Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Did Jesus Really Suffer?
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4888 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 1 of 73 (534180)
11-05-2009 2:47 PM


Throughout the years, I've heard time and time again that Jesus loves us so much that he died for our sins. He was painfully crucified and tortured on the cross, all for our sake. Any such devotion is admirable and heartwarming, no?
Needless to say, there are more than a few issues with that.
First, the issue of Jesus's pain. Every day, there are millions of people starving in poverty, almost literal ghosts of their former selves (if they were any different to begin with). Every day, millions of people die of horrible painful diseases that wrack their bodies unimaginably even after death, such as the horrific Ebola virus. Ever day, millions of people have their dreams crushed, coming to realize that what they have devoted their very life to can never be in such a cruel world. I could go on, but I won't.
The question is: Compared to all of this horrible suffering that runs rampant throughout the world today or then, was Jesus's single sacrifice even meaningful? Furthermore, even God knew that he would rise from the dead; that was his plan, no? Death with resurrection is not a suitable sacrifice. Imagine all of those dying people, some thinking that they will live on, while others doubt their consciousness's survival; in addition, whether these people go to heaven or not, they will never again exist on Earth. Next to that, Jesus's sacrifice is nothing. The only thing that could come close to the sacrifice morally justified would be Jesus taking all of our place's in Hell for all eternity, suffering everything that we would have. That would be true love, not this giving away of something that you know you'll get back in 36 hours.
Also, the sacrifice of Jesus makes no sense from a logical perspective. Simply put, why go to the lengths of being killed in order to forgive everyone? Why was it necessary for God to, effectively, commit suicide in order to be able to forgive his own people? At the very least, this implies that God is under threat from a more powerful being that controls sin, and the only way to win is to die. In addition, it makes no sense for an innocent- even God- to die for someone else's sins. That would be like a jury summoning the cousin of a convicted murderer to do the time instead, which is obviously unjust. An objection could arise that the cousin could willfully go to prison to protect his cousin; however, this action does not stop the murderer from continuing to commit crimes and is thus ineffectual.
So, my question is this: How can Jesus's sacrifice be regarded as the ultimate price and gift to humanity if there are so many today who suffer much worse and gain nothing from it? In addition, how, from a logical and lawful perspective, does Jesus's substitution make sense?
T&U
Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.
Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : Grammar

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts
I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes
"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPD, posted 11-05-2009 5:41 PM Teapots&unicorns has replied
 Message 12 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-07-2009 8:11 PM Teapots&unicorns has not replied
 Message 53 by Pauline, posted 11-24-2009 5:51 AM Teapots&unicorns has replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4888 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 3 of 73 (534205)
11-05-2009 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPD
11-05-2009 5:41 PM


Re: Needs Clarification
Thanks.
Check my edit. I hope it's ok.
T&U

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPD, posted 11-05-2009 5:41 PM AdminPD has not replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4888 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 36 of 73 (535543)
11-16-2009 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Peg
11-16-2009 3:55 AM


Re: Damning evidence
Hi Peg,
Peg writes:
Hyroglypxh writes:
There are also strong allusions that God never intended for man to eat animals found in Genesis and also in Isaiah when Jesus perfects the world, where the lion lays down with the lamb. Essentially a world where nothing dies.
I agree that this is true. The first instance of God giving permission for man to eat animals is when Noah comes out of the ARk. He gives Noah permission to eat animals so long as Noah acknowleged that the life of the animal belonged to God. Noah was instructed to pour the blood into the earth in respect for the life of the animal.
But this doesnt mean that before A&E they did not die. Nor does it mean that in the prophecies about the repaired earth, will nothing die. Yes the lamb will reside with the lion...but what do these represent? could they be speaking allegorically? The hebrew writers called some people 'lions' and like Jesus, they called some people 'sheep'
If the lion and the sheep reside together without doing harm, it could mean that lion like people will not harm the sheeplike people. Or IOW, people of all sorts will be at peace and live in peace together.
Yes, that is very well what it could mean, but how? Is there some kind of hidden definition of "allegory" that us others don't know about. If it's in the Bible, it's in the Bible. How do tell between an "allegory" and a "real" event?
Peg writes:
Hyroglyphx writes:
Then what is the point of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
the point of the tree was twofold.
1. It gave A&E a choice. Without the tree, there would have been no free will because there would have been no way to disobey God.
Yes, but God could have made the consequences of disobeying less severe. He could have just made the serpent tempt them into eating an apple instead of an orange and then punished them by removing the orange tree (it was their favorite... ;(). The way you say it seems as if God wanted A&E to disobey.
Peg writes:
2. it was also a way for God to demonstrate his rulership in the garden. It represented his right to rule mankind. It stood like the white house does in washington...it is a symbol of authority.
- Why does God have the right to rule us if we sentient beings? I didn't choose him.
- Why did God need to demonstrate his authority? Was the that small?
- So if I decided to take a pillow from the couch of the White House instead of the window hanging, I would be exiled and sentenced to death?
Peg writes:
Hyroglyphx writes:
Yes, but could it have been worse than any of the other thousands of people in human history who died on the cross, especially since he was going back to be with the Lord? That is the question.
He suffered as much as anyone else did...the real question for him though is 'was it worth it'?
The worth does not mean much in this discussion, Peg. If anything, you should feel worse for those that weren't Jesus, for they had nothing to die for.
It is better to die with purpose than to die outcast and alone, cast out and broken. I presume Jesus was none of those things?
Peg writes:
Hyroglyphx writes:
Constantine was a Christian, just not a very good one.
did you realise that he did not get baptized until he was on his deathbed?
I dont think he was a christian at all...he was a political ruler who used the church to his own ends the same way that Hitler did.
Does it matter when he got baptized? Some churches today don't even require baptism. As for politics, he reportedly turned to Christianity after seeing a "great cross in the sky" that gave him a great victory. Yeah, doesn't sound like manipulative politics, maybe a little more like....
Faith?
As per Hitler...
No webpage found at provided URL: http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
I'm going to skip a couple of points here, sorry...
Peg writes:
Hyroglyphx writes:
Yes, so they can be with God in heaven and not burn in hell for all eternity because man cannot do it on his own.
No,
its so they can live forever on earth under the righteous rulerhsip of Gods kingdom....a kingdom for the earth
Matthew 6:10 "Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth"
Its so that they can be rid of the effects of death and sin
Revelation 21:4 ...and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away"
And its so mankind can experience a peace they have never known.
Psalm 46:9 [God] is making wars to cease to the extremity of the earth."
Its so all those who have ever died can be resurrected to life on earth and have a 2nd chance of living in a perfect world.
John 5:28-29 All those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment.
Well than, how do you explain the pretty inconspicuous 2 ton elephant in the room?
If you haven't guessed by now, it's the doctrine of Hell
"So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
--The Bible, Matthew 13:40-50 (KJV)
"The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night..."
--The Bible, Revelation 14:10-11 (KJV)
Mark 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
Luke 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
I could go on, but I won't.
T&U

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts
I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes
"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Peg, posted 11-16-2009 3:55 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Peg, posted 11-16-2009 6:04 PM Teapots&unicorns has replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4888 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 38 of 73 (535558)
11-16-2009 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Peg
11-16-2009 6:04 PM


