The fallacy of Jesus dying for our sins (By Shabir Ally)

[McBell]

This is also for you to read:

A logical question therefore arises: how can the mountains stabilize the earth, while their mass and dimensions are so small when compared to the earth's mass and dimensions?

It was not until the mid sixties that the answer became known. It appeared that the lithosphere runs through a tremendous network of faults that extends for tens of thousands of kilometers, wholly encompassing the earth. They vary between 65 and 150 kms in depth. Therefore, they result in rupturing the lithosphere into a number of isolated plates leveling with these faults. These plates float over a supple, half-molten, highly dense and viscid layer known as the earth's asthenosphere. This layer abounds with active thermal currents taking the form of violent vortexes of convection currents. They drive the plates away from each other, or bring them into collision with such velocities that make it impossible to live on.

The violent motion of these plates is only calmed through the consecutive formation of mountain chains till they reach their final stage. This is achieved by completely consuming the ocean platform that separates two remote continents. One continent pushes the platform under the other continent till the two collide compressing the rock aggregate between them into great mountain chains extending with their wedges, which fasten the rocks of both continents together just like a wedge fastens down a tent .

This process occurred when the Indian Continent moved towards Asia. They collided resulting in the formation of the highest and most recently formed, Himalaya Mountains.

Concerning the earth as a planet, we know that the rotational motion around its axis has changed its completely circular shape into a spheroid, slightly bulging at the equator, and slightly flat at the poles. This equatorial protrusion of the earth caused the rotational axis to change its direction in a slow motion called 'Precession'. The term refers to the slow gyration of Earth's axis around the pole of the ecliptic, caused mainly by the gravitational pull of the sun, moon, and other planets of Earth's equatorial bulge. The mountain chains with their deep roots in the lithosphere , (whose depth comes to about ten to fifteen times their height above the earth's surface) tend to subside these violent motions , lessen the powerful staggering of the earth's rotational axis and make the earth more stable and orderly in its rotation around the axis . The mountains also, attenuate the violent movement of the earth in such a way that a tire attenuates percussion during rotation.

:sorry1:

Cyrano de Bergerac in chapter 5 of his The Other World The Societies and Governments of the Moon...

 

[Sleeppy]

This is also for you to read:

A logical question therefore arises: how can the mountains stabilize the earth, while their mass and dimensions are so small when compared to the earth's mass and dimensions?

It was not until the mid sixties that the answer became known. It appeared that the lithosphere runs through a tremendous network of faults that extends for tens of thousands of kilometers, wholly encompassing the earth. They vary between 65 and 150 kms in depth. Therefore, they result in rupturing the lithosphere into a number of isolated plates leveling with these faults. These plates float over a supple, half-molten, highly dense and viscid layer known as the earth's asthenosphere. This layer abounds with active thermal currents taking the form of violent vortexes of convection currents. They drive the plates away from each other, or bring them into collision with such velocities that make it impossible to live on.

The violent motion of these plates is only calmed through the consecutive formation of mountain chains till they reach their final stage. This is achieved by completely consuming the ocean platform that separates two remote continents. One continent pushes the platform under the other continent till the two collide compressing the rock aggregate between them into great mountain chains extending with their wedges, which fasten the rocks of both continents together just like a wedge fastens down a tent .

This process occurred when the Indian Continent moved towards Asia. They collided resulting in the formation of the highest and most recently formed, Himalaya Mountains.

Concerning the earth as a planet, we know that the rotational motion around its axis has changed its completely circular shape into a spheroid, slightly bulging at the equator, and slightly flat at the poles. This equatorial protrusion of the earth caused the rotational axis to change its direction in a slow motion called 'Precession'. The term refers to the slow gyration of Earth's axis around the pole of the ecliptic, caused mainly by the gravitational pull of the sun, moon, and other planets of Earth's equatorial bulge. The mountain chains with their deep roots in the lithosphere , (whose depth comes to about ten to fifteen times their height above the earth's surface) tend to subside these violent motions , lessen the powerful staggering of the earth's rotational axis and make the earth more stable and orderly in its rotation around the axis . The mountains also, attenuate the violent movement of the earth in such a way that a tire attenuates percussion during rotation.

