Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[Heathen Hammer]

Nope.

Yep.

Bad and biased "evidence" isn't evidence. It's just bias. And bad.

No, evidence, which has been shown. Deny all you like.

Pot...meet Kettle.

The difference between us is I don't deny it; you try to. My bias is based on the evidence the story itself provides, and is in conclusion based on that evidence; yours is based on your submersion in teh story being right. Since my position is based on evidence, and yours is based on denial of evidence, my position is more secure.

Case in point. Thank you.

Precisely. A story about tyranny and murder, by God

You thought it was???

In reality, of course not; in the context of discussing the attitudes of people who blithely agree with the crimes perpetrated in it, it is. Are you not following along?

There's "One Fish, Two Fish" and "Chilton's Manual for the 1973 Pinto." One really doesn't serve to define the other, with regard to genre.

This is non sqeuitur

Oh? haven't spent much time around Biblical scholars, have you!
Take a course and learn something new.

None which have ever said this, no. If you cannot site a single source, then you haven't either

You really need that course in basic Biblical literature.

Direct me, oh wise one *snerk*

The universe is "God's entirety." So, you're saying that the entire universe is immoral?

Well, God claims it, but that's false too. However, don't try being facetious as if you don't know what im talking about.. or, maybe you're not as wise as you pretend. "God's system." Original Sin, substitutional repentance, Heaven and Hell.. it's all demonstrably immoral.

Until you get past your penchant for hyperbole, I really can't help you here.

Well, truth be told you cannot help me in any case. But this is not hyperbole.. or have you never read the Flood story? I think that's the case. Another fellow believer confirmed the numbers: at least several million humans, dead. Picking a random real number for 'several', if we say '17' as a ballpark, that's equal to Stalin.

If you remember, I have acknowledged that the story is problematic to our modern sensibilities. However, our modern sensibilities have also imparted to us the knowledge that we see things differently than our forebears, so the story has to be interpreted in light of our reality -- not theirs. That's the point at which the story is told as social commentary. I understand that the story seems immoral from a certain point of view.

Excellent. At last you admit I am correct.

I opine that we need to take a different POV, if the story is to remain useful. You're refusing to try a different POV, preferring, instead, to impugn an entire religion based upon a biased reading of an ancient (and pan-cultural) story.

Well, truth be told I impugn it for far, far more reasons that this.
However, you are certainly correct in that you need to teach your fellows that this story is only a myth, and a bad-lesson-teaching one for modern people, yes. I suggest you take your valuable talents and put them toward this moral crusade.

If you want to spend time focusing on the leaky and musty basement of Notre Dame Cathedral, that's your business and your bane. The rest of us would rather let our imaginations soar with the spires and flying buttresses.

Ignoring the leaky basement is something you fellows do very well.

BTW, I've actually been to both points in it {Notre Dame, that is; interestingly enough, likewise the Vatican.}.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

There is no threat whatsoever from God forcing us to love him. He simply points the consequences (which are consistent and made necessary by his nature) of non-belief. In fact his scorching warnings of hell and his willingness to endure the unthinkable to free us from it can only be justified by his benevolence.

It's amazing. You really are tight in Orwell's grip, aren't you?
Here you are laying out exactly what it is.. then ignoring the implications of your own words. Fascinating.
btw - God endures nothing.

I don't know if it is correct or not but there is a very well accepted and justifiable conclusion that hell primarily is a place where God isn't and love is imossible because the source of it is absent. This theory [technically speaking, it's an hypothesis] concludes that the fire and brimstone is used metephorically. The testimony of George Forman's NDE is consistent but not proof of this. The reason for hell is the inability of a perfect God being willing to permenantly exist with sin. He will not contend with men forever at some point he will put an end to sin and it's effects.

'At some point' is far too late for the billions who lived while he was filing his nails, doing nothing.

If a man chooses to follow vain logic and deny God then his destination is necessarily not going to be with God for eternity. God never compells forced love but his love does prompt his warnings of the inevitable and necessary final state of people who reject him.

