Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[filthy tugboat]

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.

Good, I'm glad you accept this and remedy your previous claim of controlling someones will being impossible.

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

Indeed but apparently he changed what people saw in order to keep them believing a lie.

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

What? What does this mean? Does it mean the same thing?

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.

Exactly, the reality that he thought was true. Not his perception of reality, his thoughts on his perception of reality. He saw exactly what everyone else saw, a woman who looked like a prostitute, his perception of reality was not altered.

 

[filthy tugboat]

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

Life from non-life is easy, the basic building blocks from life have been shown to be produced naturally (ref).

What do you mean by intelligence? This one is difficult to understand because intelligence comes from non-intelligence all of the time, intelligent life arises from non-intelligent cells all the time. The entire birth process works this way. A zygote is not considered intelligent.

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.

Or the universe was never created.

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

Indeed, the view I find more plausible, not the view I am arguing is more plausible.

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.

How does that demonstrate choice in the matter? If beliefs are a product of life experience and our personality and therefore cannot be chosen, that doesn't mean we will just believe whatever we're force fed by our parents and community. The reasons behind the change in beliefs vary for every person. Maybe their Christian dad beat them bloody a few times a month and they grew to detest everything he stood for. This need not be a choice, it is a response to what they perceive as a threat, they may associate the religion with the violence of their father and detest it. We are talking about children here, just to clarify.

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

You said yourself that God is the president because he is trying to create a strategy that will prevent the deaths that are being caused by the terrorists. He has to decide whether to let them all die or just kill a few himself. What you neglect to mention is that the reason they are all dying is because God(the same God who is apparently trying to save lives) created a system that caused people to die due to their inevitable nature to sin. The force killing the people(the terrorists) is God.

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.

And yet God wants us to live and not to die, therefore his will is not being done.

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.

Now you've contradicted yourself, you said that free will entails the capability for evil, if God is incapable of evil then he does not have free will, or you are wrong in your proposed definition of free will.

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.

Many people care, especially Christians who care about understanding their faith. Jews also.

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

No thank you, we are writing too much as is. Feel free to create a new thread, I give you permission to quote me where you feel it necessary.

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

Could be, I certainly don't think so but I never denied the possibility.

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.

What? Of course Christianity hinges on Judaism, it wouldn't exist without Judaism. The God you supposedly believe in is the God of Judaism and the Christian religion suggests that everything in the Old Testament was co-authored/inspired by that very same God. That God chose to do everything he did in the OT and you think that the OT has nothing to do with the NT or that the NT is not based on the OT? This is ridiculous, you don't even think the NT references the OT much. The entire message of Christianity comes from the OT you can understand a warped version of the message in the OT from reading the NT alone but you certainly can't understand the symbolism, the beauty or the true meaning of that message without a firm grasp on where it came from. You wouldn't even understand Jesus' respect for the OT and his faith and love for it. You don't even think he referenced it much.

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

I never said you couldn't be one without the knowledge of Judaism, I said you couldn't be a knowledgeable Christian, something I stand by. To believe in Christianity and ignore the OT and consider it lowly or not worth studying is STUPID! It's ignorant and it's nonsense. The character that Christianity produces as a messiah believed the OT and had massive respect for it, you should to if you really like the guy so much.

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:

Jesus' message wouldn't be the same without the Jews, his entire theology was based on Jewish tradition, literature and beliefs. He references that literature many times in his own religious promotional writings, he holds Jewish literature in the highest regard. Without the Jews the Jesus escapade would be nonsense.

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).

It means that the New Testament proposes the same message, the same ideals, sometimes the exact same words as the Old Testament. It plagiarizes the hell out of it. Without the Old Testament, the New Testament would make no sense.

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.

Christian tradition is largely based on Jewish tradition and symbolism, Jesus dying on the Cross and being revived three days later is symbolic for Jonah being trapped in the whale for three days. The biggest part of Christianity is a reference to the Old Testament. If you think Easter and Christmas are Christian tradition, you'd be closer to the mark if you shot for Paganism. Communion is a reference to the Passover. What part of Christianity is not based in Judaism?

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.

They gave it everything, it's character, it's meaning, it's symbolism, it's power. Without Judaism Christianity wouldn't exist. Nothing is Christianity is new or separate from Judaism, it is nearly an exact copy of the religion.

