Originally posted by Proper Knob
You mean one single person ruined it for everyone else.

It was two people. Read the Holy Bible and you want be so ignorant.

Originally posted by jaywill
Sam Harris:

It is essential to realize that such obscene misuses of human life have always been explicitly religious.

Christ's resurrection vindicates any assumed "misuses of human life" Mr. Harris thinks he detects in the crucifixion of Christ.

I would much rather take the word of Jesus concerning His own attitude towards f the Gospel message I see, especially in the Gospel of Joh...

Maybe Harrris thinks that the ultimate reality of God is something we should smell or see or otherwise get with our five physical senses.

Not likely, since Harris is an atheist and probably thinks the "ultimate reality of God" has no referent.

Here is the sheer arrogance of the New Atheists. They assume that no one with faith in God could possibly know anything about these sciences.

No, Harris does not make that absurd assumption. Please try reading it again.

They would probably chuckle and shake their heads to be informed by Sam Harrus that they could not possibly know anything about the sciences.

If you think Harris was saying that Christians you are acquainted with cannot possibly know anything about the sciences, then you have, to that extent, poor reading comprehension. Harris was there saying that past instances of human blood sacrifice were predicated on commitments grounded in ignorance about the physical world. That does not entail anything of substance about the scientific ability of persons (Christian or not) that you are acquainted with, obviously.

Religious atrocity does not prove the non-existence of God.

I agree, but that is rather irrelevant to Harris' points. Please try sticking with his actual points.

Essentially, he is rationalizing that he is OK and needs no reconciliation to God. He is offended by the message of the need for salvation.

Again, he does not think God exists in the first place. Yes, I do think he probably finds the Christian message of salvation offensive, at least to his own sensibilities.

Like Captain Ahab of Moby Dick, he is on a quest to avenge himself for the "biting off of his leg" (his ego). He will persue the white whale Christian faith to the death because of some perceived mortal wound to his self righteous ego.

🙄 No, he just thinks the Christian message of salvation has some silly and non-sensical dimensions and he is questing to make that fact known.

Sam Harris is taking the divinely hated perversions of many world cultures and saying "See? The death of Jesus is the same thing."

I have no idea what you are talking about at this point. He is not saying anything about the death of Jesus, per se. He is saying something about an implict commitment within the Christian message. The implicit commitment is something roughly like that the torture or suffering or bloody death of an innocent can conduce to moral or judicial balance or to the appeasement of a loving and perfectly righteous god, or some such. Problem is, this is obviously absurd and ridiculous. Basically, the idea that blood sacrifice could actually conduce to such lofty things is inane. We can study anthropological evidence and see clearly that blood sacrifices invariably were conceived in the midst of profound ignorance about the world -- which was Harris' actual point at the place where you erroneously interpreted him to be saying that you and your Christian acquantainces cannot possibly know anything about science 🙄. The idea that blood sacrifice can serve (or is requisite for) any purpose that we ought collectively to value is, again, absurd. This despite the fact that, as Harris points out, specific instances of sacrifice enjoy apotheosis within Christianity.

God set this up by His power and authority. He will forgive. But He will forgive in a way which upholds His righteous procedure, His majesty, and domonstrate that sin must be judged.

🙄 Right, obviously the perfectly righteous procedure of a loving god demands that we ought to be thrown into fire to suffer horribly for all eternity for error that in practice we cannot avoid. Obviously, however, perfectly righteous procedure and love can be appeased here to the extent that an innocent be nailed to a cross and made to suffer and bleed. Yes, making an innocent suffer and bleed is the obvious logical next step. Come on, you must understand how painfully absurd this all is.

Ask Mr. Harris about the meaning of the existence of man and you will probably get a depressing and empty fog of rationals about accidents.

Not sure what you mean (or how this is at all relevant). At face value, I doubt Harris would give such a response. Have you read any other works by Harris, such as The Moral Landscape?

Originally posted by whodey
You are focusing soley on the death of Christ. However, what of the life of Christ? His life was a life of service. He humbled himself, even to death, to serve those he loved. The scripture says that he was a man of sorrows and that no man esteemed him to be worth much at all. In short, the death of Christ and how he died means nothing without the former ...[text shortened]... ds human sacrifice, unless it involves himself. To ignore thiese facts I think is faulty.

Sorry, but none of this is relevant. Do you have any actual evidential considerations that would shed plausibility on the doctrine of the scapegoat?

