Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[Heathen Hammer]

How about this one: "complete victory!" Known as "the Heathen Hammer Fallacy."

So, a spat wherein you throw a tantrum and demand someone answer your question, then fail utterly to do so yourself {on multiple occasions even}, could be the 'Sojourner failure'?

This was quite a thread!

 

[Thief]

So, a spat wherein you throw a tantrum and demand someone answer your question, then fail utterly to do so yourself {on multiple occasions even}, could be the 'Sojourner failure'?

This was quite a thread!

And have I not seen your demand for answers to your questions?
And have you not told me.....'good day...SIR!'

I didn't go back to check...but was it not this same thread?
(too many threads...so little time...)

 

[waitasec]

And have I not seen your demand for answers to your questions?
And have you not told me.....'good day...SIR!'

I didn't go back to check...but was it not this same thread?
(to many threads...so little time...)

hmmmm.


i'm still waiting for you to answer some of mine....


funny.

 

[Thief]

hmmmm.


i'm still waiting for you to answer some of mine....


funny.

Ask a question for the sake of learning.....
set aside your anticipation...
Ask for the sake of changing your mind....

You have claimed to be here....to learn.

 

[sojourner]

So, a spat wherein you throw a tantrum and demand someone answer your question, then fail utterly to do so yourself {on multiple occasions even}, could be the 'Sojourner failure'?

This was quite a thread!

Wrong. The "Sojourner Failure" would occur when I fail to ignore pesky, ineffectual gadflys. This post is an excellent example of that Failure.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

And have I not seen your demand for answers to your questions?
And have you not told me.....'good day...SIR!'

I didn't go back to check...but was it not this same thread?
(too many threads...so little time...)

Oh, I definitely have. But when I have, it was a situation where either I had already answered one of your questions, or was free and clear to answer one you would then ask.

This post is a jibe at those who demand answers, then fail to give them themselves.

The difference here is I don't shy from challenges. Alot of people here do, then strut around as if they have some kind of virtue in the face of their failures.
As an example, see the post just above this one.

 

[Thief]

Oh, I definitely have. But when I have, it was a situation where either I had already answered one of your questions, or was free and clear to answer one you would then ask.

This post is a jibe at those who demand answers, then fail to give them themselves.

The difference here is I don't shy from challenges. Alot of people here do, then strut around as if they have some kind of virtue in the face of their failures.
As an example, see the post just above this one.

That's not honest.....

All debate should focus to the topic.
When the questions stray so will the discussion.
What you complain of is the same technique...you use.

What you claim as demand of others to answer their questions....
is the same tactic you use.

Fact is....not all questions are worth answering.
I don't need a response from you to continue the topic.
Most often...I won't wait on you...or anyone else.
I don't need your response.

Virtue on your part?

So....did Jesus die for your sins?
Answer on demand?.....

 

[Heathen Hammer]

That's not honest.....

All debate should focus to the topic.
When the questions stray so will the discussion.
What you complain of is the same technique...you use.

What you claim as demand of others to answer their questions....
is the same tactic you use.

Fact is....not all questions are worth answering.
I don't need a response from you to continue the topic.
Most often...I won't wait on you...or anyone else.
I don't need your response.

Virtue on your part?

So....did Jesus die for your sins?
Answer on demand?.....

Im sorry but that's false.

I answered you the last time, and I'll repeat it here: No, he didn't die for my sins.

I don't 'need' anything from any of you. But...

If you stomp your foot like a child and demand an answer, while leaving a question put to you unanswered
that's not a virtuous manner.
It's at best, shameful cheating
at worst, well, words I can't put here.
There's a certain decorum among gentlemen
that many of you cannot muster.
A social contract
inferred and understood
many here cheat out of once they have what they demanded.
I'm simply pointing it out
and that enrages those who act that way.
Because the worst treatment for the dishonest
is loud exposure in public.

 

[sojourner]

There's a certain decorum among gentlemen
that many of you cannot muster.

...Including you.
Ever read Emily Post? A gentleman is humble.
Oops!! There's that ubiquitous Failure again!

 

[waitasec]

You have claimed to be here....to learn.

not you

 

[Heathen Hammer]

...Including you.
Ever read Emily Post? A gentleman is humble.
Oops!! There's that ubiquitous Failure again!

Emily Post?

Since you are one of the failures of quality I am discussing, your opinion matters little. But look at you prating along as if you have a moral leg to stand on.

I am talking of the gentleman's agreement, not behaving as a gentleman under all circumstances. That's one of the failures of Western Christian concepts of honor, actually; entrap the person into an inflexible framework which begins with a gentleness that cannot be gotten out of even in the face of dishonor.

the true, Northern European concept of it is superior: treat all you encounter with a beginning modicum of respect, then allow them to either earn it further, or to break the social contract by their deeds; with the latter you are free to destroy them in whatever manner is handy.

Since you were the one who acted the coward in the first place, you are no longer 'protected' as you would be, had you actual honor.

Was not answering questions honorable, when you yourself asked questions and got answers of those who asked the initial questions of you?

Are you going to man up and answer them at last?
I doubt it, and I've been right about you before. Essentially, a thief [no relation to the poster]cannot chide honest men about their dealings.

 

[sojourner]

Essentially, a thief [no relation to the poster]cannot chide honest men about their dealings.

