I Didn’t Ask Anyone To Die For Me.

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 281
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
I addressed this. Just because you're pretending not to have seen it doesn't make it disappear.
You didn’t address it as a whole. You nitpicked closely related words.

Nope. I just want you to use the definition from the context I gave, not your childish idea that words can only have one meaning regardless of context
Can you clearly define it please?
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@rosends
...his experience is not corroborated by anyone, either as witnesses or those who can offer material support.
Do you have any witnesses and any corroboration?

Of what?
Lol.

I didn't say I corroborated anything.

I didn't claim that you did. I said you cannot.
Of course not capt. O. I wasn't there, and it was 6,000 years ago!

That could be taken either as a specific statement about you, or as a generic statement of the inability of anyone to corroborate that which he was not privy to personally.
It is good that you are willing to admit sloppy writing.

Complex" being liberal code for contradictory.

No, "complex" meaning that I recognize inherent human bias in presenting a perception of fact.
Except you do not recognize that bias in yourself. Typical.

I don't recall saying that,..
That is probably because I said it.

so your response, imputing it to me is inaccurate. 
Something tells me you don't know what "impute" means.

Your gifts at language precision are legendary.... in your own mind Rosends. Got a little megalomania to go with that anal retention?
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Reece101
I addressed this. Just because you're pretending not to have seen it doesn't make it disappear.
You didn’t address it as a whole. You nitpicked closely related words.
I addressed it. You don't like that I addressed it so well, you have no viable comeback.

Nope. I just want you to use the definition from the context I gave, not your childish idea that words can only have one meaning regardless of context
Can you clearly define it please?
I have addressed that too. You must read my replies, otherwise, you remain in the dark.
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
Knowledge is a created thing, it is contingent on a knower. The Truth can not be knowledge.
What is “The Truth” if it’s unknown? 

The God of Truth is greater than knowledge and intelligence.
And what would that be called? Ignorance?
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
I addressed it. You don't like that I addressed it so well, you have no viable comeback.
You didn’t address it as a whole, you nitpicked individual aspects of it.

I have addressed that too. You must read my replies, otherwise, you remain in the dark.
Why are you acting in bad faith?
Can you clearly define “precede” please?
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
I addressed it. You don't like that I addressed it so well, you have no viable comeback.
You didn’t address it as a whole, you nitpicked individual aspects of it.
I addressed and dismembered it.

I have addressed that too. You must read my replies, otherwise, you remain in the dark.
Why are you acting in bad faith?
Your opinion is not fact.

Can you clearly define “precede” please?
I did in post #192. I explained it in depth to you.

Your first phrase above has no verb. Existing is the verb it deletes. Existing everywhere, including time, is not the same as existing "throughout time". Your phrase implies God exists only in time. No wonder you came to the incorrect conclusion that - therefore God does not precede everything.

I told you that God does not exist IN time, as He is the creator of time. He can enter time, but does not need it to exist. Time does flow for God the way it does for men. He is not limited by time in any way.

The "throughout" in your paraphrase, which you incorrectly say is synonymous to "everywhere" in my comment, is limited to time. The "everywhere" in my comment is not limited to time, but includes time. Squint, if that will help you think.

We are creatures trapped in time genius, we have no language for "outside" of time. We are speaking of God, not men, words take meaning from their context. And I told you before your dishonest paraphrase, that God existed outside of time. You have no excuse.

If you cannot understand this, you are not intellectully equipped for thus conversation.
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@ethang5
I note with all your comments (erroneous as they are) you don't actually address any of the points I have made. If, as the case appears, you are more fascinated with labeling and calling names and are unable to discuss points raised, then there seems no utility in trying to advance this conversation. Have a good day.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@rosends
The language precision police could find no probable cause.

You have a good day too Rosends.
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Castin
I never don't like your interpretation of theology, Ev.

Thank you I appreciate that. 

I think this is a beautiful thought, but it still strikes me as a grave injustice for a man to be tortured to death for my sake - for my actions, for my choices, my mistakes - for things he did not do and is not guilty of. If this safety net causes the innocent to suffer, I simply cannot accept it.

Well for one let me make a very generic theist comment and say... who am I to argue with what God sees as legitimate? Lol now that I got that out of the way let me elaborate more on this subject.
Not that this is really relevant to your response but I just want to clear this up a bit. The idea that Jesus was crucified for all of our sins (actions) is somewhat of a blurred concept, because the idea seems to suggest that we are removed from the consequences of our actions which is not a legit spiritual concept to begin with, it is basically a misconception.
What Jesus actually taught (His own words) was that He had the power to "forgive sins", what's the difference? well Jesus did not die to make it appear that human sins don't exist that is not an accurate depiction. Rather what Jesus is teaching is that for those who desire sincerely to abide in a state of moral and spiritual purification, He has the authority to absorb what we don't have the ability to fix. This is the principle of grace of course, but we have to participate in that, it's not an automatic procedure for everyone who sins.
To be forgiven, one must repent and to abide in that forgiveness one must be committed to not commit the same mistakes. So while your past "can" be forgiven one must abide in that state of purification by upholding that state of grace, and we do that through living in a righteous way the best way we know how. When we screw up, the process must be the same....we repent, and considering it's a sincere gesture we move forward and stop doing what we did. When a person repents and has remorse for what they did and looks to the cross of Calvary, instead of God seeing the sins they committed God sees the punishment Jesus absorbed and forgiveness is granted.

