Ex Christians

[Vadergirl123]

After much research and examination I came to the conclusion that there was absolutely no evidence for the existence of a God and all the things associated with it, so I became an atheist.

Hmm, when you say examination do you mean self examination or something else?

 

[waitasec]

Oh okay well then we agree that the child is responsible for putting the poison in his mouth.

and we agree god is also responsible for not creating adam with the knowledge of good and evil.

I'm not ducking.

yes you are...even this^ response was a display of your ducking technique by trying to make god look all nice and pretty by not admitting god was also responsible.

And he gave Adam the ability to make choices.

just like that baby... what do you think of a person who would actually do something like that to a child?

Mercy is inconsistent?? God can chose whoever he wants to be merciful to. That has nothing to do with inconsistency.

favoritism is inconsistent.

When you say God's inconsistent with mercy you're implying that since the virgin girls got mercy then the boys also DESERVED mercy. And that takes away the whole definition of the word because mercy isn't based on what someone deserves.

no, he should have slaughtered them all according to his justice.
but virgin girls have something to offer...i wonder what that is?

 

[Alceste]

He instructed the Ancient Israelites to kill women who were not virgins yes, because that meant they'd been promiscuous in their father's house. It deosn't negate God as not being a sinner, loving us, or knowing everything about us.

I don't kill the people I love, or order them to be killed, for sexual immorality. Do you?

 

[waitasec]

What's your definition of murder? I don't think we're thinking of the same word.

what is your definition of rape?

I don't get it? Because they killed baby boys you think the girls were raped? What?

you don't think murdering baby boys is a questionable thing to do, as rape would be a questionable thing to do?
and since this about justifying genocide....

Okay well my intention wasn't to show you that the passage was sweet and romantic. I was trying to show you how the women weren't raped. Although I'm sure some of them probably had very loving relationships with their new husbands.

the virgins were forced, she had no say in the matter...that is rape.

 

[Astravalon]

Okay, somehow you’ve got my responses linked with
mycorrhiza’s name in your post, lol! Fortunately I recognized
the blue font as mine.

By chosing to go against what God says. Sin is anything we say, think, or do that goes against what God says.

However, right and wrong had not yet been firmly established.
Until one knows the parameters, one cannot be held responsible
for overstepping them. It’s just poor parenting if nothing else.

Nope, when John called him that he meant that Christ would pay the price for sin. Christ paid the punishment for our sin, but we have to accept his payment. When Christ died everyone in the whole world wasn't suddenly saved. They'd just all had their sins paid for, and now had the option of accepting him into their lives. Realize their sins weren't taken away, Christ just paid for them. I mean if he had taken them away then after about 33 A.D we'd have had eternal peace.

I'm not sure that we need to have a Utopian society for God to
have addressed the sin issue, especially if it turns out that the
concept of sin was a matter of fallen perception on man's part
(remember, Adam and Eve suddenly thought being naked was
"bad", and God's reaction was, "Who told you that you were
naked?" Like, "Why are you two suddenly deciding what's right
and wrong?"). What you’re seeing could simply be evidence that
we still retain our ability to make choices even while God no
longer sees sin as an issue (again, if He ever did -- it could've
been a mental concept on man's part that needed remedying).

Not only that, but even using the payment analogy, if
something’s paid for, it’s paid for, regardless of commentary from
the peanut-gallery. If personal belief is the active ingredient in
salvation, there would be no need for Jesus to come down here
and pay for anything. We could all just be our own saviors and
activate our super belief-powers and save him a load of trouble.

Either Christians believe Jesus was the savior or he wasn’t.
Besides that, the bible also says that God is the savior of all men,
especially (not “exclusively&#8221 of believers. A critical distinction,
that. :yes:

The synergistic Arminian approach to salvation places way too
much power in the hands of frail humans rather than in the
hands of an all-powerful God.

Right, he didn't ask for our permission to die. I agree

He didn’t ask for our permission to save us, is what I’m saying.
Again, you seem to be overlooking Jesus’ words on being born
again. I believe he chose that turn of phrase quite deliberately.
Our birth is not our doing.

