22 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by 667joeMy explanation may not be very good and perhaps it is absurd. But what
Admit it! Deep down you don't really believe this absurd explanation.
I was attempting to do is explain, in as simple terms as I could, what I
actually believe was the aim of God. Is it really absurd to you that your
life could be saved by someone giving you their blood?
22 Nov 11
Originally posted by 667joeYou're like one of those perpetual feeding machines, ain't cha? Every two to three weeks, you throw the same silly nothing into the water and watch the melee which ensues. You truly couldn't care any less than you do about the answer; you just like watching all the pretty fishes scurry about in response to your vacuous nothingness.
Can some one explain to me how God allowing his only begotten son to be tortured to death absolves believers of their sins? What is the connection? Is God not bright enough to have been able to figure out a less sadistic way to accomplish the same task?
No bite!
23 Nov 11
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt is apparent you cannot justify your position. I did not attack you you know.
You're like one of those perpetual feeding machines, ain't cha? Every two to three weeks, you throw the same silly nothing into the water and watch the melee which ensues. You truly couldn't care any less than you do about the answer; you just like watching all the pretty fishes scurry about in response to your vacuous nothingness.
No bite!
23 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt's interesting that a question that gets to the very heart of one of the central tenets of Christianity, and a question that - quite clearly - a lot of Christians have trouble addressing - other than to simply internalize it, let alone explain it coherently to others - should be attacked as being a "silly nothing" and a "vacuous nothingness". Surely the meaning of Jesus' sacrifice is deadly serious and, indeed, the complete opposite of "nothingness" to Christians and people interested in Christian theology? Some Christians have responded to 667joe accordingly while others have responded with a baffling and pointless contempt.
You're like one of those perpetual feeding machines, ain't cha? Every two to three weeks, you throw the same silly nothing into the water and watch the melee which ensues. You truly couldn't care any less than you do about the answer; you just like watching all the pretty fishes scurry about in response to your vacuous nothingness.
23 Nov 11
FMF
Clearly you've been at this a while. Probably years.
Can you not empathize on even the slightest level, with Freaky's position? Yes, a believer is supposed to be above that and prepared to answer any and all questions at all times.
But there are moments when one realizes people just pop off with the same questions over and over and over and over, and don't seem to care in the least what the answer is. It's as if they really just want to hear themselves talk, and enjoy phrasing their questions in the most degrading way possible.
Now, I'm not suggesting that Joe did this because I don't know him. But if what Freaky says is true.. that Joe just shows up every couple of weeks and launches the same old questions one after the other.. then I can at least empathize to some degree.
My favorite "questioners" are the ones that copy and paste from the usual websites and fill up an entire forum page with 1 post of 100 bible contradictions... dare anyone to answer... and then once answered point by point, they copy and paste some more without the slightest care or appreciation for the time it took to address their initial charges. Yep, I just LOVE those "debates."
I'm refreshed that this doesn't seem to go on much here.
23 Nov 11
Originally posted by DowardMince meat. That's a good one. You really tore up those pathetic atheists, eh.
😴😴😴😴
this topic has been thoroughly discussed, with the theists making mince meat of the athiests. I'm not going to bother with any further discussion on this matter, as it will fall on deaf ears.
Originally posted by sumydidIt's baffling as to why robbie carrobie, Doward and FreakyKBH have posted on this thread at all. If they don't want to address the OP, why post? FreakyKBH in particular: what is the purpose of his personal attack? Is it that he wants 667joe to not express his opinions and to not ask questions on this forum?
Can you not empathize on even the slightest level, with Freaky's position? Yes, a believer is supposed to be above that and prepared to answer any and all questions at all times.
Of course I can empathize with FreakyKBH. No, I do not think a believer is supposed to be prepared to answer any and all questions at all times. I just don't see why FreakyKBH's complete lack of interest in 667joe's question requires a response that is nothing other than personal insult.
You say that it's as if 667joe really just wants to hear himself talk, and enjoy phrasing his questions in the most degrading way possible. And yet, right here, on this thread, it seems to me that that it is in fact FreakyKBH who just wants to hear himself talk, and enjoy phrasing the delivery of his entirely pointless ad hominem in a degrading way.
