Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 11-02-2011, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Upon close scrutiny gMark is a most stupid story filled with Fiction and implausibilities.

The author of gMark makes his Jesus OBSOLETE before he introduces him and then completely FORGETS his story line that Jesus will BAPTIZE with the Holy Ghost.

In gMark John the Baptist PROVIDED Salvation for the Jews of Judea and Jerusalem by BAPTISM while Jesus is talking in Parables hoping that that the Jews REMAIN in Sin.

Later we learn that Jesus did NOT even tell his own disciples that he was Christ it was PETER who suggested that Jesus was Christ but Jesus IMMEDIATELY BARRED the disciples from telling anyone he was Christ.

But in the same gMark, there was ANOTHER person who was called Christ who did NOT follow Jesus.

gMark's Jesus is TOTALLY OBSOLETE.

1. He was NOT KNOWN as Christ to the Jews.

2.There was ANOTHER person KNOWN as Christ.

3. John the Baptist ALREADY Provided Salvation for the Jews by his Baptism.

4. Jesus did NOT Baptise any one with the Holy Ghost at all in gMark.

gMark is the perfect HJ argument killer.

Jesus WAS OBSOLETE even in gMark an apologetic source.

The Jesus character was TOTALLY unnecessary in gMark. His disciples abandoned and denied him.

The story of Mark contains a number of implausibilities. I don't see what conclusion that's supposed to prove.

It PROVES Jesus was a man?????

ALL I KNOW it is claimed Jesus WALKED on sea and Transfigured. Those claims SUPPORT the MYTH Jesus theory.

Since those claims must be false, I don't see how they can support any theory. As I said before, you give the impression of struggling extraordinarily hard to prove something without ever giving a clear statement of what that something is.

Sheshbazzar · 11-02-2011, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

There is no such thing as 'remission of sin' because there is no such thing as 'sin',

What ever gave you that idea?
At the very least what is identified in the Bible by the word 'sin' is any trespass (violation) against the Laws of Moses.
"Sin is the transgression of The Law" nothing supernatural about that, and it is a truth that all men (and women) violate at least some of those Laws, Statutes, and Ordinances.

Gentiles were (and are) not directly subject to these 'Moses given' laws. However Gentiles have always had their own laws, if not formal, then informal, and in having these 'laws' transgressions of those laws do happen, and when they happen guilts accrue.
Guilt that is so incurred is the Gentile functional equivalent of sin. Knowledge of ones guilt is knowledge that one has trespassed against a just and right law of ones society and committed a wrong against his fellow man, and most often him or her-self also.

If you steal or if you murder you are guilty before the law, and even though you may escape detection, the stain upon your conscience, and that corrosive corruption upon your character will remain as an indelible part of your personality (nephesh)
Unless you make amends, in paying whatever price or penalty the Law requires, along with sincere contrition, your guilt will remain upon you, polluting your life in myriad subtle ways. Your pleasures well be less pleasing, your relationships with others will be a little less open and honest that they could be. Your sleep will be less refreshing, and even the food you eat will be less satisfying.

Even the little 'social' trespasses such as talking-trash about an acquaintance, telling 'white lies', or thinking what you know to be inappropriate thoughts. They all add up, and do rob you of being that 'clean' and 'whole' person that you would otherwise be, and it also robs your family, and society as a whole of those benefits and contributions that you might have otherwise made if you were not carrying around that load.
All of us that have a conscience and a sufficient level of comprehension to recognize when we are guilty of something, have experienced and know what 'sin' is.

(Like Eskimos have several identifying words for differing qualities of snow, the Hebrew actually has several idioms for identifying different aspects and qualities of 'sin'. Our English word 'sin' is generic, whereas the Hebrew terms are quite specific in identifying what type of sin the sin is)

Violation of a human law may be a crime, but not a sin. Sin is violation of the law of God. But there is no God, so there is no sin.

You are only capable of thinking at your limited level of knowledge. What the English term may convey to you, is not identical to nor indicative of what the Hebrew terms convey to those that are able to recognize and appreciate the idioms.