Re: Damning evidence
Peg writes:
Teapots&unicorns writes:
Yes, that is very well what it could mean, but how? Is there some kind of hidden definition of "allegory" that us others don't know about. If it's in the Bible, it's in the Bible. How do tell between an "allegory" and a "real" event?
most of the Scriptural references to the lion are figurative, or illustrative. The entire nation of Israel was prophetically compared to lions because of a lions invincibility and courage.
Jesus called his followers his 'sheep' and the apostles called Jesus the 'lamb' of God
You still haven't provided any metaphor "meterstick." Just because Jesus named his followers mammals doesn't mean that the same applies to everything else in the Bible.
That's inductive, not deductive reasoning. (Curses, I've been poisoned by Advanced Geometry)
Finding a possible pattern doesn't prove that you are right.
Peg writes:
Teaposts&uncorns writes:
The way you say it seems as if God wanted A&E to disobey
im not trying to make it sound that way. What i mean is that If God did not provide a law in the garden, then they would have had no way to disobey and thus they would have had no choice....IOW they would not have had a way to express their free will.
It's simple. He could have thrown open the gates and said "It's your choice: Here or out there." It would have been a free, and thus informed choice.
Peg writes:
Teaposts&unicorns writes:
Why does God have the right to rule us if we sentient beings?
Revelation 4:11 "...because you created all things, and because of your will they existed and were created."
That does not mean anything, Peg. If I create a race of new lifeforms from scratch, does that mean that I totally own and command them, even if they are sentient (As i presume humans are.)?
Peg writes:
Teapots&unicorns writes:
Why did God need to demonstrate his authority?
because he is a God of order... you cant have order without an authority. Every human government knows this. Every family head knows this.
Simply having authority does not require the need to show it off.
Is your God flamboyant?
Peg writes:
Teapots&unicorns writes:
It is better to die with purpose than to die outcast and alone, cast out and broken. I presume Jesus was none of those things?
is it acceptable to go to prison for a crime you didnt commit knowing that you are innocent?
Jesus was sinless and therefore his death was a complete and utter travesty of justice.
Did the other individuals die for a purpose, innocent or not?
Did Jesus have absolute and perfect faith/knowledge/belief in God?
Did his death ultimately have any physical meaning to him that it did not to the others?
Peg writes:
And as for 'hell' its only a 'doctrine' as you say
By "doctrine" I meant "inherent teaching and value"
Also:
Tell that to the Catholics.
And the JW.
And the Mormons.
And the Lutherans.
And the Calvinists.
And the Anglicans.
Peg writes:
If you want to know what hell really is, then look up the greek words hades and sheol
that is what hell really is.
Well, judging by the uses of those words you have propped up, then I don't believe that any have to do with:
A furnace of fire
A gnashing of teeth
Fire and brimstone
Smoke of torment
Unquenchable fire and torment
Nope, I don't believe that I've ever heard those ideas referenced that way.
Did you even read my post?
T&U

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Peg, posted 11-16-2009 6:04 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Peg, posted 11-17-2009 4:30 AM Teapots&unicorns has replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4888 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 40 of 73 (535659)
11-17-2009 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Peg
11-17-2009 4:30 AM


Re: Damning evidence
Peg writes:
teapots&unicorns writes:
It's simple. He could have thrown open the gates and said "It's your choice: Here or out there." It would have been a free, and thus informed choice
thats right...and they chose out there.
But their children did not get a chance to choose...they were born 'out there' and therefore they needed a way to choose 'in there or out here'
Jesus has given us that choice.
No he did not. He gave us the tree, told us not to eat without any other reason not to, then put a magical snake to tempt us into doing what we coukdn't have possibly understood.
Informed choice? Not really.
Oh, and Jesus hasn't given us that choice. By your own logic, he would have appeared right after the Fall. As he didn't, maybe "all sorts of things cropped up at the last minute." (Zarquon )
Peg writes:
Teapots&unicorns writes:
Well, judging by the uses of those words you have propped up, then I don't believe that any have to do with:
A furnace of fire
A gnashing of teeth
Fire and brimstone
Smoke of torment
Unquenchable fire and torment
Nope, I don't believe that I've ever heard those ideas referenced that way.
thats right, sheol and hades have nothing to do with fire/brimstone etc
they simply mean the state of being dead, and the place where the dead are buried....in the ground.
Its the church and its introduction of false religious ideas that teach these words to mean fire/brimstone/torture etc
they weave these ideas into the scriptures you posted and put a whole new meaning to them...something that is clearly false.
Ummm...
Those aren't church writings, Peg-
It's in the f***ing Bible!!!
T&U

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Peg, posted 11-17-2009 4:30 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Peg, posted 11-18-2009 12:54 AM Teapots&unicorns has replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4888 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 44 of 73 (535896)
11-18-2009 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Peg
11-18-2009 12:54 AM


Re: Damning evidence
Peg, you are just ignoring everything I'm saying, aren't you.
Peg writes:
Teaposts&unicorns writes:
o he did not. He gave us the tree, told us not to eat without any other reason not to
Genesis 2:16, 17 "as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die"
Yes, but he was the one who made that rule up for the sake of having a rule. You have provided no adequate reason, Peg. Please stop avoiding the question.
Peg writes:
you dont get it
the verses you quoted use the words that mean the 'grave' and the 'state of being dead'
it was later church teachers who twisted them to mean something they did not...and do not, mean.
"So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
--The Bible, Matthew 13:40-50 (KJV)
"The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night..."
--The Bible, Revelation 14:10-11 (KJV)
Mark 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
Luke 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
I do not see the words "grave" or "state of being dead" here anywhere, Peg.
Once again, if it's in the Bible, it is in the Bible.
And funnily enough, the Bible does mention eternal torment, fire and brimstone, and preference of maiming oneself to offending your "merciful" God.
It's no wonder the Church condemned heretics like you- you're even worse at thinking than they are.
T&U

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Peg, posted 11-18-2009 12:54 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Peg, posted 11-19-2009 5:24 AM Teapots&unicorns has replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4888 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 50 of 73 (536093)
11-19-2009 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Peg
11-19-2009 5:24 AM


Please Stop Dodging the Questions
Peg writes:
Teapots&unicorns writes:
Yes, but he was the one who made that rule up for the sake of having a rule. You have provided no adequate reason, Peg. Please stop avoiding the question.
The reason was clearly given to them in the verse i quoted.
here it is again
Genesis 2:16, 17 "as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die"
They were told clearly that they shouldnt eat from the tree because if they did, they would die.
You are missing the point: God is the one that made the Tree and gave it the properties of endowing death on whoever ate of it in the first place!
Whatever properties the tree has, God is responsible for.
Peg writes:
Its like me telling my child "dont touch the stove because it will burn you"
Irrelevant. God made the stove and then gave it the ability to burn. He could have easily done otherwise, but he did it anyway just to prove a point.
Peg writes:
should the child need more explaination then that??? What more could i say to them to show that touching the stove is dangerous and should be avoided???
What if the child does not know what "burning" is in the slightest? What if they are literally incapable of imagining the consequences?
Have you heard of qualia? They are the idea that there are certain things that people can not know until they have experienced them: betrayal, loss of someone close, love, the color red, and so on.
A&E had no sin qualia. There was literally no such thing until it came into existence after they ate the fruit!!
Peg writes:
Teapots&unicorns writes:
It's no wonder the Church condemned heretics like you
the church condemned heretics like me because they spoke out against false teachings...they showed how the church had twisted the meaning of scripture to instill fear
You missed my point; I was talking sarcastically. Please try to read completely into my posts without skimming and looking for points out of context.
Peg writes:
Teaposts&unicorns writes:
Revelation 14:10-11
can you explain this verse and show how this means people will suffer physical punishment in hell?
"The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night..."
--The Bible, Revelation 14:10-11 (KJV)
The condemned will taste God's wrath, which is undilutedly given to those who are damned. The damned will be forever tortured with burning fire and brimstone while being watched stoically by both Jesus and the angels of God. The evidence of their torture will always be present and the process will be forever and continuous.
Is that plain English? Need I explain more? Torture implies physical punishment or at least extreme pain of some kind which is intentionally caused.
Peg writes:
Teapots&unicorns writes:
Mark 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell THE GRAVE, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
Think about it.... the greek word for 'grave' is translated as 'hell'
The meaning of the greek word for 'grave' is the 'pit' or the place of burial...its the place where we get buried when we die.
Peg, if you are so convinced that 'hell' means 'grave,' please give a link to an expert with a non-christian agenda to verify this as such. In addition, 'death' with 'unquenchable fire' is, at least to my feeble and unlearned mind, if not the same as 'hell' then at least 'Erebus/Tartarus.'
Peg writes:
So clearly the writer is simply saying that it is better for you to enter into life with only one hand, then have to go to your 'grave' with two.
No, the writer is clearly saying that it would be better to mutilate the sinning limb rather than be whole and sinful. In other words, self-mutilation may be necessary for salvation. It's been seen in many ancient religions where the priests believed that the less body and flesh they possessed, the closer they were to their gods.
Nothing in my quote points toward your unfounded idea which is completely uncomprehendable anyway. Please, explain it to my obviously inferior mind.
Peg writes:
Teapots&unicorns writes:
Luke 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
this is not a story Jesus gave about a real person. It was an allegory about the spiritual condition of those who became his followers. The man in 'hell' was in spiritually 'dead' condition while Lazaraz/Jesus diciples enjoyed being close to Abraham/God
Whether the person was real or not, the implications were obvious. Are those spiritually "dead" in torment always, seeing Jesus' followers and Abraham in eternal pleasure while they suffer?
Bringing this back on topic, how does Jesus' measly 'sacrifice' possibly compare to these eternal torments that I have, over and over again, consistenly demonstrated to you exist and are completely founded with Scripture?
Peg writes:
this scripture is not a good one to use if you are trying to prove what hell is.
Why, to the contrary my dear Peg. Every one of my posts have demonstrated the existence and climate of an eternal torment- hell. There is no possible reconciliation of this fact with the idea of Jesus' 'ultimate' sacrifice.'
Please Peg, just for once try to answer my points logically and thoroughly.
T&U
Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Peg, posted 11-19-2009 5:24 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Peg, posted 11-20-2009 6:25 AM Teapots&unicorns has replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4888 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 55 of 73 (536714)
11-24-2009 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Pauline
11-24-2009 5:51 AM


