3 edits
Originally posted by SuzianneThe gift is apparently Jesus's death to pay a debt (in part) your god levied in the first place.
Except it is the gift of life, not death.
I say in part because we still get shafted if we fail to believe in magic (for which there is zero credible evidence or justification).
Originally posted by AgergYeah but it's free.
The gift is apparently Jesus's death to pay a debt (in part) your god levied in the first place.
I say in part because we still get shafted if we fail to believe in magic (for which there is zero credible evidence or justification).
Originally posted by AgergYou have to understand that prior to the Crucifixion and Resurrection, the sin debt was paid through animal sacrifice ("For the wages of sin is death..." -- Romans 6:23). Now I'm not Jewish, so I do not know much about it, but I do understand that usually the sacrifice was determined by the one giving it, usually a sheep or a bull, but also could be doves or other birds. Often other ritual sacrifices were made including grain, wine or incense as well. This started shortly after the Exodus in offerings at the Tabernacle and continued after the building of the Temple of Solomon (being naturally discontinued during the Babylonian Exile since the Jews were not in Israel), and again after the building of the second Temple and continued until the Romans burned Jerusalem and the Temple in 70AD.
but again, let's be sure what the gift is:
God decides the toll for displeasing it is spiritual death. This god supposedly has monopoly on such decisions (no other entity can provide spiritual life). It then sends its son to get the shaft, paying off some of this debt (levied by itself with the pompous claim it's a just(???) thing to do!); and we're supposed to be thankful for this!?
The sacrifices were offered on holy days or during regular services, much like modern Christian churches celebrate the Eucharist or Communion. From Wikipedia (excuse the citation, please): "... an individual bringing an animal sacrifice for a sin understands that he personally should have been sacrificed as punishment for the rebellion against God inherent in the sin, but God mercifully accepts the sacrifice in his or her place. Furthermore, it is considered fitting that an animal is used as a sacrifice because at the moment of sin, the individual in question disregarded his elevated human soul, effectively acting as an animal."
The sacrifice of the Son of God, however, through the Crucifixion, because he was without sin, became the only sacrifice necessary for the complete remission of sin for all time. This and the Resurrection, representing Christ's victory over sin, and therefore death, are the foundations of the Christian faith. And yes, we are indeed thankful to God for this gift that He made for us.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." -- John 3:16-19
1 edit
Originally posted by Agerggee you sound bitter. lets look closer at your argument shall we?
but again, let's be sure what the gift is:
God decides the toll for displeasing it is spiritual death. This god supposedly has monopoly on such decisions (no other entity can provide spiritual life). It then sends its son to get the shaft, paying off some of this debt (levied by itself with the pompous claim it's a just(???) thing to do!). How is this bette y off Jim's debt....can I be any less awesome?...what a guy I am!...what benevolence!!! 😵
God decides the toll for displeasing it is spiritual death. This god supposedly has monopoly on such decisions
yes that is correct. who am I to question the motives of the creator of the Universe? For a further understanding on this I would suggest you read Job chapters 38-40. Here is a small sample, God is speaking with Job after Job questions God's motives:
“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?
then later in chapter 40: The LORD said to Job:
2 “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?
Let him who accuses God answer him!”
you further state: It then sends its son to get the shaft, paying off some of this debt (levied by itself with the pompous claim it's a just(???) thing to do!)
I think you misunderstand who Christ is, and the purpose. John chapter 1 says: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
Jesus is God. God himself in his infinite mercy suffered and died so that he could be with us and one of us. His sacrifice is the gift of forgiveness offered to any who accepts it. It is a gift, but it is not free.
belief is a part of free will, that other gift, it is up to you whether you make that leap of faith. You decide. You want to "blame" God for your being condemned (yes I know you don't believe this), but the reality is that you yourself decide your own fate.
6 edits
Originally posted by duecerWell, as for *who are you or I to question the motives of creator of the universe* If I proposed that creator of the universe is actually a one armed magic hobgoblin named Alf who likes to flay babies alive on Thursdays you would, *because of your disbelief*, scrutinize the motives of this entity and consequently reinforce the conclusion my claim is not reasonable.
gee you sound bitter. lets look closer at your argument shall we?
