SanDiegoAtheist

You're right Radorth...you DID answer my question (sort of).

/sarcasm on

It appears that our notion of "Justice" must be thoroughly clouded by sin, and that "God-Justice" is, of course, the PROPER form of "Justice". "God-Justice" apparently has it that wrongs must be paid for, but it doesn't really matter who pays for them, just so long as it's paid.

Whoohoo, what a revelation. Cool - this makes life so much easier for us all. Who cares if the cops catch the RIGHT person who committed the crime. Just so long as they catch and punish SOMEONE, ANYONE, the crime is paid for. That's "God-Justice" for ya. Very simple - next time a wrong is committed, just grab the nearest person and turn them into a scapegoat - it's RIGHT in God's eyes (obviously, since Jesus was supposedly a scapegoat for us all, huh Rad?)

John Ashcroft will love ya for this revelation.

/sarcasm off

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

scombrid

What God? Saved the world from what? Without an afterlife sin is meaningless beyond the earthly consequences of our actions.

I can think of 45,001 examples of how people pretending to obey god suffer for there actions and/or cause others to suffer. How about the parents who let their child suffer and die because they rely on prayer and refuse medical care because they think they’re obeying god.

Every example of supposed disobedience to your supposed god causing suffering will have secular reasons for avoiding that behavior without prescription from god. Of course, for starters you might do us the pleasure of establishing that the supposed orders from god, actually come from god before you tell us how we’re disobeying it.

Radorth

No, it doesn't for those whom a righteous and good God wishes to save one way or another. And we have come full circle to my assertion that God has through the cross demonstrated perfect love and perfect justice.

Your definition of a "good" God would apparently deny salvation to one who had not paid for each sin committed. Right? That's cold man.

Keep it up. The irony will kill me eventually.

And I assume, like Hindu woman, you will pay for all your sins. Meanwhile if I run over a kid while speeding to the hospital on my dying day, I'm covered.


Rad

Radorth

Of course it is, and it's true whether you believe in God or not. You just don't like it.

What is your point anyway other than trying to derail the discussion?

Rad

Radorth

What the hell does this have to do with anything. You are just making irrelavent assertions because you ran out of arguments I guess. What was that about asserting what you would like to prove?

Rad

Yellum Notnef

I have no idea what you`re talking about,but whatever it is it certainly does not answer my simple question about where the sin came from if there was no Adam & Eve.

*I`m* derailing this discussion???? Does anyone else here think I`m trying to derail this discussion or is this just Radorth looking for yet another escape hatch?

My point is to have you tell me where the sin came from that Jesus died to pay for. This sin was said to originate with Adam & Eve,but now you say the A&E account isn`t literal.
So where does this leave us?
Without no sin Jesus` mission is pointless as well as all this junk you keep spouting about "the cross".

Show me some biblical proof that this sin comes from somewhere other than A&E or just admit that you can`t answer the question.

Btw,This is open to any other Christian who`d like to take a shot at it since old Radorth here isn`t being very helpful.

scombrid

A you missed the rest of my post apparently or had no answer for it.

Anyhow, I haven’t made an assertion, I have decided not to grant yours for the sake of argument. You assert that there is a god, that you know his laws, and that we're disobeying them and suffering for it. Since you assert these things you must support them. This: "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins." is an assertion that assumes that god exists, has concrete edicts that we must follow, and sacrificed himself to himself to absolve our disobedience. No longer will I treat those as having happened so that I can deconstruct them. You must prove their existence before I will contend their merits or utter lack thereof. You must learn not to mistake assumptions granted for argument's sake for assumptions accepted as proved.


