Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[Thief]

Deut. 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.


according to this passage...
no.

Oh good...we're back on track.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Your perception of logic and reason*. As am I.

Well, show me any example of intelligence coming from nonintelligence.

Same goes for me with the God concept.

Therefore, you believe that life came from nonlife, intelligence came from nonintelligence, and order came from chaos

Doubtful. Our life experience makes a massive contribution to who we are. We would be MASSIVELY different if instead of being raised by parents we were orphan's from the age of 2. Everything about us is affected by our life experience.

To a certain degree, yes. But what part of your life experience lead you to conclude that life came from nonlife and that intelligence came from nonintelligence.

Care to back that up with some evidence? How can I make that choice? I'm telling you right now that I can't, I'm honestly trying and it's not working. I cannot willfully control what I believe, it is not in my power to choose.

You can, but you won't. It is not impossible for you to believe it, so anything that is not impossible CAN be done. Now the probability of it being done may be highly unlikely, but that doesn't mean that it cant be done. So therefore, it is a choice.

No, you must have misread, I am saying that as you present what you think is my view, you are also degrading it, insulting it and providing your opinion with it. Don't do that, it's rude. Feel free to comment but when presenting my view, present it on it's own and then comment in a separate paragraph. It is dishonest to present my view with your opinion because it looks as if I believe it's absurd to which I hope you know that I don't. Or don't pretend like you know what I think, let me put forward my view and don't try to present it for me.

Lol. Look, there isn't that many options. It isn't as if there are a million options out there. There are only three options. 1. An eternal God created the universe......2. The universe is infinite.......3. The universe created itself. Now if we can safely disregard the 3rd option, due to absurdities, that only leaves 1 and 2. If you are stuck with only two options, and only one can be true, to choose one is to negate the other. For example, if you think a light is not on, you would have to think that it is off. There are no other options, either the light is on, or it is off. Well, if you dont believe in God, you have to believe that the universe is infinite, and we are here by some naturalistic process, and in this naturalistic process, life comes from nonlife, intelligence comes from nonintelligence, and order comes from chaos. There are no other options. So, it is not my opinion, it is a fact. To not believe in God is to believe that life came from nonlife. There are no other options. It is, what you believe.

Not necessarily. I certainly couldn't believe it was true while knowing it's unjust but it changing to become just doesn't mean I'll believe it because I do have many other qualms with it.

Other qualms like what??? I was just trying to see would you believe, because I had a coworker tell me "Even if Christianity was true, i still wouldnt believe in God" hahahaha.

You said that God was the president but if the analogy is taken seriously, God is both the terrorist and the president. God, in his attempt to save people from dying, is also the one that is causing the deaths, he is the one that created the system, he is the one who is executing the people he is trying to save.

How is God the terroist? The terroist made a choice to hijack the planes, it was their own free will. Just like his creation (man), we use our free will to do wrong. God had to make the best decision based on the circumstances, just like the President has to make the best decision based on the circumstances. So what are you talking about, God is the terroist?? He is not the one making the bad decisions.

That's not a silly thing to say, it's a potentially true statement. It would be silly to call this a contradiction or illogical though.

Just because the judge doesnt want people to go to jail, doesnt mean he will not serve justice by placing people in jail that commit crimes.

The point I made here was not about justice, it was about God's will not being done, something that the Bible says never happens, God's will is ALWAYS done. But not here. There is a contradiction between what you are saying and what the Bible says.

What do you mean when you say "Gods will"? Gods will as it relate to what??

The passage explicitly says, "And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth. 14And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle." He comes out of the Earth, Sheol is described as "the underworld" and is commonly recognized as being beneath the Earth's surface. Samuel was risen from Sheol.

There are many different interpretations of Sheol, does it mean the grave, or the underworld? Well, depending on the context you can interpret it different ways. There is one thing for sure, that the saved isn't in the same condition as the unsaved. Maybe Samuel came up from paradise. The bible say that no man has ever ascended to heaven (John 3:13). So obviously, even the thief on the cross didnt go to heaven. If the thief on the cross didnt go to heaven, but paradise, why cant we assume that Samuel came from paradise??? Maybe paradise is a "underworld" of bliss and delight??

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That is incorrect, " 26And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence." Abraham describes the gulf that exists between where he is and where the rich man is. It even explicitly states that Neither side can pass to the other which throws out your notion that Abraham paid a special visit to Hades. What can be extrapolated reasonably is that both the wicked and the righteous exist in the afterlife within talking distance separated by a gulf, they exist under the Earth. Whatever your proposing goes against scripture.

Just because the scripture say that he saw them on the other side doesnt mean that they were always on that other side. Abraham and the begger could have paid a special visit to the rich man, but appeared at a location that was divided so that the rich man could not cross, but was close enough for him to see them and communicate with them. Either way, it is not clear and it is up for interpretation. Originally, you said that both the righteous and unrighteous were both in Sheol, and I took that to mean that they were both in the same state and location. Now, this doesn't appear to be what you meant. But regardless of who is right or wrong, it is clear that the righteous and unrighteous are in two different states, one in the state of torment, and the other in a place of bliss.

