Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[fishy]

Then, how is it at the birth of a child every parents knows that the child's leanings will be toward wrongdoing ?________________

Never had children I see. :biglaugh:

 

[michaelsherlock]

God is all powerful, why make a man just to die to save everyone when he could just do it by thinking it happening?

Yes, I know I will get a lot of comments saying "Jesus is no man! He is God!" Well, technically isn't he a demigod? Half man half God? And even if you don't consider him to be, it just made people suffer from sadness, especially Mary the mother of Jesus.

According to the Gospel of John, Jesus is God, so then God killed himself to save the world and now we are told that suicide is a sin!!

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Heather no matter how many times you get whooped, you still keep coming back for more

lol child, you haven't whooped me, ever. You continue to demonstrate an embarrassing tendency to not know anything about that which you speak.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

According to the Gospel of John, Jesus is God, so then God killed himself to save the world and now we are told that suicide is a sin!!

Where in the gospel of John does John say Jesus is God?

John says of himself in chapter one that he [John] bares record [for the record] that Jesus is the Son in verse 34.

John writes that 'Nathanael' believes Jesus is the Son in verse 49

John writes that 'Peter as spokesman for all twelve' believe Jesus in the Holy One of God at John 6v69

John writes that the testimony of two [2] men are true.
Jesus says he is one [1] and his Father is the other one [1] at John 8vs17,18

John writes that that the Jews believe Jesus blasphemed because Jesus said that he [Jesus] said, "I am the Son..." at John 10v36 B.

John writes that 'Martha' believed that Jesus is the Son....at John 11v27

John writes that the Jews thought Jesus ought to die because he made himself [not God] but made himself the Son.... at John 19v7

John writes Jesus said he would ascend to his Father and his God at Jn.20v17.

John concludes chapter 20 by saying that he [John] wrote that we might believe that Jesus is the Son....

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So you suggest he is no longer saying that the punishment for sin is death, or that the method for atonement is accepting Jesus as your savior as opposed to ritualistic animal sacrifice? If the punishments are still the same, wouldn't the method for atonement and indeed the notion of atonement still be unrighteous and unjust?

Cmon now. We have to wrap this up. I refuse to keep repeating myself on these issues. God punishes sin with death. During the ancient times, animals were used as sacrificial devices for sin atonement. That was the system. When Jesus came to earth and died, he died for the sin of mankind. All we have to do is accept him as Lord and Savior and model our life after his. Now, apparently, you dont agree with this. You think that it is unjust and unrighteous. Got it. There is nothing that I nor anyone else can say that will make you think otherwise. The system is what it is. It will not change to fit your personal needs. It will not change to meet your personal requirements based on what you think or believe to be just. You just disagree. Christianity isn't for anyone and according to the religion, not everyone will be saved. So it is what it is. But to keep going back and forth on this will not get us anywhere.

But he's perfect, why would anything he's created require amending? Was the old law wrong or broken? Doesn't the Bible specifically state that God is unchanging and eternal?

No, God chose to deal with the Jews a certain way, and he choose to deal with the Gentiles in the same way but with a different twist. This has nothing to do with the law being wrong or broken. It isnt as if God was caught by surprise by a particular event that took place and he had to act quickly. No, God knew that after man would eventually fall, that mankind would need a redeemer. This was known from the very beginning, it was just a matter of when. For whatever reason, the time that Jesus lived, died, and resurrected was the right time, a time that was chosen by God. So this has nothing to do with a wrong or broken law. He simply choose to provide a slightly different mechanism for the atonement of sin. But in reality, the concept is the same.

Okay so, The laws in Deuteronomy about people being responsible for their own actions are now abolished, now other people can be held responsible for the things they did not do.

You are mischaracterizing the concept by speaking of "other people can be held responsible" as if the law now allows for us to sacrifice people as sacrifices for our actions. This is not the case. This was a "one size fits all" deal with Jesus giving his life for mankind. Jesus is God in the flesh, and only his perfect blood could be used in this atonement.

I'm glad we clarified this issue. What about the old system with animal atonement though, are you conceding that those actions were both unrighteous and unjust according to the old covenant and subsequently suggesting that God created systems that were unrighteous and unjust subsequently making him unrighteous and unjust?

No, thats not what I am conceding. Dont know where drew that conclusion from.

According to the Bible, we are responsible for our own actions and the consequences due to our actions. That responsibility is explicitly not transferable to another.

We are responsible for our own actions, because everyone can speak of having less than desirable results for some of the bad decisions that they've made at some point in their lives. The point is, on a cosmic scale, we are forgiven if we accept Jesus as Lord and Savior and believe that he died on the cross for our sins. Just because we are forgiven by God and wont receive the death penalty, that doesnt mean that we wont bear the consequences of our actions if we do wrong on a earthly scale.

I'm saying the Bible and it's characters are hypocritical. The law promoted in the Bible concerning atonement is unjust and unrighteous according to the Bible's own standard.

Not at all. Not according to the Bibles own standard, but according to YOUR standard. You think it is unjust and unrighteous, not us (Christians).

Now you're saying something completely different. There is no objective, absolute standard of good, good according to what you propose is defined by God. If good is defined by God and does not exist as something separate then nothing can truly be good, it can only be what God recognizes it to be.

If there is no objective good then all of the "unjustness" you keep talking about becomes subjective, which makes your moral judgments a matter of personal opinion to only you. Without God there is no objective moral standard, and right and wrong actions are only defined by the person. If God is the ultimate source of goodness, then your less than good standards cannot logically question his actions, because a God that is the greatest conceivable being, being morally perfect, cannot commit a wrongful act. So that would make you logically wrong for even suggesting that God could commit a wrong act. But getting to the point. God's goodness is a reflection of his character. His goodness was not given to him. It was not something that he aquired over time. It is simply who he is. God cannot take away this attribute and remain God. This is like trying to take the wet from the water. God is good, so his commandments, his decisions, his very being, defines what is good. Plain and simple.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What is that problem? Why would I not trust my reasoning? How could I not given the very notion of trust whether it is to mistrust or to trust something is a form of reasoning? My own and the Biblical justice system.

