What I Don't Like About Christianity

[Kenny]

No greater love hath a man etc, is a well known
thing from all cultures.

"God", whether it exists or not, is not "man".

Temporarily spinning off a tiny bit of himself,
in order to let someone "kill" it, as a payment
to himself for when others break his own
rules is kinda weird.

But it does not remotely show that this
"god" loves others more than it does itself.

I guess that is your take.

Since He took all sins and went to Hell and paid for it as a man with who knows what payment it entails, and I've never been there to find out, to me is a show of love... but there are all types of people with different viewpoints. Some people think love is when you buy something.

Apparently, for you, it is feeding your cat.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I guess that is your take.

Since He took all sins and went to Hell and paid for it as a man with who knows what payment it entails, and I've never been there to find out, to me is a show of love... but there are all types of people with different viewpoints. Some people think love is when you buy something.

Apparently, for you, it is feeding your cat.

Your position is that Jesus "paid for our sins" by spending a measly three days in Hell, yet you believe that a sin against god warrants an eternity in Hell. Yet another flaw in the "logic" of Christianity.

 

[Audie]

I guess that is your take.

Since He took all sins and went to Hell and paid for it as a man with who knows what payment it entails, and I've never been there to find out, to me is a show of love... but there are all types of people with different viewpoints. Some people think love is when you buy something.

Apparently, for you, it is feeding your cat.

My take? Perhaps you mean you dont like how
it sounds, when accurately described.

And-

Apparently, part of being a "christian" to you
is a lying cheap shot.

Said with far more reason and less calumny
than your phony remark.

 

[Audie]

Your position is that Jesus "paid for our sins" by spending a measly three days in Hell, yet you believe that a sin against god warrants an eternity in Hell. Yet another flaw in the "logic" of Christianity.

Did "Jesus" ever say that was the plan?

Looks to me like an afterthought, a way for his
followers to save face, and I will say, they
did quite the job of salvaging triumph from disaster.

Only place it really went wrong was in the creation
of "christians" such as we have on display here.

 

[Kenny]

God "so loving the world" does not preclude His also demanding that people put more of their care/love toward Him than toward their fellow man. My statements still stand as FACT. According to The Bible, God and Jesus both say that loving Him is more important than care for your fellow man. Period.

Which I proved wrong. If Jesus is our example and he cared more for his fellow man that for himself, your position is an automatic non-sequitur

You know what I noticed? I noticed that you didn't reply at all to my idea about people stating that they would choose God day-in, day-out over any of their family members. I believe I know why you didn't reply - likely because you know it is biblical that it is something that should be done, however you can't back that up with any sufficiently convincing argument that doesn't make you sound callous and equate your stance with something morally questionable. And in fact, I think you also find it a morally questionable stance, but are afraid to say so because it goes against these "TOP" tenets of your faith.

Actually, I didn't reply because your starting sentence was so over the top with your personal bias, I figured the rest was just as irrelevant.

Your "supposing" of why I didn't reply was obviously wrong. How does a person choose God over his family if God puts your in responsibility of your family?

It is such an irrelevant question, how does one answer?

Even if you don't reply (which I highly advise against if you don't want to start saying things that put your opinions in a bad light), just think on this. Which of the two, following statements do you believe might make a child feel more confident in their parent's love when made directly to said child?

1. I love you son, however if somehow it ever came down to my making a choice between you and God, I would have to choose God.
2. Son, I love you. So much so, that even if God Himself were to ask me to choose between you and Him, I'd laugh in His face so confidently he'd pee his gown.

I'll let you take a guess as to which one of those two I'd be telling my sons.

It is so easy to create your own hypothesis to then tear it down. Let me make it more real for you...

Mother accepted Jesus Christ in a Muslim country. Husband and children say, "Either you forget Jesus or we will kill you". She chose Jesus. She died.

Do you have any more irrelevant statements?

 

[Kenny]

My take? Perhaps you mean you dont like how
it sounds, when accurately described.

And-

Apparently, part of being a "christian" to you
is a lying cheap shot.

Said with far more reason and less calumny
than your phony remark.

Hmmm... I'm not sure who was hurtling cheap shots.

 

[Kenny]

Your position is that Jesus "paid for our sins" by spending a measly three days in Hell, yet you believe that a sin against god warrants an eternity in Hell. Yet another flaw in the "logic" of Christianity.

