How Can Jesus Take the Burden of Humanity's Sin?

[Terminotaur]

The Christian derail in the other thread made me wonder why people accept that Jesus is able to die for their sins and how it is remotely logical.

Could any non-divine human who was sinless decide to take the burden of humanity's sin?

How can the death of a spawned entity of an omniscient, omnipotent being who RESURRECTS himself be remotely considered a sacrifice? Would you consider Bill Gates donating $10 to charity a sacrifice?

How is it logical that a human dying can take the burden of sin (if a human can)? How is it logical that a divine human with divine powers can take the burden of sin? Is this an arbitrary rule that God set up somewhere in the Old Testament, or was this rule created in the New Testament?

[dook]

you've obviously been thinking about this more than you're supposed to

[Kartikeya-OD]

Because he was God.

Could any non-divine human who was sinless decide to take the burden of humanity's sin?

No.

How can the death of a spawned entity of an omniscient, omnipotent being who RESURRECTS himself be remotely considered a sacrifice? Would you consider Bill Gates donating $10 to charity a sacrifice?

What denotes a sacrifice? The amount you give or the condition unto which you gave it? In that question lies your answer. Sacrifice has nothing to do with the amount you gave. They key to sacrifice is when it's done willingly. Furthermore sin required bloodshed for forgiveness. No human could sacrifice themselves because each of us has sinned. Hence why God's plan from the start was to come down in human form, and be the ultimate sacrifice for all of humanity.

How is it logical that a human dying can take the burden of sin (if a human can)?

It's not. No human could take the burden of sin.

How is it logical that a divine human with divine powers can take the burden of sin?

It's not. No divine human with divine powers can take the burden of sin. See my very first sentence.

Is this an arbitrary rule that God set up somewhere in the Old Testament, or was this rule created in the New Testament?

No rule. More like conditions. In the OT we formed a covenant with God. Part of the covenant stated we were required to offer animal sacrifices. Those sacrifices had certain conditions. The animal must be without blemish ect ect. All these conditions were all pointing eventually to Christ.

The plan from the very start was for Christ. Everything builds up to Christ sacrificing himself in the NT. There is no new rule.

[shaggy]

This is a silly question. Your asking in a sense how God's powers work lol. You have a better chance figuring out time travel :P.


Here's a question I use to ponder when i was a child.... In the old testament it claims he created the heavens and earth. So my question has always been...If god has always existed and is infinite in age....how did he ever reach the time period when he made everything? See when it says he created the heavens and earth, that means they use to not exist. So with that logic, there was a point in time when he created everything. But how can you ever get to that point if you have no starting point, his own creation.

Diagram
<------------------------------- (creation)------------------------Today|
time before the creation

In other words, if god has always existed, that means there was an infinite amount of time between before the creation to the creation.

[MidnightStalker]

I think you just answered your own question.

[shaggy]

I think you just answered your own question.

I dont think I did lol. No I was clarifying at the end, why the question puzzled me. The question is if god has always existed, how did he ever get to the point of time where he created the heavens and earth. And in the post above, I then explain how there should be an infinite time between "the before anything" to the "creation of the heavens and earth". So, without a starting point, how can god reach any point in time?

[Cyberdemon]

The same way that Odysseus can get thrown off course by pissing off Poseidon and Aeneas can visit the underworld to see the future founders of Rome.

[rabidkevin]

It's all symbolism. God/Jesus is a reflection of ourselves. Humans only change from fear, and the unknown is the scariest thing to mankind. Jesus was a tool to make people understand right from wrong, and carry his philosophy of good morals and respect for other people.

[larcain]

Here's a question I use to ponder when i was a child.... In the old testament it claims he created the heavens and earth. So my question has always been...If god has always existed and is infinite in age....how did he ever reach the time period when he made everything? See when it says he created the heavens and earth, that means they use to not exist. So with that logic, there was a point in time when he created everything. But how can you ever get to that point if you have no starting point, his own creation.

Diagram
<------------------------------- (creation)------------------------Today|
time before the creation

In other words, if god has always existed, that means there was an infinite amount of time between before the creation to the creation.

Look up Hilbert's hotel.

[VeeKaChu]

If god has always existed and is infinite in age....how did he ever reach the time period when he made everything? See when it says he created the heavens and earth, that means they use to not exist. So with that logic, there was a point in time when he created everything. But how can you ever get to that point if you have no starting point, his own creationHe already always did it again.

[~A~]

In other words, if god has always existed, that means there was an infinite amount of time between before the creation to the creation.

The same could be asked by scientific minds. The universe has always been, how did that happen, when was that formed, fuck knows.

[Terminotaur]

It's not. No divine human with divine powers can take the burden of sin. See my very first sentence.
Isn't it now commonly accepted that Jesus was a divine human with divine powers and the only divine human with divine powers in Christianity? You say yourself that God came down himself to earth in human form. How is that not a divine human?

No rule. More like conditions. In the OT we formed a covenant with God. Part of the covenant stated we were required to offer animal sacrifices. Those sacrifices had certain conditions. The animal must be without blemish ect ect. All these conditions were all pointing eventually to Christ.
Could you sacrifice animals for someone else's sins in the Old Testament? Could a king decree a mass sacrifice of animals to cover the sins of his kingdom? Could someone in the modern day sacrifice animals without blemish to cover their sins? It seems very odd to me that God would decide people should have to sacrifice in order to be forgiven of sins and that later on they shouldn't have to sacrifice.

The plan from the very start was for Christ. Everything builds up to Christ sacrificing himself in the NT. There is no new rule.
Is there any mention in the Old Testament of God coming in human form and sacrificing himself to take the burden of sin?

The same way that Odysseus can get thrown off course by pissing off Poseidon and Aeneas can visit the underworld to see the future founders of Rome.
These made logical sense if you assumed that these beings had divine powers. Odysseus had to manipulate the sea in order to throw them off course and had a reason for doing so. I am unsure of the story of Aeneas. While an omnipotent being can certainly arbitarily decide to take the burden of humanity's sins on a whim, the mechanism for doing so and its logic is questionable. How does dying by spawning an entity of yourself and later resurrecting yourself make any logical connection with taking the burden of humanity's sin.

[post-mortem]

smoke a blunt. Look at yourself. If you dont believe in god after that ur retarded.

[mistaman]

Your question deals with the doctrine of Propitiation. I’ll do my best to give you some accompanying information, but I will link you to a website that explains this doctrine very well.

God is 3 people, Jesus, the father, & Holy Spirit. Each is separate but equal. This is a very hard topic to explain but Christians accept it.

Genesis ch1, god created the heavens and the earth. Ch 2 God created man and women, they were perfect, they lived perfectly as God intended them to, and they were “Naked and unashamed.” Ch 3, sin enters the world, Adam is shamed and no longer perfect, and hides from God. So now every human born from that point forward is a sinner. When you are born, you are a sinner, everyone is, it is a curse.

The punishment for sin is death, if you are a sinner, you die.

So Jesus Christ, who is God remember, has pitty on us.

He was born in Mary through the power of the Holy Spirit God. By being born this way he is not born a sinner, he doesn’t have the curse of Adam in his birth.

Check this link out: http://www.gotquestions.org/propitiation.html

(The word propitiation is used in several key verses to explain what Jesus accomplished through His death on the cross. For example, in Romans 3:24-25 we see that believers in Christ have been “justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed." These verses are a key point in Paul’s argument in the Book of Romans and are really at the heart of the Gospel message.

In the first three chapters of Romans, Paul has made the argument that everybody, both Jew and Gentile alike, is under the condemnation of God and deserving of His wrath (Romans 1:18, Romans 3:23) - everybody has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). All of us deserve His wrath and punishment. God in His infinite grace and mercy has provided a way that His wrath can be appeased and we can be reconciled to Him. That way is through the sacrificial death of His Son, Jesus Christ, as the atonement or payment for sins. It is through faith in Jesus Christ as God’s perfect sacrifice, foretold in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New Testament, that we can be reconciled to God. It is only because of Christ’s perfect life, His death on the cross, and His resurrection on the third day that a lost sinner deserving of hell can be reconciled to a Holy God. The wonderful truth of the Gospel message is that Christians are saved from God’s wrath and reconciled to God not because “we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10).)

Then Jesus rose by the power of the Holy Spirit, because the punishment for sin is death. And because he never sinned, he defeated Satan, Sin, and Death. Christians would be wasting their time if Jesus hadn't risen from death, he hung out for 40 days to show his disciples and many others that he fulfilled the scriptures.

So this is a gift, given freely to us. Humans are not saved by works, but by grace. Christianity isn’t a religion but a relationship with god; we are reconciled to God the Father, by God the son Jesus, through God the Holy Spirit. Christians aren’t anywhere perfect, they will continue sinning for the rest of their lives, but that’s the beauty of Christianity because while were having sex outside of Marriage, God is looking for us. While we are stealing and getting drunk and worshiping our false idols, God is calling out to us. While we are destroying our lives and the lives of others, God says he will forgive us. This gift comes only if we repent of our sins and ask Jesus to take our wrath for us, and to send us the Holy Spirit to guide us in our new walk. Then when we are saved we wont want to get drunk anymore or have sex outside of marriage or steal or whatever. Our thinking will be transformed into something new.

I take the scripture of the bible as the word of God. Allah or Buddha or the Mormon Jesus are all false gods and they are all false religions. Unless you’re in relationship with Jesus Christ the son of the father, and unless he takes your justly deserved wrath for you then you are going to burn in hell, it’s what the bible says. Please don’t take this as a flame its not my intention for saying it, I want to abide by the forum rules, but I’m saying it because I don’t want anyone to go to hell and I want to tell the truth without sugarcoating it.

This is taken from “Magnificent Prayer” by Nick Harrison.

July 3

Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and save them. Jude 22-23

Some want to live within the sound of Church or chapel bell. I want to run a rescue shop within a yard of hell. –C.T. Studd

Pray about it: Nobody talks much about hell anymore. Satan has convinced most people, including many Christians, to disbelieve in hell or to minimize its importance. But Jesus warned about hell and so should we. May our prayers be as large heavenly hooks, snatching those we love from the destiny of hell. Your prayer closet can be that rescue shop within a yard of hell’s gates. Today ask yourself: Does hell know and fear you?