You should Google 'Hobson's Choice'
This proposition of yours isn't love, in the slightest.

Another theory of hell is that it is temporary and people in it will eventually cease to exist. That the definition of forever refering to hell is until the end of the age not literally eternal. This is not a prevelant theory but is possible. Since I plan to avoid the place I have not exhaustively researched the subject.

Well, if you people cannot get your own internal hypotheses [NOT 'theories', stop raping that word] straight before attempting to impose it on the unsuspecting public, then you have no place, whatsoever, laying a claim to some truth, nor the 'one true religion', because you can't even agree on what it says in it's most important parts.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Being that the Chrstian faith is based primarily on a book that contains 25,000 historical claims that have been proven correct

1. False number. Cite a source with the entire list

2. Spiderman Fallacy

 

[Thief]

So..Jesus died for nothing?

The way this thread is going....yeah.

 

[jasonwill2]

[too much to fit in here]

I'm only going to respond to this in three parts, working backwards.

First of all, I was referring to if he really believed what he put forth or not as per being a con. I wasn't talking about his personal life. I've heard the sides both for and against his claims about his life in a few Satanic circles and from what I can tell we really can't know since Anton S. LaVey wasn't his birth name. Though it is probably true that he made up some of it to add to his own mythos.

Also your statement 'whatever you call him, he was the real deal' in regards to Crowley shows an obvious lack of information. Not all occultists are Satanists nor are all Satanists occultists. I don't even think there was really any Satanists around at all during the early 20th century, it's more something that only started coming around in the 1960's. Satanism as an actual collection of religions is less than 50 years old.

Secondly, The Satanic Ritual Abuse panic was a panic, unless you want to say that the FBI and a large amount of other governing bodies were in on it too:

Satanic ritual abuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1992 FBI Report --Satanic Ritual Abuse

To say that Satanists commit a high percentage of crime is sheer propaganda. First, people that make these claims expand the definition of Satanist for those who use the "Hail Satan Pass" in criminal defenses when going for an insanity plea, other times they count pseudo-Satanists too such as teenage "dabblers" or mentally ill people, or even just someone in the occult in general. Now to even give proportional statistics on how many Satanists commit crimes you would have to know how many Satanists even exist, and that's really hard to gauge and impossible to know, mostly because we don't want to be persecuted, lose our jobs, or be killed. There is a lot of misunderstanding, misinformation, and propaganda out there against us. Your claim of how we go around committing crimes is just one example. And even at that, is a crime committed by a Christian or where-as a cross or Bible is part of the crime, doe that make it a Christian crime? Christians do not believe in murder, and neither do Satanists. Christianity's god says to obey the law of the land (your government), so does Satanism. A Satanist wouldn't commit a crime that would jeperdoize their freedom or life, much less when such acts are meaningless. In terms of ritual, it's not the act that is important but the emotion and intent. This means that such criminal acts are no more effective than visualization. So if I want to do a ritual to curse someone, I would get better results with just mental images than I would by killing an animal or person, and without the associated criminal and social fallout.

Thirdly, I don't know what your take is on Satanists, but all I have seen from your posts is you trying to apply your world views onto my beliefs, which won't work since your a monotheistic dualist and I'm a pantheistic and polytheistic monist. Satanism doesn't accept anything in your world view, least of all what you and your religion thinks about Satan. Also in Judaism Satan is not a "force", it's a title... in other words Satan is JUST A PRONOUN. A Hebrew pronoun, but still a pronoun.

But your basically saying that you had some pre-conception about Satanism, and apparently meeting one convinces you that all of us fit your pre-conception. This shows an obvious logical fault, as that would be like if I only ever met one Christian, a Mormon, and then deciding that all Christians are just like the one Mormon I met.

Also if I'm the only Satanist you've ever talked to then you can't get an accurate picture because I'm just one guy... Satanists vary so much in opinion and belief you can't judge us all based on what one say. We are in no way united in belief or practice by large.

