(August 4, 2014 at 7:02 pm)Sejanus Wrote: Doesn't sound like much of a god to me. I'll stick with Odin, who is actually omnipotent.

Funny that when an atheist claims that omniscience is incompatible with free will, other atheists don't say that omnipotence means the ability to do anything.

[quote='RobbyPants' pid='719983' dateline='1406739450']
So, why was it necessary for God to have Jesus sacrificed for our sins?

Dont beat yourself up about it.
Jesus probably did not exist.
Christianity has evolved from a mish-mash of competing pagan ideologies floating around at the time plus some add-ons eg the holy trinity added on a few centuries later.
If it doesn't make any sense, its probably because there is no reason why it should.

(August 5, 2014 at 7:35 am)alpha male Wrote:

(August 4, 2014 at 7:02 pm)Sejanus Wrote: Doesn't sound like much of a god to me. I'll stick with Odin, who is actually omnipotent.

Funny that when an atheist claims that omniscience is incompatible with free will, other atheists don't say that omnipotence means the ability to do anything.

Funny that most of us can recognize when something is tongue in cheek and respond appropriately to it.

---

(August 5, 2014 at 8:04 am)Oldm8 Wrote: Dont beat yourself up about it.
Jesus probably did not exist.
Christianity has evolved from a mish-mash of competing pagan ideologies floating around at the time plus some add-ons eg the holy trinity added on a few centuries later.
If it doesn't make any sense, its probably because there is no reason why it should.

Well, yeah. This was mostly aimed at apologists. I didn't have any hopes on it making sense outside of a bunch of baseless assertions and ad hoc limitations on God's abilities.

(August 3, 2014 at 1:07 am)orangebox21 Wrote: "This ignores the important principle that crime depends on the object against whom it is committed (in this case an infinite God) as well as on the subject who commits it (finite man). All sin is ultimately against an infinite God and therefore deserves infinite punishment." (Paraphrased from Charles C. Ryrie)

Important to Mr. Ryrie, perhaps, but that's not how crime is handled here. I like our system better, and despite our inability to consistently apply our principles, I think that they are far superior to the "important principle" thus elucidated. Here, all are equal under law - and this includes the victimizer or purported victimizer - all are granted due process. Murder is not "more or less murderous" depending upon your victim. In fact, we get pretty riled up when people are sentenced in a pattern clearly defined by their victims. When a white man, for example, does less time for murdering a black, than a black does for murdering a white. The status of the victim (by any name) is a poor standard for determining the proper scale of any punitive measure. That a god may be defined as infinite in no way modifies any proposed crime one may commit against it.

I'll leave it to the peanut gallery to determine whether it is god or gods apologists who fail to understand the value of this concept. I used to use a similar quote for my sig line, I'll never fail to be disgusted any time I hear something like this. Just for old times sake though, God Bless America!

(August 6, 2014 at 3:37 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Important to Mr. Ryrie, perhaps, but that's not how crime is handled here. I like our system better, and despite our inability to consistently apply our principles, I think that they are far superior to the "important principle" thus elucidated. Here, all are equal under law - and this includes the victimizer or purported victimizer - all are granted due process.

You have either misunderstood the principle or you have set up a straw man argument. You are arguing as if the 'important principle' asserts that the criminals are not treated equally nor given due process. It asserts no such thing.

To qualify, the 'equal under the law' and 'due process' is a right due the criminal, not the victim. Under God's law, all (criminals) are equal, and are given due process at the great white throne judgment.

(August 6, 2014 at 3:37 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Murder is not "more or less murderous" depending upon your victim. In fact, we get pretty riled up when people are sentenced in a pattern clearly defined by their victims. When a white man, for example, does less time for murdering a black, than a black does for murdering a white. The status of the victim (by any name) is a poor standard for determining the proper scale of any punitive measure.

Perhaps you're not understanding the argument or perhaps you're equivocating the word 'status'. When 'status' is being defined it is not due to external status (such as societal status, amount of wealth, vocational position, etc.) but rather it is an inherent quality, namely the criminal is a finite being and the victim is an infinite being.

To illustrate: if a man kills a man or a man kills a fish, certainly the punishment depends upon the status of the victim.

(August 6, 2014 at 3:37 pm)Rhythm Wrote: That a god may be defined as infinite in no way modifies any proposed crime one may commit against it.

We aren't talking about modifying the crime, we're talking about the resulting punishment depending upon the status of the criminal and the victim.

Quote:(in this case an infinite God)

Now all you need do is demonstrate such a god. Otherwise, you have no victim.

If a crime against an infinite god deserves an infinite punishment, wouldn't a crime against a happy god deserve a happy punishment? I'd much prefer a happy god, if that was the case.

A crime against an infinite god (whatever the fuck that means) requires an infinite punishment? How does that follow?