If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to hell over our bodies. If they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees. Let no one go there unwarned and unprayed for. –Charles Haddon Spurgeon.

If you or anyone wanna talk more, private message me, I’ll be glad to answer what I can.

[Terminotaur]

The wonderful truth of the Gospel message is that Christians are saved from God’s wrath and reconciled to God not because “we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10).)
Nothing explains why God could appease himself for the sake of the entirety of mankind through dying in human form. Is this mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament? Could God have spawned a giant mass of sacrificial lambs in space that represented the sins of all the present and future sinners and appeased himself through sacrificing those lambs? Wouldn't it be the exact same outcome as the sacrifice of Jesus and similar in its arbitrary nature and God's compulsion to save mankind from his own wrath? Using his time and power to create lambs instead of a holy incarnation of himself seems just as much a relative sacrifice. How about if he both creates a human form of himself that he doesn't sacrifice yet he still creates the mass of lambs to take the burden of man's sin?

You still haven't answered whether one human could offer sacrifices on the behalf of another sinner before the time of Jesus.

Then when we are saved we wont want to get drunk anymore or have sex outside of marriage or steal or whatever.
I take odds with any religion that claims sex outside of marriage is a sin. It makes no ethical or moral sense.

Allah or Buddha or the Mormon Jesus are all false gods and they are all false religions.
The original interpretation of Buddha and the interpretation of a main branch of Buddhism is that he was simply an inspired mortal man.

Please don’t take this as a flame its not my intention for saying it, I want to abide by the forum rules, but I’m saying it because I don’t want anyone to go to hell and I want to tell the truth without sugarcoating it.
I take it not as a flame but as attempted proselytization through scaremongering. Eternal punishment in hell for finite crimes is morally unsound. You should leave proselytization out of this. I am just trying to understand the mechanism behind God being able to take the burden of man's sin by appeasing/sacrificing himself.

[SithDrummer]

Look up Hilbert's hotel.
Good reference! :)

[MidnightStalker]

I take the scripture of the bible as the word of God. Allah or Buddha or the Mormon Jesus are all false gods and they are all false religions.
Er, Allah is simply the Arabic word for God. Ergo, Allah = God. It's also believed the same God in Islam is the same God in Christianity and Judaism.

Is there any mention in the Old Testament of God coming in human form and sacrificing himself to take the burden of sin?Not specifically or exactly that, but there is mention of a prophet or special being coming in the Old Testament. Of course, jews take issue with this or deny it, because it goes directly against their religion. I dont, however, see the need for a mention of it in the Old Testament for it to be true.

[mistaman]

Muslims do not believe in the trinity, they believe one superpowerful being, whereas Christians believe trinitarianism is the teaching that God is triune, that He has revealed Himself in three co-equal and co-eternal Persons.

And Isaiah Ch 53 tells of Jesus dying for the sins of the world:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+53

[Terminotaur]

Muslims do not believe in the trinity, they believe one superpowerful being, whereas Christians believe trinitarianism is the teaching that God is triune, that He has revealed Himself in three co-equal and co-eternal Persons.
There are Christians who were persecuted by other Christians for not believing in the trinity. You do not have to believe in the trinity to be considered a Christian.

And Isaiah Ch 53 tells of Jesus dying for the sins of the world:
That passage does not answer any of my questions. I already know Christian theology states that Jesus died for the sins of the world.

[Zogo]

In other words, if god has always existed, that means there was an infinite amount of time between before the creation to the creation.

creation of "time"

Isn't it now commonly accepted that Jesus was a divine human with divine powers and the only divine human with divine powers in Christianity? You say yourself that God came down himself to earth in human form. How is that not a divine human?

both, the hypostatic union.

I take odds with any religion that claims sex outside of marriage is a sin. It makes no ethical or moral sense.

in this day and age it does make sense in light of STD's. heh.

whereas Christians believe trinitarianism is the teaching that God is triune, that He has revealed Himself in three co-equal and co-eternal Persons.

not all do.

[Kartikeya-OD]

Isn't it now commonly accepted that Jesus was a divine human with divine powers and the only divine human with divine powers in Christianity? You say yourself that God came down himself to earth in human form. How is that not a divine human?

No, it’s not commonly accepted that Jesus was a divine human. He was God.

Could someone in the modern day sacrifice animals without blemish to cover their sins?

No. The price has already been paid by Christ. There is no need to follow OT law.

It seems very odd to me that God would decide people should have to sacrifice in order to be forgiven of sins and that later on they shouldn't have to sacrifice.

Why should we still have to? What makes this odd?

Is there any mention in the Old Testament of God coming in human form and sacrificing himself to take the burden of sin?

Yes, they are known as the Messianic Prophecies. They consist of many verses from Isaiah, Psalms, Zechariah, Exodus, and others.

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/messianicprophecies.html

This site is decent because it shows the OT reference and then a matching NT reference regarding the same event.

Basically the OT laws regarding animal sacrifices as well as other sacrifices were all types of Christ’s. It foreshadowed what was coming in many ways.

[MidnightStalker]

The universe has always been, how did that happen, when was that formed, fuck knows.
Er, this is not true. Look up Big Bang theory. (Of course it's a theory, but it's widely accepted, and deniers still believe the universe started 10-20 billion years ago.)

[Terminotaur]

No, it’s not commonly accepted that Jesus was a divine human. He was God.
Would you accept that he was god in the form of a divine human?

Why should we still have to? What makes this odd?

It just seems odd to absolve people of moral reponsibilities they previously had. Why have people sacrifice in the first place if you're going to end up sacrificing for them in the future?

[FireWall]

Er, this is not true. Look up Big Bang theory. (Of course it's a theory, but it's widely accepted, and deniers still believe the universe started 10-20 billion years ago.)

It is necessary to distinguish between the universe and the observable universe. Whether or not the universe is infinite is still up in the air. The Big Bang Theory, as far as I know, only applies to the observable universe, which, as you pointed out, is decidedly finite--approximately 13.7 billion light years in radius, to be specific (although that is a simple answer that does not take into account other details).

[Yesbama]

I would really like to meet Terminotaur, almost as much as Edward Norton. You are one incredible thinker my friend.

I have trouble trying to discern where my overall disbelief of organized religion begins, just about every aspect of it is flawed. And the more I think about it, the more it seems to be nothing more than a crowd control mechanism created by the leaders of the masses. To me, nothing else logically makes more sense.

The sad thing is all these people who get so worked up and start pointing fingers at "false religions" and end up wholly contradicting themselves in an incredible way. Further proving organized religion as a tool to work an agenda.

[shaggy]

Would you accept that he was god in the form of a divine human?

Umm ya...he was god born of flesh. So yes Jesus is God taking the form of a human. Now I think what Kart is trying to punch home is, even though he looks like a human, he is not. Here's a question for ya. If you dress up like a pumpkin on Halloween, are you a pumpkin or a human?

[Cyberdemon]

These made logical sense if you assumed that these beings had divine powers.

That's the point - they were written into divine situations to drive home the point of the story. Which makes a more compelling case for Jesus's teachings in the ancient world, "preached reforms and executed for sedition" or "sent as a holy sacrifice to bear the burden of humanity's sin"?

[Kartikeya-OD]

Would you accept that he was god in the form of a divine human?

No I would not. He was fully God and fully human at the same time. What is a divine human in your eyes?


It just seems odd to absolve people of moral reponsibilities they previously had. Why have people sacrifice in the first place if you're going to end up sacrificing for them in the future?

I could understand this when looking from the outside in. When I was a younger believer I had this same question as well. The best short answer I can give is becuase the entire system was setup for Christ from the start. Here is the link for a site that does a decent job going through this point

Question: "Why did God require animal sacrifices in the Old Testament?" (http://www.gotquestions.org/animal-sacrifices.html)

[Terminotaur]

That's the point - they were written into divine situations to drive home the point of the story. Which makes a more compelling case for Jesus's teachings in the ancient world, "preached reforms and executed for sedition" or "sent as a holy sacrifice to bear the burden of humanity's sin"?
There's a reasonable explanation and motive for why Odysseus would be thrown off course if you assume the existence of divine powers. There's no apparent explanation for why a God could save his own followers from his own wrath by spawning an entity of himself and dying and thus appeasing himself to the degree that he suspends his wrath. I guess it makes sense if you believe a God could masturbate to appease himself to suspend wrath against his followers.

What is a divine human in your eyes?
In this context, a human wielding divine powers through his own will due to himself being divine. Moses would not qualify by this definition since his power came from God. Jesus would qualify since he himself was both a god and human. Some definitions of divine would include Moses.

As far as I can tell, there is precedent for sacrifices and appeasement of the Christian God. Although I do not believe that burning animals to be forgiven of sin makes any moral or ethical sense, if one suspends their disbelief and believes it does make such sense, then it would make sense for a very large sacrifice to account for a great many sins. Do you know if people before Jesus could sacrifice animals for the sake of others' sins?

Do you believe that burning animals to make them substitute for your sin makes any moral or ethical sense? Why? It does not make any sense to me why burning an animal makes the animal substitute for your sin. How can an animal possibly substitute for your sin? It has no soul. It was not responsible for your crimes. How, then?

Do you believe that a fetus is sinful by its very nature? Do you believe a newborn baby is sinful? Is the definition of being sinful the state of having committed a sin? My followup question would regard whether you could have something besides an animal or Jesus substitute for your sin.

Do you believe that God could appease himself by burning a giant unblemished mass of lambs in the sky that represented all sins of humanity? God does have precedent of providing animals for sacrifice to appease himself by having provided a ram to Abraham in place of Isaac. Do you believe it would have the same end result as Jesus taking the burden of sin provided Jesus had lived in much the same way except for his sacrifice? I agree that it would be less grandiose, but it would have the same utilitarian impact.

Edit: I believe that being forgiven of any wrongdoing through appeasement is fundamentally and morally flawed. If you transfer this relationship from deity to human to human to human, you can see the problem immediately.