Adam brought a curse on mankind, the curse of sin. Christ was the antidote to that curse. When he died he paid for our sins. By doing so we now had the option of believing on him and having spiritual life.

Right, but since scripture is illustrating the similarity between the
application of Adam’s recklessness and the application of Christ’s
remedy, the “option of believing” was not part of the first
transaction with Adam, so it would not be part of the transaction
with Christ.

Separated in the sense that you're spirtitually dead to him, or not able to be in a relationship with him.

Since scripture says He will have all to be saved, there wouldn't
be room in that paradigm for spiritual death or the like. Death is
the last enemy to be destroyed, so any symptoms therein would,
likewise, be destroyed.

Jesus paid too high of a price to settle for anything less than
what he paid for. People make a stink at the store over paying
too much for far less, so I’m sure God's not going to let an entire
race slip away on Him after what was paid.


-

 

[Vadergirl123]

and we agree god is also responsible for not creating adam with the knowledge of good and evil.

Yes God didnt create Adam with a knowledge of evil.

yes you are...even this^ response was a display of your ducking technique by trying to make god look all nice and pretty by not admitting god was also responsible.

I'm not trying to make God look nice and pretty.(I've already told you that) and God is responsible. He created Adam as perfect. Therefore he wouldn't ahve a knowledge of evil.

just like that baby... what do you think of a person who would actually do something like that to a child?

I think that's terrible, and if God had just put Adam in a garden with the tree alone, I'll admit that would be kind of weird. However there were tons of trees, plants, animals,etc so many things to keep Adam occupied.

favoritism is inconsistent.

Okay, God's not showing favoritism. Favoritism would be if in every circumstance he ALWAYS showed mercy on girls. That's not the case. I think you're thinking more of a different word.

no, he should have slaughtered them all according to his justice.

Yeah he should've, but mercy is when you spare someone who deserves punishment.

I don't kill the people I love, or order them to be killed, for sexual immorality. Do you?

Nope, I don't think I could ever bring myself to kill anyone.

what is your definition of rape?

Forcing someone into sexual intercourse, usually through violence or threat, without their consent. Why didn't you answer my question of how you define murder?

you don't think murdering baby boys is a questionable thing to do, as rape would be a questionable thing to do?

According to my personal sense of what's just/unjust, yes it's pretty questionable.
However one shoudln't decide what they're morals are based on what I personally think is just/unjust.

the virgins were forced, she had no say in the matter...that is rape.

Yes God did tell them they could marry the women they captured. However the women would have been with the men for a period of a month. And during this time the men would've treated them with respect(since God commanded them to).(realize that this whole incident had come about because of the Israelites engaing in sexual immorality with the women, and a plague had come on Israel) I doubt they wanted to rape any of these women. Also most of the women weren't even of marrigable age, so they would've likely been servants.

 

[fantome profane]

I doubt they wanted to rape any of these women.

:sarcastic

 

[MysticSang'ha]

So many doubts, assumptions, and guesses all in God's favor according to these arguments.

Again, no thanks. Trying to live like that nearly drove me insane.

 

[waitasec]

Yes God didnt create Adam with a knowledge of evil.

where do you find that?

the tree was called the tree of knowledge of GOOD and evil.
wow...really?

I'm not trying to make God look nice and pretty.(I've already told you that) and God is responsible. He created Adam as perfect. Therefore he wouldn't ahve a knowledge of evil.

yes you are. what do you think this is making god look like...responsible?

Yes God didnt create Adam with a knowledge of evil.

really?

I think that's terrible, and if God had just put Adam in a garden with the tree alone, I'll admit that would be kind of weird. However there were tons of trees, plants, animals,etc so many things to keep Adam occupied.

please spare me. you are making god look nice any pretty here. god, if you take this story literally, was irresponsible because god KNEW adam couldn't tell the difference between good and evil

Okay, God's not showing favoritism. Favoritism would be if in every circumstance he ALWAYS showed mercy on girls. That's not the case. I think you're thinking more of a different word.

i think you are reaching for straws.
both were midianites...virgin girls were favored over infant boys.

