Neo,
He's a puzzlement and a definite lesson in patience for me. I am eager to see if he will take me up on my compromise though. I offer it in all sincerity.
Have you read any of the postings by Shazzer in the abortion thread? Talk about an intriguing discussion. Very well put by Shazzer. The questions really make you think. The kind of discussion I absolutely relish. A very fair minded individual, Shazzer appears to be by the posts. No putting down of my beliefs at all. Just good exchange. I get a bit stuck on some of what to say at times. I know you could explain much better than I could.
Oh, and I do love your sense of humor! Always lightens the atmosphere!
Momma Angel
Also remember there are others watching Frank and forming opinions we don't hear about.
Not many are willing to suffer his scorn.
Neo,
I know others are out there. And, I can't say that I blame them for not jumping in. Frank does provide a very "warm, shall we say" climate? I just wish he could understand that his offensive manner does not help his argument in any way, shape, or form. He could be so effective in championing a cause (but in this case, I guess it's better he does it his way!) He can always sing, ....I did it my way!
Frank, that was meant in jest. No disrespect meant by any means. I admire your tenacity.
Momma,
What you call tenacity, others might call temper tantrun
Well, sometimes being tenacious helps a temper tantrum!
neologist wrote:Then, 1 John 2:2, speaking of Jesus: "And he is a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins, yet not for ours only but also for the whole world's."
Neo, this sacrifice was to who or what?
Momma Angel wrote:
Well, sometimes being tenacious helps a temper tantrum!
Well, tenacious can be good. Temper tantrum is never good.
Intrepid,
Oh, I totally agree with you there! When I threw temper trantrums as a child in the middle of the store my momma would just walk away. I wasn't getting the attention I wanted so I railed all the more! :wink:
mesquite wrote:neologist wrote:Then, 1 John 2:2, speaking of Jesus: "And he is a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins, yet not for ours only but also for the whole world's."
Neo, this sacrifice was to who or what?
Well John 5:28,29 holds out the hope of a resurrection for all those whether they knew about God or not. The purpose of the resurrection is for
all to have a chance to experience the life Adam lost.
The balance is simple:
Adam was perfect. He sinned and passed death to all men.
Jesus was perfect. He did not sin yet was willing to pay Adam's price with his death.
All the torture Jesus endured was Satan's idea.
neologist wrote:mesquite wrote:neologist wrote:Then, 1 John 2:2, speaking of Jesus: "And he is a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins, yet not for ours only but also for the whole world's."
Neo, this sacrifice was to who or what?
Well John 5:28,29 holds out the hope of a resurrection for all those whether they knew about God or not. The purpose of the resurrection is for
all to have a chance to experience the life Adam lost.
The balance is simple:
Adam was perfect. He sinned and passed death to all men.
Jesus was perfect.
He did not sin yet was willing to pay Adam's price with his death.
All the torture Jesus endured was Satan's idea.
It is still not clear, just to who or what the sacrifice or "price" was paid. Since a sin is an offense to God, what does Satan have to do with it?
Price paid to God. Jesus was the high priest of his own perfect sin-atoning sacrifice.
Satan brought about sin with the first lie.
I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning.
Was Jesus' sacrificial death Satan's idea?
neologist wrote:Price paid to God. Jesus was the high priest of his own perfect sin-atoning sacrifice.
Satan brought about sin with the first lie.
I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning.
My line of reasoning is that the concept of a sacrifice for past present and future sins is more than a bit over the top and makes no sense whatsoever.
Quote:John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.
Sin being an offense against God can only be atoned by God. If you believe in the trinity, then God would be sacrificing himself to himself. If you do not believe in the trinity, then God is sacrificing his son to himself. Neither concept is one I would consider endearing.
MA
I have made attempts to ease back on some of the rough edges that seem to bother you so much. But that doesn't seem to help.
You talk on and on about compromise...but you have not compomised one iota. Your idea of compromise is for me to argue the way you do...which I consider to be absurd.
The god of the Bible is everything I have ever said it is...and damn near none of the things you say it is. You seem to think there is absolutely nothing wrong with you continuing to say the things you want to say about the god...and that I should desist from saying the things I say about it.
NO!
Why the hell should you people be allowed to spread the infection of Christianity...and your bizarre notions of what the god is...and I should be prohibited from countering that message?????
It is my opinion that the single greatest menace on this planet right now is Christianity. If, as it seems to be doing, Christianity gains control over the most powerful country this planet has ever seen...it is my opinion that the planet is doomed.
I despise Christianity...and all the hypocrisy that allows it to continue.
I will fight it with every ounce of strength in my body.