If you knew the meaning of the Biblical terms you would know how wrong your claim is. Atheist Hebrew speakers employ these same words.
Even without a belief in any god the terms relate to aspects of human thought and behavior, and to the interrelationships between humans, not to a relationship with a deity, although for the religious they do that too.

Perhaps it would help your comprehension if I were to supply some examples from a source accessible to you.

Quote:

ויען ראובן אתם לאמר הלוא אמרתי אליכם לאמר אל־תחטאו בילד ולא שמעתם

"Reuben replied, "Didn't I tell you not to sin against the boy? But you wouldn't listen!" (Genesis 42:22)

אם־יחטא איש לאיש ופללו אלהים

"If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him:" (1 Sam 2:25)

ידבר יהונתן בדוד טוב אל־שאול אביו ויאמר אליו אל־יחטא המלך בעבדו בדוד כי לוא חטא לך וכי מעשיו טוב־לך מאד׃

"Thus Jonathan spoke well of David to Saul his father, and said to him, "Let not the king sin against his servant, against David, because he has not sinned against you, and because his works have been very good toward you." (1 Sam 19:4)

As you can see, each of these examples relates to wrongs ('sins') between humans.

In the Bible there are those 'sins' that are committed against ones fellow man, and there are those sins that are violations of The Laws.

Yet before any Laws at all were given, 'sins' were already being committed man against man, as for example between Able and Cain;

Quote:

הלוא אם־תיטיב שאת ואם לא תיטיב לפתח חטאת רבץ ואליך תשוקתו ואתה תמשל־בו׃

7. "If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it."...

8. And Cain talked with Abel his brother; and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him."
(Genesis 4:7-8)

It was not violation against The Law because no Laws had yet been instituted. Yet Cain knew his guilt ('sin') and it left its permanent mark on him.

.

aa5874 · 11-02-2011, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

gMark's Jesus is TOTALLY OBSOLETE.

1. He was NOT KNOWN as Christ to the Jews.

2.There was ANOTHER person KNOWN as Christ.

3. John the Baptist ALREADY Provided Salvation for the Jews by his Baptism.

4. Jesus did NOT Baptise any one with the Holy Ghost at all in gMark.

......ALL I KNOW it is claimed Jesus WALKED on sea and Transfigured. Those claims SUPPORT the MYTH Jesus theory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Since those claims must be false, I don't see how they can support any theory. As I said before, you give the impression of struggling extraordinarily hard to prove something without ever giving a clear statement of what that something is.

Myth Fables and FICTION stories are EXPECTED to have FALSE INFORMATION.

The information in Plutarch's "Romulus" is FALSE.

Romulus and Remus were human brothers BORN of the same woman and lived and died in Rome. It is claimed Romulus resurrected or ascended. The story is FICTION and Romulus and Remus are considered MYTHOLOGICAL.

The Jesus story in gMark is MYTH. Jesus walked on water, Transfigured and was RAISED from the dead. These claims SATISFY the MYTH Jesus theory.

J-D · 11-02-2011, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

There is no such thing as 'remission of sin' because there is no such thing as 'sin',

What ever gave you that idea?
At the very least what is identified in the Bible by the word 'sin' is any trespass (violation) against the Laws of Moses.
"Sin is the transgression of The Law" nothing supernatural about that, and it is a truth that all men (and women) violate at least some of those Laws, Statutes, and Ordinances.

Gentiles were (and are) not directly subject to these 'Moses given' laws. However Gentiles have always had their own laws, if not formal, then informal, and in having these 'laws' transgressions of those laws do happen, and when they happen guilts accrue.
Guilt that is so incurred is the Gentile functional equivalent of sin. Knowledge of ones guilt is knowledge that one has trespassed against a just and right law of ones society and committed a wrong against his fellow man, and most often him or her-self also.

If you steal or if you murder you are guilty before the law, and even though you may escape detection, the stain upon your conscience, and that corrosive corruption upon your character will remain as an indelible part of your personality (nephesh)
Unless you make amends, in paying whatever price or penalty the Law requires, along with sincere contrition, your guilt will remain upon you, polluting your life in myriad subtle ways. Your pleasures well be less pleasing, your relationships with others will be a little less open and honest that they could be. Your sleep will be less refreshing, and even the food you eat will be less satisfying.

