Xtians, I forget, What Do We Need a Saviour For?

[Revoltingest]

So? Share with me -- where did your sympathies lie? (If you ever answered that before, forgive me...I didn't see it.)

Andrew Yang appeared to be the best the Dems had to offer.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Andrew Yang appeared to be the best the Dems had to offer.

Interesting. I know little of him. But what about other parties?

 

[Revoltingest]

Interesting. I know little of him. But what about other parties?

I voted Libertarian.
But only Dems & Pubs can actually win the presidency.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I voted Libertarian.
But only Dems & Pubs can actually win the presidency.

I get it. I've voted Green in the past, but they can barely win a single seat in a 338 seat House of Commons. We're all so stuck on history that we can't seem to contemplate anything else.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It isn't what we did individually but, a debt that was passed on by a family member that no one could pay. Do you know about the redemption laws in Israel? Christ is called a redeemer for a reason.

Any debt incurred by a person could be passed on to the next generation until the debt was paid. A son or daughter could work to help pay off the debt, but if it was huge, it was just an ongoing thing unless some benevolent person (perhaps a wealthy relative) volunteered to pay the debt for them.

This type of bond service sometimes lasted for generations where a near kinsman redeemer did not readily provide the ransom price.

The creditor in this scenario sounds quite unjust and unmerciful.

The sin of Adam plunged the whole human race into a debt that none of them could not pay. But if a redeemer would pay the set amount, then all of Adam's children would be freed from the debt that led to sin and it consequence, death.

God's law stated "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and a life for a life", (equivalency) so the life that Adam lost on account of his disobedience was not only his own, but the lives of all who would descend from him.

Death through sin was like an inherited genetic disorder that is passed from one generation to the next. (Romans 5:12) The human race needed someone to pay the debt for them, but it was perfect human life that Adam lost, and there was not a perfect human on earth who could redeem mankind. That is why God sent Christ from heaven to become the perfect life offered willingly on our behalf. The debt was paid and mankind gained forgiveness of their sin and would eventually be released from this debt, but not until the whole human race was tested as to fitness for life in the Kingdom of God first.

So then as of ~2,000 years ago, the "genetic disorder" / "debt" stopped being passed down. Glad to hear it.

Kinda makes your religion's proselytizing pointless, but everyone needs a hobby, I guess.

 

[Deeje]

The creditor in this scenario sounds quite unjust and unmerciful.

So then as of ~2,000 years ago, the "genetic disorder" / "debt" stopped being passed down. Glad to hear it.

Kinda makes your religion's proselytizing pointless, but everyone needs a hobby, I guess.

Oh, that was so helpful and informative....
Why do you bother?

 

[InChrist]

If everybody sins then it can't be a genuine choice not to (otherwise at least some people would make that choice). If humans were made by some god, then this 'sinning' seems to be a design flaw. This supposed god appears to be punishing us for its own sloppy handiwork.

I don’t see it as sloppiness or a design flaw. Rather a fact of reality, since any created finite being inevitably would fall short of an infinite Being’s perfection and make mistakes, do wrong and sin. The only remedy according to the scriptures is for one to turn from their sinful life and choose “new life” in Christ. Jesus alone was able to live the perfect, sinless human life because He was God in the flesh. To all who place their faith in Him, He applies His perfection and eternal life to as a free gift.

 

[InChrist]

But it clearly doesn't work. People who ask Jesus to fix their nature don't stop 'sinning'.

Maybe not, in this earthy life, but God is about eternity. An eternal realm filled with thousands upon thousands of humans who love God, who love the things God, who no longer have any desire to sin is the goal. This temporary world is the time of choice and the beginning the process of being transformed by Christ, or not. Those who have the desire to be free of sin and be changed in Christ and begin this process, but do not complete it or reach a sinless state until leaving the temporal and entering the eternal.

 

[ratiocinator]

you complained about God not having delivered a perfect nature.
You said it was unjust and unfair, if I remember well.
That's why I said you have the wrong attitude if you only accept utter perfection.

