• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
A thought just occurred: I cannot recall now what thread it's in but it's one of these with similar participants... does not the Tower of Bable story essentially prove that the bible does in fact describe the Earth as flat with the Heavens directly above it?

It's posts like this that make me think you're claim of biblical knowledge is waaaay overblown. You seem to intimate that the bible describing the earth as flat with the heavens directly above it presents some fatal flaw in Xy. Tell me I'm wrong.

In fact, Genesis describes the earth as a flat disc, and the sky as a rigid dome upon which are affixed the sun, moon, stars and other planets. So what?
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
It's posts like this that make me think you're claim of biblical knowledge is waaaay overblown. You seem to intimate that the bible describing the earth as flat with the heavens directly above it presents some fatal flaw in Xy. Tell me I'm wrong.

In fact, Genesis describes the earth as a flat disc, and the sky as a rigid dome upon which are affixed the sun, moon, stars and other planets. So what?

i'm still waiting for you to respond to the post HH responded to...
 

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
It's posts like this that make me think you're claim of biblical knowledge is waaaay overblown. You seem to intimate that the bible describing the earth as flat with the heavens directly above it presents some fatal flaw in Xy. Tell me I'm wrong.

In fact, Genesis describes the earth as a flat disc, and the sky as a rigid dome upon which are affixed the sun, moon, stars and other planets. So what?
Did you read my actual question?
Or are you still desperate to berate my obvious knowledge of the bible and it's many fatal flaws, via posts to which you feel compelled to respond with ad homs? :D

It's interesting, if somewhat telling, that you frequently agree with the nuts-and-bolts assessments of mine as to what the Bible says, to the chagrin of the hardcore bibbliots, and differ only in the conclusions of what the assessments wind up saying about it. Earlier you called my statements biased and such; yet that bias would not exist if the bible didn't say what it actually says, word for word. Your ad homs in that respect tend to be cart-before-the-horse.

In any case, in this post of mine, the fatal flaw was in response to a statement, in that thread I mention which I cannot pin down now, that the Bible does not say the Earth is flat, and etc. My query was that, does not the Tower of Babel in fact, reinforce such an idea? The poster there did not think of that, I ken.
 
Last edited:

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Did you read my actual question?
Or are you still desperate to berate my obvious knowledge of the bible and it's many fatal flaws, via posts to which you feel compelled to respond with ad homs?
I did. That's what spurred me to say what I did. your "obvious knowledge" obviously doesn't extend to responsible exegesis. For if it did, you would quickly understand that these "flaws" are completely meaningless and don't diminish the truth of the metaphors one iota.
You seem to want to dismiss the bible because it contains factual flaws. This shows that you misunderstand the nature of the bible. Either that or you're really desperate to discredit Xy, based upon such a straw man.

You throw the "ad hom" flag, yet you're the one who blatantly called me an "idiot."
Can we say: "Double standard?" I think we can!
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
And just a quick preface: I've glossed over the page you actually meant me to find here [http://www.successandfailure.net/blog/tag/ravi-zacharias/], and holy crap, this is more awful than even I anticipated. Awful! Ravi's summation on the problem of evil is.. pretty bad.

If this page is the kind of apologist self-help scam artist thinking you enjoy reading and following as 'qualified' scholarship, wow, best of luck to you. In everything.
Crap, I thought you packed up your toys and left. I have very little interest in discussing anything with you at this time. However I will address a point. Your evaluation of DR Zacharias is very revealing. He is infinately more qualified than you are to address the issues of love, freewill, and objective morality. Your evaluation of his position says way more about you than him. He is one of not the most universally repected and admired philosophers alive. Both sides value his scholarship and no one doubts his sincerety or qualifications. He has a masters and two doctorates plus another doctorate in Law. He also has quite a few honorary doctorates. How many do you have? He has been invited to address the UN and several presidents. He has given closed door counsel to many countries highest officials including Russia's. He was a student of eastern philosophy and actually grew up in it only to realise it's incoherency. He has authored many best sellers as well as dozens of other works. How many you got? Only the greatest eggotism and arrogance would lead anyone to dismiss his claims and produce the delusional belief that someone lacking his education is qualified to meaningfully critique his impeccable grasp of philosophy. Many of the people we quote he has met. Many of the giants in his field look up to him, even enemies realise they should listen intently. Before you go for your illogical dismissal of my statements based on nothing but ineptitude realise there that there are only two men I have ever heard of that are this universally respected, Him and Billy Graham, (and perhaps mother Theresa). Dismiss all three and you will indeed have struck out.
 