[Kartikeya-OD]

In this context, a human wielding divine powers through his own will due to himself being divine. Moses would not qualify by this definition since his power came from God. Jesus would qualify since he himself was both a god and human. Some definitions of divine would include Moses.

In this context I would still say no. Christ was fully human and yet also fully God at the same time. He wielded no extra power then that of any other human. Granted this is not an easy subject to mentally grasp (if at all), then again the concept of the trinity never was.

You’re missing the main overarching point of the animal sacrifices. Christ! It all led up to the ultimate sacrifice of Christ. It was God's plan to have Christ sacrifice himself from the very start. No type or amount of sacrifices can compare to Christ.

Think about some basics. Animals are soulless, therefore not touched by sin like human nature is. Sin requires blood. Animals would be a temporary option and more importantly it's not for forgiveness as much as it was about obedience to God being it is a temporary option. Christ claims he is God. God is sinless; therefore Christ would be sinless as well. He willing gives his life up for all humanity. Thus no more animals are required.

You can get into countless theological debates just from this one subject. Popular ones are what entails salvation in the OT because Jesus hadn't sacrificed himself yet (obedience to God), and when does a human become guilty of a sinful nature.

[ffej-OD]

The same way that Odysseus can get thrown off course by pissing off Poseidon and Aeneas can visit the underworld to see the future founders of Rome.


lol.


Logic doesn't mix well with religion.

[Terminotaur]

Think about some basics. Animals are soulless, therefore not touched by sin like human nature is. Sin requires blood. Animals would be a temporary option and more importantly it's not for forgiveness as much as it was about obedience to God being it is a temporary option.
I need you to clarify. Does the act just by itself of offering a sacrifice cleanse a person of sin? Is the forgiveness of God unnecessary in order to clean oneself of sin? Or, alternatively, does the offering of a sacrifice itself not actually do anything to clean a person of sin, and is it the obedience presented to God and God's forgiveness that causes the cleansing of sin?

If you believe just the obedience and appeasement itself cleanses sin or both the act and obedience and appeasement combined cleanses sin, tell me why simply believing God existed and obeying him would not be enough and why God required the sacrifice of either Jesus or animals. If you believe the obedience is the more important part, wouldn't you consider the sacrifice of either Jesus or the animals to be completely unnecessary? Why wouldn't it be simpler for God to allow sins to be cleansed by just believing in his existence and obeying him which is the end result of the sacrifice of Jesus. Why even have the sacrifice in the first place when he simply could've been satisfied from the obedience and belief of his followers which is all he ended up requiring anyways? It's like the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. He sacrificed himself to appease himself in order to save others from his wrath.

Has anything other than Jesus or animals been used as a sacrifice to substitute for sins?

Think about some basics. Animals are soulless, therefore not touched by sin like human nature is. Sin requires blood. Animals would be a temporary option and more importantly it's not for forgiveness as much as it was about obedience to God being it is a temporary option.
The only thing that makes any ethical sense is the obedience to God which would entail forgiveness for wrongdoing. Animals being soulless, having blood, and being sinless has no ethical or moral bearing on why they can be substituted for the sins and crimes of a human. Could you provide any justification for such a claim? I feel that if obedience and appeasement was the only necessary component to be forgiven of sin, ritualistic animal sacrifices could have been replaced with standing on one foot with your hand on your head for 30 minutes in order to be forgiven of sin.

[Kartikeya-OD]

The penalty for sin is death. We are all guilty of sin so we should all die. As you noted it's impossible to put one person to death for another person's sins. This is the purpose of Christ. He died for all of our sins. The purpose of the animal sacrifices was to point to Christ. The blood of animals could only cover sins for a time (Hebrews10:4). Again everything was for Christ. Animal sacrifices only covered sins temporarily until Christ. Everything was setup for Christ's coming. God is Holy and is standards are perfect. That is why sin requires death. Below are many resources explaining the numerous areas of theology you are touching into.

http://www.gotquestions.org/animal-sacrifices.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/before-Jesus.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/attributes-God.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/why-Jesus-die.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/is-Jesus-God.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/salvation-faith-alone.html

[shaggy]

The only thing that makes any ethical sense is the obedience to God which would entail forgiveness for wrongdoing. Animals being soulless, having blood, and being sinless has no ethical or moral bearing on why they can be substituted for the sins and crimes of a human. Could you provide any justification for such a claim? I feel that if obedience and appeasement was the only necessary component to be forgiven of sin, ritualistic animal sacrifices could have been replaced with standing on one foot with your hand on your head for 30 minutes in order to be forgiven of sin.

Wow...you crack me up with your ethical sense. Your trying to denounce a religion based on your ethical sense....lets take a look at your ethical sense. Your knowledge and understanding comes from what 30 years of life and a college degree. How can this insignificant amount of understanding and knowledge be used to phathom the reasons and purposes of an all powerful being that knows and creates all? I know I have no clue what i'd consider right and wrong if I knew EVERYTHING. Secondly ethics is a man made sense of what's right and wrong. Guess what, if you were living in the late 1700's in the Deep south, you'd most likely think there is nothing ethically wrong with owning a slave. In other words ethics is controlled by what society finds exceptable at the time.

Also I wonder if you considered animal sacrifice as a sacrifice of the people. Where do you think the animals came from? They were livestock..in other words the peoples own food. And surviving wasn't a simple task back in the day. Anyways the bottom line is, the Hebrews used animal sacrifice b/c God said so. And if you believe in god, then you believe he created the heavens and earth and everything inbetween, including yourself. And if God did create all and control all, then his order is all that is needed.

[post-mortem]

even if you dont believe you go anywhere after you die... you still have to believe in a god or some type of creator. Everything around us cannot be a councidence.

There is no explanation and never will be from evolution that gives us a reason why everything is so perfect to the point of giving us life. You know how many factors goes into just being able to make you breath? Or eat? Not to mention your teeth grow out of your gums so you can chew. How do teeth know where to grow for us to chew? Now look at your hands. Lets just look past the fact that you have fingers and all that, but on your fingers what do you see? Oh look at that, finger nails grow out of my fingers. What a friggen coincidence. Theres no reason for them to be there besides the fact that I need them in everyday life! OMG! You fucking morons.

[Outflow]

post-mortem... put down the blunt and proceed to apply copious strips of ducttape to your mouth. thanks.

[Terminotaur]

None of your links answer my questions, Kartikeya-OD. You have yet to answer the following:
Did the cleansing of sin from an animal sacrifice come from an arcane mechanism caused by the ritual, from the obedience to God and his forgiveness, or a combination of both?
If you believe there is an arcane, absurd mechanism involved in the sacrifice of an animal that cleanses one of sin, does it make any ethical or moral sense to substitute your wrongdoing with something that has absolutely no responsibility for your actions?
If you believe obedience plays any part at all, why have the ritual in the first place when following the other laws and believing in his existence would be enough? Why not replace the animal sacrifice ritual with any other ritual?
Why even have the sacrifice of Jesus at all? The end result was that faith and obedience to god without animal rituals allowed one to be cleansed of sin. Why wasn't God just satisfied with faith and obedience in the first place and not have the unnecessary mechanism of sacrifice?
Has anything other than Jesus or animals been used as a sacrifice to substitute for sins?
http://www.gotquestions.org/why-Jesus-die.html
This link still does not answer WHY Jesus had to die and WHY his death can take the burden of humanity's sin (my primary question). It simply states that God made a prophecy, Jesus died for our sins, and that sacrifices cleanse sin. It does not answer why the obvious alternative of simply forgiving sin with obedience and faith rather than requiring a sacrifice would be sufficient.

Your knowledge and understanding comes from what 30 years of life and a college degree.
20 years and obtaining a degree.

In other words ethics is controlled by what society finds exceptable at the time.
If you believe most philosophers involved in ethics, ethics and morality is dictated by reason and logic. If you cannot appeal to reason or logic for claims of morality or ethics, then your moral or ethical claim makes no sense. It does not matter if you are a deity or not.

Also I wonder if you considered animal sacrifice as a sacrifice of the people.
The animal sacrifice is not described as just a sacrifice of the people. It is described as the primary method of cleansing sin before Christ.

even if you dont believe you go anywhere after you die... you still have to believe in a god or some type of creator. Everything around us cannot be a councidence.
This would lead into a massive derail and is the argument of intelligent design. If you want to argue intelligent design, make another thread, but only after you read the common arguments and counterarguments.

[MidnightStalker]

This would lead into a massive derail and is the argument of intelligent design. If you want to argue intelligent design, make another thread, but only after you read the common arguments and counterarguments.
No, it's very possible to believe the theory of evolution and believe God created all that is at the same time. Believing in intelligent design disputes the claims of science, specifically evolution. Believing in God does not.

There is no explanation and never will be from evolution that gives us a reason why everything is so perfect to the point of giving us life. You know how many factors goes into just being able to make you breath? Or eat? Not to mention your teeth grow out of your gums so you can chew. How do teeth know where to grow for us to chew? Now look at your hands. Lets just look past the fact that you have fingers and all that, but on your fingers what do you see? Oh look at that, finger nails grow out of my fingers. What a friggen coincidence. Theres no reason for them to be there besides the fact that I need them in everyday life! OMG! You fucking morons.
Actually, this is exactly what the theory of evolution proposed by Darwin attempts to explain. Things evolve based on adaption and needs, like the use of hands (and thus walking upright), etc.

[Zogo]

In this context I would still say no. Christ was fully human and yet also fully God at the same time. He wielded no extra power then that of any other human.

what about miracles?

[Terminotaur]

No, it's very possible to believe the theory of evolution and believe God created all that is at the same time. Believing in intelligent design disputes the claims of science, specifically evolution. Believing in God does not.
I never said that religious creation beliefs and evolution contradicted. I do have a problem with invoking the common argument of intelligent design of life being too complex and/or precarious in order to 'prove' that a deity must exist.

[Kartikeya-OD]

Why wasn't God just satisfied with faith and obedience in the first place and not have the unnecessary mechanism of sacrifice?
Has anything other than Jesus or animals been used as a sacrifice to substitute for sins?

