Why is Christ's sacrifice needed?

[Faithofchristian]

No, I’m really not. I don’t think the story happened at all and I don’t think your god even exists; I’m just exploring the implications if the story was true.

Now your not making any sense at all. If you don't believe my God even exists or you don't think the story happened at all.

Then why are you even want to debate on something you don't believe in.

If I don't believe in something, I am sure not going to get into a debate with someone over something I don't believe in.
Just for the sake of getting into a debate.
Which would be useless.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Yes you are. You made false accusations against 9_10ths and now me. I do take responsibility for my own actions. And I suggest that you quit breaking the rules here.

I am not breaking the rules here, Nope all I said which you can't handle, you keep wanting to blame God, for your actions, and all I said take responsibility for your own actions.
Now your making false accusations against me.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Do you mean is that what the Bible says, then yes.

Does it say animals could have spirits?

Only humans have spirits so far I read since the point of the spirit/person is to rejoin with god. Animals cant be saved. Unless there is some mysticism involved?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now that's amazing, you say, you don't believe in my God.
But yet you will quote things from the God you don't believe in. Now that is amazing.

Why is it amazing? It merely demonstrates that by your own standards you are being a hypocrite. I was a Christian in the past, I do understand the Bible. It is amazing how many Christians do not understand the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not breaking the rules here, Nope all I said which you can't handle, you keep wanting to blame God, for your actions, and all I said take responsibility for your own actions.
Now your making false accusations against me.

Sure you are. Personal insults are against the rules. You went over the line. And we are not "blaming God". You make the mistake of thinking that your version of God is the only possible version of God. I and others are merely demonstrating that your personal version of God is immoral.

I made no false accusations against you. Unlike you I can support my claims. You cannot support yours. As I pointed out atheists do take take responsibility for their own actions. That does not appear to be the case with many Christians. They have this false belief that if they admit their sins to their God and apologize to him that everything is okay. That does not fly in the real world. Murderers get sent to prison, even if they are Christian and are "really really sorry". In the real world an adult takes responsibility for his bad actions. Too many Christians do not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh by the way, if you had any idea what the ninth commandment is about, you might have had something. But seeing you don't understand what the ninth commandment is about, you have nothing.
Nice try

Oh please, I clearly understand it much better than you do, assuming that your version is "Thou shalt no bear false witness". That is a prohibition on much more than mere lying. You can lie, if it is not false witness against someone. And if you make a statement against your neighbor that is wrong, even if you do not know it, it is a "bearing of false witness". In other words, if you say something against someone you better be damn sure that you are right and can support your claim. Too many Christians think it is only a ban on lying, and that is clearly not the case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does it say animals could have spirits?

Actually it does.

Only humans have spirits so far I read since the point of the spirit/person is to rejoin with god. Animals cant be saved. Unless there is some mysticism involved?

Please make up your mind. You just contradicted yourself. Perhaps you might want to look up the words that you are using.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Actually it does.



Please make up your mind. You just contradicted yourself. Perhaps you might want to look up the words that you are using.

I read that animals dont have spirits

Spirits are only in humans

Only humans can be saved not animals

God speaks of spirits of people not animals

Spirit meaning a human image of god

Animals are not a mirror image; therefore, If they have a spirit it is not the one god speaks of in need of salvation

Spirit: soul of a human and mirror image of god

Spirit: the breathe of life un all living beings

@Faithofchristian is talking about the breathe of life.
I am speaking of the spirit of a person with inherited sin

Every living being has the breathe of life.

Only humans have a spirit/soul that knows a relationship with god

I forgot her name now @Kelly of the Phoenix I think, said that my comment was debatable is not referring to the spirit of a human. Unless its mysticism of somesort, where is it debatable in scripture that:

a. Every living being has spirit (key: that can be saved)?

Or

b. That its debatable that all living beings were given the breathe of life?