What I pointed out was that not giving us a genuine choice about sinning is unjust and unfair. You don't appear to have and answer to that.

there is nothing indefensable about the Word of God.

Thought-free contradiction really isn't going to get you anywhere. Genocide, infanticide, and slavery (to pick a few examples) are all indefensible as far as I'm concerned - and I guess they would be to you too in any other context. Yet you defend them just because they are in a storybook you think is about your god.

God showed up and they wanted to kill him according to the Bible.

How many of the people who wanted to kill him, even knew he was god? Regardless, this is all a distraction from the fact that sitting here, in the 21st century, there is no evidence for any god(s), let alone your favourite one.

it wasn't genocide since genocide implies unlawfulness.

No it doesn't: genocide "The deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group." but if you're really hung up on the word, do feel free to substitute another word for the indiscriminate slaughter of an entire nation (including children and infants) and try to defend that.

Destroying own art is defensible, easily.

Creating conscious beings, causing them pain and suffering, and then destroying them, are the actions of a sadistic monster.

... that I don't have.

What you have written here is good evidence that you do.

Actually I do.
You don't agree with me. This does not mean that I don't have a clue about what I'm talking about.

Suggesting that beauty in the world as evidence for a god, tells me otherwise. Evidence is supposed to support one view or hypothesis over all the other explanations. Explanations for why humans find some things nice to look at, without any need for god(s), is plentiful.

Please don't give me unwarranted advice, thank you.

Suit yourself but you seem to be unable to go beyond a set of stock answers you have for these points. When I don't accept them and point out problems, all you seem to do is repeat yourself. If you thought more before replying, you might be able to go beyond that and make a better case. But, as I say, suit yourself...

 

[ratiocinator]

Rather a fact of reality, since any created finite being inevitably would fall short of an infinite Being’s perfection and make mistakes, do wrong and sin.

So god was simply unable to create people who have a genuine choice (so not omnipotent)? It was rather stupid, not to mention unjust and unfair, to create them and then hold them to a standard they couldn't possibly meet.

The only remedy according to the scriptures is for one to turn from their sinful life and choose “new life” in Christ.

Apart from the absurdity of having to believe a bizarre and nonsensical story for which there is no evidence at all, then what? We go back to sinning anyway, for all eternity? Anything else would contradict the supposed impossibility of finite beings living up to the standards of an infinite god.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

but that's not what we a need a savior for.
Everyone needs a savior for their own sins, this is how I understand the Bible.

From my experience, your understanding doesn't seem to be the mainstream.

I understand it this way: sin came into the world through Adam, and since then, everyone is a made sinner.

Sounds like exactly what The Hitch said: "created sick and commanded to be well".
And sounds like you are saying exactly what you claim to not be saying: that "sin" is inherited from long dead (mythical) ancestors.

We are "guilty" of being human.

It's like this: A father yells at their children.
And then the children yell at theirs. And then their children etc...

False analogy. Nothing about a father yelling to his children is going to ensure these children yell at theirs when they grow up and become parents.

It's this what we need an escape from. Jesus is the answer, in my view,

You could also just stop yelling.

But that's exactly what, in christian theology at least, can't happen. Because for some reason, this "sin" of the long dead (mythical) ancestors is inherited by off spring. And this, by commandment of this so-called god himself, since he "cursed" the off spring.

He could have also just punished the actual guilty (mythical) person, instead of cursing all of his off spring, which incidently supposedly constitutes the entire human species.

And then he "sacrifices" himself to himself to find a loophole for the mess he himself created, to break his "own" curse.

What an incompetent monster.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then I clearly have nothing to offer you. My explanation is meaningless if you remove the only basis for discussion.

“Faith is not the possession of all people”.....so go in peace and enjoy “the real world”......it’s not a world I want to live in....I am an alien here. I look forward to the world we were supposed to enjoy in the beginning, as I believe this world was never meant to be “real”....it’s the stuff of nightmares. It might be your home, but it isn’t mine by a long shot.

It’s not the planet, (which is magnificent) but the disgusting humans who seem bent on destroying it (and us) that I want to see the back of. (Revelation 11:18) I am confident that God will see to it in his own time.

