I Didn’t Ask Anyone To Die For Me.

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 281
#91
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@rosends
I tell you that I was formally trained for posters like you and you wondered. Besides your little mirror logic, liberals like you have an anal need to be the last poster, so you begin not addressing your post so that the person doesn't know you've posted. I've seen it all before. It's funny how predictable you guys are.

Proving your claim would do that Einstein.
Proving would lead to one dimension of understanding. I'm looking for additional ones.
Uh huh. 

Was that one voodoo?
No, that was simply your opinion which you confuse with truth.
As the Ye old keeper of truth, you'd know.

And as a tooolerant liberal, any differing viewpoint must be cuddled, no matter how absurd.
So the "liberal" cuddles all different viewpoints but insists that everyone else is wrong (" to force me to "see it your way"", the liberal "you must agree with me because I'm right game".)? 
Every single one. Anything else would be intolerant. And we know that the only thing liberals don't tolerate is intolerance. Oh, and conservatives.

So its prediction? You said it wasn't prophesy. Good to know.
I said that you have a different definition of prophecy from mine if you equate prophecy and prediction. I also said that I am interested in learning about you so that I can get a sense of how you will act. 
Repeating your banalities will not make them more profound.

Notice that I haven't demanded or insisted you do anything. Remember it only works if our behaviors are reciprocal.
Nor have I.
Sure you have. Did you misplace a truth there O ye old keeper of truth?

I have pointed out what you refuse to do, and you have pointed out what I refuse to do. I never demanded or insisted that you do anything -- I asked you a question.
I cannot "refuse" unless you demand. And here you are on your 5th post still "not demanding" I do what you want. You will learn.

Lol. You think I should review and rethink my position because you think I'm wrong.

No, I suggest you might want to. If you don't, and you have said you don't, then that is what it is.
And yet, like a liberal, you keep demanding. You will learn.

And I know you are wrong.
Which is probably why you can't prove it.

But aren't able to show I am wrong.
Sure I am.
Your inability proves it. Lol.

You just can't imagine that you are wrong so you claim that I can't prove it.
Or maybe you can't prove it because I'm not wrong. Potayto/ potahto.

That is a lack of imagination on your part, leading to a false conclusion.
Too bad you can only imagine yourself winning. You should try actually winning sometime. Its more fun.

Then why should I review and rethink my position? Because you say so?

No, you should only if you feel that it might reveal to you an error.
Lol. There ya go.

If you don't think it will, then don't review anything. The post is out there for all to see.
Too bad your proof isn't. But I think they will "see" that too.
(This is when the liberal starts appealing to "everybody will see" to goad you into doing what they want)

Yes. I decided. See?
Yes. So you made religion a part of the discussion.
Told you I was the one who decides.

I have low tolerance for disingenuous smarm. You were asking me to concede because you were unable to prove me wrong.
Concede what? I asked for an understanding of your position and you tied it to a religious position, so I asked if you identify with that religion.
Uh huh. No concession for you!

I remain unconcerned about the tangential things you "conclude".
I don't recall asking if you were concerned about it.
I'm able to speak on things you didn't ask about. Its called freedom.

The quickest and most efficient way to do that is to prove I am wrong. Stop begging, I am not going to fall for your trick.
I haven't begged for anything. I
This your 5th or 6th post begging me to concede what you have admitted you cannot do. Keep begging, maybe you will " wear me down".

I asked you to explore a possibility and discuss a potential situation. You don't want to.
That must be why you dropped it then. Oh wait...... Get off your knees Risends. Begging demeans you.

I insist that I need not entertain the hypothetical because you have not yet shown the error. Period.
If I showed it, it wouldn't be hypothetical. Duh.
Thank you.

Yet you want me to believe you will show me wrong at some future point.
I don't care what you believe.
 Yet you chase me around begging for my belief I've told you you won't get. Way to not care.

If I can get you to discuss how you will react in the hypothetical case, then I will show that you are wrong so we can compare how you actually react to what you had claimed would be your reaction. Without the former, there is no potential for the latter.
Then you admit you're begging for what you know you will not get. I'll watch and see which is stronger,  your anal need to be in control or your sense of shame.

Wear you down? Am I forcing you to reply? Did I make you anal?
No, nor are you wearing me down,
 Could I when you keep coming back?
but if that is your goal....
How can it be my goal if you keep coming back? Am I forcing you to reply? Did I make you anal?
How would that make someone "anal"?
You were anal long before you met me Rosends.

Oh no great teacher! Wherever will get knowledge if you walk away?
I don't know, but that isn't my concern.
Lol. But I bet you won't "walk away" either. Don't make threats you can't keep. And let them be threats. Your walking away is not a threat.

Remember you said you were bored at the beginning of this exchange.
yes, and you were a distraction from that boredom.
And here you are, 6 or 7 posts into it, telling me you might get bored and walk away. Lol

When you become as boring, then you are no longer a distraction worth the attention.
Then whatever will you do to enliven your dull life Rosends? I will try to keep you entertained for as long as I can OK? I'm here for you.


I will ask questions here, for anyone to think about....
I deleted your smarmy little rant. You say it was for anyone, and I didn't think I was any of those ones

I deleted your questions too because....
1. I've already answered them
2. You said you didn't care about what I believed.
3. I have low tolerance for smarm

If you insist that there is no way that you can be wrong when you make a claim so the hypothetical is impossible therefore the consequence need not be entertained then i will learn something also.
As I told you. This is not a threat. Why liberals think talking to them is some sort of privilege I'll never know.

I've answered your questions. If you don't like my answers, deal with it. Asking me a thousand times will not change my answer. I don't care what your opinion of me is, and I cannot be influenced by "everyone will see" childishness. I don't care whether you reply or not. Either reply, or don't, constantly hinting at it makes you look anal.

