Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?

[Jonny-UK]

Wow- this thread has moved on a bit.

Bit of a rant coming now

There are things that none of us have a choice in when we are born
Where we are born
Who are parents are
The colour of our skin
If we are born into wealth or poverty
If we have a disability
If we are straight or gay
(Probably a few more I could add but you get the point)

These are all things that people should never ever be judged or mocked or humiliated for.
It is absolutely disgusting to try and make peolpe feel bad  for any of these things, especially if from a religious background, as you must believe it was your god that created people this way in the first place. Could religion be more hypocritical?

Socitey is moving forward, if only religion could do the same.

Rant over.

[ThatZenoGuy]

Closed ended questions? Really?  Will that tell you enough about my points of view to form a valid conclusion?

Yes, yes it will.
If you know anything about judges in court they do not accept "because" or "but".
Yes, or no is the best answer.

But if I must...  Do I agree with same sex marriage?  I have no cause to agree or disagree with it. Do I accept it? It is something that happens today. I would not say someone is condemned for it.  I see it as more a political question than a spiritual question. It's not up to me to judge what is right for two people to do. There is enough sin to go around so I don't see this as being any different than being a fat ass and continuing to be a fat ass. Sin is sin. You ask God for forgiveness and go on. If you continue committing the same sin, that is between you and God. I"m not trying to dodge the question. I really don't have an "agree or disagree" position on it.

You dare disobey the bible?
Why are you such a heretic?

Would I do anything for God? Are you going to ask me to kill my child next?  I try to be as "Christ like" as I can and follow God's path.  However, I am human, I have emotions, connections with people. I would give my own life for God-meaning if I was in that mall in Kenya and they were going to shoot Christians, I would hold my hands up high and proclaim Christ as my savior. Of course I would have to change my underwear, but I would do it and not renounce my faith.  If you are going to ask me if I would kill a child for God, ala Abraham-I am not sure I could do it. I know God wants me to love him more than anything, but, well, I'm human.

Look, simply put, if god commanded you to kill, would you do it?
No "emotions and radda will stop me", yes, or no.

I would do anything that I am capable of for God. Again, not trying to dodge any questions, but closed ended are tough in this sense.

With the gay question, you dodged it entirely, to nitpick.
If someone asks a closed question, you give the respective closed answer.

marriage is between a man and a woman. That's how it's always been. You can't change the meaning of marriage. If we allow man/man or woman/woman marriage, then it's a slippery slope to what else we can allow people to marry.

People will say, "Why can't I marry my dog?" or "Why can't I marry my sister?" Can't single out those people.

Hey look, a bigot, how disgusting.
Not to mention in some places you can already marry your sister, or a fellow male.

[Add Homonym]

Wrong. Marriage, in many cultures today, and yesterday, have been between a man and a shitload of wives.

Ah, the good old days. I see you yearn for them. I remember when you could buy a 3yo on ebay, marry her, and if you didn't like her, you could get your money back.

Exodus 21:7

[Foxy Freedom]

If you are going to ask me if I would kill a child for God, ala Abraham-I am not sure I could do it. I know God wants me to love him more than anything, but, well, I'm human.

I like the way you admit that you and humans in general are more moral than their gods

[Benny]

Man & woman is the natural order of things.
A woman receives the man.
An outlet on the wall receives the plug.
Your cell phone receives the charger that you plug into it.
It is nonsensical to use only one without the other. Nothing in this world would work.

This is something I find remarkable: pretty much all technology is comprised of male and female parts. Evidence of design.

1) Not all animals reproduce that way.  What about the bacteria that reproduce asexually, or the plants that can't do any physical "inserting?"

2) "Some animals reproduce with genital insertion.  Some man-made things insert into other man-made things.  Therefore God exists and gays are going to hell."  WHAT?

[Benny]

So, marriage is NOT inherently about procreation.  If it was, then you'd have to be against marriage of sterile folks too.

Homosexual sex itself is a separate topic.  They're going to have sex whether or not they're married; it's not like preventing their marriages is going to stop their sex.

marriage is between a man and a woman. That's how it's always been. You can't change the meaning of marriage. If we allow man/man or woman/woman marriage, then it's a slippery slope to what else we can allow people to marry.

People will say, "Why can't I marry my dog?" or "Why can't I marry my sister?" Can't single out those people.