So were the sacrifices the giving of something precious or were they a replacement for the punishment? If they were the giving of something precious then God is unjust because he is not following the justice system, if it was a replacement for the punishment, it is unrighteous because an that which is innocent cannot be punished for a consequence owed to the one who is guilty. In fact, both are unrighteous and both are unjust.

It was both, the giving up of something precious and a replacement for the punishment. And once again, you are claiming that it is unjust, but i am trying to figure out if you are an animal that evovled over time, where are you getting this standard of morality from in order to call God unjust??? All life belongs to God, and if he uses the animals lives as atonement mechanisms for sin, who are you to tell him that what he is doing is wrong?? The law was, "if you sin, I have placed animals on earth for you to replace their lives with yours." Those animals lives belong entirely to God, he created them, so he decides how he will use them, not you.

I have explained my point thoroughly, the definitions are there, what you propose God advocates is both unrighteous and unjust. The killing of something innocent for the crimes committed by another is unrighteous and unjust. Justice is not being served by killing something else or having something else killed.

It is if that is the system. Where are you getting your sense of what is right and what is wrong from?? Where are your morals coming from???

So is something good because God says it is good or is something good and God can always recognize good as per his righteous, just and benevolent nature? If you advocate that something is good because God says it is good then morality is arbitrary. If an absolute standard for good exists then it must exist apart from God.

Euthypro dilemma Goodness is part of Gods nature, it is part of what makes him......God, and there is no possible world in which God can lack this characteristic and remain God. Being a morally good being, his commandments are a direct reflection of his character. So when he gives a commandment, it is a commandment for the greater good and for the best.

I didn't say it did but I'm saying, the point you're trying to make makes no difference, everyone that God kills or has killed, currently remains dead. That punishment was executed and it is a punishment. Innocent animals and one apparently innocent man have died for crimes they did not commit. This is unrighteous and unjust. By definition. This goes against the very definitions of the words. There's no arguing against it, you can tell me that I just don't get it all you want, the definitions of the terms run completely opposite to the actions of God in this case.

Those deaths were for a greater good. And it strikes me as funny, for you to say "one innocent man" died for crimes he didnt commit. That innocent man voluntarily died, and would probably do it again because of his love for us. You seem to be more upset about it than him, and he was the one killed lol. I am a sinner, and instead of giving me eternal hell, God has a system in place at which my sins are forvgiven, and i wont go to hell, but with Christ. I accept this, and I see nothing wrong with it whatsoever. Like I said, we just disagree

Your point? I'm just glad that now you have no leg to stand on, your argument went personal and failed, it doesn't matter if I'm a hypocrite or have double standards or if I truly am a vegetarian. The argument applies to your propositions all the same. Innocent living organisms are receiving the consequences owed to other guilty living organisms.

So what you are saying is, you were probably lying about being a vegetarian. Gotcha lol

Actually the words used were, "on that day you will die."

They did die on that day. They sinned, and when you sin you are spiritually dead. That is why in Rev 20:10, the unrighteous will be tormented in the lake of fire, and the bible calls this the "second death" in verse 14 of that same chapter. If they are tormented in fire, how can they be dead? Obviously this is not talking about physical death, but spiritual death. To easy.

This analogy is still not apt, it wasn't the first or second time you used it either.

Actually, it was.

It says in the scripture that God sent them a delusion so that they would continue to believe the lie. He didn't do something and let them assume whatever they wanted, he specifically sent them a delusion that would MAKE THEM(Force them) to continue believing a lie.

I am still trying to figure out how can someone "force" a person to believe something? They had a choice, either to believe it, or not to believe it. They choose to believe it. Not only did they chose to believe it, they were ALREADY believing it. God is not wrong for giving people more of what they want.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What does it assume true? That humans are living organisms? That humans fit the criteria used for this definition. That is how the word is defined, it doesn't matter if you think it has other negative connotations, it is the definition. If you don't recognize that humans are animals as per the biological definition then you just don't understand the biological definition or perhaps the English language. I actually quoted the definition so if you just pushed quote when you responded to what i wrote rather than reading through it first you may have missed it. Feel free to go back and read it if you did.

I will grant the point about the definition, but lets get this clear, on the Christian view, humans are not animals. Animals to us are the beast of the field, birds of the air, aquatic life in the waters. And based on our view, there is a distinct difference in classification. So, let me just put it in another way, I dont AGREE with humans being classified as animals.

But we do have a relationship to other animals. Even without evolution we have that relationship. We are comprised of the same type of cells, we largely have the same organ structure, we produce hair and finger nails like many other animals, we have muscles like other animals, eyes, nose mouth, sensory organs, brain, we have a DNA structure that matches other animals in the 90th percentile. We have so much in common with animals even without evolution.

Its funny how you say "we have so much in common with animals even without evolution", yet all of the similiarities that we have with the animals all come from the EVOLUTIONARY process, (on your view). If we evovled eyes just like any other "animal", then how can you say we have that one thing in common, while negating the process (evolution) at which we began to have that one thing in common??? Nonsensical.