Why should you trust your reasoning?? If a serial killer does what the chemicals in his brain tells him to do, how is he wrong?? Why should you trust your own judgements on morality? How do you know what is right and wrong? What determines this? So if your mind tells you that rape is wrong, and my mind tells me that rape is right, who is right and who is wrong??

And if I am as unjust as I claim God to be, so what? The claim that God is unjust is still there. That's why I'm saying it's irrelevant, you won't believe me when I say that I am so I'm telling you to drop it because it doesn't effect the argument at all.

Then you are the one being the hypocrit. This would be an example of the pot callin the kettle black. And if you are not a vegetarian, then you are a liar and a hypocrit, because you are saying that it is ok to slaughter animals for food but not ok to use animals for sacrifices. It doesn't get anymore hypocritical than that.

What? If a day meant a thousand years and Adam and Eve were said to die on that day then if they died within a thousand years then it is true that they died on that day. I don't know why you think it is unnecessary to draw this conclusion given it is a true conclusion that answers the question directly.

If a day is like a thousands years to God, then you dont count the "in between" time. You wait a thousand years. But we need not go through all of this. Sin is spirtual death. When they died, they became spiritually dead, as death separates us from God. On this view, God did not contradict himself. So there is no need to speak of this any more.

But controlling people's will isn't logically impossible, or at least, not Biblically speaking. God controlled the will of the Pharaoh in Exodus, he "hardened" his heart in order to demonstrate his power. He made sure the Pharaoh kept the Israelites in Egypt long enough for all of the plague's to be finished.

My goodness, when God hardened the heart of Pharaoh it was only temporary. He wanted to punish Pharaoh by a specific means, and he had to harden his heart in order to do so. This was temporary, and only a few times. The other times, Pharaoh hardened his own heart and it was his idea to make slaves out of the Iraelites in the first place, and he was punished for this.

There's a difference between sending an apparition and causing delusions though. Delusions can alter your perception. If God sent you a delusion to convince you that Zeus was real and the king of all of the Gods, you would believe it, regardless of if you already considered it to be true.

The question is, would God send me this kind of delusion?? Obviously not. Second, you said that delusions can alter your perception. But how can they alter your perception if you were already believing it?? Makes no sense. Your perception was already set. We dont know what the delusions were, and the context tells us that the delusions were a result of them already rejecting the truth for a lie.

He didn't make someone freely choose, he stopped them freely choosing by sending them a delusion which essentially means that he altered their perception of reality in order to keep them believing an untruth. That is what delusion means. Seeing and sometimes hearing things that are not there, things that are not real. God did not send them something that was real and there to try to maintain their false beliefs, he sent them a delusion, he altered their perception of reality in order to ensure that they would believe an untruth.

So, if God is divinely working with a police force that specializes in prostituting sting operations, and they set undercover female officers on the street to work the corners (and the women are not wearing anything provocative, they are just standing or walking back and forth on the street/corner), and a unsuspecting man, who was out looking for some action pulls up to the woman and says "How much", and the woman asks "For what?" and the man says "For oral sex, i only have 10 bucks, would that be good enough?" And they bust the man. Would the police force be lying?? Would they be false advertising?? No. The woman was just standing on the corner, which she has every right to do, and the guy PERCEIVED her to be a prostitute. The police force were using the mans preexisting perceptions to bust him, and this is what God did. There is no lying or deception being done here.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

All of them, that's the point. The totality of my life experience combined with my innate personality and thought process produces my worldview and beliefs.

Can you be elaborate??? To not believe in God you have to believe that life came from non-life, order created chaos, and intelligence comes from nonintelligence. How is that view more plausible/reasonable than its opposite and what life "experience" or "thought process" enables one to think that these things actually occurred?

Decisions pertaining to what you believe and not believe are far different to decisions concerning what you do and do not do. What we do is certainly subject to choice, that choice is often based on our beliefs which are based on our life experiences. He's wrong in the conclusion about having no choice, he's not wrong about his actions being directed largely by his life experience.

Its the SAME THING. You said above that your life experiences and your thought process determines whether or not you will accept theism as being true. I am trying to get you to provide examples of what this means, which you seem to want to avoid. You said above that he is wrong by drawing the conclusion about having no choice, which is funny, because YOU were the one saying that you had no choice, remember?? You were saying that you had no choice, and I was the one saying that you did have a choice. Now you are backtracking by saying the the serial killer in the analogy is wrong in the conclusion about having no choice. Hmmm.

Nobodies, I'm saying will alone cannot change my beliefs.

Well, up above I am trying to find out why you have those beliefs and you seem hesitant about giving an answer.

What point are you trying to make, as per the analogy, God was the terrorist, I have just shown that and by the looks you have not tried to refute it. Do you agree or not?

No I dont agree. I was just giving an example of a situation where a choice has to be made, and the person making the choice, if that person is morally good, will make the choice based on the better good, and not the opposite.

According to you it is that people not die. God's wants people to live. God doesn't want people to die. People are dying. God's will is not being done.

Death is a result of sin, and we all sin by our own free will. God gave us free will, and when we make bad choices, we die as a result. I dont see how this is an example of God will not being done.

But you said that God wants people to live and that he doesn't want people to die. You are the one that said his will concerns death. So does it or doesn't it? Either he wants people to die or he doesn't or he just doesn't care either way.

In order to prevent death God would have to prevent free will. God wants people to live or die by their own decisions. This has nothing to do with his divine will.

The Bible isn't an accurate description of the text though, Jewish tradition, the Torah, the Talmud millenia of Jewish thought and opinions concerning their theology are completely different to Christian input. The New Testament writers have no authority over Jewish tradition, they can say whatever they want, Sheol is not defined by them. Sheol is defined by the Jewish tradition and according to that tradition, all of the dead go there for the afterlife and there is no mention of two different types of afterlife. Basically, the New Testament addition of torture in the afterlife was created by the New Testament writers, whether it exists or not is irrelevant, their writings are a perversion of the Jewish tradition and literature.