 

[idea]

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.

back to the OP anyone?

saying "I love you enough to die for you" is very different from actually dieing for someone. Thoughts are a dime a dozen, actions are what make thoughts real.

I believe Jesus is the son of God (not God Himself).

Cleon S. shared an account from the Civil War that helped me understand the atonement better – for anyone that is interested, here it is:

“There was a boy fighting in the Union Forces. 19 years old. Went to sleep on guard duty. And the opposition broke through and wiped out a whole flank of the army. Several hundred were killed, including some of the best friends of this young man. But he survived. Court-martialed. Sentenced to die. He expected to die. He thought it was only just that he die. And president Lincoln was ready to sign his death warrant for his execution and a little mother appears on the scene.
She says, “President Lincoln, when this war started, I had a husband and six sons. First I lost my husband, and one by one I lost five of my sons. Now I only have one son left and he’s sentenced to be executed with a firing squad because he went to sleep. He feels awfully badly, he lost some of his best friends and he expects to die. President Lincoln, I’m not asking for the sparing of this boy’s life for his sake, but for his mother’s sake. He’s all I have left. For my sake could you spare him?” President Lincoln said, “For your sake, little mother, I will spare him.” And as far as I know President Lincoln was never criticized for that decision.”


So the point is, the reason the 19yo was pardoned, and why everyone was OK with that, was because the little mother had given a sacrifice. It wasn’t about the 19yo anymore, it was about the little mother – about her husband and sons who had all given their life. If there had been no sacrifice, pardoning the 19 would not have been fair, it would not have been just. It isn’t just that one person’s children should die, while another’s live. God has to uphold justice – He has to maintain law and order. If law/justice is not upheld, the whole thing crumbles and falls into anarchy. God upholds justice, and He sent His Son to uphold mercy. We forgive one another because of Jesus’ sacrifice. Even if they don’t deserve it, to say “I don’t forgive you” is to say “the atonement wasn’t good enough.” Like in the Civil war story - It’s not about the 19yo anymore, it’s about the little mother and her sacrifice – and no one is going to question her sacrifice, or the 19yo’s pardon as being unjust. I’m sure the 19yo lived the rest of his life doing everything he could to honor those who gave their lives that he might live… The same thing with us, the only reason we get pardoned is because of our Heavenly Father’s sacrifice, because of Jesus. Like the 19yo, we’re all forever in their debt, to forever live with the knowledge that our life was bought with a price, and we need to try and live up to honor Heavenly Father, Jesus, and all those who have made sacrifices for us. It’s amazing what the atonement gives us – it gives us a reason to live, and hope to overcome anything that comes our way. Easter is truly a wonderful season to celebrate!

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Good, I'm glad you accept this and remedy your previous claim of controlling someones will being impossible.

You are putting words on my fingertips because that is not what I said or implied. I said that God cannot "make" someone "freely" chose to do something. I even acknowledged in another post on this very thread that God hardened Pharaohs heart in order to carry out his judgement (amongst other reasons). On some occasions, God hardened Pharaohs heart. On other occasions, Pharaoh hardened his own heart. So this is a poor "i got cha" moment on a false implication on what was said.

Indeed but apparently he changed what people saw in order to keep them believing a lie.

Back to the sting operation analogy. If a man has a preconceived mindset that the lady standing on the corner is a prostitue but she is really a undercover officer, is the lady lying??? Absolutely not. So you can drop this "God was lying" business, because I will keep bringing forth the prostituting analogy. You have no answer to this whatsoever.

What? What does this mean? Does it mean the same thing?

No. Altering their perception of reality is for an undercover officer to literally entice the man in terms of sexual favors for money, and then arresting him when he take the bait. In other words, he think she is a prostitute based on what she is telling him. Playing with their perception on reality is to do exactly what I said in the analogy, for her to just stand out the on the corner and walking back and forth and some guy with a mindset of picking up prostitutes think that she is a hooker without her saying anything. Two different concepts.

Exactly, the reality that he thought was true. Not his perception of reality, his thoughts on his perception of reality. He saw exactly what everyone else saw, a woman who looked like a prostitute, his perception of reality was not altered.

Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. "Not his perception of reality, his thoughts on his perception of reality." What? This is the SAME THING.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Life from non-life is easy, the basic building blocks from life have been shown to be produced naturally (ref).

First of all, the Miller-Urey experiment has already been proven wrong because the enviorment in which they thought the primitive earth was turned out not to be that at all. We can start another thread on evolution if you want to. I will glady take you up on that. These building blocks of life (proteins) you are talking about could not have formed by random chance as the naturalists would like us to believe. So there is no evidence that life ever came from nonlife.

What do you mean by intelligence? This one is difficult to understand because intelligence comes from non-intelligence all of the time, intelligent life arises from non-intelligent cells all the time. The entire birth process works this way. A zygote is not considered intelligent.

Intelligence is the ABILITY to THINK and LEARN. Its funny you talk about the birth process, because this is exactly why ID is more plausible. The reproductive process as a whole is very complex. A zygote is not considered intelligent, but the process in which a zygote is part of is very complex. I would love for you to explain how, males have exactly what is needed in their sexual organs to be compatible with the females sexual organs. Either the male had to evovle its sexual organs at the same time as the female, or it could not have happened at all. If the male evovled its system later or earlier than the females, there would not have been any reproducing, therefore, no life. This is why it is more plausible to think that both genders evovled their systems at the same time, or around the same time, which is exactly what we have in Genesis. Before you even begin to answer this question, you have to answer the same question for ALL BREATHING ORGANISMS, from the insects to large mammals. The same question applies to them as well, and the same problems lie with them. I asked this question on this forum before, and no one even came close to answering it.

Or the universe was never created.

This is not an option because in contemporary physics we have evidence that the universe is not infinite, but in fact finite. The question is not "if", the question is "how" and "why".

Indeed, the view I find more plausible, not the view I am arguing is more plausible.

Well, you dont have to argue it, the fact that you believe in the only option available after you negate its rival leaves the door open for skeptism.

How does that demonstrate choice in the matter? If beliefs are a product of life experience and our personality and therefore cannot be chosen, that doesn't mean we will just believe whatever we're force fed by our parents and community. The reasons behind the change in beliefs vary for every person. Maybe their Christian dad beat them bloody a few times a month and they grew to detest everything he stood for. This need not be a choice, it is a response to what they perceive as a threat, they may associate the religion with the violence of their father and detest it. We are talking about children here, just to clarify.

Cmon now. Either God exist, or God doesnt exist. You choose to believe that God doesnt exist, for whatever reason. It is a choice. If you cant see how it is a choice, then I cant help you.

You said yourself that God is the president because he is trying to create a strategy that will prevent the deaths that are being caused by the terrorists. He has to decide whether to let them all die or just kill a few himself. What you neglect to mention is that the reason they are all dying is because God(the same God who is apparently trying to save lives) created a system that caused people to die due to their inevitable nature to sin. The force killing the people(the terrorists) is God.

Death for sin is not a created system. The created system is the act of atonement. Death is a necessary act of judgement when you offend a holy God. It is a necessity. If you start off with false premises, your conclusion will end up false, as is evident here.

And yet God wants us to live and not to die, therefore his will is not being done.

You are equivocating the words "want" and "will". Gods will is anything that he wants to accomplish, WHATEVER IT IS. If God wants to get something done, he will get it done, and nobody can do anything to stop it. Anything that God wants to get done is his will (The Lords Prayer "thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth, as it is in heaven). The fact that God want people live and not die is NOT his will. Its what he wants (or prefers), but it is not his will. He can work past people dying. God will/shall not be tied down by the result of someones death. You are falsely assuming that Gods will is that no one die. To be frank, in heaven, it will be Gods will (no pun intended) that no one die, and guess, what, it will happen, because it will be his will. See the difference?

Now you've contradicted yourself, you said that free will entails the capability for evil, if God is incapable of evil then he does not have free will, or you are wrong in your proposed definition of free will.

Not a contradiction at all. Free will corresponds to the nature of a being. I can freely chose to walk to the market with my feet. But I cant freely chose to fly to the market by flapping my arms. It is not in my nature to do so. God cannot freely choose to do something that is contrary to his nature. God doesnt have a sinful nature, so he does not have the capability to sin. Humans have sinful natures, so we do have the capability to sin. So far from a contradiction, just an error on your part in regards to what free will implies to specific beings.