Why do we have to consider doing this? well you don't of course, but this goes back to what I was saying about sins don't just dissipate into the air. Actions are eternal because God is eternal and God always sees and feels them...those actions must be absorbed either by you or some other means of absorption. You don't want the full weight of what you've done to be accounted to you when it's all said and done, even though it's a commendable thought, you basically don't really know what you're asking for. It is always better to lean on God for things outside of our scope of understanding because we don't really know the ramifications for things we don't always see. So when you lean on Jesus you're not really ignoring all the things you may have done, rather you're focus is on your mistakes and you know you don't have the power to fix it, so you decide to abide in God's grace that has been prepared for you. Once that is done, you commit to your future by upholding that state of grace through your actions and your attitude towards God.
It's kind of a simple concept and it should be, we just have to get outside our pride so to speak and realize we can't fix everything and we can never go back in time and change what we've done so again, we rely on God as a means of countering things we can't fix.

Sorry about rambling there, but to get to your response I would say okay....but why waste what has been already prepared even though you may not agree with it or may not even fully understand it? if you saw a 100$ bill floating down the street would you go snatch it up or would you let it float into the woods to never be seen again? you may feel bad that somebody lost it, you may not "want" to use somebody else's hard earned cash but you know you can't return it so what do you do? do you take advantage of that situation or waste it?
Jesus knew he was doing something He was not guilty of, that besides the point. Jesus voluntarily chose to absorb that which He thought you would never be able to, you may not like it but why waste the effort? because you can't change it why let it drift away when you could take what is rightfully yours to use?

Don't misunderstand me here, I'm not a proponent of this whole idea about Jesus dying for all sins and we have no accountability for them, or we just say a few words and we are forgiven. Sincere repentance goes much deeper than that! there's a powerful exchange between our repentance and God's forgiveness but I'll leave it that for now. But I do understand grace and so I'm trying to break it down for you in a way you can rationally accept it. I'm sure you won't lol, maybe it will come back to you one day when you really get curious about God and want to get closer to that Reality. Once you do, you may become ashamed because you look back on your life and realize you could have the whole time. Then it may occur to you that you have no way to change that, or fix things you may feel guilty about...except then you remember what ol Jesus did and that He may have provided something useful for you to utilize even though you may not feel fully okay with it. But the urge to feel clean before God outweighs your rejection of that offer and you might even apply it. Either way, something has to absorb sin, so hopefully you won't just fluff it off and never consider it.

You may not find Jesus' offer acceptable and may never apply it. But you can commune with God about forgiveness anyways, and maybe you don't really know why you would ever feel that way because you never really believed in God anyways. But as I said, when the Reality hits you...it's like something that just spontaneously happens, it just comes up and so it's natural to feel ashamed about the self. Once you start to desire to be within the presence of God in a way you never thought about it will force your spirit to look at your imperfections. This isn't to make you feel condemned it's not about that. But you realize more the full weight of what it means to live this life and so you look back at all your wasted motives and intents that they could have been so much more. God then begins to provide grace in that moment, but you to have participate in that and abide in it. What Jesus did simply provides for you an outlet to solve this phenomenon. Had you never heard of Jesus the same thing would still happen, but it makes it easier when someone creates a tool specifically for a job that needs to be done, it simply makes the job easier and more efficient.

I can't be that bright. I'm eating Doritos right now.

Next time go for a bag of grapes!! lol

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Reece101
Knowledge is a conception. It is not eternal. At best, you can only have knowledge of The Truth, but knowledge is created, while The Truth is Uncreated.

Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
Are you saying “The Truth” (God) exists irrespective of observation? 
It seems to me you’re hijacking the word truth for your own opinion.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Reece101
That would be a silly accusation considering this is what we have taught for thousands of years.

Yes, The Absolute Truth, that is, God, does not require observation to exist.


Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
That would be a silly accusation considering this is what we have taught for thousands of years.
Who’s we? Christians? Yeah, go figure. 