Edit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I read that animals dont have spirits

Spirits are only in humans

Only humans can be saved not animals

God speaks of spirits of people not animals

Spirit meaning a human image of god

Animals are not a mirror image; therefore, If they have a spirit it is not the one god speaks of in need of salvation

Spirit: soul of a human and mirror image of god

Spirit: the breathe of life un all living beings

@Faithofachristian is talking about the breathe of life.
I am speaking of the spirit of a person with inherited sin

Every living being has the breathe of life.

Only humans have a spirit/soul that knows a relationship with god

I forgot her name now but the member who said my comment was debatable is not referring to the spirit of a human. Unless its mysticism of somesort, where is it debatable in scripture that:

a. Every living being has spirit (key: that can be saved)?

Or

b. That its debatable that all living beings were given the breathe of life?

Edit.

Your error is that humans are animals.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Your error is that humans are animals.

This is biblically speaking not scientific. God gave the first humans dominion over animals. He considered them the first humans not the first animals. This has nothing to do with science etc. Just whats said and explained in scripture. My beliefs and opinions not included.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is biblically speaking not scientific. God gave the first humans dominion over animals. He considered them the first humans not the first animals. This has nothing to do with science etc. Just whats said and explained in scripture. My beliefs and opinions not included.

Fine, that is according to the Genesis myth, but we are far afield of justifying the false sacrifice of Jesus.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Biblicaly?

Yes, debatable. If animals don't have spirits, how does the donkey talk? IIRC, his mouth was opened. In other words, he could now speak human language. It doesn't say he was recently ensouled or something. The donkey was distraught at being abused BEFORE he could speak and knew enough about his loyalty to Balaam that he knew his treatment was wrong. We assume things because of the language barrier, but we can communicate better with many species now, no thanks to the bible.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Fine, that is according to the Genesis myth, but we are far afield of justifying the false sacrifice of Jesus.

That isnt the point of my comment of the spirit, bible, and with Faith, the ignorance of the first humans. I can honestly care less about the authenticity of jesus and the bible. Myths are just common unproven stories. Whether they are false depends on the person really in regards to religion.

Back to your objection, though. I think thats probably why the word soul is used. Not all living beings have a soul/the person in need of salvation; All living beings have spirit/life.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes, debatable. If animals don't have spirits, how does the donkey talk? IIRC, his mouth was opened. In other words, he could now speak human language. It doesn't say he was recently ensouled or something. The donkey was distraught at being abused BEFORE he could speak and knew enough about his loyalty to Balaam that he knew his treatment was wrong. We assume things because of the language barrier, but we can communicate better with many species now, no thanks to the bible.

Animals were given the spirit/breathe of life from god in genesis

Only humans have the spirit/soul that has inherited sin jesus cleanses

Doesnt matter that the donkey talks. Given he isnt human he cannot be saved; he has no soul. He has spirit because he is alive.

Also, spirit doesnt make someone talk. Our brain and vocal chords do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That isnt the point of my comment of the spirit, bible, and with Faith, the ignorance of the first humans. I can honestly care less about the authenticity of jesus and the bible. Myths are just common unproven stories. Whether they are false depends on the person really in regards to religion.

Back to your objection, though. I think thats probably why the word soul is used. Not all living beings have a soul/the person in need of salvation; All living beings have spirit/life.

Pet peeve of mine, when you say "I can honestly care less" you are saying that it matters to you. What you meant to say is "I could not honestly care less". In the first you are saying that it matters an undetermined amount to you, in the second you would be saying that it does not matter to you at all. But myth or not, the ultimate story still appears to be that the crucifixion of Jesus appears to be only another example of the bad morals of the God of the Bible.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Pet peeve of mine, when you say "I can honestly care less" you are saying that it matters to you. What you meant to say is "I could not honestly care less". In the first you are saying that it matters an undetermined amount to you, in the second you would be saying that it does not matter to you at all. But myth or not, the ultimate story still appears to be that the crucifixion of Jesus appears to be only another example of the bad morals of the God of the Bible.

They are bad morals; and, that's what is written. I mean, we can talk for hours about the morality of the bible. My main point was on the soul and spirit.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Why is it amazing? It merely demonstrates that by your own standards you are being a hypocrite. I was a Christian in the past, I do understand the Bible. It is amazing how many Christians do not understand the Bible.