The wages of sin is death. That is key. Sin equals death. God says instead of you dying sacrifice an animal to me to atone for your sins. We know that sin equals death. Remember I have said this all designed for Christ from the start. The animal’s themselves provided no forgiveness. It was their belief that God would do what he has promised, and took action based on that belief by doing the sacrifices that they achieved their salvation. What do you have for faith and obedience if you don't command your people to do something? Throughout the years God instructs prophets to write about the ultimate sacrifice the spotless lamb (Christ) that will come. Remember sin has to be punished. God is just. That is why the sacrifices had to be done. While the animal is a substitute for death it is their faith in God’s promise of Christ that saves them.

This link still does not answer WHY Jesus had to die and WHY his death can take the burden of humanity's sin (my primary question). It simply states that God made a prophecy, Jesus died for our sins, and that sacrifices cleanse sin.

It does. Jesus can take the burden of humanity's sin because he was God. He gave himself willingly and because he was God as well as a man he overcame the penalty of sin which is death. Sin requires death as the penalty. God is the one thing in this world who is without sin. Therefore he is the only one who can overcome it.

[mistaman]

http://www.marshillchurch.org/audio/Genesis15_010205_5pm_16kbps.mp3

Terminotaur this sermon might be able to answer your questions about sacrifice and how it relates to Jesus. I hope you listen to it man, and hope it clears things up for you.

[AntioK]

How can the death of a spawned entity of an omniscient, omnipotent being who RESURRECTS himself be remotely considered a sacrifice? Would you consider Bill Gates donating $10 to charity a sacrifice?


I think the sacrifice had something to do with the torture and then being nailed to a big fucking cross, dunno that might have had something to do with it.

Bill gates donating 10$........Jesus being totured then nailed to a cross, hmmmm having a little trouble making the connection with that comparison.

[post-mortem]

Actually, this is exactly what the theory of evolution proposed by Darwin attempts to explain. Things evolve based on adaption and needs, like the use of hands (and thus walking upright), etc.

and you believe we grew hands becuase we needed them?

[Terminotaur]

The wages of sin is death. That is key. Sin equals death. God says instead of you dying sacrifice an animal to me to atone for your sins. We know that sin equals death.
Sacrificing animals to cleanse yourself of sin and being forgiven of sins through Jesus still results in your death. Are you subscribing to the Christian interpretation of there being no fire and brimstone hell but one of simple nonexistence? If you aren't, you are confusing me by claiming sin equals death and being forgiven of sin still results in death.

The animal’s themselves provided no forgiveness. It was their belief that God would do what he has promised, and took action based on that belief by doing the sacrifices that they achieved their salvation.
Then, all that talk about needing blood to wash away your sins was hogwash? Couldn't the animal sacrifice rituals have been replaced with standing on one foot for 30 minutes while patting your stomach in order to show obedience and thus achieve forgiveness? If you think about it, either action is just as abstract as the other in order to show obedience. You yourself now mention there is nothing special about sacrificing animals from any other possible act of obedience when you claimed that the animals themselves provide no forgiveness. If you follow that line of logic further, the sacrifices were unnecessary, and thus Jesus's sacrifice could have been replaced with something else that resulted in people simply having to have faith and obedience toward God in order to be forgiven of sin. This immediately brings up the question of why have these abstract acts of obedience that make no logical sense when he could've simply had faith and obedience towards God resulting in being forgiven of sin in the first place with no sacrifices of animals or Jesus.

Terminotaur this sermon might be able to answer your questions about sacrifice and how it relates to Jesus. I hope you listen to it man, and hope it clears things up for you.
I don't have the desire to listen to a 70+ minute sermon that probably won't answer my questions. I might look through a transcript. If it answers any of my questions (especially why God had to have the sacrifice of Jesus instead of the alternative of just faith and obedience in order to be forgiven of sin), feel free to share.

I think the sacrifice had something to do with the torture and then being nailed to a big fucking cross, dunno that might have had something to do with it.

Bill gates donating 10$........Jesus being totured then nailed to a cross, hmmmm having a little trouble making the connection with that comparison.
It seems to me that killing yourself in such a way and resurrecting yourself shortly after is an almost negligible sacrifice when you are an omniscient, omnipotent being. It's a matter of relativity. Would you agree that if a regular, human Christian died for their beliefs in the same manner of Christ, it would be a greater sacrifice and act of martyrdom than JC dying and being resurrected? This would be similar to JC's claims of relativity. If you remember, he said that a poor woman giving away a thousandth (or some other relatively miniscule amount) of what a rich man may donate made the far greater sacrifice when that donation is a much larger share of her wealth than the rich man's.

[Rand]

I guess that I do not understand how everyone born thus is a sinner from a couple peoples' actions in antiquity, versus, what 'one' person says and does in the eyes of God.

ie, why would one person be 'born' better than another? A continual test from God? Mainly physical impairments. Which would be more noticeable back them.

[Yesbama]

and you believe we grew hands becuase we needed them?

Are you kidding me? Or (i hope) are you being sarcastic?

Someone start another thread for this guy real quick. Yes, evolution takes place over an extended period of time [millions/billions of years (of which humans have no way to comprehend)]. Genetic mutations occur in populations, and sometimes the mutations make these populations survive longer than other populations. Things appear and things dissapear over the course of evolution but in short, your finger nails that miraculously grew on your digits started out most likely because of a genetic mutation in some sort of lesser ancestor animal. This animal had freakish protein build-ups on its digits that no one else had but they actually ended up helping it access food, defend its self in fights, and aid its mobility. This creature survived over his "normal" friends and was able to have sex and pass it on to his offspring, who grew to have nails and were also more durable animals. Is it that hard to believe? I believe that a hell of a lot more than every human came from two humans, that the earth was created before the sun, that before the tower of babel there was one language in the world, I mean come on?

[mistaman]

I don't have the desire to listen to a 70+ minute sermon that probably won't answer my questions. I might look through a transcript. If it answers any of my questions (especially why God had to have the sacrifice of Jesus instead of the alternative of just faith and obedience in order to be forgiven of sin), feel free to share.


:( This sermon will answer your questions Terminotaur, and I think you will find it entertaining. For me, just listen to the first 10 minutes of it. If in the first 10 minutes you dont wanna listen, then turn it off. And let me just ask you... Would you spend 70+ minutues looking at porn? You don't have to answer that, but could you give that sermon at least 10 minutes of your time. Please :)

[Jimyd]

The same could be asked by scientific minds. The universe has always been, how did that happen, when was that formed, fuck knows.

Ever see MIB, we're just a bunch of marbles in a bag being played with by the "gods".

Or we can go the matrix route. :)

[xero]

I hate to be the one to say it, but such questions such as the one posed in the topic of this thread, are completely asinine.

The purpose of such questioning, moreso than anything else, is semantics; toying with ideas and illogical reasoning towards something that such critical thought should never be applied to -- religion.

[post-mortem]

Are you kidding me? Or (i hope) are you being sarcastic?

Someone start another thread for this guy real quick. Yes, evolution takes place over an extended period of time [millions/billions of years (of which humans have no way to comprehend)]. Genetic mutations occur in populations, and sometimes the mutations make these populations survive longer than other populations. Things appear and things dissapear over the course of evolution but in short, your finger nails that miraculously grew on your digits started out most likely because of a genetic mutation in some sort of lesser ancestor animal. This animal had freakish protein build-ups on its digits that no one else had but they actually ended up helping it access food, defend its self in fights, and aid its mobility. This creature survived over his "normal" friends and was able to have sex and pass it on to his offspring, who grew to have nails and were also more durable animals. Is it that hard to believe? I believe that a hell of a lot more than every human came from two humans, that the earth was created before the sun, that before the tower of babel there was one language in the world, I mean come on?

so to summariaze. You believe people grew hands because they needed them.


I dont believe the bible word for word but nothing you said has ever been proven wrong by any of your precious scientists. Also you did not attempt to explain all the other millions of considences around yourself. The food we need grows out of the ground. All the resources for that matter. The sun. The moon. Everything we need to survive is staring us in the face, and all you can say is, oh shit just happened that way. Give me a break.

[shaggy]

Ok, I know sadly not very much about the old testament compare to the new b/c I always used it more for it's history then teachings, since the Jewish laws were done away with in the New Testament. Anyways, so I tried to research over the internet on the subject of human sacrifice in the old testament, and I found this site. http://www.rationalchristianity.net/delight_offerings.html

I think this is pretty interesting stuff :P

2. "The object of the sacrifice is to establish a moral relation between the man as a personal being and God the absolute Spirit, to heal the separation between God and man that had been caused by sin. Now, as free personality is the soil out of which sin has sprung, so must the atonement be a work rooted in free personality as well. Being outside the sphere of moral freedom, the animal may be regarded as innocent and sinless; but for the same reason it cannot possess innocence in the true sense of the word and thus have a righteousness that could form an adequate satisfaction for the sin and guilt of man" (New Unger's Bible Dictionary, p.1100).

http://www.rbc.org/bible_study/answers_to_tough_questions/answers/30846.aspx

[Scorcher]

so to summariaze. You believe people grew hands because they needed them.


I dont believe the bible word for word but nothing you said has ever been proven wrong by any of your precious scientists. Also you did not attempt to explain all the other millions of considences around yourself. The food we need grows out of the ground. All the resources for that matter. The sun. The moon. Everything we need to survive is staring us in the face, and all you can say is, oh shit just happened that way. Give me a break.

lol, evolution does occur don't even try to deny that

and the universe could've been created by some being, but that being is definitely not the christian one, if anything it'd be the deist god (just my opinion. if there is a god, then I think it'd be this one)

The traditionalist values of the christian right are holding back progress in the US and will continue to do so for a long time. It disappoints me that people still depend and believe in something (organized religion) that's been proven wrong time and time again over the course of human history.

[MidnightStalker]

so to summariaze. You believe people grew hands because they needed them.