Now. If you have new questions or comments, have at it. But if you are going to simply keep begging me to do what you want, I will continue to toast you. And if you doubt that I can burn you for longer than you can be anal, try me.
#92
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
I would suggest that.....It's also funny how predictable you are....LOL.
#93
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
But you aren't a liberal remember?

Arguing on the dems side again Zed?

#94
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,238
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Stephen
I certainly personally believe that we are responsible for our own actions and the suffering of another person cannot bring you atonement. But does the Bible itself actually teach that we alone are responsible for our sins to the extent that there can be no substitutions?

Then why, in the Old Testament, are there references to sacrificing animals as a "sin offering" to "make atonement"? The animal being sacrificed did not commit the sin being atoned for. Why does God instruct Aaron to place his hands on a scapegoat and transfer all the sins of Israel into the goat, then send it off into the desert?

Of course the OT also does teach that God will punish sinners and that you'll reap what you sow and so on, so there is also a component of personal responsibility. My assessment would be that the Bible says you have personal responsibility but your sins can also be transferred in certain sanctioned transactions.
Topic's author
#95
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Castin
I certainly personally believe that we are responsible for our own actions and the suffering of another person cannot bring you atonement. But does the Bible itself actually teach that we alone are responsible for our sins to the extent that there can be no substitutions?

Then why, in the Old Testament, are there references to sacrificing animals as a "sin offering" to "make atonement"? The animal being sacrificed did not commit the sin being atoned for. Why does God instruct Aaron to place his hands on a scapegoat and transfer all the sins of Israel into the goat, then send it off into the desert?

Of course the OT also does teach that God will punish sinners and that you'll reap what you sow and so on, so there is also a component of personal responsibility. My assessment would be that the Bible says you have personal responsibility but your sins can also be transferred in certain sanctioned transactions.

 Why all the nonsense of atonement and  killing animals for "sin" in the first place ? 

Why is it  that the all powerful god cannot simply say you are forgiven and I shouldn't have punished all of mankind forever for  what someone else did a billion years ago?

 How does killing a goat for instance  excuse someone that has raped and murderer someones daughter?  Why should such an animal have a place in a "heavenly paradise"? 





#96
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Castin
I certainly personally believe that we are responsible for our own actions

As you pointed out, the Bible believes that too.

and the suffering of another person cannot bring you atonement.

The principle behind such a concept is that all actions must be absorbed somewhere and somehow. They don't just dissipate into the wind, they are always there for God to see, and for God to feel.
Now, since grace exists as a principle too, God must allow grace for sins to be pardoned and forgiven. But what was done must be atoned for still, someone or some thing must absorb the repercussions of sin.

The reason why God doesn't "ask" us (lol) if we want such an option is because God wants it to be a gift, knowing that we as frail humans making stupid decisions are also in many ways stupid so we should really never have to be fully accountable for ALL the things we do forever, and so God provides a safety net if we wish to abide in it and use it. Many times we make mistakes and do stupid crap because we are just limited in the way we think and eventually we may change, and God understands that which is why grace exists. Any atonement is simply grace which presents itself in the form of forgiveness which simply passes your guilt to another place.

Again, since your actions just don't dissipate they must be absorbed somehow for you to be pardoned of them. And the benefit for you, is that you won't have to absorb the repercussion of things you did that now maybe you don't want to do anymore. Remember, this is not just about passing the buck or creating a means where you are no longer responsible for your actions. Rather this is about your remorse and your participation, the gift of God was provided but only on terms that you want your "sins" removed from your account (or the repercussions of your sins better put). The objective here is that you adjust your future actions so really this is relevant to your past mistakes more than future ones.

In order for such a transaction to occur, someone or something must suffer on your behalf. This is where Jesus steps in, not needing anyone's permission He decided to create an atonement that would absorb the consequence of sins, through His own body. 


But does the Bible itself actually teach that we alone are responsible for our sins to the extent that there can be no substitutions?

No, because both principles exist.....grace and consequence...so there must also be an outlet for both.

Of course the OT also does teach that God will punish sinners and that you'll reap what you sow and so on, so there is also a component of personal responsibility. My assessment would be that the Bible says you have personal responsibility but your sins can also be transferred in certain sanctioned transactions.

You're very bright Castin, which is why I always admire you.

#97
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Castin
What a lot of people don't know, even some Christians, is that we do die for our sins. When we give ourselves to Jesus, the first thing He does is hide our lives/ soul inside Him and we die with Him on the cross, paying for our sin the way God said we would. (The soul that sins shall die)

Jesus then recreates us and we share in His resurrection. This is where the phrase "born again" comes from. The bible says even the righteous shall be save as if by fire. You see, Jesus was not saving us from the small transition we call death, but from the real death. The 2nd death. So we do die. We do pay. But we are resurrected with Jesus.

The animal sacrifices in the OT were a sort of a forshadowing of what Jesus would do for us. It was also for the people at the time because shame and guilt harm people mentally. A lot of times, God institutes things because of our frailties, not because He needs them.

But if I had been stupid and unheeding of warnings and fallen into, say, an active volcano, and later regaining consciousness found that someone had sacrificed his life to get me out, knowing He would die in the process, I would be sad that He died, but I would think what He voluntarily did was selfless, noble, and heroic. His sacrifice would not disgust me even if I had had the choice before he did it and old Him not to.

Now if someone was forced to die for me, not by his own choice, that would disgust me. But that is not what happened with Jesus. He is a hero in the truest definition of the word.

