Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[PolyHedral]

The fact that he can or could does not mean he will. He has suffecient reasons (not known to us) to conceal information and you have no rational basis to demand or expect that he should do differently.

I have every reason to expect full disclosure of the information I need to make the decision he is presenting me. I can't be faulted for not believing a proposition without evidence.

 

[sojourner]

God can explain everything and anything if he is at all deserving of the title.

But we are incapable of understanding everything and anything, or else we would be God.

 

[sojourner]

I have every reason to expect full disclosure of the information I need to make the decision he is presenting me. I can't be faulted for not believing a proposition without evidence.

What decision is that?
what proposition is that?

 

[1robin]

I have every reason to expect full disclosure of the information I need to make the decision he is presenting me. I can't be faulted for not believing a proposition without evidence.

You do have all the information needed to make any decision you are required to make. However you have no justification for demanding info for deciding anything not required even though it may be available. Maybe the suffeciency of the information is adequate but your predisposition won't let you realize it. You are not required to pass a test on the flood issue if that is what you are referring to.

 

[PolyHedral]

What decision is that?
what proposition is that?

That God exists.

 

[beerisit]

The fact that he can or could does not mean he will. He has suffecient reasons (not known to us) to conceal information and you have no rational basis to demand or expect that he should do differently.

How do you know the bolded part.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

But we are incapable of understanding everything and anything, or else we would be God.

That's ridiculous. Awareness and knowledge do not grant magic powers.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Sorry. I don't think you've proven that God is immoral.

I have, you simply refuse to accept the argument. You are unable to, based on your conditioning, is my guess.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I don't buy sola scriptura, so, no, the Bible is not my only source of understanding God.

Well, what is the rest? If you are claiming a further source for understanding God's nature that is not contained in the one set of scriptures you have, might as well say what it is, as being mysterious simply seems like concealment.

Inflammatory, provocative and hyperbolic.

Uh, no, it's an accurate assessment. I have given reasons already.

How in the world can the whole point of the story be irrelevant???

the point of the story is to highlight [in this case] that God preserved his favorites; the problem is the story ALSO shows how he slaughters everyone and everything else; so it's irrelevant to what was being said at that point. Not that the point of the story is irrelevant in general...

It reveals the fact that people tended to want to kill off what they didnt' understand -- or what they disagreed with.

Ah, not people: God

You're right. It doesn't. So why do you insist in dwelling on it?

Because immoral people need to be pointed out in public, especially when they are putting themselves forward as moral or calling an immoral system, moral.

Oh, I see. So you are going to hide what you don't like.
Thank you for your honesty about your dishonesty here.

Since I have already laid the argument out, and had to restate it multiple times, your statement here is childish and demonstrably false. I am far more honest than you; you see. being honest is part of my religion. Heathens don't break their own rules.. unlike some people I could mention

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I thought I had edited that out but must have mistakenly left it. The curve was from secular sources. I should have said that it is consistent with the bible. All population curves I have seen are roughly equivalent to the one I mentioned.
There is so much bad logic used to attack the bible and so little time I can't take a break. You are obviously not a competent authority with the knowledge to make the judgment.

The use for which I used numbers is valid no matter how much Latin you can spew.
I have seen groups of people when I was in the service that I could not detect a single benevolent action. This criteria is unrequired regardless. There only has to be suffecient evil to justify judgment.

If the maker is omnipotent. Your not are you?
There is far less evidence for your counter claim of God's evil. You then claim the flood account only known from the bible was evil, then claim the bible would never record God's evil. That's self contradictory. If you attack God because "It's in the bible" you can't reject qualifiers because "they are found in the bible".

That's rediculous that info would have went everywhere people were in no time. There have been experiments that have shown that as fact.
[lol, really, what 'experiments and by whom? Christian fundamentalists?]

The population was not scattered all over the earth at this time according to the bible. They were in a fairly small geographical area. Basically Mesepotamia. I am not sure I am not missremembering about it being the first boat or the first rain. It doesn't matter anyway this event would have attracted everyones attention as there had never been aything else of this magnatude before.
Things like love, self sacrifice, and quantum physics seem unreasonable etc...... I don't think you understood the point anyway.

