The Atonement Doctrine (Did Jesus Die For Our Sins?)

[shmogie]

AGAIN! Another misrepresentation.

What do you call a person who misrepresents what someone has said? And what "sweeping claims" are you talking about as you grand stand?


Hardly. I have many Christian friends where we may disagree on points but not loose focus on what is true. But you are welcome to another opinion


No... you made a conclusion by conforming what I said to what you want it to say. Much like you are doing with Bible authors.



No supported documentation.


Please proceed with your strawman.

Can I assume you always make up things?

Great opinion based upon unsupported facts. When will we actual talk about substance?

I decided to omit the last portion due to the smallness of what you were addressing along with your personal unsubstantiated opinions

This guy is great at misrepresentation. He must spend great amounts of time collecting straw

 

[Shad]

AGAIN! Another misrepresentation.

Hardly or did you forget this? "No.... "Some" scholars have dismissed the Gospels as eyewitness accounts... and mostly by those who dismiss the Bible" That is a doctrinal statement, nothing more.

What do you call a person who misrepresents what someone has said?

What do you call a person that makes statements than pretends they never made such statements as per the above....

And what "sweeping claims" are you talking about as you grand stand?

No sweeping claims. You already made such a statement

Hardly. I have many Christian friends where we may disagree on points but not loose focus on what is true.

Your friends opinions are irrelevant.

But you are welcome to another opinion

I rather based mine on scholarship rather than doctrine.

No... you made a conclusion by conforming what I said to what you want it to say. Much like you are doing with Bible authors.

No I haven't, remember you made the claim that people that disagree with you are dismissing the bible.

I never did anything to or about the bible authors other put forward mainstream scholarship.

No supported documentation.

Dallas theological seminary is a fringe view in regards to scholarship. All all you have already agreed that I have provided the very of mainstream scholarship. This makes your view a fringe view due to doctrinal claims.

Please proceed with your strawman.

No strawman here "Some" scholars have dismissed the Gospels as eyewitness accounts... and mostly by those who dismiss the Bible"

Can I assume you always make up things?

No you can just assume that you are incapable of reading your own post and figuring out the implications of your statements.

Great opinion based upon unsupported facts.

Since you can not figure out claims to be an eyewitness is not evidence of being an eyewitness that my opinion is justified.

When will we actual talk about substance?

When you can acknowledge your own comments and the implications of your comments.

I decided to omit the last portion due to the smallness of what you were addressing along with your personal unsubstantiated opinions

Yawn.

 

[Shad]

I have read the lectures you cited, how many would you like me to cite saying otherwise ?

Feel free to cite whatever you want.

You quoted opinions based upon conclusions that don;t stand up for thousands of Bible scholars, including hundreds of atheistic ones.

Source?

What are my doctrine and dogma that you so clearly understand, produce them.

Inerrancy and literalism based on scripture as the only authority. See son there is something called a history in your profile. It is not hard to figure out

My denomination ? Pray tell how do you know what, if any denomination I am associated with ? Southern Baptist ?

If my specific answer was wrong I am still fine with putting forward you are a radical Protestant.

I have NEVER stated that anyone who doesn't agree with me is not a Christian !

Again if historians are denying something for you that is rejecting the Bible regardless if those historians are Christian themselves. This is what happens when you make a blanket statement

Produce quotations to that effect.

The above combined with "My "rant" makes it obvious that I cannot accept the view of historians that doesn't confirm to my religion, why should I ?"

I have stated that Paul said that certain people should not be in the Church, e.g. murderers, but denying someone membership based upon actions is a far cry from judging their relationship with God.

This was never a point I was addressing.

Is hyperbole your middle name ?

Nope. I am just pointing out the implications of your point about historians as a generalization

Most, and I mean 99% of denominations share the basic, concrete fundamentals of belief.

I doubt it's 99% and the disagreement between many denominations are grounded in doctrine and dogma making grand claims regarding it's views on the "Truth" and that other groups are wrong.

The others are trappings, that appeal to individual needs, be it authority, pomp, music, whatever.

Hardly... Is salvation from belief alone or faith and hard/good works? Are the elect already predestined or not? Which manuscripts are primary sources? Which are considered canon?

This is totally healthy and good.

Except these are not key issues that separation denominations nor has been such view been healthy and good as history shows the bloodshed involved when these denomination claim exclusive "truth" over any/all.