[b]God decides the toll for displeasing it is spiritual death. This god supposedly has monopoly on such decisions
yes that is correct. who am I to question the motives of the creator of the Universe? For a further understanding on this I would suggest you read Job chapters 38-40. Here I know you don't believe this), but the reality is that you yourself decide your own fate.[/b]
To this end I say you should, inspite of your belief, first establish beyond faith and wishful thinking it is the case your god created anything before even asking the *who are you or I...?* question
As for free will to believe I don't believe I have such. I don't just wake up one morning and think to myself
You know what!? it's been a bloody while since I last believed I'm the gingerbread man...I think today I ought to believe in this! Only for a day though because I have to believe in Peter Pan tomorrow
Whether one believes a proposition is based upon how they're predisposed (by virtue of their mindset) to evaluate evidential offerings for that proposition - not some calculated choice.
Oh and yes...the old Jesus *is* God chestnut! accounting for this feature we have:
1) God decides that the price of doing anything it doesn't like (sin) is spiritual death. (or as other theists believe - burning and gnashing teeth in a lake of fire forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and...!!!)
2) The justification for this price being God's universe, God's rules. Yeah nice one God!
3) It alone has the potential to give blissful spiritual life so failure to do this is not benevolent - indeed since such an act would be a trivial expenditure for an omnipotent entity, it is at best spiteful and vindictive for this inaction.
4) It then decides to sacrifice itself to itself to pay off some of this debt I see!??? 😕 ...why not erm...lets see...hmm this is tricky.. Aha! how about realise the price levied was somewhat overkill (no pun intended) and just write off supposed death without gruesome, neanderthal sacrifices?
5) Anyone who fails to believe this actually happened stays in arrears (which justifies "some" in (4)) and are shafted over by your God because their mindset denies them the potential to believe in magic or force themselves to *have faith* Your God...what a guy! 😵
Originally posted by SuzianneSo if a person rapes the girl next door, they just go to the church and offer a goat for slaughter to the head preist, and their sin is forgiven!
You have to understand that prior to the Crucifixion and Resurrection, the sin debt was paid through animal sacrifice ("For the wages of sin is death..." -- Romans 6:23). Now I'm not Jewish, so I do not know much about it, but I do understand that usually the sacrifice was determined by the one giving it, usually a sheep or a bull, but also could be doves ...[text shortened]... men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." -- John 3:16-19
This is absurd and so corrupt, that the church at that time could convince you that this was what God wanted......it is a good way for the bogus church leaders to get their free meat and send you to hell at the same time.
Absolutely corrupt and false.
Originally posted by SuzianneIf X sins against Y, how can anything Z does atone for that sin?
You have to understand that prior to the Crucifixion and Resurrection, the sin debt was paid through animal sacrifice ("For the wages of sin is death..." -- Romans 6:23). Now I'm not Jewish, so I do not know much about it, but I do understand that usually the sacrifice was determined by the one giving it, usually a sheep or a bull, but also could be doves ...[text shortened]... men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." -- John 3:16-19
Clearly, Z can *compensate* Y for the sin done to him by X. But only X himself can *atone* for that sin.
For example, if X sins by stealing money from Y, Z can give Y some money by way of compensation. But no matter what Z does, he cannot atone for X's sin. Only X can say sorry or made amends to Y, or engage in deliberate masochism to prove the sincerity of his repentance, either to the deity, others, or himself.
This is a conceptual truth. It is inherent in the nature of sin and atonement that the sinner alone can atone. There can be no vicarious atonement. To think otherwise is to misunderstand what the two concepts mean.
So, the doctrine that any Z, including Jesus, could atone for the sins of any X against Y, including humans against each another, is incoherent. No incoherent thesis can be true. Hence, this central tenet of Christian doctrine cannot be true.
Still, I can't help coveting my neighbor's sexy wife. So maybe I'll keep that dove handy.
Originally posted by SuzianneI was responding to your comment that I will blame myself after discovering how priceless the gift was. This clearly implies I am currently ignorant of its true value. You also implied that I am currently choosing wrong because of said ignorance and I will blame myself when enlightened. As I said, I generally do not blame myself for choosing wrong when my choice was based on ignorance.