I fully invite you to ask us first hand in our directory. You stated you think you know enough about Satan, and that might be true if Satan was only a figure in your world view. It isn't and trying to apply your view of Satan to a Satanist's beliefs will never work. We see Satan as something so different as that only some symbolism and the word share anything in common. If you actually want to make your religion presentable or respectable to Satanists, you need to not make generalizations about us nor try to force your view of Satan onto us. To you Satan is a killer and a liar. To us he is no such thing. The Satan you speak of doesn't exist to me: your world view is not my world view and your Satan is not my Satan. Your truth is not my truth and your beliefs are not my beliefs.

Satanism DIR - Religious Education Forum

Oh, and last thing. Nothing you will say will convince me that The Bible is accurate unless it comes from an unbiased and secular source. Saying that the Bible has never had a falsified historical claim is an extreme claim within itself, but to say that it has 45,000 verified historical claims requires more than the word of those whos' beliefs are vested in it.

Also I have researched it on many sides in my time, and I have never once found a legitimate case of "Satanic" or "demonic" forces hurting people. By your own testimony you simply listened to verbal accounts. This automatically makes me very suspicious because it is not unknown in the least for people to make up being possessed for attention or other reasons, such as them not realizing they have real medical or mental health disorders.

Also before I can consider anything else you say about my religion it might help to clarify what you even think Satanism is. Is it simply occult practice? Is doing evil, or is it venerating Satan as you understand it? I think the conflict here is that you are going by your religion's definition of Satanism and not Satanists' definition of Satanism. It would be like trying to tell a Muslim what Islam is, it just doesn't work very well for either party.

If you wish to discuss Satanism further I suggest you make another topic as we are starting to derail this.

 

[1robin]

are you being dishonest?

i've been on your side of the fence, i do have an idea of what i'm talking about...maybe you're the one who feels a little uncomfortable

I assume your dishonesty assertion concerns the 25,000 claim. Well being that there is no site that would cover all 25,000 I have submitted one below that addresses the issue and gives some of them.
Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. More than 25,000 sites showing some connection with the Old Testament period have been located in Bible lands. Dr. Robert Dick Wilson, former professor of Semitic philology at Princeton Theological Seminary, said, "After forty-five years of scholarly research in Biblical textual studies and in language study. I have come now to the conviction that no man knows enough to assail the truthfulness of the Old Testament. Where there is sufficient documentary evidence to make an investigation, the statements of the Bible, in the original text, have stood the test." Furthermore, the noted Dr. J.O. Kinnaman said, "of the hundreds of thousands of artifacts found by other archaeologists, not one has ever been discovered that contradicts or denies one word, phrase, clause, or sentence of the bible, but always confirms and verifies the facts of the Biblical record." If one discards the Bible as being unreliable, then he must discard almost all literature of antiquity.
Is the Bible Historically Accurate?

To assert the bible is in any meaningful way inacurate in claims that can be verified is flat wrong. It is used as a primary resource by many secular archeologists. It has proven it's challengers wrong time after time, an example would be the Hittites existance. Just the other day they found a cash of clay seals in Israel I think that were on scrolls. Something like fifty of the names of officials on them were in the bible. Many of Christianity's most famous proponents became believers because they tried to prove the bible wrong and utterly failed, ex C.S. Lewis.

No I have no discomfort whatsoever, the bible is an anvil that has wore out many hammers.

 

[1robin]

1. False number. Cite a source with the entire list

2. Spiderman Fallacy

Will you just invent anything to win a word fight. First of all you make a claim to knowledge that you don't know the truth of, then you don't cite your evidence for it but demand that I do. If you construct a wall of true and made up fallacies thick enough you might be able to stop any light from entering at all. See my reply to Waitasec for my responce.

