Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[sojourner]

im actually being acute in pointing out your obtuse evasion...

What did I evade?

 

[Thief]

We are good. Good is our true nature, that has been infected by sin.

Nay.

'Do not call Me good. No one is good but the Father'.
Jesus of Nazareth.

He he would not allow it for Himself...how then, that you do so?

 

[jamesmorrow]

FYI, you're barking up the wrong tree here if you're itching for a fight. I'm well aware that the Bible contains both parabolic and mythic events. Whether Jesus actually walked on the water or not is not for me to say. I've personally witnessed some miracles on the part of people that clearly defy "nature." I don't know what they were, but I'm not going to waste time analyzing them, either. Many of the miracle stories probably are mythic in nature. So what? None of this is germane to the topic.

whether jesus actually walked on the water or not IS NOT for you to say, but whether jesus actually suffered pain on the cross IS for you to say?

tell me: how do you decide what IS or IS NOT for you to say? or is your decision process a "miracle" too?

you cant randomly pick and choose what is convenient to you.

i remember asking you to provide some miracles a couple weeks ago. you told me about burns on your hand... i asked whether those burns could have been healed naturally over time with medical attention, without prayer or supernatural intervention...you never responded for obvious reasons...... i also asked whether your burns were healed instantly, or during a very short duration of time impossible for natural healing..... you never responded for obvious reasons.... so thanks, but no thanks.... when you have some actual miracles that actually defy nature, let me know. till then, quit blowing smoke up my butt. i might get colon cancer.

 

[jamesmorrow]

What did I evade?

oh, please. do yourself a favor and quit while you're behind.

 

[filthy tugboat]

What???? "The process was reduced to non-intelligence". The origin of the process was STILL intelligently designed.

Was it? It was caused by an interaction of intelligent beings, are you proposing that humans designed the process of conception? Hopefully not and given this argument is about proving that intelligence cannot occur without God's input, trying to suggest that God created the process of birth makes the argument circular.

What it is reduced to is irrlevant.

How so? Either non-intelligent organisms are incapable of producing intelligence or not. I advocate that some non-intelligent organisms are capable of producing intelligence, such as the zygote producing an intelligent human.

Both the male and female have exactly what is needed within their own reproductive system to make jump start the process, and allow for that process to carry own by itself and produce intellectual offspring.

Yes and their reproductive system is non-intelligent and their reproductive system produces non-intelligent cells and when those cells come together to form a zygote, that zygote is non intelligent. But that zygote grows into an intelligent being through completely natural processes. Intelligence coming from non-intelligence.

Please actually explain why you think that the production of gametes by intelligent beings is relevant to my argument. You have asserted and reasserted it but never actually put a counter argument forward.

Because it happened simultaenously. The first causal act occurred at the same instant that time was created. If you are sitting perfectly still in a chair for eternity, and then you "begin" to stand, from the moment you moved you have just stepped in to time. Time began from the very moment that you moved, and it will go on in to the potential future forever.

What caused time to begin though? Did time spontaneously begin which allowed for movement and action to occur. Was God motionless and incapable of thought or action and then suddenly time began and therefore he began doing things? I suppose that makes sense, without time, change doesn't occur so when time begins change occurs.

So God did not cause or create time, time began at some point and God, being previously "frozen in time," began thinking and doing when time began. He would not have even known that he was ever without time because while time is stopped nothing changes, if time stopped right this moment, you would be mid-thought, mid action and no change would occur at all, anywhere. So if time stopped and then started again, it would go unnoticed. This is actually really interesting, if time did not exist at all prior to 13.7 billion years ago, when it began what did God think? That would be his first thought lest his existence prior to this had a preformed thought or action? Food for thought.

But what caused time to begin? It couldn't be God because without time, change is impossible. Time's beginning seems to be a conundrum, it could not have been created or caused but it appears to have began at some point. Common Cosmology states not that time did not exist but that in the singularity time broke down as did all of the laws of physics. It's not that it was necessarily non-existent but perhaps different, beyond our understanding of time. Basically it reaffirms what I've been saying, within the singularity all known laws of physics and even our concept of space and time, matter and energy all breaks down. Nobody knows anything that occurred or existed prior to the expansion.