People can't marry dogs, because they can't sign a marriage contract.  As far as sister marriage, I think it should be legal as long as they are not permitted to have children.  Too risky.  I also don't mind polyamory, as long as it's done out of love and not religious reasons.  But no matter what, no matter what's moral or immoral, how do any of these things have to do with homosexuality?  The slippery slope fallacy isn't going to fly here.

[Jag]

marriage is between a man and a woman. That's how it's always been. You can't change the meaning of marriage. If we allow man/man or woman/woman marriage, then it's a slippery slope to what else we can allow people to marry.

People will say, "Why can't I marry my dog?" or "Why can't I marry my sister?" Can't single out those people.

This is too pig-ignorant to let pass. Marriage is a contract having nothing to do with religion - the ceremony can be religious but there's no requirement for it to be so. I can perform marriages and I assure you, there's no need whatsoever to invoke any deities or invite them to attend. That's why it is licensed through the state rather than the nearest godbotherer. Dogs cannot sign contracts, and incest is a separate issue having to do with genetics.

[neopagan]

marriage is between a man and a woman. That's how it's always been. You can't change the meaning of marriage. If we allow man/man or woman/woman marriage, then it's a slippery slope to what else we can allow people to marry.

People will say, "Why can't I marry my dog?" or "Why can't I marry my sister?" Can't single out those people.

Also, according to your bible, Skep - Adam had his choice of all the animals first - before YHWH went back to the drawing board to come up with human 2.0... So, if not for a bad hair day for the goat, Adam could have chosen a wife that could also pull a cart, eat the weeds from the garden and provide milk for the whole family (Adam and the kids).  Of course, Mrs Adamgoat would have been an easy mark for a talking snake, since she loved any kind of fruit tree.   

[neopagan]

Aaahhh.. the old slippery slop argument:

If we give women the right to vote, next thing will be dogs and cats...
If we free the slaves, next thing they'll want to own property... and vote
If we exempt churches from paying taxes, next thing will be religious leaders with extravagant lifestyles...
If we let heathens create websites, next thing you know atheists will have a forum...

Humbug.

[jaimehlers]

Man & woman is the natural order of things.
A woman receives the man.

Which of course explains why you actually do see homosexual behavior in some animals.  Oh, wait, no it doesn't.

An outlet on the wall receives the plug.
Your cell phone receives the charger that you plug into it.
It is nonsensical to use only one without the other. Nothing in this world would work.

Yep, because we - humans - designed them that way.  Not some god.  It's not like they actually are male or female.  They're just pieces of technology.  So these examples are all red herrings.

This is something I find remarkable: pretty much all technology is comprised of male and female parts. Evidence of design.

Why would it be remarkable?  I mean, humans designed technology.  Humans have two sexes, so we designated connectors as "male" or "female" depending on their intended function.  But to jump from there to "humans were designed" doesn't make a lot of sense.  You need a lot more than "humans have two sexes, therefore design" to support that argument.

[Azdgari]

So, marriage is NOT inherently about procreation.  If it was, then you'd have to be against marriage of sterile folks too.

Homosexual sex itself is a separate topic.  They're going to have sex whether or not they're married; it's not like preventing their marriages is going to stop their sex.

marriage is between a man and a woman. That's how it's always been. You can't change the meaning of marriage. If we allow man/man or woman/woman marriage, then it's a slippery slope to what else we can allow people to marry.

People will say, "Why can't I marry my dog?" or "Why can't I marry my sister?" Can't single out those people.

To add on to what other folks have said, it would go a long way toward your credibility here if you could at least acknowledge your own position.  Look at the bolded text.  That was my main point.  The second paragraph in my post was an aside, and of course you focused on that.  Please acknowledge that your earlier claim about the "purpose" of marriage (ie. procreation) was not a belief you genuinely hold.

[epidemic]

It's not about the 6 hours. It's about Jesus being innocent and choosing to sacrifice Himself. He did not have to take on our sins, but He chose to. He chose to suffer in the same way his creations suffer. He loved us enough to BECOME like us. I find that extraordinarily loving.

He is god, he is and always has been all knowing, all seeing, he invented the very concept of suffering, he knew exactly what suffering was like and how it felt.  After all he is an all knowing all powerful god who created every thing (EVERYTHING).

AS for willingly suffering, people do it all the time,  Every day a mom or dad runs into a burning house only to emerge with a kid and 3rd degree burns over their body.  Stewing in their juices for days weeks an months only to die a horrible death.  His suffering is in no way unique.