Ok, Sheol is defined by the Jewish tradition, right? Well guess what? The concept of hell is defined by the Christian tradition, and it is a place where the unrighteous go. If Jesus did exist as the gospel writers tells us, then his teaching overrides the Jewish tradition and it still stands today.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

OK since you've mentioned this there must be a third afterlife, there is Heaven, there is paradise and there is the torture bit. According to Jewish tradition, Sheol is the afterlife for all mortals, so paradise and the torture bit are a part of Sheol. So Abraham and all his crew were in paradise which is one part of Sheol that is separated by a gulf from the torture part of Sheol. Or so says the New Testament authors.

I dont believe that as you put it, but it doesnt matter. The point is, the saved and unsaved are in two different states. That is the only thing that is relevant.

According to the Abraham as presented by Luke, no person may leave one of the two places to enter the other. Nobody that exists on paradise or hell can visit the other place. It was right there in the text. It doesn't have a clause regarding a temporary visit, it says that nobody can leave the place they are in in order to visit the other place.

Ok, i grant your point. But as I keep saying, the fact of the matter is, the rich man was being tormented, and the begger was not. They were in two different states. Even if Sheol is a place where both the righteous and unrighteous go, they are in two different states.

This is what I've been suggesting the New Testament writers were trying to promote. I'm glad you agree.

Promote? Oh I get it. You are saying that the entire New Testament is flawed and Jesus didnt speak of hell as a real place. (Matt 25:41, Mark 9:45-46)

Irrelevant, the point is still the same, the New Testament writers propose an entirely different afterlife than the religion they built from. No such torture place existed until they mentioned it.

Different how? How can you say it is different when you dont have anything to compare it to. There is no description of this Sheol place in the OT, so you cant draw any conclusion other than it is a place where the dead go. You dont know what state they are in, whether an unpleasant one or not. In the NT, there IS a more descriptive concept of this place, and since you dont like this concept you are saying "No, this is completely different from the other place." But you dont know what is going on in the other place to conclude this.

According to Jewish literature and tradition this notion is false.

I am not Jewish so I dont follow Jewish doctrine, nor do i need to because as a Christian i follow the law of Jesus, not the law of Moses

Jesus was a Jew. Jews have more to say on God than any Christian, they are the authors of the tradition you ascribe to, you have defended their ritualistic sacrifices of animals for the last couple of pages, you have defended parts of their religion you barely understand. I don't understand why you would suggest that you don't care what Jews say.

First off, the Jews are not authors of the tradition that I ascribe to. Jesus is the author of the tradition that I subscribe to. Second, I defended their ritualistic sacrifices only because Jesus died in the same methodologically way that the animals did. Thats it. Third, I havent defended any part of "their religion." I was only defending the "atonement" concept of Christian doctrine that the whole religion of Christianity stand on, because if Jesus did not die for our sins, then the religion is dead.

 

[waitasec]

Then, how is it at the birth of a child every parents knows that the child's leanings will be toward wrongdoing ?________________

no...
innocence and wrong doing are 2 different things...
it's just that the those who conjured up this way of thinking equated innocence with wrong doing...

isn't it time we move forward?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Somebody doesn't realize that Jesus followed the laws of Moses, who got them from God's mouth.

 

[Thief]

Somebody doesn't realize that Jesus followed the laws of Moses, who got them from God's mouth.

Yeah...He kept Jewish customs....
but broke from custom at various occasion.
Which in turn got fingers and accusations pointed at Him.

Hardly the spotless sacrifice.....
(not that I believe in scapegoating...I don't)

 

[Heathen Hammer]

True enough, but the point is, anything relevant about him is because he was an observant Jew. His conflict for ex. over the activities in the Temple, were because things were moving away from Hebrew tenets.

And some people [not you Thief] seem to forget, the only thing that brings him close to being the prophecied Hebrew messiah [he actually fails to be, but that's another story], were Hebrew scriptures which INCLUDE him following Hebrew Laws, the Mosaic laws.

To pretend for a second that Jewish law and history has nothing to do with Christianity is beyond ignorance.

 

[Thief]

True enough, but the point is, anything relevant about him is because he was an observant Jew. His conflict for ex. over the activities in the Temple, were because things were moving away from Hebrew tenets.

And some people [not you Thief] seem to forget, the only thing that brings him close to being the prophecied Hebrew messiah [he actually fails to be, but that's another story], were Hebrew scriptures which INCLUDE him following Hebrew Laws, the Mosaic laws.

To pretend for a second that Jewish law and history has nothing to do with Christianity is beyond ignorance.

yeah...Christians want their prophecy.
At the time the gospels were written, notation was made as Jewish prophecy fell in place,
as His ministry unfolded.
Jews want their prophecy ,too.

But none of that made Him a worthy sacrifice.
What did it was His willingness to go before His friends.
To lay down His life, to go ahead, and prepare a place for them.

At the Last Supper, He set aside Moses....as He performed the Passover,
a tradition to remember the Exodus.
He said to them...'Now do this in memory of Me.'....

Not very Jewish.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

He was a very naughty boy

 

[LioneDea]

Well...since we Jews don't think such a thing as "dying for our sins" is possible, our answer is "no."

Lione D' ea: So then He is not a man, because if he is a man, the word he speak: I will never give my life in other people...my answer is yes, He die for our sins...





(end.)

 

[filthy tugboat]

This was a "one size fits all" deal with Jesus giving his life for mankind.

Indeed and this doesn't contradict my point, the notion of vicarious redemption, whether it be one man sacrificing himself for everyone that adopts a certain philosophical and theological viewpoint or various animals that redeem the people who kill individual animals as a sacrifice, removes the responsibility of action that God supposedly created. God is the one that designed the system, he is the one that dictates cause and effect, action and consequence. He made a decision regarding punishment and then completely subverted that decision with the system of vicarious redemption. Consequence no longer means consequence, what you do no longer has the results that were originally proposed.

We are responsible for our own actions, because everyone can speak of having less than desirable results for some of the bad decisions that they've made at some point in their lives.

Indeed, cause and effect is a thing that exists in reality.

If there is no objective good then all of the "unjustness" you keep talking about becomes subjective, which makes your moral judgments a matter of personal opinion to only you.

Others may share my opinions.

Without God there is no objective moral standard, and right and wrong actions are only defined by the person.