Yeah he should've, but mercy is when you spare someone who deserves punishment.

and what of the infant midianite boys?

Forcing someone into sexual intercourse, usually through violence or threat, without their consent. Why didn't you answer my question of how you define murder?

the definition of murder is the forced finality of someones life.
do you think that the girl whose family was murdered wanted to marry the perpetrator? really...are you that desperate to convince yourself she was willing?

According to my personal sense of what's just/unjust, yes it's pretty questionable.
However one shoudln't decide what they're morals are based on what I personally think is just/unjust.

then you are justifying genocide.

Yes God did tell them they could marry the women they captured. However the women would have been with the men for a period of a month. And during this time the men would've treated them with respect(since God commanded them to).(realize that this whole incident had come about because of the Israelites engaing in sexual immorality with the women, and a plague had come on Israel) I doubt they wanted to rape any of these women. Also most of the women weren't even of marrigable age, so they would've likely been servants.

define marriage in this context...
are both parties willing or is one person acting against their will...

you doubt they wanted to rape, while they justifiably murdered infants.
cool

 

[Vadergirl123]

:sarcastic

I said that because of what had just happened, when some of the men had engaged in sexual immorailty and a plague had come on Israel because of it. Most people, if they engaged in sexual immorailty which resulted in a plague would most likely be hesistant to go back to doing it. especially with the women of the same people group( who caused the problem in the first place)

So many doubts, assumptions, and guesses all in God's favor according to these arguments. Again, no thanks. Trying to live like that nearly drove me insane.

Yes I know, and again you don't have to live for God. He's obviously not forcing you to.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I said that because of what had just happened, when some of the men had engaged in sexual immorailty and a plague had come on Israel because of it. Most people, if they engaged in sexual immorailty which resulted in a plague would most likely be hesistant to go back to doing it. especially with the women of the same people group( who caused the problem in the first place)

Yes I know, and again you don't have to live for God. He's obviously not forcing you to.

I don't believe in a creator God. I believe it's a concept.

Parting ways with you Vadergirl. Peace.

 

[Vadergirl123]

where do you find that?

Adam was created "very good"and he didn't know what pain, death,suffering, etc were. However he did know God(who's good), animals&herbs(which were described as good),etc.

yes you are. what do you think this is making god look like...responsible?

You don't understand, God's NOT a "nice and pretty" being(I'm not trying to make him look that way at all, and I'm sorry it's comming across that way to you)

please spare me.

Sure I can spare you the facts if you're not interested in them

god, if you take this story literally, was irresponsible because god KNEW adam couldn't tell the difference between good and evil

Adam didn't have to know what evil was like to go against God's instructions. God gave him the choice to chose to not eat from the tree.(also again there were a bunch of other trees in the garden)

i think you are reaching for straws.
both were midianites...virgin girls were favored over infant boys.

Virgin girls were favored over boys(not all of them were infants) and I already said why the boys were killed. If the Israelites had left them out in the desert to fend for themselves they'd have become slaves or child-sacrifices. If they'd let them live then they would've grown up and attacked Israel in venegance.

the definition of murder is the forced finality of someones life.do you think that the girl whose family was murdered wanted to marry the perpetrator? really...are you that desperate to convince yourself she was willing?

Yep as I thought, we have different definitions. I'm thinking of murder as, "Unlawful, premediated killing of one human being by another."

then you are justifying genocide.

Is that a question? Or are you saying that me saying killing infant boys is questionable means I'm justifying genocide?

define marriage in this context...

The formal union of a man and woman typically recognized by law

you doubt they wanted to rape, while they justifiably murdered infants.
cool

I doubt they wanetd to rape the women because of all the problems sexual immoraity had just brought them and I explained how the thought proccess of killing the boys went(remember they weren't all infants)

 

[Vadergirl123]

Okay, somehow you’ve got my responses linked with
mycorrhiza’s name in your post, lol! Fortunately I recognized
the blue font as mine.