Source? Here's the problem with this verse in Quran 16:15- Earthquakes still occur, even in and around mountain ranges. Are earthquakes a sign of stable Earth? Mountains shift, contrary to this verse. The earth shifts, contrary to this verse. The earth is not stabilized by mountains, because the earth is constantly shifting! Earth Floor: Plate Tectonics

 

[nash8]

So the fact that computers work is an opinion?

Yes!!! Or better yet, it is only a fact that computers work during the exact moment that an individual person is experiencing a computer "working". Beyond that, it is not a fact. In order for it to be a "fact", you must be able to define what exactly it is that defines a computer "working", which any definition would be superfluous at best. Then you must be able to prove that computer's "work" in every possible scenario.

Prove to me that computer's work while I am not experience a "working" computer.

The fact that medicine saves lives is an opinion too?

That one is even less of a "fact" than computers working.
Exposing Pharmaceutical Drug Damages & Drug Deaths to Humans, Medical Myths, Medical Fraud, Medical Research Scams, Vivisection (Animal Research), Scientific Fraud.

Providing one counter example is enough to prove that something is purely an "opinion", no?

And the theory of relativity must be an opinion as well.

Most definitely. A theory by definition is an opinion, although they are generally well supported opinions.

Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And obviously all opinions are of equal value and credibility :biglaugh:.

Strawman, never made any such argument.

Everything in science is a theory anyways; if you understood the scientific method you wouldn't have made such a statement. Science doesn't make claims of absolute certainty.

Exactly, and a theory is nothing more than an opinion. Some more substantiated with evidence than others. Trust me I understand the scientific method just fine.

"At some point in time there had to be exactly two humans, and only two humans that had the exact qualities to be classified in modern classification systems as "homo sapiens"."

This is something that people who don't understand evolution argue. It's preposterous because where do you draw the line between what mutations would classify something as human vs non human? So tell me then, what mutations make a person human? Evolution is a gradual process over thousands of years with incremental changes.

Personally, the mutations I would use would be as follows: opposable thumbs, developed frontal/prefontal lobes (specifications are to numerous to list, but a google search can provide plenty of info if you desire), reduced canine size, specific skull size, shape and construction, ability to produce a specific set of phonemes, specific reproductive traits, as well as many other specific traits.

There are specific traits and genetics that an entity must have to be considered a member of a specific biological classification. To be honest I'm not totally familiar with all the traits that a homo sapien has to have to be qualified as such, but I would be interested if you found some info on the subject as I know there is a set of traits than an entity has to have in order to qualify in a specific class, otherwise our scientific classification system would not hold much weight, no?

I agree with you that evolution is a gradual process, but I also believe that there were, at exactly one point in time, exactly two humans that held all of the traits that would allow a modern scientist to qualify them as "human", or at least "homo sapiens".

But on that note we could argue what qualifies as "human", but no matter what species you, or anyone else would qualify as humans, be it Neanderthal, Australopithecus, homo erectus, homo sapiens or otherwise, I know at a specific point in time, there were exactly two of these "beings" that held all of the traits that we would qualify as "human".

It would be like asking at what instant someone becomes an adult from a teenager.

It depends on the society. In American society 18. By numerical standards, age 20, as that person would no longer be a "teenager". In other societies, it would be age 12, 13, 14, or when a person completed a task that qualified them as an "adult" within the confines of that society. Regardless of the definition, there is exactly one point in time, when said person becomes and "adult" according to the laws of any given society.

That's correct, but a strawman since that was not what I was arguing. I was arguing that disagreeing evolution would be like disagreeing with computer science, or biology, or chemistry, or medicine. These fields have so much supporting evidence that arguing against them is not sensible unless you present some very bullet proof evidence and a counter theory.

I believe your argument was something along the lines of, "So you don't believe in evolution, so I guess you don't believe in this, this, this, and that". You may have intended to be arguing that disagreeing with evolution is like disagreeing with another aspect of scientific inquiry, but the argument/attack you presented was a generalization of another person's opinion concerning certain scientific fields based upon their opinion of an altogether different scientific field.