Just how ignorant could you possibly be concerning this particular Gift?.
As for the actual so called gift, I would say I am totally ignorant of it because I do not believe in its existence.
You know what it is, you just reject it. "Nope, don't want it, thanks anyway..." Believing that it doesn't exist is not ignorance of it.
Yes it is.
It's like someone offering you 500 dollars, and you say, "I don't believe you have 500 dollars." "Okay, suit yourself, then."
And how does that example prove your point? If anything it contradicts your claim.
Originally posted by vishvahetuGo on, little boy, have a cookie, adults are talking here.
So if a person rapes the girl next door, they just go to the church and offer a goat for slaughter to the head preist, and their sin is forgiven!
This is absurd and so corrupt, that the church at that time could convince you that this was what God wanted......it is a good way for the bogus church leaders to get their free meat and send you to hell at the same time.
Absolutely corrupt and false.
You haven't convinced me that you have anything of value to add.
Everything you've said in this forum to date has been absurd, corrupt and false.
Originally posted by vishvahetuIf he rapes the goat next door, do they sacrifice the girl?
So if a person rapes the girl next door, they just go to the church and offer a goat for slaughter to the head preist, and their sin is forgiven!
This is absurd and so corrupt, that the church at that time could convince you that this was what God wanted......it is a good way for the bogus church leaders to get their free meat and send you to hell at the same time.
Absolutely corrupt and false.
Originally posted by Agergsorry, but you still have yet to refute my assertion. simply saying your God is bad because I disagree is hardly an argument. My points still stand...nice try though.
Well, as for [b]*who are you or I to question the motives of creator of the universe* If I proposed that creator of the universe is actually a one armed magic hobgoblin named Alf who likes to flay babies alive on Thursdays you would, *because of your disbelief*, scrutinize the motives of this entity and consequently reinforce the conclusion my claim ...[text shortened]... believe in magic or force themselves to *have faith* Your God...what a guy! 😵[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by duecerIt's not my place to prove your god is bad or evil etc... it is my place however to challenge *your* assumption it is not bad and not evil (with definitions for these words not centred on your god). It should then fall upon you to either walk away or reconcile my objections in a way favourable to yourself. I'm still waiting :]
sorry, but you still have yet to refute my assertion. simply saying your God is bad because I disagree is hardly an argument. My points still stand...nice try though.
Btw...it wasn't so short a post as to contain only one assertion and so, what exactly *was* the assertion you're interested in?
Originally posted by Agergthere is no such thing as a free gift
It's not my place to [b]prove your god is bad or evil etc... it is my place however to challenge *your* assumption it is not bad and not evil (with definitions for these words not centred on your god). It should then fall upon you to either walk away or reconcile my objections in a way favourable to yourself. I'm still waiting :]
Btw...it ...[text shortened]... to contain only one assertion and so, what exactly *was* the assertion you're interested in?[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by IshDaGeggInteresting you should mention Atonement. This has been a real can of worms throughout history as Man tries to understand just how atonement through the crucifixion of Jesus actually works. Basically, men have been arguing over this for centuries.
If X sins against Y, how can anything Z does atone for that sin?
Clearly, Z can *compensate* Y for the sin done to him by X. But only X himself can *atone* for that sin.
For example, if X sins by stealing money from Y, Z can give Y some money by way of compensation. But no matter what Z does, he cannot atone for X's sin. Only X can say sorry or made ...[text shortened]...
Still, I can't help coveting my neighbor's sexy wife. So maybe I'll keep that dove handy.
The three main theories about atonement are the Ransom Theory, the Satisfaction Theory (also known as penal substitution by the Protestants) and the Moral Influence Theory. I am partial to the penal substitution theory and the "doctrine of faith union" myself.
Actually, your arguments remind me of one Fausto Sozzini, an Italian theologian, who in the late 1500s took umbrage against Calvin's ideas on atonement. But then, he didn't believe in the Trinity, either.
If you're truly interested in these theories (and not just yanking my chain), there is a fine writeup and explanation of these theories in Wikipedia under "Atonement in Christianity".