Question For The Christians

[Ouroboros]

There's more evidence for Evolution.

You capitalized the word evolution Hans.

Yes. I do that sometimes.

 

Evolution is the only begotten son of Nature. And Reality is the holy spirit.

Actually nature is the begotten son of Evolution. Get your myths straight or you'll go to hell.

Damn. It would be so much better if they carried name tags... (And you forgot to capitalize Nature, you heretic!)

 

On a different note (Ab to be precise).

 

Just for the fun of it, I finally got started on Bart Ehrman's "Jesus, Interrupted." There are some very interesting contradictions he brings up. I thought I had heard almost all of them, but oh no, there's a lot more. For instance, there are verses indicating that Jesus had short-term memory loss.

[oddbird1963]

If you read closely, they are already condemned and by not trusting in Jesus they remained in that state or condition. It says, they are condemned already (John 3:18). Carson's quote says, "Already in need of a Savior before God's Son comes on his saving mission, the person compounds his or her guilt by not believing in the name of that Son." They were condemned before Jesus came, otherwise, why send Jesus? If the people were simply condemned for not believing in Jesus as you claim, then sending Jesus was unnecessary. That doesn't make logical sense or fit with the totality of the Bible. You have not refuted the infidel meme claim, you have merely reinforced it. John's depiction of Jesus supports this understanding completely, even if we limit our understanding to chapter 3. There is no contradiction whatsoever as I have shown time and again.

LNC

 

You are refusing to see the contradiction. You have shown nothing because you haven't dealt with how that "because " phrase does not contradict you.

 

yes. They are condemned already (John 3:18). But WHY are they condemned already? jesus said it: "because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son (the very next words after the words you just quoted.)"

 

It is a glaring contradiction. No matter what theological mind games you want to play with yourself, your gospel contains illogical, incoherent and contradictory statements. You're right. In the light of your theology jesus' statement doesn't make sense. But it's there anyway. And just because you want your theology to be a certain way doesn't mean the contradiction doesn't exist. You just can't bring yourself to see it.

 

You still have not answered my previous question. How does "because" not mean "because" here in John 3:18? You won't deal with it, because in so doing you will see the glaring contradiction to your theology.

[centauri]

...God never meant for us to get to be saved by keeping the Law perfectly. He meant for us to be saved by trusting in him. That goes all the way back to Adam.

Right…..God never meant for people to be saved by keeping the law, when His Holy Word declares:

Psa 119:155

Salvation is far from the wicked: for they seek not thy statutes.

 

Eccl 12:13

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

 

Trusting God means seeking his law and trusting in it to provide righteousness.

The recipe for salvation is laid down in Ezek 18:20-27, where each person saves themselves by repenting and keeping the law.

 

God is a reality while Zeus is a Greek myth.

Wishful thinking isn’t reality.

You preach myths on this forum all the time.

You simply think your version of God is a reality.

Your version of “God” is a compilation of clerical precepts loosely based on the Bible, that are completely unproved.

 

...Just because God knows the future, doesn't mean that he determines every event in the future. There is simply no logical reason why there cannot coexist free will and God's foreknowledge of future events.

Scripture shows that God predestines and manipulates at least some human behavior.

You have no way of knowing exactly how much human behavior is predestined or the result of Godly manipulation.

 

...God's rule for them not to eat from that tree was also loving in that they had the knowledge of good, but lacked the knowledge of evil. By choosing to eat from that tree they acquired that part of knowledge that they lacked.

Where does Genesis say that they already had the knowledge of good prior to eating the fruit?

Gen 3:22

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

 

When did Adam become like God and his court, knowing good and evil?

Was it before or after the fruit was eaten?

 

 

The part of the story that you leave out is that we have the freedom to choose and God is completely just in his condemnation of rebellious sinners (which you underplay), yet, God has sent his own son to die in our place, to pay the penalty that we owed, not him, and gives us the free gift of forgiveness if we will simply trust in him.

Scripture shows that God predestines some people to believe, it’s not their decision at all.

There is no need for a pagan human sacrifice according to God’s word, which you ignore.

The gift also isn’t free, it’s conditional and based on an ultimatum, which you also ignore.

 

…You have not refuted the infidel meme claim, you have merely reinforced it. John's depiction of Jesus supports this understanding completely, even if we limit our understanding to chapter 3. There is no contradiction whatsoever as I have shown time and again.

Your “infidel meme” claim was refuted by Christian “Rayskidude”.

I’ll happily post it again as evidence of your deceptive nature.