Hi Dr Sing,
Sing writes:
JUC writes:
The question is: Compared to all of this horrible suffering that runs rampant throughout the world today or then, was Jesus's single sacrifice even meaningful?
The way Christians find the answer to this question is by looking at what the Bible says about Jesus. And the Bible clearly says that Jesus is God:
John 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.'
16 From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
Because Jesus is God, then His substitutionary atonement for mankind's sins provides salvation to all who believe that He is God.
So God sacrificed himself so he could forgive sins?
In other words: So God stabbed himself so he could scream?
Why couldn't he have forgiven people anyway? The Bible clearly says that the decision to die and forgive was God's, so why didn't he just skip the 1st part?
Sing writes:
Juc writes:
Death with resurrection is not a suitable sacrifice.
Death without resurrection is not a suitable sacrifice. Death without resurrection can be achieved by humans too. Resurrection proves Jesus' deity! Would you want God to "die" for your sins or would you rather a human die? Which one would be "true atonement"? Jesus was fully man and fully God. Meaning that while He had the power to become alive after death, He did receive excruciating pain, loss, suffering and trauma through His death on the cross. Any human can never bear the pain Christ bore because Christ bore the full cup of God's wrath (meaning the punishment for EVERY SINGLE SIN that all saved believers past, present, and future have/are/and will commit--all in one death, and on one man: Christ.)There is more than a physical aspect to Christ's death, in fact the physical pain is absolutely zilch compared to His separation from God--when God the Father looked at Him as a sinner.
Actually, yes; death w/o resurrection is almost suitable by itself; it's where we get the idea of a 'martyr.' What you are saying is that resurrection proves his deity; why does he need to prove who he is in order to help? Resurrection is the restoration of power and life; hardly a sacrifice. As per his pain, he had no more than any other criminal who had been killed on the cross.
Furthermore, so God directed his wrath at himself? What is he, emo? And, in addition, he cut himself in two? Yeah, I can see where that might be painful, but hardly 'ultimate.'
Did God sacrifice himself to forgive sins? Could he have just forgiven them in the first place?
Sing writes:
Juc writes:
The only thing that could come close to the sacrifice morally justified would be Jesus taking all of our place's in Hell for all eternity, suffering everything that we would have. That would be true love, not this giving away of something that you know you'll get back in 36 hours.
Jesus didn't even have to suffer one second for your sin.
Oh, so Jesus didn't have to suffer for sin? Thanks for clearing that up.
Sing writes:
True love hates. God hates sin=God hates JUC. At the same time, God loves JUC enough to give him/her a chance. God cannot totally love and totally judge and claim to be just. He loves= He sends Christ to die in your place. He judges= He prepares Hell for those who reject Christ.
I don't really understand this at all: does God hate us or love us? You cannot have both. He can have mercy, which is hardly likely, but he cannot love us. The two terms are mutually exclusive: it's like saying black and white. If you add white, it's not black, but gray.
Also, justice and hate are hardly similar.
Furthermore, why does he have to infinitely punish those who reject him? That's like a kid throwing a tantrum because his parents are giving him the silent treatment. Why can't he just extend this wonderful gift to everyone? Or, could he at least not punish those who refused it? Wouldn't that be "just?"
Sing writes:
That Christ should live in hell and bear our punishment there was not God's plan because Christ didn't even have to suffer for your sin in the first place. He loves you, but He is also the great Judge of the universe. (and when I say He, I refer to Jesus Christ). The Bible says that Jesus will judge every single person according to their deeds. How can He be in hell and do that?
So if Jesus doesn't have to suffer for our sins, then why was he crucified as a 'sacrifice?' You're getting really inconsistent hear, Sing. You're really kind of making my point for me: there was no point in Jesus' crucifiction.
As for being in Hell and judging, what I said was that I would respect it more ifi that was the case. If he was experiencing everyone's pain so that they could go to heaven, then Christianity would have a lot more emotional appeal to me: a true martyr in a religion does that. That's obviously not the case, though, and thus I do not really particularly respect; that's why I made this thread in the first place!
Sing writes:
JUC writes:
Simply put, why go to the lengths of being killed in order to forgive everyone? Why was it necessary for God to, effectively, commit suicide in order to be able to forgive his own people?
Heb 9:11 When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritancenow that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
16In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep." 21In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
A very clear explanation why righteous blood needs to be shed for atonement of sin: God says so in His law. And His law was established even before you or I were born.
And on a side note, Jesus did not commit suicide. Jesus willingly obeyed God the Father's decree that He must die:
Luke 22:39-46
[39] Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him. [40] On reaching the place, he said to them, "Pray that you will not fall into temptation." [41] He withdrew about a stone's throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, [42] "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." [43] An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. [44] And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.
Is Jesus God or is he separate? If he is God, then God committed suicide; if they are separate, then God sacrificed an innocent for the greater good; also, both cases could be resolved easily without sacrifice.
Sing writes:
JUC writes:
At the very least, this implies that God is under threat from a more powerful being that controls sin, and the only way to win is to die. In addition, it makes no sense for an innocent- even God- to die for someone else's sins.That would be like a jury summoning the cousin of a convicted murderer to do the time instead, which is obviously unjust. An objection could arise that the cousin could willfully go to prison to protect his cousin; however, this action does not stop the murderer from continuing to commit crimes and is thus ineffectual.
So you infer with the twisted understanding characteristic of your little mind. However, please note that the Bible says God is the most supreme, sovereign, and mighty being.
And if you would rather die for your own sins, then , by all means, try it out and let us know what its like to do such a thing. (I'm really interested). {and of course, I make this statement assuming that JUC can resurrect.}
Before we continue, please try not to quote the Bible much in this vein as most here don't take the Bible on its own authority- that's circular.
In addition, if God is supreme and mighty, why did he have to require a sacrifice and potentially damn billions of people?
And, no, I would prefer not to die for my sins; for one thing, I don't believe in them, but also, 'dying' for sins is completely a waste and accomplishes nothing if you can just forgive them anyway.
Sing writes:
JUC writes:
So, my question is this: How can Jesus's sacrifice be regarded as the ultimate price and gift to humanity if there are so many today who suffer much worse and gain nothing from it?
Because Jesus is God (and we know this from the Bible, not from some random Dr.Sing), His vicarious atonement for sin pays the price the God that Father has set in time immemorial and all who admit that Christ died for their personal sin, receive redemption from judgement.
Dr Sing, just above you said that Jesus did not die for our sins. Make up your mind. Also, you have refused to answer this: why did God require a price for the forgiveness of sin and then pay it himself?
Sing writes:
I will also say this. On the contrary, if one does not regard Christ as God, and does not acknowledge the need for shedding of blood to cover sin, and does not believe in a literal heaven and hell, Christ's suffering, indeed, is meaningless to him/her.
Why is there a need for sacrifice?
How does any of what you just said impact Jesus' suffering; if anything, it alleviates it.
Oh, and if you think it becomes meaningless, tell that to Peg.
Sing writes:
JUC writes:
In addition, how, from a logical and lawful perspective, does Jesus's substitution make sense?
Logical. Dr. Sing sins, Dr. Sing pays for it.
Bible. Dr. Sing sins. God will not accept Dr. Sing's payment because Dr. Sing's payment doesn't measure upto God's demand. Because God is love, He send His Son (who is also God) to pay for Dr. Sing's sin. All of Dr. Sing's past, present and future sin has now been attributed to Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ sheds His blood on the cross in repentance of DR.SING'S sin, and now when God looks at Dr. Sing's record, He is actually looking at Jesus's Christ record (because Dr. Sing acknowledges and accepts Christ as her God). Welcome to God's love, law and judgment.
Hebrews 9:22 (New International Version)
22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Why does God require that price when he could just forgive the sin?
So let's see how this goes:
Dr. Sing goes to God to buy a t-shirt; God says that Dr Sing doesn't have enough $. Because God knows the good Dr really wants the shirt, he pays himself the necessary money and calls it even, but only if Sing knows that he both wants the shirt, God is the only one who can give him the shirt, and worships God for 'giving up' his own $ (to himself) so that he can have the shirt- but only finds this all out as true when he leaves the store for good.
Oh, and as JUC said, my name is T&U. Please remember it for 2 reasons: 1st, I'll be the one ruling over all of you soon, and 2nd, I don't like identity theft
T&U
Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Pauline, posted 11-24-2009 5:51 AM Pauline has not replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4888 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 56 of 73 (536718)
11-24-2009 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Peg
11-20-2009 6:25 AM