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
Crap, I thought you packed up your toys and left. I have very little interest in discussing anything with you at this time. However I will address a point. Your evaluation of DR Zacharias is very revealing. He is infinately more qualified than you are to address the issues of love, freewill, and objective morality. Your evaluation of his position says way more about you than him. He is one of not the most universally repected and admired philosophers alive. Both sides value his scholarship and no one doubts his sincerety or qualifications. He has a masters and two doctorates plus another doctorate in Law. He also has quite a few honorary doctorates. How many do you have? He has been invited to address the UN and several presidents. He has given closed door counsel to many countries highest officials including Russia's. He was a student of eastern philosophy and actually grew up in it only to realise it's incoherency. He has authored many best sellers as well as dozens of other works. How many you got? Only the greatest eggotism and arrogance would lead anyone to dismiss his claims and produce the delusional belief that someone lacking his education is qualified to meaningfully critique his impeccable grasp of philosophy. Many of the people we quote he has met. Many of the giants in his field look up to him, even enemies realise they should listen intently. Before you go for your illogical dismissal of my statements based on nothing but ineptitude realise there that there are only two men I have ever heard of that are this universally respected, Him and Billy Graham, (and perhaps mother Theresa). Dismiss all three and you will indeed have struck out.
Me, leave? lol, I'll outlive you, as well.
In what way is he infinitely more qualified? I think I've asked this twice now. You are basically toadying to other undereducated pundits simply because they echo your sentiments, and you don't like me. I know, it must be galling to get owned by someone like me on a daily basis, but... life isn't here to make you happy.
Have you ever read some of the books on the Times' Bestseller list? It doesn't take much to get there; is Lyndsay Sands also infinitely more qualified? JK Rowling? Christopher Paolini?

I actually do have a novel written; merely not published. Does Zacharias have a logical fallacy coined, immortalizing him? I think not, especially since his writing appears to be riddled with them. :D And, by the way, Zacharias has no best sellers; what list of bestsellers do you believe it appears on?. It's not the Times. Please cite what book appeared as such. It's nice that he's written a number of books; he's got a lot of heinousness to make excuses for with your religion. However, and dare I say, there's another fallacy in appealing only to one author, without any real citation [the link you gave was a summary of a summary by another a"author", who makes even worse mistakes]. Besides, if we are creating some arbitrary hierarchy of 'who is qualified to make any statements on the Nature of Evil', then you are at the bottom of that continuum, and I am above you on it, since I also have a degree, am a registered minister, have a logical fallacy published, and have written a book. Therefore by your own logic [and I cringe to call it that], you must take my opinion as authoritative, Im afraid.

And in any case, I'll deal with Ravi's weak summation in due time.

Look, kid, you're just desperate to come up with any spurious concept to use as an excuse, because you have zero intelligent arguments to use to counter what's been said. "Somebody smart agrees with meeee!" is basically your only defense. That and massive, unfounded hyperbole.

lol, accusing me of ineptitude. That's pretty rich from you. Cry more into your giant pillow.

IN any case, our Ultimate Battle of Ultimate Destiny is derailing the thread. And we both know I'll win in the end.
 
Last edited:

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
I did. That's what spurred me to say what I did. your "obvious knowledge" obviously doesn't extend to responsible exegesis. For if it did, you would quickly understand that these "flaws" are completely meaningless and don't diminish the truth of the metaphors one iota.
You seem to want to dismiss the bible because it contains factual flaws. This shows that you misunderstand the nature of the bible. Either that or you're really desperate to discredit Xy, based upon such a straw man.

You throw the "ad hom" flag, yet you're the one who blatantly called me an "idiot."
Can we say: "Double standard?" I think we can!
Of course we can. I will use all your weak defenses against you; cry more if you don't like it. The idea of not 'sinking to anothers' level' is a cultural concept that has been drilled into us for a long time, and it reveals the 'white knight's weakness: foes know they will avoid doing the same despicable things back to them, and work that to advantage. Unfortunately for you I am not a white knight, and will sink as deep as you go, and in the end, do it better.