Even the little 'social' trespasses such as talking-trash about an acquaintance, telling 'white lies', or thinking what you know to be inappropriate thoughts. They all add up, and do rob you of being that 'clean' and 'whole' person that you would otherwise be, and it also robs your family, and society as a whole of those benefits and contributions that you might have otherwise made if you were not carrying around that load.
All of us that have a conscience and a sufficient level of comprehension to recognize when we are guilty of something, have experienced and know what 'sin' is.

(Like Eskimos have several identifying words for differing qualities of snow, the Hebrew actually has several idioms for identifying different aspects and qualities of 'sin'. Our English word 'sin' is generic, whereas the Hebrew terms are quite specific in identifying what type of sin the sin is)

Violation of a human law may be a crime, but not a sin. Sin is violation of the law of God. But there is no God, so there is no sin.

You are only capable of thinking at your limited level of knowledge. What the English term may convey to you, is not identical to nor indicative of what the Hebrew terms convey to those that are able to recognize and appreciate the idioms.

If you knew the meaning of the Biblical terms you would know how wrong your claim is. Atheist Hebrew speakers employ these same words.
Even without a belief in any god the terms relate to aspects of human thought and behavior, and to the interrelationships between humans, not to a relationship with a deity, although for the religious they do that too.

Perhaps it would help your comprehension if I were to supply some examples from a source accessible to you.

Quote:

ויען ראובן אתם לאמר הלוא אמרתי אליכם לאמר אל־תחטאו בילד ולא שמעתם

"Reuben replied, "Didn't I tell you not to sin against the boy? But you wouldn't listen!" (Genesis 42:22)

אם־יחטא איש לאיש ופללו אלהים

"If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him:" (1 Sam 2:25)

ידבר יהונתן בדוד טוב אל־שאול אביו ויאמר אליו אל־יחטא המלך בעבדו בדוד כי לוא חטא לך וכי מעשיו טוב־לך מאד׃

"Thus Jonathan spoke well of David to Saul his father, and said to him, "Let not the king sin against his servant, against David, because he has not sinned against you, and because his works have been very good toward you." (1 Sam 19:4)

As you can see, each of these examples relates to wrongs ('sins') between humans.

In the Bible there are those 'sins' that are committed against ones fellow man, and there are those sins that are violations of The Laws.

Yet before any Laws at all were given, 'sins' were already being committed man against man, as for example between Able and Cain;

Quote:

הלוא אם־תיטיב שאת ואם לא תיטיב לפתח חטאת רבץ ואליך תשוקתו ואתה תמשל־בו׃

7. "If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it."...

8. And Cain talked with Abel his brother; and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him."
(Genesis 4:7-8)

It was not violation against The Law because no Laws had yet been instituted. Yet Cain knew his guilt ('sin') and it left its permanent mark on him.

.

None of those quotes refer to 'remission of sin'. I agree that there are different concepts of 'sin' (different ways of using the word), but what's relevant here is a concept of 'sin' (a way of using the word) which makes it possible to talk meaningfully of a 'remission of sin'. For there to be a 'remission of sin', there has to be somebody who does the remitting.

J-D · 11-02-2011, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

gMark's Jesus is TOTALLY OBSOLETE.

1. He was NOT KNOWN as Christ to the Jews.

2.There was ANOTHER person KNOWN as Christ.

3. John the Baptist ALREADY Provided Salvation for the Jews by his Baptism.

4. Jesus did NOT Baptise any one with the Holy Ghost at all in gMark.

......ALL I KNOW it is claimed Jesus WALKED on sea and Transfigured. Those claims SUPPORT the MYTH Jesus theory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Since those claims must be false, I don't see how they can support any theory. As I said before, you give the impression of struggling extraordinarily hard to prove something without ever giving a clear statement of what that something is.

Myth Fables and FICTION stories are EXPECTED to have FALSE INFORMATION.

The information in Plutarch's "Romulus" is FALSE.

Romulus and Remus were human brothers BORN of the same woman and lived and died in Rome. It is claimed Romulus resurrected or ascended. The story is FICTION and Romulus and Remus are considered MYTHOLOGICAL.

