Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[sojourner]

those tiny pinpricks are nothing to someone immune to death, and can live for all time.

No sacrifice.

Jesus was no more immune to pain or death than you are. You can live for all time, too.

 

[sojourner]

the point is a Chrisitan making atonement to God for harm he did to a human, does NOT redress any such sin to teh hurt human.

It's like suing someone for pain and suffering they caused you in an accident. and the government getting all the money.

In real life, the person who suffered gets the money. get it yet?

Atonement to God for such sin is totally pointless.

Both must be engaged. One should go to the person one has hurt and ask forgiveness. One should also go to God and ask forgiveness, for it is ultimately God's creation that is hurt. This isn't about law. It's about relationship, and maintaining relationships in love.


Get it yet?

 

[FearGod]

Jesus was fully human, too. Just like you.

But i cant walk on water,Can i.
i got a human father,my father is human as i.
i cant heal the blind,Can i.
i cant heal the leper,Can i.
i cant heal the paralytic,Can i.
i cant ressurrect the dead,Can i.
i cant....icant............

AM I JUST LIKE JESUS

 

[idea]

Originally Posted by idea
I believe God is omnipotent - evil exists for free will to exist / for us to be refined / to be tested / to gain appreciation etc. etc. He allows it to exist temporarily for the above reasons - but does not cause evil, nor is evil a part of God.

(New Testament | 1 John 1:5) God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Are you saying that free will exists temporarily?

free will is eternal, but I think we will only temporarily choose evil (we'll learn better - why choose to eat **** if you could eat _______(fill in the blank with your fave food)... once we know better, we'll choose the good stuff.

 

[sojourner]

But i cant walk on water,Can i.
i got a human father,my father is human as i.
i cant heal the blind,Can i.
i cant heal the leper,Can i.
i cant heal the paralytic,Can i.
i cant ressurrect the dead,Can i.
i cant....icant............

AM I JUST LIKE JESUS

both Matthew and Luke corroborate in their respective 17th chapters that Jesus is quoted as saying that, if we have faith the size of a mustard seed, we could move mountains.
Peter healed people and cast out demons.
Peter began to walk on the water, until he began to doubt.
Jesus said that we would do greater things than he.
Jesus had disciples. A teacher teaches disciples what he knows. Yes, Jesus expects that we will become as he is.

Perhaps your faith isn't what it needs to be, if you "can't...?"

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The laws of the universe. It acted in an orderly fashion. Expanding outwards.

This is completely false. You can call the actual expansion orderly all you want to (whatever that means), but on your view there was no order to the actual energy within the space any more than there is order in you having a deck of cards and tossing all the cards in the air and letting them fall to the floor. There is no order.

This doesn't make sense? It is directly related to energy input, entropy cannot decrease in any system without energy input. Therefore unless that energy input is based on probability then it is not probabilistic. What is the probability of energy being put into the universe and how is it calculated?

There was no "energy" input on a naturalistic view. First of all, the universe is a closed system, so on there was nothing outside to give it any kind of energy input (of course, this is according to the Standard Model). If you ASSUME that there was energy input, then you are postulating a pre-big bang model, which is fine, but any pre-big bang model cannot be shown to be infinite and are plagued with different problems either from a philosophical standpoint or scientific. We have been discussing the Standard model thus far, so there is no since in trying to jump ship to another model once the going gets tough (my prediction).

Yep!

Ok. But explain to me how a males reproductive system just happen to be compatible with a females? This is not something that can happen over millions of years as you naturalists believe that evolution did. This was something that had to take place at or around the same time. If it took a females reproductive system hundreds, thousands, or millions of years to become compatible with the males, then how could any reproduction take place in between that time? You not only have to provide an answer for humans, but for all animals, including insects and aquatic creatures. I will patiently wait for an answer.

What purpose are you talking about? You talked about circulatory systems and all that and now you added in this "purpose"?

Does your heart have a purpose in your body?? Its purpose is to pump blood throughout your body, right? Do your eyes have purpose? The purpose is for your eyes to provide you sight, right? That is purpose. Purpose is a plan, an agenda. During this blind, unguided, and un-intellectual process, you believe that purpose came out of it. There can be no purpose behind something that is unguided and unintelligent. For anyone to believe this is to believe in absurdities. It is not ok to believe in absurdities when it comes to everything else in life, but once it comes to believing in God, all of a sudden non-theists feel it is ok to believe in absurdities. It blows my mind.