Originally posted by RJHinds
It was two people. Read the Holy Bible and you want be so ignorant.

Who picked the fruit?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Maybe Harrris thinks that the ultimate reality of God is something we should smell or see or otherwise get with our five physical senses.

Not likely, since Harris is an atheist and probably thinks the "ultimate reality of God" has no referent.

Here is the sheer arrogance of the New Atheists. They assume that no one with faith in God could response. Have you read any other works by Harris, such as The Moral Landscape?

If you think Harris was saying that Christians you are acquainted with cannot possibly know anything about the sciences, then you have, to that extent, poor reading comprehension. Harris was there saying that past instances of human blood sacrifice were predicated on commitments grounded in ignorance about the physical world. That does not entail anything of substance about the scientific ability of persons (Christian or not) that you are acquainted with, obviously.

[/b]

You do not think that Harris is employing some "guilt by association" implications ?

This thread involved a question about the redemption of Jesus Christ. If you refer to Harris critiquee of the folly of superstitious human sacrifice, there is not at least the innuendo on either his part, or yours, that the crucifixion of Christ should be lumped together with the objects of his critique ?

You said something to the effect that Harris' words summed it all up. Right ?

Did you mean that Harris' words pretty much summed up the whole question of why Jesus had to die anyway ? Am I not to understand Harris as pointing to a class of superstitious human sacrifices with their associated ignorance of science, and gather by innuendo that that is pretty much the criticism Harris is leveling at Christians who believe in the efficacy of Christ's redemptive death ?

ME:
Religious atrocity does not prove the non-existence of God.

LJ:
I agree, but that is rather irrelevant to Harris' points. Please try sticking with his actual points.

What's the point of this summary of Harris that sums it all up, that I am missing ?

me:
Essentially, he is rationalizing that he is OK and needs no reconciliation to God. He is offended by the message of the need for salvation.

LJ:
Again, he does not think God exists in the first place.

I know that he is an Athiest.

Yes, I do think he probably finds the Christian message of salvation offensive, at least to his own sensibilities.

I know that too

me:
Like Captain Ahab of Moby Dick, he is on a quest to avenge himself for the "biting off of his leg" (his ego). He will persue the white whale Christian faith to the death because of some perceived mortal wound to his self righteous ego.

No, he just thinks the Christian message of salvation has some silly and non-sensical dimensions and he is questing to make that fact known.

That is part of his defense mechanism to deal with the perceived encroachment on his self righteous view of himself . "The Gospel is silly and nonsensical".

"God does not exist."
"The Gospel is silly and nonsensical"

These are just handy tools in the arsenal of the Anti-theist.

me:
Sam Harris is taking the divinely hated perversions of many world cultures and saying "See? The death of Jesus is the same thing."

LJ:

I have no idea what you are talking about at this point.

Didn't I explain how God had spoken of His hatred of the human sacrifices of the Canaanites ?

It is hard to go back and forth to check my post on technical grounds.
Anyway, I explained the "divine hatred" and prohibition of the human sacrifices. That is what I was talking about.

I will have to check to see if it did not get posted.

He is not saying anything about the death of Jesus, per se. He is saying something about an implict commitment within the Christian message.

LemonJello, the thread was concerning questions about the redemptive death of Christ. You said these words of Harris sum up things nicely.

What am I suppose to understand is either YOUR or Harris's intend on launching a criticism of human sacrifice ?

You are saying I am misunderstanding Harris. Is he not establishing a link between the death of the Son of God as taught in the New Testament WITH the human sacrifices of various cultures, which he is scathingly denouncing?

No association whatsoever, is going on there ?

The implicit commitment is something roughly like that the torture or suffering or bloody death of an innocent can conduce to moral or judicial balance or to the appeasement of a loving and perfectly righteous god, or some such. Problem is, this is obviously absurd and ridiculous.

Now. If I counter this with a defense of Christian theology, I suspect that you will respond that you are not talking about the Christian Gospel AT ALL, like Harris.

I hear you saying that I am misunderstanding Harris. He's communicating. And you also are communicating by pointing to his words as suming up things nicely for you on this thread.

What am I missing ?

