Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[sojourner]

Your God is in control in this scenario; he's infallible. So all the mistakes belong to him. It's his fault.

But according to the Bible, God isn't infallible.

 

[sojourner]

Being convinced. Not that hard for an all-knowing God, surely?

No, it wouldn't. We will sin because we have a choice.

 

[sojourner]

What does anyof this have to do with the OP? Can we get back on topic, please?

 

[cablescavenger]

Please explain your reasoning here.

Please elaborate

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Your pride in your intellectual ability is only exceeded by its lack of justification.
You have access to a vanishingly small amount of the information available to God. Just like a whiny child who thinks his dad is mean because he didn't get what he wanted, a man is just not capable of grasping just the informational component alone of any of God's decisions. You cannot honestly deny the possibility of a sufficient moral justification for any action of God. It just isn't possible. The fact you don't see that suggests your ideological presuppositions are superseding your reason. I have heard many secular philosophers that have admitted this to be true if one assumes God exists.

It is not even science at all.

Oh, I definitely can.

As I said, assign, for example, the Flood, to a human.

That human would be a villain.

It's simple.

If God's morality fails even the most basic human morality test, he isn't moral.

Your 'divine command' theory has been examined, and is shown to be morally corrupt. In other words, what God commands must be done because he commands it, not because it's Good. This is the justification used by every tyrant. And you are merely a groveling henchman.

My Gods create men who do not kneel.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

But according to the Bible, God isn't infallible.

Ah, that wouldn't be correct.

Unless you are merely agreeing with the assertion of the facts within the text, as opposed to what Christians think it means. In which case, we would agree.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I didn't say it was. But it does seem to be the wish of some here that God spoon-feed us, rather than help us grow by our own volition.

Holding us responsible for his errors isn't 'helping us grow'

as much as that phrase is all cuddly. It's an Orwellian label.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

And it will -- but only when we're ready.

This is patently false. It's merely an excuse for God's failures, again.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Nay to you.
Are you not suggesting... standing face to face with God and blaming Him for all [he] have said and done?
This would not be heroic.
It would be foolish and suicidal.

Thank you, QED

 

[1robin]

Oh, I definitely can.

As I said, assign, for example, the Flood, to a human.

That human would be a villain.

It's simple.

If God's morality fails even the most basic human morality test, he isn't moral.

Your 'divine command' theory has been examined, and is shown to be morally corrupt. In other words, what God commands must be done because he commands it, not because it's Good. This is the justification used by every tyrant. And you are merely a groveling henchman.

My Gods create men who do not kneel.

You still can't get it can you. If it is was an action by a human, we could have access to his reasoning, motivation, and the information that his decision was based on and make an actual judgement. With God there is no way to do any of this, he might give us a small amount of info through revelation but never enough to have a sufficient basis to judge him on. The flood for instance you believe it would have more benevolent to let a completely corrupt population (dozens of billions potentially over time) whom God says commited evil continuously and their offspring commit an unimaginable amount of injustice, violence, prejudice, rape, and evil of every description for thousands of years until it finally detroyed itself. Or is it more benevolent to wipe out the hundreds of thousands who wouldn't repent after a hundred years of pleading from Noah and his family, so a fresh more reasonable population could begin again? If you had those choices what would you have done? I shudder when considering your response. We wipe out far less corrupt groups today and it's called just and patriotic, thousands of people have wept in praise, and thrown flowers in the streets because US soldiers had wiped out more people who were oppressing them than God did in the flood. I would find a denial of the bible in general far more rational than your argumentation.

 

[Me Myself]

He forgave sins by word, not by dead.

We can also forgive our own sins, and find it in our souls to do better.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

You still can't get it can you. If it is was an action by a human, we could have access to his reasoning, motivation, and the information that his decision was based on and make an actual judgement. With God there is no way to do any of this, he might give us a small amount of info through revelation but never enough to have a sufficient basis to judge him on.