Well you just showed yourself as not being a true Christian, to day or in the pass, a True Christian doesn't give up their faith in God, but stands firm in what they believe.

If to what you say, that you do understand the bible, how is it, the bible which you say that you understand is unreliable.

You show yourself as saying one thing and then turn around and contradict yourself.

If I was to say, I understand an orange to be an orange, then how is it an apple.

You see, first you say, you understand the Bible, then the bible that you understand, you call unreliable.

That means, you didn't understand the Bible in the first place.if you did, then you wouldn't say the bible is unreliable.

If you say you understand a orange to be an orange, then how is it an apple.

It will always be a orange, an orange doesn't change into an apple just because people say it's an apple.

Thereby the bible is always reliable, and not unreliable just because people say it is.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Sure you are. Personal insults are against the rules. You went over the line. And we are not "blaming God". You make the mistake of thinking that your version of God is the only possible version of God. I and others are merely demonstrating that your personal version of God is immoral.

I made no false accusations against you. Unlike you I can support my claims. You cannot support yours. As I pointed out atheists do take take responsibility for their own actions. That does not appear to be the case with many Christians. They have this false belief that if they admit their sins to their God and apologize to him that everything is okay. That does not fly in the real world. Murderers get sent to prison, even if they are Christian and are "really really sorry". In the real world an adult takes responsibility for his bad actions. Too many Christians do not.

I didn't over step any rules, when you put the blame on someone else and not take responsibility for your own actions.

There's nothing wrong in that.

Look here you go again, making false accusations again. So who's breaking the rules. To make false accusations against me.
That's your whole problem, for some unknown reason, you think Christians are to go by the world's way of thinking.

That in it's self is making false accusations against me, as a Christian.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Oh please, I clearly understand it much better than you do, assuming that your version is "Thou shalt no bear false witness". That is a prohibition on much more than mere lying. You can lie, if it is not false witness against someone. And if you make a statement against your neighbor that is wrong, even if you do not know it, it is a "bearing of false witness". In other words, if you say something against someone you better be damn sure that you are right and can support your claim. Too many Christians think it is only a ban on lying, and that is clearly not the case.

Ok, then according to the Bible, in the ninth commandment it does say --"You shalt not bear false witness against your neighbour"

Ok, Now according to the Bible, who would be the neighbour, according to the Bible.

So you say, that you understand the Bible, so let's see just how much you do understand.

So explain who would be the neighbour ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well you just showed yourself as not being a true Christian, to day or in the pass, a True Christian doesn't give up their faith in God, but stands firm in what they believe.

I did not claim to be a Christian. But you are in no more of a position to say who is a 'True Christian' than I am. You do not get to decide, the Bible even tells you that.

If to what you say, that you do understand the bible, how is it, the bible which you say that you understand is unreliable.

What? You really need to try to think logically. Your question makes no sense at all. One does not have to believe the nonsense in the Bible to understand it. People have lied to you about that.

You show yourself as saying one thing and then turn around and contradict yourself.

Wrong again. I have not contradicted myself. You can't name one contradiction.

If I was to say, I understand an orange to be an orange, then how is it an apple.

And once again you demonstrate that logic is not in your toolbox. Can you ask proper questions?

You see, first you say, you understand the Bible, then the bible that you understand, you call unreliable.

Once again, one does not have to believe the nonsense in the Bible to understand it. You are not making sense. One does not have to believe that Spiderman is real to understand a Marvel comic book.

That means, you didn't understand the Bible in the first place.if you did, then you wouldn't say the bible is unreliable.

Now you are merely repeating your errors.

If you say you understand a orange to be an orange, then how is it an apple.

It will always be a orange, an orange doesn't change into an apple just because people say it's an apple.

Repeating an inane and illogical argument does not improve it.

Thereby the bible is always reliable, and not unreliable just because people say it is.

No, the Bible is unreliable not just because I or others say that it is, but because we can demonstrate that it is unreliable.