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

[metis]

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

There is no "answer"-- only possible answers. But either way, the concept that God has somehow made us perfect or close to it isn't even slightly logical.

 

[shmogie]

There is no "answer"-- only possible answers. But either way, the concept that God has somehow made us perfect or close to it isn't even slightly logical.

unlogical to the non spiritual, secular mind.

 

[metis]

unlogical to the non spiritual, secular mind.

It's interesting that you use judgmentalism even though the gospels have Jesus saying "judge ye not", but maybe you just don't take him that seriously? My signature statement pretty much makes it clear that I am not an atheist, but apparently the truth just gets in your way and honesty is just one option you have.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Why cant Moses Enter the promise land?

In revelation the Keys of Life and death are not given to moses. They are given to the Alpha and Omega, as He states Jesus is and holds them. I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

Well He holds Life, keys, he does actually.
Not like the prior.

 

[shmogie]

Here we go again, ad hominem attack from the get go. Tho old judgementalism canard. One has every right to judge statements and actions, one cannot judge the state of someones soul. For all I know you might have the greatest relationship with God on earth, I hope so. Your question indicated God's action or inaction as inscrutable or illogical, a position invariably taken by the secular person. All the Christian's I know ( hundreds), and all the Christian theologians I have read or listened to have reconciled the issue in their minds. So, if instead of being snarky and accusatory you want to discuss the issue, I will be happy to do so, if you are only concerned about being uber sensitive to any perceived slight and reacting as a third grader, leave me out.

 

[metis]

Here we go again, ad hominem attack from the get go...So, if instead of being snarky and accusatory you want to discuss the issue, I will be happy to do so, if you are only concerned about being uber sensitive to any perceived slight and reacting as a third grader, leave me out.

And can I assume you cannot see the utter hypocrisy in those two sentences from you above?

I had written this in post #481: "There is no 'answer'-- only possible answers. But either way, the concept that God has somehow made us perfect or close to it isn't even slightly logical", and then you responded with this in your post #482:"unlogical to the non spiritual, secular mind", and you say that I'm acting like a "third grader"? Could you be any more hypocritical?

So, if you can't take the heat of someone calling you out on your over-the-top sarcasm and judgmentalism, then maybe you should be making such accusations. As for me, I put you twice before on my ignore list because of your sarcastic and over-the-top behavior, and now I'm questioning my own sanity by having taken you off. There's lots of people here at RF that are quite compassionate and fair towards others, so I'd rather just deal with them.

 

[shmogie]

And can I assume you cannot see the utter hypocrisy in those two sentences from you above?

I had written this in post #481: "There is no 'answer'-- only possible answers. But either way, the concept that God has somehow made us perfect or close to it isn't even slightly logical", and then you responded with this in your post #482:"unlogical to the non spiritual, secular mind", and you say that I'm acting like a "third grader"? Could you be any more hypocritical?

So, if you can't take the heat of someone calling you out on your over-the-top sarcasm and judgmentalism, then maybe you should be making such accusations. As for me, I put you twice before on my ignore list because of your sarcastic and over-the-top behavior, and now I'm questioning my own sanity by having taken you off. There's lots of people here at RF that are quite compassionate and fair towards others, so I'd rather just deal with them.

 

[shmogie]

Oh please, to a Christian who practices the faith, there aren't possible answers, there is an answer, period. Your problem is that you try and engage in a discussion, proposing non Christian hypotheses that are rejected outright by believers then get into a twit because you are told up front, spiritual Christians have no problem with it. You aren't calling me out on anything, you pretend to be neither flesh nor foul, a master theologian, who uses worldly reasoning to doubt what can only be understood in a spiritual context. You have your butt in both camps, and can't bear being reminded of it. Either be someone of faith, or reject it, your act is becoming tiresome. Sarcasm ? That wasn't sarcasm, it was an actual statement of fact. I know who the hypocrite is, and it ain't me. I am sorry you apparently lost your faith, don't hassle me because you feel miserable about it.

 

[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

The fact that we have never created from scratch a living organism , yet, does not entail that such organisms have been created. And intelligent design addresses, as far as I know, only organisms in an already advanced state of evolution and the functionality of their parts. Not the primordial duplicating whatever that was probably very simple and we know nothing about.

And yes and no. The complexity we observe today is the product of chance in the sense that you need errors, and therefore variance, in order for natural selection to operate and generate complexity. It is the fundamental explanation of this complexity, not its defeater. So when you ask: is that because of chance, I can only reply: it is only because of chance.