I dont believe the bible word for word but nothing you said has ever been proven wrong by any of your precious scientists. Also you did not attempt to explain all the other millions of considences around yourself. The food we need grows out of the ground. All the resources for that matter. The sun. The moon. Everything we need to survive is staring us in the face, and all you can say is, oh shit just happened that way. Give me a break.
Goldilocks theory for the win.
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/interior/Goldilocks.html

Its possible to believe in God and believe in science.

[-Dirby-]

The traditionalist values of the christian right are holding back progress in the US and will continue to do so for a long time. It disappoints me that people still depend and believe in something (organized religion) that's been proven wrong time and time again over the course of human history.

"My most recent faith struggle is not one of intellect. I don’t really do that anymore. Sooner or later you just figure out there are some guys who don’t believe in God and they can prove He doesn't exist, and some guys who do believe in God and they can prove He does exist, and the argument stopped being about God a long time ago and now it’s about who is smarter, and honestly I don’t care. I don't believe I will ever walk away from God for intellectual reasons. Who knows anything anyway? If I walk away from Him, and please pray that I never do, I will walk away for social reasons, identity reasons, deep emotional reasons, the same reasons that any of us do anything." -Donald Miller Blue Like Jazz

I do agree that Christianity has been misrepresented throughout the course of human history. I don't however feel it has been proven wrong. The term Christian is so loaded and comes with too many fundamentalist and right wing stereotypes. Jesus was about love. That's how I live my life, with love, through Him.

[AntioK]

It seems to me that killing yourself in such a way and resurrecting yourself shortly after is an almost negligible sacrifice when you are an omniscient, omnipotent being. It's a matter of relativity. Would you agree that if a regular, human Christian died for their beliefs in the same manner of Christ, it would be a greater sacrifice and act of martyrdom than JC dying and being resurrected? This would be similar to JC's claims of relativity. If you remember, he said that a poor woman giving away a thousandth (or some other relatively miniscule amount) of what a rich man may donate made the far greater sacrifice when that donation is a much larger share of her wealth than the rich man's.

He didn't kill himself, he allowed himself to be killed by others in a very painful way, and also it's not the dieing part that was the big sacrifice, everybody dies, It's the agony and painful way in which he did it that is the sacrifice. Plenty of Martyrs died incredibly painful agonizing deaths just like JC, and they are all remembered (atleast the famous ones) by the church, and by JC im sure too. I don't think there sacrifices were any greater or less in the eyes of God. Jesus' is the most popular and important because he is our leader, and the entire purpouse of his life was to die at the hands of his own people, for their sins.

[King_Nada]

You'd think one of the perks of being a god would be coming up with a better way to save humanity.

King

[Scorcher]

You'd think one of the perks of being a god would be coming up with a better way to save humanity.

King

Or, if he was so omnipotent he wouldn't create a being that sins in the first place.

[AntioK]

free will

[-Dirby-]

free will

beat me to it.

[FireWall]

so to summariaze. You believe people grew hands because they needed them.


Wow, it just amazes me how uneducated many Christians are in the basic principles of biology. The phrase "people grew hands because they needed them" is ridiculous. "People" did not "grow" hands. Through genetic mutation, certain species of mammals developed hands, which proved to be highly advantageous because it allowed them to accomplish tasks that they could not accomplish otherwise. Consequently, the mammals with hands were better suited for survival, they lived longer, and their genes were proliferated. Mutation, adaptation, and better survivability led to an increase in the allele frequencies that corresponded to the existence of hands.


I dont believe the bible word for word but nothing you said has ever been proven wrong by any of your precious scientists. Also you did not attempt to explain all the other millions of considences around yourself. The food we need grows out of the ground. All the resources for that matter. The sun. The moon. Everything we need to survive is staring us in the face, and all you can say is, oh shit just happened that way. Give me a break.

They are not "coincidences." Nothing just "happens." The contemporary world did not just appear out of the blue with everything neatly in place. Earth is 4.53 billion years old, and what you see today is the result of 4.53 billion years of change. If "everything we need to survive" was not "staring us in the face," we would not be here. We are here because the conditions were suitable for the development of life on Earth.

[-Dirby-]

Wow, it just amazes me how uneducated many Christians are in the basic principles of biology.

Thank you for your outstanding stereotype. We are Christian's, so we must be uneducated about biology and evolution right? Otherwise how else could we believe in something so unfathomable as God, sending his only son here to die so that we could live?
Not a single person would be alive if God responded to sin as carnal man wants to respond to sins that directly affect him. Consider that, in the scenario of killing in self-defense, the one killing is judging that his life is more important than the life he is willing to snuff out. One sinner accounts his life to be of more worth than the life of another sinner. Would God make the same determination? (If you have a Bible around open to Romans 6:23)
Don't take this as being harsh, because it is not intended to be. But it does make it harder knowing that you feel so "many" Chistians are blind. I am not blind to the world around me. Hell as I stated in a quote earlier in this thread, this debate stopped being about God long ago. My purpose as a Christian is to walk with Christ, be Christ-like in all aspects of my life. You know what Jesus Christ was all about? Love.
We have no idea what a life in the day of the LORD is compared to a day in our lives. Genesis speaks of the world being created in 7 days. Not only was the lunar calander not created at this "point" in history but for all our miniscule minds know 7 days could accumulate to Billions of years. I believe in something greater than myself.
Sorry if this seems jumbled, it's late and I am tired.

[Frag]

im not going to get into great depth of this, but i wanted to just throw this out there.

1. i used to be a christian,
2. i no longer believe in god.

so i have 2 schemas to use, and because of this, i continuously find myself at the same conclusion:

its all about faith.

any "flaw" that non-believers find can be argued, but when i think about this stuff, i have a dual-approach to it, and can see why christians can believe stuff like this: Faith.

i used to have faith, and christians today either have really good strong faith, or shakey faith. mine was ever-so-shakey. I found that i constantly had my doubts of the bible, and it made sense. somehow, i learned that "God wrote the bible through human hands." and i thought No, God can't be in the presence of sin, and the bible was written by human hands, not by god, but for the idea of a living god.

the tougher my questions got for Sunday school teachers, the more the answers i got sounded more like theories than well-known facts. because if this, the bible validity dropped for me, and the result from this is me "falling away from god."

i also thought of other religion's ideas toward creationism, and they were still considered "myths". why were they called myths? did the original believers of these "myths" die out, making it safe to denounce their beliefs? or did they simply turn their religions down openly to society?

or is it that we live in a "christian" country? a little bias can go a far way.

blah blah blah.

[dys]

Free Will or Flawed Creation?

Since god would have realized that none of us were god, then he would have realized we would have imperfections. If he knew we would have imperfections then he shouldn't have been all that surprised by sin. In fact, whoa now, just why was he surprised by sin anyways? Didn't he already know everything? If he knew everything already, did he plan on sending down JC to make up for what he inevitably knew was coming as he was making us? Why the flood? Why punish people who you knew would end up being the way they were? A creation of your very own, of which you knew would turn out to be sinners? Was he sitting back hoping that free will would just pan out on it's own?

If he wanted us to act perfect then he would have made us perfect.

Do you you ever wonder if god himself ever had to face temptation? If he's just naturally Mr. Good Guy and makes all the right decisions by 'instinct', then does god have free will? Or, if god acts using his own free will and has never sinned nor made a mistake before, how can he even be aware of what sin really is? Was it just an overlooking?

If you'd like to say that he wasn't surprised by sin, then what exactly was the point? Fun experimentation? To prove a point to all his creation of why he's better then us? To show all why he is the divine one? Isn't that bragging?

[-Dirby-]

A creation of your very own, of which you knew would turn out to be sinners?
Not to unvalidate anything else you said but this stands out to me dys. It only brings us back to the point of the Lord giving us free will. If you break it down, "we" and by that I mean humans, turned on the Lord first by sinning. He gave one rule in the Garden of Eden. "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day you eat of it you shall surely die." Gen 2:16-17
Which takes us to the fall, Adam and Eve turning on the Lord (by the temptation of the enemy). They did the ONE thing asked not to do. As far as death, the loose interpretation brings us back to Romans 6:23 ("The wage of sin is death").
We keep sinning against the Lord and yet he kept giving us chances (not to say he never tried to fix things himself, i.e, The Flood) yet finally He came to the conclusion of sending His only son here to earth to take on the burden of our sin (which is revelated in the Bible to be "natural"). As a Christian it's not about doing what is easy, sin is easy. It's about doing what is glorifying to the Lord, which I feel a lot of non-believers feel is simple.
As far as God facing temptation. I think he had to make choices, was tempted by some of them. Realized he made some wrong choices for humanity (back to The Flood again) but inevitably it came down to Him coming to the world in the form a son, Jesus.

[Yesbama]

Thank you for your outstanding stereotype. We are Christian's, so we must be uneducated about biology and evolution right? Otherwise how else could we believe in something so unfathomable as God, sending his only son here to die so that we could live?
Not a single person would be alive if God responded to sin as carnal man wants to respond to sins that directly affect him. Consider that, in the scenario of killing in self-defense, the one killing is judging that his life is more important than the life he is willing to snuff out. One sinner accounts his life to be of more worth than the life of another sinner. Would God make the same determination? (If you have a Bible around open to Romans 6:23)
Don't take this as being harsh, because it is not intended to be. But it does make it harder knowing that you feel so "many" Chistians are blind. I am not blind to the world around me. Hell as I stated in a quote earlier in this thread, this debate stopped being about God long ago. My purpose as a Christian is to walk with Christ, be Christ-like in all aspects of my life. You know what Jesus Christ was all about? Love.
We have no idea what a life in the day of the LORD is compared to a day in our lives. Genesis speaks of the world being created in 7 days. Not only was the lunar calander not created at this "point" in history but for all our miniscule minds know 7 days could accumulate to Billions of years. I believe in something greater than myself.
Sorry if this seems jumbled, it's late and I am tired.


Why would you even bother comparing God to humans like this, it makes no sense and I'm not sure what you tried to prove. People act in self-defense because they are living animals who want to stay living. You are looking at the scenario from a biased view that's not helping your argument. "Oh Mr. Killer, I'm aspiring to live like Christ so I'm going to let you rape my children and then brutally murder them." Get the F out of here.