Yes, The Absolute Truth, that is, God, does not require observation to exist.
You just need to be taught a 2000 year old ideology?
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Reece101
I don't believe you know as much about orthodoxy as you think you do. You seem pretty dismissive.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Reece101
Obviously, God's existence is not contingent on any ideology.
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
I don't believe you know as much about orthodoxy as you think you do. You seem pretty dismissive.
The orthodoxy of story telling (human tradition) isn’t the most accurate depiction of reality, especially over long periods of time. 

Obviously, God's existence is not contingent on any ideology.
God’s existence or non-existence is not contingent on any ideology, just like the dragon in my garage. 
Do you know what cognitive dissonance is?
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Reece101
To compare acknowledging The Truth as God with your delusion about a dragon in your garage is patently idiotic, and a testament to your nihilistic ways of thinking.

You have no idea what I believe because you are too arrogant.

Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
You have no idea what I believe because you are too arrogant.

It is always someone else that is " arrogant" , isn't it,  mopac?
 It is never those , such as yourself, that claim some higher knowledge even above other Christian sects that are full of not knowing adherents. Yet you all claim that the bible is true.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
We certainly do not believe in the bible the way that protestants do.

And I certainly know what I believe better than you do, or anyone else does.

The arrogance is in telling me what I believe and being unwilling to be corrected because of prejudice.
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
To compare acknowledging The Truth as God with your delusion about a dragon in your garage is patently idiotic, and a testament to your nihilistic ways of thinking
I don’t know, God’s been pretty nihilistic at times with his whole genocidal thing. I take more nuanced approaches to life. 

You have no idea what I believe because you are too arrogant.
You’ve brought up orthodoxy, so I assume you’re Catholic or something similar. 
Do you believe in transubstantiation?

“Transubstantiation, in Christianity, the change by which the substance (though not the appearance) of the bread and wine in the Eucharist becomes Christ's real presence—that is, his body and blood.“
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Reece101
I am an Orthodox Catholic, not a Roman Catholic.

Before we partake of the eucharist, we sing "I will not speak of thy mysteries to thine enemies, neither will I give thee a kiss as did Judas."

Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
I am an Orthodox Catholic, not a Roman Catholic.
From what I’ve read, Orthodox Catholics believe the bread and wine in the eucharist are literally the body and blood of Jesus.
They just don’t use the word transubstantiation.

Before we partake of the eucharist, we sing "I will not speak of thy mysteries to thine enemies, neither will I give thee a kiss as did Judas."
It’s interesting you quoted me that.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
We certainly do not believe in the bible the way that protestants do.

I have asked you on many occasions if the bible is a true record of the  birth, life and death of Jesus. You have answered yes on those occasions. I have then reminded you that so do other Christians believe the same and then you claim some higher knowledge. 


And I certainly know what I believe better than you do, or anyone else does.
That will be the arrogance that I spoke of and that you accuse others of displaying.




The arrogance is in telling me what I believe and being unwilling to be corrected because of prejudice.

 I have never told you what you believe. I have though, told you that I don't care that you have a belief. It is only that which you claim to believe IN, that has only ever concerned me.

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Reece101
We certainly do believe that we partake of the body and blood of Christ. 

FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,597
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Mopac
John 13:23  Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved. (New King James Version)

Does that mean Jesus was gay?
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
You don't know what I believe in. Don't kid yourself.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@FLRW
No.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
You don't know what I believe in. Don't kid yourself.


 See this is where you are being completely and utterly stupid.

 I know from your own admittance that YOU believe that the scriptures tell the true story of the birth, life and death of Jesus.  And I have told you on many occasions :


It is only that which you claim to believe IN, that has only ever concerned me. I don't have the slightest interest in your faith. It is that which you have faith in (the truthfulness and reliability of scriptures) that has ever concerned me. 

 So are you changing your mind and telling me that the scriptures do not tell the true story of birth, life and death of Jesus?

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
No, I'm saying that you don't know what I believe in. You have too many blanks, and a mind that likes to fill them in. 

You don't understand my beliefs. Not at all. 
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
No, I'm saying that even if I used the same words as you, we would understand them differently, because you are unteachable.

 It is not the atheist that is forever redefining words to fit their narrative. 
It is never the atheist that attempts to put words in the mouths of the biblical authors.
It is never the atheist  that attempts to put words into the mouth of the Christ himself.  Do you know why that is?  Its because I don't need to.  I have absolutely nothing to defend when it comes to these extremely unreliable ambiguous half stories that make up these scriptures. 

Why didn't Jesus simply eradicate all leprosy instead of curing just a few lepers, Mopac ?
Why did Jesu waste his maiden "miracle" on making sure wedding guests got drunk ?
Why didn't Jesus raise the greatest prophet that ever lived;  John the Baptist from the dead as he had done his mere friend Lazarus ? 

Why didn't Jesus shed a single tear for the greatest prophet that ever lived when he heard about his death, as he cried for his friend Lazarus ?