Verbatim from Christian missionary and preacher Rayskidude:

 

In the Book of Hebrews, unbelief - that failure to acknowledge God for Who He is - is painted as a severe sin. Untimately, the failure to believe in God, to believe God, to trust in and follow Him, is exactly what Satan was guilty of. Though Satan & his demons 'believe" in one God - and shudder (James 2:19) - yet they do not humble themselves before God and entrust themselves to God - all as a result of pride.

 

 

Joh 16:7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.

Joh 16:8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:

Joh 16:9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;

Joh 16:10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer;

Joh 16:11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

 

SO Jesus says the main sin is to not believe in Him as Lord & Savior - that He is righteous and that Satan has been judged. SO we either choose Jesus or Satan - those are the alternatives. We choose either humility before God, or our pride causes us to live apart from God.

 

The Gospel of John states that simple unbelief is sin and according to a Christian preacher and missionary it’s a main sin.

Rayskidude spelled this out clearly, and he’s no infidel, he’s a Christian zealot like you.

So get to work and prove that he’s really an infidel pretending to be a Christian.

Until you’ve proved he’s an infidel, your gyrations are nothing more than theater.

[Mister Pappy]

Bob and Centauri,

YOU GUYS ROCK!

[Mister Pappy]

Why is LNC not answering the call for a moderated and focused debate with Bob? Does anyone here but me see that he is ignoring it as it the offer were not on the table? LNC, why would you not accept such a debate in place of the pick and choose method you currently employ? Is it because the pick and choose thing is working so well for you?

 

The Gospel of John states that simple unbelief is sin and according to a Christian preacher and missionary it’s a main sin.

Rayskidude spelled this out clearly, and he’s no infidel, he’s a Christian zealot like you.

So get to work and prove that he’s really an infidel pretending to be a Christian.

Until you’ve proved he’s an infidel, your gyrations are nothing more than theater.

Centauri,

 

Your entire post is fucking awesome! Sorry, but I can't conjure verbiage more sophisticated to express my opinion. I have become an observer / cheerleader in this thread, for the simple reason, you guys have your shit together too well ....!!! I love this site! So .... time for more popcorn and beer! Please ... not too much of an intermission.

 

Pappy

[LNC]

I agree, bdp. And he's only studied it in a "good English translation", which I'm sure is NO MATCH for the original fucking language. *facepalm*

 

LNC doesn't know what he's talking about. He's been 'studying' this for thirty years, but he hasn't learned anything, other than to try to twist words to mean one thing when they patently mean another. He should run for public office. He's good at ignoring the facts and inventing his own truth.

 

If you think that I have given wrong information, please point that out and make your case rather than throwing out unsupported invectives.

 

LNC

[Mister Pappy]

If you think that I have given wrong information, please point that out and make your case rather than throwing out unsupported invectives.

The problem with that approach with you LNC, is that when your opponents here do point those things out and make their case perfectly, you hop right over it. What's the fucking motivation for any of these learned individuals to waste their time?

 

 

[LNC]

Since it was the Catholic church who ultimately decided what was canonical (authorized; recognized; accepted) vs. apocryphal (of doubtful authorship or authenticity), it seems an oxymoron to suggest that the Catholic church has based its teachings upon apocryphal writings. Overcoming such an obstacle would have been as simple as canonizing the necessary writing or inserting the desired theology into an already canonized text, as needed.

Aquinas wrote in the 13th century that the case for purgatory could not be from the Scriptures; that there is nothing in the Scriptures about purgatory. However, Aquinas lived before the apocrypha was accepted by the Roman Catholic church as part of their canon and it is from there that they defend the idea. So, you are right about that.

You have also suggested that there is no concept in the gospels of a "holding or temporary" dimension where souls are kept in a state of limbo until judgement day. It seems quite clear that Jesus visited such a place during the few days after his crucifixion and before his fabled resurrection - thats off the top of my head. I haven't spent any time, at all, researching other possible references.

I don't think that a good understanding of 1 Peter 3:19 will actually give you purgatory. The verse reads, "By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison." The word for spirits is pneumasin and never refers to people, it is used of angelic beings and spirits. Second, it is not indicated that this is a temporary holding place. Third, angelic beings are never saved from their fall. The bottom line is that you cannot make a case for purgatory from this verse.

As a final note, this entire discussion is hypothetical conjecture at best. For some reason, I have stooped to the level of debating the interpretation of texts and Christian theories which have yet to be proven as anything more than myth, fabrications, or in the best case scenario, biased hearsay.

In the interest of scholarship, or simply common sense, don't you think it would be prudent that we establish the veracity and authority of the information we have allowed ourselves to become entangled in here? At this point we might as well be debating whether Jacks beanstalk seeds were in the pea family or bean family. It truly is a bit embarrassing, now that I've stopped to think about it.

