Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[Orias]

Alright that clears a little up.

I wouldn't necessarily question the accuracy of the bible but the person determining what accuracy is and how accurate it is.

 

[jasonwill2]

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.

The Bible was just written by some men writing traditions down ,as far as the old testament. the new testament was fabricated

 

[1robin]

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.

If true then it's standards are absolute and objective. The issue is truth not the objective nature if true.

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

The term Murder implies a lack of justification. Even if a court can't figure the justifications seffeciency then an oniscient God sure can at the final judgement. Again the only relevant issue is Gods reality.

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.

I don't think that is better even though my statement was far from perfect. If the bible is truly devine then it's claims are absolute and objective regardless if anyone believes in them or can interpret them correctly. Again the only issue is authenticity. My point is that a persons subjective interpretation if inconsistent with the bible is not a reflection on the bibles objective nature if true.

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.

It was my attempt to seperate the individuals subjective understanding from the bibles objective intent and claim if true. The only relevant issue again is whether it is true.

 

[waitasec]

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.

even though

If I claim to be a Christian then that means faith in the bible is necessary even if it's wrong.

what can make a person say such a thing?

 

[1robin]

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

I can't remember caring about it one way or the other too much. I was far more interested in little league or my female neibor. I remeber getting whipped for ignoring the minister and telling jokes to my cousin during communion. I suppose there had to be some superficial knowledge of these matters. However my later hatred and rejection of God and whatever he stood for was way more profound and powerful than any superficial knowledge I may have had. I really wish you would hurry up and find whatever loop hole it is that you will use to initiate your unjustified dismissal of my faith so we can get to another completely meaningless list of questions.

 

[waitasec]

I can't remember caring about it one way or the other too much. I was far more interested in little league or my female neibor. I remeber getting whipped for ignoring the minister and telling jokes to my cousin during communion. I suppose there had to be some superficial knowledge of these matters. However my later hatred and rejection of God and whatever he stood for was way more profound and powerful than any superficial knowledge I may have had. I really wish you would hurry up and find whatever loop hole it is that you will use to initiate your unjustified dismissal of my faith so we can get to another completely meaningless list of questions.

yet you bought into a superficial understanding of the afterlife

 

[1robin]

Originally Posted by 1robin
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.

even though

Originally Posted by 1robin
If I claim to be a Christian then that means faith in the bible is necessary even if it's wrong.

what can make a person say such a thing?
what can make a person say such a thing?

I don't think I have ever seen you make a point of substance anywhere in this forum. Your tactic seems to lie in deliberately missundertanding other's points and asking unproductive questions until you can make an inaccurate assertion that allows you to maintain your comfort zone.

My statements were completely logical and true. I acknowledged that while my faith asserts it's own objective reality this is not an universally accepted reality. That has absolutely no effect on whether it is an objective reality. If I claim to be a Christian then that necessarily means I believe in the bible. If I didn't I wouldn't be a Christian. I also said that the belief has the possability of being incorrect. I stated two simple and logical facts. The second one being an honest admission that in no way is inconsistent with my other statements. I wish you would be this honest and reasonable.

 

[waitasec]

I don't think I have ever seen you make a point of substance anywhere in this forum.

your the one who says you can't back up your claims with evidence

 

[1robin]

The Bible was just written by some men writing traditions down ,as far as the old testament. the new testament was fabricated

Are you nuts? You are making an unproven and illogical statement right after we discussed the burden of proof. Thanks for proving my point. You just made a claim to knowledge so prove it. Good luck because your claim doesn't even make any sense without haveing to prove it.

 

[waitasec]

Are you nuts? You are making an unproven and illogical statement right after we discussed the burden of proof. Thanks for proving my point. You just made a claim to knowledge so prove it. Good luck because your claim doesn't even make any sense without haveing to prove it.

by what criteria do you determine the bible is the word of god?
i keep missing that part.

 

[1robin]

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.

I am growing tired of replying to simplistic unresearched assertions. I do not claim a position on this particular subject. However there are vast numbers of sites that easily prove what you said is unbiblical. If you actually care about accurately reflecting what Christians believe on the subject there are plenty of actual experts at sites that can give detailed lessons on the subject. Just off the top of my head you are assuming a day in genesis is a 24 hour day instead of a long undetermined span. Check out some sites and try again.

 

[1robin]

yet you bought into a superficial understanding of the afterlife

I am really getting tired of your dishonest representations of what I said. Produce the statement where I said I believed that. I said I knew about it I never said I "bought into it" back then. Since you are aware of the concept then
you bought into it then, by your strange reasoning. Either accurately reflect my statements or I have no interest in a discussion.

 

[1robin]

your the one who says you can't back up your claims with evidence

Even if I did it is only some claims that appear in a book that makes tens of thousands of claims that can be verified. I don't see how this helps you in anyway. Of course you always post strange and irrelevant things.

 

[waitasec]

Even if I did it is only some claims that appear in a book that makes tens of thousands of claims that can be verified. I don't see how this helps you in anyway. Of course you always post strange and irrelevant things.

well do you believe there is a hell and a heaven?

 

[jasonwill2]

Are you nuts? You are making an unproven and illogical statement right after we discussed the burden of proof. Thanks for proving my point. You just made a claim to knowledge so prove it. Good luck because your claim doesn't even make any sense without haveing to prove it.

dude... as far as the Old Testament... that is the understood historical view, though my part about trhe New Testament was my opinion though


basically when most of the old testament was written they wrote down the traditional stories, around the 6th century BC. it was passed down orally before this, but they had to mix a few of the traditions together for teh sake of recording them all, as that was more important than accuracy. this is why we see contradictions in the creation story or in how many animals Noah took with him.

 

[waitasec]

Even if I did

you did.

 

[1robin]

Alright that clears a little up.

I wouldn't necessarily question the accuracy of the bible but the person determining what accuracy is and how accurate it is.

How is that an issue? If I determine that fulfilled prophecy is a way to establish a level of biblical accuracy then what is questionable about that. Either they were fulfilled in every detail or not. These are not generic vague (Nostradams) prophecies. Most are highly detailed including specific dates, locations, people, and even reasons why. Or if I decided to verify every geographical location, name, title, structural reference, or natural occurance in the bible that can be verified. Many scholars say there are 25,000 historical claims in the bible that can be verified. Is that a questionable tactic. The bible claims that every prohecy given in the original revelation of the bible is 100% accurate or God says twe should reject that biblical prophet. That is bold. It also uniquely requires and offers a spiritual experience that validates God's reality for an individual. If this was a false religion those two statements would have revealed that long ago. ETC......

 

[1robin]

well do you believe there is a hell and a heaven?

I do now.

 

[1robin]

you did.

Fine you make so many inaccurate statements about what I believe and have said. I no longer care.

 

[1robin]

dude... as far as the Old Testament... that is the understood historical view, though my part about trhe New Testament was my opinion though


basically when most of the old testament was written they wrote down the traditional stories, around the 6th century BC. it was passed down orally before this, but they had to mix a few of the traditions together for teh sake of recording them all, as that was more important than accuracy. this is why we see contradictions in the creation story or in how many animals Noah took with him.

I am getting tired and bored so for the sake of time I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are sincere even if wrong. Regardless you still have not proven these claims. Saying other people believe them is not proof. Why don't you pick your most treasured pet problem with the old testament and we will get to the bottom of it.