However, the selection and propagation of those little lucky strikes is not random at all. They are inherited and they, therefore, persist and supplant the less likely ones until the next tiny lucky strike. Loop this a sufficient amount of times and you will see how the accumulation of many tiny lucky strikes generate your airplane, or dog, or whatever.

And this is where sir Hoyle errs. His challenge is based on random attempts without memory, while evolution operates on organisms that preserve memory (and information) of their biological past.

Ciao

- viole

 

[metis]

The fact that we have never created from scratch a living organism , yet, does not entail that such organisms have been created. And intelligent design addresses, as far as I know, only organisms in an already advanced state of evolution and the functionality of their parts. Not the primordial duplicating whatever that was probably very simple and we know nothing about.

And yes and no. The complexity we observe today is the product of chance in the sense that you need errors, and therefore variance, in order for natural selection to operate and generate complexity. It is the fundamental explanation of this complexity, not its defeater. So when you ask: is that because of chance, I can only reply: it is only because of chance.

However, the selection and propagation of those little lucky strikes is not random at all. They are inherited and they, therefore, persist and supplant the less likely ones until the next tiny lucky strike. Loop this a sufficient amount of times and you will see how the accumulation of many lucky strikes generate your airplane, or dog, or whatever.

Ciao

- viole

Well said. Many of the fundamentalists play this game, however, that "micro-evolution" is somehow sensible but "macro-evolution" is not, which really doesn't any sense no matter how one looks at it. If they were supposedly correct, then overwhelmingly geneticists would be on board with them-- but they're certainly not.

On top of that, both the fossil record and genome testing indicate gradual changes lead to new species, but that means nothing to the element that simply does not care what the objective evidence indicates.

The reality is that so many have a "religious" agenda that not only defies known science, it also defies basic theology. The scriptures are full of allegories, metaphors, symbolism, parables, etc., and the creation accounts certainly have to be put into at least one of these categories because it doesn't make any sense to take them as literal history. If not, then one would have to conclude that the Bible must be worthless because it doesn't reflect reality.

By recognizing the literary forms used in the scriptures, the reader can understand that it is unnecessary and not even wise to take everything at the literalistic level, which actually helps to enhance both the beauty and impact of the scriptures themselves.

 

[viole]

Well said. Many of the fundamentalists play this game, however, that "micro-evolution" is somehow sensible but "macro-evolution" is not, which really doesn't any sense no matter how one looks at it. If they were supposedly correct, then overwhelmingly geneticists would be on board with them-- but they're certainly not.

On top of that, both the fossil record and genome testing indicate gradual changes lead to new species, but that means nothing to the element that simply does not care what the objective evidence indicates.

The reality is that so many have a "religious" agenda that not only defies known science, it also defies basic theology. The scriptures are full of allegories, metaphors, symbolism, parables, etc., and the creation accounts certainly have to be put into at least one of these categories because it doesn't make any sense to take them as literal history. If not, then one would have to conclude that the Bible must be worthless because it doesn't reflect reality.

By recognizing the literary forms used in the scriptures, the reader can understand that it is unnecessary and not even wise to take everything at the literalistic level, which actually helps to enhance both the beauty and impact of the scriptures themselves.

The dichotomy microevoltion/macroevoltion is nonsensical. It is the equivalent of insisting that if "m" is a microevolutionary step, them

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......

Is a microevolutionary step, too.

Ciao

- viole

 

[shmogie]

The fact that we have never created from scratch a living organism , yet, does not entail that such organisms have been created. And intelligent design addresses, as far as I know, only organisms in an already advanced state of evolution and the functionality of their parts. Not the primordial duplicating whatever that was probably very simple and we know nothing about.

And yes and no. The complexity we observe today is the product of chance in the sense that you need errors, and therefore variance, in order for natural selection to operate and generate complexity. It is the fundamental explanation of this complexity, not its defeater. So when you ask: is that because of chance, I can only reply: it is only because of chance.

However, the selection and propagation of those little lucky strikes is not random at all. They are inherited and they, therefore, persist and supplant the less likely ones until the next tiny lucky strike. Loop this a sufficient amount of times and you will see how the accumulation of many tiny lucky strikes generate your airplane, or dog, or whatever.

And this is where sir Hoyle errs. His challenge is based on random attempts without memory, while evolution operates on organisms that preserve memory (and information) of their biological past.