All of the parameters that permit life. That's the point, you are adding value to a universe that permits life, you think that inherently more valuable than a universe that does not. Remove that value and what conclusions can be drawn? Well, this universe is just as likely to occur as any other universe and subsequently the argument of design applies to every universe in the exact same way. No matter what exists or what laws control what exists someone can say that those laws and that existence is "precise" and therefore could not exist without being designed by intelligence. This renders the argument from design meaningless.

What?? Wait a minute, first of all, there is value to a universe that permits life. Scientists recognize this. This is not something that is new. The probability of our universe being able to permit life is more improbable than not. If you have small pieces of paper in a hat and each piece is numbered from 1-100, shake the hat up, and toss the hat in the air and watch all the pieces of paper fall randomly to the ground, it is HIGHLY unlikely that each paper will fall to the ground in numerical order.In fact, if I was rich crazy enough to bet you a million dollars by taking the position of each piece falling in numerical order, if you want to make an easy million dollars you would certainly accept the bet, because you would recognize the odds against my position. Certain parameters had to be met before any life permitting universe could exist, so yes, our universe has value. This is nothing something I am making up, or something that is new. These are well established FACTS in cosmology and astrophysics. So to deny this either means you are out of touch with science, or in denial of how far science has come in the past 100 years. I guess the motto is "Do not believe in absurdities, except if the conclusion will lead you to theism".

And this further demonstrates my point. You are envisioning that our universe is the white ball. Why? Why isn't it one of the black balls? Simple, you think it being life permitting is valuable and it distinguishes our universe from all of the others.

Because the black balls represent life PROHIBITING universes, and the white ball represents a life PERMITTING, thats why. The odds are against life permitting universes, but they aren't against life permitting universes. After the expansion, any universe could have been created, but that doesn't mean it would have been a life permitting one.

Funny how according to your argument, every universe is just as special based on the exact same method of calculation. Why is life permitting entropy levels any different to non-life permitting ones? How does that make our universes necessarily designed and other universes not so?

Ordered events have more probability to become disordered than disordered events have a probability to become ordered. That is why the entropy levels had to have been low from the singularity and beyond. Just like why when you were born from a baby and childhood, you were young a full of energy. Once you get older, you become full of less energy and your body starts to break down. In the same way, the energy in our universe is winding down and this universe will soon suffer a heat death. Cars are created, and over time, they break down, unless someone "outside" it keeps renovating it.

"If it will contain life". Why does it have to? The subjective value and meaning you put on life's existence is not explained by your argument, it is just assumed.

Why does it have to?? It doesn't have to, the fact is, it did.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

But you said that life couldn't come about through natural processes? Are you saying that evolution and abiogenesis is potentially true? That intelligence came from non-intelligence? Because I could have sworn you've said the exact opposite all of this argument. Do you believe that the natural processes of the universe caused life and intelligence directly that God had no more hand in it than creating the natural forces of the universe? If so, I don't know what we're arguing about.

No, what I am saying is, God supernaturally created life by using elements of nature to create it. I dont for one second believe in macroevolution or abiogenesis. I am saying that God created nature, and used nature as a means of creating every thing else.

What you are doing is unveiling your unrealistic expectations and your reliance on ignorance. If we don't know exactly how life came from non-life or intelligence from non-intelligence or even whether it could well it must not have! It must have been God! That's what your arguments have amounted to, you haven't put anything forward, you've just asserted that science can't answer the question.

First of all, I still dont know what part of "SCIENCE CANNOT BE USED TO EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF ITS OWN DOMAIN" dont you understand. This goes beyond just saying "so far, science cannot explain the origins of nature", this is saying it is IMPOSSIBLE for science to provide a answer. Now, if you have a problem with this kind of logic, I want you to explain to me how your computer began to exist, without using intelligent design. And the answer has to lie within the computer. You have to use your computer to explain the origins of your computer. I would like for you to do that for me, since you are making it seem as if my stance is illogical. Lets see how logical yours is. As far as abiogenesis is concerned, good luck with having faith that science will some day be able to provide an answer as to how you can get life and intelligence from inatimate objects.

Because that's exactly what it did. This goes a long way to demonstrating the possibility of intelligence originating from non-intelligent organisms. it doesn't show that it's true and I never claimed that it did but it certainly shows potential and possibility.