Basically, the idea that blood sacrifice could actually conduce to such lofty things is inane. We can study anthropological evidence and see clearly that blood sacrifices invariably were conceived in the midst of profound ignorance about the world -- which was Harris' actual point at the place where you erroneously interpreted him to be saying that you and your Christian acquantainces cannot possibly know anything about science . The idea that blood sacrifice can serve (or is requisite for) any purpose that we ought collectively to value is, again, absurd. This despite the fact that, as Harris points out, specific instances of sacrifice enjoy apotheosis within Christianity.

Are you commiting to say that the death and resurrection of Christ as a plan of redemption is "absurd" ? If you are commiting to that idea, I can only tell you why it is not absurd to me. Rather, I agree with the Apostle Paul that the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of men. I agree with Paul that the weakness of God is stronger than the strength of men.

As a Christian apologist of sorts, I probably cannot convince you to change your view. But I can tell you why what seems "absurd" to you (Christ's redemptive death and resurrection) is not "absurd" to me and millions of other Christian disciples.

God set this up by His power and authority. He will forgive. But He will forgive in a way which upholds His righteous procedure, His majesty, and domonstrate that sin must be judged.

Right, obviously the perfectly righteous procedure of a loving god demands that we ought to be thrown into fire to suffer horribly for all eternity for error that in practice we cannot avoid. Obviously, however, perfectly righteous procedure and love can be appeased here to the extent that an innocent be nailed to a cross and made to suffer and bleed. Yes, making an innocent suffer and bleed is the obvious logical next step. Come on, you must understand how painfully absurd this all is.

I will respond to this paragraph seperately and alone, for space sake.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Do you really think that is funny? 😠

Depends on the puncline.


































And the delivery.

delivery ... gettit?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Who picked the fruit?

Read the Holy Bible for your answers.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Depends on the puncline.


































And the delivery.

delivery ... gettit?

Yeah, I get it. That's a little better. But your first, so called joke, still
is not funny.

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote] If you think Harris was saying that Christians you are acquainted with cannot possibly know anything about the sciences, then you have, to that extent, poor reading comprehension. Harris was there saying that past instances of human blood sacrifice were predicated on commitments grounded in ignorance about the physical world. That does not entail any ...[text shortened]... ll respond to this paragraph seperately and alone, for space sake.

Can't you condense things like Reader's Digest?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Maybe Harrris thinks that the ultimate reality of God is something we should smell or see or otherwise get with our five physical senses.

Not likely, since Harris is an atheist and probably thinks the "ultimate reality of God" has no referent.

Here is the sheer arrogance of the New Atheists. They assume that no one with faith in God could response. Have you read any other works by Harris, such as The Moral Landscape?

Right, obviously the perfectly righteous procedure of a loving god demands that we ought to be thrown into fire to suffer horribly for all eternity for error that in practice we cannot avoid.

[/b]

What is it that you cannot avoid ?
What "practice" is it that you cannot avoid ?

"That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

For with the heart there is believing unto righteousness, and with the mouth there is confession unto salvation.

For the Scripture says, :Everyone who beleives on Him shall not be put to shame."

For there is no distinction netweem Jew and Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all and rich to all who call upon Him; For "whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (See Romans 10:9-13)

Are you saying that you CANNOT AVOID refusing to confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord ? Are you saying you CANNOT AVOID disbelieving in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead ?

The desperate father cried out to Jesus "I BELIEVE. HELP MY UNBELIEF !"

You cannot avoid setting your will power NOT to even cry out to God to HELP your unbelief ? You cannot avoid opening your heart to be willing to be willing to believe ?

Don't say that the unloving God is throwing you into hell for something you cannot avoid. You CAN confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord.
You CAN believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead.

At least you can cry out to God "Lord Jesus. I believe. Help my unbelief."

He is RICH to all who call on Him. He is not skimpy, stinted, holding back, and stingy to all who call upon Him. He is RICH to all who call upon Him. Throw back your head and open your heart and your mouth calling "Lord Jesus. Lord Jesus I RECEIVE YOU. Lord I willingly receive You. Lord Jesus I DECIDE to RECEIVE YOU. Thank You Lord Jesus. I confess YOU Lord Jesus as my Lord and Savior."

That or something as honest and as bold as that. But don't say that God is eager to condemn you for something that you cannot avoid.

Obviously, however, perfectly righteous procedure and love can be appeased here to the extent that an innocent be nailed to a cross and made to suffer and bleed.

It is not love that needs to be appeased. It is justice that will not go unexecuted. The cross of Christ is a place where God works His love at the same time He works His justice.