How is there absolute objective moral standards with God? From where I'm standing you have just assumed and asserted that God is synonymous with good, that what God says is necessarily good. No supporting material has been provided.

But getting to the point. God's goodness is a reflection of his character. His goodness was not given to him. It was not something that he aquired over time. It is simply who he is. God cannot take away this attribute and remain God. This is like trying to take the wet from the water. God is good, so his commandments, his decisions, his very being, defines what is good. Plain and simple.

This is not simple, this is far from it. What you propose makes no sense. You separate goodness and "God's goodness" at the start of this quote which implies that they are two different things. It is also ridiculously circular. "God is good ... [God] defines what is good." All in the same sentence. Literally speaking if God defines what is good then the absolute standard of goodness is synonymous with God's standards. Goodness is reduced to nothing more than, "what God says or does." Goodness is no longer a distinct thing separate from theology, humans or God, now it is just God's standards. You have effectively reduced morality to arbitrary labels.

Why should you trust your reasoning??

Do I have a choice? Isn't the notion of trust or distrust a form of reasoning in and of itself? Making a decision on the matter one way or the other already relies on my reasoning.

If a serial killer does what the chemicals in his brain tells him to do, how is he wrong??

Is he wrong? What do you mean by 'wrong'?

Why should you trust your own judgements on morality? How do you know what is right and wrong? What determines this? So if your mind tells you that rape is wrong, and my mind tells me that rape is right, who is right and who is wrong??

I don't even know what you mean by who is right and who is wrong here? Perhaps neither of us?

Then you are the one being the hypocrit. This would be an example of the pot callin the kettle black. And if you are not a vegetarian, then you are a liar and a hypocrit, because you are saying that it is ok to slaughter animals for food but not ok to use animals for sacrifices. It doesn't get anymore hypocritical than that.

Hang on! I'm a hypocrite if I am a vegetarian? Wait what? But again, it doesn't matter either way, I could eat children for breakfast and it wouldn't effect the words that I say. The argument stands and you are blatantly refusing to address it.

If a day is like a thousands years to God, then you dont count the "in between" time.

So an hour is not apart of a day? 5:30 p.m is not a part of a day? This is just silly, all of the time in that first thousand years make up the one thousand years, if they died within those one thousand years then they died on that day. Not after that day, not on the last minute of that day, just at sometime on that day.

You wait a thousand years.

How could you wait a thousand years if the time up until a thousand years doesn't make up a thousand years? The thousand years will never come because apparently no time is passing. The "in between" time as you call it is what constitutes the thousand years, if you don't count that then the thousand years will never come.

But we need not go through all of this. Sin is spirtual death. When they died, they became spiritually dead, as death separates us from God. On this view, God did not contradict himself. So there is no need to speak of this any more.

But this is just silly, you are espousing a view that is wrong. You are misreading the Bible. They died on that day because neither reached a thousand years old and a day is "like a thousand years to God". You really should start becoming familiar with Jewish theology, Christianity is nothing without it and if you don't understand Jewish theology then you don't know what it is to be a Christian. Or at least, not a knowledgeable Christian.

My goodness, when God hardened the heart of Pharaoh it was only temporary. He wanted to punish Pharaoh by a specific means, and he had to harden his heart in order to do so. This was temporary, and only a few times. The other times, Pharaoh hardened his own heart and it was his idea to make slaves out of the Iraelites in the first place, and he was punished for this.

So you agree that God hardened the Pharaoh's hear thereby demonstrating that God can control people's will. Thank you for admitting it.

The question is, would God send me this kind of delusion?? Obviously not. Second, you said that delusions can alter your perception. But how can they alter your perception if you were already believing it??

Belief =/= perception. Just because you believe something doesn't mean your perception of reality is faulty, it is often based on your reasoning skills and how you think about what you perceive. You can believe that Zeus produces the lightning all you want without actually seeing Zeus himself and watching him do it. A delusion in this case could involve actually witnessing Zeus produce lightening.

Makes no sense. Your perception was already set. We dont know what the delusions were, and the context tells us that the delusions were a result of them already rejecting the truth for a lie.

No, not a "result of" God specifically says that he sent them a delusion, he altered their perception of reality to ensure that they remained believing an untruth. He reinforced the lie they already believed, through supernatural means. Hence why it is clear that God is capable of lying, conveying false information. The very acting of sending a delusion is a lie, it is conveying false information and presenting it as truth.

Would the police force be lying?? Would they be false advertising?? No. The woman was just standing on the corner, which she has every right to do, and the guy PERCEIVED her to be a prostitute. The police force were using the mans preexisting perceptions to bust him, and this is what God did. There is no lying or deception being done here.

This isn't a delusion or an altered sense of reality. Analogy is not apt.

 

[filthy tugboat]

Can you be elaborate???

The entirety of my education, my childhood, the people I've met, the things I've been told, the things I've experienced, everything I've ever done.

To not believe in God you have to believe that life came from non-life, order created chaos, and intelligence comes from nonintelligence.

Do you? Could you support that with some kind of evidence? Ignorance, apathy, aliens. You name it, you do not have to believe the things you propose.

How is that view more plausible/reasonable than its opposite and what life "experience" or "thought process" enables one to think that these things actually occurred?

All of them, that's the point. I never said that one view was more plausible or reasonable than it's opposite.

Its the SAME THING. You said above that your life experiences and your thought process determines whether or not you will accept theism as being true. I am trying to get you to provide examples of what this means, which you seem to want to avoid. You said above that he is wrong by drawing the conclusion about having no choice, which is funny, because YOU were the one saying that you had no choice, remember?? You were saying that you had no choice, and I was the one saying that you did have a choice. Now you are backtracking by saying the the serial killer in the analogy is wrong in the conclusion about having no choice. Hmmm.

He had choice in the sense that he had options, he could have gone and bought a doughnut at the time of the murder, instead he didn't. Regarding beliefs, there is no such choice. That's why I said that the two are completely different.

No I dont agree. I was just giving an example of a situation where a choice has to be made, and the person making the choice, if that person is morally good, will make the choice based on the better good, and not the opposite.

So you don't agree based on the grounds that you didn't mean for the analogy to imply that? Well too bad, it did. The analogy is clear that God is both the terrorist and the president, the force killing and the force trying to limit death. Your example did not work in your favor.

Death is a result of sin, and we all sin by our own free will. God gave us free will, and when we make bad choices, we die as a result. I dont see how this is an example of God will not being done.

Because you said that God wants people to live and not die. People are dying.

In order to prevent death God would have to prevent free will. God wants people to live or die by their own decisions. This has nothing to do with his divine will.

What? God defined the concept of sin and that of free will, he is the one that made one entail the other. I see no reason to believe that God couldn't make a world free of sin that contains free will. Apparently God has free will but he cannot sin.

Ok, Sheol is defined by the Jewish tradition, right? Well guess what? The concept of hell is defined by the Christian tradition, and it is a place where the unrighteous go. If Jesus did exist as the gospel writers tells us, then his teaching overrides the Jewish tradition and it still stands today.

What? How does it override the Jewish tradition? That's not how it works at all. You really need to brush up on your theology. Most Christians and Jews would call what you are suggesting blasphemy.

Promote? Oh I get it. You are saying that the entire New Testament is flawed and Jesus didnt speak of hell as a real place. (Matt 25:41, Mark 9:45-46)

Despite my thoughts on the flawed document that is the New Testament, that is not what I am suggesting. It is clear from the text that the NT authors are promoting a religion, everybody agrees on that at least.

Different how? How can you say it is different when you dont have anything to compare it to. There is no description of this Sheol place in the OT, so you cant draw any conclusion other than it is a place where the dead go. You dont know what state they are in, whether an unpleasant one or not. In the NT, there IS a more descriptive concept of this place, and since you dont like this concept you are saying "No, this is completely different from the other place." But you dont know what is going on in the other place to conclude this.

What I am saying is that the New Testament's idea's on the afterlife are not consistent with Jewish tradition. That's all, they still could be true but they are certainly not borne out of the same religious background.

I am not Jewish so I dont follow Jewish doctrine, nor do i need to because as a Christian i follow the law of Jesus, not the law of Moses

I didn't say follow though, I'm suggesting that you should learn and understand your own religion and it's roots, it has become patently clear that you know very little of Judaism, which means that you don't know very much about Christianity. I am neither a practicing Jew or Christian, took no formal education and spend little time studying and I know a lot more than you. Take some time out, read up on some accredited theologians of both Jewish and Christian persuasions and your views will expand massively. Even C.S Lewis would be a good start and he is by no means a difficult read, he knows what he's talking about but he's very easy to follow and doesn't go too in depth.

First off, the Jews are not authors of the tradition that I ascribe to.

They are though, they have more to do with your traditions than Jesus. Their religion constructed your religion and has much more to say about your theology.

Jesus is the author of the tradition that I subscribe to. Second, I defended their ritualistic sacrifices only because Jesus died in the same methodologically way that the animals did. Thats it.

So it's not got anything to do with God? Do you disregard a lot of the OT just because Jesus isn't in it? Do you view him as something similar to superman and just skip all of the Clark Kent sections of the comic book waiting to see him turn into superman and kick ***? I don't understand why you have such a distaste for Judaism and the Jewish tradition, it is perplexing given how heavily Christianity borrows from it.

Third, I havent defended any part of "their religion." I was only defending the "atonement" concept of Christian doctrine that the whole religion of Christianity stand on, because if Jesus did not die for our sins, then the religion is dead.

I do not understand much about your religious views then, they are certainly uncommon. Most Christians recognize Judaism for what it is, which is the entire source of the Christian religion and most of it's symbolism, culture, tradition and theology. Jews have given more to Christian theology than Christians ever will.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Indeed and this doesn't contradict my point, the notion of vicarious redemption, whether it be one man sacrificing himself for everyone that adopts a certain philosophical and theological viewpoint or various animals that redeem the people who kill individual animals as a sacrifice, removes the responsibility of action that God supposedly created. God is the one that designed the system, he is the one that dictates cause and effect, action and consequence. He made a decision regarding punishment and then completely subverted that decision with the system of vicarious redemption. Consequence no longer means consequence, what you do no longer has the results that were originally proposed.

God cannot make mistakes, by definition. So any system that he "designs" has to be the best decision based on the surrounding circumstances. You just dont agree with it. Plain and simple. As I keep stressing, Christianity isn't for everyone.

Others may share my opinions.

It is personal to them, too.

How is there absolute objective moral standards with God? From where I'm standing you have just assumed and asserted that God is synonymous with good, that what God says is necessarily good. No supporting material has been provided.

In other words, there has to be a transcendent foundation to morality, that defines what it means to be good and bad. Otherwise we are just left with subjectiveness. By objective I mean some things are wrong regardless of who think it is right. For example, slavery in the United States was wrong, even if our law stated that it was legal. Without a morally perfect being telling us that this was wrong (preparing myself for the "slavery in the bible" backlash), then we are left with subjectiveness, and the concept of good and evil depends on the person. That was my point, you are judging God based on your own moral standard, but how are you right in how you access the way God handles his business?? Where did you get your moral code from?? Nature??? Nature, a mindless and nonintellectual entity, gave you your own moral code. So how can you trust a process that is mindless and has no intellectual basis???

This is not simple, this is far from it. What you propose makes no sense. You separate goodness and "God's goodness" at the start of this quote which implies that they are two different things. It is also ridiculously circular. "God is good ... [God] defines what is good." All in the same sentence. Literally speaking if God defines what is good then the absolute standard of goodness is synonymous with God's standards. Goodness is reduced to nothing more than, "what God says or does." Goodness is no longer a distinct thing separate from theology, humans or God, now it is just God's standards. You have effectively reduced morality to arbitrary labels.

I am trying to figure out what is so hard to grasp about this. if God is morally perfect, meaning he is the ultimate source of goodness, then what it means to be good is defined by him. If a morally perfect being tells us that something is wrong, then guess what, it is wrong. The morally perfect beings actions and commands will reflect his character. His words are good, his actions are good, and his standards are good. He is morally perfect.

Do I have a choice? Isn't the notion of trust or distrust a form of reasoning in and of itself? Making a decision on the matter one way or the other already relies on my reasoning.

Here you go with the "choice" business again. By your own view, you are here by nature. Nature has no mind. Nature doesn't consciously make decisions. So you are getting your moral code from a process that doesn't have a mind, no moral code, and no intellect. You are getting this moral code from something that doesnt have a moral code. And the brain that you use to decipher what is right or wrong is just a bunch of randomly formed chemicals that took billions of years to create. So how can you trust this??

Is he wrong? What do you mean by 'wrong'?

Cmon now, if a serial killer wipes out your whole family, you would know exactly what I mean by wrong.

I don't even know what you mean by who is right and who is wrong here? Perhaps neither of us?

But yet when it comes to God and the whole sacrifical business, all of a sudden you you think these practices are wrong, injust, illogical. Quick to judge God and his dealings, but when it comes to earthly every day things, all of a sudden you ask the question "who is right and who is role" trying to play the naive role?? Can see right through it.

Hang on! I'm a hypocrite if I am a vegetarian? Wait what? But again, it doesn't matter either way, I could eat children for breakfast and it wouldn't effect the words that I say. The argument stands and you are blatantly refusing to address it.

No, I am saying if you weren't a vegetarian you would be a hypocrit.

So an hour is not apart of a day? 5:30 p.m is not a part of a day? This is just silly, all of the time in that first thousand years make up the one thousand years, if they died within those one thousand years then they died on that day. Not after that day, not on the last minute of that day, just at sometime on that day.

I already said that they died spiritually on that day. So no need to keep harping on the "day is like a thousand years" business. They died spiritually on that day, which was in line what God said.

But this is just silly, you are espousing a view that is wrong. You are misreading the Bible. They died on that day because neither reached a thousand years old and a day is "like a thousand years to God". You really should start becoming familiar with Jewish theology, Christianity is nothing without it and if you don't understand Jewish theology then you don't know what it is to be a Christian. Or at least, not a knowledgeable Christian.

First of all, spirtual death is a concept that is well defined in the bible, and it is defined as "separation from God". When you are separated from God, you are spirtually dead. But of course you, being nontheistic and all, dont quite understand the concept of spiritual death, since you dont believe that man has a spirit or that there is a God. You want to only focus on the concept of death that everyone can relate to, which is physical death, when the body dies. But regardless of your understanding or acceptance of this concept, it is a biblical concept. Second, it doesn't appear that you are very knowledgable either. Because if you were, you would understand that a person can be a Christian without reading one word of the Old Testament. In fact, there are many "new testament only" bibles out there. From a Christian view, reading and learning about how God dealt with the Jews in the Old Testament is preferred, but it isn't required. Third, it is foolish to say or think that knowing about Jewish tradition requires you to be a knowledgeable Christian. In fact, the New Testament doesn't say much of ANYTHING about Jewish tradition, but it does say MUCH about being children of God under the new covenant of Christ. That is what it means to be a Christian. So you may want to step your own knowledge game up before you come at me with the foolishness

So you agree that God hardened the Pharaoh's hear thereby demonstrating that God can control people's will. Thank you for admitting it.

No problem. I have no problem admitting that if God wants to carry out an act of judgement by controlling someones will in order to carry it out, then he has the right to do so. If God wants me to carry out a life sentence in prison for killing 12 people, then he can "harden" the hearts of those at the parole board if they have intentions of letting me out on parole. This is a good God in my eyes, because me personally, I dont want anyone that kills 12 people to get out of prison. So no, I have no problem with agreeing with this whatsoever.

Belief =/= perception. Just because you believe something doesn't mean your perception of reality is faulty, it is often based on your reasoning skills and how you think about what you perceive. You can believe that Zeus produces the lightning all you want without actually seeing Zeus himself and watching him do it. A delusion in this case could involve actually witnessing Zeus produce lightening.

God doesn't have to judge you based on what you saw, he can judge you based on what you believed.

No, not a "result of" God specifically says that he sent them a delusion, he altered their perception of reality to ensure that they remained believing an untruth. He reinforced the lie they already believed, through supernatural means. Hence why it is clear that God is capable of lying, conveying false information. The very acting of sending a delusion is a lie, it is conveying false information and presenting it as truth.

No he didn't alter their perception of reality. He played with their perception of reality.

This isn't a delusion or an altered sense of reality. Analogy is not apt.

How come it isn't. The guy in the car had an "altered sense of reality". The reality that he thought was true was not true, and it was played upon by the personnel of the sting operation. So you have no leg to stand on with this "God was lying" business. Which is evident by the short response you gave :yes:

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The entirety of my education, my childhood, the people I've met, the things I've been told, the things I've experienced, everything I've ever done.

So what part of your educational studies allowed you to think that life can come from nonlife, and intelligence can come from nonintelligence?

Do you? Could you support that with some kind of evidence? Ignorance, apathy, aliens. You name it, you do not have to believe the things you propose.

As I said before, it is only one or the other. Either the universe created itself, or God created it. There are no in-betweens. Do believe in one is to negate the other.

All of them, that's the point. I never said that one view was more plausible or reasonable than it's opposite.

Well, if you are not a theist then you've obviously chosen the view you think is more plausible.

He had choice in the sense that he had options, he could have gone and bought a doughnut at the time of the murder, instead he didn't. Regarding beliefs, there is no such choice. That's why I said that the two are completely different.

Choice and options are synonymic. If you have an option, you have a choice. Beliefs are about choices. There are many examples of folks that were raised in Christian homes, grew up, and became atheists. There are other examples of folks raised in nontheistics households, grew up, and became theists. For whatever reason a person has, it is all about choices.

So you don't agree based on the grounds that you didn't mean for the analogy to imply that? Well too bad, it did. The analogy is clear that God is both the terrorist and the president, the force killing and the force trying to limit death. Your example did not work in your favor.

I still dont understand how God is the terrorists, and it strikes me as hilarious that you continue to say this.

Because you said that God wants people to live and not die. People are dying.

This is silly. HAHAHAHAHA. You are on a role here. God allows us to have free will (an example of this is the fact that you freely choose not to believe in him ) Our free will results in us sinning. The results of sin is death. We die as a result of our own sin.

What? God defined the concept of sin and that of free will, he is the one that made one entail the other. I see no reason to believe that God couldn't make a world free of sin that contains free will. Apparently God has free will but he cannot sin.

God has limits too. He cannot do things that contradict who he is. His free will does not mean he can cause a morally corrupted action.

What? How does it override the Jewish tradition? That's not how it works at all. You really need to brush up on your theology. Most Christians and Jews would call what you are suggesting blasphemy.

First of all, Jesus is God (hello Pegg ). Second, who cares about Jewish tradition as it relates to hell or sheol?? I only care what Jesus said, and Jesus said that hell exist as a real place with real people.

Despite my thoughts on the flawed document that is the New Testament

How is it flawed? Prove that the New Testament is flawed.

that is not what I am suggesting. It is clear from the text that the NT authors are promoting a religion, everybody agrees on that at least.

Yes, we agree that the NT authors are promoting a religion, namely, CHRISTIANITY. No argument from me here

What I am saying is that the New Testament's idea's on the afterlife are not consistent with Jewish tradition. That's all, they still could be true but they are certainly not borne out of the same religious background.

And what I am saying is the NT ideas on the afterlife could be a more descriptive concept of the same tradition.

I didn't say follow though, I'm suggesting that you should learn and understand your own religion and it's roots, it has become patently clear that you know very little of Judaism, which means that you don't know very much about Christianity.

As I said before, you can be a Christian without knowing anything about Judaism. In fact, most Baptist churches know very little about Judaism, but they still go to church and give praise to the Lord. Second, we have only discussed two aspects of Judeo-Christian doctrine, the state of the dead, and sacrifical practices. In regards to the state of the dead, it is clear from both Judiasm and Christians that there is at least life after death. All you have shown is that the place called Sheol is a place where the dead go. You dont know what kind of state that these dead people are in if you just go by the OT. I said that the NT describes the state of the both the righteous and unrighteous, which it does. You then began to talk about how this was "UnJewish", which is irrelvant, because I am not Jewish. And if Jesus is God as I believe he is, then I accept his authority on the issues regarding the state of the dead, which he does numerous times in the NT. So nothing about Christianity hindges on knowing about the Jewish tradition or anything like that. So you are sadly mistaken.

I am neither a practicing Jew or Christian, took no formal education and spend little time studying and I know a lot more than you. Take some time out, read up on some accredited theologians of both Jewish and Christian persuasions and your views will expand massively. Even C.S Lewis would be a good start and he is by no means a difficult read, he knows what he's talking about but he's very easy to follow and doesn't go too in depth.

Well, you obviously dont know enough if you think that being a Christian depends on how much knowlege you know about Jewish tradition. I mean, can it be helpful, yes. Is it required, absolutely not. This alone shows your misplaced knowledge on the issues. So you are not exactly the Einstein of the conversation my friend

They are though, they have more to do with your traditions than Jesus. Their religion constructed your religion and has much more to say about your theology.

More misplacement on knowledge i see. Judiasm didn't construct my religion. It set the path for my religion. The only thing we have in common with the Jews is that we worship the same God, and this God provided some kind of atonement system for both of our sins. Thats it. I am a Christian, and I believe that Jesus died on the cross for my sins. Some Jews dont believe this. That is the primary difference in our theology. That is the main divider between the two. The NT spoke of heaven and hell, which the OT didnt do. The NT incarnated the second person of the Trinity, which the OT isn't as explicit about. The NT introduced us not only to Jesus, but to the Holy Spirit, which the OT didn't. Jesus considered all food clean in the NT, which was not the case on the OT. The NT provided atonement for the sin of mankind through the act of one man, which the OT didnt do. This are all fundemental differences between the OT and NT. So it is a myth to think that somehow the Jews have more to do with with my tradition than Jesus. That is almost the most blatantly false thing that you have said thus far. But yet, you are more knowledgable than me?? Nope :no:

So it's not got anything to do with God? Do you disregard a lot of the OT just because Jesus isn't in it? Do you view him as something similar to superman and just skip all of the Clark Kent sections of the comic book waiting to see him turn into superman and kick ***? I don't understand why you have such a distaste for Judaism and the Jewish tradition, it is perplexing given how heavily Christianity borrows from it.

I dont disregard it, in fact, I love it. I love how God exercised his power against Pharaoh and rescued his people from poverty. I loved how God flooded the earth to get rid of the wicked that corrupted the world. I loved how God used David as an instrument to fight the battles of Israel. This isnt a matter of disregarding. It is a matter of understanding the fact that Christians are not bound by Jewish tradition. And understanding that there is no "borrowed" material in any source. God choosing to deal with different people at different points in history doesn't need to be classified as borrowed material (im not even sure what that means).

I do not understand much about your religious views then, they are certainly uncommon. Most Christians recognize Judaism for what it is, which is the entire source of the Christian religion and most of it's symbolism, culture, tradition and theology.

All of these things are important, but being a Christian doesn't hindge on these things. I dont have to know a lick about Jewish tradition, culture, or symbolism. But Christian traditions, culture, and symbolism I do want to know about. I think it is important, but it is no requirement. Nothing about Christianity is dependent upon knowledge of Judiasm.

Jews have given more to Christian theology than Christians ever will.

Like what? Christ? Yes, he came from the blood line of Jews, but the theology came from God. What have the Jews given to Christianity??? Jews for the most part dont even accept Christianity, much less gave it anything.

 

[filthy tugboat]

God cannot make mistakes, by definition. So any system that he "designs" has to be the best decision based on the surrounding circumstances.

This is why I am suggesting that it doesn't make sense, the system he created and the method he used of subverting that system is an example of a mistake, a flawed system exposing the proposed God for what it is.

It is personal to them, too.

Indeed but not entirely subjective, often our opinions and morals are based on real things, they are just tainted by our perspectives. That's often why opinions and morals tend towards similarity.

In other words, there has to be a transcendent foundation to morality, that defines what it means to be good and bad.

Or absolute morals are non-existent.

Otherwise we are just left with subjectiveness.

Yep!

By objective I mean some things are wrong regardless of who think it is right.

In this case, you could also mean absolute. Objective does not have to mean things are intrinsically right or wrong, it can mean a system outside of humans, many written moral codes are objective in the sense that they exist outside of human interpretation or action, the codes themselves are not dependent on subjectivity.

For example, slavery in the United States was wrong, even if our law stated that it was legal. Without a morally perfect being telling us that this was wrong (preparing myself for the "slavery in the bible" backlash), then we are left with subjectiveness, and the concept of good and evil depends on the person.

Funny how people with subjective opinions are the ones that changed those laws, no absolute moral system had anything to do with it, nor from any provable or evidenced standpoint did any supernatural being.

That was my point, you are judging God based on your own moral standard, but how are you right in how you access the way God handles his business??

I am judging him against his own proposed moral system. The Bible suggests that he is just and righteous, the system of vicarious redemption is not just or righteous. Even though I do find the Bible to be morally abhorrent, I am not debating this topic based on my moral view.

Where did you get your moral code from?? Nature??? Nature, a mindless and nonintellectual entity, gave you your own moral code. So how can you trust a process that is mindless and has no intellectual basis???

Do I have a choice in the matter? How can I choose whether to trust my own reasoning? It's not within my power because the very notion is a form of reasoning in and of it's self, if I choose not to trust my own reasoning then I would have to pose the question again? Should I trust my decision about not trusting my own reasoning? Ad infinitum. You are proposing absurdity. I have no choice but to trust my own reasoning.

I am trying to figure out what is so hard to grasp about this. if God is morally perfect, meaning he is the ultimate source of goodness,[they do not mean the same thing] then what it means to be good is defined by him.

Hence making morality arbitrary. Good now means "what God wants us to do" and bad now means "what God doesn't want us to do".

The morally perfect beings actions and commands will reflect his character. His words are good, his actions are good, and his standards are good. He is morally perfect.

This is where it turns into absurdity, you have just in the same paragraph suggested that God defines what it is to be good. Then you go on to say that his words are good, his actions are good, his standards are good. This is redundant because all of this is assumed by the assertion that God defines what it is to be good. Good now means, "the things that God approves of." Of course his words, actions and standards will be good according to that definition. You are proving my point for me, by defining good like you are trying to do, the term loses all meaning. After what you've done, saying, "God is good," is essentially the same as saying, "God is God." The statement becomes ridiculous and redundant.

Here you go with the "choice" business again. By your own view, you are here by nature. Nature has no mind. Nature doesn't consciously make decisions.

Indeed, so I am here by no choice of my own. I did not choose my genetics, my personality, my likes, my dislikes, I didn't choose my family, who I grew up with, who I learned from, my habits, my hobbies. I had no choice over the things that make me me.

So you are getting your moral code from a process that doesn't have a mind, no moral code, and no intellect. You are getting this moral code from something that doesnt have a moral code. And the brain that you use to decipher what is right or wrong is just a bunch of randomly formed chemicals that took billions of years to create. So how can you trust this??

As I've tried to suggest time and again, how could I not? It is who I am, it makes me me, how could I not trust what makes me me? The very notion of not trusting the things that make me me proposes that I am not me which is absurd.

Cmon now, if a serial killer wipes out your whole family, you would know exactly what I mean by wrong.

So by wrong you mean things that happen to me that I disapprove of? Isn't this subjective? I thought you were arguing for objectivity?

But yet when it comes to God and the whole sacrifical business, all of a sudden you you think these practices are wrong, injust, illogical. Quick to judge God and his dealings, but when it comes to earthly every day things, all of a sudden you ask the question "who is right and who is role" trying to play the naive role?? Can see right through it.

We never bothered to properly define the terms you are using. Injust and illogical are demonstrable, the terms have exact and precise meanings and definitions, it is easy to show whether something is just, righteous or logical or all of their antonyms. But genuinely, are either of us demonstrably right or wrong when one believes rape to be an OK thing to do and the other believes it to be wrong? I think in order to even make an argument for either case we would need to delve into subjective considerations. Which kind of supports my argument.

No, I am saying if you weren't a vegetarian you would be a hypocrit.

Which is still irrelevant to the argument in question. God's decision to allow for the innocent to be punished in place of the guilty is unrighteous, it is the very definition of unrighteousness. It is also unjust as per the definition of innocent and guilty.

I already said that they died spiritually on that day. So no need to keep harping on the "day is like a thousand years" business. They died spiritually on that day, which was in line what God said.

But most Christian theologians agree that the second death is the spiritual death. If we are all already spiritually dead then the second death isn't a real thing.

First of all, spirtual death is a concept that is well defined in the bible, and it is defined as "separation from God". When you are separated from God, you are spirtually dead. But of course you, being nontheistic and all, dont quite understand the concept of spiritual death, since you dont believe that man has a spirit or that there is a God.

My beliefs on the matter have little and less to do with my understanding of it. I maintain that you know very little of Christian and Jewish theology.

You want to only focus on the concept of death that everyone can relate to, which is physical death, when the body dies. But regardless of your understanding or acceptance of this concept, it is a biblical concept.

The spiritual death is a Biblical concept but not the way you use it, it is commonly accepted that the second death is the spiritual death.

Second, it doesn't appear that you are very knowledgable either. Because if you were, you would understand that a person can be a Christian without reading one word of the Old Testament. In fact, there are many "new testament only" bibles out there. From a Christian view, reading and learning about how God dealt with the Jews in the Old Testament is preferred, but it isn't required.

I said "knowledgeable Christian". Christians that know a lot about Christianity, including it's origins.

Third, it is foolish to say or think that knowing about Jewish tradition requires you to be a knowledgeable Christian. In fact, the New Testament doesn't say much of ANYTHING about Jewish tradition, but it does say MUCH about being children of God under the new covenant of Christ. That is what it means to be a Christian. So you may want to step your own knowledge game up before you come at me with the foolishness

Are you kidding? The New Testament says an absolute crap ton about the Old Testament, Jesus made countless references to the Old Testament, scratch that, it's not countless, The Old testament references in the New Testament occupy over 350 verses in direct citations alone, there are more indirect references made. (ref)