I believe that the Creator has great plans for the future, and I hope to see the restoration of what he purposed in the beginning.

I think this is kind of hilarious... how you seemingly acknowledge that you refuse to accept reality and prefer the stuff that only seems to exist in your head.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I prefer hope to hopelessness. I see what the Creator has made in the untouched part of the Earth that still declare his thoughtful and beautiful creativity, and the pristine cleanness that every creature maintains as a matter of course. Man is the only "unclean" species on this planet and he is the only one with supposedly enough intelligence to know better....he can offer no excuses for what he has done and is still doing.

You can trust him if you like.....I will put my trust in the Creator.

What you have is not "hope". What you have is unrealistic fantasy.

The world will only become a better place when we humans make it a better place.
Nobody is going to come to solve our problems for us.

Ironically, your mentality is exactly the kind of mentality that literally stands in the way of us solving our problems. Because YOU see no need to solve problems. You see no problem in messing up this world, because you believe some magical omnipotent entity is going to intervene.

Ironically, people like you are what stand in the way of solving the problems.

Aside from your beliefs that "after death" it will all be better, your earthly life mentality is actually pretty indistinguishable in practice from pure nihilism.


You should think about that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The USA was almost at a civil war level with its last election

Consider that if such a political split would have occurred 200 years ago, it WOULD have ended up in a civil war. And a rather brutal one at that.

The fact that it hasn't, shows how humans have changed - and still are changing.

People split down the middle over wearing masks for crying out loud!

Ironically, those who are against masks (and also those on the Trump side of things) tend to be the RELIGIOUS people.

People like YOU, who don't see a need to try and solve our earthly problems, because they believe some God will come and fix it all.

Does track record account for nothing through your rose colored glasses?

Track record is exactly what he is thinking of.

Numbers don't lie.
The fact is that 200 years ago, what happened with the last election would have plummeted the country in an extremely violent civil war.

But today, it has not.

 

[thomas t]

What I pointed out was that not giving us a genuine choice about sinning is unjust and unfair. You don't appear to have and answer to that.

you said:

Nothing you say can take away the fact that giving people a sinful nature is unjust and unfair. Full stop, end of story.

that's what I commented on.
Of course you can choose in which way you use your sinful nature.
If it is in a way you harm others and/or God, it's bad.
It's like Shell using the rotten pipeline to transport their oil for financial purposes, in full knowledge of it being broken... and just not care about the oil spill that was logical. The sinful "nature" of the pipeline was what they ignored. But Shell tried to reach a deal with the people they harmed, and they reached it (the Ogoni people).
Still, they harmed God, because they corrupted His enivronment, Nigeria is also His.
Hope this helps.

Thought-free contradiction

actually, there is no thought-free contradiction on my side, I think.

Genocide, infanticide,

oh - I used this definition for genocide: GENOCIDE | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
(murder implies unlawfulness)

If genocide for you is the "mere" killing of people, then for God it's ok, since he created them, too.
An artist may destroy the arts he just created.
As I said. So no, God is no sadistic monster.
God is even entitled to inflict pain on people as a punishment, I think.
Punishment is something that can be legitimate. Here, I disagree with @Clara Tea also.

Suggesting that beauty in the world as evidence for a god, tells me otherwise. Evidence is supposed to support one view or hypothesis over all the other explanations. Explanations for why humans find some things nice to look at, without any need for god(s), is plentiful.

I stay with my opinion that I do know what evidence is.
To my knowledge, there are no valid explanations as to why beautiful landscapes are considered beautiful. No evolutionary pressure for entire landscapes to be that beautiful, for instance.

Suit yourself but you seem to be unable to go beyond a set of stock answers you have for these points.

this is getting personal, I think. Stop it please.

repeat yourself.

please show me a post in which I repeated myself although you did not repeat yourself beforehand. If you can't, I discard your claim.

How many of the people who wanted to kill him, even knew he was god?

the whole crowd wanted him to be killed at the instance of his crucifiction, according to the Bible.
I see no structural difference nbetween these people back then and humankind today.