Not sure... If all the hordes of Hell were on top of you along with all the results of sin... it may be a lot more than you think. I'm not interested in finding out, but apparently the innocence of Jesus and the payment was sufficient for The Father. I banking on that it was but we all have our different perspectives.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Not sure... If all the hordes of Hell were on top of you along with all the results of sin... it may be a lot more than you think. I'm not interested in finding out, but apparently the innocence of Jesus and the payment was sufficient for The Father. I banking on that it was but we all have our different perspectives.

Hmmm....I'm not going to get into an argument with you because I don't think it would be productive. But nevertheless, three days is clearly not equal to an eternity. I'm simply pointing out a flaw in the logic of the belief that Jesus "paid for your sins" in three days, when your sins supposedly warrant an eternity in Hell.

 

[Kenny]

Hmmm....I'm not going to get into an argument with you because I don't think it would be productive. But nevertheless, three days is clearly not equal to an eternity. I'm simply pointing out a flaw in the logic of the belief that Jesus "paid for your sins" in three days, when your sins supposedly warrant an eternity in Hell.

Then we certainly can agree to disagree.

Usually a person improperly placed in jail gets to sue some people. When Jesus sued (so to speak), he got mankind as his payment.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Did "Jesus" ever say that was the plan?

Looks to me like an afterthought, a way for his
followers to save face, and I will say, they
did quite the job of salvaging triumph from disaster.

Only place it really went wrong was in the creation
of "christians" such as we have on display here.

It probably was a way for followers to save face, yes. Your last paragraph is a little harsh. He made a joke that was a little condescending about feeding your cat. Oh well. Lighten up.

 

[GODbeMERCIFULtoMEaSINNER]

Maybe for some. However, I grew up Lutheran and the teachings were quite clear. Actions do not matter, only beliefs. Humans were divided into strict categories of "believers" and "unbelievers." Believers go to heaven, and unbelievers go to hell. This is what I take serious issue with. Why does one's belief or non-belief in a set of propositions matter? Further, why are actions not taken into account?

Unbelievers go to hell because they're workers of iniquity they have never turned from the darkness of sin to Christ who is the light of the world. Everyone of us deserves hell we are all Wicked

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Unbelievers go to hell because they're workers of iniquity they have never turned from the darkness of sin to Christ who is the light of the world. Everyone of us deserves hell we are all Wicked

Why is *belief* the deciding factor?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Then we certainly can agree to disagree.

Usually a person improperly placed in jail gets to sue some people. When Jesus sued (so to speak), he got mankind as his payment.

But your position as I understand it is that Jesus paid the penalty for the sins of humanity and that that penalty is an eternity in Hell. But, if Jesus only went to Hell for three days, then by the very definition of the penalty for sin, he didn't pay for your sins.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Which I proved wrong. If Jesus is our example and he cared more for his fellow man that for himself, your position is an automatic non-sequitur

What does Jesus loving his fellow man more than HIMSELF have to do with God informing people that they first show love/care for Him and then secondarily do so for their fellow humans? What? Are you being purposefully obtuse here, or do you honestly not understand?

1. If Jesus is human, then him loving his fellow man more than himself is akin to a human doing the same with respect to other humans. Love for God DOES NOT PLAY INTO THIS.
2. If Jesus is God, then Jesus loving man more than himself is God loving man more than Himself, which STILL DOES NOT speak to God informing man that He must first love God above all else.

Seriously... what the hell is going on here? 4 or more replies in now and you've revealed you have no idea what we are talking about, or you are trying to divert attention.

Actually, I didn't reply because your starting sentence was so over the top with your personal bias, I figured the rest was just as irrelevant.

Your "supposing" of why I didn't reply was obviously wrong. How does a person choose God over his family if God puts your in responsibility of your family?

It is such an irrelevant question, how does one answer?

Give me a damn break. HOW DID ABRAHAM ANSWER? Do you even read that book you tout as being so fantastic or what?

It is so easy to create your own hypothesis to then tear it down. Let me make it more real for you...
Mother accepted Jesus Christ in a Muslim country. Husband and children say, "Either you forget Jesus or we will kill you". She chose Jesus. She died.
Do you have any more irrelevant statements?

Wow... YOURS is the irrelevant statement here. In fact, yours is a statement that actually works in MY favor in this argument. I can't believe you don't see it, honestly. You're positing a scenario in which the FAMILY are the ones doing the THREATENING. This is basically equivalent to GOD DOING THE THREATENING in the scenario I put forth. BOTH SCENARIOS ARE COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WRONG!

So, you have God stating that a person must love Him above all else, or pay consequences.
And you think a scenario in which the family puts the same condition on a family member and follows through with the consequences is an argument for... ? What are you thinking here? This fits EXACTLY my earlier scenario of a "friend" coming to you and telling you that if you don't adore them, then they are going to judge you harshly and possibly harm you. That "friend" is God, sir. And just as the family in your scenario is evil, unjust and completely devoid of any compassion... so too is God if He does this same thing. Done deal. You have destroyed your own argument. Way to go champ. Got anything else you want to lay on me?

