Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dbarmstrong · 12-10-2005, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gooch's dad

I would take an entirely different approach, and ask your host to explain how the doctrine of vicarious atonement could possibly make the slightest bit of sense. It is based on the idea that God can only forgive sin by the shedding of blood.

Ask your host if he would be willing to let a murderer walk free in his city, if an innocent man was willing to go to the electric chair in place of the murderer. That is what the doctrine of vicarious atonement comes down to, and it is complete nonsense.

"Jesus died for our sins" is a statement that just doesn't parse, it doesn't really say anything, when you look at it closely. The biblical inerrancy and NT-as-history debates can go around and around for hours, but the basic idea of Christianity itself is simply incoherent.

Ask him to defend that idea. He won't be able to, you can be sure of that.

That is not what the doctrine of vicarious atonement means. You are leaving out one of the most important tenets the fact that Christ was perfect therefore his sacrifice was acceptable to take on the sins of man. It wasn's to make everyone comfortable by letting the murderers go free, it was the answer to the problem that no one was righteous and no on is outside of the grace of God through Christ on the cross. You can't compare it to any man dying in someone else's place because that man would not be perfect.

Amaleq13 · 12-10-2005, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbarmstrong

Mark is generally accepted as being written before any of the Pualine epsitles

You have it backwards. Scholars are virtually unanimous in considering Mark as written after the Pauline epistles.

Terrible Heresy · 12-10-2005, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Mark is generally accepted as being written before any of the Pualine epsitles

*Double takes*

Yeah, I'll second what Amaleq said. Mark is accepted as the earliest Gospel, but Paul is accepted as...well....basically the foundation of early written Christianity.

Mark is dated to 70 A.D at the earliest, while the writings of Paul may be as early as....40 A.D(right? Maybe it's 50 A.D)

Quote:

That is not what the doctrine of vicarious atonement means. You are leaving out one of the most important tenets the fact that Christ was perfect therefore his sacrifice was acceptable to take on the sins of man. It wasn's to make everyone comfortable by letting the murderers go free, it was the answer to the problem that no one was righteous and no on is outside of the grace of God through Christ on the cross. You can't compare it to any man dying in someone else's place because that man would not be perfect.

Try to think a little bit more outside just what you've been taught. Just because it's doctrine does not mean it makes sense. Perfect or not, human sacrifice for atonement makes no sense.

I would also argue that Jesus was obviously not perfect. Unless you count doubting God's word over and over to be "perfect". "Take this cup from my lips". "Why have thou forsaken me?". There may be more I am forgetting....

aChristian · 12-11-2005, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

You didn't answer my question before, you haven't answered it now.

Doesn't:

JOSHUA10:13 And the sun [appeared to stand] still, and the moon [appeared to stay], until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun [appeared to stand] still in the midst of heaven, and [appeared] not to go down about a whole day.

accurately describe what happened that day?

If, "yes," then we can move on to something more substantive.

If "no," then please explain why it doesn't accurately describe what happened that day.

I look forward to your answer.

If you are agreeing to the fact that God accurately describes what happened that day (without taking the time to explain how he did it) without any error of any kind, in other words that there is no error in this verse, then we can move on. Otherwise there is no point in moving on. If you won't accept the explanation I have given you as being a reasonable possibility, I doubt that you will accept any reasonable explanation about anything related to the Bible.

aChristian · 12-11-2005, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrible Heresy

Yeah, right...whatever. I guess that's why you ignored my last post as well

I'll make you a deal. I'll try to watch my language if you refrain from posting such rediculously wrong crap. I wanted to make it clear just how rediculous your claim was. Period.

Your claim that 50% of scientists question evolution is roughly equivilent to me saying that "Only 5% of the world is Christian".

Seriously, not only is it wrong, it's insanely, insultingly wrong, and one wonders how someone could be so wrong with thier numbers without being totally ignorant of the subject.
.....

Here's one poll of science teachers. I have read other similar polls.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...on=view&ID=421

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrible Heresy

So, again.....

Here's an article on the topic. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v...ession.asp#f38

We should probably move this to the creation evolution section. Would you please do that for me Mr. Moderator. Thank you.

Tigers! · 12-11-2005, 04:04 PM

Try to think a little bit more outside just what you've been taught. Just because it's doctrine does not mean it makes sense. Perfect or not, human sacrifice for atonement makes no sense. - From Terrible Heresy

The fact that you or I do think something does not make sense is not the same as saying that it must therefore be false or incorrect. Perhaps the problem lies in our comprehension.

FatherMithras · 12-11-2005, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

If you are agreeing to the fact that God accurately describes what happened that day (without taking the time to explain how he did it) without any error of any kind, in other words that there is no error in this verse, then we can move on. Otherwise there is no point in moving on. If you won't accept the explanation I have given you as being a reasonable possibility, I doubt that you will accept any reasonable explanation about anything related to the Bible.

When you present a "reasonable" response, we'll see.

Terrible Heresy · 12-11-2005, 04:32 PM

Yeah, I would request a moderator move this to the evolution forum since you won't just admit you were wrong.

We'll talk about it more there.

I have one question. Are you being intentially misleading, or do you not realize that being a scientist(your claim) and being a science teacher(your "proof") are two very different things?

There are other problems with your "proof" but we'll discuss that after a mod moves this.

Amaleq13 · 12-11-2005, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

We should probably move this to the creation evolution section. Would you please do that for me Mr. Moderator. Thank you.

There isn't much point in moving a single post. You're better off starting a fresh thread with a clear OP.

John A. Broussard · 12-11-2005, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

If you are agreeing to the fact that God accurately describes what happened that day (without taking the time to explain how he did it) without any error of any kind, in other words that there is no error in this verse, then we can move on. Otherwise there is no point in moving on. If you won't accept the explanation I have given you as being a reasonable possibility, I doubt that you will accept any reasonable explanation about anything related to the Bible.

But you didn't answer my question which was:

Does the following:

JOSHUA10:13 And the sun [appeared to stand] still, and the moon [appeared to stay], until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun [appeared to stand] still in the midst of heaven, and [appeared] not to go down about a whole day.

accurately describe what happened that day?

Want to try again?

Thanks.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-11-2005, 04:04 PM	#346
Tigers! Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: On the wing, waiting for a kick Posts: 2,558	Try to think a little bit more outside just what you've been taught. Just because it's doctrine does not mean it makes sense. Perfect or not, human sacrifice for atonement makes no sense. - From Terrible Heresy The fact that you or I do think something does not make sense is not the same as saying that it must therefore be false or incorrect. Perhaps the problem lies in our comprehension.

12-11-2005, 04:32 PM	#348
Terrible Heresy Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Indiana Posts: 57	Yeah, I would request a moderator move this to the evolution forum since you won't just admit you were wrong. We'll talk about it more there. I have one question. Are you being intentially misleading, or do you not realize that being a scientist(your claim) and being a science teacher(your "proof") are two very different things? There are other problems with your "proof" but we'll discuss that after a mod moves this.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.