Genesis could mean this, or it could mean that... thats what's so wonderful about the bible, no one really knows for sure. They can "interpret" it to mean whatever will make them feel at ease, and I'm glad this works for you.

This method does not work for me however. When logic and reason smack me in the face I can't just ignore it and it blows my mind how some people can.

[FireWall]

Thank you for your outstanding stereotype. We are Christian's, so we must be uneducated about biology and evolution right.

Apparently, you lack reading comprehension. What I said was not a stereotype. What I said was that "many" Christians are uneducated in biology, which is a factual statement. I did not say that "all" Christians are uneducated in biology. Your conclusion is invalid.

[AntioK]

Free Will or Flawed Creation?


Free will

[post-mortem]

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Flatland.html

nobody will ever understand what god is.

[MidnightStalker]

Interesting link. :)

[-Dirby-]

Why would you even bother comparing God to humans like this, it makes no sense and I'm not sure what you tried to prove. People act in self-defense because they are living animals who want to stay living. You are looking at the scenario from a biased view that's not helping your argument. "Oh Mr. Killer, I'm aspiring to live like Christ so I'm going to let you rape my children and then brutally murder them." Get the F out of here.

Genesis could mean this, or it could mean that... thats what's so wonderful about the bible, no one really knows for sure. They can "interpret" it to mean whatever will make them feel at ease, and I'm glad this works for you.

This method does not work for me however. When logic and reason smack me in the face I can't just ignore it and it blows my mind how some people can.

Biased view? What does bias have to do with this "argument?" You obviously missed my point anyway, I wasn't getting at the fact that I would sit back and watch someone die, but rather what I said afterward "Would God make the same determination?" The hypothetical situation I gave could be used with any situation involving all sin (all sin is the same sin anyway).
We can argue about the Bible all day and it wouldn't change a thing. As I said countless times this argument stopped being about God a long time ago, now it's about who knows more about what they believe in (or don't for that matter).

[Stayne]

FYI: SUMMARY AT THE END

According to my take on christianism, Christ could pay for the sins of humanity because he was free from sin. In a sense, he was paying the debt for all. He became "the mediator" or, in today's language, he consolidated your loans. The only thing he then asked for in return was to believe and follow him (faith + good works). That's basically my understanding from my christian upbringing and scripture study.

As for the debate between science and religion, stop. Seriously, just stop. There's no point to it. Religion doesn't disprove science. Science cannot disprove religion. Science and religion can disagree on the conditions of our world. Science will always win those battles because those are scientific battles. Religion is not about explaining the state of our world. Religion is about defining codes of conduct for society. Morales. When religion leaves this realm and starts talking about the state of the earth or weighs in on politics, it will be attacked and brutally destroyed.

Just as religion cannot speak on the characteristics of nature, science cannot speak to the questions of religion. God's existence cannot be proved or disproved. An atheist excersizes as much faith as a believer, because he actively believes that god doesn't exist in the absence of such proof. The only scientific stance to take on god is one of agnosticism, realizing that the truth of his existence cannot be known.

Most importantly, religion needs to stay the fuck out of politics. One man's beliefs should not be pushed on everyone else. Pro choice is just that, freedom to choose. Fundamentalist Christians shout and spit "Free Will" at every turn, but want to limit the choices of all those around them to fit thier own worldview. Fundamentalists cry that everyone rips on them. Well, guess what. Leave people alone and stop trying to force your narrow view of the world on those around you and they will stop getting pissed off at you.

Science should be involved in politics as long as politicians are trying to make decisions concerning scientific funding and application of scientific findings. Politicians are generally too busy being politicians to have time to really understand science. Science advisors fill in the gaps there.


So, the summary:
According to christian mythology: Christ could pay for the sins of humanity because he had no sins of his own.

Religion and science are on two different planes of existence. The one cannot rule the other out.

Religion needs to stay the fuck out of politics or get used to being dragged through the mud like every politician is. When religions want to be politicians, they get the same treatment any politician gets.

[MidnightStalker]

Well put. :)

[-Dirby-]

STUFF
This is where the debate is harder for Christians as well. Spirituality through Christ can be experienced, but it is extreemly hard to put into words and/or explain.
Thanks for your insight Styne!

[dys]

Not to unvalidate anything else you said but this stands out to me dys. It only brings us back to the point of the Lord giving us free will. If you break it down, "we" and by that I mean humans, turned on the Lord first by sinning. He gave one rule in the Garden of Eden. "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day you eat of it you shall surely die." Gen 2:16-17
Which takes us to the fall, Adam and Eve turning on the Lord (by the temptation of the enemy). They did the ONE thing asked not to do. As far as death, the loose interpretation brings us back to Romans 6:23 ("The wage of sin is death").

I don't really think that answers my question though. If god knows everything, then he already knew what Adam and Eve would do, right? Is he not the all-knowing? Even aside from that, let's overlook that for now, how is it remotely close to fair that 2 people could represent all of humanity? I think there's people, now in today's world, that would not have eaten that fruit had god himself asked them not to. Keep in mind, these were supposedly the very first 2 people ever, how could they distinguish right from wrong, or comprehend temptation?

We keep sinning against the Lord and yet he kept giving us chances (not to say he never tried to fix things himself, i.e, The Flood) yet finally He came to the conclusion of sending His only son here to earth to take on the burden of our sin (which is revelated in the Bible to be "natural").
And what of the millions+ that have done far worse throughout the years? People have disregarded the direct word of god (10 commandments) as far back as humanity goes. Was it a one-time shot from god to "fix" those from back then but from there on out everyone's just screwed? Or is he supposed to come back and do it all again sometime?


As far as God facing temptation. I think he had to make choices, was tempted by some of them. Realized he made some wrong choices for humanity (back to The Flood again) but inevitably it came down to Him coming to the world in the form a son, Jesus.
This one's interesting for me. I don't want to put words in your mouth so i'm going to ask directly. Is this an admission that god has made a mistake? If it is, oddly enough, I give you huge credit. You'd be the first person I have ever, EVER heard say that god made a mistake.

But if that's not what you're saying, then you're still saying god was tempted by some choices. How can god be tempted? Isn't he the always-right one who makes the correct decisions by his very own nature? What is there to contemplate when you know everything? It goes back to what I asked earlier, did god have free will? If so, and he had to face difficult decisions/temptations, they came after he created all of us. Think about that, god was faced with difficult decisions after he created us. Why would that be? He couldn't have been tempted by anything before he created everything because, well, there wasn't anything yet! It was just god sitting there without a chair in a vast space of nothingness.

If you ask me, if god existed then he'd be nothing but a big hypocrit. That does not and would not fit my definition of god. And I don't want to hear any crap about how god works in mysterious ways. If someone wants to respond to that statement come with some logic please.


Here's a couple questions for anyone of religious belief:

Hypothetical, but don't worry you won't be condemned for playing along - If you were to find out, without a doubt, that an alien race created our planet, our solar system, and all life within it exactly as you believe god had done, would you consider that alien race to still be god? Why or why not? Would your faith be shaken just a little or would it have grown stronger?

While it is obvious not able to be supported, that question could bridge a big gap (see: everything) between religion and science.

[post-mortem]

Something that could make time, space, and the universe is something that is outside space time and the universe thus making it impossible for us to understand. When I think of God I dont think of an invisible man floating around making miracles. God is everything, including temtation and sin.

To answer your question dys, if God knew what was going to happen why would he make us in the first place. What if he doesnt know what is going to happen? His very 'best' angel did betray him. We do have free will. Meaning we can change what we think or do in a matter of secounds.

Ask yourselves this: If God is the most powerful thing we know of. Is it possible he created a being that has free will and even he himself can not predict what that soul is going to do? I believe it is that souls destiny and he himself does not already know what is going to happen to that individual soul. He only leads that soul in the right direction during this test but he does not know what exactly is going to happen according the choices the soul makes, it is our decisions what we do, not his.

(I only refer to god as he, becuase there is really no other way to put it)

[dys]

I honestly mean no disrespect to anyone individually as I type my responses, so I hope it isn't coming across that way. It's always been an interesting 'debate' for me, and I also realize it'll never end. hehe

Post-mortem, i liked your response and found it thought-provoking. Something i'll contemplate a bit more, but this was my initial response to it.

If god understands that each soul is it's own, and free of will, and he also doesn't know what will happen in the future, then why were there specific people used as representatives of the entire human race? - adam and eve. Seems to me as a bit of stereotyping, which directly contradicts everyone being free of will. I still say, however, if god wanted us to act perfect then why didn't he make us perfect? If he truely wanted us to act a certain way, and do as he says, then as a whole we are a flawed creation.

Isn't a little convenient to say that god is everything there is was and ever shall be, except for that little part that makes him look bad.

[post-mortem]

I enjoy talking about this as well so I will continue

By perfect being I assume you mean a good person?
To me a perfect being is someone who has the ability to do wrong, has free will, and still does not fall into temptation.

You have to remember the bible was written by humans. I honestly dont believe the bible word for word so I cannont say much about Adam and Eve. I do believe the bible is more of a guide than something that should be used to seek the answer to life. The answer to life is right in front of you. You just have to be able to see it.

[dys]

I enjoy talking about this as well so I will continue

By perfect being I assume you mean a good person?
To me a perfect being is someone who has the ability to do wrong, has free will, and still does not fall into temptation.

You have to remember the bible was written by humans. I honestly dont believe the bible word for word so I cannont say much about Adam and Eve. I do believe the bible is more of a guide than something that should be used to seek the answer to life. The answer to life is right in front of you. You just have to be able to see it.

I couldn't agree more about the bible. It's a guideline, meant with good purpose, not verbatim.

As for perfect, when I think perfect I think flawless. We have obviously failed to live up to god's expectations if in fact, he did not want us to sin. That's how I come to my deduction of 'flawless creation'.

[rabidkevin]

god is a metaphor

[consolecrusader]

who created God?

[dys]

The chicken.