Ciao

- viole

Some people who believe in intelligent design embrace the total evolutionary theory believing that God designed the evolutionary process, and kicked it off by God creating that very first perfect environment for abiogenesis. Within the intelligent design community these are referred to as "old earthers". Others, like me, find the evidence for abiogenesis so lacking, the evidence for one type of animal morphing into another type so inconclusive, we believe organism were created by type, with a wide range of evolutionary possibilities within that type. We are called "new earthers" You say that because a primordial organism hasn't been created, that doesn't mean it won't. I say to you that because you haven't seen or heard God doesn't mean you won't. As to DNA memeory, how was that information imparted to that fist organism. Where did the information on how to function and reproduce come from ? Random bits of DNA that were somehow created arranging themselves in a proper sequence to guide and maintain a living organism ? We can discuss the survivability of DNA in the alleged primordial environment if you would like

 

[viole]

Some people who believe in intelligent design embrace the total evolutionary theory believing that God designed the evolutionary process, and kicked it off by God creating that very first perfect environment for abiogenesis. Within the intelligent design community these are referred to as "old earthers". Others, like me, find the evidence for abiogenesis so lacking, the evidence for one type of animal morphing into another type so inconclusive, we believe organism were created by type, with a wide range of evolutionary possibilities within that type. We are called "new earthers" You say that because a primordial organism hasn't been created, that doesn't mean it won't. I say to you that because you haven't seen or heard God doesn't mean you won't. As to DNA memeory, how was that information imparted to that fist organism. Where did the information on how to function and reproduce come from ? Random bits of DNA that were somehow created arranging themselves in a proper sequence to guide and maintain a living organism ? We can discuss the survivability of DNA in the alleged primordial environment if you would like

Well, I was a young earther too. Later I turned into an evolutionary old earther theist. If you ask me, I am more proud of the former than the latter. For I believe that Christianity is logically consistent only under the assumption that evolution is false and the earth is young.

And this is why I have a certain sympathy for young earth creationists or any Christian who believes that evolution must be false. It must be false, since it is intellectually impossible to hold both views without excerting violence to both the Bible and evolution, I think.

Alas, the moment I realize that, is the moment I felt Christianity was untenable. Since I tend to give priority to evidence, I had to choose between the evidence of Jesus stunts, as described in a book, and the evidence of the fish which is inside any of us.

The conclusion of that rational process is obvious.

Ciao

- viole

 

[metis]

For I believe that Christianity is logically consistent only under the assumption that evolution is false and the earth is young.

I never have even when I was a Christian and brought up in a fundamentalist Protestant church, which I eventually left in the late 1960's. It actually was a Catholic priest that I had coincidentally run across that pointed out how the creation accounts could be interpreted differently, which left me confused however.

It wasn't until I began to take theology classes during my undergrad work and then study some more on my own whereas I began to finally accept the concept of the creation accounts being largely allegory.

 

[shmogie]

Some people who believe in intelligent design embrace the total evolutionary theory believing that God designed the evolutionary process, and kicked it off by God creating that very first perfect environment for abiogenesis. Within the intelligent design community these are referred to as "old earthers". Others, like me, find the evidence for abiogenesis so lacking, the evidence for one type of animal morphing into another type so inconclusive, we believe organism were created by type, with a wide range of evolutionary possibilities within that type. We are called "new earthers" You say that because a primordial organism hasn't been created, that doesn't mean it won't. I say to you that because you haven't seen or heard God doesn't mean you won't. As to DNA memeory, how was that information imparted to that fist organism. Where did the information on how to function and reproduce come from ? Random bits of DNA that were somehow created arranging themselves in a proper sequence to guide and maintain a living organism ? We can discuss the survivability of DNA in the alleged primordial environment if you would like

The dichotomy microevoltion/macroevoltion is nonsensical. It is the equivalent of insisting that if "m" is a microevolutionary step, them

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......

Is a microevolutionary step, too.

Ciao

- viole

All it takes is evidence to prove that non living chemicals in some alleged environment of who knows what combined purely by chance to create a living organism, you do not have it in any way, shape or form. As to macro verses micro evolution, I can prove quite easily that organisms within a species can, and have evolved based upon environmental factors. Where are the creatures caught between species or type morphing from one to another ? Where are the sea creatures that are crawling out of the sea changing from water breathing to air breathing animals ? It is a simple matter of evidence, and belief being touted as fact. You have faith that the totally unproven idea of abiogenesis and the evolution of all living things from that process is true. Going further however, you propose that it is fact, and convince those who do not research or think for themselves that it is fact. From my early teenage years through my graduation from university and then some I was an atheist, macro evolutionist with a very deep interest in biology. Although my degrees are in a different discipline I took every biology course I could and bought totally into the established myth as fact. Until I was challenged by someone who had the credentials to challenge me. I took it upon myself to prove this person was utterly wrong. A few years later I had to admit that this so called "fact", was nothing more than a presumption based upon inherent bias and faith. I might add that the myths of evolution, totally wrong, proven to be scientific lies were still passed out as researched and proven fact. You have faith, I have faith. I cannot prove yours wrong anymore than you can prove mine wrong. I do reject the deception that your faith is proven scientific fact.

