Radorth

Why? Can't you read? I answered them but you didn't like the answers. Ever heard of agreeing to disagree? That's what rational, tolerant people generally do, no?

Sure they will. I've been hearing that for 4 years. So either I make good arguments, or they think the readers are all morons. There is no in between really. What questions did I not answer? You will find you aren't keeping up, I'm sure. Nevertheless, I will reduce posting when the number of readers/responders falls off. (Hint) The insults won't work. And who would you blame for the "problems" on II except us fundies?

Wow, where is Rhea when the atheists lose it?

Oh that's right. The II double standard. I forget. Yes, the Christians are held to a higher standard. Peter makes that pretty clear, but you know, it gets stupid after awhile. And I can't resist holding up mirrors, I admit.

Rad

Radorth

And we all know how your flawless logic works. The perfectly "unlimited" God can only do what you agree is OK, right? If he makes an exception to save the whole world, he can't be God.

Wonderful. So glad God puts love above your "logic" which reminds me of a Pharisaic legalism more than anything.

Rad

Yellum Notnef

Radorth,
I notice you`re back blowing your own horn and doing yet another unmerited victory dance. Do you think you could take a few minutes from your nightly tirade to answer my questions?

In response to my question regarding the origin of the sins Jesus had to die for,you said:

The questions:

1.)What rules? What philosophies? Where in the bible does it say anything about Jesus paying for Gods dislike of our rules and philosophies?

2.)Where in the bible does it say that we wouldn`t have to work or wear any clothes if we behaved ourselves in the manner that you believe God wants us to behave?
(laying around naked all day and not having to work sounds quite a bit like the biblical Garden of Eden. I thought you said this part of the bible was just a fable and not to be taken literally?)

I believe that you pulled this right out of your ass. Prove me wrong.

Hedwig

We?

Ernest Sparks

hinduwoman,

Back to your question:


"Who told Jesus to die for me? I never did. He took the job on himself and if he expects me to be grateful he is out of luck".


A common christian answer is that God, being God and therefore creator of all (except God) and sovereign over all things, can do what he wants. He selected Jesus Christ to die for the sins of all mankind. But humans are always free to reject salvation, even though christians don't recommend that.

Certain christians, however, hardcore calvinist christians, say that God elects those humans to be saved and leaves the rest to be damned. There is no choice. They say that saved people irresistibly are drawn to the bible-based christian teachings and will never reject it. In short, no choices.

believe it or not.

Jayjay

You have consistently avoided answering the question, why did God need to use crucifixion instead of some other method? Lots of people have asked you this, but your answers have gone on odd tangents on free will and other crap (granted, some people did ask about other crap). So, please tell me, how would God not be able to achieve any goal he wants by snapping his fingers? Or if that's too abstract, what's wrong with Jesus dying of old age? Or just dying by his own will? Why does he need to be murdered in a specific way by someone before he can forgive totally unrelated sins? Or, if I may add yet another tangent, why didn't God bother sending Jesus to the folks before the flood, or to convert Adam and Eve?

This scheme of yorus to save everyone is just as silly as "smoking pot and burning his bra". The crucifixion plot and its timing is ridiculously arbitrary... if Jesus had tripped over a tortoise or stabbed to death by a highway robber, you christians would be ranting how "brilliant" it was that God tripped over or got stabbed for your sins!

You have utterly failed to actually answer the "whys", instead you blabber on and on about "hows".

Dr Rick

A perfect god would do everything perfectly; if he couldn't or wouldn't, then he could not be perfect.

He would still be a god, but not a perfect god; he can't be perfect if he is not perfect.

huh?

Radorth

He's fine with me, and he is who he is. The fact that I find a fault doesn't mean he has one

I specifically answered this. Please read the thread.

I specifically answered this. It accomplishes nothing of value to us, as shown in the Exodus.

He did die by his own will. Remember, he could have called down legions of angels by snapping his fingers, but his purpose would not have been accomplished.

He came when he came. As usual we like to make a lot of sick history before we learn anything. God seems surprised himself at how evil the world had become. I sometimes wonder if he comtemplated all the evil that would be invented.

BTW, can an omnipotent God choose not to be omniscient? Just questioning your pedantic definitions. Why does he have to be omniscient to be "good"? IMO, this is just an inane assumption with no basis.

Rad

Dr Rick

Yes, and then he would still be omnipotent, but not omniscient.

scombrid

So god works in mysterious ways? That's your answer eh.

That doesn't address the logical problem of a being sacrificing himself to himself to appease himself for sins committed by his creation. He's omnimax, right. Why the convoluted method?

That's like a software manufacturer selling a software patch to fix a problem in software that they created. Either the manufacturer was incompetent and created faulty software by accident or they deliberately built in a flaw so they could sell you the fix.