He, a great and righteous  King, died to save me, a wretched sinful nobody. He did not have to, and I could never repay Him. It is a miracle of selfless love and mercy. I love Him because He first loved me.
#98
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Castin
I believe that if you look in the bible, you will see both that individuals are held to account for their own sins, and that they can perform certain measures of atonement and earn forgiveness for certain sins by being willing to lose something -- that might be losing a measure of health (by receiving lashings), a measure of money (by paying a fine) or by losing physical goods, by the sacrificing of an animal or grain product. These sacrifices, these losses are a punishment in a sense, and also a reminder of subservience -- we give to God when we have acted against God (the Hebrew is "korban" which means "being brought closer" -- the act of giving of the self to God brings us closer to obedience and shows a contrite nature).

But again, this is only to earn atonement for certain types of sins, and it requires very specific sacrifices -- part of the process is following directions.
#99
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Perhaps Jesus did not die for you. 

Who said he did? 
#100
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Perhaps.....Exactly.

Who said?....Exactly

Nice to see a logical approach.

And it only requires eleven words, one full stop and a question mark.
Topic's author
#101
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Perhaps Jesus did not die for you. 
Perhaps?  Why don't you start a thread explaining  why "Perhaps" Jesus didn't die for me, Reverend? 
Actually, it shouldn't be too hard to prove your case. After all,  the scriptures themselves do seem to be in some-kind of agreement with what you are suggesting as they do tell that Jesus was sent ONLY to the lost tribes Israel? THAT WILL BE JEWS, REVEREND, if I remember correctly? And there is no mention of saving Christians at all ; LOOOOK>>> 
"I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." Matthew 15:24..   


Who said he did? 

People like you, Reverend. Or are you telling me different?

“Jesus Died for Sinners”: Do Your People Know What This Actually Means"?
"The longer I pastor, the more I’m convinced that pastors should regularly preach the unsearchable riches of Christ not only for the salvation of the lost but also for the believers’ growth in grace."



And are the other hundreds of  religion/religious web pages that are full of claims by Pastors and Priests that "Jesus died for me"  and why  "Jesus died for me" all wrong ?



 Now, how about that thread you are just itching to start?




#102
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I am not going to start a thread for you dear old Stephen. LOL!

I don't recall ever saying that Jesus died for you.   

In fact if Jesus did die for everyone - then everyone must be going to heaven. Yet, since we are also told some are going to Hell, it seems logical he could not have died for all. 

But then again, it is not a matter that I am able to answer as to whether he died for you or not.  That is a totally separate question. 

Again - saying Jesus died for sinners is not at suggesting that Jesus died for every sinner. 

Jesus being sent only to the lost sheep of Israel - does not mean ipso facto that he was not sent to save Gentiles.  It only means per se that he was sent to the nation of Israel to deal with Israel as the primary purpose. "Only" relates to "sent", not to "save". 

And backing up my point is that Jesus not only at times ministered in Gentile lands, but that he "saved Gentile persons" from illness and even death, not to mention hunger. 
Topic's author
#103
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
I am not going to start a thread for you dear old Stephen. LOL!
I know that silly. And stop with you puerile LOL-ing.  You are supposed to be a academically trained and qualified tutor, ffs



In fact if Jesus did die for everyone - then everyone must be going to heaven. Yet, since we are also told some are going to Hell,

"if"?  you sound a little unsure about what you have been preaching for years , there Reverend.

And that  will be the "second death"  that  Chaplains and Priests and Ministers used bang on about but do so very rarely these days, I assume. Yes that's one for you to contemplate isn't it Pastor.  Lets hear your explanation. Try and keep it short ,  if you're going to bother at all?,Reverend.


But then again, it is not a matter that I am able to answer as to whether he died for you or not.  That is a totally separate question. 
 You brought the "perhaps he didn't" into the mix, Pastor. Not me.


it seems logical he could not have died for all. 
It does indeed, doesn't it?  He if  couldn't have died for everyone, and the vile blood sacrifice was wasted on many then wasn't it.  I do wonder then what the point of the lost sheep parable was all about.  It seem all very pointless when it is all broken down as you have so cleverly broken it down. Maybe some JEWISH "sheep" ask far too many questions to be "saved"  and don't accept the first bit of gobshite that he is offered in reply, to be saved.



Again - saying Jesus died for sinners is not at suggesting that Jesus died for every sinner. 

 You may well have something there again,  Reverend.  Because as the   scriptures clearly state, Jesus said " "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." Matthew 15:24..   


Jesus being sent only to the lost sheep of Israel - does not mean ipso facto that he was not sent to save Gentiles. 

 Oh stop it, Reverend, ONLY means ONLY,  in any language. And you again,  attempting to insert other meanings won't change what Jesus himself said.
Does Jesus say- :

'I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel and to  ONLY some Christians and  to ONLY some gentiles ' -?  NO!. he doesn't.  The ideas is ridiculous and smacks of sheer desperation to be included among the "saved".  



. "Only" relates to "sent", not to "save". 

No it doesn't Only means exactly what it says. You are avoiding the FACT that Israel was gods "chosen and treasured" nation above ALL nations.   They were JEWS not Christians.   There  were no Christians in Jesus time. So no Christians to be preached to OR  saved!!     It is only Christians that have included themselves to be among "gods chosen people".   You were not chosen by god to be among or above his chosen people. I believe Jesus would have been absolutely appalled that a whole new religious ideology had sprang up in his name.
And you are also forgetting that Jesus was forgiving & saving JEWS even before his so called blood sacrifice which is odd considering the blood sacrifice hadn't even been paid. 

 Lost means,  lost their way in god  and were "dead" and needed to be "saved"  as the parable of the wayward "dead" son makes perfectly clear:Luke 15:18-24

I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, ....... 
And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called.......
For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.

 See those words Reverend!!?   dead, lost and found  , all in the same fkn sentence..   You really are shite at your scriptures aren't you Reverend?







#104
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Sorry old chap lol! LOL! LOL!  LOL! 

