Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[waitasec]

And yet, there was/are those like Mother Teresa.. Whole.

don't get me started with MT
she kept women from using birth control she perpetuated misery .

 

[Sleeppy]

don't get me started with MT
she kept women from using birth control she perpetuated misery .

How did she do that?

 

[waitasec]

Because again, you're being inconsistent. It's not any religious ideology (unless you want to show me which one it is, and how), it's the person twisting an ideology wrongly out of religion.

ha ha...
that's funny.

I'm religious, and I do not believe in same sex marriage. I live in the Unites States, which is not a religiously centered country. According to US ideology, they should be allowed to marry. I'm not going to vote against that. If I have a serious enough problem with US ideology, I'll leave. Now, what were you saying?

Christian Right Leaders Return to War Room over DOMA

People crash planes and kill people all the time and for various reasons from drunkenness to depression to not knowing how to fly. You're being ridiculous. You're like the people who used religion as an invalid excuse to crash a plane into the those buildings.

you're dodging...
did 9-11 happen for religious reasons...however inaccurate they were?
from king charlemagne to Pope Pius XII to the likes of pat roberson
"It is clear that God is saying, 'I gave man dominion over the earth, but he lost it. Now I desire mature sons and daughters who will in My name exercise dominion over the earth and subdue Satan, the unruly, the rebellious. Take back My world from those who would loot it and abuse it. Rule as I would rule.'"- The Secret Kingdom
religion has dirty filthy hands...

Actually no it isn't. I believe I'm on God's side, and yet I'm not causing 9-11's or Norway killings. That's not a valid cause then, is it?

good for you...funny neither am i

point is you over stated that jesus' sacrifice was significantly important as you have yet to qualify that statement.

 

[Sleeppy]

ha ha...
that's funny.

Christian Right Leaders Return to War Room over DOMA

you're dodging...
did 9-11 happen for religious reasons...however inaccurate they were?
from king charlemagne to Pope Pius XII to the likes of pat roberson
"It is clear that God is saying, 'I gave man dominion over the earth, but he lost it. Now I desire mature sons and daughters who will in My name exercise dominion over the earth and subdue Satan, the unruly, the rebellious. Take back My world from those who would loot it and abuse it. Rule as I would rule.'"- The Secret Kingdom
religion has dirty filthy hands...

good for you...funny neither am i

point is you over stated that jesus' sacrifice was significantly important as you have yet to qualify that statement.

I honestly don't know why 9-11 happened. Inaccurate religious reasons? If they're inaccurate, then I don't call them religious reasons.

I should've started a list of all of your retracted and dis-proven arguments.

Also, there was a reason I didn't qualify it. All I have is my witness testimony and experiences. And i'm certain neither would be sufficient for you, especially now.

 

[waitasec]

How did she do that?

she equated birth control with abortion and advocated for suffering

'Let us promise Our Lady who loves Ireland so much that we will never allow in this country a single abortion. And no contraceptives.'


“Pain and suffering have come into your life, but remember pain, sorrow, suffering are but the kiss of Jesus - a sign that you have come so close to Him that He can kiss you.”

 

[waitasec]

I honestly don't know why 9-11 happened. Inaccurate religious reasons? If they're inaccurate, then I don't call them religious reasons.

sorry, you are relying on interpretation. religious interpretation is subjective.
all of it is...

I should've started a list of all of your retracted and dis-proven arguments.

Also, there was a reason I didn't qualify it. All I have is my witness testimony and experiences. And i'm certain neither would be sufficient for you, especially now.

had you qualified your statement we wouldn't be discussing this non sense.

your experience falls under the convenient category
"visual learning" jeeez

 

[Sleeppy]

sorry, you are relying on interpretation. religious interpretation is subjective.
all of it is...

Doesn't matter. If I decide one day to blame killing everyone around me on a bee sting, does that make the bee sting the cause?

had you qualified your statement we wouldn't be discussing this non sense.

your experience falls under the convenient category
"visual learning" jeeez

Even though those were the two things you'd ask an historian for? And did you Google visual learning like I asked?

 

[Sleeppy]

she equated birth control with abortion and advocated for suffering

'Let us promise Our Lady who loves Ireland so much that we will never allow in this country a single abortion. And no contraceptives.'