BTW, 'responsible exegesis' leads to whatever conclusions come from the text, even if it shows that text to be blatantly in moral error. The flaws are not meaningless, especially in a text with so many liars promoting it as an unquestionable moral basis, and who tend themselves to be the worst fiends. Pretending they are meaningless, shows your bias. It's not just factual flaws the bible contains. But, hey, try talking down it's flaws. Nothing it says matters, really, right? Especially when it says something questionable; especially then.

And speaking of your bias: I observe with a few chuckles that you never speak to Robin and correct him on all his false statements about the Bible being without error. Yet you admit them freely to me. Double standard much? Bias much? When will you correct him on all his hyperbole, when will you lay it down for a fellow believer that the bible is flawed, in tems of historicity and mere fact? How strange that you remain so silent in that regard.

Although, I must then also ponder: by 'responsible', do you actually mean, we higher thinkers must not expose the more morally corrupt concepts the book accidentally [or a-purpose] brings to light, to the awareness of those morally weak enough to act on such heinous ideas? Is that what you actually mean? Do you actually mean that the morally vapid must never be made aware of all the ugliness hidden [or in plain sight] in the text which purports to be from the God of the entire universe itself? Because such individuals would actually act upon these convoluted, fiendish moral examples themselves, with the unshakeable idea in their minds that, for example, the murder of millions can be justified by deific fiat?
Oh, I am afraid that that cat's been out of the bag for a loooong time already, much to the horror of all mankind.

Humorous note: you still never addressed the question, whose pondering you felt the need to barge in on, and which someone else asked of you. The answer probably frightens you, and im sure we'll hear 'it doesn't matter'.

Finally, a small semantic note: I did not call you an idiot to lessen some truth in your argument; I called you that, based on your argument. It was an observation after the fact, not as a method of argumentation. Therefore, not really an ad hom at all. ;) Cart before the horse, you see.
 
Last edited:

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
No, God could not just say 'thou art forgiven'. Forgiveness with God is not the same as forgiveness with man. With man, we forgive in that we overlook a wrong done. With God, every wrong must be judged and punished due to His righteouss character.

Well, back on topic. Here's a gem from a hundred pages back or so.

Dispensing with my argument from then, that this means it's not actually forgiveness, since it does not fit any such definition...

... God must judge and punish any transgression. Therefore, I wish to be more like God and so, I will judge and punish any and all transgressions, as I wish, in order to share God's righteousness. I choose not to simply forgive, in order to imitate God.

Am I a moral man in such a situation, or not?
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Well, back on topic. Here's a gem from a hundred pages back or so.

Dispensing with my argument from then, that this means it's not actually forgiveness, since it does not fit any such definition...

... God must judge and punish any transgression. Therefore, I wish to be more like God and so, I will judge and punish any and all transgressions, as I wish, in order to share God's righteousness. I choose not to simply forgive, in order to imitate God.

Am I a moral man in such a situation, or not?

You would have to share the mind and spirit of God...first.
Do His will as He would have you do.
(Lord's Prayer)
 

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
You would have to share the mind and spirit of God...first.
Do His will as He would have you do.
(Lord's Prayer)
Just because it's in the Lord's Prayer doesn't grant it any wisdom, nor truth.

And, no, I would not have to share the mind of God first. And I AM doing as he wills: I am punishing every wrong exactly as I wish, and simply forgiving-outright, none; this is exactly what he does.

Answer the question.
Am I a moral man for doing so, yea or nay?
 
Last edited:

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Just because it's in the Lord's Prayer doesn't grant it any wisdom, nor truth.

And, no, I would not have to share the mind of God first. And I AM doing as he wills: I am punishing every wrong exactly as I wish, and simply forgiving-outright, none; this is exactly what he does.

Answer the question.
Am I a moral man for doing so, yea or nay?

As you wish is not...God's will.

So nay...you are immoral.

And to say the Lord's Prayer lacks wisdom.........really?
 

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
It is God's will that I act like him, so it is God's will. I do not need to be God to know his will. False requirement, do not mention it again.

So! We have established that God's methods are not moral.

Nothing else needs be said! GOOD DAY SIR!
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
It is God's will that I act like him, so it is God's will. I do not need to be God to know his will. False requirement, do not mention it again.

So! We have established that God's methods are not moral.

Nothing else needs be said! GOOD DAY SIR!

Sounds like I'm discussing theology with a rock.

By all means, YOU go have a good day....(sir).
 