You have a different opinion and that is your prerogative. Despite the fact that I provided details - generally at least of Jesus saving gentiles, you continue to live in a la la fantasy world where you think your interpretation is the ONLY one possible.   Jesus was sent to the Jews. I have not denied that even once.  Yet, this does not mean that his salvation was not for a much broader congregation.  And in fact the evidence shows that, despite your constant protestations.  

I have not forgotten about Jesus blood sacrifice.  The timing in many ways is immaterial. The book of Hebrews clearly tells us that the Jews in the OT were saved by faith in Jesus.  Just as the those after Jesus are saved by faith in Jesus. The OT looked forward and the NT look back. All eyes however are focused on Jesus.  

I take the view that Jesus died for the elect.  His death was sufficient for all people - but it did not atone for all people.  The elect are those that God calls.  There were elect before Israel was formed. There was elect after Israel was rejected.  There have always been the children of God. And there always will be. Romans clearly discusses how the Jewish nation rejected the Messiah and therefore it was necessary for God to ingraft the church into the elect. 

Yet, even before this- right back in the Garden of Eden, God promised Eve that all families on this earth would be blessed by the Christ.  Abraham was the father of many nations - not just the Jews.  The Gospel was always going to provided to more than one nation. It was one nation - the Jews that the Messiah was born into. The nation which was the smallest and least of all the nations. This was where the Messiah was to be born - and this nation was separated out of the rest to ensure that the Messiah was born into it. Yet once the purpose of Israel had been completed - the nation where the Messiah was born - and to whom he was sent, - then the doors opened to every nation. The True Religion of God went from being national to multi-national. Pentecost confirmed this in more than just symbolic terms. 

Did Jesus die for you? Again I don't know the answer. If you were to place your trust in Jesus, the Messiah and bow the knee to him, then perhaps it may well be the case.  If you don't and never do, then well - he did not die for you.  

I think the notion that God has to ask you little man permission to do anything is a patronizing notion. The day that God seeks your permission to do anything - is the day he stops being God.  Yet, it does not surprise me that you tend to ask your questions like you have, you have such a little picture of god, he deserves to be ridiculed. I however am not stressed because everything you say about God - does not fit the picture of God as he reveals himself in the Bible. 

And yes I probably have not addressed everything you say. I am not running.  I just can't be bothered.  


Topic's author
#105
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
You have a different opinion and that is your prerogative.
I do. And you don't like it that I won't allow you to lord it over me as some kind of authority simply because of your alleged qualifications in matters biblical .  


Despite the fact that I provided details - generally at least of Jesus saving gentiles,

 NO, you are a person that contracts himself often , uses double standards when it suites and never can seem to remember what you write  not to mention the status of central characters in a biblical story . Would you like examples? 




you continue to live in a la la fantasy world where you think your interpretation is the ONLY one possible. 

No, that will be YOU CHRISTIANS that has done exactly that for over 2,000 years. I can always change my ideas and opinions on the scriptures.  I am the atheist not you. 


 Jesus was sent to the Jews. I have not denied that even once. 
Yes only because you cannot deny it.   No matter how much you try to heap yourselves into the fold of the JEWS, gods only chosen and treasured people. 


Yet, this does not mean that his salvation was not for a much broader congregation. 
Let me see your evidence that it included Christians. . So far Jesus and  the bible itself say your wrong . Jesus din't ever once mention the word Christians , did he.  the idea of a salvation for ones sins is a Christian Idea.  Jews  hold that adherents do not need personal salvation as Christians believe. Jews do not subscribe to the doctrine of  "original sin" either! 


And in fact the evidence shows that, despite your constant protestations.  

Show it to me then. Or is this yet another one of your   "the bible clearly says so" throw away comments that you have no intention of supporting. Show me Jesus telling Christians that they  are saved if they bend the knee and believe in him.


I have not forgotten about Jesus blood sacrifice.  The timing in many ways is immaterial. The book of Hebrews clearly tells us that the Jews in the OT were saved by faith in Jesus.  Just as the those after Jesus are saved by faith in Jesus. The OT looked forward and the NT look back. All eyes however are focused on Jesus.  

It is the saving of Christians that I am interested in. I know that gods chosen and treasured people where Jews.  It is I that has to keep reminding you. Redemption as far as Jews were concerned was from exile, as I am sure any Jew here will attest. 


I take the view that Jesus died for the elect. 
That would be Jews ,his elected chosen and treasured people,  if the story is to be believed at all. 


Did Jesus die for you? Again I don't know the answer.

So if you do not know, then your time on this thread at least,  is over, isn't it. 


If you were to place your trust in Jesus, the Messiah and bow the knee to him, then perhaps it may well be the case. 

Where does the scripture command or even ask this prerequisite? Keeping in mind that YOU say he doesn't need to ask anything .




I think the notion that God has to ask you little man permission to do anything is a patronizing notion.
Well you would.  Even you have the fanciful notion that somehow that you are above me. Well I can tell you, nothing that you have ever  said to me  thus far on the whole of this forum would convince me to look up to you, of all people, as some kind of authority.  


The day that God seeks your permission to do anything - is the day he stops being God. 

Well from what have read, and you agree god  doesn't ask anyone anything .  He just allows rape and murder commits murder allows his sons to rape and then kills those that complain about it. If the bible is to be believed at all.  


 I am pleased your syntax has returned. 


#106
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
You have a different opinion and that is your prerogative.
I do. And you don't like it that I won't allow you to lord it over me as some kind of authority simply because of your alleged qualifications in matters biblical .  

LOL! You are the only one who raises anything to do with my qualifications.  You do it constantly. It must really bug you. LOL! 