This is a bad example because it relies on an accurate theory of quantum gravity that does not exist. It also relies on a good knowledge of black holes, of which we have limited evidence. The evidence for a holographic universe is far more scant than the plethora of genetic, fossil, and computer simulation evidence that supports evolution.

You actually helped to emphasize my point for me. I adhere to a theory that is not generally supported by the scientific community, at least now, as well as it being difficult to confirm or disprove due to our lack of ability gather quantifiable evidence with regard to a hypothesis. My adherence to this particular theory of science, does not however, affect my belief in other unrelated fields of science, as you postulated against St. Frank in prior posts due to his lack of belief in certain aspects of the theory of evolution.

"Can you cite some evidence that supports this theory of yours???"
Easy--anti biotic resistant bacteria. It shows you how evolution has a critical effect on medicine, particularly anti biotics. Evolutionary theory predicted that substantial use of anti biotics unnecessarily would lead to resistance. Also look up drug resistant tuberculosis. I will cite if need be, but you can surely do a google search if you don't believe me. This is relatively common knowledge. Pbs frontline did a documentary on it, which was actually quite good.

Touché

:bonk: You forgot what the analogy was about.
The point of the analogy wasn't about surviving and dangers,

It's similar to a parent leaving a bunch of dangerous objects in a room with a kid

I dunno, but that seems like an analogy about surviving and dangers to me.

it was about being in a world where it is extremely easy to sin, where God knew we would sin, and yet is still discontent when we sin. I argued that was God's fault. It's similar to a parent leaving a bunch of dangerous objects in a room with a kid, because like God, the parent knows the kid will most likely hurt themselves (on the other side of the analogy it means God knows humans will most likely sin). God gives us the ability and makes it very likely that we will sin, like how the parent gives the ability and makes it very likely that the child will hurt themselves.

That's an argument of perspective and opinion. Most notably, the definition of sin, and the probability that we will commit it. As the things that we consider "sinful" decrease, so does the probability that we will commit sin. If we're going strictly by the "ten commandments" definition of sin, I don't personally find those things hard to avoid, so according to my perspective God did not place me in an environment where I would likely sin.

Lastly, there is a difference in the parent vs. God analogy in the last statement you made. While it could be argued that a creator God gave us the "ability" to sin, the parent does not give the child the "ability" to sin, in the analogy you provided the parent gives the child the "opportunity" to sin. God gives both in my opinion, opportunity and ability. But just because you are given the ability and opportunity to do something, does not mean that the person responsible for providing you with the opportunity and ability, is responsible for you exercising your ability given the opportunity, especially when free will is given at the same time.

"If God were to tell you, would you have the ability to hear what he/she had to say?"

Obviously--God could re arrange the stars to spell out a message in English. That would do it.

Depends on your conception of God. Also, giving a student the answers is not always the best way to learn, would you not agree?

"I am an educator, and preventative learning doesn't always work lol. "
Sure, but that doesn't mean you should just let a kid hurt themselves so they learn a hard lesson. I'll agree that parenting styles are just an opinion though, since there isn't evidence i'm aware of that would support one parenting style over another.

Indeed, their is always a need for balance in all things. If you know your child is about to do something that would endanger his/her life, of course you do everything in your power to stop them. But if you child/student is persistent in pursuing an action that could cause them minor/moderate harm after repeated warnings, and extensive energy exertion on your part, it becomes apparent, at least for me, that is inevitable that they will experience whatever it is that they seek to experience, and the best course of action is just to guide them along the way.

Parenting styles are just an opinion, but there is evidence to support that certain styles promote more successful children.

The authoritative parenting style: A guide for the science-minded parent

 

[nash8]

"I can already tell your gonna last a while around here. :no:"
A red herring. Pointless.

True, and you should do inline quotations, it would make your arguments much more precise and easier to read. Type /quote surrounded by [] after the first statement you want to respond to.

Then highlight the next part of text you want to respond to, and press the little "air quote" button next to the mountain button on the top of your response form.