I don't know the mechanics of taking on the sin of all people, that might be the hitch in the gitalong in my argument.  But again I cite this...  God knew about all the sin prior to his death, he is everywhere and all knowing.  I fail to see how he could gain any knowledge from allowing himself to be killed.  I also fail to see how you could consider this a sacrifice.  (I set the rules, I designed the game, and I choose to do what everyone else does but only half way because I am not going to stay dead.) 

[Nam]

marriage is between a man and a woman. That's how it's always been. You can't change the meaning of marriage. If we allow man/man or woman/woman marriage, then it's a slippery slope to what else we can allow people to marry.

People will say, "Why can't I marry my dog?" or "Why can't I marry my sister?" Can't single out those people.

This is too pig-ignorant to let pass. Marriage is a contract having nothing to do with religion - the ceremony can be religious but there's no requirement for it to be so. I can perform marriages and I assure you, there's no need whatsoever to invoke any deities or invite them to attend. That's why it is licensed through the state rather than the nearest godbotherer. Dogs cannot sign contracts, and incest is a separate issue having to do with genetics.

It should be noted that certain incest is legal in many states in the US, and it should also be noted many of those states are Southern, and all Southern states are heavily populated with skeptic's True™ Christians.

-Nam

[epidemic]

You don't think mass genocide, human sacrifice, slavery, infanticide, and rape are barbaric or evil? What could be more barbaric than those? I won't assume you have read the whole bible but many of us here (including myself) have and find those "reasons" quite wrong and irrational. Have you read the passages in 1 Samuel 15 where God supposedly commands the slaying of women and children, or Psalm 127 where God supposedly says, "Blessed is he who dashes the little babies against the stone"? In Exodus 21 God allegedly sanctions slavery (owning people as property) and in Judges 11 God condones human sacrifice. Can you think of any situation where this would be morally OK? It would seem to me that if a sacrifice is required for wrong doing then God himself needs a sacrifice for his wrong doing. I do realize this will likely get us into discussing the Euthyphro Dilemma but that's OK.

A lot of those things were because the nations refused to worship the true God. They were all worshiping false gods and disobeying God. God gave them chance after chance after chance to repent but they did not do it. They knew the punishment was coming and they didn't care.

Any reasonable parent would stick to the punishment if their children broke the rules. Otherwise, the children will do whatever they want and that's not good. When you warn your child of what happens if they disobey, and they disobey you, you have to do what's necessary and punish them. This is why a judge doesn't say to a murderer in court, "Oh you murdered someone? No big deal. Go free." The judge must stick to the punishment.

If God is evil for enacting punishment, then judges are evil for sending people to prison. The people knew the risk they were taking, disobeyed the law anyway, and have to deal with the consequences. Don't blame the cops or judge.

If Jesus was God, and was the ultimate sacrifice, why didn't he stay dead? A real "sacrifice" would require a loss, don't you think? But in this story, God didn't lose himself did he? Can God lose anything? He didn't really even die b/c his real self was (supposedly) immaterial and lived on (isn't he supposed to be eternal?). Of course, I personally don't think any of this took place at all but I think it's important to think critically about these doctrines - especially when there is so much at stake. Don't you?

many generations of people lived in these cities and were not punished for their failure to believe in god.  Then following millenia after millenia of business as usual, god sends jews in to sack your city and smash your babies on rocks. 

People don't believe in god for many reasons, but one reason would be his apparent invisibility and the random nature of his punishment.
God is the example of bad parenting.  Here is a god like conversation between a father and his children in the real world:

He tells Great Grandma that he is going to enforce the homework rule.

Grandma tells Billy, Sue, Joe and Elizabeth dad wants you to do your homework.

the next morning Grandma asks if they have done their homework.  They yes but they have not done it.  Sue gets a pimple however, because she is cute the teacher lets her make it up in class, Joe steals homework from some nerd gets an A,  Sue Gets an F and dad knows they are all lying so he burns Elizabeth slowly to death by rigging her lamp to ignite her room on fire.. 
.
.
.
20 generations later in a house of people from the line of  Joe "the bully",  the kids don't believe in homework either so Great X20 Grandpa burns down their house with a 5 year old who did not do his coloring project, as well as the infant twins and the wife.