“Pain and suffering have come into your life, but remember pain, sorrow, suffering are but the kiss of Jesus - a sign that you have come so close to Him that He can kiss you.”

Wait.. All I see is her opinion.. Where did she prevent birth control and abortion?

And as far as advocating suffering.. Wow. The same woman who was going around helping the poorest of the poor to eat and survive? The same woman who dedicated her life to charity? I'm done talking to you. I'd rather you not reply to anything I post on these forums, I won't respond.

 

[waitasec]

Doesn't matter. If I decide one day to blame killing everyone around me on a bee sting, does that make the bee sting the cause?

no it makes it an excuse...

Even though those were the two things you'd ask an historian for? And did you Google visual learning like I asked?

yes.

visual learning is something i don't believe can help anyone experience anything...

and sure you may be really good at reading a manual
but when something goes wrong that isn't covered in the trouble shooting section of the manual you're out of luck hun.

 

[1robin]

Yes, I am the author of the Spiderman Fallacy. If you ever read my signature you would have seen that I have been saying that since I arrived here. It is, in fact, true.

Very well. What is necessary to have it declared an "approved fallacy"?

It ONLY applies to God. For pete's sake.

I didn't say it is not intended to apply to God, I said I don't see how that it accurate or applicable. But I really don't care.

NOT 25,000 matches of historical evidence from things said in the Bible; 25,000 manuscripts of parts of the Bible.
25k traces of the Bible's writings, NOT 25k confirmed historical evidences which prove the information is correct.
YOU asserted the latter. Therefore, directly, you are wrong.

You are correct about this. However 25,000 manuscripts show a greater textual attestation than any other ancient text.

The 2nd site* also gives the same, evidence-less claim of the 25k number; again, where are these so-called 25,000 facts? It's just an impressively high number with no basis in fact, thrown out because it's a huge number to be able to claim. It sounds impressive and it impresses the yahoos who do not know it's false.
In other words, it's an exaggerated lie.
The pdf document lists 25. That's 'twenty five', an extremely, laughable far cry from 'twenty five thousand'.
If there are that many, list them; if there aren't, the claim is false.

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.

I don't know what else to say unless you are suggesting I post 25,000 examples and their explanations.

* another small detail: the 2nd site claims that there is evidence of the Biblical Flood. hilarious. These are the sites you take seriously?

Of course there is evidence used to justify the flood narative. I do not believe they are suffecient so I don't use them myself.

Not 'if'. The threat of Hell IS the forced choice. 'Choose me, or eternal torture'.

Your are just wrong on this. Pointing out the consequences of your choice does not mandate or force the choice itself. It is common sense that if a man chooses to reject God that he gets exactly what he desired, seperation from him. If your point is correct then everyone would be a believer since they are forced to be.

If you're going to resort to offering a wide range of interpretations then there's no real value in the discussion, because you'll simply change between interpretations as suits you.

I only mentioned one or two of the most prevelant because they have a bearing on the topic. If you actually cared what the truth is instead of just railing against a religion you created and called Christianity, then this would be information that you should be interested in. I guess it's not important that you establish exactly what it is before you condemn it.

I am already separated from him, as I am a member of another religion with my own Fate in the hands of other Gods.
My attempted accomplishment is to point out the immorality of this system, so that readers can make an actual choice, and may see things as they really are rather than how the bible and it's adherents spin itself as a feel-good religion. It is actually quite heinous. The truth must be told.

I disagree with your assesments but the principle is valid.

What parts have I quoted? What parts have I taken out of context?

You have posited the flood narrative but have ignored or flat out refused to evaluate it within the context of the explanitory verses associated with it.​

I am making no mistakes, you are simply claiming there to be mistakes because you have no actual competent arguments. This ravi person you faun over is a professional apologist. that means he lies for God. He makes excuses for God's horribleness; that's his profession. And, as I pointed out, you didn't actually tell us what his argument is, you simply asserted how great it was.

It was so long I wasn't going through the trouble since I am dealing with someone who rejects things based on desirability. Once again you are asserting a claim that....Let's change this up provide a clear example of his lies.

Since you cite made up numbers, show no real grasp of logic, and make multiple statements that because so many people believe this it must be true, or ask why so many believe it if it weren't true, it is still obvious that you ARE making this fallacy, over and over again.