Sorry

However, right and wrong had not yet been firmly established.

Until one knows the parameters, one cannot be held responsible
for overstepping them. It’s just poor parenting if nothing else.

They knew the parameters. God told them not to eat of that one tree, and they knew not too.

I'm not sure that we need to have a Utopian society for God to

have addressed the sin issue, especially if it turns out that the
concept of sin was a matter of fallen perception on man's part

If God took sin away then anything that went against him( basically the definition of sin) would also go away. We wouldn't have thoughts of killing, which means there'd be no war. We wouldn't ahve thoughts to lie or steal so you wouldn't have crime. If sin was gone the world would be perfect.

(remember, Adam and Eve suddenly thought being naked was

"bad", and God's reaction was, "Who told you that you were
naked?" Like, "Why are you two suddenly deciding what's right
and wrong?"). What you’re seeing could simply be evidence that
we still retain our ability to make choices even while God no
longer sees sin as an issue (again, if He ever did -- it could've
been a mental concept on man's part that needed remedying).

God saw sin as an issue, there's nothing in the Bible that suggests/says sin is okay with him and no big deal. He didn't just punish nations and people because it felt good to him. He did it because of their sins. He also didn't send Christ to die because he thought it woudl make a cool Bible story. He did it so that we could have payment for our sin.

Not only that, but even using the payment analogy, if

something’s paid for, it’s paid for, regardless of commentary from
the peanut-gallery. If personal belief is the active ingredient in
salvation, there would be no need for Jesus to come down here
and pay for anything. We could all just be our own saviors and
activate our super belief-powers and save him a load of trouble.

You're right our sin is paid for regardless of whether we accept that or not. However you don't get to heaven just because your sin is paid for you have to believe in Christ and accept him into your life. I mean Christ doesn't say I've paid for your sins, now you're saved. You have to believe in him and what he did.
The price for sin can't be a sinner, and we're all sinners, so we can't be our own saviors.

Either Christians believe Jesus was the savior or he wasn’t.

Besides that, the bible also says that God is the savior of all men,
especially (not “exclusively&#8221 of believers. A critical distinction,
that. :yes:

Jesus did die for everyone, not just believers(I don't think I ever said he did)

He didn’t ask for our permission to save us, is what I’m saying.
Again, you seem to be overlooking Jesus’ words on being born
again. I believe he chose that turn of phrase quite deliberately.
Our birth is not our doing.

Oh yes you're right he didn't ask for our permission. I'm not overlooking them, when we become christains we're BORN into God's family

Right, but since scripture is illustrating the similarity between the
application of Adam’s recklessness and the application of Christ’s
remedy, the “option of believing” was not part of the first
transaction with Adam, so it would not be part of the transaction
with Christ.

Why would we have to believe we were sinners to be sinners? We're sinners regardless. And our sins our paid for regardless, but just having our sins paid for doesn't get us to heaven. It wouldn't make since for Christ to tell his disciples to go out and teach other people about him if they were all already saved. And if the world was already saved then there'd be no reason for us to stay on earth. God would have just taken all of us up to heaven.

Since scripture says He will have all to be saved, there wouldn't
be room in that paradigm for spiritual death or the like. Death is
the last enemy to be destroyed, so any symptoms therein would,
likewise, be destroyed.

Right it is but that's physical death. I'm talking of spiritual death(or separation from God)

Jesus paid too high of a price to settle for anything less than

what he paid for. People make a stink at the store over paying
too much for far less, so I’m sure God's not going to let an entire
race slip away on Him after what was paid.

Hahaha people are humans, we complain about alot of things. And it's amazing isn't it? I mean the fact that Christ died while still giving us the option of not chosing to believe in him(blows my mind ). Also the entire human race doesn't not believe in Christ.(I don't really know why you think that) there's alot of christains out there.

 

[waitasec]

Adam was created "very good"and he didn't know what pain, death,suffering, etc were. However he did know God(who's good), animals&herbs(which were described as good),etc.

adam was created good in gods eyes, adam was still unaware of what good meant since he was forbidden to know about it.