 

You haven't made the case that the biblical accounts are myth, fabrications or hearsay, so I think you should start there before just assuming such. The Bible is not written in the genre of myth, and has too much historical support to be considered fabrication or biased hearsay.

 

There is plenty of support both historically, archeologically and otherwise to consider much of the Bible to be a solid historical record. However, if you want to debate the scholarship of this, you are welcome to make your case.

 

LNC

[LNC]

He sent himself, right? Jesus is God, so God sent himself to die a wicked death.

 

God the Father sent God the Son. The way that you have stated it is to commit the error of modalism (God the Father is God the Son is God the Spirit). The precise way to put it is that God is one in essence and three in persons. The three are distinct persons who co-exist. In other words, John tells of Jesus talking to God the Father at his baptism while God the Holy Spirit descends upon him like a dove (Matt. 3:13-17).

 

What is it, exactly, that makes Jesus the son of God? Why the distinction, if he is God? I've never understood that, particularly when it is framed in this dramatic parent/child sacrifice fashion of God hurting at seeing his child hurt. God so loved the world, he sent his only son...who was...er...himself. So, I keep wondering if this is a misunderstanding of the father/son metaphor.

 

If you disagree, I would appreciate an explanation regarding the mechanism by which Jesus is made an offspring (direct descendent) of God.

 

Thanks.

 

Phanta

 

 

Good question. Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. The members of the Trinity are equal in essence as the are all God, but distinct in personhood and role. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. It is not that Jesus came into existence as God after the Father. They have all co-existed from eternity past and had no beginning. However, Jesus was born a man on this earth, which is the distinction in that sense. Son of God is actually a Messianic title used in the OT, as is Son of Man (see Daniel and elsewhere). Jesus claimed both of these titles repeatedly while on earth. Messiah was the promised deliverer of the people promised in the OT.

Let me know if that clears it up. Or, if you have other questions, send them along.

 

LNC

 

 

[LNC]

LOL!!! Without belief there can be no trust. They are inseparable.

 

TRUST(Webster's New World Dictionary):

1a: A firm belief or confidence in the honesty, integrity, reliability, justice, etc., of another person or thing; faith; reliance

 

This definition says why we don't believe. Sure, according to christianity we are condemned and can be saved only by believing AND trusting. BUT, when we no longer believe, we no longer trust and then are back to being condemned.

 

I think you missed my point and it is probably my fault in that I didn't state it as clearly as I could have. The verse says that the wrath remains upon them, meaning that it was already upon them before they rejected Jesus offer of salvation. Yes, the rejection seals their fate, but it didn't cause their fate (the wrath). They accrued the wrath throughout their lives of sin and rebellion. Jesus offered freely to take that wrath upon him and that offer was rejected, therefore, the wrath remains upon them. I hope that clarifies. Yes, BTW, trust and believe are both required; however, simply believing in Jesus is not sufficient, one must also trust in Jesus.

 

LNC

[LNC]

So which part removes God's wrath? Was Jesus's atonement enough and complete? Then why is trust (faith) in it necessary? To not believe is NOT the same as rejecting. Rejection comes from knowing something to exist and be true and then still reject the offer. The salvation offer is just something people have to imagine, and the so called "rejection" of it more a matter of just not having enough belief that it is real.

 

Why it the language so harsh with religion? Why does it spin and use charged language like that? "You rejected my imaginary offer, therefore you will suffer my imaginary punishment for my imaginary reasons!!!" Why? If Jesus's sacrifice was ENOUGH to appease God's wrath, then nothing more is needed to appease it.

 

But if belief or faith in Jesus's sacrifice is need to fully remove God's wrath, then Jesus's sacrifice is not enough, it never fully removed God's wrath.

 

Jesus atonement was sufficient for the salvation of the whole world, but efficient (effective) for those who trust in him. Yes, to know the offer and to not believe that it is sufficient or efficient for salvation is the same as rejecting it. If someone offered me a million dollars and I didn't believe them and didn't take their offer, it is effectively the same as rejecting their offer. The language is realistic. It may seem harsh, but sometimes language is just that way when describing the reality of a situation. Jesus sacrifice is sufficient to pay the penalty of our sins; however, if we choose to reject it, it will not be efficient (effective) for us. Just as the offer of a million dollars would be made by someone with sufficient means, but if it is not accepted, it will not be efficient (effective) when we try to pay our bills with it. So your final statement is logically incorrect.

 

LNC

[agnosticator]

You think that because god created the world, he is entitled to make rules that his creations can't follow, so that he can burn them in hell?