Science cannot deal with things that are not material or of naturalistic nature. That is why "nobody knows". Prior to planck time, there was nothing there. That is the limitations of science. Metaphysics have to step in at this point.

"Have to," is a bit much. "Can" is a bit more accurate.

You are not dealing with my points. If the singularity was there sitting for all eternity, why did it expand only 13.7 bilion years ago??

"sitting there for all eternity", since time didn't exist or at least, not in the capacity we understand it, this statement is meaningless. You may as well ask, "Why did it sit there for a nano-second before expanding?"

The second problem you have is, time cannot be past eternal. So even if you were to postulate a pre-existing naturalistic cause to the singularity, none of this could be past eternal. In other words, time cannot be extended in to past infinity. Now on theism, this isn't a problem, because we dont believe time is infinite, we believe that time is finite, and the cause of time was not itself in time. You, on the other hand, believe in past infinity, which is absurd from a logical standpoint.

I do not believe that, I accept that prior to the expansion of the universe from the singularity, time and all of science and universal laws break down.

He is talking about both. He clearly realizes that the singularity and expansion happened at the same time. "The universe began from a state of infinite density"...that is the singularity....."space was created and all matter"....that was the expansion...you are asking for peer reviewed articles, just look up the big bang theory on wikipedia...I am telling you, all of these naturalistic models like the steady state theory and such, were all created because scientist didnt like the evidence pointing to a finite universe, because they thought all along that the universe was eternal. Just look at the history of cosmology and you will see where the evidence points.

Note: Wikipedia is not a peer reviewed article.

Your theory about the meaning of the quote is noted and discarded, it is clear from the text that the author believes STEM came into existence within the singularity. As I have shown several times already, without space and matter density is not possible. If the singularity is infinitely dense then it must contain a lot of matter, for matter to exist somewhere, space must exist for without space, "somewhere" does not exist.

 

[filthy tugboat]

So if you are at a pool table, and you have a basket of billiard balls, and you put the balls in the basket, and constantly pour the balls on the pool table, do you ever think the balls will assemble themsevles in a way to form a perfect "rack". This is how entropy works, the amount of disorder is more probable than the amount of order. And what that Penrose number implies is, the odds are so against our universe being fined tuned for human life, that to think that these things occurred by random chance is completely absurd.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics and of entropy. Entropy has naught to do with order and disorder. Entropy is about usable energy in a system and entropy produces equilibrium, the higher the entropy, the closer a system is to reaching equilibrium. The concept of order and disorder is a dumbed down version of entropy that isn't really accurate but can illustrate the point to a certain degree.

Yeah, and the sun is also burning out its energy as we speak, and the universe will eventually suffer a heat death. The low entropy had to be an initial condition from the moment the singularity appeared. It takes faith to believe that our universe could be the incredible odds against it.

If the singularity appeared at all. I agree that the universe had low entropy at the beginning, the expansion, it could be that the expansion itself was the very thing that lowered the universes entropy and the singularity was the point of equilibrium. I have no knowledge of entropy or of anything else for that matter within the singularity and neither do you.

That number represents the odds of our universe being life permitting, odds caculated by the prominent physicist Roger Penrose.

And how did he reach his conclusions? Someone in this thread already provided a great response to this;

"Your astronomical odds are based on a false premise. There is no evdence to suggest that the universe is statistically significant, it is our frame of reference granting the odds post hoc. But lets say you were dealt a hand of poker, what are the odds that you're dealt a royal flush? I think it's something like 650,000 to 1. However, there are four suits, meaning four possible royal flushes. Which means the odds of you getting just any random hand in poker is more unlikely than getting a royal flush. But of course we don't judge the game by those standards. But basically, you're being dealt a random hand in poker and saying after the fact, "wow! The odds of me getting this specific hand are 2,600,000 to 1. It must have been divine intervention."

If something is produced, anything at all, your argument applies to it. This argument is applies all possible universes. The odds of the universe being this way are essentially infinity to one, therefore the universe could not be this way without being directly caused/designed by an intelligent entity of unimaginative power. In a universe with no life where gravity is different and atoms don't form, this argument still applies which makes this a stupid argument that is meaningless.