God will not give up His righteousness. He loves man. He loves man to the point that He wants every man unto ETERNITY. Though His love is so great and so extensive and so powerful, He will not, because of His great love, failed to demonstrate His righteous judgment upon ALL sin.

God loves me with an unimaginable powerful and enduring love. But He will not give up His righteousness because of that love. The delimma of the Almighty is how He can carry out His eternal love yet not violate or sacrifice His eternal righteous being.

The cross of Christ is where God's love for man the sinner is energized yet God's righteous judgment upon sin is also operating.

And the recipient of this substitutionary propitiatory atonement is not an angel, is not a innocent third party. It is God - Man. He must be MAN to die. He must be GOD in order to make the effectiveness of that death have eternal consequences.

It is God bringing into Himself as a Man the full force of the consequences violation of His law. I do not count it as a THIRD PARTY of an innocent THIRD bystander. I count this as God in Man, Man united with God, rinking damnation for the sins of His creation.

In a sense, what more can He do? As is asked in the book of Job - "Will you condemn Me that you may be justified ?"

In fact that is God the God/Man Christ has allowed to fall upon Him.
We are called to believe that Jesus is Lord and that God has raised Him from the dead.

Nowhere can I find it saying "Believe in hell and you will be saved." I do not find it saying "Believe in eternal punishment and you will be saved."

It says believe in Christ as Lord and confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, believing in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, and you will be saved.

[/quote]
Yes, making an innocent suffer and bleed is the obvious logical next step. Come on, you must understand how painfully absurd this all is. [/quote]

I undersrtand that in the Son of God there is something like a blank check provided by God to cover whatever transgression has occured in all human history against the righteous law of God. No one can calculate the FULL worth of the funds to back up that check. We may write in any amount of money.

To believe into Christ is to recognize eventually that you were already judged, in Christ on His cross. Justice was imputed in Him on your behalf. Christ requested this. Christ came for this. And the Father heard His cry of love and fulfilled His petition and caused the sins of the world to be judged upon Him on Calvary.

And you say there is no love there ?

I have said before and will now repeat it. I have to take the warning of eternal punishment seriously because for the most part Jesus is the One who taught it.

From the SAME MOUTH that spoke such powerful words of mercy, longsuffering, grace, kindness, patience, came these stern warnings. If Jesus only spoke LOVE and MERCY and all words of damnation came from other sources, then I might well be suspicious.

The think that you have to understand is that it was the very same mouth that spoke such beautiful words of mercy, love, forgiveness ALSO gave to the world the most fearsome words of consequences of not being reconciled to God.

The SAME MOUTH spoke those words. I have to take BOTH teachings.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Read the Holy Bible for your answers.

The 'holey' Bible is such a boring story book; and besides why are you recommending people read children's books? Most of the participants here are adults don't you know! Reveal Hidden Content

Originally posted by Agerg
The 'holey' Bible is such a boring story book; and besides why are you recommending people read children's books? Most of the participants here are adults don't you know! [hidden]Oh go on then...I\'ll let you have one moment of glory - deliver your \"witty\" and completely unpredictable response to that last bit[/hidden]

You should not believe those people that say even a child can understand it.
It is simple in its writing but it presents probably one of the most complicated
of ideas unknown to man within its pages.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You should not believe those people that say even a child can understand it.
It is simple in its writing but it presents probably one of the most complicated
of ideas unknown to man within its pages.

It really doesn't, science and philosophy both contain ideas vastly more complicated than any in the bible.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You should not believe those people that say even a child can understand it.
It is simple in its writing but it presents probably one of the most complicated
of ideas unknown to man within its pages.

I tried reading it once - got about halfway through Exodus and found myself thinking: "why am I persevering with this chit - not even a hint of a plot, the events are just *too* childish, and the characters are mind-numbingly boring" I had nearly the same level of disdain for "Catcher in the Rye" - so over hyped!

Really if you want some good fiction try "Catch-22" or "1984" 🙂

Originally posted by Agerg
I tried reading it once - got about halfway through Exodus and found myself thinking: "why am I persevering with this chit - not even a hint of a plot, the events are just *too* childish, and the characters are mind-numbingly boring" I had nearly the same level of disdain for "Catcher in the Rye" - so over hyped!

Really if you want some good fiction try "Catch-22" or "1984" 🙂

Hmmm, more of a Pratchett fan myself.
Also recommend Ian M. Banks as a good read.