Re: Please Stop Dodging the Questions
Peg writes:
Teapots&unicorns writes:
A&E had no sin qualia. There was literally no such thing until it came into existence after they ate the fruit!!
You are only speculating on that point. Why do you assume the animals never died in the garden? I know the bible does not say anything like that, so why do you assume that is the case?
Peg, where did I say that sin was linked to death. It's very simple: God tells A&E that disobeying is bad and bad is 'sin.' A&E did not know what 'bad' was before eating the apple. Therefore, the only thing that could possibly influence them in this case was the arguments of one or more people: they were effectively puppets of whoever spoke to them.
Peg writes:
Teapots&unicorns writes:
The condemned will taste God's wrath, which is undilutedly given to those who are damned. The damned will be forever tortured with burning fire and brimstone while being watched stoically by both Jesus and the angels of God.
well this places Hell, not below the earth, but in heaven because thats where the Angels and Jesus reside. Can you now show me scriptures that say that this place of 'hell' is located in heaven?
How do you know that Jesus and the angels are always in Heaven? Also, 'watching' in this case doesn't necessarily require being present. It could be metaphorical or metaphysical like God 'watching over' Satan. And Hell's location doesn't change the fact that it is real.
Peg writes:
Teapots&unicorns writes:
Peg, if you are so convinced that 'hell' means 'grave,' please give a link to an expert with a non-christian agenda to verify this as such.
Collier’s Encyclopedia (1986, Vol. 12, p. 28) says: Since Sheol in Old Testament times referred simply to the abode of the dead and suggested no moral distinctions, the word ‘hell,’ as understood today, is not a happy translation.
Encyclopaedia Britannica (1971, Vol. 11, p. 276) noted: Sheol was located somewhere ‘under’ the earth. . . . The state of the dead was one of neither pain nor pleasure. Neither reward for the righteous nor punishment for the wicked was associated with Sheol. The good and the bad alike, tyrants and saints, kings and orphans, Israelites and gentilesall slept together without awareness of one another.
Brynmor F. Price and Eugene A. Nida noted: The word occurs often in the Psalms and in the book of Job to refer to the place to which all dead people go. It is represented as a dark place, in which there is no activity worthy of the name. There are no moral distinctions there, so ‘hell’ (KJV) is not a suitable translation, since that suggests a contrast with ‘heaven’ as the dwelling-place of the righteous after death. In a sense, ‘the grave’ in a generic sense is a near equivalent, except that Sheol is more a mass grave in which all the dead dwell together. . . . The use of this particular imagery may have been considered suitable here [in Jonah 2:2] in view of Jonah’s imprisonment in the interior of the fish.A Translators Handbook on the Book of Jonah, 1978, p. 37.
I do know if I've said this yet but all my sources are the New Testament! Unless you are a Jew, you are forced to accept my sources as more accurate than the books of Psalms and Job. Furthermore, just because it is called 'Sheol' doesn't change that it is called a place of pain and torture. They could just be different frames of reference and, being a Christian, you must take my sources as more primary.
Also, just something I'm wondering; If there is no heaven/hell, then why follow God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Peg, posted 11-20-2009 6:25 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Peg, posted 11-25-2009 4:20 AM Teapots&unicorns has replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4888 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 63 of 73 (536893)
11-25-2009 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Pauline
11-25-2009 12:42 AM