You don't understand, God's NOT a "nice and pretty" being(I'm not trying to make him look that way at all, and I'm sorry it's comming across that way to you)

then god is an irresponsible god, if he ain't pretty.

Sure I can spare you the facts if you're not interested in them


Adam didn't have to know what evil was like to go against God's instructions. God gave him the choice to chose to not eat from the tree.(also again there were a bunch of other trees in the garden)

the other trees didn't give knowledge and you still didn't explain to me how it was that you know what the tree of glipper and glopper meant..

Virgin girls were favored over boys(not all of them were infants)

why do you suppose they were favored?

btw, one infant is enough, wouldn't you say?

and I already said why the boys were killed. If the Israelites had left them out in the desert to fend for themselves they'd have become slaves or child-sacrifices. If they'd let them live then they would've grown up and attacked Israel in venegance.

they were useless and posed a threat for a future retaliation. nip it in the bud...but why...they were all going to hell anyway?

Yep as I thought, we have different definitions. I'm thinking of murder as, "Unlawful, premediated killing of one human being by another."

you then need to define unlawful...
goody more goal posts to move.

Is that a question?

no. it was a statement.

Or are you saying that me saying killing infant boys is questionable means I'm justifying genocide?

yes

The formal union of a man and woman typically recognized by law
I doubt they wanetd to rape the women because of all the problems sexual immoraity

can a husband rape is wife?

 

[Vadergirl123]

then god is an irresponsible god, if he ain't pretty.

So because God's not attractive to you that makes him irresponsible???

the other trees didn't give knowledge and you still didn't explain to me how it was that you know what the tree of glipper and glopper meant..

So what? Adam and Eve still ahd the other trees. God made it clear that eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil wouldn't be a positive thing.
I don't know anything about that tree.

why do you suppose they were favored?

They wouldn't have grown up and attacked Israel in venegance. The boys would've.

btw, one infant is enough, wouldn't you say?

Sure, but the baby boy still would've grown up to attack Israel.

they were useless and posed a threat for a future retaliation. nip it in the bud...but why...they were all going to hell anyway?

They weren't useless. Which option do you think should've been chosen? Yes they were, what's your point?

you then need to define unlawful...

In our discussions I'm thinking of it as anything that goes against God's law.

yes

That doesn't make sense. If I see killing infants boys as questionable, then I wouldn't be justifying genocide. Also when you say I'm "justifying it(or saying it's just)" Do you mean that it's unjust according to you?

can a husband rape is wife?

Hmm well I guess so(since he can have sex with her without her consent). However there'd be no reason for her to not have sex with her husband. Sex, is after all, a part of marriage and the women would have been aware of this when she got married.

 

[waitasec]

So because God's not attractive to you that makes him irresponsible???

we went over this already.

god held adam responsible for his actions while ignoring god is a bad bad parent by not holding himself responsible.

So what? Adam and Eve still ahd the other trees. God made it clear that eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil wouldn't be a positive thing.

i don't understand your logic about the other trees...so what there were other trees. the point is, this story fails on many many levels.
1st in order to know what good and evil means you would need to have knowledge of it...so from the get go it fails.

I don't know anything about that tree.

so then why would you expect adam and eve to?
they didn't know what good and evil meant...so to them it was like hearing glipper and glopper...get it?

They wouldn't have grown up and attacked Israel in venegance. The boys would've.

right that is what i said.

Sure, but the baby boy still would've grown up to attack Israel.

right that i s what i said.
nip it in the bud...

They weren't useless. Which option do you think should've been chosen? Yes they were, what's your point?

they were useless..as they represented a threat.
nip it in the bud

That doesn't make sense. If I see killing infants boys as questionable, then I wouldn't be justifying genocide. Also when you say I'm "justifying it(or saying it's just)" Do you mean that it's unjust according to you?

but you are justifying genocide by saying this:

They wouldn't have grown up and attacked Israel in venegance. The boys would've.

nip it in the bud, right?

