Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[Heathen Hammer]

No, because he's using "the number of dead" as a yardstick for making the judgment of "good/bad." The text, however, doesn't approach it from that angle. the text approaches it from the angle of degree of evil.

In other words, HH's argument is that God isn't justified, due to the sheer number of people dead. The text's argument is that the people had become so evil that the level of evilness justified the number of dead.

It represents an inconsistent comparison.

What percentage of the population were women, children, and elderlies?

And address the death of all animals.

They were all irretrievably evil?

Good luck showing us a rational proof of that.

BTW - 'sheer number of dead' isn't sufficient an issue for you? Wow. Go go religion of 'all life is sacred'!

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Basically, this couldn't have gone much better for me. To the others: I enjoy entertaining you.

 

[sojourner]

What percentage of the population were women, children, and elderlies?

They were all irretrievably evil?

Good luck showing us a rational proof of that.

BTW - 'sheer number of dead' isn't sufficient an issue for you? Wow. Go go religion of 'all life is sacred'!

Contextomy. Yet another fallacy.
The only source for the flood narrative is the Bible. It clearly states that humanity was so evil, that "God was sorry he had created humanity." I'd say that's pretty good evidence that all were "irretrievably evil."
This could also be an example of Historian's fallacy.

Since the story is metaphor, it can't be treated in the way a factual occurrence is treated. That also represents a fallacy.

"Sheer number of dead" obviously wasn't a problem for the creator(s) of the mythic account. Why is it for you? It's an ancient, not a modern story.

For one who "published a fallacy," you seem woefully unaware that you constantly use them.

Too bad.

 

[sojourner]

Basically, this couldn't have gone much better for me. To the others: I enjoy entertaining you.

A last, desperate gasp to pretend that you've saved face.

I shall enjoy watching the top of your head disappear beneath the waves, as we hear a final, pitiful, "Counselor!..." gurgling from the whitecaps.

 

[sojourner]

As a courtesy, please outline the definition of each of those fallacies.

As I did.

They're available to all on Wikipedia.

Here:
List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Buh-bye, now!
Thanks for playing!
We have some lovely parting gifts for you, including the home version of our game. Turn toward the webcam and tell the audience: "I am not smarter than a pig farmer!"

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Inconsistent comparison.
Fallacy.

Several problems here:
1) (Yet again) Inconsistent comparison. Your use of the term "bad" is different from mine. In what way is it different??
2) historian's fallacy. you're assuming that the way you look at the problem is the way the authors looked at the problem. No. I specified several times that the contents are not meant o be fully examined, but only to spin God as good.
3) Continuum fallacy. You're improperly rejecting my claim as being imprecise.
In what way is my rejection improper?
4) Psychologist's fallacy. You're supposing your own objectivity, when, clearly, you're biased.
Where was I presupposing objectivity? Please quote the spot.
5) Misleading vividness. Overdramatizing the flood story to show that there's a moral problem. How is the ratio of millions-to-one an hyperbole?
6) Begging the question. You're assuming a conclusion in your (faulty) premise.
I have shown several times that the conclusion comes from the respectively sites scripture. You cannot pretend to not know this. 'Cart before the horse'..

Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
In what way is the assertion 'improper'?
Straw man.

Illicit major.

With regard to the rest of your post:

You're actually beginning to rant. I can almost see the little bubble of foam at the corner of your mouth. Excellent!
You're so predictable.
You're so dreadfully desperate. Wow.

Your whole argument is one giant, fallacial zit, filled with the pus of B.S.
and you know it.

ccccccccccccccc

 

[sojourner]

ccccccccccccccc

In what way is it different??
No. I specified several times that the contents are not meant o be fully examined, but only to spin God as good.
In what way is my rejection improper?
Where was I presupposing objectivity? Please quote the spot.
How is the ratio of millions-to-one an hyperbole?
I have shown several times that the conclusion comes from the respectively sites scripture. You cannot pretend to not know this. 'Cart before the horse'..

In what way is the assertion 'improper'?

You're so dreadfully desperate. Wow.

**Sound of furious scrabbling of fingernails on gravel**

"Aieeeeeeeee........."











**Splat!**


**vision of mushroom cloud at bottom**

 

[sojourner]

No one thinks your "Acme Reasonable Arguments" are reasonable. Or arguments.
They're just...