[-Dirby-]

I don't really think that answers my question though. If god knows everything, then he already knew what Adam and Eve would do, right? Is he not the all-knowing? Even aside from that, let's overlook that for now, how is it remotely close to fair that 2 people could represent all of humanity? I think there's people, now in today's world, that would not have eaten that fruit had god himself asked them not to. Keep in mind, these were supposedly the very first 2 people ever, how could they distinguish right from wrong, or comprehend temptation?
Well, here's the kicker. I do believe God has predestined your life, my life, and Adam and Eve's life. I do belive God predestined man for salvation. Sin was the cause of why we needed salvation. Now, there are many different interpretations of predestination, this is just my own. I feel as though a large part of my faith is salvation. It strengthens my faith.

And what of the millions+ that have done far worse throughout the years? People have disregarded the direct word of god (10 commandments) as far back as humanity goes. Was it a one-time shot from god to "fix" those from back then but from there on out everyone's just screwed? Or is he supposed to come back and do it all again sometime?

"This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him." 1 John 4:9
To keep it simple (not calling you simple minded <3 :) ) The 1st coming was to save us, show all of humanity that this is where we were at, we are wretched and live unfruitful lives (for the most part). Jesus took the burden of that and as long as we recognize ourselves as sinners (yes despite popular belief ALL OF US SIN ), repent, and trust that God loved us so much he would send Himself in the form of His son to die in place of ME on the cross, then we finally have an understanding of eternal life through the Lord. ("We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God." 1 John 4:13-15).

The 2nd coming however, is to judge us. Those who did not accept that Jesus was the son of God sent to bring us salvation. This is where it gets shakey. The book of Revelation is strickly speculation of what could happen during the second coming. As far as it goes. I believe that my faith in the Lord will guide me know what I will need to do if it happens in my lifetime (doubtful however). There are also a few interpretations that were considered for The Bible when it was put together by Christian scholars many centuries ago (Google The Apocalypse of Peter ).

This one's interesting for me. I don't want to put words in your mouth so i'm going to ask directly. Is this an admission that god has made a mistake? If it is, oddly enough, I give you huge credit. You'd be the first person I have ever, EVER heard say that god made a mistake.

As much as I don't feel God made a mistake, I feel He was doing what he thought was right for humanity. Chronologically in the Bible the Lord had every right to be angry at the men and women (mostly the men) prior to The Flood. After it happened God practically apologized to Noah vowing never to flood the world and destroy all living creatures again. A mistake? Maybe.
I don't mean to ignore the paragraph that was after the one I just quoted.


If you ask me, if god existed then he'd be nothing but a big hypocrit. That does not and would not fit my definition of god. And I don't want to hear any crap about how god works in mysterious ways. If someone wants to respond to that statement come with some logic please.
God has free will. The reason I believe this is because God made man out of His own image. I believe in predestiny of the Lord, but also that He has free will to change your destiny (as long as you believe in Him, He will do what is right for you).

Here's a couple questions for anyone of religious belief:

Hypothetical, but don't worry you won't be condemned for playing along - If you were to find out, without a doubt, that an alien race created our planet, our solar system, and all life within it exactly as you believe god had done, would you consider that alien race to still be god? Why or why not? Would your faith be shaken just a little or would it have grown stronger?

While it is obvious not able to be supported, that question could bridge a big gap (see: everything) between religion and science.
I think it depends. If I were to find out this race had an influence presently as God does in my life. My view would change as to say that my faith would grow stronger. However if I were to find out these "beings" created the earth, then left without ever interfering with anything since the dawn of time, I would probably shit my pants and then have a heart attack.

(btw you are by far the easiest to respond to dys, you actually seem fairly interested in what I have to say and not the typical "how can you be so stupid.")

[-Dirby-]

I honestly mean no disrespect to anyone individually as I type my responses, so I hope it isn't coming across that way. It's always been an interesting 'debate' for me, and I also realize it'll never end. hehe

Post-mortem, i liked your response and found it thought-provoking. Something i'll contemplate a bit more, but this was my initial response to it.

If god understands that each soul is it's own, and free of will, and he also doesn't know what will happen in the future, then why were there specific people used as representatives of the entire human race? - adam and eve. Seems to me as a bit of stereotyping, which directly contradicts everyone being free of will. I still say, however, if god wanted us to act perfect then why didn't he make us perfect? If he truely wanted us to act a certain way, and do as he says, then as a whole we are a flawed creation.

Isn't a little convenient to say that god is everything there is was and ever shall be, except for that little part that makes him look bad.

I didn't catch this part before. I don't disprespected at all. You're challanging my view and I like that.

I would love to touch on everything else and I might later tonight. But I must go to class. It took me about 45 minutes to type that last repsonse in the computer lab ;)

[dys]

Well, here's the kicker. I do believe God has predestined your life, my life, and Adam and Eve's life.

I'm so confused! :p If he predestined each person's life, then he preprogrammed sin into us, yes? Or no? If yes, then what's the big surprise that we sinned? if no, and we were meant to be in his image, then flawed creation. aye?

[MidnightStalker]

He predestined us to go to Hell? My God! What a sham!

[-Dirby-]

I'm so confused! :p If he predestined each person's life, then he preprogrammed sin into us, yes? Or no? If yes, then what's the big surprise that we sinned? if no, and we were meant to be in his image, then flawed creation. aye?

Created in the image of God (who is sinless) with equal opportunity to sin and predestination...my mind might explode: here it goes
Yes, we were created with the possibility of sin, it happened. But but because of that us as a creation were rewarded with the possiblilty of salvation, which outweighs sin tenfold.
I wouldn't say God programmed sin into us. Our free will I believe is different from the Lord's as we were created "in" his image not "of" his image. Adam and Eve directly disobeyed God and caused the fall; yet, this must have been all in God's plan right? I guess so.
Not sure if that helps.

[MidnightStalker]

I think your mind has already exploded.

[AntioK]

I don't believe Adam, Eve, or the garden of eden ever existed, on an earthly plane anyway.

[Zogo]

The chicken.

lol, enjoy your stay in hell!

[Terminotaur]

The purpose of such questioning, moreso than anything else, is semantics; toying with ideas and illogical reasoning towards something that such critical thought should never be applied to -- religion.
The question isn't an argument of semantics. I am pointing out what I perceive to be illogical reasoning. Critical thought should be applied to religion.

According to my take on christianism, Christ could pay for the sins of humanity because he was free from sin. In a sense, he was paying the debt for all. He became "the mediator" or, in today's language, he consolidated your loans. The only thing he then asked for in return was to believe and follow him (faith + good works). That's basically my understanding from my christian upbringing and scripture study.
This has already been stated many times in this thread, and does not address my concerns on why Jesus had to be sacrificed instead of the simple alternative of simply faith and obedience without sacrifice in order to be forgiven of sin. It also does not make much sense to me why God would sacrifice himself in his own stead to save his own followers from his own wrath and not pursue the aforementioned simple alternative.

Your answer also does not truly answer the underlying question of how Jesus can take the burden of humanity's sin. Your answer of how he could: Jesus was a sinless being, therefore he could. This makes no logical sense. What is the mechanism involved in a sacrifice that allows forgiveness? An arcane rule God invented involving bloodshed of a sinless being?

[VP-]

So, i'm going to a Christian University at the moment, I was raised to believe in God, to believe in Christ, but, my parents didn't force anything on me and I have been free to think on my own since I was a young child. Before entering school this year I though, you know what I want to come more into touch with the spiritual and religious side of my life...possible to understand it more. I am close to halfway through a semester of two fairly intensive bible courses, I came in oh so open minded, I tried, I tried, I read, I thought. And the more I tried and though, the more and more I am becoming an Agnostic - Anti Bible. I feel the bible sets out some well rounded morals, virtues, blah blah blah for people to live by, when interpreted in a... looser way than what your typical nutjob interprets it.

I laugh at people my notes for these classes went from being super into it to now being "They fucked up, so God kicked their ass"... it is just so absurd and ridiculous, and listening to and watching these people read and talk about all of this with so much belief and interest and yet when a question is posed that is not directly answerable by the scripture "boy that's a good question, maybe God can answer it for you someday" or "You know, I just don't know the answer to that..... but "insert typical religious bullshit answer to everything here" and the question is 100% sidestepped.

In conclusion, the more I learn, the more bullshit it becomes.

I just wish everyone could drop all of the religious bullshit and live a Christ like life, but they become so hungup on the religion aspect they never do shit for their fellow man in fear of sinning.

I am not sure they can breath with their head so far up their ass.

...... sorry for the rant... frustrated atm.

apologize for the typos, been drinking a slight bit and far too lazy to edit.

[MidnightStalker]

I guess your teacher sucks.

[VP-]

I guess your teacher sucks.

or he's just a simple minded, brainwashed, ozarkian, ultra conservative loon that could possibly be a child molester on the side.

[shaggy]

This has already been stated many times in this thread, and does not address my concerns on why Jesus had to be sacrificed instead of the simple alternative of simply faith and obedience without sacrifice in order to be forgiven of sin. It also does not make much sense to me why God would sacrifice himself in his own stead to save his own followers from his own wrath and not pursue the aforementioned simple alternative.

Your answer also does not truly answer the underlying question of how Jesus can take the burden of humanity's sin. Your answer of how he could: Jesus was a sinless being, therefore he could. This makes no logical sense. What is the mechanism involved in a sacrifice that allows forgiveness? An arcane rule God invented involving bloodshed of a sinless being?


http://www.gotquestions.org/ransom.html
Best answer i've read so far.

[Zogo]

The question isn't an argument of semantics. I am pointing out what I perceive to be illogical reasoning. Critical thought should be applied to religion.

you won't find it. there are verses in the bible that say "the cross is foolishness" to those that don't believe. so no matter how powerful your arguments are they won't matter.

[Kersk]

fucking sigh.

that is all.

[Terminotaur]

Best answer i've read so far.
Kartikeya made the same claims a long time ago. If you want to actually discuss this, answer the following first:
1. What part of an animal sacrifice allowed one to be washed of sin? Was it an arcane mechanism caused by sinless bloodshed or was it due to appeasement of God through an act of obedience?
2. If you claim obedience or a combination of obedience and arcane mechanism, why couldn't God simply be appeased by allowing people to stand on one foot for thirty minute per day in order to be washed of sin?
3. Instead of sacrificing Jesus and resulting in just faith in order to be washed of sin, why didn't God simply not sacrifice Jesus and just require faith in order to be washed of sin?
4. If you believe animal sacrifices showed obedience and appeased God, do you believe that God appeased himself in the sacrifice of Jesus?

so no matter how powerful your arguments are they won't matter.
I would say they do matter with any Christian apologetic who has a compulsion to argue logically.

