Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[sojourner]

Then watch Ron White,Thats funny

[youtube]fL6wbsGx9qw[/youtube]
Official Ron White - You Can't Fix Stupid - YouTube

Self-deprecation is a good way to relieve tension in an argument, but you're still culpable for your use (or not) of logic in that argument.

 

[FearGod]

Self-deprecation is a good way to relieve tension in an argument, but you're still culpable for your use (or not) of logic in that argument.

Your understanding for the trinity as the father,son and holy spirit are 3,
but they are one,whereas the father is greater than the son and the son
pray to the father who is himself is the son,and the son who died at the
cross was crying to his father,who is himself is the son,who is himself
is god,very logic and make sense.

But when you pray from heart,do you pray for jesus or the father or the
holy spirit,or for the 3,but as 1.

 

[sojourner]

Your understanding for the trinity as the father,son and holy spirit are 3,
but they are one,whereas the father is greater than the son and the son
pray to the father who is himself is the son,and the son who died at the
cross was crying to his father,who is himself is the son,who is himself
is god,very logic and make sense.

But when you pray from heart,do you pray for jesus or the father or the
holy spirit,or for the 3,but as 1.

First of all, I never said any of what you posted here. This is your understanding -- not mine. And no, it doesn't make any logical sense. Which makes your posting of the video apropos.

When I pray, I don't pray for either Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. When I pray, I listen for God to speak to me. Sometimes that voice comes as Source. Sometimes it comes as Reconciliation. Sometimes it comes as Comfort. Sometimes it teaches. Sometimes it invites. Sometimes (if I'm fortunate), I find that the voice that comes to me is my own.

 

[Koldo]

...did not consider Divinity a thing to be grasp, but emptied himself...

?

You said (in essence) that God is not limited. This post answers that opinion.

In essence, that is not what i said. What i said is that humans have several limitations that God doesn't have.

 

[sojourner]

?



In essence, that is not what i said. What i said is that humans have several limitations that God doesn't have.

In other words, God limited God's Self and became human.

 

[FearGod]

First of all, I never said any of what you posted here. This is your understanding -- not mine. And no, it doesn't make any logical sense. Which makes your posting of the video apropos.

When I pray, I don't pray for either Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. When I pray, I listen for God to speak to me. Sometimes that voice comes as Source. Sometimes it comes as Reconciliation. Sometimes it comes as Comfort. Sometimes it teaches. Sometimes it invites. Sometimes (if I'm fortunate), I find that the voice that comes to me is my own.

You said that Jesus is fully human and he is fully god,
and he died to pay for our sins,to pay for sinners.

or maybe you have changed your mind by now and agree that he is
not human and god at the same time

 

[sojourner]

You said that Jesus is fully human and he is fully god,
and he died to pay for our sins,to pay for sinners.

Check again. I didn't say that.

 

[FearGod]

the concept of original sin according to Islam

[youtube]keNFZ-wpqM4[/youtube]
Original Sin (Christians) ~ Vs~ Original Goodness( islam) - YouTube

[youtube]ojNdwZ8x8Dk[/youtube]
Original Sin - islam vs christianity - YouTube

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

i will try not to flex too hard so as not to scare you away as happened multiple times before in this thread....im still awaiting your response on the other topics.

Hold your breath and wait for the response

time can have many forms, it is not restricted to our known "space time". so if you are going to argue that space time had a beginning, then yes, i agree, because our universe had a beginning, but there was a time leading up to its beginning. and that is the time i am referring to.

Well, when you run across the other "forms" of time, enlighten me. There wasn't time leading up to our universes beginning. If there was no initial reference point that lead up to the universes beginning, there couldn't have been any time. If there isn't two points to be distinguished, 1. The past....2.the present, then there couldnt have been any time. It is impossible. If the beginning of our universe is represented as a point on a time scale, and you travel back in time equal distant to this event, AT WHAT POINT WOULD YOU STOP??? Makes no sense. You cannot begin to answer this question because it cannot be answered.

if a POINT exists, that point had a duration of time leading up to it and a duration of time leading away from it.

No, if a point BEGAN to EXIST,then "that point had a duration of time leading to it and a duration of time leading away from it". You left out a key word, "began"....If nothing ever began to exist, then there wasn't any duration before it or after it. That is what you fail to understand. It is impossible for time to have a eternal past. IMPOSSIBLE. In order for time to began, it would have to be a product of a atemporal being (timeless being).

you can assign/label that duration of time any value you want it is a label of time nonetheless....in our case it is an unknown duration of time leading up to the point in question which is gods movement...there was a time before god moved(namely, the time he sat) and there was a time after he moved.