 

[filthy tugboat]

I will grant the point about the definition, but lets get this clear, on the Christian view, humans are not animals. Animals to us are the beast of the field, birds of the air, aquatic life in the waters. And based on our view, there is a distinct difference in classification. So, let me just put it in another way, I dont AGREE with humans being classified as animals.

So as I said earlier, an apt response would be, "biologically speaking humans are classified as animals, they fit the biological definition/description of animals. But theologically speaking humans and animals are separate."

Its funny how you say "we have so much in common with animals even without evolution", yet all of the similiarities that we have with the animals all come from the EVOLUTIONARY process, (on your view). If we evovled eyes just like any other "animal", then how can you say we have that one thing in common, while negating the process (evolution) at which we began to have that one thing in common??? Nonsensical.

I'm saying that even if evolution weren't true, we would still share these similarities with animals. Do you deny this? Like do you agree that these similarities exist or not?

I'll reply to the rest when I have time, sorry, I have like 5 minutes at the moment, bare with me

 

[Heathen Hammer]

The fact is, there is no evidence that humans evolved from animals,

That's completely false.

 

[Thief]

So much for, back on topic.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So as I said earlier, an apt response would be, "biologically speaking humans are classified as animals, they fit the biological definition/description of animals. But theologically speaking humans and animals are separate."

Yup, thats an excellent way of putting it.:yes:

I'm saying that even if evolution weren't true, we would still share these similarities with animals. Do you deny this? Like do you agree that these similarities exist or not?

No I dont agree. If you take out evolution, there would be no eyes, ears, arms, legs, teeth. These things are said to have "evovled" over time. You cant evovle to something if there is no evolution I do agree about the similarities though, but I believe that these similiarites are a result of a common designer, not a common ancestor.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That's completely false.

Heather no matter how many times you get whooped, you still keep coming back for more

 

[filthy tugboat]

No I dont agree. If you take out evolution, there would be no eyes, ears, arms, legs, teeth. These things are said to have "evovled" over time. You cant evovle to something if there is no evolution I do agree about the similarities though, but I believe that these similiarites are a result of a common designer, not a common ancestor.

That was my point, if evolution were false, the similarities recognized by the definition still exist. The definition and the whole area of biological classification is true regardless of evolution.

 

[filthy tugboat]

To a certain degree, yes.

That certain degree is huge. Our life experience determines more about us than any other factor.

You can, but you won't.

Can I? Prove it.

It is not impossible for you to believe it, so anything that is not impossible CAN be done.

It might not be impossible for me to believe it but it is impossible for me to do so by will alone.

How is God the terroist? The terroist made a choice to hijack the planes, it was their own free will.

God made the choice to punish sin with death. It was his own free will.

Just like his creation (man), we use our free will to do wrong. God had to make the best decision based on the circumstances, just like the President has to make the best decision based on the circumstances.

God is also the president, he made the plan for salvation as well. He is the one killing people and he is also the one trying to avoid people dying.

Just because the judge doesnt want people to go to jail, doesnt mean he will not serve justice by placing people in jail that commit crimes.

When I said that my issue here was not about justice, what did you think I meant? I meant that I am not saying it is about just or unjust in this section of our debate. This is about God's will not being done.

What do you mean when you say "Gods will"? Gods will as it relate to what??

Having people not die. If God does not want people to die and people are dying then his will is not being done. It doesn't matter who's fault it is, the Bible says that God's will is always done and nothing can stop his will from being carried out.

There are many different interpretations of Sheol, does it mean the grave, or the underworld? Well, depending on the context you can interpret it different ways. There is one thing for sure, that the saved isn't in the same condition as the unsaved. Maybe Samuel came up from paradise. The bible say that no man has ever ascended to heaven (John 3:13). So obviously, even the thief on the cross didnt go to heaven. If the thief on the cross didnt go to heaven, but paradise, why cant we assume that Samuel came from paradise??? Maybe paradise is a "underworld" of bliss and delight??

The New Testament writers really have no say on the matter. Sheol is a part of the Jewish tradition, hell began in the Christian tradition. The idea of punishment in the afterlife is simply non-existent in Jewish tradition. So when Jesus "saves people from hell" he may well have been the one that created hell, he created the awful punishment in order to save them from it. Or maybe he lied and there was no hell, he just wanted to scare people and appear to be gracious and loving.

Just because the scripture say that he saw them on the other side doesnt mean that they were always on that other side. Abraham and the begger could have paid a special visit to the rich man, but appeared at a location that was divided so that the rich man could not cross, but was close enough for him to see them and communicate with them.

What location? So there's another location other than Heaven and Sheol? No, I think it is abundantly clear as per the passage in Luke 16 that people cannot move between the good place and the bad one, therefore no visit was paid by Abraham and subsequently they were in two separate compartments of the same place.

Either way, it is not clear and it is up for interpretation. Originally, you said that both the righteous and unrighteous were both in Sheol, and I took that to mean that they were both in the same state and location.

According to Jewish tradition this is true.