You have no idea what these fundamental beliefs are, which every Christian must accept, how possibly can you make your ignorant statements ?

Yet you are oblivious to the major differences between denomination... Please..

Because you are ignorant.

Says the one that doesn't even grasp the fact there are fundamental difference in dogma, doctrine, sources, and interpretations.

Couple that with a clear amount of stupidity, and the sources of your statements become clear.

You are claim Harvard is a stupid source... Hilarious.

You remind me of professor Irwin Corey, the worlds authority on everything. He was hilarious, you are too

Irrelevant to your blunders regarding your "deep" knowledge of Christianity..... Such as you are ignorant of major differences regarding many views that are not minor but considered enough that one may never receive salvation for going to the wrong church... Please tell me more.... I am eager to hear more about your ignorance of Christianity's history....

 

[shmogie]

Feel free to cite whatever you want.



Source?



Inerrancy and literalism based on scripture as the only authority. See son there is something called a history in your profile. It is not hard to figure out



If my specific answer was wrong I am still fine with putting forward you are a radical Protestant.



Again if historians are denying something for you that is rejecting the Bible regardless if those historians are Christian themselves. This is what happens when you make a blanket statement




The above combined with "My "rant" makes it obvious that I cannot accept the view of historians that doesn't confirm to my religion, why should I ?"



This was never a point I was addressing.



Nope. I am just pointing out the implications of your point about historians as a generalization




I doubt it's 99% and the disagreement between many denominations are grounded in doctrine and dogma making grand claims regarding it's views on the "Truth" and that other groups are wrong.



Hardly... Is salvation from belief alone or faith and hard/good works? Are the elect already predestined or not? Which manuscripts are primary sources? Which are considered canon?



Except these are not key issues that separation denominations nor has been such view been healthy and good as history shows the bloodshed involved when these denomination claim exclusive "truth" over any/all.



Yet you are oblivious to the major differences between denomination... Please..



Says the one that doesn't even grasp the fact there are fundamental difference in dogma, doctrine, sources, and interpretations.



You are claim Harvard is a stupid source... Hilarious.



Irrelevant to your blunders regarding your "deep" knowledge of Christianity..... Such as you are ignorant of major differences regarding many views that are not minor but considered enough that one may never receive salvation for going to the wrong church... Please tell me more.... I am eager to hear more about your ignorance of Christianity's history....

 

[viole]

It is true that miracles in and of itself does not constitute as one's belief is correct. If we were to look at it in the Judeo history, one would say that both the Pharaoh's religious leaders as well as Moses both produced miracles -- yet it was determined that one was actually God and the other not. As a matter of fact, YHWY very specifically said if the miracle does not glorify God (and God alone), don't accept the miracle as from Him.

This is a bit odd. I was no aware of miracles coming from more than one god. Especially within a monotheistic religion.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

As Sir Fred Hoyle said " How much time and how many tornado's would it take for a scrapyard's contents to be turned into a fully functional aircraft " You know better than I that my dog I am looking at right now is infinitely more complicated than an airplane.

Except for the fact that evolution by natural selection does not look at all like the airplains creation process induced by tornadoes. I think sir Hoyle could be excused, since he had no clue of evolution theory. If he was speking of biological complexity. On second thought, no, he should not be excused. Reading a book about the subject, instead of misinterpreting something in such a grotesque way, is a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. And laziness.

However, to confuse a one time event creating huge complexity, no matter how many times repeated, instead of a slow and cumulative addition of small inherited complexity (built on the previous ones) is something a modern intellectual should not do, I believe.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kenny]

This is a bit odd. I was no aware of miracles coming from more than one god. Especially within a monotheistic religion.

Ciao

- viole

Well... let's see (not from God but from supernatural beings such as Satan (within the Christian context):

Ex 7
10 And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the LORD had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants,and it became a serpent.
11 Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments.
12 For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.
13 And he hardened Pharaoh'sheart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

By logic, if one considers that there are spiritual beings other than God (in Christian context Satan) then there would naturally be supernatural manifestations from the same.

Arrivederci

 

[viole]

Well... let's see:

Ex 7
10 And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the LORD had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants,and it became a serpent.
11 Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments.
12 For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.
13 And he hardened Pharaoh'sheart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

By logic, if one considers that there are spiritual beings other than God (in Christian context Satan) then there would naturally be supernatural manifestations from the same.

