Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[Orias]

Now that is the hieght of Satanic scholarship if I have ever seen it. Who can argue with such profound wisdom and theological understanding. Was this statement worth the time it took to type it?

That all depends on what you're trying to prove.

If its that humans can chose to believe what they want, then maybe it was well worth the time

Because what you're trying to prove is what you believe.

 

[jasonwill2]

That all depends on what you're trying to prove.

If its that humans can chose to believe what they want, then maybe it was well worth the time

Because what you're trying to prove is what you believe.

He is correct, it makes an excellent point that you are trying hard to prove your subjective beliefs.

Though I may add you try to make them sound objective, when in fact the cold-logical objective truth of the scientific method as well as much research into history has shown many of your claims to be false.

 

[1robin]

tell me,
where you brought up in the christian religion?

Do you guys go to the same seminars. You ask ask the same tired meaningless questions. I had a superficial upbringing in a very formal church for a few years which when my mother got sick and died I left and hated. I was as far from faith as any one can get. I didn't simply disbelieve, if God existed I hated him. I researched and rejected every major religion I could think of. I even retreated to faith in science and knowledge (what a waste) Until God began showed me some things that I could not argue with and after many years I realised how wrong I was. When I was born again (saved) I was in no church and was in no way influenced by anything but the bible and the Holy spirit.
Good luck turning my experience into something you can dismiss.

 

[1robin]

He is correct, it makes an excellent point that you are trying hard to prove your subjective beliefs.

Though I may add you try to make them sound objective, when in fact the cold-logical objective truth of the scientific method as well as much research into history has shown many of your claims to be false.

How would you go about proving your faith is objective by empirical methods? It's fun and easy to be on the critics side.

 

[1robin]

No, the burden of proof is on you to prove your Bible.

In argumentative logic the one who makes a claim to knowledge has the burden of proof. You claim to know that his statement is true then you have the burden of proof.

You could start here, for one:

I have no need of any help. What question are these sites an answer to.

An Index to Creationist Claims

Historical criticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[1robin]

it's actually spelled this way
ridiculous
no facts whatsoever is right...
faith =/= fact didn't you know?

Nice appeal to diversion. If I pointed out all the misspellings I find it would never end. I felt it more honorable and less hypocritical to ignore them. I see you are not encumbered by such notions. Vast parts of the bible are verifiable and have been and have always proven reliable. However the most critical supernatural claims are not verifiable until a person is born again, at least for some. That is why I do not make assertions that it is a provable claim. It is likely but not proven. Many of the most profound accepted realities today are no more scientifically verifiable than God. In fact all science assumes (faith) in the rationality of the universe.

 

[jasonwill2]

Do you guys go to the same seminars. You ask ask the same tired meaningless questions. I had a superficial upbringing in a very formal church for a few years which when my mother got sick and died I left and hated. I was as far from faith as any one can get. I didn't simply disbelieve, if God existed I hated him. I researched and rejected every major religion I could think of. I even retreated to faith in science and knowledge (what a waste) Until God began showed me some things that I could not argue with and after many years I realised how wrong I was. When I was born again (saved) I was in no church and was in no way influenced by anything but the bible and the Holy spirit.
Good luck turning my experience into something you can dismiss.

dont got to seminars, that tells you what to think. i do my own research.

How would you go about proving your faith is objective by empirical methods? It's fun and easy to be on the critics side.

no you claim the bible was true then i say its false due to lack of evidence, its up to you to support your original claim, not up to me to disprove your claim. I was pointing out a lack of evidence. Im the skeptic and its up to you to prove your position not me to prove my disbelief.

In argumentative logic the one who makes a claim to knowledge has the burden of proof. You claim to know that his statement is true then you have the burden of proof.

No I claimed to that his statement was true that you have no position, it all goes to your original claim.

Also those links tell you what it's too, an index of creationists claims with refuting arguments and evidence, and an article on higher criticism and in there it specifically talks about the Christian Bible

 

[1robin]

That all depends on what you're trying to prove.

If its that humans can chose to believe what they want, then maybe it was well worth the time

Because what you're trying to prove is what you believe.

The bible consists of objective matter arranged into words. Someone may draw a subjective meaning from it but that has no effect on it's objectivity. For example the bible contains the word Jesus and that is an absolute objective fact. Any meaning assigned to that name may or may not be objective truth. If you had said that the meanings people find are not necessarily objective truth I would have agreed. In fact Christian doctrine has objective meaning even if it isn't true. A subjective opinion does not effect the objective intent of a verse even if it was found to be objectively incorrect it still objectively exists. The fact the bible claims murder is wrong is an objective truth even if someone thinks it says murder is good or even if it isn't ultimately true.

 

[Orias]

1robin what exactly is your point here?

Your ceaseless endeavor has led me to believe that you are trying to make your subjective perspective an objective law.

Which if I am correct in my knowledge of the bible is a sin, since you possess no authority over objective law.

 

[Orias]

The bible consists of objective matter arranged into words. Someone may draw a subjective meaning from it but that has no effect on it's objectivity. For example the bible contains the word Jesus and that is an absolute objective fact. Any meaning assigned to that name may or may not be objective truth. If you had said that the meanings people find are not necessarily objective truth I would have agreed. In fact Christian doctrine has objective meaning even if it isn't true. A subjective opinion does not effect the objective intent of a verse even if it was found to be objectively incorrect it still objectively exists. The fact the bible claims murder is wrong is an objective truth even if someone thinks it says murder is good or even if it isn't ultimately true.

None of this applies to the subjective reality though.

It may be a fact that the bible says murder is wrong, but that does not objectify murder as being wrong as a truth.

Murder is subjective, intent of self and of suspect is all a matter of emotion and a combination of knowledge.

You would of been better off saying that perception itself is objective. But to know why requires a little more abstract and perhaps oppositional thought.

Since this entire paragraph you provided me with supposes nothing more than "the bible is objectively true" while providing falsifying details that are tangible by human hands.

 

[CMike]

If he was faithful to G-D he wouldn't "make himself" a divine entity.

Also, he was caught, arrested, and executed. He didn't kill himself.

You, and you alone, are responsible for your sins.

Huh? Which one of those Hiroshima suffers were put to death because of their faithfulness to God ?

Job proved Satan a liar by remaining faithful to God under adverse conditions.
Jesus proved Satan the liar by remaining faithful to God in the face of death.
Some people say Jesus had one bad day and we know others have suffered for years. Often those suffers can not walk away from their suffering.
Unlike those suffers Jesus could have left [walked away] anytime he chose.

Death is the wage or price for our sins according to Romans 6 vs 23,7
But, we being sinful can not resurrect oneself or another.
We need someone who can do that for us.
Because sinless Jesus died faithful to God then Jesus was given the keys to unlock death for us. [ Revelation 1 v 18]
Without Jesus ransom for us [Matthew 20 v 28] the people or Hiroshima, etc. would not have a resurrection back to life.

 

[CMike]

The true jewish martyrs are the ones who professed G-D's greatness when burned at the stake or tortured.

I don't recall any of them whinning to G-D why they were forsaken, like jesus did.

Also, if he supposedly sacrificed himself for sins he wouldn't complain to G-D that he was forsaken.

Better yet which one of those survivors wished a nuclear bomb be dropped on their head?

Which Jesus, knowing the consequences, chose to believe in what he did while openly admitting it?

 

[Orias]

He was arrested knowing the consequences, he practiced knowing he would be arrested.

I am not responsible for actions I did not will, though I am responsible for the sins I have created and so is...man.

 

[CMike]

Very sweet that he knew the consequences of being arrested. However, he didn't surrender.

He also was whinning about being forsarken. Hardly, the traits of a true jewish martyr, who were tortured and killed because they didn't convert to christianity or for being made to forsake their G-D.

He was arrested knowing the consequences, he practiced knowing he would be arrested.

I am not responsible for actions I did not will, though I am responsible for the sins I have created and so is...man.

 

[waitasec]

Do you guys go to the same seminars. You ask ask the same tired meaningless questions. I had a superficial upbringing in a very formal church for a few years which when my mother got sick and died I left and hated. I was as far from faith as any one can get. I didn't simply disbelieve, if God existed I hated him. I researched and rejected every major religion I could think of. I even retreated to faith in science and knowledge (what a waste) Until God began showed me some things that I could not argue with and after many years I realised how wrong I was. When I was born again (saved) I was in no church and was in no way influenced by anything but the bible and the Holy spirit.
Good luck turning my experience into something you can dismiss.

when you were little, did you buy into the whole heaven and hell idea?

 

[1robin]

dont got to seminars, that tells you what to think. i do my own research.

I sure do seem to get the same irrelevant questions over and over. My comment was not directed at satanists in particular but rather non-Abrahamic religous types in general.

no you claim the bible was true then i say its false due to lack of evidence, its up to you to support your original claim, not up to me to disprove your claim. I was pointing out a lack of evidence. Im the skeptic and its up to you to prove your position not me to prove my disbelief.

No, you said that the other satanists claim was true, it is your burden. If you find a statement that I made that the bible is a proven fact then post it and I will respond. I have repeatedly claimed it is not a proven fact. Here is some of my original statements.
Yours. You can claim you don't have any sin if that makes you feel better. You can also claim the pyramid of Cheops is made of marshmellows if you want. If God is who he said he is your opinion on the matter will be less than useless.
International Standard Version (©2008)
If we say that we do not have any sin, we are deceiving ourselves and we're not being truthful to ourselves.
That is pretty funny. However the only issue is, is the bible true. If so then all the implications inevitably follow. Since the bible contains thousands of prophecies, tens of thousands of accurate historical, scientific, and philisophical facts and since even some of it's most supernatural claims were witnessed by hundreds, and that it has by far the most reliable textual record of any ancient document then it is a reasonable conclusion that it is true.

Also those links tell you what it's too, an index of creationists claims with refuting arguments and evidence, and an article on higher criticism and in there it specifically talks about the Christian Bible

I do not care what Christians claim. The bible does not strictly imply the absence of evolution. Even though evolution has serious problems. There are a vast number of Christians who insist that Genesis allows for evolution. IMO it's not a clearcut case either way. Regardless the bible is in no way proven false even If macro-evolution could be proven factual.
Genesis is very generic and general in it's claims and leaves lots of room for all kinds of interpretations. So you still have provided no evidence the bible is false.
There are many Christian sites that give very detailed descriptions of evolution in the scriptures. I have no set position on the subject.

 

[waitasec]

However the most critical supernatural claims are not verifiable until a person is born again

nuff said.


so what was that criteria again, i think i missed that.

 

[1robin]

Robin can i ask do you belief that a Soul/Spirit can die? If you don't then Jesus(p) actually never died won't you agree?

And what about the verses that say each person should be hold responsible for hes action/sin or misdoings?

That is a good question F0uad. I do not know for sure. I know of a verse that suggests God can destroy a soul but what that means I don't know. As this relates to Christ, the bible does not say specifically but I would not think his soul died. Are you suggesting that islam allows for his body to die but not the soul. I would agree with that but I have seen an evolution in what muslims believe about this subject. When I first heard it, it was said they substituted someone for Jesus, then I heard that he just was knocked out or unconcious, are you telling me that these days they allow his body to be killed. I have never heard an Islamic scholar adopt this position. It is a very interesting issue. Good job. Since the bible and the quran both believe humans DIE and that their soul lives on then your point about Christ not dieing is incorrect I think.

I would prefer to answer your last question after I have addressed the rest of your list. I don't want to get sidetracked. Just remind me if I forget, it is an important question.

 

[jasonwill2]

So you still have provided no evidence the bible is false.
There are many Christian sites that give very detailed descriptions of evolution in the scriptures. I have no set position on the subject.

If you follow the genology from Adam to Jesus it gives you an Earth 6,000is years old when you add 2,000 years.

Science has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

Bible dis-proven in at least once place then, and I got plenty more.

 

[1robin]

1robin what exactly is your point here?

Your ceaseless endeavor has led me to believe that you are trying to make your subjective perspective an objective law.

Which if I am correct in my knowledge of the bible is a sin, since you possess no authority over objective law.

I do not claim my faith is an accepted objective reality. My claim is that if the bible is true then God and his standards are objectively true. The only issue is whether the bible is accurate or not, the implications are absolute and irrevocable if it is true. Belief or disbelief has no effect on it's objective reality. Faith is a subjectively percieved reality in effect but an objective truth in nature if true. In short if true then objective.