If God never began to sit, how was there time leading up to his sitting?? MAKES NO SENSE.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What are you talking about, tossing cards is perfectly orderly, just because you do not know or can predict the order does not make it disorderly. The cards follow strict rules and the way they land depends on the way they were thrown and tier position in the deck. Nothing in this example happens randomly, it all follows a causal chain.

This is just completely FALSE. Are you having that much difficulty answering objections that you keep denying basic elementary stuff. I mean, cmon now. You obviously dont know the difference between order and disorder if you think randomly tossed cards in the air is an example of order. In fact, just by being "randomly" tossed in the air makes it disorderly. Then, as I read everything else you typed, you are down playing the significance of life permitting/prohibiting universes, which is crazy, because these two concepts are scientific FACTS. So you can have the last word. Im done. I cant keep making these attempts to defend basic elementary stuff and being suckered in to these long lengthy discussions with someone who continues to deny basic logic and reasoning. "I disagree with the implications, so lets just deny logic and reasoning all together". No...no more.

 

[FearGod]

Originally Posted by trruth

You said that Jesus is fully human and he is fully god,
and he died to pay for our sins,to pay for sinners.

Check again. I didn't say that.

Check for what you had said Here

 

[jamesmorrow]

Hold your breath and wait for the response



Well, when you run across the other "forms" of time, enlighten me. There wasn't time leading up to our universes beginning. If there was no initial reference point that lead up to the universes beginning, there couldn't have been any time. If there isn't two points to be distinguished, 1. The past....2.the present, then there couldnt have been any time. It is impossible. If the beginning of our universe is represented as a point on a time scale, and you travel back in time equal distant to this event, AT WHAT POINT WOULD YOU STOP??? Makes no sense. You cannot begin to answer this question because it cannot be answered.



No, if a point BEGAN to EXIST,then "that point had a duration of time leading to it and a duration of time leading away from it". You left out a key word, "began"....If nothing ever began to exist, then there wasn't any duration before it or after it. That is what you fail to understand. It is impossible for time to have a eternal past. IMPOSSIBLE. In order for time to began, it would have to be a product of a atemporal being (timeless being).



If God never began to sit, how was there time leading up to his sitting?? MAKES NO SENSE.

we agree that god sat perfectly still BEFORE he BEGAN moving...so what do you call that time he sat perfectly still, IF NOT time????.....

 

[jamesmorrow]

would you call it no-time? to say " at no time did god sit perfectly still" is to say that god never sat/did not sit perfectly still.

 

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by trruth

You said that Jesus is fully human and he is fully god,
and he died to pay for our sins,to pay for sinners.



Check for what you had said Here

Nope. I said that Jesus was fully God and fully human, but I never said "and he died to pay for our sins..."

 

[jamesmorrow]

Nope. I said that Jesus was fully God and fully human, but I never said "and he died to pay for our sins..."

yep, you keep repeating an illogical assertion you know is nonsense.

you claim jesus is 100% limited but also 100% unlimited. .....when presented with the impossibility of the coexistence of two opposing absolutes, you acknowledge it yet continue justifying it by calling it a miracle....

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

we agree that god sat perfectly still BEFORE he BEGAN moving...so what do you call that time he sat perfectly still, IF NOT time????.....

Thats the thing, it wasn't a temporal state of existence. It was a "timeless" state, "atemporal" state.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

would you call it no-time? to say " at no time did god sit perfectly still" is to say that god never sat/did not sit perfectly still.

Exactly, at no point in time did God exist...but God did exist at a point. The point doesn't have to be related to time, in time, temporal, or what have you. It isn't until the point changes or begins to change that the "state of existence" enters time.

 

[FearGod]

Check again. I didn't say that.

yep, you keep repeating an illogical assertion you know is nonsense.

you claim jesus is 100% limited but also 100% unlimited. .....when presented with the impossibility of the coexistence of two opposing absolutes, you acknowledge it yet continue justifying it by calling it a miracle....

He drive me crazy

 

[sojourner]

yep, you keep repeating an illogical assertion you know is nonsense.

you claim jesus is 100% limited but also 100% unlimited. .....when presented with the impossibility of the coexistence of two opposing absolutes, you acknowledge it yet continue justifying it by calling it a miracle....

First of all, I never said that "Jesus is 100% limited but also 100% unlimited." I said that Jesus is fully God and fully human.
Second, I never claimed the Incarnation to be a "miracle." I said it was a mystery, and I said it was a metaphor -- neither of which is a "miracle."

If you're gonna dis me, you can at least quote me correctly.

 

[jamesmorrow]

Thats the thing, it wasn't a temporal state of existence. It was a "timeless" state, "atemporal" state.

i guess i could return the favor and say:

well, when you run across an atemporal state of existence, enlighten me.