Now, this doesn't appear to be what you meant.

No the NT writers appeared to employ creative embellishment upon Jewish tradition. Apparently there is a second part of Sheol where punishment occurs.

It was both, the giving up of something precious and a replacement for the punishment. And once again, you are claiming that it is unjust, but i am trying to figure out if you are an animal that evovled over time, where are you getting this standard of morality from in order to call God unjust?

As per the Biblical standard and the definition of justice, according to the system God set up, in order for justice to be achieved, anyone who sins must die.

Deut. 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

According to that passage each will be put to death for their own sin and others cannot take their place. Animal and human/God sacrifice is unrighteous as per the Biblical standard because it advocates that someone or something else can be put to death for the sins of another. So there you have it, it is both unrighteous and unjust according to the Biblical justice system.

All life belongs to God, and if he uses the animals lives as atonement mechanisms for sin, who are you to tell him that what he is doing is wrong?? The law was, "if you sin, I have placed animals on earth for you to replace their lives with yours." Those animals lives belong entirely to God, he created them, so he decides how he will use them, not you.

It doesn't matter who tells him what, the system of atonement is unrighteous and unjust according to his own standards.

It is if that is the system.

But according to the Biblical justice or moral system, that is not just or righteous.

Euthypro dilemma Goodness is part of Gods nature, it is part of what makes him......God, and there is no possible world in which God can lack this characteristic and remain God. Being a morally good being, his commandments are a direct reflection of his character. So when he gives a commandment, it is a commandment for the greater good and for the best.

So, good is only existent based on God's existence and being. So you went for the former and are arguing that morals are arbitrary. Things are only good because God recognizes them as good. It doesn't matter if you say they're a part of his nature or whether it is by decree, it has the same implications. Anything God says or does is good because he defines what good is.

Those deaths were for a greater good.

The ends do not justify the means. Morality is all about the means of achieving the ends. Justice is as well. The Bible makes it clear that the ends do not justify the means. It doesn't matter whether lives were saved, it is still unjust and unrighteous.

And it strikes me as funny, for you to say "one innocent man" died for crimes he didnt commit. That innocent man voluntarily died, and would probably do it again because of his love for us.

The man doesn't matter in this case, it's God's actions that are of concern. The whole notion of atonement is unjust and unrighteous according to his own justice and moral system. The innocent dying for the guilty, even if willfully, it can't happen. They can die sure but their death doesn't achieve atonement, or at least it shouldn't if God were righteous and just.

So what you are saying is, you were probably lying about being a vegetarian. Gotcha lol

No what I'm saying is, it doesn't matter whether I am or not, to clarify I am but it is of no import. The argument still stands, you have done nothing to challenge it, only taken it to a personal level, something which is counterproductive to the debate.

They did die on that day. They sinned, and when you sin you are spiritually dead. That is why in Rev 20:10, the unrighteous will be tormented in the lake of fire, and the bible calls this the "second death" in verse 14 of that same chapter. If they are tormented in fire, how can they be dead? Obviously this is not talking about physical death, but spiritual death. To easy.

The second death is spiritual death which hasn't happened yet. So Adam and Eve did not suffer spiritual death. Wait, are you arguing that hell and heaven are populated by physical bodies? But the physical bodies of people that die are here? Almost all theologians I've come across do not argue what you are arguing, they argue that the second death is spiritual death and that the first death is physical. Hence why the bodies of the people that die remain here. I'm really confused. Well either way, the more common response is that one day is like a thousand years to God and since neither Adam nor Eve lived to be one thousand years old after they left the garden, they both are said to have died on the day they ate the fruit.

I am still trying to figure out how can someone "force" a person to believe something?

God has magic. He can do anything.

They had a choice, either to believe it, or not to believe it. They choose to believe it.

God sent them a delusion, which means what they were seeing/hearing was not real, it was... well... a delusion, a hallucination. He did so in order to keep them believing a lie.

Not only did they chose to believe it, they were ALREADY believing it. God is not wrong for giving people more of what they want.

No but he did lie, he even forced people to accept a lie.

 

[Akhilesh]

According to hinduism we are divine in nature we arenot sinner.we are sinner this sentence is discrimnation of humanity.god bhagvan cannot die.

 

[Akhilesh]

According to hinduism we are divine in nature we arenot sinner.we are sinner this sentence is discrimnation of humanity.god bhagvan cannot die.

 

[Akhilesh]

N0 we arenot sinner man is divine in nature

 

[URAVIP2ME]

N0 we are not sinner man is divine in nature

Then, how is it at the birth of a child every parents knows that the child's leanings will be toward wrongdoing ?________________

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That certain degree is huge. Our life experience determines more about us than any other factor.

Explain which of your "life experiences" helped you draw the conclusion that life came from nonlife and intelligence came from nonintelligence.

Can I? Prove it.

So if a serial killer goes on a killing spree and kills your whole family, and he tells you that he was driven to kill due to "life experiences" and that because of this he had no choice, would you accept this?? This is no different as far as someone making a choice of at least two options, which is exactly what you are doing when you dont accept theism.