Well hey, I dont believe that we can get that must precision from a blind, unguided, and non-intellectual process. Whenever "we" see this kind of precision, this kind of organization, this kind of complexity, we assume intelligent design. The cells in our DNA is more complex than a space shuttle (another point i keep stressing), but we are to believe the space shuttle is designed and the DNA not designed? This is highly absurd to me. But I understand that people will continue to be in denial no matter. I dont think the problem is lack of evidence. The problem is, people just dont like the idea of God.

Here, let's look at it this way. I believe that DNA, the formation of planets, the evolution of life all occurs naturally. Suppose God exists and caused the universe to come into existence. God would be capable of creating the natural process that produces the universe. He designed the singularity and made it expand and then didn't do anything to the universe and due to the laws he put in place everything naturally formed this way. Do you think that God is incapable of doing this? Do you think that God is not powerful enough to create a self working system? It appears that you do. You don't think it's possible for the universe to cause life and the formation of planets naturally, God had to step in and make it happen because his method of creation and the natural laws he created were incapable of doing it.

Even with God, you don't have to believe that life cannot form naturally, to believe it's impossible is to doubt God's power. Without God, there's not really another option.

So, when a hyena takes the lion's scraps, is it stealing??

No? Hence the term scraps. The left overs that would otherwise go to rot.

Good deal. On the Christian view, we believe that God has placed good morality on everyones heart, that is why practically everywhere earth, we all agree that murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, rape is wrong, etc. My point is, without God, if a law was passed in the United States that it was cool to have sexual relations with children under 12, it would be the right thing to do. This has subjectivity written all over it.

Why would it be a right thing to do just because it's legally permissible?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Jesus was not God & quickly pointed that out when someone refered to him as "Good Master" & he replied, "None is good, save one, that is God." -Luke 18:19
"The kingdom of God cometh not with observation... the kingdom of God is within you." -Luke 17:20-21
You can't find God outside you, not even in a scapegoat as Jesus has become. You can only find God within you, so we need to stop "lookin' for love in all the wrong places."

Please notice in Luke 18 v 20 that Jesus is addressing his enemies the Pharisees.
It is not until verse 22 that Jesus addresses his disciples.
So, does it seem unlikely in verse 21 that the kingdom of God would be inside of those hate-filled Pharisees?
Rather that Jesus was within their midst being among them.

Jesus addressing his followers at Luke [19 vs 11-15] explains that the kingdom of God would Not immediately or instantly appear. [was not within]

According to Daniel, the kingdom of God is a real royal government with Jesus as crowned king of God's royal messianic kingdom government which will replace all government on earth against God's kingdom. Jesus will have kingdom subjects from sea to sea or from one end of earth to the other end.

- Daniel 7 vs 13, 14; 2 v 44; Psalm 72 v 8; Isaiah 9 v 7

 

[sojourner]

Nay.

'Do not call Me good. No one is good but the Father'.
Jesus of Nazareth.

He he would not allow it for Himself...how then, that you do so?

We are part of creation. The bible tells us that creation is inherently "good."

 

[sojourner]

whether jesus actually walked on the water or not IS NOT for you to say, but whether jesus actually suffered pain on the cross IS for you to say?

First of all, our only source for anything that Jesus may or may not have experienced is the bible. He is reported to have performed miracles. I try not to analyze that, but rather choose to simply listen to the stories and glean what I can. He is reported to have suffered pain. I see no reason to think that he didn't. My question is: Why would you think he didn't? Or are you just being obtuse to hear your head rattle? Again, I don't analyze. I listen to the stories and glean what I can.

tell me: how do you decide what IS or IS NOT for you to say? or is your decision process a "miracle" too?

you cant randomly pick and choose what is convenient to you.

What are you on about?

i remember asking you to provide some miracles a couple weeks ago. you told me about burns on your hand... i asked whether those burns could have been healed naturally over time with medical attention, without prayer or supernatural intervention...you never responded for obvious reasons...... i also asked whether your burns were healed instantly, or during a very short duration of time impossible for natural healing..... you never responded for obvious reasons.... so thanks, but no thanks.... when you have some actual miracles that actually defy nature, let me know. till then, quit blowing smoke up my butt. i might get colon cancer.