The Jesus story in gMark is MYTH. Jesus walked on water, Transfigured and was RAISED from the dead. These claims SATISFY the MYTH Jesus theory.

If the 'myth Jesus theory' means the theory that some of the statements using the name Jesus in the canonical gospels are not literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, then I, at least, am not disputing it, the case is made out, and there's no need to keep repeating it.

If the 'myth Jesus theory' means the theory that none of the statements using the name Jesus in the canonical gospels are literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, then repeated references to the same selected examples are never going to be enough to establish the case.

If you are not prepared to clarify what you mean by 'the myth Jesus theory', then you make yourself look deliberately obscurantist and therefore stupid.

aa5874 · 11-02-2011, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

gMark's Jesus is TOTALLY OBSOLETE.

1. He was NOT KNOWN as Christ to the Jews.

2.There was ANOTHER person KNOWN as Christ.

3. John the Baptist ALREADY Provided Salvation for the Jews by his Baptism.

4. Jesus did NOT Baptise any one with the Holy Ghost at all in gMark.

......ALL I KNOW it is claimed Jesus WALKED on sea and Transfigured. Those claims SUPPORT the MYTH Jesus theory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Since those claims must be false, I don't see how they can support any theory. As I said before, you give the impression of struggling extraordinarily hard to prove something without ever giving a clear statement of what that something is.

Myth Fables and FICTION stories are EXPECTED to have FALSE INFORMATION.

The information in Plutarch's "Romulus" is FALSE.

Romulus and Remus were human brothers BORN of the same woman and lived and died in Rome. It is claimed Romulus resurrected or ascended. The story is FICTION and Romulus and Remus are considered MYTHOLOGICAL.

The Jesus story in gMark is MYTH. Jesus walked on water, Transfigured and was RAISED from the dead. These claims SATISFY the MYTH Jesus theory.

If the 'myth Jesus theory' means the theory that some of the statements using the name Jesus in the canonical gospels are not literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, then I, at least, am not disputing it, the case is made out, and there's no need to keep repeating it.

If the 'myth Jesus theory' means the theory that none of the statements using the name Jesus in the canonical gospels are literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, then repeated references to the same selected examples are never going to be enough to establish the case.

If you are not prepared to clarify what you mean by 'the myth Jesus theory', then you make yourself look deliberately obscurantist and therefore stupid.

I really can't help you.

You seem to have difficulty understanding what words mean. I told you to buy a dictionary. Have you done so yet?

I am right NOW Presenting WRITTEN evidence from gMark which SUPPORTS the Myth Jesus theory.

In gMark, it is claimed that ONE mightier than John the Baptist would come.

This MIGHTY-ONE would Baptize with a Holy Ghost, not with WATER.

Later, in gMark, this MIGHTY-ONE did come and a Holy Ghost Bird lighted upon him at his Baptism.

After the Holy Ghost Bird Baptism Jesus PROCEEDED to behave like a Ghost, WALKING on water, and being Transfigured--the disciples SAW him, too.

But, Jesus, the Mighty-one did NOT do what he was supposed to do.

The Mighty-one did NOT Baptize anyone with the Holy Ghost.

Instead, he was FEEDING thousands with a few PIECES of bread and Fish and INSTANTLY healing incurable diseases with spit and touch.

The story of the MIGHTY-ONE in gMark is a MYTH Fable.

Jesus was the WRONG MIGHTY-ONE.

Jesus of gMark is FAKE MIGHTY-ONE.

That is ALL I NEED for the Myth Jesus theory..

The FAKE MIGHTY-ONE is documented and they call him Jesus.

Sheshbazzar · 11-02-2011, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

None of those quotes refer to 'remission of sin'. I agree that there are different concepts of 'sin' (different ways of using the word), but what's relevant here is a concept of 'sin' (a way of using the word) which makes it possible to talk meaningfully of a 'remission of sin'.

For there to be a 'remission of sin', there has to be somebody who does the remitting.

That is what Xianity would like for you to believe and to accept.