 

Sure, why wouldn't he? If I buy or build something, then I have the right to do with that item as I please. I can use it for its intended purpose or use it in a manner other than what its intended use. It is mine to do with as I please. Can you give me a reason why God cannot do with his creation as he pleases and a justification for that belief?

 

Yeah, since parents conceived their children, they could use them however they like. This analogy stands as a comparison to the god-human "relationship", since we are considered God's children. But we are really his playthings to be used and saved or tossed away and punished for being independent.

 

In a RELATIONSHIP, one person isn't entitled to do as he pleases with the other person (excuse me-THING). It would cease to be a relationship, because relationships are between beings. So the biblegod isn't having a relationship because all his creation is, are things. Not people with feelings, hopes, and dreams of their own.

 

Good slaves do what the biblegod intends them to do. Why have a caring relationship when you made the damned things and they don't do what you want? If only you made better toys that worked like you want them to! Maybe the biblegod can get some pointers from Mattel. They made Mr. Machine, and look! He's worth a lot of money now!

[agnosticator]

The verse says that the wrath remains upon them, meaning that it was already upon them before they rejected Jesus offer of salvation. Yes, the rejection seals their fate, but it didn't cause their fate (the wrath). They accrued the wrath throughout their lives of sin and rebellion.

 

Hmmm. All those atheistic newborn infants, toddlers, and children should have known better! But Jesus will offer to set them straight!

[Snakefoot]

The verse says that the wrath remains upon them, meaning that it was already upon them before they rejected Jesus offer of salvation. Yes, the rejection seals their fate, but it didn't cause their fate (the wrath). They accrued the wrath throughout their lives of sin and rebellion.

 

Hmmm. All those atheistic newborn infants, toddlers, and children should have known better! But Jesus will offer to set them straight!

If the doctrine of "original sin" is correct, and the rest of the babble is correct, infants, toddlers, the insane, and anyone else incapable "accepting Jeebus" is doomed--period. The babble does not support the apologist spin of "undeserved grace" to accomplish their salvation. After all, "All have sinned and come short of the glory of gawd."

[Ouroboros]

If you think that I have given wrong information, please point that out and make your case rather than throwing out unsupported invectives.

The problem with that approach with you LNC, is that when your opponents here do point those things out and make their case perfectly, you hop right over it. What's the fucking motivation for any of these learned individuals to waste their time?

It's called willful ignorance. He just doesn't want to. That's exactly why I claim that truth in a person's life starts with honesty to oneself.

[Mister Pappy]

You haven't made the case that the biblical accounts are myth, fabrications or hearsay ...

1. You are the one claiming that the biblical accounts are MORE than myth, therefore the burden of proof lies in your court, not mine. I am under no obligation to prove anything, seeing that I am making no extraordinary claim about God's and such. If you would care to be believed regarding your claim that the biblical accounts are more than myth, please feel free to present a case for it.

 

2. As for these accounts being fabrications, who knows? I certainly am not inclined to stake my life on them for Pete's sake, nor is there anything compelling enough to spend my entire life studying. You have wasted your entire life on it and still have nothing. That has been your decision. I can only assume that there is much fabrication involved in the fables - as is the case with most fables. Since the stories have never been shown to be anything more significant than legend - at best based upon some sliver of truth - however, most definitely not authoritative. Seriously, LNC, let us assume that we could prove, in this very moment, that Jesus was an actual historic character. I won't even argue that point. In my opinion it is a mute point and stupid to argue. So he existed and a cult of followers evolved after his death. Explain why that is such a huge honkin' deal? Actually it isn't anything very unusual for the time.

 

3. What the hell do you call stories that are told by those who didn't witness a God damn thing? .... That's right ... fucking hearsay. Don't be a dumb ass. Sometimes, you seem like you have a bean in your head and sometimes you prove you don't. Your dishonesty, disguised in the thin shroud of pseudo intelligence, is what is so disgusting - that and the chicken-shit manner in which you have ran from the invitation to focus this stupid debate into something coherent. I suppose I understand your desire to run free in the forest, where it is more difficult to pin your bunny ass down, but at least you could be more sly about it, for cryin' out loud.

 

... and has too much historical support to be considered fabrication or biased hearsay.

Have you lost your ever-lovin'-mind? Historical support establishes the Bible as more than fabrication and hearsay? This doesn't even deserve a response.

 

However, if you want to debate the scholarship of this, you are welcome to make your case.

Here is some scholarship for you - The Bible is a bunch of bunk - if you would like to establish it as otherwise, be my guest.

 

If I buy or build something, then I have the right to do with that item as I please. I can use it for its intended purpose or use it in a manner other than what its intended use. It is mine to do with as I please. Can you give me a reason why God cannot do with his creation as he pleases and a justification for that belief?