People wittness the fire, and learn
A) do your homework?
B) Tragedy strikes at random
C) I don't know?

A family journal is found telling the story of Great X21 Grandma's experience regarding homework and the lying and decides the fire was caused by Great X20 grand dad homework rule?

[jynnan tonnix]

Wow- this thread has moved on a bit.

Bit of a rant coming now

There are things that none of us have a choice in when we are born
Where we are born
Who are parents are
The colour of our skin
If we are born into wealth or poverty
If we have a disability
If we are straight or gay
(Probably a few more I could add but you get the point)

These are all things that people should never ever be judged or mocked or humiliated for.
It is absolutely disgusting to try and make peolpe feel bad  for any of these things, especially if from a religious background, as you must believe it was your god that created people this way in the first place. Could religion be more hypocritical?

Socitey is moving forward, if only religion could do the same.

Rant over.

Left-handedness comes to mind as a good example of an inborn trait which used to be viewed as unnatural and something to be forcibly changed. But no matter how much a left-handed individual might be trained to write with his right hand, it will always be more natural for him to use his left hand for all manner of things.

Left-handed children suffered abuse and prejudice for something which, although they could train themselves to hide it was just naturally the way they functioned best. Does anyone in this day and age see left-handedness as evil?

How different is homosexuality from left-handedness, in the major scheme of things?

[Nam]

I taught myself in my youth to write with both hands (I have two different signatures), it took more time with the left hand, then the right. I'm right-handed.

Though, I noticed in typing, I'm slightly slower with my left-hand than right. I thought about taking a typing class for the third time just to work on that better. Just to add: I passed the first time, I just liking taking the class.

-Nam

[jynnan tonnix]

I'm fairly ambidextrous, though dominantly right handed. I can get by with my left hand, but it's a bit slower. I also can write in mirror-writing and not have my handwriting change at all.

[Nam]

I'm fairly ambidextrous, though dominantly right handed. I can get by with my left hand, but it's a bit slower. I also can write in mirror-writing and not have my handwriting change at all.

I can read upside down, fluently.

-Nam

[jynnan tonnix]

I can read upside down, fluently.

-Nam

Can't everyone? I have no idea. I know it was always hard for me not to accidentally read the answers on little quizzes, riddles, etc, when they were printed upside down at the bottom of the page. I can read mirror-writing fluently as well, at least as long as it is in print. Script takes a little longer to decipher.
I hate how sometimes parking lots where the rows are one-way have "do not enter" written on the ground, because it takes me longer to figure out whether or not it is backwards than it does to read it.

Sorry, this has jumped off topic for a moment...point about left-handedness still stands

[Truth OT]

.......... Anyway... God didn't need to sacrifice send his son to us, but he said he would, so the scripture had to be fulfilled.

That problem that you seem to be overlooking is that in the OT texts, there is no record of God saying he would send his son. So his son coming into the world in and of itself fulfilled NOTHING.

.........  My theology isn't irrational. I think my statement makes perfect sense for how I see God. To me, being all knowing and understanding doesn't include being able to predict the future events of every illogical human 100% of the time.

So your definition of all knowing is differrent from the actual meaning of all knowing? You do realize that what you are saying is that the god you believe in is NOT omniscient, right?

Why would we have free will if that is the case? I think God is logical, all knowing, all powerful, yada yada yada.

But you just said up there that God wasn't............
Which one is it?

Why would he make Adam and Eve if he knew they were going to sin? Doesn't make sense to me.

You may be on to something. Stay on this track and I'm confident that if you look at the facts you'll see that the whole god-concept doesn't make sense at all and hopefully you will be honest and admit that believing in such a senseless concept after being presented with reality is irrational.

 

So...what does make sense to me is that he made Adam and Eve, he made them with all these emotions and such and probably hoped they were going to make the right decisions, but they didn't. He was an angry God a lot in the OT and I attribute that to his logical, perfect sense not expecting the illogical human condition. After Christ was human and went thru all the emotional stuff, he had a better understanding.

So the circular reasoning continues. You are arguing against yourself and doing so in a single post! 1st god's not all knowing, then you say he is all knowing, and now he's again ignorant to some things and therefore NOT all knowing. Make up your mind so your argument can be more coherant please.

 

What rules did God break? How do I determine if he is good? Doesn't matter what I think. He is God and I worship him. He created me, so I give my life to him. Why would I think He is not good?