Arrivederci

Naturally supernatural manifestations?

Well, If I were Satan, the master deceiver, I would create a new sect that will still give the impression of honoring God, albeit one with a slightly difference character. For instance, the Christian one.

How do we know, if Satan has so much amazing powers? Are you sure you are honoring the right God?

Ciao

- viole

 

[shmogie]

Except for the fact that evolution by natural selection does not look at all like the airplains creation process induced by tornadoes. I think sir Hoyle could be excused, since he had no clue of evolution theory. If he was speking of biological complexity. On second thought, no, he should not be excused. Reading a book about the subject, instead of misinterpreting something in such a grotesque way, is a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. And laziness.

However, to confuse a one time event creating huge complexity, no matter how many times repeated, instead of a slow and cumulative addition of small inherited complexity (built on the previous ones) is something a modern intellectual should not do, I believe.

Ciao

- viole

In fairness to Hoyle, he wasn't talking about a one time event, but rather a continuing series of events, constructive and destructive concurrently over vast amounts of time that build here, destroy there, that gradually produces the complete functional airplane. The application is to abiogenesis. As to evolution, it is an obvious fact. Organisms adapt to their environment, and in that adaption process change. So in that sense I am a committed evolutionist. However, let's use the term type ( species doesn't fit always). I do not believe, nor have I seen much evidence that one type of organism morphs into another. The general theory is that the dinosaurs evolved into birds. They share hollow bones, wish bones, walking characteristics, etc. or that whales evolved from some land mammal because all mammals are believed to have originally come about on land,m and they share pelvic bone characteristics with land mammals. So we are asked to believe that dinosaurs became birds, or that some fat four legged land mammal turned into a whale in the sea. Is this the only conclusion that can be drawn ? no. Characteristics, design, are just that. Who is to say that the design of the dinosaur simply was the best for it, and that some of that design was best for birds ? Who is to say that the design for mammals was used for mammals that were to be sea creatures ? Why are we not seeing creatures crawling out of the sea for the first time, or more land mammals in the interim stages going back into the sea. ? Why were these apparently very active processes now seemingly stratified and stopped ? What species today can be pointed at and be said to be turning into another ?

 

[viole]

In fairness to Hoyle, he wasn't talking about a one time event, but rather a continuing series of events, constructive and destructive concurrently over vast amounts of time that build here, destroy there, that gradually produces the complete functional airplane. The application is to abiogenesis. As to evolution, it is an obvious fact. Organisms adapt to their environment, and in that adaption process change. So in that sense I am a committed evolutionist. However, let's use the term type ( species doesn't fit always). I do not believe, nor have I seen much evidence that one type of organism morphs into another. The general theory is that the dinosaurs evolved into birds. They share hollow bones, wish bones, walking characteristics, etc. or that whales evolved from some land mammal because all mammals are believed to have originally come about on land,m and they share pelvic bone characteristics with land mammals. So we are asked to believe that dinosaurs became birds, or that some fat four legged land mammal turned into a whale in the sea. Is this the only conclusion that can be drawn ? no. Characteristics, design, are just that. Who is to say that the design of the dinosaur simply was the best for it, and that some of that design was best for birds ? Who is to say that the design for mammals was used for mammals that were to be sea creatures ? Why are we not seeing creatures crawling out of the sea for the first time, or more land mammals in the interim stages going back into the sea. ? Why were these apparently very active processes now seemingly stratified and stopped ? What species today can be pointed at and be said to be turning into another ?

It is the same. Evolution does not work like that at all. It is the slow cumulation of inherited traits, not the sudden appearance of all traits at once after many tries. No matter how a nonsensical notion is repeated, it is still a nonsensical notion.

So, you think we are designed? Why did the designer chose an ape, looking suspiciously close to other apes, to represent the pinnacle of His creation?

Ciao

- viole

 

[shmogie]

This is a bit odd. I was no aware of miracles coming from more than one god. Especially within a monotheistic religion.

Ciao

- viole

There is one God, but there are beings superior to us in their ability to do things that we cannot do, where the laws of physic's do not apply to them as to us. There is much scientific discussion of different dimensions, not four dimensions as we know, but as many as 11 or 15. If you lived in a 3 dimensional world, left right, forward backward and time, and I being a 4 dimensional being you could never see (up, down), reached into your world and effected it, it would seem to be a miracle, beyond the laws of the world you inhabit.