It's you who still don't get it. It's murder no matter who does it [in the Flood example, not that we expounded on it]. We don't need his motivation to understand the inherent wrongness of the act. it's not a mystery. It's blatant.

The flood for instance you believe it would have more benevolent to let a completely corrupt population (dozens of billions potentially over time) whom God says commited evil continuously and their offspring commit an unimaginable amount of injustice, violence, prejudice, rape, and evil of every description for thousands of years until it finally detroyed itself.

Except it's patently absurd to assume EVERY SINGLE LIVING CREATURE WHO DIED was guilty of this. it doesn't need to go farther than that.

Or is it more benevolent to wipe out the hundreds of thousands who wouldn't repent after a hundred years of pleading from Noah and his family, so a fresh more reasonable population could begin again?

It's also absurd to imagine Noah spoke to everyone to see if they would.

If you had those choices what would you have done? I shudder when considering your response. We wipe out far less corrupt groups today and it's called just and patriotic, thousands of people have wept in praise, and thrown flowers in the streets because US soldiers had wiped out more people who were oppressing them than God did in the flood. I would find a denial of the bible in general far more rational than your argumentation.

Well, i deny the bible itself as well, so welcome to the party.
And no, God killed so many millions more, your comparison is, again, inept. God is the number one killer in the Bible. He murders at a whim. You decry American troops for far less.

 

[sojourner]

It's you who still don't get it. It's murder no matter who does it [in the Flood example, not that we expounded on it]. We don't need his motivation to understand the inherent wrongness of the act. it's not a mystery. It's blatant.

Except it's patently absurd to assume EVERY SINGLE LIVING CREATURE WHO DIED was guilty of this. it doesn't need to go farther than that.


It's also absurd to imagine Noah spoke to everyone to see if they would.


Well, i deny the bible itself as well, so welcome to the party.
And no, God killed so many millions more, your comparison is, again, inept. God is the number one killer in the Bible. He murders at a whim. You decry American troops for far less.

Hmmm. "k:

Thor: In the poem Voluspa, is so violent, that "all men will their homes forsake," and "in anger strikes the warder of earth." afterwards, the sky will turn black before fire engulfs the world, the stars will disappear, the world will be covered with water. (From Wiki). Sounds pretty violent and immoral to me...

Thor and Odin are said to possess "potent wrath." Thor is depicted in tales as a brawler, a drunkard and a glutton. He steals oxen, rips their heads off, and slams a serpent in the head with his hammer.

This is a violent and immoral god, and you dis God for "immorality??? WTF?! Talk about a double standard!

 

[PolyHedral]

No, it wouldn't. We will sin because we have a choice.

And we will choose not to, because we know it is not a good idea.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Hmmm. "k:

Thor: In the poem Voluspa, is so violent, that "all men will their homes forsake," and "in anger strikes the warder of earth." afterwards, the sky will turn black before fire engulfs the world, the stars will disappear, the world will be covered with water. (From Wiki). Sounds pretty violent and immoral to me...

Oh, dear.

Yes, do you understand what is causing those effects? The end of the World. Not my Gods. The enemies of my Gods. My Gods protect the Earth, will risk their existences protecting it.. while we both know, your God intends to destroy it. Again. It appears you don't have a grasp of the context of what you just Googled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar%C3%B6k
Ragnarok is the final battle between the Gods of Earth, and the Jotun, who seek to destroy everything. The Gods do not cause Ragnarok; they are there to try and stop it, you see.

Thor and Odin are said to possess "potent wrath." Thor is depicted in tales as a brawler, a drunkard and a glutton. He steals oxen, rips their heads off, and slams a serpent in the head with his hammer.

Yes. Potent wrath, at those who wrong them; usually the foes of earth, again. Perfectly sensible for the Gods of a race of warriors. They don't meet it out randomly. And, there's nothing immoral about being a glutton, or drinking, or brawling. Certainly nothing compared to the murder of the Egyptians [infants and army], the Canaanites, everyone on Earth from the Flood, etc etc etc... you get the idea.
And, wait... you're defending Jormungandr?? the Midgard Serpent? Really? Wow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jormungandr
I must again mark this down as lack of understanding on your part. His venom poisons the sky, at the end of the world. It would appear you are unaware that Thor slays him, to protect the Earth. At the cost of his own life.