Last edited:

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Of course we can. I will use all your weak defenses against you; cry more if you don't like it. The idea of not 'sinking to anothers' level' is a cultural concept that has been drilled into us for a long time, and it reveals the 'white knight's weakness: foes know they will avoid doing the same despicable things back to them, and work that to advantage. Unfortunately for you I am not a white knight, and will sink as deep as you go, and in the end, do it better.

BTW, 'responsible exegesis' leads to whatever conclusions come from the text, even if it shows that text to be blatantly in moral error. The flaws are not meaningless, especially in a text with so many liars promoting it as an unquestionable moral basis, and who tend themselves to be the worst fiends. Pretending they are meaningless, shows your bias. It's not just factual flaws the bible contains. But, hey, try talking down it's flaws. Nothing it says matters, really, right? Especially when it says something questionable; especially then.

And speaking of your bias: I observe with a few chuckles that you never speak to Robin and correct him on all his false statements about the Bible being without error. Yet you admit them freely to me. Double standard much? Bias much? When will you correct him on all his hyperbole, when will you lay it down for a fellow believer that the bible is flawed, in tems of historicity and mere fact? How strange that you remain so silent in that regard.

Although, I must then also ponder: by 'responsible', do you actually mean, we higher thinkers must not expose the more morally corrupt concepts the book accidentally [or a-purpose] brings to light, to the awareness of those morally weak enough to act on such heinous ideas? Is that what you actually mean? Do you actually mean that the morally vapid must never be made aware of all the ugliness hidden [or in plain sight] in the text which purports to be from the God of the entire universe itself? Because such individuals would actually act upon these convoluted, fiendish moral examples themselves, with the unshakeable idea in their minds that, for example, the murder of millions can be justified by deific fiat?
Oh, I am afraid that that cat's been out of the bag for a loooong time already, much to the horror of all mankind.

Humorous note: you still never addressed the question, whose pondering you felt the need to barge in on, and which someone else asked of you. The answer probably frightens you, and im sure we'll hear 'it doesn't matter'.

Finally, a small semantic note: I did not call you an idiot to lessen some truth in your argument; I called you that, based on your argument. It was an observation after the fact, not as a method of argumentation. Therefore, not really an ad hom at all. ;) Cart before the horse, you see.
Humorous note: you have yet to answer my question to you. In the midst of your balloon-juice here, you have failed to provide a reasonable, coherent, intelligent, and theologically-sound argument why Jesus did not have to die for our sins.

So, Mr. I'm-wonderful-because-I-have-a-"published"-"fallacy"-and-an-unpublished-book-and-get-off-on-blowing-my-own-horn, can you answer the question, or are you simply going to bore us with more of your same self-stroking?
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
It is God's will that I act like him, so it is God's will. I do not need to be God to know his will. False requirement, do not mention it again.

So! We have established that God's methods are not moral.

Nothing else needs be said! GOOD DAY SIR!
Just because you say "that's how God behaves" does not mean it is true. On what do you base that assessment? How did you arrive at it? Is your assessment decidedly one-dimensional, based upon what you choose to read into one book? It certainly appears so.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
well no not really, because never created viruses as a form of punishment in the 1st place...
That's right. But that's not what was believed when the story was first authored. Since new information has come to light, the story has been reauthored to reflect that information. We author the story. And we author it based upon our understanding at the time. As we evolve, the stories must evolve.
think of the tower of babel...were they really going to see god (reach the heavens) at 10,000 feet to make a name for their self?
:no: they would have suffered from altitude sickness instead...didn't god know that would happen?
It's a metaphor, for pete's sake! A story. Imagery. Don't make it into something it's not, and then try to use it as valid argument. The issue in the story is humanity trying to cross the line to Divinity. It always happens. The issue is part of what it is to be human. The truth is there. The details change as our understanding grows. That's what it means to reauthor a story.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The idea of not 'sinking to anothers' level' is a cultural concept that has been drilled into us for a long time, and it reveals the 'white knight's weakness: foes know they will avoid doing the same despicable things back to them, and work that to advantage. Unfortunately for you I am not a white knight, and will sink as deep as you go, and in the end, do it better.
Point out one place in this post:
It's posts like this that make me think you're claim of biblical knowledge is waaaay overblown. You seem to intimate that the bible describing the earth as flat with the heavens directly above it presents some fatal flaw in Xy. Tell me I'm wrong.