 

[waitasec]

I assume your dishonesty assertion concerns the 25,000 claim. Well being that there is no site that would cover all 25,000 I have submitted one below that addresses the issue and gives some of them.
Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. More than 25,000 sites showing some connection with the Old Testament period have been located in Bible lands. Dr. Robert Dick Wilson, former professor of Semitic philology at Princeton Theological Seminary, said, "After forty-five years of scholarly research in Biblical textual studies and in language study. I have come now to the conviction that no man knows enough to assail the truthfulness of the Old Testament. Where there is sufficient documentary evidence to make an investigation, the statements of the Bible, in the original text, have stood the test." Furthermore, the noted Dr. J.O. Kinnaman said, "of the hundreds of thousands of artifacts found by other archaeologists, not one has ever been discovered that contradicts or denies one word, phrase, clause, or sentence of the bible, but always confirms and verifies the facts of the Biblical record." If one discards the Bible as being unreliable, then he must discard almost all literature of antiquity.
Is the Bible Historically Accurate?

To assert the bible is in any meaningful way inacurate in claims that can be verified is flat wrong. It is used as a primary resource by many secular archeologists. It has proven it's challengers wrong time after time, an example would be the Hittites existance. Just the other day they found a cash of clay seals in Israel I think that were on scrolls. Something like fifty of the names of officials on them were in the bible. Many of Christianity's most famous proponents became believers because they tried to prove the bible wrong and utterly failed, ex C.S. Lewis.

No I have no discomfort whatsoever, the bible is an anvil that has wore out many hammers.

spiderman lives in new york...
guess spiderman is real.
:sarcastic

 

[1robin]

I'm only going to respond to this in three parts, working backwards.

First of all, I was referring to if he really believed what he put forth or not as per being a con. I wasn't talking about his personal life. I've heard the sides both for and against his claims about his life in a few Satanic circles and from what I can tell we really can't know since Anton S. LaVey wasn't his birth name. Though it is probably true that he made up some of it to add to his own mythos.

Also your statement 'whatever you call him, he was the real deal' in regards to Crowley shows an obvious lack of information. Not all occultists are Satanists nor are all Satanists occultists. I don't even think there was really any Satanists around at all during the early 20th century, it's more something that only started coming around in the 1960's. Satanism as an actual collection of religions is less than 50 years old.

Secondly, The Satanic Ritual Abuse panic was a panic, unless you want to say that the FBI and a large amount of other governing bodies were in on it too:

Satanic ritual abuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1992 FBI Report --Satanic Ritual Abuse

To say that Satanists commit a high percentage of crime is sheer propaganda. First, people that make these claims expand the definition of Satanist for those who use the "Hail Satan Pass" in criminal defenses when going for an insanity plea, other times they count pseudo-Satanists too such as teenage "dabblers" or mentally ill people, or even just someone in the occult in general. Now to even give proportional statistics on how many Satanists commit crimes you would have to know how many Satanists even exist, and that's really hard to gauge and impossible to know, mostly because we don't want to be persecuted, lose our jobs, or be killed. There is a lot of misunderstanding, misinformation, and propaganda out there against us. Your claim of how we go around committing crimes is just one example. And even at that, is a crime committed by a Christian or where-as a cross or Bible is part of the crime, doe that make it a Christian crime? Christians do not believe in murder, and neither do Satanists. Christianity's god says to obey the law of the land (your government), so does Satanism. A Satanist wouldn't commit a crime that would jeperdoize their freedom or life, much less when such acts are meaningless. In terms of ritual, it's not the act that is important but the emotion and intent. This means that such criminal acts are no more effective than visualization. So if I want to do a ritual to curse someone, I would get better results with just mental images than I would by killing an animal or person, and without the associated criminal and social fallout.

Thirdly, I don't know what your take is on Satanists, but all I have seen from your posts is you trying to apply your world views onto my beliefs, which won't work since your a monotheistic dualist and I'm a pantheistic and polytheistic monist. Satanism doesn't accept anything in your world view, least of all what you and your religion thinks about Satan. Also in Judaism Satan is not a "force", it's a title... in other words Satan is JUST A PRONOUN. A Hebrew pronoun, but still a pronoun.