TU writes:
So God sacrificed himself so he could forgive sins?
Why couldn't he have forgiven people anyway? The Bible clearly says that the decision to die and forgive was God's, so why didn't he just skip the 1st part?
Because God’s just nature requires that punishment be given to the guilty, a price be paid for sin. God is just. If He forgave people anyway, would that not be injustice? If you were a judge and a murderer was brought before you, would you convict him guilty and punish him, or would you let him go free? Which action would prove you to be a judge-an arbiter of justice, an upholder of law?
If God pays himself a price, then there is no true price. If I pay myself $5 so that my brother can have my shirt, then the net price is $0, therefore I did not have to pay the price at all in the first place if I was willing to accept that kind of payment.
Oh, and, stop comparing humanity to murderers. Are all people just as horrible and inhuman as murderers? How?
Prove it.
TU writes:
why does he need to prove who he is in order to help?
So that idiots would have no chance to disprove His deity. His resurrection was not aimed at proving His deity even though it serves that purpose very well. His resurrection and ascension into heaven demonstrates that those who die to sin and live in Christ, will one day rise and live with God in heaven. And for the record, Jesus wasn’t helping. The fate of the universe is in His hands!!!!!! He was having mercy on wretches like you and me.
He couldn't have just said that? Please try to make sense.
Oh, and how are we 'wretches?' What have any of us non-murderers done to warrant that title?
As per his pain, he had no more than any other criminal who had been killed on the cross.
Wow!!!! how come I never of you before! Man! I’m glad to meet you! You were the one who crucified my Lord! Not only crucified, but measured his pain, and the pain of all people who’ve ever been crucified. Pleased to meet you. Thank you for helping fulfill God’s plan. As a believer, I glory in Jesus’s death on the cross. Jesus’s death is no sad thing to mourn over. It the ultimate demonstration of true love and the door to heaven which otherwise, would forever be closed.
I don't understand your attempted mockery. If someone is crucified and another is crucified, their pain is the same within degrees of crueler treatment, drugs, well-being, and so on.
If Jesus' death is not to mourn over, then how is it a sacrifice?
How is it 'true love' if he banned people from Heaven if they didn't recognize him?
Why would Heaven be closed?
Furthermore, so God directed his wrath at himself? What is he, emo? And, in addition, he cut himself in two? Yeah, I can see where that might be painful, but hardly 'ultimate.'
Yes, isn’t that amazing! God directed the wrath that you deserve, at Himself!!!! Because He knows that TU can never bear that wrath. He needed someone holy, as holy as himself to pay for you sins. Invoking your T-Shirt illustration here, TU doesn’t have enough money to ever buy that T-Shirt from God. But God wants TU to have the T-Shirt even though TU doesn’t deserve it. So what does God do? HE pays the price and gives TU the T-Shirt. Isn’t that amazing!! Talk about unselfish grace. And buddy, please do some research before starting discussions. When I said Jesus was separated, I mean, from God. Do you anything about Trinity?? If not, this will probably not make sense. Anywho, you don’t need to understand trinity to have faith in Jesus.
Why does he need to direct his wrath at someone? Can't he choose not to?
If God pays himself, there is no 'payment' involved. There is a net payment of 0.
If God pays himself and gives the shirt, then it is the same as just giving the shirt. There is no difference between someone who gives themselves what they already had and someone that just doesn't bother.
I don't understand about Jesus' pain in relation to the trinity. How, exactly, was he 'separated' from God? Could you please clear this up?
Did God sacrifice himself to forgive sins? Could he have just forgiven them in the first place?
No. Because that would violate His rules. You say, why do we need rules? Why not just have mercy because we’re dealing with billions of innocent people? Son, He DID have mercy!!
I fail to see how letting innocent people suffer for eternity is 'mercy.' Mercy is not charging the guy $10 and then deciding on $9.50 because he is poor; mercy is giving it away for free.
Christ’s dying on the cross is mercy! His offering the gift of salvation to you is mercy!
See above. Unless it is offered unconditionally, it is not mercy.
No, He will not extend that mercy to entire mankind because then, He would become an unjust God if He did. You don’t realize that mankind has sinned against God, do you???
How would being merciful be unjust? I see no crime that humanity has committed to warrant such. How have we sinned? By not being perfect (which is impossible)?
If you did, you would understand the concepts of sin, guilt, judgment, mercy, propitiation, redemption, imputation, and so on.
Oh I understand those all right; just in a sense of actually doing good in the world rather than praying to an invisible friend.
Seems to me, (and please don’t take offense), that you have molded God (the concept) to fit your expectations! (agree with me or not, it is highly evident in your posts) You want him to be a puppet in your hands: to not have a nature of His own, to be like men, to do what appears good on the outside. Let me tell you, that’s exactly the wrong way to approach the God of the Bible.
Well then what is the right approach? I am treating God as if he could have made another decision and thus as if he has his own will. All I want is for him to be sincerely merciful in that he wants to save everyone, not just his elite.
Oh, so Jesus didn't have to suffer for sin? Thanks for clearing that up.
Ah, way to twist the meaning of words! (or to misunderstand) Think about it this way, Jesus doesn’t have to pay for your T-Shirt its you who need it, therefore you must pay for it. But, Jesus payed for your T-Shirt because He knows ****you don’t have enough money**** (****and you will never have enough****). Similarly, Jesus suffered all the pain that sinful men deserve, when in fact, He didn’t need to! Thank you for putting out your misconceptions and helping me clear them up.
Ah, I see. You're saying that Jesus was not required to suffer, but it was the only way to do so. Please be a little clearer next time.
Also, why are all people sinful? Why does that deserve pain? How does Jesus suffering change any of what they deserve?
If someone deserves something, then to do otherwise would be unjust. However, you have provided no reason to think that they do deserve it, that God could not have done otherwise, and how justice is in any way related to what you are trying to say.
Me writes:
True love hates. God hates sin=God hates JUC. At the same time, God loves JUC enough to give him/her a chance. God cannot totally love and totally judge and claim to be just. He loves= He sends Christ to die in your place. He judges= He prepares Hell for those who reject Christ.
TU retorts:
TU writes:
I don't really understand this at all: does God hate us or love us? You cannot have both. He can have mercy, which is hardly likely, but he cannot love us. The two terms are mutually exclusive: it's like saying black and white. If you add white, it's not black, but gray.
Alright.
1 God loves people. /qs
Ok
But God hates sin and punishes sinners.
Not hates sinners. Doing something bad doesn't make you a bad person. Hate the action, not the person.
2 Dr.Sing is a creation of God’s.
Prove it.
God loves Dr. Sing.
According to the Bible, yes. But why?
But Dr. Sing is a sinner.
What sin have you committed?
God hates Dr. Sing’s sin and should punish Dr. Sing.
Not punish him, just make sure that he understands the consequences and does not do it again. To do otherwise would be unjust and, as I said in either another post or thread, just standing there with a club saying "someone has to pay..."
(The punishment is —eternal life in hell).
Read this again, Sing
eternal
How can eternal anything but justifiable? We cannot commit infinite crimes, therefore they do not and can not warrant infinite punishment. The punishment must fit the crime. To do less than that is either mercy (if the person is remorseful) or cowardness. To do more- especially infinite- is monstrous.
You tell me, how can God to justice to Dr. Sing? Propose a prospective method by which to keep God’s integrity and save Dr. Sing because God loves Dr. Sing.
All right; here I go.
If Dr Sing does something God doesn't like (ie sins), then God tells him that and make sure he doesn't do it again. If the crime is repeated, then God may punish or try to reform him- but never infinitely. There is no infinite crime, so there can be no infinite punishment.
Why can't he just extend this wonderful gift to everyone? Or, could he at least not punish those who refused it? Wouldn't that be "just?"
Definition of Justice
One, He does extend eternal life to all. It is WE who reject Him.
How can I reject a being that I don't even know exists? Why can't he just show up and say: "Hey dude, I'm God. Worship me." Whether I obeyed or not, at least then I would know what I was doing and could at least consciously 'reject' him.
Two, why should He not punish those who reject Him? He offers heaven to people who originally deserve hell, some people reject heaven, therefore, they get hell. Fair? Indeed.
Fair? Not at all.
How do we deserve hell? What have we done that is so horrible?
There is no infinite crime, so there can be no infinite punishment.
Any being that creates infinite punishment is monstrous and disgusting and can only enjoy the pain of others.
The lack of goodness (heaven) is not suffering and agony; it is nonexistence. That is all we're asking for.
So if Jesus doesn't have to suffer for our sins, then why was he crucified as a 'sacrifice?' You're getting really inconsistent hear, Sing. You're really kind of making my point for me: there was no point in Jesus' crucifiction.
It is more likely that a sword from the Atlantic ocean came and sawed me in half than for me to have proven your point, son. Far from it. Anyway, I already cleared up your what words of mine you misconstrued. Refer to an earlier quote.
Now I understand your earlier quote, but there is still no point to Jesus' sacrifice if he could have done otherwise and didn't even lose anything.
TU writes:
As for being in Hell and judging, what I said was that I would respect it more ifi that was the case. If he was experiencing everyone's pain so that they could go to heaven, then Christianity would have a lot more emotional appeal to me: a true martyr in a religion does that. That's obviously not the case, though, and thus I do not really particularly respect; that's why I made this thread in the first place!
Christ experienced everyone’s pain so that they could go to heaven. Just not in the way you propse/expect/hope/wish/like/fancy/makeup farcical expectations/waste people’s time etc. Oh, I see the real reason you made this thread, bud. I’m glad I’m getting to tell you the truth.
So Jesus experienced the total, infinite pain of everyone in hell?
Why did somebody have to endure that?
TU writes:
Is Jesus God or is he separate? If he is God, then God committed suicide; if they are separate, then God sacrificed an innocent for the greater good; also, both cases could be resolved easily without sacrifice.
You tell me, is Jesus God? What have you done with the very first few verses I quoted from the bible? I know you didn’t think about them, but I’m curious to know what exactly you plan to do with EVERY SINGLE SUPPORT I give for my arguments.
You are not making sense here, Dr. My question was, could God have just forgiven sins without sacrifice; if this was possible then how is Jesus' sacrifice meaningful; and if so, then why did he do it that one way?
If God says X, then it is X. He can just as easily say Y.
Before we continue, please try not to quote the Bible much in this vein as most here don't take the Bible on its own authority- that's circular.
I’m sorry for those who don’t regard the Bible as truth. Since the Bible is EVERYTHING I depend upon in my faith, I’m sorry that I cannot argue with you if you are so closed-minded and mannerless enough to put bars on my freedom. One could prove to you that Jesus is God and make sense out of all the mess you’ve created using the Bible and only the Bible. Whether you are willing to listen or not is your choice.
Fine, prove that the Bible is true using objectivity and non-biblical sources.
In addition, if God is supreme and mighty, why did he have to require a sacrifice and potentially damn billions of people?
Heb 9:22
Sing, God made the law. He can change it if it suits his needs. Why did he continue to require blood and pain for sins? He is barbaric.
And, no, I would prefer not to die for my sins; for one thing, I don't believe in them, but also, 'dying' for sins is completely a waste and accomplishes nothing if you can just forgive them anyway.
From this I understand two very pertinent points about where you’re coming from:
1. You do not believe in the concept of sin (neither are you willing to look at yourself as a sinner) ---no wonder you’re having a rough time getting my points!
Well, I believe in the concept of doing bad things and being judged for them, but not 'sin' in the way that you are describing.
2. You absolutely do not understand the concepts of justice, propitiaton, and imputation.(since all of these are based on the concepts of sin)
And, you see, you yourself are not willing to die for your own sins. Christ dies for them. And you still do not realize the magnitude of mercy there?! Really?!
I do understand these concepts; the way that you are representing them is twisted and incomprehensible. I am not willing to die for my 'sins' because I do not think that any transgression that I have committed deserves death. What 'sins' are you talking about?
Christ dies for them. And you still do not realize the magnitude of mercy there?! Really?
Is Christ God? Then God paid his own price which is thus meaningless.
Is Christ not God? Then how can he forgive sins?
Why is it required by God that death is the price of sin? How can you fail to realize my question? I am not asking "why do you say that X is so", I am asking "why did God say X is so and why can't he change it?"
Dr Sing, just above you said that Jesus did not die for our sins. Make up your mind. Also, you have refused to answer this: why did God require a price for the forgiveness of sin and then pay it himself?
Excuse me, I never said that Jesus did not die for our sins. Jesus died for our sins. What on the planet are you misconstruing my words for?!
Why was this necessacary?
I’m getting sick and tired of answering the same question again and again. Have you checked your IQ recently?
No ad hominem please. Answer the question- don't avoid it.
God requires a price to be paid for sin because He hates sin. Sin is disobedience again God, not even against law/order/conscience/ or anything! And God pays the price Himself because only He can. Let me ask you, have you ever read the Old Testament? Or any part of the Bible?
Many, many issues here.
Why does God hate sin?
Why do we have to pay a price.
Why should we obey God?
How is paying it yourself possible? If I pay myself $5 out of my own money, then nothing is different.
And why are God's rules the way they are? (Euthypro Dilemna- tread carefully)
Why is there a need for sacrifice?
How does any of what you just said impact Jesus' suffering; if anything, it alleviates it.
Oh, and if you think it becomes meaningless, tell that to Peg.
There is need for sacrifice because there is a GREAT need for you to THINK. Again. Heb 9:22. Without shedding of blood (sacrifice), there is NO REMISSION (no forgiveness) for SIN. Get it, kid?
I will say it again: Why did God require blood for sin?
And who is Peg?
Read the thread.
Hebrews 9:22 (New International Version)
22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Why does God require that price when he could just forgive the sin?
I’m sorry. God doesn’t just forgive sin because if He did that would make Him a liar. That would be like a judge letting a murderer go free even after the murderer took the lives of innocent people. Are you presenting that Christ's sacrifice was unwarranted?
Yes Sing, I am saing that it was unwarranted. God did not sacrifice anything.
How does 'forgiving sin' make God a liar?
How is humanity like a murderer?
What did God actually 'sacrifice?'
Why did he have to?
So let's see how this goes:
Dr. Sing goes to God to buy a t-shirt; God says that Dr Sing doesn't have enough $. Because God knows the good Dr really wants the shirt, he pays himself the necessary money and calls it even, but only if Sing knows that he both wants the shirt, God is the only one who can give him the shirt, and worships God for 'giving up' his own $ (to himself) so that he can have the shirt- but only finds this all out as true when he leaves the store for good.
Ah, a few words that actually are coherent at last. Thank you.
In your illustration, does Doc Sing leave the store without buying the T-Shirt from God with God’s money?
No, the good doctor receives his merchandise after buying and exiting.
Oh, and as JUC said, my name is T&U. Please remember it for 2 reasons: 1st, I'll be the one ruling over all of you soon, and 2nd, I don't like identity theft
Alright, nice to meet you TU- future monarch of planet earth. Let me urge you to learn a concept called, cognition. It might help when ruling over us all. Thanks!
A few things, do you believe in a literal heaven and hell? and have you read any other Scriptures like the gita, or Quran?
I do not believe in a literal heaven/hell. If you had read any of posts you would know that I am an atheist.
I have not specifically read the Quran/Baghdad Vita/etc. as of yet, but I would like to and at the moment am mainly concerned with Judeo-Christian teachings (the focus of this site) which I am familiar with.
Dr. Sing, please stop insulting me with words like 'son' and 'kid', as well as questioning my intelligence. You'll soon learn that it gets you nowhere in a debate like this and makes you seem immature. Please refrain from doing so.
T&U