Are you really this stupid that you would ask such a question? You assert that your God is just and loving and on and on you drone about his goodness and mercy and blah blah blah! Now you ask, "Why can't he do whatever he pleases regardless of how fucked up it is?" Isn't it odd that his subjects have a more developed sense of justice than does he? Give you one good reason why God can't just do whatever the fuck he feels like because he may be feeling pissy on that day? How about "perfection", as you attempt to lay on him? Try that for a starter reason.

 

BTW: This Wyoming boy is drinking him some beer tonight and eating some fuckin' popcorn, so fuck you and your ignorant-ass bullshit LNC. It is quite annoying! HOWEVER, please don't stop. I need a reason to pop some more God damn corn! What the hell, take a break, I scored during intermission.

[Ouroboros]

So which part removes God's wrath? Was Jesus's atonement enough and complete? Then why is trust (faith) in it necessary? To not believe is NOT the same as rejecting. Rejection comes from knowing something to exist and be true and then still reject the offer. The salvation offer is just something people have to imagine, and the so called "rejection" of it more a matter of just not having enough belief that it is real.

 

Why it the language so harsh with religion? Why does it spin and use charged language like that? "You rejected my imaginary offer, therefore you will suffer my imaginary punishment for my imaginary reasons!!!" Why? If Jesus's sacrifice was ENOUGH to appease God's wrath, then nothing more is needed to appease it.

 

But if belief or faith in Jesus's sacrifice is need to fully remove God's wrath, then Jesus's sacrifice is not enough, it never fully removed God's wrath.

 

Jesus atonement was sufficient for the salvation of the whole world, but efficient (effective) for those who trust in him. Yes, to know the offer and to not believe that it is sufficient or efficient for salvation is the same as rejecting it. If someone offered me a million dollars and I didn't believe them and didn't take their offer, it is effectively the same as rejecting their offer. The language is realistic. It may seem harsh, but sometimes language is just that way when describing the reality of a situation. Jesus sacrifice is sufficient to pay the penalty of our sins; however, if we choose to reject it, it will not be efficient (effective) for us. Just as the offer of a million dollars would be made by someone with sufficient means, but if it is not accepted, it will not be efficient (effective) when we try to pay our bills with it. So your final statement is logically incorrect.

 

LNC

I see what you're saying.

 

The sacrifice didn't remove God's wrath, it only created a loophole in God's laws. And by believing in this fantasy, you are effectively taking advantage of the loophole. god had to have human sacrifice like the pagan gods to do it, and only gullible minds can be saved. I get it now.

 

--edit--

 

Actually, I don't see what you're saying. Jesus death was only part of the solution, not the complete solution. It's like when you ask a programmer if he has finished the job and he says yes. He usually means that he finished the program but still testing it. It's not ready for production yet. The same with the salvation, it was only half-way done since it requires people to believe before it takes effect.

 

To me, when something is complete, it's complete, not almost complete, whichever way you want to spin it. There's nothing illogical about it.

 

And to reject some imaginary idea is not being rebellious. That's still stupid. There's a difference between willingly reject an offer that you know is a true offer, and rejecting the idea of some imaginary offer. The difference is huge, and you know it. Or maybe you just can't see it?...

 

Here is the logical inconsistency I see, read your statement again: "Jesus sacrifice is sufficient to pay the penalty of our sins; however, if we choose to reject it, it will not be efficient (effective) for us." You are saying that Jesus's sacrifice is a payment in lieu of the penalty we owe God. We are guilty. Jesus's sacrifice is the payment. But it doesn't get paid until you trust it. Trust what? That it was paid? No, since it gets paid when you trust it. So what do you trust? That it's a payment big enough, right? So Jesus act, in the past, wasn't a payment but a token of payment. It's an "IOU" from Jesus to God, and by trusting that the IOU is enough to pay for your freedom, it will work. So it is logical to say that it is not finished until you trust it. It wasn't finished when God created the IOU to himself, that was only the first step. Right? The second step is that you have to do something with that IOU. So the IOU was (in past tense) not enough to appease God, but you have to now (in present tense) act upon it before it becomes efficient, effective, executed, or whatever you want to call it. It's not finished until it's finished. It was not finished 2,000 years ago, it's finished when you believe in the payment. Do you understand the difference here?