Despite the fact that I provided details - generally at least of Jesus saving gentiles,
 NO, you are a person that contracts himself often , uses double standards when it suites and never can seem to remember what you write  not to mention the status of central characters in a biblical story . Would you like examples? 
I did provide general examples. Jesus feeding the 4000 Gentiles. Jesus healing the little girl. Jesus raising the Gentile child.  Jesus entering into Gentile land. All of these are general examples of Jesus while he was on earth - although sent only to the Jews, saving the Gentiles. You deny it. Yet the truth of these events is mud in your face. 

you continue to live in a la la fantasy world where you think your interpretation is the ONLY one possible. 

No, that will be YOU CHRISTIANS that has done exactly that for over 2,000 years. I can always change my ideas and opinions on the scriptures.  I am the atheist not you. 
LOL! You refuse to consider other opinions apart from your own. I provided one above and you just say "no".  Christians do change their views on the Scriptures when they are demonstrated to be incorrect.  I changed from dispensational to reformed. I changed from Fundamentalist to  Confessionalist.  My baptistic views changed from immersion to aspersion. Christians like change.  Each day, hopefully we are changing to become more like Jesus. 

 Jesus was sent to the Jews. I have not denied that even once. 
Yes only because you cannot deny it.   No matter how much you try to heap yourselves into the fold of the JEWS, gods only chosen and treasured people. 
I have no reason to deny it.   The Book of Romans tells us that the gifts and the callings are irrevocable.  Just because you don't understand what Christians think does not mean that you should pretend to know.  The Gentiles however according to the NT have been grafted in and this is in accordance with OT prophecy that all nations would be blessed through the Messiah.  

Yet, this does not mean that his salvation was not for a much broader congregation. 
Let me see your evidence that it included Christians. . So far Jesus and  the bible itself say your wrong . Jesus din't ever once mention the word Christians , did he.  the idea of a salvation for ones sins is a Christian Idea.  Jews  hold that adherents do not need personal salvation as Christians believe. Jews do not subscribe to the doctrine of  "original sin" either! 
Why would Jesus mention the term Christians? The label Christian appeared a long time after Jesus ascended to Heaven.  Before that they were called the "way". Before that, the Followers of Jesus were his disciples.  The bible and Jesus agree with me and are not against me.  The idea of salvation for sins is an ancient once, it did not originate with the Christians. The entire Mosaic sacrificial system testifies to salvation from sins.  Adam and Eve were kicked out of Eden because of their sin. Your denials of such an integral part of biblical history is truly breathtaking. Modern Jews probably don't.  They are themselves a cult that arose during the early first century.  Once their temple was destroyed and their heart was cut out, they had to identify a different hermeneutic to the one they had been using prior to that time.  Many Christians don't subscribe to the doctrine of original sin either.  I am not sure what point you are attempting to make. Looks like another strawman argument. 

And in fact the evidence shows that, despite your constant protestations.  

Show it to me then. Or is this yet another one of your   "the bible clearly says so" throw away comments that you have no intention of supporting. Show me Jesus telling Christians that they  are saved if they bend the knee and believe in him.
I have above. I have on other occasions. I cannot help it if you choose to deny each and every situation that Jesus "saved" Gentiles in  his earthly ministry.  The fact that he saved one is enough evidence to show your "sent" and "saved" is incorrect.  Yet, the evidence that he "saved" thousands simply buries you alive.  Anyone who sincerely has faith that Jesus would save them, is bowing the knee to him. Take the Centurion who tells Jesus to simply make the command for instance.  He clearly understood authority of Jesus and Jesus marveled at his faith.  

I have not forgotten about Jesus blood sacrifice.  The timing in many ways is immaterial. The book of Hebrews clearly tells us that the Jews in the OT were saved by faith in Jesus.  Just as the those after Jesus are saved by faith in Jesus. The OT looked forward and the NT look back. All eyes however are focused on Jesus.  

It is the saving of Christians that I am interested in. I know that gods chosen and treasured people where Jews.  It is I that has to keep reminding you. Redemption as far as Jews were concerned was from exile, as I am sure any Jew here will attest. 
It is you who keeps reminding yourself, for some reason.  I am unlikely to forget these things, though it is possible. Yet for me, unlike you, it is something that in many respects goes without saying.  What you seem to always find difficulty understanding is that God tells the truth. If his people, chosen and treasured or not, did not keep his covenant, then they were punished. The entire history of Israel demonstrates this over and over again.  The Jews simply kept breaking covenant, despite their judgment, then their repentance. Like Dogs they kept returning to their vomit time after time again. Hence, why Jesus was necessary. Humans need God despite the fact that humans think they don't need God. Adam and Eve figured they did not need God. History shows humanity thinks it does not need God. Yet, humanity over and over again returns to the vomit.  Humanity needs God. They need Jesus. They need the Messiah to save them from their constant returning to the vomit.  Yet God's plan was not just for the Jews, he had a much broader plan than just saving one nation. 

I take the view that Jesus died for the elect. 
That would be Jews ,his elected chosen and treasured people,  if the story is to be believed at all. 
The elect are the people that God has chosen for himself from every age. Prior to Israel, including Noah and his family.  During the Israelite period. And after that period.  EVen during the Israelite period - Gentiles were chosen for God's purpose - and included within the elect. Think of Ruth. A Moabitess - who became one of the ancestors of Jesus. In fact in the genealogies, several Gentiles are included within the elect. Also think of Job. Job was not a Jew. Yet he was one of God's chosen.  

Did Jesus die for you? Again I don't know the answer.

So if you do not know, then your time on this thread at least,  is over, isn't it. 
Because you posed the question and all answers - including IDK are plausible and possible.  It does not have to be a yes or a no for it to be worthwhile. Sometimes you really act like a petulant child. 