Though, I suppose the moral support for villains is something I should come to expect here. Interesting.

This is a violent and immoral god

- clearly not

, and you dis God for "immorality??? WTF?! Talk about a double standard!

No, it's nonsense talk, from you, on a subject you clearly aren't familiar with.

There is no comparison between the morals of my Gods, and yours; my Gods are moral. The rest speaks for itself.

 

[jasonwill2]

[Color added to help show what parts I am responding too.]



. My little brother score in the top 1/2 of 1% on the SATs. He was moved up a year and then went on to college on the national merit scholarship, graduating with an engineering degree in 3 yrs with a 3.95. He will tell you it was not magic. I don't belive scoreing high on a test that includes the bottom end of the educational scale is magic. I scored in the top 5% on the armed forces entry exam after falling asleep hungover during the math section. I scored in the top 10% on an electronics test when I actually knew about 1 of 5 answers. Not magic either. I thought that the advantage to be a satanist was all this power you get. Can you tell me what you could do that I could not unless I was getting assistance from demons.

Since being saved is to have the holy spirit come to live within your heart, and only comes with faith in the trinity which comes from reading the bible and believing it which is derived from God's love. If this is what you claim how could you then turn around and deny the trinity, and the bible which taught you about it and deny the love which made it all possible, and embrace that which you were saved from. Are you saying you renounce the truth of these claims that were verified for you if you were saved or just denying your personal association with them. How exactly did you you blaspheme the holy spirit?

Good reply. I should have said that in this case the comaparison is inadiquate.
So the God you claimed that saved you ifrom eternal damnation in hell by allowing his son to die for you is evil and non-existant God. Can you see many the inconsistency with what you are claiming from that one sentence.

There is without question by necessity an absolute truth concerning religion. It is our ability to discover it that is questionable. Name me one verifiable historical claim in the bible that is false. It is so accurate it is used as a primary resource by many archaeologists.

I don't think your sources would corrupt me, the reason I won't read them is I am lazy. I wanted them to shine some light on why in the world you have so much faith in obscure unattested information and disregard the more widly accepted and verified info.

Well your the only one that I have ever heard adopt that position the weight of evidence is overwhelmingly on the side that is consistent with the bible. I can hardly believe any one could develope an attitude that evil is really good and benign and good is malevolent and malignent. What sources do you want it was interviews with the individuals themselves. You can find hundreds of documented cases of the destruction of demonic involvment on the net anytime you wished.

Since Christians have always been the minority by a large margin when compared to the whole then your point isn't valid. Alchemy is not magic it's chemistry.

What is a Muslim Christian?

You read that definition and find nothing negative. It looks like a description of a very malevolent being that I want as little to do with as possible. I noticed that it didn't include your view that satan is God and created anything but evil. In both faiths listed it is recorded that in the end satan and anyone who fallows him are doomed. Why is this outcome risked on the basis of very unreliable data.

I don't call upon demons! I call upon Satan himself! Only those afraid of Satan would summon a "weaker" force such as a demon. And actually the G.E.D. isn't easy. It was revamped massively years ago, and a few parts almost got my off guard. 40% of high school graduates can't pass the G.E.D. on the day of graduation... don't you deride my accomplishment.

I'm saying I was "saved", but that it was all lies basically. yes, a spirit was in me, but I soon found out how evil it was. I got rid of it by renouncing the the spirit within me as well as the god who put it there... I don't want my soul to go to some god... I wanted it for myself.How did I do it? By saying nasty things then telling it to go, that it should depart from me. As I did to both Jesus and the "Father" too.

No, I'm saying that he didn't save me from hell because it didn't exist... your confusing what I was saying I used to believe and what I believe now. I don't think I said he didn't exist, but implied that he might not exist. Either way I don't believe he can save because he's not the God. That is what I call "Leviathan". Don't assume that "Christian god = creator god" whenever I speak of him.. that's your belief, not mine.