 

If a person offers me a million dollars. It's not finished when he offers me the money. It's not finished when he put all the dollars in a trunk under his mattress. It's finished in all forms, shapes, and purposes at the point when I receive the money. Right? Or are you saying it's illogical here too? That you buy a car, and the purchase is finished when you walked into the doors? Or do you agree that it is logical to say that it's finished when you actually have the keys in your hand and you drive the car from the lot? I guess you'd be an easy mark for a con artist. He wouldn't have to ever pay you back the investments, since you're okay with it to be "finished" when you give him the money to invest. You're a sucker, do you know that?

 

Besides, anything is really enough to pay for made up and imaginary crimes. The whole "sin" concept, with "eternal punishment" and "rebellious rejection," are just made up. So really, anyone can come up with a story to explain how their religion specifically solves the imaginary problem. "We believe in the almighty Hamster. It was sacrificed for our sins, and if you believe in him, you'll be saved." And just so you know LNC, you are rebellious and are in fact intentionally rejecting the Hamster's offer, and you'll burn in Hamster Hell for eternity, because he loves you.

 

 

--edit--

 

Let me try it this way.

 

I said, "But if belief or faith in Jesus's sacrifice is need[ed] to fully remove God's wrath, then Jesus's sacrifice is not enough, it never fully removed God's wrath." Perhaps you just didn't understand what point I was trying to make there, so I'll rephrase it. Jesus's sacrifice did not fully remove God's wrath. Perhaps, in your world, Jesus's sacrifice was a big enough payment, but to your own acknowledgment, it doesn't take effect until you believe it. And if you don't believe it, God's wrath is still over you. Therefore, God's wrath is not fully removed, or at all removed, just because Jesus paid the price. You're not protected from the wrath unless you pray. Meaning, Jesus's sacrifice does not alone take away the wrath (or protect you from it), so it is not in itself complete to protect or cover you from the wrath. In other words, it is not complete to fully remove God's wrath (or cover, or protect, or whatever hell else you want to call it). You said, "Just as the offer of a million dollars would be made by someone with sufficient means, but if it is not accepted, it will not be efficient (effective) when we try to pay our bills with it." Totally fits what I'm saying. God didn't pay of the debt. He only provided money. You have to pay it off by using the money God gave you. In other words, the transaction was not complete. The money is perhaps enough in size, but it is not enough in the sense of being complete.

 

"So your final statement is logically incorrect." Only because you didn't understand my argument. I meant "enough" as in finalized, complete, transaction done and over with, or the execution finished. Do you understand what I mean? Probably not.

 

--edit--

 

Let me put it yet another way, in hopes that at some point you get my point (but I doubt it).

 

Two scenarios:

 

1. I have a debt

2. Someone pays the debt for me, and then later tells me that he did so.

 

Why do I have to believe him in order for the bank to actually clear the debt? If he paid it in full, then the transaction is complete and my belief won't change it one way or the other. The debt is paid in full, and I can doubt him as much as I want, but it is still paid.

 

Obviously, this is not how Christian salvation works.

 

Second scenario:

 

1. I have a debt

2. Someone has enough money to pay for my debt, and he offers me to pay it, but he demands that I believe that he will pay it before he can do it. If I doubt him, he won't pay, but if I believe him, he will go to the bank and pay.

 

My understanding now is that this is how Christian salvation works.

 

In other words, the payment is not DONE until someone actually believes it will BE done. Until then, it's not paid.

 

Agreed? Because it can't be both paid and not paid at the same time, can it? That would be a logical contradiction, and you hate those. So we must conclude that the payment is not finalized with the death of Jesus. It might have been monetary enough, but it was not enough in action, one more action is required to seal the deal.

[Mister Pappy]

Jesus sacrifice is sufficient to pay the penalty of our sins; however, if we choose to reject it, it will not be efficient (effective) for us. Just as the offer of a million dollars would be made by someone with sufficient means, but if it is not accepted, it will not be efficient (effective) when we try to pay our bills with it. So your final statement is logically incorrect.

That is what I call stupid logic. If someone deposited a million bucks in my bank account, and I attempted to cash a check for a million bucks. It wouldn't matter if I believed it was there or not. The check would clear. You have no point - as usual. Dude...! You need to get another job. I hope this shit isn't what you make your living doing.

[Dagan]

 

There is plenty of support both historically, archeologically and otherwise to consider much of the Bible to be a solid historical record.

 

LNC

 

Such as the Flood? Wait, no. How about the Exodus? The cornerstone of the entire Old Testament and the entire Jewish faith? No archaeological or historical evidence there, outside the bible. You'd think that several hundred thousand people wandering around the desert for 40 years would leave some evidence, but no, they didn't. And no records of a pharaoh and his soldiers ever drowning either. However, there is evidence that the Jews were well-established in Canaan at the same time as the people they conquered, suggesting that they were merely a monotheistic sect which rose to prominence and invented their own mythology. I have seen this happen in relatively recent times with First Nations groups.