But your basically saying that you had some pre-conception about Satanism, and apparently meeting one convinces you that all of us fit your pre-conception. This shows an obvious logical fault, as that would be like if I only ever met one Christian, a Mormon, and then deciding that all Christians are just like the one Mormon I met.

Also if I'm the only Satanist you've ever talked to then you can't get an accurate picture because I'm just one guy... Satanists vary so much in opinion and belief you can't judge us all based on what one say. We are in no way united in belief or practice by large.

I fully invite you to ask us first hand in our directory. You stated you think you know enough about Satan, and that might be true if Satan was only a figure in your world view. It isn't and trying to apply your view of Satan to a Satanist's beliefs will never work. We see Satan as something so different as that only some symbolism and the word share anything in common. If you actually want to make your religion presentable or respectable to Satanists, you need to not make generalizations about us nor try to force your view of Satan onto us. To you Satan is a killer and a liar. To us he is no such thing. The Satan you speak of doesn't exist to me: your world view is not my world view and your Satan is not my Satan. Your truth is not my truth and your beliefs are not my beliefs.

Satanism DIR - Religious Education Forum

Oh, and last thing. Nothing you will say will convince me that The Bible is accurate unless it comes from an unbiased and secular source. Saying that the Bible has never had a falsified historical claim is an extreme claim within itself, but to say that it has 45,000 verified historical claims requires more than the word of those whos' beliefs are vested in it.

Also I have researched it on many sides in my time, and I have never once found a legitimate case of "Satanic" or "demonic" forces hurting people. By your own testimony you simply listened to verbal accounts. This automatically makes me very suspicious because it is not unknown in the least for people to make up being possessed for attention or other reasons, such as them not realizing they have real medical or mental health disorders.

Also before I can consider anything else you say about my religion it might help to clarify what you even think Satanism is. Is it simply occult practice? Is doing evil, or is it venerating Satan as you understand it? I think the conflict here is that you are going by your religion's definition of Satanism and not Satanists' definition of Satanism. It would be like trying to tell a Muslim what Islam is, it just doesn't work very well for either party.

If you wish to discuss Satanism further I suggest you make another topic as we are starting to derail this.

I have forgotten our past discussions to a great extent so I will not say much. All those Levay facts came from a site not me. The site backed them up with documentation. Many of your responses were not the actual claim that was made anyway. Levay no matter what the truth actually is isn't by any stretch of the imagination a reliable source of anything. I brought up Crowley's sincerety to contrast Levay's mediocraty. There is no one in modern history so universally considered as sincerely dedicated to the dark side as Crowley. He was constantly getting frustrated with other groups like (the Golden Dawn) I think because they were all talk and little action. I didn't bring him up to deal with Satanism even though that is what it is by Christianity's definition. If you say you have never found cases of demonic possesion hurting people then you haven't actually looked. The net is saturated with them. Demonic possession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Just follow any one of dozens of links from here. Or
Real-life case of demon possession documented

Does the bible ever record a possesion that turned out well except when Christ's absolute dominance resulted in the removal of them.

 

[1robin]

It's amazing. You really are tight in Orwell's grip, aren't you?
Here you are laying out exactly what it is.. then ignoring the implications of your own words. Fascinating.
btw - God endures nothing.

What????

'At some point' is far too late for the billions who lived while he was filing his nails, doing nothing.

I have reread this several times. It makes no sense. Why don't you clarify your claim whatever it is.

You should Google 'Hobson's Choice'
This proposition of yours isn't love, in the slightest.

I will try to but why should I accept whatever it is. I just got through reading a paper on love from one of the world's most repected philosophers Ravi Zacharias which made a conclusive case supporting the bibles position on love and God's role.

Well, if you people cannot get your own internal hypotheses [NOT 'theories', stop raping that word] straight before attempting to impose it on the unsuspecting public, then you have no place, whatsoever, laying a claim to some truth, nor the 'one true religion', because you can't even agree on what it says in it's most important parts.