I don't know what you think is so obvious about my having not answered you. It was probably because I logged off before you asked for the info, and then I didn't revisit the thread. Or, it was because I didn't feel like sharing them with someone with an (obviously) bad attitude, such as you're displaying here. No matter. You want details? Fine. I'm happy to share.

When I was in school, my parents and I were visiting some acquaintances. Dad and I were in the basement with the man of the house. As we were talking, Dad leaned his hand against a pipe, not knowing it was hot. His hand was immediately burned with 2nd degree burns. The man took Dad's hand (which was already blistered), placed it between his own, and immediately the burns and the pain went away, never to return. No scarring, no residual skin peeling or redness. It was as if it had never happened. The man said that his family, at least back to his grandmother, had always been able to do that.

What happened? I don't know. Can't explain it. Don't really try. But it was certainly outside the norm of usual human physiology.

I don't really see what any of this has to do with "Jesus dying for our sins," though -- especially when I maintain that he didn't "have to."

 

[sojourner]

oh, please. do yourself a favor and quit while you're behind.

You're going to have to be a little more forthcoming. I don't have any idea what you're on about. Did I inadvertantly wrong a member of your family at some point, or something?

 

[Thief]

We are part of creation. The bible tells us that creation is inherently "good."

So...you would be willing to say that again to the face of the Carpenter?

 

[sojourner]

So...you would be willing to say that again to the face of the Carpenter?

No. To the carpenter, I'd say, "I'd like the deck to be 12' x 14", with an awning and a barbeque grill."

To the Teacher, however, I'd absolutely say it again, without hesitation.

 

[Thief]

No. To the carpenter, I'd say, "I'd like the deck to be 12' x 14", with an awning and a barbeque grill."

To the Teacher, however, I'd absolutely say it again, without hesitation.

Good luck both.

 

[sojourner]

Good luck both.

Not luck...

Grace.

 

[zenzero]

Friend TSoA,

Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

Sorry friend Jesus never told me why he is buried in Kashmir?
Personally the concept God/whole includes the self and so a part of the whole and so consider others to as equal parts of God/Whole and so can only die as a part but the Whole/God remains WHOLE.
Personal understanding is that one cannot die for others as its all parts of THAT whole.

Love & rgds

 

[obi one]

Friend TSoA,


Sorry friend Jesus never told me why he is buried in Kashmir?
Personally the concept God/whole includes the self and so a part of the whole and so consider others to as equal parts of God/Whole and so can only die as a part but the Whole/God remains WHOLE.
Personal understanding is that one cannot die for others as its all parts of THAT whole.

Love & rgds

I heard that Kashmir was heaven on earth.

As for being part of a whole, that does not negate one person dying for another, although that doesn't address the gospel of the cross, which is actually nothing Yeshua preached, but a gospel of the false apostle Paul. It is rare, but sometimes one soldier will give up his life to save the lifes of his brother soldiers, of whom he loves, and is a part.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

John [15 vs 12-14] mentions Jesus new commandment of John [13 vs 34,35] and mentions at John [15 v 13] that Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for another.

 

[zenzero]

Friend obi one,

Thank you for your response.
The point is that when one does something he does it for himself. WHY or HOW? It is simple. If I love my family and do something for them, it is not for them that I am doing? It is the love within me and to satisfy my own feelings of love that am doing freely and voluntarily as they have not asked me to sacrifice myself for them? then how can I claim to be doing something for them.
Are you following?

Love & rgds

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics and of entropy. Entropy has naught to do with order and disorder. Entropy is about usable energy in a system and entropy produces equilibrium, the higher the entropy, the closer a system is to reaching equilibrium. The concept of order and disorder is a dumbed down version of entropy that isn't really accurate but can illustrate the point to a certain degree.

It is you that have the misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics and entropy, not me. The concept of order and disorder is exactly the problem that you, as a naturalist have. If the universe began from a singularity point, and expanded, and all STEM derived from it, this whole process was a process of disorder and chaos. According to the second law of thermodynamics, in a closed system, 100% of the time, the entropy will tend to increase because the system will lose all of its available energy. That is what is happening in our universe, the sun is losing its energy, and once the sun loses its energy, we can kiss mankind goodbye. The point is, it is HIGHLY improbable that a system begins with high entropy and move towards low entropy, but it is HIGHLY probable that a system begins with low entropy, and moves towards high entropy. You are just incorrect when you say order and disorder is a "dumbed down" version of entropy. If the universe will eventually reach a state of equilbrium in due time, then why hasnt it reached it yet if the universe is infinite?