 

Hmm, what about the stories in Chronicles and Kings which don't really line up with each other? What about the records of other empires which contradict bible stories? What about the evidence of tampering by later scribes?

 

Solid historical record? Yes, enough to show that 1)there was a Jewish kingdom and 2) it was constantly getting stomped by everyone around it and that's about it.

[Phanta]

First, that wouldn't be God by the standard definition of God (a perfect being).

 

Why is God necessarily perfect?

 

Second, if this being was all powerful and all knowing, what choice would we have but to do as it wished or choose to suffer the consequences? The choice would be up to me as to whether I thought that standard was too burdensome. Interestingly enough, the God of the universe doesn't impose such a standard draconian standards on us. He simply asks us to trust in him. It is he that took on the draconian punishment on himself on our behalf. However, even after doing all of that for us and simply asking us to trust him, people choose to go to hell instead. Why is that?

 

It's a hard thing to trust, for me, with no direct experience and lack of satisfactory explanations to my concerns.

 

Tell me, what aspects of your understanding of God's morality have troubled you due to their seeming unfairness, and how have you addressed them?

 

Why is trusting in Jesus a standard that is too hard to follow? Again, the rules were to show us our need for him, which is why they are the way they are.

 

The rules were there to show us how we couldn't follow the rules????

 

Eh?

 

God doesn't expect us to act like gods, he simply asks us to trust in the one true God. You have simply focused on the rules rather than the relationship. When my kids do that they get angry with me. I have to remind them that when I correct them I am not punishing them, but trying to help them to be in right relationship with me and the rest of the family. It is a hard concept for them to grasp, but it is worth working through. They need to obey the rules of the house, but when they break them, they get mad at the rule rather than realizing that the rules are good and meant to help them, it is their hearts and minds that rebel and need to be changed. However, that rebellion brings division in the family and that is the place where I start with them in reconciling them in relationship, then talking about the reason that they broke the rule.

 

ANd if your children disagree with your rules, they may eventually decide to leave your house. Perhaps their sense of reality and personal experience is different from what you suggest it "should" be "for their own good".

 

And so with me and others here to the humans who, over the centuries, developed this understanding of God and projected their rules onto it.

 

There is tremendous variety of experience out there. What is good for your family is not good for another. The path is wide.

 

Phanta

[Phanta]

He sent himself, right? Jesus is God, so God sent himself to die a wicked death.

 

God the Father sent God the Son. The way that you have stated it is to commit the error of modalism (God the Father is God the Son is God the Spirit). The precise way to put it is that God is one in essence and three in persons. The three are distinct persons who co-exist. In other words, John tells of Jesus talking to God the Father at his baptism while God the Holy Spirit descends upon him like a dove (Matt. 3:13-17).

 

What is it, exactly, that makes Jesus the son of God? Why the distinction, if he is God? I've never understood that, particularly when it is framed in this dramatic parent/child sacrifice fashion of God hurting at seeing his child hurt. God so loved the world, he sent his only son...who was...er...himself. So, I keep wondering if this is a misunderstanding of the father/son metaphor.

 

If you disagree, I would appreciate an explanation regarding the mechanism by which Jesus is made an offspring (direct descendent) of God.

 

Thanks.

 

Phanta

 

 

Good question. Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. The members of the Trinity are equal in essence as the are all God, but distinct in personhood and role. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. It is not that Jesus came into existence as God after the Father. They have all co-existed from eternity past and had no beginning. However, Jesus was born a man on this earth, which is the distinction in that sense. Son of God is actually a Messianic title used in the OT, as is Son of Man (see Daniel and elsewhere). Jesus claimed both of these titles repeatedly while on earth. Messiah was the promised deliverer of the people promised in the OT.

Let me know if that clears it up. Or, if you have other questions, send them along.

 

LNC

 

It helps a little.

 

Maybe if I ask a different way...

 

What are the differences between God the Father and God the Son?

 

It seems like in the above, you are saying that what makes Jesus different is that he was born to a human being, and what makes him "The Son of God" is merely a title used previously to predict his coming that has no inherend meaning (he isn't the offspring of God or anything like that). Is that right?

 

Thanks.

 

Phanta

[Ouroboros]

Why is God necessarily perfect?

That's a very good question Phanta. Now it's my turn to wait for the answer because I'm curious.

 

LNC never answered me about the Lazarus and Jesus resurrections.