Let's not put the cart before the ole' horse here my friend. Before we determine if your god broke any rules it's incumant upon YOU to demonstrate that your god actually exists as opposed to he/it only existing in the minds of believers and in mythology. 

If you can't prove god's actual existence and you want us to deal with the god of myth in Abrahamic literature I an assure you that numerous poster will be able to demonstrate from those very writings that the god mentioned was in fact a bad actor on many occasions as he was responsible for countless acts of bloodshed and violence, endangerment, mischief, tampering, approval of evil, being a misogynist, as well as approving of and setting standards for both rape and slavery. Now, by every reasonable standard I can imagine, anyone that engages in such activities would NOT be classified as good. But I bet, based on how you defined omnicient, that your definition of good will differ immensely from the actual definition.

[median]

^^^ He's already admitted that he has no empirical evidence of his "God" and that he assumed the bible was true prior to any fact checking (really smart!).

As the ole' saying goes, “You cannot reason a man out of a position he has not reasoned himself into.”[1]

1.	Benjamin Franklin - http://rcmetcalf.wordpress.com/

[Dante]

Doesn't matter what I think. He is God and I worship him. He created me, so I give my life to him. Why would I think He is not good?

Why would you assume he is, just for the simple fact he created? Could an evil god not be responsible for creation? Why not?

Let's say your god is evil, based on common morality. Why would you worship an evil god? If your parents beat you, molested you, pimped you out to the highest bidder, would you still deem them "good"?

[jynnan tonnix]

Why would you assume he is, just for the simple fact he created? Could an evil god not be responsible for creation? Why not?

Exactly! If someone is of the mindset which necessitates some sort of supreme, creator being, then this is a question which MUST be asked, and neither the Bible, nor anything else can prove a negative answer false, as an evil god who could create a universe could very easily lie to make itself look good as well as implanting warm fuzzy reactions into those who worshiped it.

There is simply no way around that fact.

[median]

^^^ That's why it's just so much easier to assume your position in advance. No work necessary and you get INSTA-WORLDVIEW!

[screwtape]

Why would you assume he is, just for the simple fact he created? Could an evil god not be responsible for creation? Why not?

Let's say your god is evil, based on common morality. Why would you worship an evil god? If your parents beat you, molested you, pimped you out to the highest bidder, would you still deem them "good"?

Stephen Law argues that an evil god is as likely as a good one.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,14088.msg311925.html#msg311925

[Benny]

Please acknowledge that your earlier claim about the "purpose" of marriage (ie. procreation) was not a belief you genuinely hold.

Please, for the love of everything decent, respond to this.  Admit that you've changed your viewpoint in the middle of the conversation.  Admitting that you've changed your viewpoint is not a shameful thing to do--I admit to it quite frequently, it's a good habit--but if you refuse, then it will be hard to take ANYTHING you say seriously.

Not like we are taking you seriously: you've been preaching since you got here.  But it's not exactly how "preaching" is defined on this forum, so you get to stay.

[nogodsforme]

I'm fairly ambidextrous, though dominantly right handed. I can get by with my left hand, but it's a bit slower. I also can write in mirror-writing and not have my handwriting change at all.

I can read upside down, fluently.

-Nam

Me, too. But I can't write worth jack with my left hand.

[Nam]

I'm fairly ambidextrous, though dominantly right handed. I can get by with my left hand, but it's a bit slower. I also can write in mirror-writing and not have my handwriting change at all.

I can read upside down, fluently.

-Nam

Me, too. But I can't write worth jack with my left hand.

It took me years. It literally looks different than my normal writing with my right hand. When I first started doing it, it looked like I was writing like a 5 year old.

-Nam

[Prejah]

Skep,the point YOU IGNORED was that if you disagree with my interpretation of scripture you are WRONG

Your interpretation is not found in Scripture.
I just go by Jesus' words, not man's.

There are 38K different versions of what people think Jesus said or meant to say with his words,I am sure you have friends who disagree with your interpretation of what Jesus meant

There is some truth to this. We all have different messages from God. They are to us, individually, however there are Kingdom Principles that we all follow. The Kingdom Principles extend beyond culture, society and such, that we can all agree on their message wholly. The other disagreements are relatively minor and are just for conversation really.

Bullshit.

-Nam

so you are intimately familiar with Christian views and the Kingdom Principles?