 

[Britedream]

Source? Here's the problem with this verse in Quran 16:15- Earthquakes still occur, even in and around mountain ranges. Are earthquakes a sign of stable Earth? Mountains shift, contrary to this verse. The earth shifts, contrary to this verse. The earth is not stabilized by mountains, because the earth is constantly shifting! Earth Floor: Plate Tectonics

I don't see a problem with the verse, the problem is that you put your reasoning aside, and went running around, trying to find errors in the translation of the verse at any cost. it doesn't work that way, so you had two pitfalls, The first one, is you understand The meaning of the translation of verse in an isolation of its context, The second one, is you put the translation validity as the validity of the verse itself.

If I were to till you that I went to a toy store and it has everything, you may interpret that and say you are lying, the store has only toys, it doesn't have cars, planes etc., that would not be reasonable in your part to claim that I conveyed that meaning. by the same talking, God in the verse, was reminding the human, what he is giving them, one of that is the stability of the earth in reference to Their ability to to live on it, God did not talk about Earth is fixed or shaking. so the meaning of the verse should be understood within the boundary of its context .

The validity of the verse depends only on the verse itself, and not on what The translation is conveying, The translations could be false.

another thing you seem to be doing, is that you take the word fixed; which refers to position, and replace the word stable; which refers to status unlikely to change, then build your argument on that. planes go at hight speed, shake, and fall, but are considered a stable means for travel, likewise, Earth, has strong winds, Earthquakes,etc., but it is stable to live on.

What I posted is not from plate tectonics, so there is no need to direct me to that site.

 

[Sleeppy]

I don't see a problem with the verse, the problem is that you put your reasoning aside, and went running around, trying to find errors in the translation of the verse at any cost. it doesn't work that way, so you had two pitfalls, The first one, is you understand The meaning of the translation of verse in an isolation of its context, The second one, is you put the translation validity as the validity of the verse itself.

If I were to till you that I went to a toy store and it has everything, you may interpret that and say you are lying, the store has only toys, it doesn't have cars, planes etc., that would not be reasonable in your part to claim that I conveyed that meaning. by the same talking, God in the verse, was reminding the human, what he is giving them, one of that is the stability of the earth in reference to Their ability to to live on it, God did not talk about Earth is fixed or shaking. so the meaning of the verse should be understood within the boundary of its context .

The validity of the verse depends only on the verse itself, and not on what The translation is conveying, The translations could be false.

What I posted is not from plate tectonics, so there is no need to direct me to that site.

You don't see the problem? Not surprising. The verse very clearly says Allah casts firmly set mountains into the Earth. Mountains are not cast into the Earth; they are formed from the Earth breaking apart and colliding with itself. The verse very clearly says the reason for these mountains is to prevent the Earth from shifting with you. The Earth is constantly shifting. This shifting creates both canyons and mountains, which also shift with the Earth.They are not firmly set. Mountains are not being cast from any place. Mountains are not preventing the Earth from shifting. The exact opposite is true; shifting causes mountains to form.

You're in denial. You're attributing the words of a man to Allah!

 

[Britedream]

You don't see the problem? Not surprising. The verse very clearly says Allah casts firmly set mountains into the Earth. Mountains are not cast into the Earth; they are formed from the Earth breaking apart and colliding with itself. The verse very clearly says the reason for these mountains is to prevent the Earth from shifting with you. The Earth is constantly shifting. This shifting creates both canyons and mountains, which also shift with the Earth.They are not firmly set. Mountains are not being cast from any place. Mountains are not preventing the Earth from shifting. The exact opposite is true; shifting causes mountains to form.

You're in denial. You're attributing the words of a man to Allah!

You are wrong, you can use the word ألقى الطالب باللوم على زميله, the very same word use in the verse, the translation of that, the student put the blame on his class mate. so do not try to teach me my language please, I just added in post above what I think you have been doing, please read it.

 

[Sha'irullah]

If god is omnipotent why on earth does he need Jesus to die for our sins. If he is capable of doing all things then he does not require himself to make an auto-legal system. God creates rule for himself? This just comes about as utter nonsense on any level.

If I was capable of creating form out of nothing, then I would be able to do any action on the basis of nothing. God would not require a sacrifice to complete the action of forgiveness.