Ah, but I have chided your dishonorable dealings. Guess I'm not a thief.

It seems that a man would be the proper person to judge another's manhood. Why are you judging mine?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Ah, but I have chided your dishonorable dealings. Guess I'm not a thief.
It seems that a man would be the proper person to judge another's manhood. Why are you judging mine?

You must be having a conversation here with a different person.
There are no dishonorable dealings in this thread which are mine. But it probably makes you feel better to say so.

Maybe we should abandon tearing at each other and get to the OP again, since your baseless one-upsmanship appears to have no end.

You finally answering those previous questions, would probably be a good start.

 

[Thief]

You must be having a conversation here with a different person.
There are no dishonorable dealings in this thread which are mine. But it probably makes you feel better to say so.

Maybe we should abandon tearing at each other and get to the OP again, since your baseless one-upsmanship appears to have no end.

You finally answering those previous questions, would probably be a good start.

Well....the two of us agree....the Carpenter did not die for our sins.

But for me...that does not rule out His salvation.
His parables are fair warning.
As such He has paved the way....pointed the proper direction.

As long as His parables are held as instruction and conviction...I'm good.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Thought that was already seen as-read.

 

[beerisit]

Well....the two us agree....the Carpenter did not die for our sins.

But for me...that does not rule out His salvation.
His parables are fair warning.
As such He has paved the way....pointed the proper direction.

As long as His parables are held as instruction and conviction...I'm good.

Well actually, you seem to be obsessed with fear. Ohhhhhhhhhh what will happen as you draw that final breath, who will be standing over you with a sword? Looks like fear is the factor controlling your life.

 

[roberto]

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

Study the "Sotah" if you want the answer.
Basically the Sotah is about a whoring wife.

 

[jasonwill2]

Maybe we should abandon tearing at each other and get to the OP again, since your baseless one-upsmanship appears to have no end.

In this theme I will try to bring it back:

Jebus didn't die for sins because there was no "sin" to begin with, and nothing wrong with humanity anyway. It's just one of many religions that seem to be at odds with reality and all sense of logic and decency.

What kind of god requires his son to be sacrificed so that "evil" people can be forgiven? THAT IS HUMAN SACRIFICE, and quite nasty at that. I don't get why Christianity actually preaches about a human sacrifice, and it is seen as socially acceptable. It's barbaric and violent, especially for a supposedly all-powerful god to not just require the blood of an animal to appease him, but the blood of a man, much more so his "only begotten son".

It's sick. Saying that a crucifixion of a man is an act of love is nothing more than insane. There is no honor or decency in the that kind of death, much less as an act of love, and even less that that kind of torture of a man supposedly innocent of crimes to begin with. Even in those days and that culture sacrificing people in the name of religion was seen as a horrific crime. And then consider the symbolism of "eating" his flesh and "drinking" his blood, that is even more sick and disgusting! It is the symbolism of cannibalism and the literal use of a human sacrifice that drives the "love" of the Christian god.

I REALLY want people to stand back and think about that, a human sacrifice, and the symbolism of being "washed in the blood of Christ" and the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his blood... think about it LONG AND HARD and then realize how much Christian missionaries and preachers have accused many a times of other religions and cultures of this, often falsely. Yes there were some headhunter tribes in India and Papa New Guinea, but for the most part the accusations are mostly unfounded.

What does this say about Christianity? The religion projects because they can't address the fact of how brutal and cannibalistic the basis of their faith is: the human sacrifice of an innocent man and the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood. Which of note, they are supposed to do every-time they have communion, which to some is when they eat, or just every Sunday.

 

[sojourner]

I agree with your sentiment, but not the details of your argument. While I don't believe in the substitutionary atonement, I do honor the self-sacrifice of Jesus. It was a noble thing for him to have done, in order to remain true to what he was teaching. It is an extraordinary act of love on his part.

As for human sinfulness, I don't ascribe much to Augustine, either. I seem to be more Pelagian in that respect. We are sinful, not because "we're created that way," but because it is something that we have chosen to cover ourselves in. The removal of that covering to allow the spark of Spirit to shine is the work that is ours to do.

Communion isn't "cannibalism," it's what it says it is: Communion -- the taking in of Christ as nourishment for our souls, much as we take in each other as nourishment, whenever we meet as friends.

 

[jasonwill2]

I agree with your sentiment, but not the details of your argument. While I don't believe in the substitutionary atonement, I do honor the self-sacrifice of Jesus. It was a noble thing for him to have done, in order to remain true to what he was teaching. It is an extraordinary act of love on his part.

As for human sinfulness, I don't ascribe much to Augustine, either. I seem to be more Pelagian in that respect. We are sinful, not because "we're created that way," but because it is something that we have chosen to cover ourselves in. The removal of that covering to allow the spark of Spirit to shine is the work that is ours to do.

Communion isn't "cannibalism," it's what it says it is: Communion -- the taking in of Christ as nourishment for our souls, much as we take in each other as nourishment, whenever we meet as friends.

First of all, Jesus didn't choose to be sacrificed, he did it because his father wanted him to.

Secondly, the symbolism of the cannibalism WITHIN communion is what I am objecting to, I understand that in (some) interpretations it doesn't literally become the flesh and blood.