 

Second, if this being was all powerful and all knowing, what choice would we have but to do as it wished or choose to suffer the consequences? The choice would be up to me as to whether I thought that standard was too burdensome. Interestingly enough, the God of the universe doesn't impose such a standard draconian standards on us. He simply asks us to trust in him. It is he that took on the draconian punishment on himself on our behalf. However, even after doing all of that for us and simply asking us to trust him, people choose to go to hell instead. Why is that?

 

It's a hard thing to trust, for me, with no direct experience and lack of satisfactory explanations to my concerns.

 

Tell me, what aspects of your understanding of God's morality have troubled you due to their seeming unfairness, and how have you addressed them?

I think you're nailing the issue here. LNC admits that God created draconian punishments and that God had to create some backdoor for us to get around those draconian punishments. And obviously, LNC is okay with this and trusts God nevertheless. I'm not sure I could trust a God who creates some horrific law, and then turns around and create a loophole to avoid it. Why did he create it to begin with? Because he's evil? Because he just wanted to? Because it's a joke? I don't know. But LNC accepts this unconditionally. I wonder how he does that? How does he suppress his own empathy and emotional response this a Loki God like this?

 

Why is trusting in Jesus a standard that is too hard to follow? Again, the rules were to show us our need for him, which is why they are the way they are.

 

The rules were there to show us how we couldn't follow the rules????

 

Eh?

That's right. That's what the Bible says. Millions of human beings are currently in Hell because had this huge sociological experiment for thousands of years, just to prove a friggin' point. All Jews that failed to live up to God's laws are now tortured in Hell. And as a result, we have this backdoor salvation plan from God, which allows us to avoid God's wrath (which was God's own choice to begin with), and we won't do it through any actions besides believing in a magical solution.

 

What is more astonishing than the story is that people actually believe this stuff...

 

ANd if your children disagree with your rules, they may eventually decide to leave your house. Perhaps their sense of reality and personal experience is different from what you suggest it "should" be "for their own good".

Christians believe it's for our own good to be tortured for eternity, only because we didn't believe in a magical solution to a mysterious problem. That's what they call "justice."

[Ouroboros]

Good question. Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. The members of the Trinity are equal in essence as the are all God, but distinct in personhood and role. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. It is not that Jesus came into existence as God after the Father. They have all co-existed from eternity past and had no beginning.

"Eternity past"? You mean a non-temporal past, right? God is non-temporal according to your own very firm conviction and argument last year. I'm confused. God is non-temporal and eternal at the same time? So time can be eternal then? I thought it was completely and utterly philosophically and logically impossible for time to be eternal past? Now I'm very confused about your position regarding time. You're being logically inconsistent with your previous position.

[DesertBob]

If God was to offer you the opportunity to spend eternity with him in his presence, would you take him up on it?

I assume you mean the god who conforms to your idea about who he is. I already took him up on that, only to discover that he's not actually there.

[agnosticator]

The verse says that the wrath remains upon them, meaning that it was already upon them before they rejected Jesus offer of salvation. Yes, the rejection seals their fate, but it didn't cause their fate (the wrath). They accrued the wrath throughout their lives of sin and rebellion.

 

Hmmm. All those atheistic newborn infants, toddlers, and children should have known better! But Jesus will offer to set them straight!

If the doctrine of "original sin" is correct, and the rest of the babble is correct, infants, toddlers, the insane, and anyone else incapable "accepting Jeebus" is doomed--period. The babble does not support the apologist spin of "undeserved grace" to accomplish their salvation. After all, "All have sinned and come short of the glory of gawd."

 

Right! At every step of the biblegod's plan, there is a fatal flaw that reveals his true character. He's heartless in that all newborns, toddlers, and children are guilty and condemned for being human. Before they can understand and accept the loophole to his perfect plan, as pointed out and explained by the other Ex-Cers in this thread, he says his creation is not fit to live with! I can't imagine any parent gazing at a child while thinking they deserve to go to hell.

 

Something went wrong in the factory, so he has to recall his toys and give them a chance to hear his pitch before he can fix them. They didn't follow his rules, even though they couldn't have because of the way he made them. The cruelty of his plan demonstrates that it wasn't perfect in the first place. It's a scam that pretends to be about a non-existent perfect absolute morality, not followed by his creation. But it's not about morals at all. It is about power and control over his toys. If he were loving, he would admit to himself that he made his toys imperfectly, and just enjoy them for what they are. Toys can only be what they were made to be, and do what they were made to do.

 

The New Testament Plan of Salvation fails to be believable before it gets off the ground because it is based upon a misunderstanding of the story of The Fall. It's such a simple and elegant story about awakening to our humanity. The N.T. writers must have been demented to miss that. It's a shame our society teaches developing minds that the plan of salvation is not only real, but GOOD. What a mindf**k!!!