ForumGarden

The story of Christ's sacrifice for our sins is simply illogical, even if it were possible.

The Jews believed (still believe??) that if one sinned, one was to present a sacrifice to God in order to receive forgiveness. Christ, the Son of God, came to Earth as a human to be sacrifice to end all sacrifices, forgiving us of all sins, present and future.

But Jesus IS God. God sent his son as a sacrifice. That would be like a kid owing Dad $10, the dad giving the kid $10 bucks to pay the debt, then forgiving the debt once the kid gave the $10 back.

Makes no sense to me.

Accountable;1452066 wrote: The story of Christ's sacrifice for our sins is simply illogical, even if it were possible.

The Jews believed (still believe??) that if one sinned, one was to present a sacrifice to God in order to receive forgiveness. Christ, the Son of God, came to Earth as a human to be sacrifice to end all sacrifices, forgiving us of all sins, present and future.

But Jesus IS God. God sent his son as a sacrifice. That would be like a kid owing Dad $10, the dad giving the kid $10 bucks to pay the debt, then forgiving the debt once the kid gave the $10 back.

Makes no sense to me.




Captain ... This **** only goes down with people who believe in the bullshit about god and Jesus.

Good to see ya ACC, when you get it all figured out, let me know. That way I don't have to hurt my brain cogitating on it.

Accountable;1452066 wrote: The story of Christ's sacrifice for our sins is simply illogical, even if it were possible.

The Jews believed (still believe??) that if one sinned, one was to present a sacrifice to God in order to receive forgiveness. Christ, the Son of God, came to Earth as a human to be sacrifice to end all sacrifices, forgiving us of all sins, present and future.

But Jesus IS God. God sent his son as a sacrifice. That would be like a kid owing Dad $10, the dad giving the kid $10 bucks to pay the debt, then forgiving the debt once the kid gave the $10 back.

Makes no sense to me.


Hallelujah

Accountable;1452066 wrote: The story of Christ's sacrifice for our sins is simply illogical, even if it were possible.

The Jews believed (still believe??) that if one sinned, one was to present a sacrifice to God in order to receive forgiveness. Christ, the Son of God, came to Earth as a human to be sacrifice to end all sacrifices, forgiving us of all sins, present and future.

But Jesus IS God. God sent his son as a sacrifice. That would be like a kid owing Dad $10, the dad giving the kid $10 bucks to pay the debt, then forgiving the debt once the kid gave the $10 back.

Makes no sense to me.


In the Old testament/covenant Moses spoke the terms of the covenant and after all was said he sacrificed the blood of animals as substitutes for the people sins, but the sacrifices were only acceptable if the people were committed to the terms of the covenant. In the new covenant the same pattern is used; Jesus' sacrifice/substitution for sin is only applied to those who are committed to remain in the terms of the covenant: Jesus' words.

P.S. I am happy to see the wheels turning and that you're not a gullible sheep. Agnostics, in general, are more honest than most proclaimed Christians and Atheists: in my opinion.

posted by accountable

Makes no sense to me.


Blessed are those who can reason for they do not need the chains of religion.

gmc;1452094 wrote: posted by accountable



Blessed are those who can reason for they do not need the chains of religion.


While I do sympathize with your comments I think they are naive. Religion should not be unreasonable, but rather should be the attempt of an individual to seek how to live right before God and man.

If you think it is unreasonable to believe in God, I think I can show it is more reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the world you actually see. If you would like to debate this, than I suggest starting a thread to discuss it and I would be more then happy to debate this with you, or anyone willing to take up this challenge.

YZGI;1452079 wrote: Good to see ya ACC, when you get it all figured out, let me know. That way I don't have to hurt my brain cogitating on it.:yh_wink You got it. Good to see you, too.



sheep;1452087 wrote: In the Old testament/covenant Moses spoke the terms of the covenant and after all was said he sacrificed the blood of animals as substitutes for the people sins, but the sacrifices were only acceptable if the people were committed to the terms of the covenant. In the new covenant the same pattern is used; Jesus' sacrifice/substitution for sin is only applied to those who are committed to remain in the terms of the covenant: Jesus' words.

P.S. I am happy to see the wheels turning and that you're not a gullible sheep. Agnostics, in general, are more honest than most proclaimed Christians and Atheists: in my opinion.I haven't found where "... the sacrifices were only acceptable if the people were committed to the terms of the covenant" in the Old T, and I'm certain it's not in the New T. But even if it were, it doesn't explain the paradox I raised.

Accountable;1452101 wrote: But even if it were, it doesn't explain the paradox I raised.The most famous paradox in US history were probably the Mayo brothers.

Accountable;1452101 wrote: :yh_wink You got it. Good to see you, too.



I haven't found where "... the sacrifices were only acceptable if the people were committed to the terms of the covenant" in the Old T, and I'm certain it's not in the New T. But even if it were, it doesn't explain the paradox I raised.


First of all, the paradox you make is only relevant if the beliefs you claim are true. I am afraid Jesus does not support your version of how salvation works.

