Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[waitasec]

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

how do you know it's the last piece?

 

[Sleeppy]

how do you know it's the last piece?

The first was in Genesis.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

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.

Every fallacy I have listed has been legitimate.

Cry more that your reasoning is loaded with falsehoods.

BTW.. it's nice to see you totally caught out in a lie over the 25,000 number.

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

I'm going to stretch the colloquialism a bit and say you were obviously the dullest hammer in that bag.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

What????

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

Your original assertion was
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.
If God is capable of removing sin and ending his own need for Hell, then he should have already done it. By waiting, as if he has something better to do, EVERYone who has lived during that period has suffered unjustly, and was in danger of winding up in Hell, or have gone there to suffer already. If God is capable, then it is his DUTY to do so. Not later, not someday... now.
In fact, 'now' is a mis-statement of a sort; it was his duty to do it as soon as he was capable, which was essentially right at the Fall.
IF he is just. IF he possesses 'perfect' love.. or indeed, even a modicum of human love. By his actions, it appears God fails in at least one of those attributes.

I will try to but why should I accept whatever it is.

!!!

It will help you to understand how your 'loving choice' from God is nothing of the sort.

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).

Im not an atheist. Im a polytheist. I have more Gods than you do, they simply actually make sense.

Since your 'reasoning' is essential faulty, showing you how it's faulty, where, in specific, might help you use your brain a bit better in the future. The names I am giving you for your fallacies, legitimate names, are meant to drive you to actually go look them up, so that you will see where your reasoning is faulty, what shape that fault takes, and try to not do that again. That is the hope. Given your responses I see clearly this is a false hope. But since I am true to myself, I must try anyway.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

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

With great deference to Waitasec, his response did not really point out how your statement was an iteration of the Spiderman Fallacy. Since I am the author of that fallacy, I'll give you the full definition here so you'll understand it better.. well, wait, so you'll have the opportunity to understand it better.

The Spiderman Fallacy:

This post's purpose is to refute the oft-stated idea that, because the bible contains facts which jibe with archaeological facts or discoveries, that ALL it contains is, in fact, true.

Shortly after the events of 9/11/01, Marvel comics felt compelled to put out an issue of The Amazing Spiderman which dealt directly with those events, and how a city with super heroes in its population would deal with the aftermath of this kind of attack.

In this issue, we see real places. We see NYC on the day of the attacks, beginning in the first frame of the comic, with Spiderman perched on a ledge, looking over the graves of both buildings immediately after the second fell.

Although the images later are mixed with popular comic heroes [and villains] who arrive to pull apart the rubble, we also see average people, the fire fighters and police, army, navy, marines and air force. We see TV images, see transcribed snippets of speeches given shortly after, including the infamous quote exchange between Jerry Falwel and Pat Robertson wherein Falwell said of groups in the US he dislikes, "You helped this happen."

Real people, real places, documented far more times than any location in the bible. Photographic evidence, videotape, audio tape. Any person of majority age alive right now saw, without a doubt, at least some moving image from the events of that day, in that city. I live in NYC, and have been in the buildings when they still stood, was there the day of the basement bomb attack [12 blocks away], and was in the city, trapped, on 911. It is highly possible that some of you reading this right now have actually stood in New York City and seen the exact location where this happened, and who can say that of the events of the Bible? many of those locations are lost forever.

Given the overwhelming evidence presented...

.. is Spiderman real?

Your faulty reasoning in this case, in a nutshell, is that you claim that because a wholly mythical event or person was placed in his book in an actual historical location, then the mythical person or event must also be true; because some events or persons in the Bible actually existed, ANYTHING the Bible says must be true.

And the simple fact is, that's totally wrong.

 

[Thief]

So did Jesus die for our sins?....I say ......nay.

But the web of religion is vast and sticky.
So many are caught of in wanting to go to heaven.

 

[1robin]

Every fallacy I have listed has been legitimate.

Cry more that your reasoning is loaded with falsehoods

Why is the spiderman fallacy only to be found in an urban dictionary and the dog whisperer is only found in your head. That being said I will grant the spiderman fallacy sounds logic if you use it for what it supposed to be used for. I did not use 25,000 historical proofs to prove Jesus existed or God. It was used to establish a high degree of reliablility for the bible. For that use my claims were completely logical. "Being that the Chrstian faith is based primarily on a book that contains 25,000 historical claims that have been proven correct and is consistent with most accepted philisophical principles etc.........." This was the actual claim. Spiddy loses.

BTW.. it's nice to see you totally caught out in a lie over the 25,000 number.

You realize other people cannot see what happens in your fantasy world don't you. It sure didn't happen in reality.

I'm going to stretch the colloquialism a bit and say you were obviously the dullest hammer in that bag.

That is not a stretch that is a butchery. The hammers are arguments against the bible. Where in the wild world of sports did you get this idea that the one defending the bible is actually not a person but an argument against it. Good Grief.