If the singularity appeared at all. I agree that the universe had low entropy at the beginning, the expansion, it could be that the expansion itself was the very thing that lowered the universes entropy and the singularity was the point of equilibrium. I have no knowledge of entropy or of anything else for that matter within the singularity and neither do you.

How could you get that kind of precision from something that is blind, unguided, and non-intellectual??? It takes faith to even postulate such a thought.

And how did he reach his conclusions? Someone in this thread already provided a great response to this;
"Your astronomical odds are based on a false premise. There is no evdence to suggest that the universe is statistically significant, it is our frame of reference granting the odds post hoc. But lets say you were dealt a hand of poker, what are the odds that you're dealt a royal flush? I think it's something like 650,000 to 1. However, there are four suits, meaning four possible royal flushes. Which means the odds of you getting just any random hand in poker is more unlikely than getting a royal flush. But of course we don't judge the game by those standards. But basically, you're being dealt a random hand in poker and saying after the fact, "wow! The odds of me getting this specific hand are 2,600,000 to 1. It must have been divine intervention."

This is a misunderstanding of the argument. The argument is not that improbable things don't happen. The argument is, "SPECIFIED complexity" is highly unlikely if it is derived from a random process. It is highly unlikely that if you were if you put a million small pieces of paper in a huge box with each piece numbered from 1 to a 100,000,000, and you have a million people randomly pick a number out of the box, that each person will pick a number in the consecutive order of 1-100,000,000. Yeah, each number that is pulled has the same probability of being pulled, but it is the specified independent pattern of pulling the numbers in numerical order that adds more to the improbability. So this goes beyond any card game or lottery analogy you can think of. Second, you asked where did Penrose get the number astronomical number from. He did it by calculating the ratio of the total phase-space volume of possible universes for a creation even and the phase-space volume of possible univers for a creation event…and the pahse-space volume of possible universe universe. So he took the total entropy of our universe, which is 10(80)---10 as the base and 80 as the exponent…which is multiplied by the entropy per baryon 10(43), which gives a total entropy of 10(123)…so in all…the probability is 10(10(123)…..some hardcore stuff. Saying that this number is very large is a understatement. And this is not something that can really be argued. It is not up for debate. So there is no use in denying it. Scientist know that the universe is fined tuned for human life, which is why they have come up with these ridiculous theories like the “Multi-verse” theory to try to explain why. So you have to deal with this stuff, not me.

If something is produced, anything at all, your argument applies to it. This argument is applies all possible universes. The odds of the universe being this way are essentially infinity to one, therefore the universe could not be this way without being directly caused/designed by an intelligent entity of unimaginative power. In a universe with no life where gravity is different and atoms don't form, this argument still applies which makes this a stupid argument that is meaningless.

Not sure where you are going with this. Makes no sense.

Here, let's look at it this way. I believe that DNA, the formation of planets, the evolution of life all occurs naturally. Suppose God exists and caused the universe to come into existence. God would be capable of creating the natural process that produces the universe. He designed the singularity and made it expand and then didn't do anything to the universe and due to the laws he put in place everything naturally formed this way. Do you think that God is incapable of doing this? Do you think that God is not powerful enough to create a self working system? It appears that you do. You don't think it's possible for the universe to cause life and the formation of planets naturally, God had to step in and make it happen because his method of creation and the natural laws he created were incapable of doing it.
Even with God, you don't have to believe that life cannot form naturally, to believe it's impossible is to doubt God's power. Without God, there's not really another option.
No? Hence the term scraps. The left overs that would otherwise go to rot.
Why would it be a right thing to do just because it's legally permissible?

Huh. Makes no sense.

 

[zenzero]

Friend URAVIP2ME,

that Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for another.

The point was to see that such a thought appears when do not consider the *self* to be a part of God. The word /concept God is that which every thing are parts of IT. When am not separated then there is no other, it is only *ME*.
R U following?

Love & rgds