Well, I dont see anything potential or possible about it. As I said, trace the origins of zygotes and intelligent humans back to its origin point, and eventually you will reach a point of a non-zygote reality and a non-intelligent reality. So how do you get these things from materials that doesnt have these things.

And I plan to again, it's off topic and pointless to discuss due to your unrealistic expectations. You won't get an answer and you don't want one.

Lol. Hey, I cant help it if your position is absurd.

What really doesn't matter is whether God was content in his being, without time God would be as he always was when time began God was capable of change. Before time, God was not, he could not cause himself to move, to think, to create. God relied on time's beginning to do anything.

If his thoughts never changed, how could his thoughts be in time? If God never moved, how could his "actions" be in time?

Because thinking is a form of change and it takes time. Without time, thinking cannot be done.

You are assuming that God was changing his thoughts. His thoughts never changed.

Of course. Without time, how could one be aware of time?

You are still assumign that he "began" to become aware. He never began to do anything. There was no change.

Saying perfectly still is meaningless in this situation, you have no option but to be still, without time you cannot move, think or do anything.

And that is why I said above that God was content in his being or state, because I knew you were going to try to drive home the "you cannot move or do anything" bit, but if you are content in your being it doesnt matter that you cant move....second, you are wrong when you say you cant think, because you are assuming that his thoughts changed, and my point is his thoughts never changed, his thoughts was fixed, he knew from all eternity what he was going to do and at what point he was going to do it. There was no change.

How could you begin to move your leg though? Without time, the thought process that goes into moving your muscles does not occur, time has to exist prior to your movement, prior to the thought of your movement.

If I had the eternal will to move my leg when I moved it, it was not something that I "BEGAN" to think. I always knew that I was going to move it, it was just a matter of moving it.

They think they know. They couldn't all know because there are many different theories that conflict with each other. And I don't think any of them actually know.

ok

It is fine to say, "I don't know." Scientifically speaking, emperically speaking, nobody knows.

The difference is, you say "I don't know" while maintaining a closed mind in regards to Intelligent Design. If you dont know, why are you so hestitate in even considering intelligent design??? You try to maintain a fake agnostic approach but when you take away the fluff and feathers, you are a down right atheist.

 

[FearGod]

Perhaps your faith isn't what it needs to be, if you "can't...?"

Yes,i dont have faith that Jesus is god

both Matthew and Luke corroborate in their respective 17th chapters that Jesus is quoted as saying that, if we have faith the size of a mustard seed, we could move mountains.

So you have faith,could you move the mountains?if not,
then how many faithful ones who could move the mountains,i guess if they
could do so,then that will be a good evidence for the world to believe that
jesus is god,what they are waiting for?

Peter healed people and cast out demons.
Peter began to walk on the water, until he began to doubt.
Jesus said that we would do greater things than he.
Jesus had disciples. A teacher teaches disciples what he knows. Yes, Jesus expects that we will become as he is.

So can you walk on water or do faithful christians walk on the water,why they dont
do so to help us to believe that jesus is god.

can we then come back to life again after death as jesus did.

Jesus is fully god and we could do greater things than him,we can do greater things than god

 

[Koldo]

LOL, dude, for the fifth time. If I have been sitting perfectly still in a chair for eternity (in a timeless state), there is no before or after i began sitting. If you take away these temporal terms, you are left with timelessness. If I begin to move my leg, that is the first change. There were no moments leading up to me moving my leg, but there is moments after. So after I move my leg, time begins.....1,2,3,4,5,6,etc (these are seconds). The #1 represents the first distinguishable point on the time scale. This present moment relative to the expansion of the universe is 13.7 billion years.

I can't believe you are still into this after all this time.
To say that you have been sitting perfectly still in a chair for eternity you have to use the present perfect continuous. This is not timelessness.

You are sitting, this is an action happening. You can not conjugate any verb when you want to describe a state of everything being timeless. Otherwise you contradict yourself.

 

[FearGod]

Trinity as an easy to understand concept


[youtube]SqpWJqiEyrY[/youtube]
Funny :The Trinity Explained

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Jesus was no more immune to pain or death than you are. You can live for all time, too.