It might not be impossible for me to believe it but it is impossible for me to do so by will alone.

So by whose other will is assisting you? You dont accept theism because you dont want to, for whatever reason.

God made the choice to punish sin with death. It was his own free will.

So, Judge Alex is the one that is putting people in prison for the crimes, he is also the one that goes on public speaking tours to try to speak out against crime to prevent people from going to prison. Where are you getting your logic from?

When I said that my issue here was not about justice, what did you think I meant? I meant that I am not saying it is about just or unjust in this section of our debate. This is about God's will not being done.

Well, you have to explain what you think Gods will is.

Having people not die. If God does not want people to die and people are dying then his will is not being done. It doesn't matter who's fault it is, the Bible says that God's will is always done and nothing can stop his will from being carried out.

I think your representation of Gods will is a bit misplaced. Gods will isnt that people dont die. His "will" mean that whatever he wants to get accomplished, he will get accomplished regardless of what we do. No nation, man, event, or circumstance can stand in the way of what he wants to get accomplished. This has nothing to do with death, because death does not hinder God. His will is going to get accomplished regardless of who dies, when they die, and how they die.

The New Testament writers really have no say on the matter. Sheol is a part of the Jewish tradition, hell began in the Christian tradition. The idea of punishment in the afterlife is simply non-existent in Jewish tradition. So when Jesus "saves people from hell" he may well have been the one that created hell, he created the awful punishment in order to save them from it. Or maybe he lied and there was no hell, he just wanted to scare people and appear to be gracious and loving.

Sheol, depending on the context, means "underworld", right? This says nothing about what is happening in the underworld, what they are doing, or their state of mind. Just because the context of Sheol isn't as descriptive in the OT as it is (Hades) in the NT, doesn't mean that we can exclude it either way. If I tell you that prison is a place where the criminals go, that isn't telling you what goes on behind the prison walls now does it?? It is simple, one part of the bible mentions a specific place, and the other part of the bible describes what goes on in that place.

What location? So there's another location other than Heaven and Sheol?

As I said before, Jesus told the theif (Luke 23:33-43) that on that day, the theif would be with him in paradise. John tells us that no one has ascended to heaven except the Son (John 3:16). So obviously, the theif didnt go to heaven after he died, he went to paradise, which, based on those two scriptures, suggests that both are two different places (Heavn and Paradise).

No, I think it is abundantly clear as per the passage in Luke 16 that people cannot move between the good place and the bad one, therefore no visit was paid by Abraham and subsequently they were in two separate compartments of the same place.

As I just said above, if paradise does exist, then of course they could have paid the rich man a visit. But what if the separate compartment of Sheol is in fact paradise?? Ok, and??

According to Jewish tradition this is true.

Guess what, im not Jewish, Second, it doesnt matter, as long as the righteous and unrighteous are in two different states this topic is actually quite irrelevant.

No the NT writers appeared to employ creative embellishment upon Jewish tradition. Apparently there is a second part of Sheol where punishment occurs.

Being a Christian, i dont care about what Jews say, but I do care about what Jesus said, and Jesus said hell is a horrible place and he wouldnt wish it on anyone, which is why he died so that we wouldnt have to go.

As per the Biblical standard and the definition of justice, according to the system God set up, in order for justice to be achieved, anyone who sins must die.

Ok, but now he is saying that everyone who doesnt accept Jesus as Lord and Savior will die, while everyone that does will live.

Deut. 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

That was the old law and God has the right to amend his own law.

According to that passage each will be put to death for their own sin and others cannot take their place. Animal and human/God sacrifice is unrighteous as per the Biblical standard because it advocates that someone or something else can be put to death for the sins of another. So there you have it, it is both unrighteous and unjust according to the Biblical justice system.

As I just said, God has the right to amend his own law. You are comparing an old law to a new one and then crying out injustice. This is similar to a man trying to own slaves today and using the old law to justify it, and everyone is looking at him and saying "Dude, that law has been abolished 150 years ago.." As Christians, we are under the "new" covenant. Anytime something is "new", it is distinct from the "old" one.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It doesn't matter who tells him what, the system of atonement is unrighteous and unjust according to his own standards.

Unjust according to who? According to you? The standard was always the concept of atonement for sin. The way it was done by Jews is different than the way it is done by Christians. Different people, different times.

But according to the Biblical justice or moral system, that is not just or righteous.

It is right according to the new covenant. You keep making it seem as if the law contradicts itself. The law is the law. The standard is the standard. You just disagree with what the standard is. Christianity isn’t for everyone, and the bible states that not everyone will inherit the kingdom of God.

So, good is only existent based on God's existence and being. So you went for the former and are arguing that morals are arbitrary. Things are only good because God recognizes them as good. It doesn't matter if you say they're a part of his nature or whether it is by decree, it has the same implications. Anything God says or does is good because he defines what good is.

