Taking a census = a very bad thing.

Originally posted by @fmf
What analogy are you drawing between someone being punished for negligence that put thousands of lives at risk, on one hand, and a person being punished - for eternity no less - for lacking a certain religious belief that causes no disaster or harm to anyone? If there is a valid non-ludicrous analogy in what you've offered, please point it out.

There is nobody who is punished for eternity for lacking a "certain" religious belief.

I tend to believe in the Justin Martyr model of heaven, limbo, and gehenna.

We have been over that. But, it's OK if you do not remember that. If you would like me to explain it again, please ask politely, or send me a PM.

Originally posted by @philokalia
There is nobody who is punished for eternity for lacking a "certain" religious belief.

Why are you telling me this - when I obviously agree with you - and not telling instead people who portray [ostensibly] the same God as you worship in that way? Are you trying to communicate with them through me?

Originally posted by @fmf
Firstly, atheists do not complain to Jesus about anything. Secondly, Jesus was executed for sedition and/or blasphemy or most likely both - and not for a message of "universal love" that non-Jews attributed to him. Thirdly, unlike Christians, atheists are unlikely to get confused about "love" and "torture" unless they have been psychologically damaged by domest ...[text shortened]... od would not forgive humans for disobeying him until after his "son" was executed by the Romans.

This whole post was really not confronting any of the facts or positions that are irrelevant, and while it was full of bad takes and condensed fluff, this part is worthy of mention because it provides for some reflection…

“the Christian God would not forgive humans for disobeying him until after his "son" was executed by the Romans”

Of course, this is a totally bad take, and I think you know deep down that there is more to it, but perhaps you have not fully understood…

Adam was the first man; Christ is sometimes referred to as the Second Adam.

““The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven” (1 Corinthians 15:45-49) … As was the earthly man [Adam], so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven [Christ], so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven” (1 Corinthians 15:48-49).

The forgiveness comes of sins comes with repentance, and repentance is the process of turning away from the fleshly life and into the spiritual life and life of enlightenment.

This is not some literal thing where forgiveness could not exist before Christ, but rather, that Christ is the Last Adam from whom we receive the spiritual enlightenment that enables universal repentance…

Of course, sins were always capable of being forgiven, but the articulation of this universal forgiveness plays out at a later date…

Christ is the metaphysical fulfillment of the spiritual life of man, and bequeaths unto man new spiritual possibilities, the center of which is universal forgiveness for the repentant…

You get it, I am sure, and you probably basically knew this already before, but I thought I would write it out because it is always good to make the message of Christ the center of a discussion.

Originally posted by @philokalia
This whole post was really not confronting any of the facts or positions that are irrelevant, and while it was full of bad takes and condensed fluff, this part is worthy of mention because it provides for some reflection…

“the Christian God would not forgive humans for disobeying him until after his "son" was executed by the Romans”

...[text shortened]... write it out because it is always good to make the message of Christ the center of a discussion.

None of this explains why your god figure would not forgive humans for disobeying him until the Romans had executed his "son".

Originally posted by @fmf
Firstly, atheists do not complain to Jesus about anything. Secondly, Jesus was executed for sedition and/or blasphemy or most likely both - and not for a message of "universal love" that non-Jews attributed to him. Thirdly, unlike Christians, atheists are unlikely to get confused about "love" and "torture" unless they have been psychologically damaged by domest ...[text shortened]... od would not forgive humans for disobeying him until after his "son" was executed by the Romans.

<<Finally, you'll be hard pressed to find an atheist who buys into a doctrine whereby the Christian God would not forgive humans for disobeying him until after his "son" was executed by the Romans.>>

Huh?

You don’t think Jews in the Old Testament were forgiven by God? Why did they sacrifice animals to atone for sins?

Originally posted by @fmf
What analogy are you drawing between someone being punished for negligence that put thousands of lives at risk, on one hand, and a person being punished - for eternity no less - for lacking a certain religious belief that causes no disaster or harm to anyone? If there is a valid non-ludicrous analogy in what you've offered, please point it out.

<<and a person being punished - for eternity no less - for lacking a certain religious belief that causes no disaster or harm to anyone?>>

You know the “causes no disaster or harm to anyone” is accurate? How well do you know the spiritual realm? How well do you know the life-changing effects of believing in Christ? How well do you know the effects on other people of someone who does not believe in Christ?

Originally posted by @fmf
None of this explains why your god figure would not forgive humans for disobeying him until the Romans had executed his "son".

<<None of this explains why your god figure would not forgive humans for disobeying him until the Romans had executed his "son".>>

That is is a false statement.

God forgave humans for sins long before Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.

As for why animal sacrifices in the Old Testament were necessary for forgiveness of sins, see Romans 6:23.

Originally posted by @philokalia
Yes, it is OK to do that.

Yes, gehenna is real.

Ummm, no, I am not a racist. I resent the accusation.

I know that you resent the accusation, you tell people this every time you get accused of being one.

Perhaps if you targeted your denial energy into rethinking your nasty opinions about racial genetics you would find yourself on a better trajectory in terms of your profile here.

Originally posted by @philokalia
Oh no, I do not.

... And a drunk shepherd that allows literlaly a sheep to get eaten by a wolf is far different from a man who, when the enemy is in range, falls asleep and theoretically enables the enemy to kill hundreds of his comrades-in-arms.

Then what was the point of your “drunk shepherd” analogy if not somehow lend a tenuous legitimacy to your approval of executing a teenager who falls asleep on duty, or the burning of billions of people for eternity for not reciprocating the love of your version of Jesus?

What do you not understand about the point, Dive?

Originally posted by @philokalia
What do you not understand about the point, Dive?

The point is what does Davids disobedience to God have to do with the death of 70,000 other men. .

Originally posted by @bigdoggproblem
The outcome of 1 Chron. 21 has always seemed overly harsh to me. God killed 70,000 innocent people because ... wait for it ... their leader arrogantly wished to know how many fighting men he had!

Does this outcome seem utterly ridiculous to anyone else?

Attempting to make high resolution pronouncements on low resolution data is a gamble not likely to lead to clarity.

Originally posted by @divegeester
I know that you resent the accusation, you tell people this every time you get accused of being one.

Perhaps if you targeted your denial energy into rethinking your nasty opinions about racial genetics you would find yourself on a better trajectory in terms of your profile here.

You are a reprehensible troll.

Originally posted by @philokalia
What do you not understand about the point, Dive?

I expired exactly what I thought of your posts a in my replies to you. I think you are a morally ambiguous individual who posts pseudo-intellectual waffle on the internet and occasiaonlly lets his guard slip and we see you for the racist you are. I thought I was pretty clear.

You are waffling on a drunk shepherds in a lame attempt to distract from the fact that you think it is morally acceptable to execute a teenage soldier if they fell asleep on duty!

You are morally reprehensible Jacob.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
You are a reprehensible troll.

And you’re a lying prick who pretends to believe the earth is flat.

So much for mutual options huh.