You asked for disobedient acts that don’t bring suffering: DISCLAIMER: I don’t actually believe that this constitute sdisobedience or obedience to anything as no one has established the existence of divine law. I’m simply pointing out that the supposed consequences appear non-existent so I’m guessing that the laws don’t really exist either

Keep the sabbath holy. Which sabbath? Well, it doesn’t matter for me. I’ve worked Saturdays and Sundays for quite some time now. Where’s the suffering from that disobedience? Am I to be smitten soon? You cannot even establish where there is direct correlation between disobedience and suffering (other than obvious social offenses such as violence or dishonest both of which are wrong in social groups in less intelligent animals than humans). Sabbath breakers should have a higher death/suffering rate than holy rollers but do they? Please give me an example where misfortune befalls the unholy at a rate greater than the holy. What about the tree that fell on the Baptist minister’s car last year and killed him and his family? Were they called home, smitten for some unknown offense to god, or was it just dumb rotten luck? You can’t tell me can you. You can make up some hand waving answer in which you profess to know what god wanted but you can’t establish any causal link between your supposed god and that tree falling when and where it did.

Would you like more obedient acts that bring suffering? again with the disclaimer that the obedience is pretend since the obedient don’t really receive marching orders from any god

Amos

Hello Fenton, is it OK to reply if I am a Catholic?

If Radorth is done I can show why you are all wrong and I think our friend Hinduwoman is just stirring the salemandrine fires here (you've got to love that girl for doing that in revenge).

The problem I see is that Jesus did not die for our sins specifically but "he died for the sins of the world." The "sins of the world" were the sins of his own word and I think it was Paul who hauled ass with this when he led people to believe that Jesus died for the sins of everybodies world. This was rather clever of Paul who was looking for followers but without proper guidance this will leave many people stranded in the end. This "end" will be when they find out that Paul tried to say is that we must pick up our own cross so we can follow Jesus and in the same way die to the sins of our own world and in that way "drink out of the cup he drank" (yes indeed, such are the teachings of Catholic theology).

To identify the sins of his world that comprised the cross that burdended Jesus, and from which he sought relief, we must look at the human nature of Jesus as distinct from the divine nature wherewith Jesus was divided. Understand here that Jesus was both "human" and "man in the image of God." We can now postulate that the sins of Jesus were his human nature and that this same human nature was to be crucified and if he could pull that one off he could walk away from it as God without a human nature to be divided with. That would follow, would it not?

Opposite this is the fact that Jesus did not sin (as Jesus) and the reason why Jesus did not sin is because he was set free from the Law that was needed for the conviction of sin. . . and therefore he could not possibly sin.

So now we have a sinless person who is heavily burdened with the sins of his own world. Right? To explain this we must look at the life of Joseph, who was carpenter for the simple reason that carpenters are know to make many things, and since all things are made in sin: Joseph was a big sinner! How, then, do the sins of Joseph become the burden of Jesus? Because Jesus was the reborn Joseph unto whom Christ was born. Yes, as they sing, "he [Joseph] was a new creation" and therefore now called Jesus.

All/most born-again Christians will have what they call "the gift of discernment" as their first awakening wherein their sinful nature becomes amplified. This keen discernment highlights their cross that they must carry to their own Calvary and so the mistake they make is to claim that Jesus did it for them. Hence they will remain torn in this same dual relationship with themselves (which is hell if you ask Dan Barker) and die as such nonetheless (and it don't matter how much they read the bible). Notice also that they happily declare (if not boast) that they are saved-sinners.

Daggah

Psst. And why is that? Because your omnipotent god apparently could not find any other way. Your god can do anything (such is the definition of omnipotence), but apparently he can't find a way to forgive our sins without shedding blood. And it's totally baffling how, exactly, bloodshed has anything to do with sin in the first place.

God creates man. God makes man flawed. God decides that man should suffer for man's being created flawed. God then decides that becoming a man and then killing himself via the most painful method of execution at the time would somehow save man from God's decision to make man suffer.

This is the belief that your faith rests on, Radorth.

And it doesn't make any sense. At all. And it never will, no matter how hard dishonest apologists like yourself try to claim it does.

hinduwoman

Radorth, the problem appears to be that:
God declared what should be sin.
God decided who will be punsihed and how.
God decided what scapegoat is required to redeem people from sin HE declared they committed.

If the argument is that since God is creator and omnipotent, he gets to decide everything, then he is really like a Mafia Don, no?