Radorth

That was sarcasm, well deserved by one calling me an idiot.

I can't imagine a more brilliant or efficacious solution to the dilemma. The alternate "solutions" presented here have been shown to be fraught with problems and contradictions. It is obvious from reading the NT that it was a joyful revelation to the first Christians as well. "They disbelieved for joy." Nice touch, don't you think?

I've never equated "anything" atheist with Stalin. It's quite apparent I was pointing out the weakness of such a statement, to all but a cynic who has prejudged my motives.

What's the difference? Just a question for those who claim a righteousness of their own, advocate "personal responsibility" while blaming others and who judge others as I have been judged here.

Nice try though. Not quite as sophomorically inane as W's posts. How old are you? 26?

Well I've spent as much time with you boys as I can. Fenton thinks I should find something better to do with my time now that he's done with me.

Rad

Llyricist

I'm fully aware it was sarcasm, but that doesn't stop it from being bait to such comments as "No further comment necessary" or "finally an admission!!" or "now you're getting it!!", but I would never think of saying anything like that

What dilemma is that? The guilt all non socio/psychopaths have due to their naturally occurring conscience? The alternative "solutions" presented here are all based on the assumption of externalizing the conscience to start with, which no-one proposing the solutions does.

When you speak of the brilliance of it, I can't help but wonder if you are more cynical than most professed atheists, I have seen many cynics speak admirably of people like Billy Graham, not because of the content of his teachings (or preachings), but his ability to bend the will of the crowd to his agenda (and make lots of tax free money in the process). Is that what you are driving at? It's a brilliant way to suck in the gullible masses and make them feel good about giving their everything to the church? In that I guess I would have to agree, but I'm not cynic enough to actually condone it.

Maybe you haven't equated "anything" atheist to Stalin, but you put words in his mouth with very dubious justification at best. And that makes it weaker than anyone professing their OWN beliefs about their own actions. And it still falls into the rubric of typical self-righteous Christian rejoinders regardless of whether you are one or not.

If you are implying that I am such a cynic, as I think I made clear above, I have no idea what your motives may be, all I'm responding to is what you say.

That's a rather back-handed compliment
Older by a bit more than half dude. (but I still feel 15 )

winstonjen

Thank you Llyricist for backing me up. You said pretty much all I wanted to say. I still have a bone to pick with Radorth, however.

What about THIS, then?

So why did you pick Jesus over Mohammed? In any case, Jesus preached love, but was still willing to condemn people to hell for not having faith in him. How loving.

Radorth, I said that I had no reason to think you are NOT an idiot. You can change this perception I have of you by changing your behaviour here on these forums.

hinduwoman

There is no justice there, and you, claiming you take responsiblity for all your sins would scream like a gutshot banshee about Hitler getting off with a slap on the wrist, wouldn't you?
______________________________________________

Radorth, of course I will. That is what non-Christians are saying --- if you punish a man according to his deeds, that is justice; when you substitute an innocent for the guilty it is not justice, though obviously great for the criminals concerned. I will be punished according my sins, and Hitler according to his.

__________________________________________
No, justice requires that we admit we are sinners all
____________________________________________

And that is the crux. Non-christians would admit that they have in sinners in various degrees, but not that they are born sinners. Nor that they require salvation. To say that salvation through grace is offered is to say be morally lazy.
BTW, some Hindu sects in the 16th century started to say that only faith in their gods is needed to purify one of sins, (christian influence probably) --- but I expect you will counter with explanation that those gods are false and only Christ is true.

______________________________________________
The raw truth is that the holier you think you are, the less you can appreciate the cross, and the more unjust, unmerciful and self-righteous you likely are.
____________________________________________

Translated: the more you hate yourself convinced you are a bad person, the more you realize the cross is a splendid escape route, which do not demand anything --- intellectual or moral --- from you, and the more you go on a campaign to persuade everyone that they must hate themselves as well and not rely on themselves to be good. Misery loves company!


_______________________________________________
--It is obvious from reading the NT that it was a joyful revelation to the first Christians as well. "They disbelieved for joy."
________________________________________________

Of course it was joyful. If a judge told me, "hey you have been found guilty of murder; but what the heck, I sent my innocent son to the chair and you are free", I would have been joyous too. Such moral shortcuts are always a joyous event for the criminal concerned.

Radorth

And so the thief on the cross should have been condemned, and kids who had terrible upbringings and stole all their lives should be punished.

Sorry, I don't think it is the Christians being cold and self-righteous, not compared to yo anyway. Like David said-"Lord if you took all our sins into account, who could stand?"

The cross IS God taking responsibility for his creation, as much as he can. It enables him to save every person if he so chooses although some like Hitler and the Pharisee types seem doomed. (Incorrigible hypercrites and hypocrites I call those who are lost)

Better than the self-righteousness "I need nothing. I pay for all my own sins. Tough luck for the weak and irresponsible." Again this is far colder, and ironically inconsistent with "A good God wouldn't punish his own creation."

Yes he would, if he was fair and hust, but he would also provide a means to save a repentant thief on his dying day by paying off his debt somehow. That is a good and just God.

Nice try though.

Rad

winstonjen

Radorth:

Too bad that the victims of the thief probably feel shortchanged. As the thief did not rob from god (how COULD he, according to the biblical description of god?), unless you claim that he stole himself from god by not living the life god wanted him to. So how is god justified in claiming the debt was repaid, when the existence of a debt to begin with is questionable?

The Xian religion seems to make a big sin out of the smallest transgressions for no good reason other than 'god said so'. Doesn't seem good and just to me.

Radorth

But if he forgives them as readily, he's unjust.

If an idiot can see such glaring contradictions in thinking, what does that make you and some other skeptics here Winstonjen?

Take a Zen course man, before you post again. Time to pay the Piper there, bub.

:banghead: Rad

Radorth

"And to what shall I liken this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their companions, saying

'We played the flute for you and you did not dance

We mourned to you and you did not lament.'"


Most appropriate to this thread and certain posts, I think.

Rad

winstonjen

It is easy for people to beg for forgiveness. It is much harder for them to take responsibility for their actions and pay the penalty.

If you know so much about Zen, YOU explain it to the rest of us. Then you won't have an excuse to use your condescending tone.