What are you a semantic junkie. (That is a joke). Different hypothesises (that doesn't sound right) are present in every world view that has ever existed. It hasn't seem to slow you down. Or is this the most trusted classic technique of the atheist, the old favorite (double standard).

 

[1robin]

spiderman lives in new york...
guess spiderman is real.
:sarcastic

Why do you use the word guess if he is in fact real?

 

[waitasec]

Why do you use the word guess if he is in fact real?

because when one makes extraordinary claims about something one has absolutely no verifiable evidence for they are showing they are not being honest about what one really knows but rather what they choose to believe with out the extraordinary evidence that is required to back up such a claim

...i would rather be honest enough to say...
i don't know...

Spiderman, Spiderman,
Does whatever a spider can
Spins a web, any size,
Catches thieves just like flies
Look Out!
Here comes the Spiderman.

source: Spiderman Lyrics - Theme Song Lyrics

 

[jasonwill2]

I have forgotten our past discussions to a great extent so I will not say much. All those Levay facts came from a site not me. The site backed them up with documentation. Many of your responses were not the actual claim that was made anyway. Levay no matter what the truth actually is isn't by any stretch of the imagination a reliable source of anything. I brought up Crowley's sincerety to contrast Levay's mediocraty. There is no one in modern history so universally considered as sincerely dedicated to the dark side as Crowley. He was constantly getting frustrated with other groups like (the Golden Dawn) I think because they were all talk and little action. I didn't bring him up to deal with Satanism even though that is what it is by Christianity's definition. If you say you have never found cases of demonic possesion hurting people then you haven't actually looked. The net is saturated with them. Demonic possession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Just follow any one of dozens of links from here. Or
Real-life case of demon possession documented

Does the bible ever record a possesion that turned out well except when Christ's absolute dominance resulted in the removal of them.

Then you could look back as I did quote you, just click the arrow on the quote. We discussed for quite a length I am sure you remember me. Also Crowely was not "the dark side" in the least. What is "the dark side" anyway? Also his trouble with the Golden Dawn had more to do with the politics of the group and other members, not being "talk".

Also as per the possession that article needs cleaned up as the title says, also it says this:

"Demonic possession is not recognized as a psychiatric or medical diagnosis by either the DSM-IV or the ICD-10. There are many psychological ailments commonly misunderstood as demonic possession, particularly dissociative identity disorder. In cases of dissociative identity disorder in which the alter personality is questioned as to its identity, 29% are reported to identify themselves as demons,[16] but doctors see this as a mental disease called demonomania or demonopathy, a monomania in which the patient believes that he or she is possessed by one or more demons.[17]"


And lastly you did make an erroneous claim as to a 'disproportionately large amount of Satanists committing crime' and then tried to link me to what looks like a dubious source. Even at that I glanced at the said page and soon came to realize that even if all these cases are true, its a very small percentage and looking at others their occult activity seemed to have little to do with their motives.

The "Satanic Ritual Abuse" (SRA) scare

"Ritual abuse" and "occult crime" witchhunts

Satan and "Evil" in Christianity

But yes it might be best that we stop speaking of this now unless we start a new topic here in the debate forum.

 

[1robin]

Then you could look back as I did quote you, just click the arrow on the quote. We discussed for quite a length I am sure you remember me. Also Crowely was not "the dark side" in the least. What is "the dark side" anyway? Also his trouble with the Golden Dawn had more to do with the politics of the group and other members, not being "talk".

I like you but I am getting burned out on this subject.

Also as per the possession that article needs cleaned up as the title says, also it says this:

"Demonic possession is not recognized as a psychiatric or medical diagnosis by either the DSM-IV or the ICD-10. There are many psychological ailments commonly misunderstood as demonic possession, particularly dissociative identity disorder. In cases of dissociative identity disorder in which the alter personality is questioned as to its identity, 29% are reported to identify themselves as demons,[16] but doctors see this as a mental disease called demonomania or demonopathy, a monomania in which the patient believes that he or she is possessed by one or more demons.[17]"

Of course it is not a diagnosed psychological problem. I have already mentioned a few of the tests the Catholic church has developed over 2000 yrs of dealing with the problem you deny that makes demon possession the only diagnosis left after everything else has been eliminated. While I am not a fan of Catholicism their efforts to combat what you don't believe have left them experts on the subject and they have successfully cured hundreds of people with their methods which would not have worked unless their diagnosis was correct.