To assert numbers to establish the suffeciency of the evidence for the purpose of making a decision is valid. To assert numbers to prove that the claim is true is not valid and a fallacy. That is the last time I am going to explain this.​

Um, because we are.
Are you aware of the etymology of the word 'Caucasian', at all? Are you not aware it came about because of the migration of early man westward over the Caucasus mountains into what would later become Europe? Hence, 'Caucasian'? We are related to those people.​

Yes I am, and I did not make an argument for or against your contention.​

As for your faith system being 'the most logical, popular [APPEAL TO NUMBERS} and studied', it is the most illogical system going. I and others have been exhaustively showing exactly how. And I would imagine there's a tight competition between all the Abrahamic faiths as to whose is the most studied; and no mention of the Eastern faiths' scholarship at all at all? Really? Just more empty hyperbole.​

This is all opinion and wrong anyway. If it was the most illogical one why is it the most universally accepted. Since logic suggests that irrationality is grounds for disbelief then the evidence is the opposite of what your assertion suggests. This is a valid point as I did not claim that it is true because more people believe it. No, you have spent much time making ineffective bad attepts at arguments against Christianity. There are good arguments, I have seen them, but not in your posts. Eastern religions includeing India's 350 million Gods are indecipherable and self refuting at the least and I saw no reason to include a dissertation on them. If you will pick a specific one I will do so even though I know it will be in vain because you will accept the possibility of anything that isn't Christianity. That is a strangly consistent issue with non-believers.​

I am SO relieved!

Ok

 

[Thief]

Given the OP, and the copious amount of posting HH has accomplished here (much of which has been digression from that topic), I invite Heathen Hammer to directly answer the OP: Did Jesus really have to die for our sins? I'd like to see his opinion and any backing evidence, based upon a valid theological argument, not simply dismissive diatribe assuming the false nature of the bible.

There should be a rule about digression.

 

[sojourner]

My attempted accomplishment is to point out the immorality of this system, so that readers can make an actual choice, and may see things as they really are rather than how the bible and it's adherents spin itself as a feel-good religion. It is actually quite heinous. The truth must be told.

That depends entirely upon whose theological construct you're debating. There is a lot of pop-feel-good theology out there, but there's also a lot of theology that's deeper and makes more sense, that attempts to address the truth of the human condition, such as Bonhoeffer, James Cone, Beverly Mitchell, Sallie McFague, and John Macquarrie.

all Xy can't be lumped into the same dismissive bag, called "heinous" and then have "truth" told about it. Seems to me as if you've got an ax to grind, and such ax-grinding makes for biased review. How do we know we can trust your analysis to be balanced and truthful?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Very well. What is necessary to have it declared an "approved fallacy"?

I am not sure, really. But one made it and one didn't; I guess I'll just wait and ponder.

You are correct about this. However 25,000 manuscripts show a greater textual attestation than any other ancient text.

No it doesn't, it merely shows that there were so many copies. Copies of an erroneous text don't somehow improve that text's truth.... but that's irrelevant. What is relevant, is that you cited a false number. I have shown this concretely and after the following comment below I won't address your falsehood in that respect again; it's been beaten to death that you lied to promote biblical 'historical accuracy'

More than 25,000 sites showing some connection with the Old Testament period have been located in Bible lands.

Cite or be silent.

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."

Except where it hasn't; this man is another apologist. In terms of the OT he is, simply to begin with, wrong about it's historicity as well; there is no historical evidence at all of a Hebrew Exodus, for example.

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.

********.
Sorry, that won't make it past the censor.
"Defecation of a male bovine"

I don't know what else to say unless you are suggesting I post 25,000 examples and their explanations.

Of course there is evidence used to justify the flood narative. I do not believe they are suffecient so I don't use them myself.

Since it is you who keep stating, falsely, that there are so many, it is in fact your duty to prove that there are. You cannot, though, so again this lie is moot.

And there's no evidence, whatsoever, of a global Flood, and quite a lot of evidence against. Essentially the global Flood has been disproved.

Your are just wrong on this. Pointing out the consequences of your choice does not mandate or force the choice itself. It is common sense that if a man chooses to reject God that he gets exactly what he desired, seperation from him. If your point is correct then everyone would be a believer since they are forced to be.