Hmm well I guess so(since he can have sex with her without her consent). However there'd be no reason for her to not have sex with her husband. Sex, is after all, a part of marriage and the women would have been aware of this when she got married.

yeah i see what you mean, if my husband killed my parents and little brother... i can see that as a real turn on.

i'm done.

 

[tempter]

So I've read a couple of posts about people claiming to be "ex christians" and I'm curious as to what they mean exactly. If you are an ex-christain were you in a relationship with Jesus Christ and decided you wanted the relationship to end? Was it that the belief of christiantity stopped making sense or something else entirely? Please let me know.

For me, I recognized that I what I was feeling - what I had attributed to God - could have been anything. Basically that there was no proof that what I experienced was God, or any god. Sure it's possible, but that's not enough for me.
Then I started exploring other ideas, religions, etc. I especially watched other "Christians". That was the final straw. When I saw how awful people who considered themselves "Christian", added to my other experiences (not to mention common sense) I then declared myself, proudly, an 'ex-christian' (a term that was available to me - nothing more).
IMO, anyone who claims to have a relationship with Jesus is simply fooling themselves to an extreme - much like I did. They are brainwashed by a desperate regime (the church) that wants the money and control of people/society.
But hey - if they want to live in a fairy-tale land, so long as they don't try to force it on me, I don't much care what they do. It's their life to waste, after all.

 

[Astravalon]

Sorry

No worries!

They knew the parameters. God told them not to eat of that one tree, and they knew not too.

However, you mentiond in post 1266 that God created Adam as
perfect and that therefore he wouldn't have a knowledge of
evil.

1. Adam was supposedly perfect, so he would be incapable
of sinning.

2. God is inflicting a pretty radical punishment, right off the
bat, for crossing a line that Adam had not realized should
not be crossed. It’s Parenting 101 -- you don’t inflict severe
punishment the first time an infraction is committed. If the
child insists on committing a particular wrongdoing
repeatedly, then the parent can pull out the big guns and
ground the child or even condemn the entire race to death
and misery if that‘s the sort of parent he or she is.

If God took sin away then anything that went against him( basically the definition of sin) would also go away. We wouldn't have thoughts of killing, which means there'd be no war. We wouldn't ahve thoughts to lie or steal so you wouldn't have crime. If sin was gone the world would be perfect.

Well, evidently that’s not the case.

Your bible distinctly says that Jesus took away the sin of the
world. So maybe you just don’t believe what it says there,
which is fine (I don’t buy any ancient text hook line and
sinker anymore either).

Or, your idea of a sin-free world makes it difficult for you to
reconcile the world as it appears with Jesus having taken
away the sin therein.

Thirdly, don’t forget that it was allegedly a sin-free world
back when Adam decided to do something that went against
God by eating of the tree. So, going by that scenario, sin
evidently can occur in an otherwise sin-free environment.

God saw sin as an issue, there's nothing in the Bible that suggests/says sin is okay with him and no big deal. He didn't just punish nations and people because it felt good to him. He did it because of their sins. He also didn't send Christ to die because he thought it woudl make a cool Bible story. He did it so that we could have payment for our sin.

Notice I said “no longer sees sin as an issue” there.
Your bible says God is love.
Your bible also says that love keeps no record of wrongs.
Your bible also says blessed is the man whose sin is no longer counted against him.
Your bible also says that we are now no longer under condemnation.

I refuse to believe that God is the great germaphobe in the
sky who is still, after all this time, getting the heeby-jeebies
every time someone behaves according to the way He
designed them in the first place.

You're right our sin is paid for regardless of whether we accept that or not. However you don't get to heaven just because your sin is paid for you have to believe in Christ and accept him into your life. I mean Christ doesn't say I've paid for your sins, now you're saved. You have to believe in him and what he did. The price for sin can't be a sinner, and we're all sinners, so we can't be our own saviors.

You're making belief our savior rather than Jesus.

Just as gravity doesn’t require belief in it before it do
what it do with us, any aspect of reality does what it
does apart from our beliefs or opinions on them. Likewise, if
Jesus’s sacrifice was real to begin with, and has any real
power to it at all, it will have it’s desired impact on each
individual regardless of their belief about it.