 

[1robin]

Your original assertion was
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.
If God is capable of removing sin and ending his own need for Hell, then he should have already done it. By waiting, as if he has something better to do, EVERYone who has lived during that period has suffered unjustly, and was in danger of winding up in Hell, or have gone there to suffer already. If God is capable, then it is his DUTY to do so. Not later, not someday... now.
In fact, 'now' is a mis-statement of a sort; it was his duty to do it as soon as he was capable, which was essentially right at the Fall.
IF he is just. IF he possesses 'perfect' love.. or indeed, even a modicum of human love. By his actions, it appears God fails in at least one of those attributes.

It still doesn't make sense but I know what you are driving at. First of all Hell was created for Satan and his angels not for man, man just happen to want to exist apart from God so by default hells the place. God does not have any Duty whatsoever to you or anyone above what his revelation promises. He has suffecient reasons to allow this period of time where sin exists, and you have no say in the matter whatsoever. I remembered another story of a man who thought he had the right and capacity to judge God. God told Job he did not have that right/capacity because of exactly the reasons I said you don't. God asked Job to tell him many things and if he could then he would answer him, Job soon wisely realised he didn't have the capacity and gave up. To posit a particular God and then attempt to judge him when that specific God said you do not have the ability is futile and illogical.

It will help you to understand how your 'loving choice' from God is nothing of the sort.

I have a book by Ravi Zacharias on my desk, an internationaly respected philosopher with 3 PhDs and several honarary ones and is infinately more qualified than both of us put together. This book exhaustivly lays out the philisophicaly consistent argument that defines freewill of love and your position is destroyed. I would have layed it out here but it is very long and since it is based on logic I don't know that it would help.

Im not an atheist. Im a polytheist. I have more Gods than you do, they simply actually make sense.

Then why do more people believe in the Christian God than all yours put together. Out of curiosity what set of Gods do you believe in and why them? Do they include the 350 million from india alone and if not why?

Since your 'reasoning' is essential faulty, showing you how it's faulty, where, in specific, might help you use your brain a bit better in the future. The names I am giving you for your fallacies, legitimate names, are meant to drive you to actually go look them up, so that you will see where your reasoning is faulty, what shape that fault takes, and try to not do that again. That is the hope. Given your responses I see clearly this is a false hope. But since I am true to myself, I must try anyway.

I looked them up or tried to in one case. The spiderman one makes since if used correctly, the other one is defined by you so I didn't bother further.

 

[1robin]

With great deference to Waitasec, his response did not really point out how your statement was an iteration of the Spiderman Fallacy. Since I am the author of that fallacy, I'll give you the full definition here so you'll understand it better.. well, wait, so you'll have the opportunity to understand it better.

The Spiderman Fallacy:

This post's purpose is to refute the oft-stated idea that, because the bible contains facts which jibe with archaeological facts or discoveries, that ALL it contains is, in fact, true.

Shortly after the events of 9/11/01, Marvel comics felt compelled to put out an issue of The Amazing Spiderman which dealt directly with those events, and how a city with super heroes in its population would deal with the aftermath of this kind of attack.

In this issue, we see real places. We see NYC on the day of the attacks, beginning in the first frame of the comic, with Spiderman perched on a ledge, looking over the graves of both buildings immediately after the second fell.

Although the images later are mixed with popular comic heroes [and villains] who arrive to pull apart the rubble, we also see average people, the fire fighters and police, army, navy, marines and air force. We see TV images, see transcribed snippets of speeches given shortly after, including the infamous quote exchange between Jerry Falwel and Pat Robertson wherein Falwell said of groups in the US he dislikes, "You helped this happen."

Real people, real places, documented far more times than any location in the bible. Photographic evidence, videotape, audio tape. Any person of majority age alive right now saw, without a doubt, at least some moving image from the events of that day, in that city. I live in NYC, and have been in the buildings when they still stood, was there the day of the basement bomb attack [12 blocks away], and was in the city, trapped, on 911. It is highly possible that some of you reading this right now have actually stood in New York City and seen the exact location where this happened, and who can say that of the events of the Bible? many of those locations are lost forever.

Given the overwhelming evidence presented...

.. is Spiderman real?

Your faulty reasoning in this case, in a nutshell, is that you claim that because a wholly mythical event or person was placed in his book in an actual historical location, then the mythical person or event must also be true; because some events or persons in the Bible actually existed, ANYTHING the Bible says must be true.

And the simple fact is, that's totally wrong.

Well I am glad you know more about what I think than I do, I was thinking it might only be God who you are qualified to judge. My point was that the bible in every claim it makes that can be verified is accurate and there by it's reliability is suggested not proven in areas where it cannot be verified. Also the prophetic truth of 2000 plus prophecy adds to the supernatural reliability but doesn't prove it either. If this was invalid why do so many opponents spend so much time trying to find a problem with a historical claim or prophecy if it has no effect on the bibles reliability as a whole. I apoligise if you find Atheist label I saddled you with offensive, I have a bad habbit of thinking people are certain things based on the arguments that they use.

 

[waitasec]

The first was in Genesis.

how do you know that?

 

[Sleeppy]

how do you know that?

How are things known?