 

[shmogie]

I never have even when I was a Christian and brought up in a fundamentalist Protestant church, which I eventually left in the late 1960's. It actually was a Catholic priest that I had coincidentally run across that pointed out how the creation accounts could be interpreted differently, which left me confused however.

It wasn't until I began to take theology classes during my undergrad work and then study some more on my own whereas I began to finally accept the concept of the creation accounts being largely allegory.

Even if the Creation accounts are allegorical, creation took place, and there is no evidence that it was the result of abiogenesis, or little to confirm the chain of proposed evolutionary theory to the abundance of living things today

 

[shmogie]

Well, I was a young earther too. Later I turned into an evolutionary old earther theist. If you ask me, I am more proud of the former than the latter. For I believe that Christianity is logically consistent only under the assumption that evolution is false and the earth is young.

And this is why I have a certain sympathy for young earth creationists or any Christian who believes that evolution must be false. It must be false, since it is intellectually impossible to hold both views without excerting violence to both the Bible and evolution, I think.

Alas, the moment I realize that, is the moment I felt Christianity was untenable. Since I tend to give priority to evidence, I had to choose between the evidence of Jesus stunts, as described in a book, and the evidence of the fish which is inside any of us.

The conclusion of that rational process is obvious.

Ciao

- viole

Oh, but one can be a believer and open minded about evidence. That is my entire premise, if the evidence led to an inescapable conclusion that that abiogenesis and the alleged evolutionary theory were true, I would have to re examine my faith. That evidence doesn't exist. From a totally scientintific perspective I can produce evidence just as strong that it is false

 

[psychoslice]

Of course Jesus never died for anyone's sins, he couldn't even save himself, he's whole mission was a failure, we can only save ourselves, yes pull your finger out and save yourself.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The sacrificial atonement of Jesus can only exist to people who ideologically accept the claim and dogma of original sin. It's a wholly Christian concept that is no more true than the Buddhist principle of "The Great Going Forth". It works within that set of religious philosophies, but nowhere else.

This is why when very pious people walk around asking strangers if they've been "bathed in the blood of the lamb" they get laughed at or looked on with complete and utter shock, or whatever.
It's a question and conversation that makes sense in their world - but nowhere else.

So, did Jesus really die for my sins? No - he did not.

I do not accept the doctrine of original sin, sacrificial atonement that is necessary to appease a blood thirsty god, or any Christian or Jewish mythology about the origin of their people or their savior. It's lunacy to me to bring these types of supernatural claims into real-world conversations. Just straight bonkers.

 

[viole]

All it takes is evidence to prove that non living chemicals in some alleged environment of who knows what combined purely by chance to create a living organism, you do not have it in any way, shape or form. As to macro verses micro evolution, I can prove quite easily that organisms within a species can, and have evolved based upon environmental factors. Where are the creatures caught between species or type morphing from one to another ? Where are the sea creatures that are crawling out of the sea changing from water breathing to air breathing animals ? It is a simple matter of evidence, and belief being touted as fact. You have faith that the totally unproven idea of abiogenesis and the evolution of all living things from that process is true. Going further however, you propose that it is fact, and convince those who do not research or think for themselves that it is fact. From my early teenage years through my graduation from university and then some I was an atheist, macro evolutionist with a very deep interest in biology. Although my degrees are in a different discipline I took every biology course I could and bought totally into the established myth as fact. Until I was challenged by someone who had the credentials to challenge me. I took it upon myself to prove this person was utterly wrong. A few years later I had to admit that this so called "fact", was nothing more than a presumption based upon inherent bias and faith. I might add that the myths of evolution, totally wrong, proven to be scientific lies were still passed out as researched and proven fact. You have faith, I have faith. I cannot prove yours wrong anymore than you can prove mine wrong. I do reject the deception that your faith is proven scientific fact.

You can easily prove my "faith" wrong. All you have to is to find a fossil cow in the guts of a fossil dinosaur, and you are in business. A cow in the same strata of trilobites would do, too, among an incredible number of possible defeaters of evolution.

And, as I said, you do not really need advanced biology to see that evolution is true. All you need to do is to go to a zoo, check out the apes (the ones without a camera or a smart phone), and you will see evolution staring you in the eyes.

Ciao

- viole