I don't want you to be wrong I want you to argue in a reasonable manner and only cliam what you actually can know.
No I did not. I mentioned we do things similar to God that are considered honorable so why consider the flood as dishonorable.

You just don't get it. It was an argument for the vadiity of witness testimony. And a correlation I mentioned above.

Essentially in a convoluted way, you've QED'ed several of my points for me.

You're welcome.

I realize at this juncture that you really aren't good at this debate thing.

The only point I'll address,

You then claim the flood account only known from the bible was evil, then claim the bible would never record God's evil. That's self contradictory. If you attack God because "It's in the bible" you can't reject qualifiers because "they are found in the bible".

Uh, no, that's not what I said,. I said the Bible will never straight-out claim that one of God's actions is evil, even when considered in any framework, it is. It will not use the words in it's own editorial. The Bible is there to praise him, and that's all it will ever do; but the actions it lists, are counter to what lauds it gives.
By reading what was done, you, as the reader [well, ok, not you personally, but people who think rationally], can analyze the action and say 'wow, that is evil'.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

True love only flows from free will. If you have set up circumstances that guarranty or force love or belief it isn't genuine. A suffecient reason to love and believe must be made available with freewill to get a genuine love or belief.

The presence of Hell voids the stated virtue of true love from God, as it is a threat of force.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

You do have all the information needed to make any decision you are required to make. However you have no justification for demanding info for deciding anything not required even though it may be available. Maybe the suffeciency of the information is adequate but your predisposition won't let you realize it. You are not required to pass a test on the flood issue if that is what you are referring to.

Isn't it interesting how you assert that God's love is true and perfect, yet, in all his dealings with us, our needs are never really taken into account by him.

Obviously, PolyHedral needs more. According to you, God doesn't care, and if Poly doesn't like it, somehow something is wrong with him. "You got enough, now make the decision!" That sounds like the opposite of love.

 

[Thief]

Why should I concede my stance if it is true?

Your stance, is that to oppose him is foolish, not because it's wrong, but because he's too powerful to resist and will destroy you, if you oppose him.

There's a difference there you don't appear to understand. I've been pointing it out to you repeatedly, but... it's not sinking in.

To resist him, because he is immoral, is moral. Resisting him even in the face of his power, pushes it to being heroic.

Let's run your line for a moment.

God is immoral....almighty....and you are willing a confrontation.
With a lack of morality on His part...He WOULD destroy you.

Expect to survive in the next life?
I suggest....if you cannot do otherwise.....
ASSUME God is a nice guy and He might let you live.

A few centuries later, you might catch on.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Let's run your line for a moment.

God is immoral....almighty....and you are willing a confrontation.
With a lack of morality on His part...He WOULD destroy you.

Expect to survive in the next life?
I suggest....if you cannot do otherwise.....
ASSUME God is a nice guy and He might let you live.

A few centuries later, you might catch on.

This wasn't necessary to repeat again

 

[Thief]

This wasn't necessary to repeat again

But you do seem to insist and carry on, your line of thought.

Why should I refrain my own?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

But you've already been answered, Why are you repeating the same scenario over and over? I am not doing the same thing. Every one of your posts is essentially this same chiding thing with only slightly different wording. Either as a question, or a statement. Same exact thing.

 

[Desert Snake]

Whether the Carpenter was God ...or not....
Scapegoating doesn't work.

He did not die for our sins.

He died because He was accused of insurrection.
Someone pointed a finger and said....
'....king of the Jews....'

Rome was not in the business of controlling religious faiths.
There was only Caesar.
Allowing anyone to call you a king.....would be a 'problem'.

This is an illogical take on the probable events, Jesus wasn't threatening the authority of Ceaser or Rome. Didn't you say you studied theology? From what you just wrote I have no idea where you got your ideas from.

 

[sojourner]

That God exists.

Well, there's your answer! How can a non-existent God propose or expect anything from you? If there's an expectation placed upon you, or a proposal put forward, God must exist.:thud:

 

[sojourner]

That's ridiculous. Awareness and knowledge do not grant magic powers.

God isn't magical.

 

[sojourner]

I have, you simply refuse to accept the argument. You are unable to, based on your conditioning, is my guess.

No. You've extrapolated that conclusion from exploiting a literary device in an ancient story that isn't even Judeo-Christian in origin.