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts
I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes
"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Pauline, posted 11-25-2009 12:42 AM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Pauline, posted 11-26-2009 8:29 AM Teapots&unicorns has not replied
 Message 70 by Pauline, posted 11-26-2009 11:26 AM Teapots&unicorns has replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4888 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 64 of 73 (536895)
11-25-2009 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Peg
11-25-2009 4:20 AM


Re: Please Stop Dodging the Questions
Peg writes:
because following God means everlasting life on earth
Ah, so Heaven then. Thanks.
T&U

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Peg, posted 11-25-2009 4:20 AM Peg has not replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4888 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 65 of 73 (536899)
11-25-2009 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
11-25-2009 3:58 AM


Isn't it amazing how God can make someone who is against Him to contribute to fulfill God's own plan. All the characters, elements, and entities that contributed to Christ's death, right from the smallest thorn in His brow to the mighty governor Pilate's command to execute Him, were all installed, controlled and orchestrated by God himself to fulfill His plan. And do you know have any idea what his plan was? It was to save you from hell!
So are Judas and Pilate in Heaven?
T&U

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-25-2009 3:58 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Pauline, posted 11-26-2009 1:52 AM Teapots&unicorns has not replied
 Message 67 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-26-2009 4:47 AM Teapots&unicorns has not replied
 Message 68 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-26-2009 4:48 AM Teapots&unicorns has not replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4888 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 71 of 73 (537099)
11-26-2009 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Pauline
11-26-2009 11:26 AM