If you were to place your trust in Jesus, the Messiah and bow the knee to him, then perhaps it may well be the case. 

Where does the scripture command or even ask this prerequisite? Keeping in mind that YOU say he doesn't need to ask anything .

I am not sure what you mean.  Please provide my comments if I did say that?  Seriously, I would like to know where it is that you say I made such a comment. 


I think the notion that God has to ask you little man permission to do anything is a patronizing notion.
Well you would.  Even you have the fanciful notion that somehow that you are above me. Well I can tell you, nothing that you have ever  said to me  thus far on the whole of this forum would convince me to look up to you, of all people, as some kind of authority.  
I am not above you.  That is your constant mistake. I don't think that I am above anyone.  It is you who constantly come on here and try to question Christian's and their beliefs.  It is you who seem to think that you have some kind of divine right to try and destroy every other person.  Oh yes, you put a nice spin on it sometimes or at least in your own head, that you are just seeking answers, or that you are saving people from themselves, blah blah blah, but that is the intent of your verbiage.  I have never asked you to look up to me. I don't see myself as any kind of authority.  I give my story. At times, you and others simply disregard Christians, and yet I give my story. You still berate it. That is on you. It is not on me.  The point above is your perverted view about God. 

The day that God seeks your permission to do anything - is the day he stops being God. 

Well from what have read, and you agree god  doesn't ask anyone anything .  He just allows rape and murder commits murder allows his sons to rape and then kills those that complain about it. If the bible is to be believed at all.  
I disagree with you that this is an accurate way of portraying of characterising the divine plan v divine will. God in the bible clearly condemns rape and murder. He forbids kidnapping. He forbids adultery. And he will judge the world either in this world or the next.  You intentionally muddy the water between divine sovereignty and human freedom and responsibility. It constantly looks to me like you are just trying to find an excuse to blame God and deny your own responsibility.  

You like the vomit you swim. 


Topic's author
#107
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2



I take the view that Jesus died for the elect. 

That would be Jews ,his elected chosen and treasured people,  if the story is to be believed at all. 
The elect are the people that God has chosen for himself from every age. 
Oh FFS STOP IT!!!!!!!  You are making it all up in sheer desperation to be included in the Jews god fold. Gentiles were JEWS that had "LOST" their way .  You really are desperate. How many times!!!???  THERE WERE NO  CHRISTIANS  in Palestine or anywhere else in Jesus' time..   NOT A SINGLE ONE!!!  you are out of luck ,  your church is built on sand that is  softer than shite.



he day that God seeks your permission to do anything - is the day he stops being God. 

Well from what I have read, and you agree god  doesn't ask anyone anything least of all permission to do anything........
I disagree with you 

 How many times on this thread have you said god doesn't need my permission, Reverend?.......... 

..............this is what I mean when I say above that  you cannot even remember what you write or what it is someone else writes for you. Just right here, you have contradicted yourself AGAIN. 

HERE IS YOU MOST RECENT#104 >>>>> "The day that God seeks your permission to do anything - is the day he stops being God" .  
>>>>>>>>>> I think the notion that God has to ask you little man permission to do anything is a patronizing notion.


I can only recommend that you;
(a) insist your script writer read everything that you personally have written before preparing your script for you.
(b) tell him/them that their abysmal services are no longer required because you are fed up with him/them making you look a total dunce & braindead on every other post.
(c) prepare your  own script yourself  reading and re-reading before posting.
(d) read the fkn scriptures. and then as you say  "pass on"#20 what it is that you have read for yourself


Did Jesus die for you? Again I don't know the answer.

So now go away, there is absolutely no need for you to be on this thread. NONE









#108
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Sometimes you really act like a petulant child. 
Sometimes??
#109
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen

Oh FFS STOP IT!!!!!!!  You are making it all up in sheer desperation to be included in the Jews god fold. Gentiles were JEWS that had "LOST" their way .  You really are desperate. How many times!!!???  THERE WERE NO  CHRISTIANS  in Palestine or anywhere else in Jesus' time..   NOT A SINGLE ONE!!!  you are out of luck ,  your church is built on sand that is  softer than shite.
Who says Gentiles were Jews that had lost their way? Not me.  Is this another strawman? Absolutely, you make up stuff as you go along.  I repeat as I have on numerous occasions. I NEVER SAID CHRISTIANS were in Palestine during Jesus' time.  Prior to Christians being called Christians, the book of Acts said they were called the "Way". Not that they had lost their way.  And during Jesus' time, the followers of Jesus, his disciples all in general eventually took on the name of Christian after his death.   You can continue to make stuff up. I don't have too - it is all in the Bible.   


he day that God seeks your permission to do anything - is the day he stops being God. 

Well from what I have read, and you agree god  doesn't ask anyone anything least of all permission to do anything........
I disagree with you 

 How many times on this thread have you said god doesn't need my permission, Reverend?.......... 

..............this is what I mean when I say above that  you cannot even remember what you write or what it is someone else writes for you. Just right here, you have contradicted yourself AGAIN. 

HERE IS YOU MOST RECENT#104 >>>>> "The day that God seeks your permission to do anything - is the day he stops being God" .  
>>>>>>>>>> I think the notion that God has to ask you little man permission to do anything is a patronizing notion.

Ahhh the missing pronoun makes all of the difference. I cannot help it if you actually read what you write before you send it off.  

God does not need to ask your permission to do anything. He certainly does not need to ask your permission to die for you. He does not need to ask for permission for you to get down on your knees.  Your words are so garbled - you cut and repaste - and omit so much stuff - it does not even flow with what we have been saying. 