Do you know what a covenant is? Covenants/contracts are only valid if the agreement is fulfilled by both parties. Do you know what the terms of the NEW Covenant is? Remember it is a covenant/agreement: Jesus' words are the terms of the new covenant.

Num 15:30 But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously (knowingly does wrong), whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

Over and over the Torah (first 5 books of the bible) states sin done in ignorance are to be acknowledged and a sacrifice made. On the other hand, once a person breaks a contract they no longer have a right to that covenant's/contract's/agreement's protection.

Exo 24:7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do (here you have the children of Israel agreeing to obey the contract/agreement/covenant), and be obedient.

Exo 24:8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

The life of the animal is sacrificed and the life of the contract now comes alive in its place. But again, contracts are only good so long as the parties fulfill its terms. The blood of the slain animals is symbolic of the life and death commitment that the two parties are making to each other to fulfill the contract. If one breaks the contract it is no longer an enforceable agreement.

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Heb 10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

Heb 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

While Jesus' teachings offer forgiveness, if you turn from sin, they don't if you are not committed to following his teachings: he was very clear on that.

sheep;1452095 wrote: ..... If you think it is unreasonable to believe in God, I think I can show it is more reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the world you actually see.


The real question isn't whether or not it is reasonable to believe in "a" God - it is whether or not it is reasonable to believe in any of the metaphysical creation-scenarios put forward by the established churches, ex. Christianity.

Accountable makes the standard mistake of thinking the story of Christ is the one-size-fits-all explanation from which all religions adhere, but I certainly agree with him his distrust of Christian logic.

High Threshold;1452111 wrote: The real question isn't whether or not it is reasonable to believe in "a" God - it is whether or not it is reasonable to believe in any of the metaphysical creation-scenarios put forward by the established churches, ex. Christianity.

Accountable makes the standard mistake of thinking the story of Christ is the one-size-fits-all explanation from which all religions adhere, but I certainly agree with him his distrust of Christian logic.


To answer paragraph A, let me state that I really don't care about the age of the earth: as that has nothing to do with how I practically live my life today. I have heard many different interpretations of Genesis 1, but in the end it is totally irrelevant to me if the earth is 6000 years old, or billions of years old. Having stated that, I think, for many, it really is a question about whether it is reasonable to believe in the existence of a God or not.

As for Paragraph 2, I totally agree with your sentiments made in that paragraph.

sheep;1452112 wrote: ..... I really don't care about the age of the earth: as that has nothing to do with how I practically live my life today. I have heard many different interpretations of Genesis 1, but in the end it is totally irrelevant to me if the earth is 6000 years old, or billions of years old. Having stated that, I think, for many, it really is a question about whether it is reasonable to believe in the existence of a God or not.




This is why Christianity falls short and does not sufficiently support its own credibility, only succeeding in parading the superstition of man. The supposition of the existence (present andor formerly) of a creator, however, is a fundamental logic simply because existence itself is otherwise questionable.

sheep;1452104 wrote: I am afraid Jesus does not support your version of how salvation works.

[*snip*]

While Jesus' teachings offer forgiveness, if you turn from sin, they don't if you are not committed to following his teachings: he was very clear on that.
If he was so clear, please quote His words to that effect.

sheep;1452104 wrote: First of all, the paradox you make is only relevant if the beliefs you claim are true.My beliefs are mine. How can they not be "true"? Relevant or not, it is the subject of the conversation. Why would God give to us the payment He requires that we offer to him for forgiveness, then call the angry act of torture and execution described in the Bible an offering of contrition and apology?

sheep;1452104 wrote: While Jesus' teachings offer forgiveness, if you turn from sin, they don't if you are not committed to following his teachings: he was very clear on that.


I thought by the latest exchange between the two of us that we'd found common ground. I doubt that now. I am saying that Christianity offers primitive, superstitious explanation to the subject so that not only is the question of life an enigma, but the Christian contribution makes it much more complicated and puts man's understanding even further away from anything resembling sense ........ if "sense" can be employed in this discussion at all.

Accountable;1452121 wrote: If he was so clear, please quote His words to that effect.




Alas! I fear we're in for another volume of cryptic (yet "indisputable"), Biblical quotes.

High Threshold;1452113 wrote: The supposition of the existence (present andor formerly) of a creator, however, is a fundamental logic simply because existence itself is otherwise questionable.Ah, but then you are left with the origin, or creation, of the Creator. If the Creator can be uncreated, why might the universe not be uncreated, or why might not the Creator and the universe be one and the same? This is, I think, known as "pantheism".

High Threshold;1452113 wrote: This is why Christianity falls short and does not sufficiently support its own credibility, only succeeding in parading the superstition of man. The supposition of the existence (present andor formerly) of a creator, however, is a fundamental logic simply because existence itself is otherwise questionable.


Not true... existence is the only thing that is provable; history is what will always remain questionable: as you can only prove existence (see the discussion on http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/chris ... lenge.html for details on my statement)

Mark Aspam;1452131 wrote: Ah, but then you are left with the origin, or creation, of the Creator. If the Creator can be uncreated, why might the universe not be uncreated, or why might not the Creator and the universe be one and the same? This is, I think, known as "pantheism".