Many people care, especially Christians who care about understanding their faith. Jews also.

Well, Jesus said that hell exists. Since he is God in the flesh (hello Pegg), i will take his word over Jewish traditions lol.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No thank you, we are writing too much as is. Feel free to create a new thread, I give you permission to quote me where you feel it necessary.

Ok, I want to do one on the biblical Jesus and his resurrection along with another one based on the falsehood of evolution.

Could be, I certainly don't think so but I never denied the possibility.

Good deal.

What? Of course Christianity hinges on Judaism, it wouldn't exist without Judaism. The God you supposedly believe in is the God of Judaism and the Christian religion suggests that everything in the Old Testament was co-authored/inspired by that very same God. That God chose to do everything he did in the OT and you think that the OT has nothing to do with the NT or that the NT is not based on the OT? This is ridiculous, you don't even think the NT references the OT much. The entire message of Christianity comes from the OT you can understand a warped version of the message in the OT from reading the NT alone but you certainly can't understand the symbolism, the beauty or the true meaning of that message without a firm grasp on where it came from. You wouldn't even understand Jesus' respect for the OT and his faith and love for it. You don't even think he referenced it much.

Knowing where it came from does not implying learning about its doctrine issues. I believe from the moment that i mentioned the concept of hell, you went on about how hell was not Jewish tradition and blah blah blah. Who cares? I am not Jewish. I am a Christian, and Jesus mentioned hell more times than he mentioned heaven. This is what I care about. Jesus wasn't concerned about Jewish tradition when he mentioned hell, so why should I?? It was completely misplaced and off of the subject. The only thing I mentioned in the OT was in reference to atonement for sins. Thats it. Everything else is irrelevant.

I never said you couldn't be one without the knowledge of Judaism, I said you couldn't be a knowledgeable Christian, something I stand by. To believe in Christianity and ignore the OT and consider it lowly or not worth studying is STUPID! It's ignorant and it's nonsense. The character that Christianity produces as a messiah believed the OT and had massive respect for it, you should to if you really like the guy so much.

Who said i ignore the OT??? First of all, to be a knowledgable Christian is to learn, know, and accept the person of Christ and follow in his footsteps to try to be the best person that you can be. That is a knowledgable Christian. You can do this by not reading one word of the OT. The OT is helpful in regards to knowing the Father, and how he dealt with his chosen people. We can look in the OT and look at some of the great prophets in their trials and triumphs. How God is quick to deliver his people from oppression, and quick to disciple his people when they need it. Ok, fine. But when it comes to doctrine issues, being Christian, that is what we had Jesus for.

Jesus' message wouldn't be the same without the Jews, his entire theology was based on Jewish tradition, literature and beliefs. He references that literature many times in his own religious promotional writings, he holds Jewish literature in the highest regard. Without the Jews the Jesus escapade would be nonsense.

His entire theology was based on the Jewish theology?? Wait a minute, what part of Jewish tradition said that "No one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again?" (John 3:3)....or what part of Jewish theology says "Whoever believes in the SON has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him" (John 3:36)........or "The bread of God is is whe who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world" (John 6:33)...or "He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life" (John 6:53). As you can see, it is all about JESUS JESUS JESUS. Not MOSES MOSES MOSE, or ABRAHAM ABRAHAM ABRAHAM. These saying are NOT of Jewish tradition or theology or orgins. These saying are what we Christians hang our hats on as Jesus was making radical statements paving the way for OUR theology. So you are WRONG in saying that Jesus entire theology was Jewish traditions.

It means that the New Testament proposes the same message, the same ideals, sometimes the exact same words as the Old Testament. It plagiarizes the hell out of it. Without the Old Testament, the New Testament would make no sense.

Plagiarized?? What?? Jesus quoted a OT source every now and again. The majority of the Gospels show Jesus making these radical statements that the Jews themselves did not know about or understand. So it is a myth to say that the New Testament plagiarized the OT, especially the books in the NT beyond the Gospels, which REALLY isn't OT related.

Christian tradition is largely based on Jewish tradition and symbolism, Jesus dying on the Cross and being revived three days later is symbolic for Jonah being trapped in the whale for three days. The biggest part of Christianity is a reference to the Old Testament. If you think Easter and Christmas are Christian tradition, you'd be closer to the mark if you shot for Paganism. Communion is a reference to the Passover. What part of Christianity is not based in Judaism?

Irrelevant. You named on alleged similiarity between Jonah and the ressurection of Christ, and use this as evidence that Christian tradition is "largely" based on Jewish tradition?? Silly. Second, you mentioned two holidays, Christmas and Easter and identify them as pagan sources. First of all, Easter is reserved as a holiday to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus, and you can find churches throughout the world being packed with Christ followers as a way to remember what Christ did for us. I could care less about the Easter bunny or Easter eggs. Christmas is used to celebrate the birth of Jesus, just as any birthday is celebrated with gifts, as Jesus was given gifts during the time of his birth. And I have already pointed out quite a few differences between Christianity and Judiasm, so you would do yourself a great deal of good if you just dropped the comparisons.

They gave it everything, it's character, it's meaning, it's symbolism, it's power. Without Judaism Christianity wouldn't exist. Nothing is Christianity is new or separate from Judaism, it is nearly an exact copy of the religion.

I just gave you quotes from Jesus that was completely different than anything the Jews had ever heard. I also pointed out differences based on doctrine issues. Christianity is not the same as Judaism. Yet you claim that I am not knowledgable on these issues??? Yet, everything you are saying is showing ignorance of the issues.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

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.

You are using your own subjective moral standard to critisize an opposing view. This is your opinion.

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.

Those "real things" can be perceived differently by different people. So really, all of it is subjective.

Or absolute morals are non-existent.

If by "absolute" you mean "objective", then I agree, they are non-existent, only i believe they are non-existent if we negate God.

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.

Oh ok you do mean objective. If there is no ultimate source of goodness, an entity with a perfect moral code of ethics, there is absolutely no one we could have a absolute right or wrong in any case. Right and wrong would depend on the person or the people. For example, I was watching a show where in some foreign country, people were prostituting children. Children as young as 10. It was LEGAL in this country (some third world country, forgot the name). In fact, people from the states were going over to the country just to have a good time with the young children. This kind of act is illegal in the states, but legal in that country. So without God, to say that this kind of activity is wrong is just an opinion. But with God, a morally perfect being, his commandments are not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. So if you dont believe in God, your critiscisms of his alleged actions are based on your own moral code of conduct, which is personal only to you. You are right only to yourself. So i could just say, "so what, that is your opinion".

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.

And those were the same people that created the law in the first place.

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.

Yes you are. You are not saying that the law contradicts itself, you are saying that the law is injust and unnecessary. But based on what? Your own moral code of conduct. You are using your own preconceived notion of what you think it means to act morally good, and using that as a way to judge God based on it.

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.

Right, you have to presuppose reason in order to use and trust reason. Just like you have to presuppose what it means to be good and just in order to pass judgement one what is bad and unjust. The same logic applies. The difference between me and you is, I believe the my intellect comes from a intellectual being. You believe that your intellect (or intellect in general) comes from a blind, nonintellectual, thoughtless, mindless process. If someone trusts their own reasoning to kill your whole family, how are they wrong if they committed these acts based on their own reasoning?

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".

Obviously, coming from a morally perfect being and all.

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.

Right, the argument assumes that God is good first. Hypothetically speaking, If there is a God that is morally good, then his commandments have to be morally good by default, because if they were'nt, then he wouldnt be morally good!!! One supplements the other. We can easily think of a being that is morally good. I dont think this is logically impossible. The question is whether or not such a being exist, and I would argue that if the biblical accounts of Jesus are correct, then the Christian God, by definition, is this morally perfect being.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

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.

Well, you can choose to believe whether or not you believe that life can come from non-life and something can come from nothing (the universe). These kind of choices have nothing to do with personality, habits, hobbies, or genetics.

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.

Right, so you admit that your opinion about the issues are hand are subjective.

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?

If God exists, then it is objectively wrong. If he doesn't, it is subjectively wrong. Big difference here.

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.