 

[Sleeppy]

You are wrong, you can use the word ألقى الطالب باللوم على زميله, the very same word use in the verse, the translation of that, the student put the blame on his class mate. so do not try to teach me my language please, I just added in post above what I think you have been doing, please read it.

Teach you your language? When you wouldn't even translate the verse?-- What does 'the student put blame on his classmate' have to do with anything?

 

[Sleeppy]

If god is omnipotent why on earth does he need Jesus to die for our sins. If he is capable of doing all things then he does not require himself to make an auto-legal system. God creates rule for himself? This just comes about as utter nonsense on any level.

If I was capable of creating form out of nothing, then I would be able to do any action on the basis of nothing. God would not require a sacrifice to complete the action of forgiveness.

In the Tanakh, God doesn't create from nothing. If you think a little further-- you'd only be replacing sacrifice with something else, which someone else like you would disagree with.

 

[Sha'irullah]

In the Tanakh, God doesn't create from nothing. If you think a little further-- you'd only be replacing sacrifice with something else, which someone else like you would disagree with.

Scripture please. I detect serious amounts of posturing and no proving.

 

[Britedream]

Teach you your language? When you wouldn't even translate the verse?-- What does 'the student put blame on his classmate' have to do with anything?

for your information and those how is feeding you with wrong information, whenever you see the word ألقى followed by fee; which means in , in english , the word always means put in. so who does not know how to translate.

No wonder, you lack the comperhansion, I was giving you an example to show the use of word.

 

[Sleeppy]

Scripture please. I detect serious amounts of posturing and no proving.

You should also detect your own hypocrisy. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1

 

[Sleeppy]

for your information and those how is feeding you with wrong information, whenever you see the word ألقى followed by fee; which means in , in english , the word always means put in. so who does not know how to translate.

No wonder, you lack the comperhansion, I was giving you an example to show the use of word.

'Put in' instead of 'cast'? Both are false. You keep trying to insult me, by saying I don't know Arabic, when I had already told you this more than once! If you wanted to provide an accurate translation, you could have done it from the very beginning.. But, it doesn't matter because both translations are still lies.

 

[Sha'irullah]

You should also detect your own hypocrisy. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1

I am not being the hypocrite sadly enough for you.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Nowhere is it stated god formed something from something already in existence. Point out the specific verse because all I am seeing here is implausibility considering that the earth was created alongside the heavens.
Also the concept is a firmament which is not a cosmos

 

[vskipper]

What does this ^ have to do with Yeshua (his name never was Jesus) dying for our sins?

 

[Britedream]

'Put in' instead of 'cast'? Both are false. You keep trying to insult me, by saying I don't know Arabic, when I had already told you this more than once! If you wanted to provide an accurate translation, you could have done it from the very beginning.. But, it doesn't matter because both translations are still lies.

you have my sincere apology, I did not mean it in any shape or form.

put in is not wrong, the mountain and Earh, both are created, so you can't use put in instead of create, the only way left is to use ,put in provision, for the mountains to be created.

 

[Sleeppy]

I am not being the hypocrite sadly enough for you.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Nowhere is it stated god formed something from something already in existence. Point out the specific verse because all I am seeing here is implausibility considering that the earth was created alongside the heavens.
Also the concept is a firmament which is not a cosmos

The word "created" is interchangeable with "prepared". God was already in existence; that's your first clue. Verse 2 states, "the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,".. The Earth can't exist, and "the waters" can't exist, if space, the cosmos did not exist. Verse 1 is the introduction to the preparation of Heaven and Earth, detailed in the following verses. There's no indication whatsoever that God created from nothing; He had a blueprint, and He had power.

 

[vskipper]

What does this ^ have to do with Yeshua (his name never was Jesus) dying for our sins?

Rinse repeat

 

[Sleeppy]

you have my sincere apology, I did not meant it in any shape or form.

put in is not wrong, the mountain and Earh, both are created, so you can't use put in instead of create, the only way left is to use ,put in provision, for the mountains to be created.

Britedream.. If you believe the Quran is perfect, and you've actually tested it's claims to your satisfaction- I don't have any problem with you, if you keep peace. I don't see perfection in any book, but you have found perfection in your Quran.. God's will is done.