I'm about to eat apple pie so I'll try to do this as quick as I can.
Doing something bad doesn't make you a bad person. Hate the action, not the person.
Answer to first sentence,
But only bad people do bad things. You are saying "just because a peach tree produces an apple, doesn't mean that it is an apple tree". I'm saying "Well, it would not have produced an apple if it were a peach tree in the first place". Think about it. Sins don't make you a sinner. You sin BECAUSE you are a sinner.
No, because good people can make mistakes. Do you know the word 'manslaughter?' It is the word used when killing was accidental and entirely regretted. Does that change the fact that it was killing?
Oh, and God lies, steals, and kills in the Bible. Is he a sinner?
Answer to second sentence,
Because God loves the person, He pays for the action Himself and offers to redeem the person from the bondage of the action.
Ok, but that doesn't explain why people would have to go to hell if God is willing to redeem them.
1. Dr. Sing is part of the world. God created the world (so says the Bible). Therefore, God created Dr. Sing.
Ok, I guess this is true if taken on its own terms.
2. I have committed a lot of sins. Some include disobeying my parents, hating people, lying, wasting time, just to name a few. A drop of the ocean.
I don't understand the relevance of this, Sing. Just one question: did you regret/apologize for these things? If so, then if you tried to heal the hurt, you cannot be held accountable.
Not punish him, just make sure that he understands the consequences and does not do it again.
How old are you? Are you married? I'm not married and I don't have kids, but I work with kids and know how they think. Your above statement reflects pretty much exactly how they think. Its like...parent (to johnnny): listen now sweetheart, I'll let you open the cookie jar and take one cookie for now but NEVER steal cookies when mommy's away. Johnny (innocent voice): okay, mama. ---Mama goes to bedroom......Johnny steals 5 cookies---
So God doesn't know if people are disobeying?
Bye-bye all-knowingness.
(What does God do in his bedroom anyway ?
Yep, now tell me, does your suggested method of action work?
If someone's doing something wrong, then God shows up and tells them what their mistake is. If they continue, then God continues to warn them and if the object of their sin is causing harm then he prevents the violence. That wouldn't prevent- they could swing and rage all they wanted. Would that achieve anything? No. Would that realize the meaninglessness of their actions? Yes.
How can eternal anything but justifiable? We cannot commit infinite crimes, therefore they do not and can not warrant infinite punishment. The punishment must fit the crime. To do less than that is either mercy (if the person is remorseful) or cowardness. To do more- especially infinite- is monstrous.
Alright,alright, lets try to clear up the mess. Do you, TU, believe that people are inherently sinful?
If you define the ability to sin as 'sinful,' then yes. However, I do believe that people also have huge capacity for goodness. Besides, who else are we to blame for that nature but God?
If Dr Sing does something God doesn't like (ie sins), then God tells him that and make sure he doesn't do it again. If the crime is repeated, then God may punish or try to reform him- but never infinitely. There is no infinite crime, so there can be no infinite punishment.
Flaw number 1: Wrong definition of sin. Sin is defined "eternal separation of sinful man from holy God". Presently, there is no method of communication between God and Dr. Sing. Your theory collapses! Not only does Dr. Sing keep sinning but also God has turned His face away from Dr. Sing. Unless Dr. Sing is holy, God will not associate with her at all. Now what?
Where do you get this definition of sin?
Why can God not communicate with you?
Why can't God help Dr. Sing become holy instead of turning away when Dr. Sing is helpless?
Why can't just God grant Dr. Sing nonexistence? I presume that without God there is no life or existence, so this would be the only logical idea, unless God wanted those people to endure agony.
Flaw 2: God never forcefully reforms people. This is where free-will kicks in. God helps people change if they choose to change. You haven't mentioned whether Dr. Sing wants to stop sinning, or doesn't want to stop sinning. Furthermore, because Dr. Sing is inherently sinful, even if she wants to stop sinning, she will still sin lifelong. Apple trees bear apples until they die. Why? Because they are apple trees.
So our justice system forcefully reforms people? No. All that God would be doing would be giving them the tools that they needed; the ultimate choice would reside with the sinner.
Is it Dr. Sing's fault that she is a sinner?
Can she control that?
Now, lets understand why there is infinite punishment for sin:
Oh, this'll be good.
God created man in His image. God is eternal. Therefore, man is eternal. One sin is enough to disrupt God's plan to make humans live in Heaven. Separated from God, sinful man suffers eternally. Eternal suffering comes into play because men are eternal creatures, not because God is SO ANGRY THAT HE WANTS TO TORMENT YOU FOREVER. Not at all.
WHOA! Slow down here.
If God created Man in his image, then man could not sin.
And God cannot easily say Y if Y contradicts His nature.
Sin, I would assume, contradicts God's holiness?
Why could he not have created man this way?
Why could he not let people die, Period, if they wanted to? That is 'free will,' right?
How can I reject a being that I don't even know exists? Why can't he just show up and say: "Hey dude, I'm God. Worship me." Whether I obeyed or not, at least then I would know what I was doing and could at least consciously 'reject' him.
In this case, Joe is saying "I will not accept Sam's money if he came to me or did not come to me, I just don't want Sam's money, I want to die. Please let me die!"
I'm sorry you don't think He exists. He does.
No, Joe is saying "Why should I give Sam the shirt? I don't even know if he exists or has any money?"
You are not making sense here, Dr. My question was, could God have just forgiven sins without sacrifice; if this was possible then how is Jesus' sacrifice meaningful; and if so, then why did he do it that one way?
If God says X, then it is X. He can just as easily say Y.
And my answer (for the billionth time) is, no God cannot forgiven sins without sacrifice. And God cannot easily say Y if Y contradicts His nature.
Sing, I would just like to offer a question. Why is God's nature "good?"
Why is it that way? (Like why is the sky blue?)
Fine, prove that the Bible is true using objectivity and non-biblical sources.
What will you do if I did prove so? What exactly do you want me to prove in the Bible? Which points are more pertinent to you? Is there anything you find hard to agree with?
Well, as for things I disagree with, see Reviewing the Bible in 365 Days (It's a great blog that I just found)
Furthermore, if the Bible cannot be proven true, then there is no point or truth in Judaism/Christianity.
Sing, God made the law. He can change it if it suits his needs. Why did he continue to require blood and pain for sins?
Somehow, I see genuine earnestness in this quote of yours. I really do. And I wish I could somehow show you that God is not this cruel monarch that you imagine Him to be..........I wish, I wish, I wish, you would talk with God and He would talk with you.
Why does God require this if he is not cruel?
I would most certainly like to talk to your God. However, he hasn't exactly showed up.
What 'sins' are you talking about?
Man's inherent sinful nature.
Ignoring the question: What 'sinful nature?'
Why does God hate sin?
Because sin separates men from God
Why is God 'good?'
I will say it again: Why did God require blood for sin?
A reason for Heb 9:22? So that sinners understand THE COST OF SIN. Sin is no light matter to be forgiven with just a sorry, or a pretty i'll neer do it again' card. God is serious about sin. Therefore Heb 9:22
I know that God is serious about sin. So am I.
Causing harm to another is unjustifiable except in self-defense or in cases of mental/emotional deficiency (sociopaths). Anyone who does such a thing should be required to do as much as they can to make up for their mistakes and be made to realize just how much suffering and pain they have caused. True 'redemption' cannot be achieved with death or torture.
Your God thrives on fear. My society revolves around justice.
How does 'forgiving sin' make God a liar?
No twisting words, please. You said "why can't God "just forgive sins", implying forgive without requiring punishment. But God's Word says that every single sin will be punished (a just God). So I said, if God forgave sin without punishing someone for it, He would be breaking His own rule (be unjust). Which would make God a liar.
So he cannot change his own laws?
Why are his laws just?
Why did he choose them?
How are they 'good?'
Why can't he directly help and/or forgive someone without requiring punishment and only needing remorse and effort to undo what they have done?
No, the good doctor receives his merchandise after buying and exiting.
Okay, so whats your problem?
How do the people in the store even know that the doctor gets the money if they are still inside? Furthermore, how do they know if there even is a cashier if he locks himself up and only shows himself to those about to check out?
I do not believe in a literal heaven/hell. If you had read any of posts you would know that I am an atheist.
Get ready for quoting. I apologize for not saying it directly, but this site has so many points spot-on that I felt that I could easily write it myself and just be saying the same things. Check it out: EbonMusings
What is your philosophy of life?
EbonMusings writes:
believe that atheism implies freedom. I believe that, while it does not give our lives meaning or purpose in and of itself, neither does it deny the possibility of these things. It is the right of every human being to steer their own course, to decide what makes their existence meaningful and what their purpose in life should be, and within reason, atheism can accommodate whatever we choose. I believe that our minds and our emotions are completely real and no less valuable because they come from our material brains rather than imaginary immaterial souls. I believe that life is inherently valuable, full of grandeur, mystery, beauty and complexity, a thing to be cherished, protected, and lived to the fullest. I believe that, despite our limited lifespans, we have much to hope for and many goals worth achieving. I believe that being on our own, being part of the cosmos, ennobles rather than diminishes us and makes our conscious existence far more wonderful. I believe in the sublime. I believe that the most valuable and important things are not tangible. And I believe that atheism offers at least as much chance for happiness and fulfillment as any religion ever could, and that it is fully compatible with all the things - compassion, joy, love, hope and awe - that define humanity and make life worthwhile. In fact, I firmly believe that atheism makes life in general, and especially conscious, intelligent, thinking, feeling life such as ours, by far the most precious thing there is.
How do you viw existence?
EbonMusings writes:
The truth is far more inspiring and powerful than religious mythology. Knowing that the cosmos was not made just for us opens up whole new vistas of wonder and mystery - it makes it all the more surprising and amazing that we are here regardless. Our own existence, and our consciousness of that existence, is a thing so incredible and strange that it alone qualifies as the greatest miracle in our experience. Our life is a glorious mystery, and only by living with our eyes on the ground can we ignore this fact. When one truly understands this, one stands in awe of everything - and that is the spirituality of an atheist.
What is your definition is purpose?
Does life have ultimate purpose, according to an atheist? If that term is read to mean a purpose imposed on us by a higher power, then no. On the other hand, if that term is read to mean an overarching goal that motivates our lives and gives meaning to our endeavors, one towards which all our actions strive, then yes, an atheist can certainly have ultimate purpose. It is our freedom and our right to choose to do whatever gives us satisfaction, so long as we respect the happiness of others and their equal freedom to do the same. The only difference is that, while theists are restricted to the relatively narrow paths of purpose which their religion provides for them, an atheist is free to select their overarching purpose in life from the entire range of human endeavor. We do not have to do what the Bible dictates, what tradition advises, or what we think God wants us to - we can simply do, because we find it meaningful and it makes us happy.
love?
EbonMusings writes:
So what is this atheist's view of love? In my view, love is an evolutionary impulse, the result of millions of years of natural selection acting on our genes, subtly shaping us to instill within us the desire and the drive to reproduce and raise families and so begin a new round of evolution. In my view, love is an electrochemical phenomenon, the result of cascades of hormones and neurotransmitters exciting patterns of signaling in certain regions of the brain.
But in my view, love is also a sublime sensation, loftiest and most spiritual of the emotions, a feeling that can move us to produce humanity's most beautiful works of art and acts of compassion, or provoke us to our darkest crimes of passion. Simply put, it is one of the things that makes us human, and for all the chaos and heartbreak it causes, our lives would be much duller and less wonderful without it. It is one of the things that makes life worth living. It is the source of our most crushing miseries and our most blissful happiness; and despite all the struggles and conflict and failures, when it works it is the most beautiful and powerful feeling there is.
gain? loss? grace? charity?
EbonMusings writes:
An atheist could devote their life to community and charity work, volunteering at a local hospital, homeless shelter, retirement home, scouting organization, counseling center, or any other such organization. An atheist could serve their country or humanity in general by becoming a firefighter, paramedic, police officer, soldier, or any other career devoted to public service. An atheist could make it their mission to explore the planet's wild places - climbing mountains, sailing rivers, hiking through forests - or travel the world, visiting all its great cities and landmarks. An atheist could learn to play a musical instrument, learn to speak other languages, learn to play a game or sport, or learn a martial art. An atheist could find someone they love and care for and dedicate their life to making them happy - or they could do all of these things! Atheism leaves all these options open and more, but forces us into none of them; its essence is freedom, autonomy and self-direction. To an atheist, life is a wide-open horizon, and each person can set their own course and heading. All a person has to do is decide what they want to do with their life, what would make it meaningful for them, and then do that thing.
Who is your rolemodel, if you have one? Who do you look upto for advice? Who do you trust?
I'm not going to quote this because I feel that it's different for everyone and thus unique.
I emulate those who try to learn more; ever striving.
I try to follow those who always try to do the right thing.
I look up to those who realize the value and importance of existence and so try to help others give it their own meaning, if only they would realize that they could.
What do you do when life gives you trials?
Once again, not going to quote on this very subjective topic.
I try to work out the problem.
I try to be optimistic.
I try to help others once I have succeeded.
What do you think about death?
EbonMusings writes:
Compared to the great vastness of the cosmos, the ocean of deep time, my individual existence is a blip, a bubble in the foam on the surface of a flowing river. I am a momentary arrangement of atoms and molecules - an arrangement that lives and moves, to be sure, an arrangement that thinks, laughs, appreciates beauty, dreams, and loves - but a mere arrangement nonetheless, a transient state, an ephemeral gathering. Soon the blip will go out, the bubble will pop, the arrangement will dissolve, molecular bonds released by entropy. My consciousness will cease. But the molecules that once were me will still exist. The atoms that made up my body - iron, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, all the heavy elements forged in the crucibles of dying stars - will remain. Liberated from their temporary home, they will rejoin the rest of the planet, taking new shapes, finding new arrangements, becoming part of other life. I will become merged with everything.
I will become part of the trees that grow wherever my ashes are scattered, joining the ecosystem of the forest. I will be in the slow green heartwood of the trunks as they patiently tick off the centuries, in the buds that burst forth in spring and in the leaves that explode with color in autumn. I will be the sparkle of sunlight on the surface of a flowing mountain stream. I will sink into the earth and mix with the groundwater, eventually flowing back and rejoining the ocean where all life on this planet ultimately began. I will be in the waves that crash on the shore, in the warm sheltered tidal pools, in the coral reefs that bloom with life, and in the depths that echo with whale songs. I will be subducted into the planet's core and join the three-hundred-million-year cycle of the continental plates. I will rise into the sky and, in the fullness of time, become dispersed throughout the atmosphere, until every breath will contain part of me. And billions of years from now, when our sun swells and blasts the Earth's atmosphere away, I will be there, streaming into space to rejoin the stars that gave my atoms birth. And perhaps some day, billions of years yet beyond that, on some distant planet beneath bright alien skies, an atom that once was part of me will take part in a series of chemical reactions that may ultimately lead to new life - life that will in time leave the sea that gave it birth, crawl up onto the beach, and look up into the cosmos and wonder where it came from.
And the cycle will begin again.
I apologize if that was too long. However, if you simply skipped down to the bottom to find this, then try to read it in earnest. This is what both me and many other atheists believe. To us, a worldview of wonder and goodness is precious. What do you hold precious in your theism? Why?
I have not specifically read the Quran/Baghdad Vita/etc. as of yet, but I would like to and at the moment am mainly concerned with Judeo-Christian teachings (the focus of this site) which I am familiar with.
Its Bhagavad Gita. Baghdad is the capital of Iraq.
Ah, thanks.
Dr. Sing, please stop insulting me with words like 'son' and 'kid', as well as questioning my intelligence.
I'm trying. Put yourself in my shoes, I got asked the same question atleast 20 times and answered it as many! Questioning is easy. Answering makes you sweat. Anywho, since you asked politely, I'll promise to be nicer if you promise to act smarter.
Well, as long as we are both civil, I hope that we can keep this debate lively without any insults thrown- from either side.
Just one quick question, Dr. Sing. I'm planning on proposing a thread on this soon, but, just to try it out:
What would you do if it was proven that God does not and could not exist?
Happy Thanksgving,
T&U
Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Pauline, posted 11-26-2009 11:26 AM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Pauline, posted 11-30-2009 9:45 AM Teapots&unicorns has replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4888 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 73 of 73 (537762)
11-30-2009 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Pauline
11-30-2009 9:45 AM