23 Nov 11
Originally posted by sumydidi fail to see how my refusal to accept his existence in any way diminishes his requirement for sacrifice. it has nothing to do with love and devotion. i don't need to murder people or animals to show love.
Evidently He sees it as a demonstration of love and devotion. I think that's true in any relationship. If you are unwilling to make sacrifices, then the fact is, you don't truly love the other one.
And, He doesn't require it. As evidenced by yourself and myriad others who simply reject any such notion. You are perfectly free to do what pleases ...[text shortened]... nd willingly... that's the kind of love God demonstrated and the kind He desires in return.
23 Nov 11
Originally posted by RJHindsFirst Jesus is a punching bag for pissed off violent people and now he's a blood donor. What an amazing fellow.
My explanation may not be very good and perhaps it is absurd. But what
I was attempting to do is explain, in as simple terms as I could, what I
actually believe was the aim of God. Is it really absurd to you that your
life could be saved by someone giving you their blood?
23 Nov 11
Originally posted by sumydidI agree that sacrifice is an almost inevitable outcome of any activity, after all, when we have two desirable but incompatible choices, we must sacrifice at least one.
I think what I said stands on its own merit. A loving relationship involves self-sacrifice--and on a fairly regular basis.
However, how this translates into sacrifice where you do not benefit (and nobody benefits), is what I am not clear on. Is it purely symbolic?
23 Nov 11
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds"Jesus was fully a man"?
Mankind originally sinned against God by disobediance. God told man
the punishment for the sin of disobedence was death, probably in an
effort to discourage any disobedience. But man sinned anyway and God
is still bound by His word even though He has other plans for mankind.
So God must allow man to die. But God wants an eternal relationship
with man r their salvation.
So you might look at it like someone donating blood to save your life.
I would like to think so. This was the case with the buddha as well-the point being that an ORDINARY MAN could become enlightened, (or in christian terminology- "christ-concious" ).
(I'm not sure you agree with me that Jesus was an ordinary man).
But I would like you to re-read my post about Mel Gibsons movie ("The passion of the Christ?",I'm still not sure of the title), but the point being that Mel was trying to make movies as historically accurate as possible. (It was pointed out in a documentary that he got some things a bit mixed up in "Braveheart" but it was pretty accurate ,considering how long ago it was.)
So how about it? Could you please (re-)read my post on "The passion of the christ" (?) and perhaps answer some of the queries contained therein.
This applies to other chrisitians, but I would especially like to hear jaywill's commentary on the subject. Thnx jaywill in advance🙂
(1st page, 8th post down)
23 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillYou certainly have a unique , and dare I say very unorthodox explanation/view on christ/spirituality.
So far most posters have focused on the redemptive aspect of Christ's death. There is also a terminative aspect of His death.
Fallen man was infested with a foreign element like a parasite. It renders him so damaged that he cannot be refined or improved. That element has to be killed, tyerminated.
The death of Christ also furnished the believer wi he cross of Jesus to terminate the fallen Adam life so man can live by the new divine nature.
It does sound very weird on the surface of it, and I dare say you are inferring that the reader knows more than he/she might. Dont get me wrong, I dont think there is anything wrong with your approach, if anything ,I find that an approach/explanation/spiritual view is ALWAYS "weird" when you first hear it.
But just one critique- Do you think that maybe you are expecting the reader to infer a bit too much? Either that , or to know possibly more than she/he might?
(I could be wrong, I only read it once so far 🙂 )
23 Nov 11
Originally posted by MelanerpesI find this explanation very fishy as it stands. You are a poster I generally respect, so could you possibly add or rephrase that comment so I can make better sense of it PLLLeeeaaassse?
No. Jesus wants everyone to forgive. But he knows that this often doesn't happen.
Imagine two people engaged in an intense quarrel -- one of those quarrels where you know it'll end up with someone on the ground with a couple of pieces gone.
Now imagine Jesus sees this and calmly steps in between them - and absorbs each person's blows - all of them - ...[text shortened]... e".
Jesus here is sacrificing his life so that the two fighters can forgive each other.