I can only recommend that you;
(a) insist your script writer read everything that you personally have written before preparing your script for you.
(b) tell him/them that their abysmal services are no longer required because you are fed up with him/them making you look a total dunce & braindead on every other post.
(c) prepare your  own script yourself  reading and re-reading before posting.
(d) read the fkn scriptures. and then as you say  "pass on"#20 what it is that you have read for yourself


Did Jesus die for you? Again I don't know the answer.

So now go away, there is absolutely no need for you to be on this thread. NONE
Probably a good idea to leave now - because you have lost the plot again. buried in your own bullshite. 

In any event - it is my choice to stay or leave. Just because you start a topic - does not give you the right to determine who stays and who goes. 







#110
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,238
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@EtrnlVw
The reason why God doesn't "ask" us (lol) if we want such an option is because God wants it to be a gift, knowing that we as frail humans making stupid decisions are also in many ways stupid so we should really never have to be fully accountable for ALL the things we do forever, and so God provides a safety net if we wish to abide in it and use it. Many times we make mistakes and do stupid crap because we are just limited in the way we think and eventually we may change, and God understands that which is why grace exists. Any atonement is simply grace which presents itself in the form of forgiveness which simply passes your guilt to another place.
I never don't like your interpretation of theology, Ev.

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.

You're very bright Castin, which is why I always admire you.
I can't be that bright. I'm eating Doritos right now.
#111
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,238
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Stephen
 Why all the nonsense of atonement and  killing animals for "sin" in the first place ? 
I believe rosends posted a good explanation in post #98.

Why is it  that the all powerful god cannot simply say you are forgiven and I shouldn't have punished all of mankind forever for  what someone else did a billion years ago?
From a psychohistorical perspective, I think humans of the past had a hard time thinking sin could just go poof. It had to be transferred, paid for, sacrificed for, washed away in ritual, something. It had to go somewhere, and you had to do something to be forgiven or purified.

 How does killing a goat for instance  excuse someone that has raped and murderer someones daughter?  Why should such an animal have a place in a "heavenly paradise"? 
The Bible says a murderer must be put to death. They don't get a "kill a goat" option.
#112
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,238
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@rosends
I believe that if you look in the bible, you will see both that individuals are held to account for their own sins, and that they can perform certain measures of atonement and earn forgiveness for certain sins by being willing to lose something -- that might be losing a measure of health (by receiving lashings), a measure of money (by paying a fine) or by losing physical goods, by the sacrificing of an animal or grain product. These sacrifices, these losses are a punishment in a sense, and also a reminder of subservience -- we give to God when we have acted against God (the Hebrew is "korban" which means "being brought closer" -- the act of giving of the self to God brings us closer to obedience and shows a contrite nature).

But again, this is only to earn atonement for certain types of sins, and it requires very specific sacrifices -- part of the process is following directions.
Stephen seemed to be suggesting that the Bible teaches we alone are responsible for our actions to the extent that sin can't be transferred.

I was merely telling Stephen that even though the Bible does teach personal responsibility, sacrifice as sin atonement appears to have been in the Bible from the beginning, and there is precedent for sin being transferred from one vessel to another. Jesus as the "Lamb of God" seems to be building upon these precedents of sacrifice.
#113
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,238
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@ethang5
What a lot of people don't know, even some Christians, is that we do die for our sins. When we give ourselves to Jesus, the first thing He does is hide our lives/ soul inside Him and we die with Him on the cross, paying for our sin the way God said we would. (The soul that sins shall die)

Jesus then recreates us and we share in His resurrection. This is where the phrase "born again" comes from. The bible says even the righteous shall be save as if by fire. You see, Jesus was not saving us from the small transition we call death, but from the real death. The 2nd death. So we do die. We do pay. But we are resurrected with Jesus.

The animal sacrifices in the OT were a sort of a forshadowing of what Jesus would do for us. It was also for the people at the time because shame and guilt harm people mentally. A lot of times, God institutes things because of our frailties, not because He needs them.

But if I had been stupid and unheeding of warnings and fallen into, say, an active volcano, and later regaining consciousness found that someone had sacrificed his life to get me out, knowing He would die in the process, I would be sad that He died, but I would think what He voluntarily did was selfless, noble, and heroic. His sacrifice would not disgust me even if I had had the choice before he did it and old Him not to.

Now if someone was forced to die for me, not by his own choice, that would disgust me. But that is not what happened with Jesus. He is a hero in the truest definition of the word.

He, a great and righteous  King, died to save me, a wretched sinful nobody. He did not have to, and I could never repay Him. It is a miracle of selfless love and mercy. I love Him because He first loved me.
I certainly hadn't heard this perspective before; I like it. It's not what was ever preached to me.

I am not disgusted by the idea of Jesus's sacrifice - I think the intent is commendable. But if I ever actually believed someone was crucified for something I had personally done wrong, I don't think I could live with it.
Topic's author
#114
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Castin

The Bible says a murderer must be put to death. They don't get a "kill a goat"

Take it as you will, but it was slight sarcasm.  What does it say about the rapist murderer that repents!!!??
A man was  tortured and killed for the sins of others wasn't he?  He paid with blood didn't he , if the scriptures are to be believed?  And now there are many murdering rapists in his heavenly paradise. If you believe these scriptures as they have come down to us?

 Why is that Christians are too stupid to even recognise, for themselves, the further implications.  Weather I accepted this "offer" or not, I also have to accept that I am responsible for the every single vicious lash of the brutal flogging, and the mocking and  every strike of every nail being driven home into the flesh of another human being during  the crucifixion. In which I had absolutely nothing to do with, and no say. I have to also agree that every time I decline this responsibility by something I may say or action I take, that I intensify the agony of it all. 

I am also required to believe that all of this pain, suffering, torture and agony was absolutely necessary in order to compensate for some earlier sin/crime in which I also played no part in.- the sin of Adam. I could expand further but I don't think that I have to .  Do you not see how this is all beginning to come across?