TU writes:
No, because good people can make mistakes. Do you know the word 'manslaughter?' It is the word used when killing was accidental and entirely regretted. Does that change the fact that it was killing?
Oh, and God lies, steals, and kills in the Bible. Is he a sinner?
No, it does not change the fact that it was killing. Sin is sin.
So you fully support, if not the content, then at least the sentiment of the OT punishing women for having a menstrual period?
God does not lie or steal.
Genesis 13- God approves Abraham's theft of goods from the Egyptians and other countries.
If someone's doing something wrong, then God shows up and tells them what their mistake is. If they continue, then God continues to warn them and if the object of their sin is causing harm then he prevents the violence. That wouldn't prevent- they could swing and rage all they wanted. Would that achieve anything? No. Would that realize the meaninglessness of their actions? Yes.
Try this with a few kids and let me know your results.
So I have absolute power? Damn, that's great!
If you define the ability to sin as 'sinful,' then yes. However, I do believe that people also have huge capacity for goodness. Besides, who else are we to blame for that nature but God?
Wait, you said you were an atheist.
In order to give our position a decent chance, us atheists have to first point out any issues in the opposing camp's argument first.
So answer: If man can sin as a result of his nature and God gave man that nature, then isn't God blameworthy?
Where do you get this definition of sin?
The Bible.
Quote please.
Why can God not communicate with you?
Because sin removes all communication between God and man when he sin.
So God purposely 'cuts the cord' when man displeases him?
Why can't God help Dr. Sing become holy instead of turning away when Dr. Sing is helpless?
God helps me become holy and never turns away when I need Him. Ever. Its called sanctification. Even when I dirty myself with sin, He looks at me with mercy and when I repent, He forgives me and embraces me.
*Sigh* I was talking about us evil, miserable atheists: Where's God?
Why can't just God grant Dr. Sing nonexistence? I presume that without God there is no life or existence, so this would be the only logical idea, unless God wanted those people to endure agony.
Nonsensical proposition. ---No reply from Dr. Sing. Only an appeal to TU to think before he responds.---
---Still no reply from TU. Wondering if Dr. Sing will even make an effort to answer the question---
Is it Dr. Sing's fault that she is a sinner?
An emphatic and resounding YES!
So she directly and unconfusedly decides to have a tendency to sin?
Can she control that?
Control is a tricky word. If you mean, does she have the ability refrain from sinning, then yes, she does. But she possessing the above ability only by the power of the Holy Spirit which indwells Dr. Sing.
So she cannot control that by herself? Then it is not free will.
If God needs to interfere, then that is not a free decision on Sing's part.
If God created Man in his image, then man could not sin.
If man could not sin, them man would be no different from God. O.o According to the Bible, only God cannot sin.
Why would this be an undesirable outcome?
Why is sinning bad?
Why is God's will good?
Why could he not have created man this way?
Which way?
This way, i.e. holy from the start like himself.
Why is God's nature "good?"
The Bible has an answer. Read it.
Your response lacks substance. Quote it.
Your God thrives on fear. My society revolves around justice.
Actually, its the other way round. You got it right except you need to switch the objects in your sentences, but other than that, you seem to slowly be getting my points.
Really? Most religions I have seen focus their morality on pain of divine retribution, whereas us humanists base our morality on doing what we feel is right and fulfilling.
Why are his laws just?
Why did he choose them?
How are they 'good?'
The Bible has the answers. Read or listen to a few sermons from preachers like John Piper, John MacArthur and John Calvin.
Please provide quotes and an argument. No exporting the burden to your opponent.
What do you hold precious in your theism? Why?
I live my life to bring glory to God. Because God loves me and its the least I can do for Him.
So in other words, God created you to glorify him.
Doesn't this strike you as a kind of narcisstic, willful slavery?
I need an answer for this question:
No problem.
you writes:
Oh I understand those all right; just in a sense of actually doing good in the world rather than praying to an invisible friend.
me writes:
Really???????? Wow, I'm interested. How does imputation apply to Atheism? How does propitiation? Atonement? Salvation? (And no, you cannot dodge this question.
First off, nothing 'applies' to atheism; you must be referring to secular humanism which is a common moral code practiced among atheists. Atheism alone is simply a lack of a belief.
Propitiation- Waste of time to a nonexistent deity.
Atonement- A very good idea in the fact that it discourages further strife/violence in society.
Salvation- In the religious sense? It's all a load of malarkey.
T&U

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Pauline, posted 11-30-2009 9:45 AM Pauline 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