If you are choosing to do it, that makes it a choice.
Am I choosing to do it? Is it even a choice I can make?
Not Pascals Wager at all. All I am saying is that according to Christian theology, God will give you what you want, which is seperation from him. Thats all I said. So where you got Pascals Wager from is beyond me.
It sounds a lot like Pascal's wager because it makes the exact same point, and just like Pascal's wager, it is a nonsensical point and an illogical one. "If [insert belief here] is true, I get better things than those that do not share my belief." It is irrelevant to the debate whether or not you are better off than me granting this assumption. Why bring it up?
It is only a system of perpetual failure and death if you choose to go down the path of failure and death. But you see, us Christians, we choose to go down the path of success and life.
According to you, the punishment for sin is death. According to you all humans sin. That means that all humans are punished for their inevitable sinning with death. A system of perpetual failure(sinning) and death(punishment for sinning). That is until a magical scapegoat(or lamb) comes along and takes responsibility from the sinners.
I have removed a few of your quotes, I hope this section will cover the removed material (too many characters, had to cut back).
I am arguing that vicarious redemption is illogical and defies the very definition of justice and responsibility. Whether a human sacrifice or an animal sacrifice, it doesn't matter. Could you explain how killing a human or a different animal and offering it as a sacrifice to God will absolve you of your sins and/or the punishments for those sins? What does this mean for our responsibility for our own actions? How does this impact justice and righteousness?
To me, This is unjust, the system is set out, the punishment for sin is death. Vicarious redemption is unjust because it subverts the justice system in question. It is unrighteous because it causes the death of an innocent to absolve the crimes of the guilty. It is illogical because this is not how righteousness, justice or responsibility work. Responsibility for an action is ours alone, always has been, always will be, it isn't something you can pass onto something else. I can't commit a crime, go slaughter a cow and then tell everyone that the cow committed the crime. I committed the crime, that is true, I am responsible for that action. Justice means that the consequences for my actions are mine alone, this isn't about me owing somebody else, it is about me deserving consequences. Righteousness means that killing something innocent is BAD, not only does it not achieve what it set out to achieve, logically speaking, I'm killing something that by definition did not deserve death.
This is my argument, feel free to break it down analyze it and respond to it in depth, this is the core of what i am trying to get across.
What?? That question had EVERYTHING to do with our discussion. You were basically criticising me for placing my faith in God, because I said i had no reason to think otherwise.
No, I was criticizing you for placing what you proposed was a gratuitous amount of trust in strangers. I have no problem with you having faith in a God or whatever, I don't know you and for all I know, this God has saved your life on numerous occasions.
You were making it seem like you dont trust strangers. So i asked you do you trust the strangers that cook your meals, which you are now saying you dont. So after all, you DO trust strangers. That was my only point as now it is evident.
I trust strangers to not want to kill me whenever they see me. If I didn't I wouldn't leave the house. That being said I will avoid being alone with strangers with no good reason. I will not get them to hold my wallet while i do things and I will not ask them to drive my car to get serviced. That's how you have your possessions stolen.
Um, were did it say that God lied? It says that God will send them a powerful delusion so that they may believe the lie. Verse 11 says "For this reason..." and if you look at the context of verse 10, the reason is "BECAUSE THEY REFUSE TO BELIEVE THE TRUTH AND SO BE SAVED." So they were already doomed because they refused to believe. Its not as if they were believers and then God all of a sudden sent them delusions to make them unbelievers. They were perishing in their ways.
And?? God still deluded them into believing a lie. If this doesn't constitute lying I don't know what does. He used magic to make people believe a falsehood. It doesn't matter if they were bad people or what their theological convictions were. The point was that God lied.
Bias? How do you know that anything you read in history doesn't have its origins from a biased source? Second, why is the gospel accounts unreliable and viewed as secondardy evidence as opposed to being reliable and first hand accounts???
Because they weren't first hand accounts, it's well known by just about everyone now, Biblical scholarship teach it. The gospels were written by anonymous scribes 30 years after Jesus' death. Matthew, Luke and John are certainly not independent sources since Mark had been out for quite some time before they were released and it's possible that Mark is also not independent because of the suspected Q, a document that other Gospels may have borrowed from as well.
First of all, the Gospels were written by either the disciples of Jesus (Matthew and John), or the friends of the disciples of Jesus (Mark, friend of Peter and Luke, friend of Paul).
According to what? Catholic tradition? That's it, historically speaking, this theory has been demolished, it is not taught by any academic sources because it has no grounding in truth. There is no evidence supporting this notion.
First off, the Gospels are four independent books. Each one records the accounts of Jesus life, so I dont see how you can call them unreliable.
They aren't independent. The accounts are secondary evidence that was subject to creative embellishment. The authors were biased in their creation of the account.
30 years later?? Alexander the Greats autobiographies were written 400 years after his death.
Indeed, but you are aware of the other evidence of his conquests right? The statues? The written pieces from dozens of different cities, his presence is well recorded prior to the autobiography written by a trusted historian.
So if you compare this to Jesus, 30 years is like a newsflash.
You're not making a solid point, you're suggesting that "this one is bad, 30 years makes it kind of unreliable BUT this other guy took 400 years! Therefore mine must be true!"
Second, even on the "30 years later" subject. Reverend Jesse Jackson was a friend of MLK. He walked with him, and talked with him. MLK died in 1968. This was 42 years ago, and guess what? Jesse Jackson is alive today and he can tell you many stories about MLK and give you many of his quotes. He was there. So if I can give you an example of this happening today, 42 years later, then this "30 years" stuff should be put in the dirt.
No, it shouldn't, we have many reliable methods of checking up on the facts given by Jesse Jackson, we have nothing but the accounts of Jesus and it is a known fact that the authors of the gospels never met the guy.
Second, the spread of the Christian church did not happen all of these years later, but within 5 years of Jesus being put to death. So this isn't some "hundreds of years later" legendary stuff going on here.
According to what sources? Acts? Another Biblical book with bias coming out it's ears? Thought so because contemporary historical sources have no such recording, the Christian religion wasn't even recognized til early second century, a good sixty years after Jesus' proposed death.
Murder is a legal term but whether it is right or wrong is determined by whatever the system in questions moral code is.
Indeed, but we are in agreement, a lion cannot "murder" another animal given such a word exists in our legal system and that's it.
They dont have to be judged in order for us to classify what a particular act that they commit is.
How could we classify without judging? Isn't the very act of classification a judgement?
Our laws are based on our moral standard. Based on our moral standard, it is perfectly legal to kill someone in self defense. But it is illegal to murder someone deliberately for fun.
Indeed, are other animals a part of our legal system?
On the Christian view, we are not animals.
In your Christian view maybe, educated Christian views do not hold to this because they know what the definition of animal is and they know what humans are, to deny that humans are animals is to deny understanding the English language. Look up the biological definition, humans are animals.
I don't believe that evolution is consisted with the bible at all, nor do i believe that evolution is science and should be taught as such.
I'm glad your beliefs aren't taken into consideration on the matter then.