No I cannot live for all time, that's dogma bunk. And Jesus was immune to death. He rose. You're not going to rise. Points remain.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Both must be engaged. One should go to the person one has hurt and ask forgiveness. One should also go to God and ask forgiveness, for it is ultimately God's creation that is hurt. This isn't about law. It's about relationship, and maintaining relationships in love.


Get it yet?

No, both aren't engaged. You Christians do NOT stress that the person hurt must be appeased. Your vicarious atonement, you believe, suffices. It's not like we're not familiar with your dogma. God has no direct involvement and still demands the money, in my comparison. he's not involved at all. How can an action harm an omnipotent being? You lot keep trying to swap whether God is a man or a God, depending on how badly you want someone punished. Love does NOT keep track of offenses, therefore, god does not love you.

 

[sojourner]

No I cannot live for all time, that's dogma bunk. And Jesus was immune to death. He rose. You're not going to rise. Points remain.

You believe one thing -- I believe another. I'm just stating my position. Points don't remain, unless you can prove that "I'm wrong." I submit that all die and are reborn. I submit that even Jesus died and was resurrected. That's my stance. It's no more "bunk" than yours.

 

[sojourner]

No, both aren't engaged. You Christians do NOT stress that the person hurt must be appeased. Your vicarious atonement, you believe, suffices. It's not like we're not familiar with your dogma. God has no direct involvement and still demands the money, in my comparison. he's not involved at all. How can an action harm an omnipotent being? You lot keep trying to swap whether God is a man or a God, depending on how badly you want someone punished. Love does NOT keep track of offenses, therefore, god does not love you.

I don't believe in substitutionary atonement, so you're preaching to the choir here. This isn't "my dogma."

Love doesn't keep track of offense. Therefore, God does love us.

 

[Koldo]

Jesus is fully God. Jesus is fully human.

I have read this sentence several times already. However, how should one interpret it?

At first glance, being fully human includes being imposed to several limitations while the same doesn't happen to a fully God being.

 

[sojourner]

I have read this sentence several times already. However, how should one interpret it?

At first glance, being fully human includes being imposed to several limitations while the same doesn't happen to a fully God being.

Philippians 2 would disagree with you.
Apparently, Jesus wasn't limited by mortality. Apparently, God is limited by our ability to choose.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I can't believe you are still into this after all this time.
To say that you have been sitting perfectly still in a chair for eternity you have to use the present perfect continuous. This is not timelessness.

So, if i have been sitting perfectly still for eternity, there was never a moment leading up to my sitting, nor was there ever a moment to proceed my sitting,so how the heck is my "sitting" state an act of time??? Before you try to deal with anything else, you need to deal with this. In order to continue something, you have to start something, and this is just not the case here.

You are sitting, this is an action happening. You can not conjugate any verb when you want to describe a state of everything being timeless. Otherwise you contradict yourself.

It is an action that is happening, but it is not something that BEGAN to happen or an action that was changing "prior" to. If there were no moments leading up to it, there cannot possibly be any moments after it. There is no before or after, so if there is no before or after, there was never a "present" moment in the temporal concept as we know it.

 

[Koldo]

Philippians 2 would disagree with you.

What part specifically?

Apparently, Jesus wasn't limited by mortality. Apparently, God is limited by our ability to choose.

I don't understand what this has to do with what i said.
Could you clarify?

 

[Koldo]

So, if i have been sitting perfectly still for eternity, there was never a moment leading up to my sitting, nor was there ever a moment to proceed my sitting,so how the heck is my "sitting" state an act of time??? Before you try to deal with anything else, you need to deal with this. In order to continue something, you have to start something, and this is just not the case here.

This is exactly what you are saying in the sentence : "I have been sitting perfectly still in a chair for eternity (in a timeless state)". The present perfect continuous is used to describe an event that started in the past and continues to happen in the present. That is why you contradict yourself. You can not use the present perfect continuous and, at the same time, say you are not describing an event that continues to happen.

 

[jamesmorrow]

i have been saying this for a long time now... TIME in one form or another always existed. nothing can exist without time. the very state of existence implies time. if you want to argue that something, in this case god, always existed you have to include the existence of time.... you cant say that god created time, because there was a time before god created time, which automatically implies time...it is false to assume that god created time when he moved out of his sitting position. the very act of god sitting in a chair implies time. to say that god always sat in a chair, is to imply time.... forever, always, eternal, infinitely, all describe time, all be it inconprehensible, its time nonetheless