Fairy tales require belief to seem real. Reality, however,
does not. Therefore, if the whole Jesus thing is just a
fairy tale, then yes, I can understand how personal belief
is going to be required.

An important note: There are verses that tie belief to a
salvation of sorts, but I am persuaded that those deal with a
temporal type of salvation, having to do with the pending
fall of Jerusalem in AD70. In those instances, I think it had
to do with people believing Jesus's warnings and fleeing to
the mountains of Judea before that Tribulation in AD70 (I'm
more of a preterist in my eschatology). The heaven-
some-day kind of salvation, however, is a done deal for all
mankind, imo.

Jesus did die for everyone, not just believers(I don't think I ever said he did)

No, but Christianity then turns around and basically suggests
that He is only the Savior of most of mankind in name only,
not in effect, given that most of mankind supposedly dies in
unbelief and winds up in hell forever. If one says that belief
is the agent that activates an individual’s salvation, then,
basically, one is saying that Jesus dies only for believers,
because it’s only the believers who benefit from said death.

Oh yes you're right he didn't ask for our permission. I'm not overlooking them, when we become christains we're BORN into God's family

I think you still might be missing the essence of that,
though. Does birth take place because the one being born
believes something or does something? No. The birth of
someone is decided and executed by the one doing the
delivering. This is why the words “born again” call into
question the idea that the birth-ee must believe or do
anything in order to make that happen.

Why would we have to believe we were sinners to be sinners? We're sinners regardless.

That’s just it -- we didn’t have to believe we were sinners to
be sinners. That’s my point. According to your bible we are
made alive in Christ (made sinless too, if you will) in the
same way we died in Adam. So if our salvation is applied the
same way our sinful nature was, that would mean we don’t
need to believe to be saved any more than we had to
believe to be sinners.

And our sins our paid for regardless, but just having our sins paid for doesn't get us to heaven.

You don’t seem to have much faith in what Jesus supposedly
did for you if you believe that.

It wouldn't make since for Christ to tell his disciples to go out and teach other people about him if they were all already saved.

Why not? Wouldn't the slaves have appreciated knowing
about Abe Lincoln and what he did in setting them free? A
slave's freedom can be made official without the slave
knowing about it, but don't you think the slave would
appreciate the info so he or she could enjoy it?

And if the world was already saved then there'd be no reason for us to stay on earth. God would have just taken all of us up to heaven.

That depends on what your beliefs are concerning what
constitutes “heaven”, whether it‘s a state of being or a
geographical location. It all started here on earth, no reason
it couldn’t continue here on earth.

Right it is but that's physical death. I'm talking of spiritual death(or separation from God)

Death of any kind is the last enemy to be destroyed --
spiritual or otherwise. And, again, one can’t be separated
from an Omnipresent deity.

Also the entire human race doesn't not believe in Christ.(I don't really know why you think that)

Could you point to where I said that the entire human race
doesn’t not believe in Christ? I don’t recall saying that.


-

 

[arthra]

Oh okay I no very little about the Baha'i religion(another one I need to look into haha) So then what's your relationship with Christ based on?

Hey I missed this one liner response some time ago so thought i'd reply here..

Baha'is accept that Christ returned in 1844 so the "relationship with Christ" continues... I'll provide a reference

Return of Christ

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I should've said people haven't given me "good reasons." I could give you good reasons to do something, but if the reasons weren't sufficent you'd be under no obligation to believe/follow them

Since you are apparently a slave to what the Bible says nothing, even the most obvious rational explanation, will be good enough.

God's not really blackmailing us.

Except he is; calling it something prettier doesn't change what it is.

We're sinners and destined for hell.

Because of how God designed us, and the system he put into place. Are we humans, even at this advanced stage of our evolution, capable of created an extra-dimensional place like Hell? No we are not. Can we divert or direct the soul of a person to some such place using our own technology or some magic spell? No, we can not. Who is? God. And only God. Anyone going to Hell does so because of God, who created Hell.
If people had any control over where their soul flew after death, nobody would choose Hell. If we had any actual control, as you falsely assert, heck, nobody would die at all.
You simply wish to place the blame on people, and avoid blaming God; but the premise is absurd.