Creationism, Noah's Flood, The Census when Jesus was a Baby, Herod being a ruler when Jesus was born, ect ect

Being "too lazy" is a great excuse for keeping your mind closed. The fact is you admitted you wouldn't even look at them... If you really want to look at somehting, The Satanic Bible (Anton LaVey, 1969) is easy to get a hold of and probably has a more logical basis than mine. I'm not afraid to admit that a number of my beliefs are conjecture, as is all religion.

That is insane, there is no evidence to support the Bibliical claims of demonic possession. Most possesions are mental illness.

Christians are not a minority... isn't a third of the world a christian? also I forgot a comma between "Muslim" and "Christian", meaning that I was talking about two different groups.

That is true it didn't say Satan was god, but it DID say that originally it was just a title used for entities BOTH HUMAN AND DIVINE that tested people. Then if you took care to actually read it, you would notice that it then said that:


"In Christianity the title became a personal name, and "Satan" changed from an accuser appointed by God to test men's faith to the chief of the rebellious fallen angels"

You hear that? It was originally an accuser, APPOINTED BY GOD, to test people. ONLY WHEN CHRISTIANITY CAME DID IT CHANGE TO AN EVIL GUY.

Hm, I'm curious now. As a Satan worshipper, do you feel that your God influences everyone, even if they don't follow or know of him, at all? I'm asking specifically toward your statement here that Satan gives man his resistance to the other predators of the world.

I guess I'm asking if there's a kind of universal inclusivity to everyone whether they wish the association or not; kind of akin to how the Christians go on about it sometimes. Is that the case or am I misreading you?

Actually he does influence them, they just don't know it. LaVeyans will say that Satan is a mode of behavior... and in some ways that is true. I recall a part of The Satanic Bible that says that people claim to be this or that, but still act in a Satanic fashion.

I define, as well as many other Satanists, as Satanism being based on human nature. though I take the position that this is so because we are, for a lack of a better way of putting it... made in Satan's image.

So essentially yes, people act Satanically... but the influence that Satan has on non-Satanists is a very passive effect, because the effect is simply the nature he gave us. All life is oppositional because that's the only way to survive the Darwinian struggle of survival of the fittest. This is just one aspect of how "Satan" is part of who we are "made in Satan's image". Another way of looking at it is that we made up Satan in our image... but either way Satan is still our god, so literal or metaphorical it makes no difference as the effect is the same.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

OK, but wait, Im confused now, are you a LaVeyan, or otherwise non-theist in terms of it.. or are you a worshiper, of an embodied God?

 

[jasonwill2]

OK, but wait, Im confused now, are you a LaVeyan, or otherwise non-theist in terms of it.. or are you a worshiper, of an embodied God?

I referred to LaVeyan's in third person. Tecnically I am not a LaVeyan because I am a pantheist.

But I think that LaVeyans hit the nail on the head in terms of our Satanic nature... to them it's just a metaphor for human behavior... to me, it is much more.

Other than the atheism bit, I'm pretty LaVeyan. One could say that I took LaVeyanism and added some stuff... and that's not entirely false. But I think that LaVeyans take the truth then just take away the stuff tehy dont like...

I think that Satan has more to do with our nature than just being a personification, I think that "Satan" is more like a force or entity that on one level is present in our flesh, but on another level interacts with us as a distinct entity.

I'm sorry if I am not sounding very clear, I'm in a rush.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

No, np, that was actually a bit more clarifying.

 

[Thief]

Thank you, QED

Altering my quote to suit your personal need isn't a winning combination.

So let's agree and Jesus did not die for your sins.
You are then responsible for what you say and do.

I would rather say, if you adhere to instruction of Someone Else....
and then you fail...you can blame Him.

If you make denial....ignore instruction...you're on your own.

Or maybe it would be even better for God to concede your discussion....
and erase all errors.