Ok, so if his very nature is good, and his commandments are a reflection of his character, and he is the ultimate source of what it means to be good, then anyone that is not “good” is not morally capable of judging God or his actions based on their own moral standard. If God is the only source of “objective” goodness, then how can anyone less than the highest source of goodness tell him that what he is doing is wrong?? This is not something that can be logically done.

The ends do not justify the means. Morality is all about the means of achieving the ends. Justice is as well. The Bible makes it clear that the ends do not justify the means. It doesn't matter whether lives were saved, it is still unjust and unrighteous.

Unjust according to you. On your view, humans are nothing but advanced primates with nothing but a brain full of chemicals that evolved billions of years, so how on earth can you trust your own logic and reasoning? But yet, you are using your own standard of moral code to conclude that God was/is unjust. I see a logical problem with this.

The man doesn't matter in this case, it's God's actions that are of concern. The whole notion of atonement is unjust and unrighteous according to his own justice and moral system. The innocent dying for the guilty, even if willfully, it can't happen. They can die sure but their death doesn't achieve atonement, or at least it shouldn't if God were righteous and just.

I’ve already answered this.

No what I'm saying is, it doesn't matter whether I am or not, to clarify I am but it is of no import. The argument still stands, you have done nothing to challenge it, only taken it to a personal level, something which is counterproductive to the debate.

Actually it does matter. No way can you run the “its not ok to kill animals for sacrificial reasons, but it is ok for us to chop them up in to beef stew or flatten them out to a beef patty”. No way. That is a double standard and if that is in fact what you are doing, then you are just as unjust as you claim God to be..

The second death is spiritual death which hasn't happened yet. So Adam and Eve did not suffer spiritual death. Wait, are you arguing that hell and heaven are populated by physical bodies? But the physical bodies of people that die are here? Almost all theologians I've come across do not argue what you are arguing, they argue that the second death is spiritual death and that the first death is physical. Hence why the bodies of the people that die remain here. I'm really confused. Well either way, the more common response is that one day is like a thousand years to God and since neither Adam nor Eve lived to be one thousand years old after they left the garden, they both are said to have died on the day they ate the fruit.

When we sin, we are spiritually dead. Death is nothing but separation from God. The problem is, on a non-theistic view, people put death in the context of “ceasing to exist”. But that is not the biblical view. No one ever ceases to exist. You are either in fellowship with God because of your righteousness, thus being spiritually alive, or you are separated from God for your sins, thus, spiritually dead. So when we sin, we are spiritually dead, as Ephesians 2:1-5 indicates. And sin separates us from God, as Isaiah 59:2 indicates. Adam sinned, and from that moment he died spiritually on that day. And from that moment, he also started to die physically. God is not concerned about physical death, he is more concerned about what state our spirit will be in AFTER physical death. Now on judgment day, the "second death" is spiritual death, the ultimate state of separation from God. As far as you saying “a day is like a thousand years” is concerned, if a day is like a thousand years to God, and neither one lived to be a thousand, then it is obvious that there is no need to conclude that the “day” meant a thousand years.

God has magic. He can do anything.

God cannot do what is logically impossible. He cant make married bachelors or draw squared circles.

God sent them a delusion, which means what they were seeing/hearing was not real, it was... well... a delusion, a hallucination. He did so in order to keep them believing a lie.
No but he did lie, he even forced people to accept a lie.

No he didn’t. For example, I believe in the Judeo-Christian God. Now according to that belief, that is the only true living God in existence. There is only one God, and that is the J/C God. So if God sends me an evil spirit in the form of Zeus, and Zeus say to me, “worship me, I am Zeus, God of Thunder”, I immediately know that this isn’t the J/C Christian God. I can either abandon my current beliefs and worship this Zeus character, or I can rebuke this Zeus character in the name of Jesus. How I respond to this depends on ME, not God. But if I was already believing in Zeus despite God telling me that he was the only God, and God sends me the evil spirit in the form of Zeus, and I believe it, then this is my fault. Its not a matter of me believing in the actual spirit, it was me believing in the CONCEPT as a whole. The spirit is part of the concept.

BTW, I am still trying to figure out how can you “MAKE” someone “FREELY CHOOSE” to do something. This is a contradiction in terms.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Would you consider 'make' as in meaning that angels and people are created as free moral agents made with the given ability to make free will choices?

-Deut. 30v19; 32v5

 

[filthy tugboat]

Explain which of your "life experiences" helped you draw the conclusion that life came from nonlife and intelligence came from nonintelligence.

All of them, that's the point. The totality of my life experience combined with my innate personality and thought process produces my worldview and beliefs.

So if a serial killer goes on a killing spree and kills your whole family, and he tells you that he was driven to kill due to "life experiences" and that because of this he had no choice, would you accept this?? This is no different as far as someone making a choice of at least two options, which is exactly what you are doing when you dont accept theism.

Decisions pertaining to what you believe and not believe are far different to decisions concerning what you do and do not do. What we do is certainly subject to choice, that choice is often based on our beliefs which are based on our life experiences. He's wrong in the conclusion about having no choice, he's not wrong about his actions being directed largely by his life experience.

So by whose other will is assisting you? You dont accept theism because you dont want to, for whatever reason.