Stephen seemed to be suggesting that the Bible teaches we alone are responsible for our actions to the extent that sin can't be transferred.

 I am suggesting the bible (certainly the OT)  appears to suggest that we are responsible for our crimes /sins/.  But then the NT contradict this, by saying someone else has taken the burden and responsibility and paid for it with a vile tortuous blood sacrifice . I am also saying that  I didn't ask anyone to die for me and wouldn't expect them to.




#115
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Castin
 sacrifice as sin atonement appears to have been in the Bible from the beginning, and there is precedent for sin being transferred from one vessel to another. Jesus as the "Lamb of God" seems to be building upon these precedents of sacrifice.
I'm not sure that one can say that sacrifice as atonement was there from the beginning. No one uses sacrifice to deal with sin issues until the book of Exodus. Until then, sacrifices are about worship -- giving of the self and losing something in order to be brought closer. This realization of the relationship to the divine is the element necessary as part of an atonement process. The sinner acknowledges that there is a source of law and gives of himself to demonstrate his subservience to that power. His sin isn't transferred onto anything in a literal sense. Building on to the idea that anything that can be a sacrifice for the sake of atonement would include calling Jesus the "meal offering" of God because flour is used by the poorest instead of birds. And this would limit Jesus' atoning powers to only those sins which sacrifice is involved in atonement for.
#116
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,238
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@rosends
I'm not sure that one can say that sacrifice as atonement was there from the beginning. No one uses sacrifice to deal with sin issues until the book of Exodus.
A matter of perspective; I consider Exodus foundational and pretty much "from the beginning" - but I can see why you wouldn't. I probably should have said "since the Pentateuch."

Building on to the idea that anything that can be a sacrifice for the sake of atonement would include calling Jesus the "meal offering" of God because flour is used by the poorest instead of birds. And this would limit Jesus' atoning powers to only those sins which sacrifice is involved in atonement for.
Interesting. So iyo Jesus's death could not be an atonement for all sin?
#117
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Castin
But if I ever actually believed someone was crucified for something I had personally done wrong, I don't think I could live with it.
Exactly!!! And not just someone, but the holiest, spotless, blameless, gentlest, most beautiful person ever. This is why Christians fall down in worship, adoration, and gratitude at His divine feet. When we find out who He is, we finally see the injustice of it, the wrongness of such an excellent person dying a horrible death for someone as unworthy as us. It slays us.

The guilt, shame, and hopelessness of ever being able to repay Him would literally kill us were it not for His regeneration of us. I struggle to find words to encompass His sheer splendiferousness, or the depths of His love and mercy. They are more wonderful by far than even the horror of knowing He died because of me.

He's the "good news".
Topic's author
#118
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
But if I ever actually believed someone was crucified for something I had personally done wrong, I don't think I could live with it.
Indeed. A great big massive guilt trip that you and the rest of mankind , in return, have to spend the rest of eternity on this earth  on your knees in subservience. For something that you didn't cause, do or take part in. . 
And remember, it was all gods plan all along , there wasn't even any small print read when this eternal  guilty conscience was foisted on you. And as I said above - I have to also agree that every time I decline this responsibility by something I may say or action I take, that I intensify the agony of it all. 

I ever actually believed

Then its just as well you don't or are at least questioning it. And remember this, not a single one of his disciples were present when Jesus is said to have died. Not a single one "witnessed" him die. He said nothing about taking away the sins of the world while on the cross and he even questioned challenged  his "fathers" betrayal. , " saying , Eli, lema sabachthani?
#119
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Castin
Interesting. So iyo Jesus's death could not be an atonement for all sin?
Not for ANY sin. But if one believed that his death was an acceptable sacrifice etc, it still could not cover all sin.
#120
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,238
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Stephen
The Bible says a murderer must be put to death. They don't get a "kill a goat"

Take it as you will, but it was slight sarcasm.  What does it say about the rapist murderer that repents!!!??
A man was  tortured and killed for the sins of others wasn't he?  He paid with blood didn't he , if the scriptures are to be believed?  And now there are many murdering rapists in his heavenly paradise. If you believe these scriptures as they have come down to us?
I can't answer that, Stephen. I am not someone who believes in scripture. I read it and study it out of respect for its place in the tapestry of humanity, and I try to genuinely understand it just like I try to genuinely understand the beliefs of many cultures past and present.

That a "murdering rapist" could repent and go to heaven has never sat well with me. But I can be very Republican about how rapists should be treated. I don't think I am the right person to judge what should happen to them in the afterlife, if there were such a thing.

 Why is that Christians are too stupid to even recognise, for themselves, the further implications. 
When I dismiss an entire group of people as stupid, I have stopped trying to genuinely understand them.

Weather I accepted this "offer" or not, I also have to accept that I am responsible for the every single vicious lash of the brutal flogging, and the mocking and  every strike of every nail being driven home into the flesh of another human being during  the crucifixion. In which I had absolutely nothing to do with, and no say. I have to also agree that every time I decline this responsibility by something I may say or action I take, that I intensify the agony of it all. 

I am also required to believe that all of this pain, suffering, torture and agony was absolutely necessary in order to compensate for some earlier sin/crime in which I also played no part in.- the sin of Adam. I could expand further but I don't think that I have to .  Do you not see how this is all beginning to come across?
I have understood where you're coming from since you posted the thread, even if I don't share your outrage or contempt. I don't think it's right to claim that we are responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. I consider the Roman Empire responsible for his crucifixion. I think it's wrong for someone to be punished for someone else's wrongs. I think original sin is an unjust doctrine.

But despite my disagreements with their doctrine, I can also see that Christians view Jesus's sacrifice as a miracle and a gift they want to share, not just a bucket of blood they want to splash in our faces.