 

[Dan4reason]

It still doesn't make sense but I know what you are driving at. First of all Hell was created for Satan and his angels not for man, man just happen to want to exist apart from God so by default hells the place. God does not have any Duty whatsoever to you or anyone above what his revelation promises. He has suffecient reasons to allow this period of time where sin exists, and you have no say in the matter whatsoever. I remembered another story of a man who thought he had the right and capacity to judge God. God told Job he did not have that right/capacity because of exactly the reasons I said you don't. God asked Job to tell him many things and if he could then he would answer him, Job soon wisely realised he didn't have the capacity and gave up. To posit a particular God and then attempt to judge him when that specific God said you do not have the ability is futile and illogical.




I have a book by Ravi Zacharias on my desk, an internationaly respected philosopher with 3 PhDs and several honarary ones and is infinately more qualified than both of us put together. This book exhaustivly lays out the philisophicaly consistent argument that defines freewill of love and your position is destroyed. I would have layed it out here but it is very long and since it is based on logic I don't know that it would help.



Then why do more people believe in the Christian God than all yours put together. Out of curiosity what set of Gods do you believe in and why them? Do they include the 350 million from india alone and if not why?

I looked them up or tried to in one case. The spiderman one makes since if used correctly, the other one is defined by you so I didn't bother further.

More people believe in religion because the average human is not always rational.

 

[Jacksnyte]

What I have primarily gotten from this thread is that, to many Christians, their gods' killing of his only son (who is also this god himself, as well as a "holy ghost", all at the same time) was the only way to redeem us. This negates the omnipotence of said god. If this god were omnipotent, then there would be no need to kill, or punish anyone. At best, it sounds like a small child playing with his action figures.

 

[sojourner]

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

if you believe that sort of thing...

 

[waitasec]

How are things known?

experience...empirical evidence

so, how do you know it's the last piece of the puzzle?
how do you know it's a puzzle?

 

[sojourner]

What I have primarily gotten from this thread is that, to many Christians, their gods' killing of his only son (who is also this god himself, as well as a "holy ghost", all at the same time) was the only way to redeem us. This negates the omnipotence of said god. If this god were omnipotent, then there would be no need to kill, or punish anyone. At best, it sounds like a small child playing with his action figures.

I prefer a theology in which hermeneutical gymnastics aren't necessary.

 

[1robin]

What I have primarily gotten from this thread is that, to many Christians, their gods' killing of his only son (who is also this god himself, as well as a "holy ghost", all at the same time) was the only way to redeem us. This negates the omnipotence of said god. If this god were omnipotent, then there would be no need to kill, or punish anyone. At best, it sounds like a small child playing with his action figures.

He was not reduced to this option only. It was chosen by him as the most powerful example of his love for us. Jesus gave up more than any man has ever known to suffer unimaginable horror for people who hated him. There is no example of selflessess more powerful than I can even dream up. And God did not kill him we did. You have a lack of grasp for the subject you are contending. His omnipotence is still intact.

He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine.
No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes.
He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
– James Stewart, Scottish theologian
"[The character of Jesus] has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."
William Lecky Historian

This doesn't jive with your distorted version of Christ.

 

[Jacksnyte]

The need for a supposedly omnipotent god to sacrifice himself to himself to satisfy some rule he arbitrarily made up is IMHO silly at best. The reasons given for doing this negate this god's claim of omnipotence because if this god is all-powerfull, then none of this was necessary. Again, it too much resembles a child playing with it's toys.

 

[1robin]

The need for a supposedly omnipotent god to sacrifice himself to himself to satisfy some rule he arbitrarily made up is IMHO silly at best. The reasons given for doing this negate this god's claim of omnipotence because if this god is all-powerfull, then none of this was necessary. Again, it too much resembles a child playing with it's toys.

Philosophers keep saying this but people won't stop using this flawed logic. To state his attributes says nothing of his will. He can instantly eliminate evil but he has suffecient reason for leaving it. He can do anything but that doesn't mean he has to do what you decide he should. Do you actually think that you have in your vanishingly small amount of knowledge in comparison with Gods the capability of dictating what he should do. You know a guy in the bible named Job tried that one once, after God said a sentence or two to him he recognised his utter incapacity to judge God. If you can at least aknowledge this obvious common ground thereby diplayeing your resonability I will discuss the details entailed as I understand them of God's reasons for what we have. If you are so hostile to God that you can't aknowledge a human's incapacity to judge God talking to me won't help.

 

[Jacksnyte]

Philosophers keep saying this but people won't stop using this flawed logic. To state his attributes says nothing of his will. He can instantly eliminate evil but he has suffecient reason for leaving it. He can do anything but that doesn't mean he has to do what you decide he should. Do you actually think that you have in your vanishingly small amount of knowledge in comparison with Gods the capability of dictating what he should do. You know a guy in the bible named Job tried that one once, after God said a sentence or two to him he recognised his utter incapacity to judge God. If you can at least aknowledge this obvious common ground thereby diplayeing your resonability I will discuss the details entailed as I understand them of God's reasons for what we have. If you are so hostile to God that you can't aknowledge a human's incapacity to judge God talking to me won't help.

To be clear, you ARE talking about the god of Abraham?