 

[shmogie]

It is the same. Evolution does not work like that at all. It is the slow cumulation of inherited traits, not the sudden appearance of all traits at once after many tries. No matter how a nonsensical notion is repeated, it is still a nonsensical notion.

So, you think we are designed? Why did the designer chose an ape, looking suspiciously close to other apes, to represent the pinnacle of His creation?

Ciao

- viole

You still are missing Hoyle's point., He is not talking about the evolution of life, he is talking about the confluence of chemical, environmental and all other factors that combined perfectly by nothing more than chance to create that very first living organism ( the airplane). The designer choose an ape because it was a good design, or, designed the ape because we were a good design. Did all designs function better at the beginning, you bet. Thermodynamics says well organized structure is in a gradual process of decline into chaos, not the other way around

 

[viole]

You still are missing Hoyle's point., He is not talking about the evolution of life, he is talking about the confluence of chemical, environmental and all other factors that combined perfectly by nothing more than chance to create that very first living organism ( the airplane).

Assuming that first living organism was even remotely as complex as an airplane.

The designer choose an ape because it was a good design, or, designed the ape because we were a good design. Did all designs function better at the beginning, you bet. Thermodynamics says well organized structure is in a gradual process of decline into chaos, not the other way around

Nope. Thermodynamics say all organized structures "decay" when you are in a regime of thermodynamical equilibrium. Which is not the case for the earth, yet. You could actually pack all of earth evolution within a few decades, without breaking thermodynamics.

Fortunately. If that was not the case, children would start decay from day one of their birth.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Whyyyyy]

I think God is angry with humans because of their sins, but Jesus loved us all so much that he offered to God his own life and to receive all the deserved punishement his self instead of us, so that's why he charged with the sins of us all, and who believe in his sacrifice recieve christ gift.

 

[viole]

I think God is angry with humans because of their sins, but Jesus loved us all so much that he offered to God his own life and to receive all the deserved punishement his self instead of us, so that's why he charged with the sins of us all, and who believe in his sacrifice recieve christ gift.

What sacrifice? He did not stay dead all that long.

Isn't maybe more accurate to say He sacrificed His passover weekend for our sins?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kenny]

Naturally supernatural manifestations?

What would you call it?

Well, If I were Satan, the master deceiver, I would create a new sect that will still give the impression of honoring God, albeit one with a slightly difference character. For instance,

EXACTLY!

the Christian one.

Only if you think "love your neighbor as yourself" isn't a golden rule.

How do we know, if Satan has so much amazing powers?

How do you know he doesn't?

In the Christian perspective, we go by the life of Jesus.

Are you sure you are honoring the right God?

Absolutely!!

Are you not honoring the right God?

Ciao

- viole

Arriverderci

 

[shmogie]

Assuming that first living organism was even remotely as complex as an airplane.



Nope. Thermodynamics say all organized structures "decay" when you are in a regime of thermodynamical equilibrium. Which is not the case for the earth, yet. You could actually pack all of earth evolution within a few decades, without breaking thermodynamics.

Fortunately. If that was not the case, children would start decay from day one of their birth.

Ciao

- viole

Well, we can build some extremely complicated airplane's, but nobody has built a living organism with the benefit of "intelligent design", so, it just happened by chance ? I know, it was a long long time. So is Hoyle's illustration, as much time as you think is needed

 

[shmogie]

Well, we can build some extremely complicated airplane's, but nobody has built a living organism with the benefit of "intelligent design", so, it just happened by chance ? I know, it was a long long time. So is Hoyle's illustration, as much time as you think is needed

Don't baby's start to decay at birth ? I was told by a microbiologist friend that the simplest way to illustrate this would be taking a photograph taken with the finest camera made, Then take that photo to the finest copier made. Make a copy of that photo, then make a copy of that first copy, then a copy of the second copy, and so on. In a year you would have a copy of the photo that would be totally unrecognizable. He explained that this happens with each and every cell in our body as they replace one another, gradual breakdown and loss of function as the replacement process started at birth for the baby to it's death. Isn't that decay ?

 

[metis]

If God planned and ultimately made all, then why are there so many miscarriages and children borne with birth defects?

 

[shmogie]

If God planned and ultimately made all, then why are there so many miscarriages and children borne with birth defects?

As one who has studied theology, you must already know the answer to that question.