If you don't like it...you are welcome to go somewhere else to spread this pollutant...but if you do it here...I will pounce on each sentence like there will be no tomorrow.
I've made all the compromises I intend to make in this discussion, MA. I think your arguments on behalf of your religion are absurd and illogical...and about the only thing I can say positive about them is that at least they are better than the arguments Neo makes on behalf of the parts of your religion with which he agrees.
So...you and Neo and Intrepid continue with your "temper tantrum" nonsense...and I will continue with the stuff I have to say. You continue to spin your silly myths and superstitions...and I will continue to show them up for the absurdities they are.
And of course, if you people all shut up...I will too.
But nobody should hold their breath. That's not going to happen.
mesquite wrote:neologist wrote:Price paid to God. Jesus was the high priest of his own perfect sin-atoning sacrifice.
Satan brought about sin with the first lie.
I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning.
My line of reasoning is that the concept of a sacrifice for past present and future sins is more than a bit over the top and makes no sense whatsoever.
Quote:John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.
Sin being an offense against God can only be atoned by God. If you believe in the trinity, then God would be sacrificing himself to himself. If you do not believe in the trinity, then God is sacrificing his son to himself. Neither concept is one I would consider endearing.
Mesquite...
...the entire of this Christian mythology is so absurd, to try to get these folks to defend it is, in fact, a form of torture.
Sin is, as you and I have pointed out repeatedly, something a human does that offends their god. Their pathetic god is offended by damn near everything that humans do...which apparently is the reason they constantly yammer on and on about everyone being sinners.
If their pathetic god wanted to get over its snit...and forgive humans for their sins....it could do so in an instant...and without any need for sacrifice.
But the Christians have to justify this "great sacrifice" supposedly made by Jesus...and the tout this John 3:16 abomination.
Anyone willing to look at the entire of that part of the myth would recognize it as something that, if done by a human, would end that human up in a hospital for the criminally insane. But they want to make it seem as though this barbaric bit of mythology shows that their god loves humanity.
It is incredible how deluded they are...and the depths of their denial stuns the brain.
Frank,
I have not and will not asked you to stop what you feel is your countering the message. I was just asking you to tone down the personal characterizations of God. The point is, you believe (guess, estimate, etc.) one way, Real Life, Intrepid, Neo, I, and others believe another way.
The only point I have tried to get across is that we seem to be doing our best not to belittle you for your understanding of Christianity, as you have been doing ours. I feel we have been, at the very least, attempting to answer your questions. We all have different levels of understanding and comprehension and some are more easily conveyed than others. I feel most of your questions had been answered, as we tried to answer them by more than one example, but they were not satisfactory answers to you.
But, in this last post, you have made it very clear that you consider Christianity to be a menace, so I am assuming you feel the same way about Christians. You have said that you love Christians, but I do find that hard to believe given you think our faith is such a menace. You yourself pointed out in another thread that .....why would you have to respect someone like Hitler for his beliefs or practices.... Considering you feel Christianity to be a menace to this world and because of it our planet is doomed, I find it extremely hard to believe you love Christians.
I, as well as other Christians, will continue in our efforts to show others, by example as well as in word, the teachings of Jesus. This is our right just as is yours to counter that message.
In cases, such as these, where there is no resolution, I feel can only be responded to in this way, time will tell Frank, time will tell.
Just a question.
People say that the bible is written by men and not God so it cannot be true. They dismiss much, if not all, what is written in the scriptures.
These same people will read an encyclopedia (also written by men) and believe every word that they read.
Both are historical accounts.
Please explain the difference.
Intrepid,
I am only making a "guess" here, but I would imagine they would tell you because they can prove scientifically the things in the encyclopedia.
But, if that's true, then why is Noah's Ark and The Ark of the Covenant in the Encyclopedia (Britannica).
Good question Intrepid!
unicorn=A representation of this beast, having a horse's body, a stag's legs, a lion's tail, and a straight spiraled horn growing from its forehead, especially employed as a supporter for the Royal Arms of Great Britain or of Scotland.
American Heritage Dictionary. (they must re real, it's in the dictionary) Oy
dyslexia,
I left that particular kind of thing out of my above post about Noah's Ark and The Ark of the Covenant.
Actually, your post kind of proves our point.
Man wrote of the unicorns, cows, the Eiffel Tower, Noah's Ark, etc. So, we are to believe more of what the Encyclopedia says than the Bible?
It all comes down to what you believe to be real and accept as fact. I, for one, have never seen a unicorn. Doesn't mean there is or isn't one. I have never seen a UFO. Doesn't mean there is or isn't any. But, I have seen the evidence of the existence of God. The very miracle of birth, life, sight, sound, etc., is evidence that God exists.