[Zogo]

I would say they do matter with any Christian apologetic who has a compulsion to argue logically.

theoretically yes..but you're asking the same questions I've had myself before..and I have yet to see them answered clearly without going on 50 longwinded tangents with no resolution.

[bergenhell]

oil and water.

the problem i have with christianity is the idea that every other religion is wrong. I also have a problem with the egomania of us being the only intelligent beings in the universe, which most religions seem to be based off of.

[Kartikeya-OD]

1. What part of an animal sacrifice allowed one to be washed of sin? Was it an arcane mechanism caused by sinless bloodshed or was it due to appeasement of God through an act of obedience?

Your word choice is rather telling. However again it is not an arcane mechanism. It was their faith in God's promise.

2. If you claim obedience or a combination of obedience and arcane mechanism, why couldn't God simply be appeased by allowing people to stand on one foot for thirty minute per day in order to be washed of sin?

The whole thing is an illustration for Christ. I have said this time and time again. The thole thing is created from the start for Christ.

3. Instead of sacrificing Jesus and resulting in just faith in order to be washed of sin, why didn't God simply not sacrifice Jesus and just require faith in order to be washed of sin?

Because God is holy and just. Sin goes directly against God's nature. The result of which is death. Jesus had to die, there was no other choice in the matter.

4. If you believe animal sacrifices showed obedience and appeased God, do you believe that God appeased himself in the sacrifice of Jesus?

This is setup just like the question if God can do anything can God create a rock so big that even he can't lift it.

[bergenhell]

The whole thing is an illustration for Christ. I have said this time and time again. The thole thing is created from the start for Christ.

what about all the other religions of the world? is everyone who doesn't believe in christ doomed to eternal hell? seems rather silly to me...

what about intelligent life on other planets if it happens to exist? did jesus die for them too or just us?

[Terminotaur]

Because God is holy and just. Sin goes directly against God's nature. The result of which is death. Jesus had to die, there was no other choice in the matter.
"Because God is holy and just" is not a valid answer. Your statement that "Jesus had to die, there was no other choice in the matter," is a simple contradiction and offers no explanation as to why there was no other choice in the matter or why Jesus had to be sacrificed. Why did Jesus have to die instead of God simply accepting faith and obedience without the death of Jesus in order to forgive people of sin?

This is setup just like the question if God can do anything can God create a rock so big that even he can't lift it.
This is not analagous to that question at all. My question does not express an impossibility or contradiction. It is logically possible. Do you believe that animal sacrifices showed obedience and appeased God?

[MidnightStalker]

As for the debate between science and religion, stop. Seriously, just stop. There's no point to it. Religion doesn't disprove science. Science cannot disprove religion. Science and religion can disagree on the conditions of our world. Science will always win those battles because those are scientific battles. Religion is not about explaining the state of our world. Religion is about defining codes of conduct for society. Morales. When religion leaves this realm and starts talking about the state of the earth or weighs in on politics, it will be attacked and brutally destroyed.

Just as religion cannot speak on the characteristics of nature, science cannot speak to the questions of religion. God's existence cannot be proved or disproved. An atheist excersizes as much faith as a believer, because he actively believes that god doesn't exist in the absence of such proof. The only scientific stance to take on god is one of agnosticism, realizing that the truth of his existence cannot be known.Albert Einstein says differently:

"I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand." - Einstein

"You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own. But it is different from the religion of the naive man.

For the latter God is a being from whose care one hopes to benefit and whose punishment one fears; a sublimation of a feeling similar to that of a child for its father, a being to whom one stands to some extent in a personal relation, however deeply it may be tinged with awe.

But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection" - Einstein

[bergenhell]

what about all the other religions of the world? is everyone who doesn't believe in christ doomed to eternal hell?
.

[FireWall]

Albert Einstein says differently:

"I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand." - Einstein

It would be interesting to know what the "close connection" is that Einstein speaks of. It would also be interesting to know what "close" means. Science is based on empiricism. Religion is based on faith. They are separated by an abyss of philosophical nuances.

I would also like to point out that organized religion dominated the world for hundreds of years after the collapse of antiquity. Furthermore, it was not until the dominance of the Church was undermined by The Enlightenment that significant advancements were made. As Alan Wood notes in _Reason in Revolt_, "The Middle Ages which followed the collapse of Antiquity were a desert in which scientific thought languished for centuries. Not accidentally, this was a period dominated by the Church. Idealism was the only philosophy permitted, either as a caricature of Plato or an even worse distortion of Aristotle." I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there is not a close connection between science and religion. Religion is rooted in the embracement of ignorance: believers disregard the complete lack of knowledge that they have about what they believe in.

[shaggy]

Kartikeya made the same claims a long time ago. If you want to actually discuss this, answer the following first:
1. What part of an animal sacrifice allowed one to be washed of sin? Was it an arcane mechanism caused by sinless bloodshed or was it due to appeasement of God through an act of obedience?
2. If you claim obedience or a combination of obedience and arcane mechanism, why couldn't God simply be appeased by allowing people to stand on one foot for thirty minute per day in order to be washed of sin?
3. Instead of sacrificing Jesus and resulting in just faith in order to be washed of sin, why didn't God simply not sacrifice Jesus and just require faith in order to be washed of sin?
4. If you believe animal sacrifices showed obedience and appeased God, do you believe that God appeased himself in the sacrifice of Jesus?


I would say they do matter with any Christian apologetic who has a compulsion to argue logically.

1. Both. In the bible God command his people to sacrifice animals to exchange their deaths for their death created by sin. But God has also looked negatively at it when it just becomes a ritual. The thought behind the sacrafice is just as important as the sacrafice itself.

2. If you believe God can do "anything" then yes he could make the atonement of sin whatever he wished. But it clearly states he asked for sacrifice and it clearly states why. Because the death of the animal will take the place of the death of the human, aka sin.

3. An all knowing God of the present and the future, ordered sacrifice. Why would you think he'd change his decree? The words such as easier and convenient have little to no meaning to God.

4. Was God appeased by the sacrifice of Jesus, yes I believe he was. But, I don't think it's quite right saying he appeased himself. Although Jesus is part of God, they are definitely looked upon as different identities, which is the most confusing part of christianity.

[MidnightStalker]

Religion is rooted in the embracement of ignorance: believers disregard the complete lack of knowledge that they have about what they believe in.
I believe in a relgion. Therefore, am I ignorant? Like I said earlier, it's very possible to believe in science and religion at the same time.

[FireWall]

I believe in a relgion. Therefore, am I ignorant?

Reread my post, and look up the definition of the word "ignorant." Then, if you still have questions, feel free to ask.

Like I said earlier, it's very possible to believe in science and religion at the same time.

I agree, but that does not mean that they compliment each other. If anything, religion has been shown to hinder scientific progress time and time again. And, of course, scientific progress has undermined religion. It is somewhat ridiculous that someone would argue that science is "lame" without religion. Give me a break. Oh well, not every physicist can be a philosopher too.

[Yesbama]

Yeah I think Einstein was on the right track but that quote doesn't really make too much sense.
I like another one he had:

"There are only two ways to live your life, one is as though there are no such things as miracles, the other is as though everything is a miracle"

When I look at this quote I don't think that "miracle" means something that god hand-crafted or intervened with directly; but rather a power greater than myself made all of this possible. Life and the laws of the universe deserve absolute appreciation. I feel as though the more I understand (through science) the more able I am to appreciate my life and everything I have. I experience things differently not because of a blind faith in an omnipotent being steering me in my walk of life but that I can live and understand, learn, grow, and help those around me to do the same.

Religion is man-made people… I have a hard time understanding how a truly reasonable and intuitive person can not realize this. Believe in something greater than you, believe in living to help others, believe in being a decent person, what else is there? A two thousand+ year old book written by kings is not the key to life, I’m afraid.

[MidnightStalker]

Reread my post, and look up the definition of the word "ignorant." Then, if you still have questions, feel free to ask.
I do still have a question because I read your post, and reread it, and I know the definition of ignorance. You stated religion embraces ignorance and believers in religion disregard their complete ignorance they have about their faith. Ergo, my question stands.

[FireWall]

I do still have a question because I read your post, and reread it, and I know the definition of ignorance. You stated religion embraces ignorance and believers in religion disregard their complete ignorance they have about their faith. Ergo, my question stands.

No, ergo, your question reveals a complete lack of understanding. You explicitly asked me: "am I ignorant"? You clearly do not know what the word ignorant means. It indicates a lack of knowledge, and everyone lacks knowledge. Consequently, everyone could fairly be called ignorant, whether they are Einstein or a child.

The point that I made, however, is that followers of religion are ignorant about the legitimacy of their own deity, and they embrace that ignorance. With respect to religion, faith entails unconditional fidility, which stands in diametrical opposition to the tenets of science.

[MidnightStalker]

Ugh, what a bad argument! I clearly understand the meaning of ignorace. And of course there will be people who are ignorant in one thing and totally knowledgeable in another. To say blunty someone is ignorant is a little guileless. Genrally, I believe, stating someone is simply ignorant somewhat implies they lack a general knowledge of basic things or are unintellectual. To use a religion ase a basis for this argument is wrong. To say, however, someone is ignorant of a specific fact or a field of study is a bit more circumscribed and pragmatic.

Nevertheless, I don't think it's the legitimacy of their dieties they are ignorant of. Moreover, some of the tenets of science you so dearly believe include the confidence in theories. These are unproven ideas and explinations that are often regarded or handled as fact among the scientific community, or generally so. Of course, these are not unconditional.

[FireWall]

Ugh, what a bad argument!

If you say so. :rolleyes:

I clearly understand the meaning of ignorace.

Yes, clearly.

And of course there will be people who