Nobodies, I'm saying will alone cannot change my beliefs.

So, Judge Alex is the one that is putting people in prison for the crimes, he is also the one that goes on public speaking tours to try to speak out against crime to prevent people from going to prison.

What point are you trying to make, as per the analogy, God was the terrorist, I have just shown that and by the looks you have not tried to refute it. Do you agree or not?

Well, you have to explain what you think Gods will is.

According to you it is that people not die. God's wants people to live. God doesn't want people to die. People are dying. God's will is not being done.

I think your representation of Gods will is a bit misplaced. Gods will isnt that people dont die. His "will" mean that whatever he wants to get accomplished, he will get accomplished regardless of what we do. No nation, man, event, or circumstance can stand in the way of what he wants to get accomplished. This has nothing to do with death, because death does not hinder God. His will is going to get accomplished regardless of who dies, when they die, and how they die.

But you said that God wants people to live and that he doesn't want people to die. You are the one that said his will concerns death. So does it or doesn't it? Either he wants people to die or he doesn't or he just doesn't care either way.

Sheol, depending on the context, means "underworld", right? This says nothing about what is happening in the underworld, what they are doing, or their state of mind. Just because the context of Sheol isn't as descriptive in the OT as it is (Hades) in the NT, doesn't mean that we can exclude it either way. If I tell you that prison is a place where the criminals go, that isn't telling you what goes on behind the prison walls now does it?? It is simple, one part of the bible mentions a specific place, and the other part of the bible describes what goes on in that place.

The Bible isn't an accurate description of the text though, Jewish tradition, the Torah, the Talmud millenia of Jewish thought and opinions concerning their theology are completely different to Christian input. The New Testament writers have no authority over Jewish tradition, they can say whatever they want, Sheol is not defined by them. Sheol is defined by the Jewish tradition and according to that tradition, all of the dead go there for the afterlife and there is no mention of two different types of afterlife. Basically, the New Testament addition of torture in the afterlife was created by the New Testament writers, whether it exists or not is irrelevant, their writings are a perversion of the Jewish tradition and literature.

As I said before, Jesus told the theif (Luke 23:33-43) that on that day, the theif would be with him in paradise. John tells us that no one has ascended to heaven except the Son (John 3:16). So obviously, the theif didnt go to heaven after he died, he went to paradise, which, based on those two scriptures, suggests that both are two different places (Heavn and Paradise).

OK since you've mentioned this there must be a third afterlife, there is Heaven, there is paradise and there is the torture bit. According to Jewish tradition, Sheol is the afterlife for all mortals, so paradise and the torture bit are a part of Sheol. So Abraham and all his crew were in paradise which is one part of Sheol that is separated by a gulf from the torture part of Sheol. Or so says the New Testament authors.

As I just said above, if paradise does exist, then of course they could have paid the rich man a visit.

According to the Abraham as presented by Luke, no person may leave one of the two places to enter the other. Nobody that exists on paradise or hell can visit the other place. It was right there in the text. It doesn't have a clause regarding a temporary visit, it says that nobody can leave the place they are in in order to visit the other place.

But what if the separate compartment of Sheol is in fact paradise??

This is what I've been suggesting the New Testament writers were trying to promote. I'm glad you agree.

Guess what, im not Jewish,

Irrelevant, the point is still the same, the New Testament writers propose an entirely different afterlife than the religion they built from. No such torture place existed until they mentioned it.

Second, it doesnt matter, as long as the righteous and unrighteous are in two different states this topic is actually quite irrelevant.

According to Jewish literature and tradition this notion is false.

Being a Christian, i dont care about what Jews say, but I do care about what Jesus said, and Jesus said hell is a horrible place and he wouldnt wish it on anyone, which is why he died so that we wouldnt have to go.

Jesus was a Jew. Jews have more to say on God than any Christian, they are the authors of the tradition you ascribe to, you have defended their ritualistic sacrifices of animals for the last couple of pages, you have defended parts of their religion you barely understand. I don't understand why you would suggest that you don't care what Jews say.

 

[filthy tugboat]

Ok, but now he is saying that everyone who doesnt accept Jesus as Lord and Savior will die, while everyone that does will live.

So you agree that according to the moral system promoted throughout the Bible, both animal and human sacrifice could not rightfully atone for sin? You also agree that it subverts the justice system promoted in the Bible? I need to get my head around this though, you've said a few times that God did not change his punishments for sin? So you suggest he is no longer saying that the punishment for sin is death, or that the method for atonement is accepting Jesus as your savior as opposed to ritualistic animal sacrifice? If the punishments are still the same, wouldn't the method for atonement and indeed the notion of atonement still be unrighteous and unjust?

That was the old law and God has the right to amend his own law.

But he's perfect, why would anything he's created require amending? Was the old law wrong or broken? Doesn't the Bible specifically state that God is unchanging and eternal?

As I just said, God has the right to amend his own law. You are comparing an old law to a new one and then crying out injustice. This is similar to a man trying to own slaves today and using the old law to justify it, and everyone is looking at him and saying "Dude, that law has been abolished 150 years ago.." As Christians, we are under the "new" covenant. Anytime something is "new", it is distinct from the "old" one.