I am correct. Essentially in legalistic terms this is blackmail; do what I say or you suffer forever.
If the choice resulted in a neutral result, ie., death in some other location/afterlife, then it would in fact be a choice. it is not. I have described it accurately.
'Hell' is not just separation; it is an eternal torture which you, yourself, point to God as the creator of [you stated he made Hell for Satan and the fallen angels]. ONLY GOD can send a person there; therefore, it is, directly, his fault if anyone goes there. Your assertion that it's some 'natural' casual effect is patently false.

I only mentioned one or two of the most prevelant because they have a bearing on the topic. If you actually cared what the truth is instead of just railing against a religion you created and called Christianity, then this would be information that you should be interested in. I guess it's not important that you establish exactly what it is before you condemn it.

lol, that's just rich. I know more about your religion than you do.
Since you cannot decide which interpretation is actually the true one, you have no claim to pretend I don't care what the truth is; the irony of such a statement from you while mid-stream changing interpretations of stories, is hysterical.

IYou have posited the flood narrative but have ignored or flat out refused to evaluate it within the context of the explanitory verses associated with it.

You mean the verses which ignore the content of the story itself? Or your assessment of it?
Or do you mean something Sojourner said, where the Flood tale is not literal at all but merely an assessment of the social sins of the time? When you collectively make up your minds perhaps I can answer.

It was so long I wasn't going through the trouble since I am dealing with someone who rejects things based on desirability. Once again you are asserting a claim that....Let's change this up provide a clear example of his lies.

So, we will not hear the story? In that case my points remain unrefuted. I am content.

To assert numbers to establish the suffeciency of the evidence for the purpose of making a decision is valid. To assert numbers to prove that the claim is true is not valid and a fallacy. That is the last time I am going to explain this.​

Except the numbers were completely false. You lied by giving false numbers to claim a large amount of evidence where such did not exist.
Providing random numbers does NOT establish sufficiency of evidence.
That's the last time I'm going to explain it.

The concept you give is valid, but you didn't follow it. You found some number, mistakenly related to how many copies of biblical texts there were [which frankly, is probably also false, but this is irrelevant to the subject at hand], and presented them as how many historically accurate facts have been confirmed.

The fact you are still protesting this after being caught red-handed is just amazing. I understand that, in the middle of a heated debate with someone you don't like you lack the courage to simply state 'I was wrong about that number,', but to then go so far as to pretending this didn't happen and that the number you cited is still valid, is embarrassing.
Your credibility is essentially zero at this point.

​

This is all opinion and wrong anyway. If it was the most illogical one why is it the most universally accepted.

Jesus ******* Christ appeal to numbers.
You just don't learn at all, even when information is shoved down your throat several times, do you?

... Since logic suggests that irrationality is grounds for disbelief then the evidence is the opposite of what your assertion suggests. This is a valid point as I did not claim that it is true because more people believe it. No, you have spent much time making ineffective bad attepts at arguments against Christianity. There are good arguments, I have seen them, but not in your posts. Eastern religions includeing India's 350 million Gods are indecipherable and self refuting at the least and I saw no reason to include a dissertation on them. If you will pick a specific one I will do so even though I know it will be in vain because you will accept the possibility of anything that isn't Christianity. That is a strangly consistent issue with non-believers.

So, basically you're an idiot arguing strongly against things which you haven't the slightest clue, despite conscious efforts by others to directly educate you on them? Oh, what a surprise.




No, wait, it's not a surprise at all.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Given the OP, and the copious amount of posting HH has accomplished here, I invite Heathen Hammer to directly answer the OP: Did Jesus really have to die for our sins? I'd like to see his opinion and any backing evidence, based upon a valid theological argument, not simply dismissive diatribe assuming the false nature of the bible.

I would be delighted for you to explain how I could present my answer, when you have already just disallowed me from giving my answer? If the bible is false how can I answer by not saying so?

Any answer I gave would have to address the ineffectuality of a false sacrifice and the fact that Jesus did not meet the criteria for Hebrew Moschiach [something Im pretty sure I've covered in the thread already], or the fact that God does not place anyone between Man and himself.. I mean, the list is large.

Way back at the beginning I did give my answers. It's just that you 'believers' cannot handle my opinions, nor the facts I cite which make your faith one of misery and murder.

On page 7, after a small snide comment, I answered a question by citing the meaning of the actual Hebrew word used regarding the error/lie God made in the Garden. that was the topic at the moment, the thread itself went off course almost from the beginning.