God provided us with an escape from that punishment. We weren't perfect beings and he then gave us the choice of following him or eternal punishment and separation.

And taht pair of choices shows how it is blackmail; we can follow the choice he prefers, or suffer an eternity of fire. Im sorry that this isn't sinking in for you.

Just because you woudln't provide people with that option doens't make you moral than God.

Actually it does

Yet Adam did bring sin upon mankind according to the Bible.

Because, as I said, the bible would not lay the blame in God's lap; the book is there to make him look good, do you not understand?
But a rational examination, free of the Bible's one-sided propaganda, reveals the truth.

God defined sin yes, but he didn't bring it upon us and he designed Adam originally as a perfect being. He wasn't desinged to "tend torward sin" however God did give him the ability to make choices, which allows the potential for sin. It wan't impossible for Adam to not sin.

The fact that Adam's bad choice would lead to every single subsequent human being inclined to sin, IS God's fault. Notice it didn't just change Adam? That's where God made it happen.
What made sin some 'hereditary' inclination? *bzzt* you guessed it.. God's magic.

God's an infinite being so the punishment has to be infinite.

Well, I am a finite being so the punishment has to be finite.

[note: this isn't good logic at all, Im just turning it back on itself to show how foolish it is]
IN any case, your reasoning here is poor. Justice = 'the punishment fits the crime'. This isn't justice, by the definition of the word.

and think about it if someone were just punished for a short time, they'd go back to sinning once they were done with the punishment.

This is also poor reasoning. Think about it yourself: we are talking about someone who is already dead. They cannot go back to sinning.

Why is torture immoral?

Are you really asking this?

Right and also Lazraus rose.

No, Lazarus was raised. Jesus did his own rising himself. Lazarus died assuming he'd stay that way, and so did everyone around him [assume he was actually dead].

Why do you think he imitated it? There's nothing in the Bible to suggest that. And why does his sacrifice have to have a permanent loss to be real?

Because he rose, you silly person.
And because that's what 'sacrifice' means! Words have actual definitions; the point of a sacrifice is that you give up something forever for some others' sake. It's like taking back a donation you give to a charity: did you really make a sacrificial gesture, if you grab your money back?

Indeed, but if we're both basing our statements on the Bible then we can accurately say Jesus really did die. Yous aying he imitated it isn't Bible based. It's just an assumption.

No, we really can't. it says he died because it needs to manufacture a story that is supposed to tell something. But it's a bad story, poorly thought out. It vacillates between Jesus being divine and Jesus being only a man, using the more emotionally-hooked characteristics when it is convenient to do so, then flips back the other way to cover some other convenience. It's logically inconsistent. His crucifixion is brutal because he needs then to be seen as a vulnerable human who is about to lose everything by dieing. But he doesn't lose everything. He rises back out of it as if it never happened. That is one point where his divinity is ignored by the narrative, because if it were paid attention to the sacrifice would be, and rightly so, seen as an empty gesture.

It's not just an assumption.
It's a direct observation.

If it were just based on you and me(and the Bible was out fo it) then yes my argument woudl be destroyed because it woudl just be your word over mine about an event we didn't even witness. However the Bible reccords the event and it doesn't say anything about Jesus imitating death, nor does it even imply that. It says he died.

No, that wouldn't be the case.
Witnessing has ZERO to do with it.

This is what the story says. I made accurate observations about details of the story itself that ruin the story's hoped-for message. From what happens in the story, it's an imitation of death, because JESUS RISES, Christ. Did he lose his life forever? No, he didn't. He gets it back.

If the Bible said that Jesus just died then yes you would have some "evidence" but it also says he rose again, so you shouldn't expect him to still be dead.

Dead people don't rise. If you do rise, you're not dead anymore, therefore, you did not die. Death is permanent. Or did you not know that?