Acme.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Well, they seem to leave you stymied. You were simply throwing out meaningless fallacy references; you can't actually explain how I was performing them. Once again, mere contrariness. As an example your claim of Historian's fallacies were totally off the mark. I'd pointed out multiple times that the author's meaning is irrelevant, as it's a spin document; the point is what the text implies in total. Which, as can be easily seen, is the dehumanization of nonbelievers and the justification of their slaughter in the millions. And someone never speaks about the animals, either....
Once again you have been given the opportunity to display your prowess, and instead, you shy away, and this time, what... start role playing?
Not answering questions seems to be your strong point.
Go on with your bad self!

 

[Thief]

Closing arguments anyone?

And are we getting any closer to a consensus?
This far into it, reiteration may be the only way to go.

Jesus did not die for our sins.
He died for cause of false accusation.
He was not king of the Jews.

Savior?....yeah....His teachings are the correction to the sins of Man.

We did this part days ago.
But we can do it again if anyone wants to.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Jesus did not die for our sins.
He died for cause of false accusation.
He was not king of the Jews..

I consense with you on these pernts.

Case dismissed.

 

[Thief]

I consense with you on these pernts.

Case dismissed.

Dismiss the teachings of the Carpenter?
Then it is true...He did not die for you.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

It is true.
He did not die for anyone.
I am included in the group 'anyone'.

 

[sojourner]

Well, they seem to leave you stymied. You were simply throwing out meaningless fallacy references; you can't actually explain how I was performing them. Once again, mere contrariness. As an example your claim of Historian's fallacies were totally off the mark. I'd pointed out multiple times that the author's meaning is irrelevant, as it's a spin document; the point is what the text implies in total. Which, as can be easily seen, is the dehumanization of nonbelievers and the justification of their slaughter in the millions. And someone never speaks about the animals, either....
Once again you have been given the opportunity to display your prowess, and instead, you shy away, and this time, what... start role playing?
Not answering questions seems to be your strong point.
Go on with your bad self!

HOW CAN THE AUTHOR'S MEANING BE IRRELEVANT?! THAT'S THE STORY'S MEANING!
You have simply changed that meaning from an obvious hyperbole (that God would destroy all but a remnant is ridiculous, and is a literary device to emphasize just how naughty humanity had become)to a literal reporting of fact (a stance not borne out by the literary genre).
The "spin" is to communicate that, even in the midst of great chaos, upheaval, and death (brought about -- not by a petulant God, but by sin and evil [which you've gotten twisted 180 degrees]), God saves those who remain true to God.
If you don't get that, then you don't get the story (which, apparently, even a cave man can understand). To put any kind of a different spin on it (especially by saying that the author's meaning is irrelevant) is to commit Historian's fallacy.

I understand your apparent horror and revulsion at the violence. But remember, the story is a-n-c-i-e-n-t. Their sensibilities and cultural understandings were not the same as ours. We might use different imagery to make our point. But the story has been written down and we don't get to change it. We just have to deal with it best we can.

You choose, apparently, to deal with it by dismissing the whole kit and kaboodle, simply because you don't like their imagery (Another logical fallacy).

Methinks you've been whacked on the frontal lobe too many times with Odin's hammer...

 

[1robin]

God is all powerful, why make a man just to die to save everyone when he could just do it by thinking it happening?

Because he chose to. Your theology is all screwed up. God didn't create Jesus.

Yes, I know I will get a lot of comments saying "Jesus is no man! He is God!" Well, technically isn't he a demigod? Half man half God? And even if you don't consider him to be, it just made people suffer from sadness, especially Mary the mother of Jesus.

This is highly innacurate. He was all man and all God.

I SURE DO HOPE HE HAD TO DIE FOR OUR SINS, BECAUSE WE ALL HAVE THEM AND CAN'T GET RID OF THEM OURSELVES. ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING HE DID AND ALL.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

HOW CAN THE AUTHOR'S MEANING BE IRRELEVANT?! THAT'S THE STORY'S MEANING!
You have simply changed that meaning from an obvious hyperbole (that God would destroy all but a remnant is ridiculous, and is a literary device to emphasize just how naughty humanity had become)to a literal reporting of fact (a stance not borne out by the literary genre).

Um, but God did destroy all but a remnant.