Once again, your subjective opinion on what it means to be unrighteous lol.

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.

You are spiritually dead meaning that God is not with you now, but your punishment is awaiting (hell), in which you will remain spiritually dead and simultaneously receiving your punishment.

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.

Here, considering the fact that in regards to Christian theology you have only, for the most part, seen me say that one man died for the sins of mankind (Christian theology), and that the unrighteous will go to hell (Christian theology). These are the only two things that i maintained during all of this back and forth conversing, and they are all Christian theology. So what you are talking about, I dont know. As far as Jewish theology, you have only seen me say that in those days, animals were sacrificed for sins (Jewish theology). The only thing that comes even remotely close to me lacking a understanding is the Sheol business, in which I never considered the righteous and the unrighteous going to the same place when they died. But thats ok, because Jesus said that the unrighteous will go to hell, and i know that the righteous will not be in that same place. But you on the other hand keep trying to tie Jewish tradition in with Christianity, which continues to show your ignorance on the issues.

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.

I said that spiritual death is the separation from God. In the end, the unrighteous and Satan will be casted into th lake of fire, where they will be tormented forever and ever. The bible calls this the "second death". If they are being tormented, they are not physically dead. So what kind of death is this? SEPARATION FROM GOD.

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

Well, Christianity came when Christ confirmed his divinity by dying and resurrecting from the dead. That is the origin of Christianity and you dont need to OT to draw this conclusion.

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)

But Jesus never made doctrine claims regarding the OT. All of the claims that he made was in reference to the new covenant that he was making, which is exactly why none of the Jews knew what he was talking about some of the time, even his disciples. Now sure, Jesus made references from the OT, but notice that the Jews never questioned what he said regarding the OT, but they did question and try to gain understanding when he made radical claims invovled in this new teaching. Some disciples even left him because of this "hard teaching" (John 6:58-66). It was new to them, they didnt know or understand what any of it meant. So once again, stop trying to tie the OT in with the NT. This is a failing mission on your part and every Christian recognize that we are not commanded or required to follow or study the OT. Now yes, we can use it has reference points to prophecies, and see how God dealt with his chosen people. But for doctrine issues, we are told to follow Christ and his ways. So quit while you are behind.

 

[waitasec]

You are putting words on my fingertips because that is not what I said or implied. I said that God cannot "make" someone "freely" chose to do something.

yes you did...

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, he can "harden" the hearts of those at the parole board if they have intentions of letting me out on parole.

you don't know what you are talking about...seems you are just improvising
as you go along... funny.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

yes you did...

No I didn't.

you don't know what you are talking about...seems you are just improvising
as you go along... funny.

I don't know what im talking about? Dude, did you read what you quoted me saying?? Apparently you didnt, because if you did you wouldnt look like such a fool right now. I said that God cannot MAKE someone FREELY chose to do something. Which means, if God is controlling your mind and making you do something, this is NOT FREE WILL or a FREE CHOICE on your part. You quoted me as saying "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 is controlling someones will, then he is NOT MAKING THEM FREELY CHOOSE TO DO SOMETHING. So I admitted that when God hardened the heart of Pharaoh, this was not Pharaoh' own free will. If you would have taken the time to actually comprehend what I was saying, you would have realized that the post you just made would have been a complete waste of both my time and yours. So YOU are the one that dont know what YOU are talking about. And I dont need to "improvise" anything. Maybe you should have improvised a better attack on my position, because the one you just made fell flat on its face.

 

[waitasec]

No I didn't.

how does

I said that God cannot "make" someone "freely" chose to do something.

work with

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, he can "harden" the hearts of those at the parole board

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

how does

work with

I said that God cannot make someone freely chose to do something. God cannot make me freely choose to mow the lawn. If he made me mow the lawn by controlling my mind, then this is NOT a free CHOICE on my part. With the example I gave in regards to the parole board, if God controlled the minds of those at the parole board to keep a man in prison, then he is not making them FREELY chose to do something. It is not a free choice or free will if someone is making you to do it. Nothing I have said contradicts the doctrine of free will. So it looks to me as if "You dont know what you are talking about."

