• 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?

1robin

1robin

Christian/Baptist
beerisit said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is the greatest example of God's love that is even imaginable. It is also the ultimate expression of his nature.
 
Heathen Hammer

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
sojourner said:
...Not.

I win.
Click to expand...
Winners answer questions. Losers don't.
Heathen Hammer said:
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 :D
I'm sure, not the last.

Final note: you still haven't answered the question.
Click to expand...
That's a distant second.
 
1robin

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Heathen Hammer said:
I weep because there are no more worlds to conquer!
Click to expand...
You should weep instead for the absence of any you have conquored as well. You give a new meaning to word "Hubris". I have logical fallacy for you. It's a good one and since you covet them so, you can take credit for it if I can name it. It's the fallacy of attributing the responsability for an action taken by a person that belongs to a group, to that group even though the act is actually in oposition to that groups teachings. For example if I said that Stephen Hawkins sucks because a student of his thinks the moon is made out of sawdust. Or if you said that Christianity sucks because Hitler possibly claimed to be a Christian and killed Jews as fast as he could. Now that's a fallacy.
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
1robin said:
You should weep instead for the absence of any you have conquored as well. You give a new meaning to word "Hubris". I have logical fallacy for you. It's a good one and since you covet them so, you can take credit for it if I can name it. It's the fallacy of attributing the responsability for an action taken by a person that belongs to a group, to that group even though the act is actually in oposition to that groups teachings. For example if I said that Stephen Hawkins sucks because a student of his thinks the moon is made out of sawdust. Or if you said that Christianity sucks because Hitler possibly claimed to be a Christian and killed Jews as fast as he could. Now that's a fallacy.
Click to expand...
How about this one: "complete victory!" Known as "the Heathen Hammer Fallacy."
 
1robin

1robin

Christian/Baptist
waitasec said:
:facepalm:
Click to expand...
Waitsec, you just don't seem to have a grasp on morality issues. A very common version of theoretical atheistic morality is comunal morality. It is rule by majority. A societies accepted morality even if they are cannibles are excepted as the moral law. If a rebel outside those standards acts contrary to them, he by definition is considered immoral by that school of thought (or lack of). So Jesus and MLK would have been considered rebelious immoral outsiders in their times.
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
1robin said:
Waitsec, you just don't seem to have a grasp on morality issues. A very common version of theoretical atheistic morality is comunal morality. It is rule by majority. A societies accepted morality even if they are cannibles are excepted as the moral law. If a rebel outside those standards acts contrary to them, he by definition is considered immoral by that school of thought (or lack of). So Jesus and MLK would have been considered rebelious immoral outsiders in their times.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...
Jesus was arrested, tried in a kangaroo court and executed.
MLK was arrested, put in jail unfairly, and murdered.

All because of what they preached.
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
1robin said:
Not bad, maybe we can get published in the universally esteemed Urban dictionary like he did. If we can only dream that high.
Click to expand...
Dare we? It would be like building the tower of Babel! Surely an exercise in futility for us to attempt to cross that line between mortality and Deity. Surely only a few very special people can dare to touch the sky. They all seem to go insane.:help:
 
B

beerisit

Active Member
1robin said:
Waitsec, you just don't seem to have a grasp on morality issues. A very common version of theoretical atheistic morality is comunal morality. It is rule by majority. A societies accepted morality even if they are cannibles are excepted as the moral law. If a rebel outside those standards acts contrary to them, he by definition is considered immoral by that school of thought (or lack of). So Jesus and MLK would have been considered rebelious immoral outsiders in their times.
Click to expand...
A very common version of a non existent event has it that Noah's flood actually happened. Oh I get it, neither is true.
 
waitasec

waitasec

Veteran Member
1robin said:
Waitsec, you just don't seem to have a grasp on morality issues. A very common version of theoretical atheistic morality is comunal morality. It is rule by majority. A societies accepted morality even if they are cannibles are excepted as the moral law. If a rebel outside those standards acts contrary to them, he by definition is considered immoral by that school of thought (or lack of). So Jesus and MLK would have been considered rebelious immoral outsiders in their times.
Click to expand...

the irony.


now that is entertainment.
:biglaugh:
 
Heathen Hammer

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
1robin said:
You should weep instead for the absence of any you have conquored as well. You give a new meaning to word "Hubris". I have logical fallacy for you. It's a good one and since you covet them so, you can take credit for it if I can name it. It's the fallacy of attributing the responsability for an action taken by a person that belongs to a group, to that group even though the act is actually in oposition to that groups teachings. For example if I said that Stephen Hawkins sucks because a student of his thinks the moon is made out of sawdust. Or if you said that Christianity sucks because Hitler possibly claimed to be a Christian and killed Jews as fast as he could. Now that's a fallacy.
Click to expand...
Well, it was a fallacy, but it's already known: strawman. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top