Okay so, The laws in Deuteronomy about people being responsible for their own actions are now abolished, now other people can be held responsible for the things they did not do. I'm glad we clarified this issue. What about the old system with animal atonement though, are you conceding that those actions were both unrighteous and unjust according to the old covenant and subsequently suggesting that God created systems that were unrighteous and unjust subsequently making him unrighteous and unjust?

Unjust according to who? According to you? The standard was always the concept of atonement for sin. The way it was done by Jews is different than the way it is done by Christians. Different people, different times.

According to the Bible, we are responsible for our own actions and the consequences due to our actions. That responsibility is explicitly not transferable to another.

It is right according to the new covenant. You keep making it seem as if the law contradicts itself. The law is the law. The standard is the standard. You just disagree with what the standard is. Christianity isn’t for everyone, and the bible states that not everyone will inherit the kingdom of God.

I'm saying the Bible and it's characters are hypocritical. The law promoted in the Bible concerning atonement is unjust and unrighteous according to the Bible's own standard.

Ok, so if his very nature is good, and his commandments are a reflection of his character, and he is the ultimate source of what it means to be good, then anyone that is not “good” is not morally capable of judging God or his actions based on their own moral standard. If God is the only source of “objective” goodness, then how can anyone less than the highest source of goodness tell him that what he is doing is wrong?? This is not something that can be logically done.

Now you're saying something completely different. There is no objective, absolute standard of good, good according to what you propose is defined by God. If good is defined by God and does not exist as something separate then nothing can truly be good, it can only be what God recognizes it to be. There is no such thing as inherent goodness if goodness is defined by God, whether by nature or decree, it makes no difference. If his nature is good rather than defines what goodness is then good exists as a separate standard, it exists apart from God and God can always recognize good but does not determine good.

Unjust according to you. On your view, humans are nothing but advanced primates with nothing but a brain full of chemicals that evolved billions of years, so how on earth can you trust your own logic and reasoning? But yet, you are using your own standard of moral code to conclude that God was/is unjust. I see a logical problem with this.

What is that problem? Why would I not trust my reasoning? How could I not given the very notion of trust whether it is to mistrust or to trust something is a form of reasoning? My own and the Biblical justice system.

Actually it does matter. No way can you run the “its not ok to kill animals for sacrificial reasons, but it is ok for us to chop them up in to beef stew or flatten them out to a beef patty”. No way. That is a double standard and if that is in fact what you are doing, then you are just as unjust as you claim God to be..

And if I am as unjust as I claim God to be, so what? The claim that God is unjust is still there. That's why I'm saying it's irrelevant, you won't believe me when I say that I am so I'm telling you to drop it because it doesn't effect the argument at all.

As far as you saying “a day is like a thousand years” is concerned, if a day is like a thousand years to God, and neither one lived to be a thousand, then it is obvious that there is no need to conclude that the “day” meant a thousand years.

What? If a day meant a thousand years and Adam and Eve were said to die on that day then if they died within a thousand years then it is true that they died on that day. I don't know why you think it is unnecessary to draw this conclusion given it is a true conclusion that answers the question directly.


God cannot do what is logically impossible. He cant make married bachelors or draw squared circles.[/quote]

But controlling people's will isn't logically impossible, or at least, not Biblically speaking. God controlled the will of the Pharaoh in Exodus, he "hardened" his heart in order to demonstrate his power. He made sure the Pharaoh kept the Israelites in Egypt long enough for all of the plague's to be finished.

No he didn’t. For example, I believe in the Judeo-Christian God. Now according to that belief, that is the only true living God in existence. There is only one God, and that is the J/C God. So if God sends me an evil spirit in the form of Zeus, and Zeus say to me, “worship me, I am Zeus, God of Thunder”, I immediately know that this isn’t the J/C Christian God. I can either abandon my current beliefs and worship this Zeus character, or I can rebuke this Zeus character in the name of Jesus. How I respond to this depends on ME, not God. But if I was already believing in Zeus despite God telling me that he was the only God, and God sends me the evil spirit in the form of Zeus, and I believe it, then this is my fault. Its not a matter of me believing in the actual spirit, it was me believing in the CONCEPT as a whole. The spirit is part of the concept.

There's a difference between sending an apparition and causing delusions though. Delusions can alter your perception. If God sent you a delusion to convince you that Zeus was real and the king of all of the Gods, you would believe it, regardless of if you already considered it to be true.

BTW, I am still trying to figure out how can you “MAKE” someone “FREELY CHOOSE” to do something. This is a contradiction in terms.

He didn't make someone freely choose, he stopped them freely choosing by sending them a delusion which essentially means that he altered their perception of reality in order to keep them believing an untruth. That is what delusion means. Seeing and sometimes hearing things that are not there, things that are not real. God did not send them something that was real and there to try to maintain their false beliefs, he sent them a delusion, he altered their perception of reality in order to ensure that they would believe an untruth.