And lastly you did make an erroneous claim as to a 'disproportionately large amount of Satanists committing crime' and then tried to link me to what looks like a dubious source. Even at that I glanced at the said page and soon came to realize that even if all these cases are true, its a very small percentage and looking at others their occult activity seemed to have little to do with their motives.

To stop talking about a small detail of a huge case, that was from the site I gave you I am sure they have different facts to justify it. However I will remove the claim because it has no effect on the point.

But yes it might be best that we stop speaking of this now unless we start a new topic here in the debate forum.

Done

 

[1robin]

because when one makes extraordinary claims about something one has absolutely no verifiable evidence for they are showing they are not being honest about what one really knows but rather what they choose to believe with out the extraordinary evidence that is required to back up such a claim

...i would rather be honest enough to say...
i don't know...

Spiderman, Spiderman,
Does whatever a spider can
Spins a web, any size,
Catches thieves just like flies
Look Out!
Here comes the Spiderman.

source: Spiderman Lyrics - Theme Song Lyrics

I took your earlier post as joke and made one in reply. I was not serious.

 

[waitasec]

I took your earlier post as joke and made one in reply. I was not serious.

well i was kidding and being serious...
dang it, now i have that stupid song stuck in my head.

 

[sojourner]

Yep.

Nope. Tradition is extra Biblical.

No, evidence, which has been shown.

You haven't shown evidence. You've shown opinion, based upon a biased eisegesis.

The difference between us is I don't deny it; you try to.

the difference between us is that I try to exegete the text as fairly as possible, in order to extract a useful interpretation. You eisegete in order to impugn.

My bias is based on the evidence the story itself provides, and is in conclusion based on that evidence

Your bias is based upon an eisegetical opinion, resulting in a poor interpretation of the elements of the story.

yours is based on your submersion in teh story being right.

Mine is based upon a willingness to let the story be what it is.

Since my position is based on evidence, and yours is based on denial of evidence, my position is more secure.

Since yours is based upon wishful thinking and mine is based upon exegesis, my position is more secure.

Precisely. A story about tyranny and murder, by God

A story about consequences of sin and salvation.

This is non sqeuitur

It is cogent.

None which have ever said this, no. If you cannot site a single source, then you haven't either

Dr. Rick Lowery, Dr. Victor Matthews, Dr. Lisa Davison, Dr. Brandon Scott.

Well, God claims it,

Nope. We claim so.

but that's false too.

Prove it.

"God's system." Original Sin, substitutional repentance, Heaven and Hell.. it's all demonstrably immoral.

That's not "God's system." It's humanity's system.

But this is not hyperbole

As we've found, murder is only applicable in a limited set of circumstances. This isn't one of them. "Murder" is neither legally, nor theologically correct here, and your use of it is hyperbole.

Excellent. At last you admit I am correct.

No, I agree that it's problematic.

Well, truth be told I impugn it for far, far more reasons that this.

Why am I not surprised?

you are certainly correct in that you need to teach your fellows that this story is only a myth, and a bad-lesson-teaching one for modern people

I do that all the time.

Ignoring the leaky basement is something you fellows do very well.

No, we simply retain professionals to take care of those problems. You're not one of them. Stop pretending as if you are.

 

[Sleeppy]

There is a very important significance in this sacrifice. So, the question should rather be, "Why did He?"

 

[waitasec]

There is a very important significance in this sacrifice. So, the question should rather be, "Why did He?"

what makes it significantly important?

 

[Sleeppy]

what makes it significantly important?

It's the last piece of this life's puzzle. The consummation.. For the reconciling to faith in God's Fatherhood.