I wrote earlier how 'sin' is the equivalent of 'guilt' and how an individuals 'guilts' accrue, and end up affecting their personality and life on every level.

How does one receive 'remission of sins'? How does a person that knows and is aware of a lifelong accumulation of wrongs against others receive a 'remission' of that burden of accumulated guilt? and attain again to a innocent, clear and untroubled conscience?

Whereas Xianity postulates that a 'someone' (Zombie Jebus) is able to 'remit sins' or remit the burden of guilt for wrongs done against others, The claim is a farce.
No 'someone' else can ever do for a person, what that person alone must do for themselves.
That is, take full and personal and responsibility for their fuck-ups and 'sins' of wrongs done to others, and work at making amends, so personally paying the 'price' of ones own 'sin'

No imaginary being can become responsible for the thoughts and acts of others. 'The Devil made me do it' is not a valid excuse.
And 'Jebus made a sacrifice for', or 'remittied my sins' is only an exercise in self-delusion and an avoidance of taking on personal responsibilty by 'coming clean' and reversing that accumulation of 'sin' guilt, by personally changing ones mind to the thinking good thoughts, diplaying good will, and doing good deeds towards all men.

If you have ever wronged someone, and you are aware of your guilt in it, it is your responsibilty to return and to do a greater labor of love and good towards that person.
Sky-daddy or Zombie ain't never going to do it for you. That route is a self-deluding cop out.
If that person is now dead, or otherwise unavailable, the labor of contrition, repentance, and love may be directed toward others.
One cannot undo what has already been done against another. One can (sometimes) ask for forgiveness from the one that was wronged, but obtaining that forgiveness might require restitution, but it might not, and one never knows unless they try.

And no, Zombie Jebus is not going to go to that person whom you wronged, and make the needed apologies, amends, or restitution for you.
Some things in life a person simply just has to buck-up, and do for themselves.
Did mommy ever make you apologise to someone? Or did she tell you, 'Don't bother, Jebus will do it for you' ?

ששבצר העברי

.

J-D · 11-02-2011, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

gMark's Jesus is TOTALLY OBSOLETE.

1. He was NOT KNOWN as Christ to the Jews.

2.There was ANOTHER person KNOWN as Christ.

3. John the Baptist ALREADY Provided Salvation for the Jews by his Baptism.

4. Jesus did NOT Baptise any one with the Holy Ghost at all in gMark.

......ALL I KNOW it is claimed Jesus WALKED on sea and Transfigured. Those claims SUPPORT the MYTH Jesus theory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Since those claims must be false, I don't see how they can support any theory. As I said before, you give the impression of struggling extraordinarily hard to prove something without ever giving a clear statement of what that something is.

Myth Fables and FICTION stories are EXPECTED to have FALSE INFORMATION.

The information in Plutarch's "Romulus" is FALSE.

Romulus and Remus were human brothers BORN of the same woman and lived and died in Rome. It is claimed Romulus resurrected or ascended. The story is FICTION and Romulus and Remus are considered MYTHOLOGICAL.

The Jesus story in gMark is MYTH. Jesus walked on water, Transfigured and was RAISED from the dead. These claims SATISFY the MYTH Jesus theory.

If the 'myth Jesus theory' means the theory that some of the statements using the name Jesus in the canonical gospels are not literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, then I, at least, am not disputing it, the case is made out, and there's no need to keep repeating it.

If the 'myth Jesus theory' means the theory that none of the statements using the name Jesus in the canonical gospels are literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, then repeated references to the same selected examples are never going to be enough to establish the case.

If you are not prepared to clarify what you mean by 'the myth Jesus theory', then you make yourself look deliberately obscurantist and therefore stupid.

I really can't help you.

You seem to have difficulty understanding what words mean. I told you to buy a dictionary. Have you done so yet?

I am right NOW Presenting WRITTEN evidence from gMark which SUPPORTS the Myth Jesus theory.

In gMark, it is claimed that ONE mightier than John the Baptist would come.

This MIGHTY-ONE would Baptize with a Holy Ghost, not with WATER.

Later, in gMark, this MIGHTY-ONE did come and a Holy Ghost Bird lighted upon him at his Baptism.