The "spin" is to communicate that, even in the midst of great chaos, upheaval, and death (brought about -- not by a petulant God, but by sin and evil [which you've gotten twisted 180 degrees]),

Lol... so it wasn't God who made the magical Flood?
OK, man.
Man's sin and evil don't cause spontaneous natural disasters.

God saves those who remain true to God.

And kills everyone else... plus the animals.

If you don't get that, then you don't get the story (which, apparently, even a cave man can understand). To put any kind of a different spin on it (especially by saying that the author's meaning is irrelevant) is to commit Historian's fallacy.

I'm sorry you're so confused.

I understand your apparent horror and revulsion at the violence. But remember, the story is a-n-c-i-e-n-t. Their sensibilities and cultural understandings were not the same as ours. We might use different imagery to make our point. But the story has been written down and we don't get to change it. We just have to deal with it best we can.

And the best we can is to show how it's immoral by modern.. heck even sensible, standards. Which I have done. And, it's also best to decry those who think the moral lesson in it, is ok.

That has always been what I am clearly communicating. Am I or have I, decried the ancient Jews for thinking of this positively? No, never. I have always decried you modern people who do. Not because these ancient Jews should have looked at it as we do.

It's because you should look at it as we do, in a modern moral context, and see how ******* evil it really is. Your moral depravity is the issue. Theirs never enters thr picture.. except as a dodge by you, that is.

And there's no fallacy for you to use to cover up the modern moral depravity of those who accept it in this regard.

You choose, apparently, to deal with it by dismissing the whole kit and kaboodle, simply because you don't like their imagery (Another logical fallacy).

And this is a strawman, another logical fallacy.

Methinks you've been whacked on the frontal lobe too many times with Odin's hammer...

Odin has a spear; Thor has the hammer.
Not the first mistake you've made in terms of religion and history
I'm sure, not the last.

Final note: you still haven't answered the question.

 

[beerisit]

God is all powerful, why make a man just to die to save everyone when he could just do it by thinking it happening?

You may have noticed that this question is very rarely answered but if it is it usually entails god not impinging on humanities free will, of course the simple fact that he never asked humanity if they wished to accept this atrocity as redemption for their souls is in itself a gross impingement of free will, just another argument that doesn't work.

 

[beerisit]

justification for Adams wrongdoing required it. What God did was give mankind a new father who was exactly like Adam, human and perfect, so that mankind can choose to either keep their imperfect father Adam by following Adams example, or choose to follow the example of Jesus and become children of Jesus, a perfect sinless man thus putting themselves in line for being viewed as perfect and sinless so that death can be done away with.

1Cor 15:21 For since death is through a man, resurrection of the dead is also through a man. 22 For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive

If Adam remained sinless, he would not have died and nor would his children. Because Jesus did remain sinless, those who want to be his children can have life. This is how God legally establishes redemption for Adams children.

Jesus was sinless but death is the wage of sin, if he was sinless then he could not die. If you look at a woman with lust you have committed adultery. Therefore merely thinking about temptation is a sin, therefore again Jesus wasn't sinless.

 

[Thief]

It is true.
He did not die for anyone.
I am included in the group 'anyone'.

He did however die..... to have His teachings take hold.
And it is in those teachings that sin is taken away.

 

[sojourner]

Um, but God did destroy all but a remnant.

Lol... so it wasn't God who made the magical Flood?
OK, man.
Man's sin and evil don't cause spontaneous natural disasters.

And kills everyone else... plus the animals.

I'm sorry you're so confused.


And the best we can is to show how it's immoral by modern.. heck even sensible, standards. Which I have done. And, it's also best to decry those who think the moral lesson in it, is ok.

That has always been what I am clearly communicating. Am I or have I, decried the ancient Jews for thinking of this positively? No, never. I have always decried you modern people who do. Not because these ancient Jews should have looked at it as we do.

It's because you should look at it as we do, in a modern moral context, and see how ******* evil it really is. Your moral depravity is the issue. Theirs never enters thr picture.. except as a dodge by you, that is.

And there's no fallacy for you to use to cover up the modern moral depravity of those who accept it in this regard.

And this is a strawman, another logical fallacy.


Odin has a spear; Thor has the hammer.
Not the first mistake you've made in terms of religion and history
I'm sure, not the last.

Final note: you still haven't answered the question.

Ya crack me up, buddy! Ya really do!
Y'all have a great day.