 

[1213]

....
But if death results from sin, and plants don't have the brains to sin, why do they die?

Maybe because there is no reason why they should live forever? Is it a problem, if they are brainless and therefore don’t understand or know anything?

 

[Kenny]

But your position as I understand it is that Jesus paid the penalty for the sins of humanity and that that penalty is an eternity in Hell. But, if Jesus only went to Hell for three days, then by the very definition of the penalty for sin, he didn't pay for your sins.

That isn't exactly how I see it.

It is different if you are guilty. If a guilty person has three life sentences because for evil done... well ok.

But if you are innocent then you are set free with recompense:

America's longest-serving innocent prisoner receives $1m for 39 years in jail

Or, if you were improperly treated, even as a guilty man, you are recompensed:

He went blind in prison. Now, government owes him a house — and $2 million.

Usually the greater the abuse, the greater the recompense.

In the case of Jesus, The Word made flesh, he was not only improperly imprisoned but improperly mistreated for the sins of humanity that he didn't commit... the judgement, humanity finds forgiveness.

Now, of course you don't have to agree with this position, but I am satisfied with it. I'm sure you have your own philosophical position which, most likely, many will disagree with you too.

I'

 

[Audie]

Hmmm... I'm not sure who was hurtling cheap shots.

what, you know not what you do?

Apparently, for you, it is feeding your cat.

ETA if you intended it as a joke, then sorry-ah
I missed the humour.

 

[Kenny]

What does Jesus loving his fellow man more than HIMSELF have to do with God informing people that they first show love/care for Him and then secondarily do so for their fellow humans? What? Are you being purposefully obtuse here, or do you honestly not understand?

Is it that you just don't like my answer? When Jesus said "like the first", he put them on a basic equality.

1. If Jesus is human, then him loving his fellow man more than himself is akin to a human doing the same with respect to other humans. Love for God DOES NOT PLAY INTO THIS.
2. If Jesus is God, then Jesus loving man more than himself is God loving man more than Himself, which STILL DOES NOT speak to God informing man that He must first love God above all else.

Seriously... what the hell is going on here? 4 or more replies in now and you've revealed you have no idea what we are talking about, or you are trying to divert attention.

Are you purposefully ignoring answers? Or is it that because I don't act like your sheep upsets you?

Jesus IS God, and He put His fellow man ABOVE Himself. So, what's your beef?

Give me a damn break. HOW DID ABRAHAM ANSWER? Do you even read that book you tout as being so fantastic or what?

Apparently, by your answer, you have no idea what that history was about.

Wow... YOURS is the irrelevant statement here. In fact, yours is a statement that actually works in MY favor in this argument. I can't believe you don't see it, honestly. You're positing a scenario in which the FAMILY are the ones doing the THREATENING. This is basically equivalent to GOD DOING THE THREATENING in the scenario I put forth. BOTH SCENARIOS ARE COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WRONG!

yours was wrong, mine was real life.

 

[Audie]

But your position as I understand it is that Jesus paid the penalty for the sins of humanity and that that penalty is an eternity in Hell. But, if Jesus only went to Hell for three days, then by the very definition of the penalty for sin, he didn't pay for your sins.

The whole thing of hurting himself to pay himself for
his creation's "sin", breaking his rules is just so insane,
I dont see how anyone manages to believe it.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

That isn't exactly how I see it.

It is different if you are guilty. If a guilty person has three life sentences because for evil done... well ok.

But if you are innocent then you are set free with recompense:

America's longest-serving innocent prisoner receives $1m for 39 years in jail

Or, if you were improperly treated, even as a guilty man, you are recompensed:

He went blind in prison. Now, government owes him a house — and $2 million.

Usually the greater the abuse, the greater the recompense.

In the case of Jesus, The Word made flesh, he was not only improperly imprisoned but improperly mistreated for the sins of humanity that he didn't commit... the judgement, humanity finds forgiveness.

Now, of course you don't have to agree with this position, but I am satisfied with it. I'm sure you have your own philosophical position which, most likely, many will disagree with you too.

I'

OK, so let me see if I understand your position. Are you saying that you believe that because Jesus was treated unjustly, even though he didn't actually suffer the magnitude of punishment that sinners deserve to receive in Hell, the punishment that he faced was enough to satisfy God's wrath against the sins of the guilty, since Jesus was innocent?