After the Holy Ghost Bird Baptism Jesus PROCEEDED to behave like a Ghost, WALKING on water, and being Transfigured--the disciples SAW him, too.

But, Jesus, the Mighty-one did NOT do what he was supposed to do.

The Mighty-one did NOT Baptize anyone with the Holy Ghost.

Instead, he was FEEDING thousands with a few PIECES of bread and Fish and INSTANTLY healing incurable diseases with spit and touch.

The story of the MIGHTY-ONE in gMark is a MYTH Fable.

Jesus was the WRONG MIGHTY-ONE.

Jesus of gMark is FAKE MIGHTY-ONE.

That is ALL I NEED for the Myth Jesus theory..

The FAKE MIGHTY-ONE is documented and they call him Jesus.

I know how to look up words in dictionaries. Dictionaries offer several different definitions for the word 'myth'; I don't know which specific one you have in mind, because you won't say. Dictionaries also offer several different definitions of the word 'theory'; I don't know which specific one you have in mind because you won't say. No dictionary I know of would have an entry for 'myth Jesus theory', so I don't know what specifically you mean by that and you won't say. As I explained before, it's impossible to say whether the evidence you've presented is good enough evidence for the 'myth Jesus theory' until you clarify what you mean by 'myth Jesus theory'; I've shown how on one interpretation it does and on another interpretation it doesn't. Your continued obscurantist preference to refuse clarification continues to make you look stupid.

J-D · 11-02-2011, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

None of those quotes refer to 'remission of sin'. I agree that there are different concepts of 'sin' (different ways of using the word), but what's relevant here is a concept of 'sin' (a way of using the word) which makes it possible to talk meaningfully of a 'remission of sin'.

For there to be a 'remission of sin', there has to be somebody who does the remitting.

That is what Xianity would like for you to believe and to accept.

I wrote earlier how 'sin' is the equivalent of 'guilt' and how an individuals 'guilts' accrue, and end up affecting their personality and life on every level.

How does one receive 'remission of sins'? How does a person that knows and is aware of a lifelong accumulation of wrongs against others receive a 'remission' of that burden of accumulated guilt? and attain again to a innocent, clear and untroubled conscience?

Whereas Xianity postulates that a 'someone' (Zombie Jebus) is able to 'remit sins' or remit the burden of guilt for wrongs done against others, The claim is a farce.
No 'someone' else can ever do for a person, what that person alone must do for themselves.
That is, take full and personal and responsibility for their fuck-ups and 'sins' of wrongs done to others, and work at making amends, so personally paying the 'price' of ones own 'sin'

No imaginary being can become responsible for the thoughts and acts of others. 'The Devil made me do it' is not a valid excuse.
And 'Jebus made a sacrifice for', or 'remittied my sins' is only an exercise in self-delusion and an avoidance of taking on personal responsibilty by 'coming clean' and reversing that accumulation of 'sin' guilt, by personally changing ones mind to the thinking good thoughts, diplaying good will, and doing good deeds towards all men.

If you have ever wronged someone, and you are aware of your guilt in it, it is your responsibilty to return and to do a greater labor of love and good towards that person.
Sky-daddy or Zombie ain't never going to do it for you. That route is a self-deluding cop out.
If that person is now dead, or otherwise unavailable, the labor of contrition, repentance, and love may be directed toward others.
One cannot undo what has already been done against another. One can (sometimes) ask for forgiveness from the one that was wronged, but obtaining that forgiveness might require restitution, but it might not, and one never knows unless they try.

And no, Zombie Jebus is not going to go to that person whom you wronged, and make the needed apologies, amends, or restitution for you.
Some things in life a person simply just has to buck-up, and do for themselves.
Did mommy ever make you apologise to someone? Or did she tell you, 'Don't bother, Jebus will do it for you' ?

ששבצר העברי

.

My position is that there is no such thing as 'remission of sin'. I am unable to tell from what you are saying whether you agree with this.

Toto · 11-02-2011, 09:54 PM

Some posts have been split off here. You won't miss them.

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

11-02-2011, 09:54 PM	#200
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Some posts have been split off here. You won't miss them.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.