In fact, Genesis describes the earth as a flat disc, and the sky as a rigid dome upon which are affixed the sun, moon, stars and other planets. So what?
In which an ad hominem was made. You're accusing yourself of sinking to a level to which I never went.
BTW, 'responsible exegesis' leads to whatever conclusions come from the text, even if it shows that text to be blatantly in moral error. The flaws are not meaningless, especially in a text with so many liars promoting it as an unquestionable moral basis, and who tend themselves to be the worst fiends.
That's right. But the factual flaws are only part of the total exegesis. To highlight them, ignoring the rest of the information, is not good exegesis. Your statement that:
The flaws are not meaningless, especially in a text with so many liars promoting it as an unquestionable moral basis, and who tend themselves to be the worst fiends.
shows that you are unwilling to exegete, according to the definition you just gave. Exegesis attaches no agenda to the outcome. You have an agenda. You want to "prove" that "the bible is unreliable." That would be "eisegesis."
Pretending they are meaningless, shows your bias. It's not just factual flaws the bible contains. But, hey, try talking down it's flaws. Nothing it says matters, really, right? Especially when it says something questionable; especially then.
They are meaningless in the establishment of theological truth. They're "static," so to speak, that have to be filtered.
And speaking of your bias: I observe with a few chuckles that you never speak to Robin and correct him on all his false statements about the Bible being without error.
Pot, meet Kettle (once again). Here's what you would answer, if I had posted the above statement:
"Waaaaaah! Why don't you pout and cry some more, Noob? I'm picking on you and no one else."

My debate is with you -- not with Robin. Yes, I feel that he's wrong on several points. I'll get around to him when -- and if -- I feel like it. You make the statement that:
Unfortunately for you I am not a white knight, and will sink as deep as you go, and in the end, do it better.
but yet you whine that I'm not being fair in my comments?
It's the classic "Pee-Wee" argument. (See, I can invent "fallacies" too, and "publish" them).
Why don't you just give up and whine: "I know you are, but what am I?"
Although, I must then also ponder: by 'responsible', do you actually mean, we higher thinkers must not expose the more morally corrupt concepts the book accidentally [or a-purpose] brings to light, to the awareness of those morally weak enough to act on such heinous ideas? Is that what you actually mean? Do you actually mean that the morally vapid must never be made aware of all the ugliness hidden [or in plain sight] in the text which purports to be from the God of the entire universe itself? Because such individuals would actually act upon these convoluted, fiendish moral examples themselves, with the unshakeable idea in their minds that, for example, the murder of millions can be justified by deific fiat?
Oh, I am afraid that that cat's been out of the bag for a loooong time already, much to the horror of all mankind.
Lies can only be brought to light through truth, not more lies. To say that "The God of Genesis is immoral, because he murdered a bunch of people," is a lie. It's just irresponsible exegesis. Responsible exegesis reveals that the story is a metaphor, pointing to the theological position that God always saves us. That's the truth of the story. It's told from the POV of the remnant -- those who have been systematically screwed by the establishment. The story cannot be properly understood from the position of the establishment. It must be understood from the position of the disenfranchised. Your "revealing of the 'flaws'" does no good.
Finally, a small semantic note: I did not call you an idiot to lessen some truth in your argument; I called you that, based on your argument. It was an observation after the fact, not as a method of argumentation. Therefore, not really an ad hom at all. ;) Cart before the horse, you see.
It's still name-calling, and against forum rules.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
That's right. But that's not what was believed when the story was first authored.
can you shed some light as to what was believed when these stories were first authored.
as if a sacrifice of some kind would settle the score...:rolleyes:

Since new information has come to light, the story has been reauthored to reflect that information. We author the story. And we author it based upon our understanding at the time. As we evolve, the stories must evolve.
we are not talking about since though, we are talking about what was understood then.
consider this was a time where the victim of rape had to marry her rapist...
what of the psychological implications of this act, is it not to perpetuate the idea that women are second class?

i started another thread
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru.../132622-what-understood-then-not-what-we.html


It's a metaphor, for pete's sake! A story. Imagery. Don't make it into something it's not, and then try to use it as valid argument. The issue in the story is humanity trying to cross the line to Divinity. It always happens. The issue is part of what it is to be human. The truth is there. The details change as our understanding grows. That's what it means to reauthor a story.
of course i use it as a metaphor silly!!
interestingly enough, that story is a metaphor for god NOT wanting mankind to work together...why not?
why perpetuate the idea of magnifying our differences...seems like that is countering xy
 
Last edited:
Top