That's not what 'dieing die' means.
In the actual Hebrew there is NO future tense in that sentence. You are adding meaning to cover the obvious error.

And yes of course I can think the writers would make a mistake. They were incapable of smelting steel. They were essentially, barbarians. Why on earth would you think they were somehow infallible? Your presumption is the unlikely one, not mine.

The effect of the knowledge happens, in the Hebrew, 'In the day of' [Gen3:7]. There's no reason, whatsoever, to pretend that any other effect occurs at some random future date. It's not indicated in the text. At all.

I have made posts answering questions and making points since the beginning.

If my answer concerning Jesus' false sacrifice, cannot be answered in a factual manner, regarding the true nature of the Hebrew God [that there is no intercessor between him and any man regarding his sins], or in the factual nature of sacrifice and how it does not relate to Jesus at all, well, what is the point of answering, if you whelps cannot handle the answers?

The direct answer is: No, Jesus did not have to die for our sins.

 

[Thief]

I would be delighted for you to explain how I could present my answer, when you have already just disallowed me from giving my answer? If the bible is false how can I answer by not saying so?

Any answer I gave would have to address the ineffectuality of a false sacrifice and the fact that Jesus did not meet the criteria for Hebrew Moschiach [something Im pretty sure I've covered in the thread already], or the fact that God does not place anyone between Man and himself.. I mean, the list is large.

Way back at the beginning I did give my answers. It's just that you 'believers' cannot handle my opinions, nor the facts I cite which make your faith one of misery and murder.

On page 7, after a small snide comment, I answered a question by citing the meaning of the actual Hebrew word used regarding the error/lie God made in the Garden. that was the topic at the moment, the thread itself went off course almost from the beginning.


I have made posts answering questions and making points since the beginning.

If my answer concerning Jesus' false sacrifice, cannot be answered in a factual manner, regarding the true nature of the Hebrew God [that there is no intercessor between him and any man regarding his sins], or in the factual nature of sacrifice and how it does not relate to Jesus at all, well, what is the point of answering, if you whelps cannot handle the answers?

The direct answer is: No, Jesus did not have to die for our sins.

Handling your posts is not difficult.

The bible is not altogether accurate...true.
You are not altogether accurate...true.

Smelting of iron is not required for theological discussion.

But we can sharpen our swords...can't we?
Before we take more swings...

And I do agree, The Carpenter died for circumstance and misunderstanding.
He did not take our sins away.

But that doesn't mean He wasn't the Savior.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Perhaps then I should have used the term 'cope intelligently with'
Tee hee!

 

[Thief]

Perhaps then I should have used the term 'cope intelligently with'
Tee hee!

Just fixed a typo in my previous post....
you might want to review my last line.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

And I do agree, The Carpenter died for circumstance and misunderstanding.
He did not take our sins away.

But that doesn't mean He wasn't the Savior.

What is the point of using the word then, if the definition can change at will?

Either you accept a prophecy and what it actually says, then look for the individual to come and fulfill it, wholly and as it says; or, you pick a person at random in history - or even of doubtful history - and proclaim him a 'savior', from what you may make up at will,. no matter what he actually does.

I don't really see any spiritual benefit to the latter.

 

[Thief]

What is the point of using the word then, if the definition can change at will?

Either you accept a prophecy and what it actually says, then look for the individual to come and fulfill it, wholly and as it says; or, you pick a person at random in history - or even of doubtful history - and proclaim him a 'savior', from what you may make up at will,. no matter what he actually does.

I don't really see any spiritual benefit to the latter.

Here is how it really works....

Picture me standing before the Almighty and His angels.
and the question is...'what do you believe?'....
followed by...'who told you that, and why did you believe it?'

If my first response rings true...fine... no problem.
And the person I quote would be my 'savior', as it was His word that
'saved me'.

If my speech is something less, the deception dies with me as the angels draw sword
and put an end to such things.

They would then go looking for the source of that deception.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Here is how it really works....

No, I won't look at this repetitious scenario again. It doesn't apply to what we were discussing.

I thought we were beginning to discuss how Jesus as the Messiah, is essentially the 21 Jump Street of the spiritual world.

Take a really good idea, the Hebrew Moschiach, then gut the original tale of all relevant information and such, and slap that label on something entirely different.