 

[waitasec]

I said that God cannot make someone freely chose to do something. God cannot make me freely choose to mow the lawn. If he made me mow the lawn by controlling my mind, then this is NOT a free CHOICE on my part. With the example I gave in regards to the parole board, if God controlled the minds of those at the parole board to keep a man in prison, then he is not making them FREELY chose to do something. It is not a free choice or free will if someone is making you to do it. Nothing I have said contradicts the doctrine of free will. So it looks to me as if "You dont know what you are talking about."

and by controlling someone's thoughts is doing what exactly?
if god was controlling my thoughts right now, how am i able to tell the difference if they were my thoughts or not?
:areyoucra

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

and by controlling someone's thoughts is doing what exactly?

Well, in the case of Pharaoh, controlling his thoughts allowed God to give him and his country 10 plagues.

if god was controlling my thoughts right now, how am i able to tell the difference if they were my thoughts or not?
:areyoucra

You wont, just like Pharaoh wasn't able to.

 

[Mehr Licht]

No. He did it anyway though.

God the Lord surrendered His own Son to death on the Cross for the fervent love of creation... This was not, however, because He could not redeem us in another way, but so that His surpassing love, manifested hereby, might be a teacher unto us. And by the death of His Only-begotten Son He made us near to Himself. Yea, if He had had anything more precious, He would have given it to us, so that by it our race might be His own. Because of His great love for us it was not His pleasure to do violence to our freedom, although He is able to do so, but He chose that we should draw near to Him by the love of our understanding. For the sake of His love for us and obedience to His Father, Christ joyfully took upon Himself insult and sorrow... In like manner, when the saints become perfect, they all attain to this perfection, and by the superabundant outpouring of their love and compassion upon all men they resemble God.

-Isaac the Syrian
7th century bishop and monk of the East Syrian or "Nestorian" Church.
​

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Well, in the case of Pharaoh, controlling his thoughts allowed God to give him and his country 10 plagues.
You wont, just like Pharaoh wasn't able to.

1st Samuel 6v6 says: do you harden your hearts, as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts ....? Does Not say God hardened their hearts.

Exodus 8 vs15 and 32 says Pharaoh hardened his [own] heart.

The circumstances that were brought before Pharaoh caused Pharaoh to harden his own heart. So, God permitted Pharaoh to use his free will to harden his own heart. God could then use Pharaoh's hardened heart to the point that God hardened Pharaoh's heart in order to not let his people go.
- Exodus 10 vs20,27; 11v10.

Kind of like: give a person enough rope and they will hang themselves.
God in a sense gave Pharaoh permission for Pharaoh to harden his own self.
Gave Pharaoh the opportunity to work out the wickedness in his own heart.

People corrupt themselves. - Deut. 32v5; 30v19

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

1st Samuel 6v6 says: do you harden your hearts, as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts ....? Does Not say God hardened their hearts.

Exodus 8 vs15 and 32 says Pharaoh hardened his [own] heart.

The circumstances that were brought before Pharaoh caused Pharaoh to harden his own heart. So, God permitted Pharaoh to use his free will to harden his own heart. God could then use Pharaoh's hardened heart to the point that God hardened Pharaoh's heart in order to not let his people go.
- Exodus 10 vs20,27; 11v10.

Nah. The Exodus account gives a clear distinction between the times that God hardened Pharaohs heart (Exodus 9:12, 9:34), and when Pharaoh hardened his own heart in (Exodus 8:15, 8:32). There is a clear distinction between the two.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Pharaoh's heart was already first hardened in chapter 8

God used Pharaoh's already hardened heart in chapters 9, 10 and 11

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Pharaoh's heart was already first hardened in chapter 8

God used Pharaoh's already hardened heart in chapters 9, 10 and 11

It says GOD HARDENED the HEART of Pharaoh. If it was already hardened, God would not have had to harden it.

 

[waitasec]

Well, in the case of Pharaoh, controlling his thoughts allowed God to give him and his country 10 plagues.



You wont, just like Pharaoh wasn't able to.

your faith is ridiculous
you claim that the creator of the universe was concerned about a group of people on this insignificant blue planet....

this reprehensible and absolutely unsupportable tripe only justifies bad behavior
so shame on those for believing such garbage
shame on those that use their faith as something that is to be considered more meaningful over other peoples rights
shame shame shame.