little disturbing. When I see Richard Dawkins, I don't see a man with a healthy fascination. I see a man obsessed about things he claims doesn't even exist in the first place. The amount of time the man spends on, well, nothing, is astonishing.
    Common sense would then dictate that he feels particularly threatened by it, and has a need in his mind to conquer these inner demons. For somebody who is a self-described rationalist and pragmatist, I see nothing either rational or practical about it. I see it as neurotic.
    If that makes you feel safer then keep believing it. Nothing could be further from the truth though.
    Why is that?

    “I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 145 by Legend, posted 06-16-2008 5:49 PM Legend has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 150 by Legend, posted 06-16-2008 8:10 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

      
    Legend
    Member (Idle past 5006 days)
    Posts: 1226
    From: Wales, UK
    Joined: 05-07-2004


    Message 149 of 479 (471421)
    06-16-2008 7:13 PM
    Reply to: Message 142 by ICANT
    06-15-2008 10:38 PM


    Re: Interference
    ICANT writes:
    A person when is born is protected by God until they reach the age they know good and evil as the first man in the garden when he ate the fruit.
    err. no..the first man in the garden didn't know good from evil until he ate the fruit (Gen 3:22). Not only God didn't protect him, he set him up for it! Don't you read your Bible ?
    ICANT writes:
    I said that job was delegated to the Church. Not the phoney churches.
    ah yes, it's all making sense now. Ofcourse the church you believe in is the one true Church and all the others are phoney.
    Legend writes:
    When Jesus was asked what is the one thing that man needs to do in order to be saved
    ICANT writes:
    I do not find the word saved anywhere in that conservation.
    I find where the man wanted to know what he had to do to inherit eternal life.
    so how exactly is 'saved' different from 'gaining eternal life' in the context in which it was told ?
    ICANT writes:
    No one will inherit eternal life. It is a gift of God.
    so you're saying that Jesus lied when he told the man what to do to gain eternal life!

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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 142 by ICANT, posted 06-15-2008 10:38 PM ICANT has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 151 by ICANT, posted 06-16-2008 9:10 PM Legend has replied
     Message 152 by ICANT, posted 06-16-2008 9:12 PM Legend has not replied

      
    Legend
    Member (Idle past 5006 days)
    Posts: 1226
    From: Wales, UK
    Joined: 05-07-2004


    (1)
    Message 150 of 479 (471427)
    06-16-2008 8:10 PM
    Reply to: Message 148 by Hyroglyphx
    06-16-2008 6:31 PM


    Re: atonement, what atonement?
    Legend writes:
    sorry to dissapoint but no, I had a pretty average and indistnctive ubringing.
    Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
    Sometimes people repress these things, and aren't consciously aware of the their own psychological state.
    hold on! now that you said this I remember being repeatedly sodomised by my sister's barbie doll's boyfriend (Ken) while being held down by a ruffian gang of Lego soldiers.
    I mean, how else could I have come to the conclusion that the Bible is a collection of man-made myths and legends with a distinct religious and political bias?
    Legend writes:
    Did you feel duped and angry as if people had intentionally mislead you about something so serious?
    Not at all, slightly disappointed perhaps but no more than when I realised that Santa Claus wasn't real.
    Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
    people that despise the notion of the Judeo-Christian ethic obviously would only do so because they feel hurt by it.
    Legend writes:
    Is it also your opinion that people who despise the notion of the Nazi ethic only do so because they feel hurt by it?!
    Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
    There is a central difference here. Nazi's existed, and you claim that God does not. If God doesn't exist then surely you can't be upset with that which does not exist. That would be irrational.
    No, whether God/Nazism existed or not is irrelevant to this argument. You claimed that the only reason people can despise a doctrine is if they've been hurt by it. So I'm asking : Are people who despise Nazism (or any other doctrine) only doing so because they've been hurt by it ?
    Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
    Who is the Emperor?
    it's a well-known fairy tale. In short, it's about the people wanting to believe that the Emperor's wearing nice clothers while in reality he's naked. When a little boy naively points that out, they all realise the extent of their self-delusion. Ring any bells ?
    Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
    Far be it from me to belabor the obvious, but there are a lot of people that get their jollies by making others feel inferior. If this is not you, then let it roll off your back like water on a duck's feathers.
    ..wooosh..
    Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
    I don't have much of a worldview to begin with that it might be threatened in the first place.
    you don't have a worldview?! I thought you were a Christian!
    Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
    What is bad, in my estimation, is trying to bring everyone down with you because you had a bad experience. I think that's more than just a little mean-spirited.
    I could argue that I'm trying to drag everyone up with me but the irony would probably be lost on you.
    Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
    There just seems to be a general hostility in you. If I am mistaken, then I apologize
    Your mistake is forgiven.
    [Psst...iano... I did it again!]
    Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
    You seem to be fascinated with the Judo-Christian faith in an unhealthy way. For a non-believer I find this fascination to be a little disturbing
    aren't you fascinated by the fact that 50 million people believed that Hitler was a courageous visionary who was working for their good? If yes, does it mean you're a closet-Nazi?
    Mass self-delusion is almost always a fascinating thing.
    Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
    When I see Richard Dawkins, I don't see a man with a healthy fascination. ....
    Common sense would then dictate that he feels particularly threatened by it, and has a need in his mind to conquer these inner demons.
    I can't speak for Richard Dawkins but I'm sure his motivation is the same as mine:
    If Christians (or any other religion) kept their faith in their houses and in their churches there would be no need for anyone to write, say or do anything against it.
    But when those Christians attempt to change other people's lives based on their own superstitions and dogma then some people have no choice but to point out the narrow-minded absurdity of those views.
    So don't flatter yourself: Dawkins doesn't secretly believe in your god any more than he secretly believes in Santa Claus. He's just very aware that 8-year old kids won't attempt to stop the search for Alzheimer's or try to control what he reads and listens to or what he teaches his kids. Christians will and do so.
    This is why he spends so much time and effort debunking Christianity and no time debunking Santa Claus.
    is that clearer now?

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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 148 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-16-2008 6:31 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024