 

[Brian2]

Jesus's sacrafice wasnt crucifixion it was coming to earth to suffer as a human being.

According to the scriptures it was His death that is the sacrifice for our sins, not His life.

 

[thomas t]

From my experience, your understanding doesn't seem to be the mainstream.

Bible counts. Not theology. And Bible says this: Jeremiah 31:30.

Sounds like exactly what The Hitch said: "created sick and commanded to be well".
And sounds like you are saying exactly what you claim to not be saying: that "sin" is inherited from long dead (mythical) ancestors.

We are "guilty" of being human.

No, humans are merely guilty of the sins they actually committed.
Adam isn't mythical, I think.

You could also just stop yelling.

But that's exactly what, in christian theology at least, can't happen. Because for some reason, this "sin" of the long dead (mythical) ancestors is inherited by off spring. And this, by commandment of this so-called god himself, since he "cursed" the off spring.

It can happen, of course.
Maybe there are throngs of parents, who have been yelled at when they were children, but don't pass that on to theirs.
- I merely said that parents are more likely to use violence themselves if they were subjected to violence in their childhood. I'm sure I could find sources, if you want me to. So the analogy was correct, I assume.

It may serve as an example of how sin is passed on. Nothing more, nothing less.
It's not by a curse that sin is being passed on from generation to generation. The "inheritance" concept of sin missed the point too, in my view. Because there is no decision involved for inheritance, if I get the meaning of this concept right.

So let's consider there is a parent who broke the chain and all of a sudden stops yelling around, which is possible indeed.

But maybe, he might be guilty of throwing litter into the countryside, though. The next child who sees that thinks it might be a good idea to do so, too. And the next guy who sees all the litter on the ground thinks, well if this is how it works, I deposit my waste like this, too. And so on.
And this is how people are being made sinners, from my understanding. As opposed to "inheritance". This word does not figure in the Bible to explain sinful nature, btw.

What an incompetent monster.

Actually, God is no incompetent monster, I think.
He sacrificed his son for sins committed by humankind.

He could have also just punished the actual guilty (mythical) person, instead of cursing all of his off spring, which incidently supposedly constitutes the entire human species.

but of course he punished Adam, this is Bible knowledge. It wasn't a curse that caused the sins of the next generation, according to the Bible.

 

[ratiocinator]

Of course you can choose in which way you use your sinful nature.

But I can't choose not to have one, which is where the injustice lies.

It's like Shell...

No matter how often you thoughtlessly repeat this, it's still nonsense - it's nothing like Shell.

actually, there is no thought-free contradiction on my side, I think.

Ironically, this is a perfect example.

If genocide for you is the "mere" killing of people, then for God it's ok, since he created them, too.

No, it isn't. This is the incredible doublethink that I was referring to. Genocide (or killing an entire nation) is morally repugnant - the fact that you excuse your god from this, is truly frightening.

As I said. So no, God is no sadistic monster.

Deliberately making a conscious, intelligent being and then causing it to suffer and die is just about the most horrific abuse of power, for (apparently) nothing but perverse sadistic pleasure, I can actually imagine.

I stay with my opinion that I do know what evidence is.

More empty contradiction.

To my knowledge, there are no valid explanations as to why beautiful landscapes are considered beautiful.

Which is, at best, an argument from ignorance fallacy.

the whole crowd wanted him to be killed at the instance of his crucifiction, according to the Bible.
I see no structural difference nbetween these people back then and humankind today.

You totally ignored my question: how many of the people who wanted to kill him, even knew he was god?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh, that was so helpful and informative....
Why do you bother?

Oh, I don't reply to your posts with the expectation that you will listen to reason.

Other people reading the thread might be interested in the problematic implications of what you're saying, though.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually, God is no incompetent monster, I think.
He sacrificed his son for sins committed by humankind.

IOW, for the faults in his creation. Still sounds incompetent to me.

And as for the "sacrificing his son" bit:

- if he couldn't figure out any other way to fix his creation, then he's extra incompetent.

- if he had many ways to fix his creation but voluntarily chose the sacrifice of his son over cruelty-free options, then he's a monster.