To say something is eternal is to say something always existed and therefore it must just be; change is a contradiction of something that is. Science use to once say the universe was eternal, not to many years ago, now it states that the Universe had a beginning. In either case, both science and reason reject the universe as being eternal.

Mark Aspam;1452131 wrote: Ah, but then you are left with the origin, or creation, of the Creator. If the Creator can be uncreated, why might the universe not be uncreated, or why might not the Creator and the universe be one and the same? This is, I think, known as "pantheism".


Of course. But that is why I said "the existence (present andor formerly) of a creator" ..... This takes into account the possibility that "the" Creator no longer exists or (as you've pointed out) has had a changing of the guard.

But the point here is the "logic" as man knows it, so no matter what (or who) created anything at all we still have no choice (by man's logic) to assume some sort of creator wasis involved. That is the part (the only part apparently) of sheep's dip statement that I agree with when he says "it is more reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the world you actually see."

sheep;1452143 wrote: Not true... existence is the only thing that is provable; history is what will always remain questionable: as you can only prove existence


Sorry, but this makes as much sense as WMD's in Irak. History is merely a record of existence. If existence is a fact so too must history be. You are confusing the NOTION of history with VERSIONS of it.

High Threshold;1452148 wrote: Sorry, but this makes as much sense as WMD's in Irak. History is merely a record of existence. If existence is a fact so too must history be. You are confusing the NOTION of history with VERSIONS of it.


You cannot prove versions of history only its notion. Conscious memory is the proof one has of existence; can you scrutinize the history of the things you see in dreams using your metrics? No. Just because this conscious state is longer than your dream does not make it any more real.

sheep;1452152 wrote: ... Conscious memory is the proof one has of existence...


I distinctly remember Geo. W. Bush saying there were WMD's in Irak. He now says, "No one has ever suggested there were WMD's in Irak." So whose memory is the proof of the existence of WMD's in Irak? His or mine?

sheep;1452152 wrote: You cannot prove versions of history only its notion.


Hmmmmmmm .......



sheep;1452104 wrote: In the Old testament/covenant Moses spoke the terms of the covenant and after all was said he sacrificed the blood of animals as substitutes for the people sins, but the sacrifices were only acceptable if the people were committed to the terms of the covenant.

Num 15:30 But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously (knowingly does wrong), whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

Over and over the Torah (first 5 books of the bible) states sin done in ignorance are to be acknowledged and a sacrifice made. On the other hand, once a person breaks a contract they no longer have a right to that covenant's/contract's/agreement's protection.

Exo 24:7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do (here you have the children of Israel agreeing to obey the contract/agreement/covenant), and be obedient.



Exo 24:8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,



Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.



Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:



Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?



Heb 10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

Heb 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

While Jesus' teachings offer forgiveness, if you turn from sin, they don't if you are not committed to following his teachings: he was very clear on that.


..... and whose version of history is that, eh?

High Threshold;1452157 wrote: Hmmmmmmm .......





..... and whose version of history is that, eh?


That was a response to someones claiming the bible did not make a certain claim. I don't see what that has to do with this argument.

High Threshold;1452153 wrote: I distinctly remember Geo. W. Bush saying there were WMD's in Irak. He now says, "No one has ever suggested there were WMD's in Irak." So whose memory is the proof of the existence of WMD's in Irak? His or mine?


Have we lost our Q ?

Accountable;1452066 wrote: The story of Christ's sacrifice for our sins is simply illogical, even if it were possible.

The Jews believed (still believe??) that if one sinned, one was to present a sacrifice to God in order to receive forgiveness. Christ, the Son of God, came to Earth as a human to be sacrifice to end all sacrifices, forgiving us of all sins, present and future.

But Jesus IS God. God sent his son as a sacrifice. That would be like a kid owing Dad $10, the dad giving the kid $10 bucks to pay the debt, then forgiving the debt once the kid gave the $10 back.

Makes no sense to me.


I think I just became a believer - welcome back :-6

High Threshold;1452153 wrote: I distinctly remember Geo. W. Bush saying there were WMD's in Irak. He now says, "No one has ever suggested there were WMD's in Irak." So whose memory is the proof of the existence of WMD's in Irak? His or mine?


We had the affair of Dr. Kelly to prove that Tony Blair claimed that there was absolute proof that Iraq had WMDs and were prepared to use them at forty minutes notice - well documented proof of the manipulation that went on.

LarsMac;1452191 wrote: Have we lost our Q ?



Bryn Mawr;1452195 wrote: I think I just became a believer - welcome back :-6
:yh_bigsmi

LarsMac;1452191 wrote: Have we lost our Q ?


Are you standing beside Geo. Jr.?

High Threshold;1452208 wrote: Are you standing beside Geo. Jr.?


Nope, but we were neighbors, once.

Didn't like him then, either.

LarsMac;1452209 wrote: .... Didn't like him then, either.


His mother probably does. :wah: