Christians: A Question

[KichigaiNeko]

I think you will find that the "great flood" of the bible is nothing more than say the "flooding" of the (any bloody land lock 'Sea' you care to name. The story being so old it pre-dates the bible by millennia .

(This is my understanding of "The Great Flood Story" ...evidence I am still searching out)

[Jackalope]

I think you will find that the "great flood" of the bible is nothing more than say the "flooding" of the (any bloody land lock 'Sea' you care to name. The story being so old it pre-dates the bible by millennia .

(This is my understanding of "The Great Flood Story" ...evidence I am still searching out)

You'll get no argument from me on that. The myth came from somewhere. That adults still believe in it (a literal reading of Genesis) despite all the evidence contradicting not only that it happened, but that it could have happened... it boggles the rational mind.

[Shell B]

I actually was quite intrigued by the original topic but people seemed to lose interest.

No they didn't, you asshat. I was still discussing it with Frodo and GC. Just because the thread wasn't filled with your particular brand of nucking futs does not mean it was not interesting to those of us invested in the conversation. If you want to talk about your lack of a dictionary, go make another fucking thread.

---

If you look at the theological literature there are a number of ways of looking at it. Typically you see something along the lines of Jesus willingly suffering death in order to effect some sort of change in the fate of humanity because of the "joy set before him" and because there is, "no greater love than to lay down your life for a friend." (Two verses usually used to describe the reason.) Academically speaking the most honest answer would be something akin to, "don't know" since there are such a variety of opinions in modern theology. The only real consensus is that Jesus acted voluntarily and with love in order to restore something amiss with creation. Beyond that there are an infinite number of metaphors people use to describe it and conclusions drawn from it. The use of the word "sacrafice" isn't even agreed upon. There's a great deal of subtlety in the various positions, I feel I could be more helpful if you were more specific about what it is you wanted to know. I know I'm being a tad vague here but asking a theologian that question is like asking, "what is the meaning of everything?" It is a very good question though.

That was the most honest answer I have got so far. In other words, the Bible says whatever one wants it to say.

I only wanted to know if it was a sacrifice, willing or not. If yes, then it must be concluded that it was a human sacrifice, as the Bible clearly states that Jesus was a man.

[KichigaiNeko]

For your reading pleasure... "The Great Flood" myths ...yeah that's right ...plural

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Sea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paratethys

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aus/mla/mla09.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth


for an Aussie like myself this "flood myth" has just played itself out with the devastation last year of the East Coast of Australia...can you imagind if you had made a camp on the Lake Eyre Basin when all that water finally made it's way to you??

A decade of drought and then flooding rains is common place here in Oz ...we don't need myths about it. I did not here of ANYONE being spoken to about the danger by any being other than a human policeman or an SES officer. godboy was conspicuous by his absence

---

And the syncher.....................................................

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory

[Zen Badger]

If you look at the theological literature there are a number of ways of looking at it. Typically you see something along the lines of Jesus willingly suffering death in order to effect some sort of change in the fate of humanity because of the "joy set before him" and because there is, "no greater love than to lay down your life for a friend." (Two verses usually used to describe the reason.) Academically speaking the most honest answer would be something akin to, "don't know" since there are such a variety of opinions in modern theology. The only real consensus is that Jesus acted voluntarily and with love in order to restore something amiss with creation. Beyond that there are an infinite number of metaphors people use to describe it and conclusions drawn from it. The use of the word "sacrafice" isn't even agreed upon. There's a great deal of subtlety in the various positions, I feel I could be more helpful if you were more specific about what it is you wanted to know. I know I'm being a tad vague here but asking a theologian that question is like asking, "what is the meaning of everything?" It is a very good question though.

I hope you can answer this question then.

Wherein lies the sacrifice? When jesus got nailed to a tree he knew that he was destined to go straight to heaven to sit by gods side.

So as far as I can see it wasn't much of a sacrifice at all.

No... let me rephrase that, there was no sacrifice, period.

A sacrifice is something you give up knowing that this is the cost you bear for some greater outcome.

But there was no giving up of anything on Jc's part.

It's like giving up your flat in Bolton to go live in a Mansion in Monte Carlo.

Now if jesus had given up his place in heaven to take the place of some one in hell. That would've been a sacrifice.

So far all the christians on this forum have signally failed to answer this question, maybe you can.

[fr0d0]

The only real consensus is that Jesus acted voluntarily and with love in order to restore something amiss with creation.

That was the most honest answer I have got so far.

That is exactly what all of us are saying Shell.

[LastPoet]

Outch fr0ds, you are kicking 'christian' ass better than some atheists

[Shell B]

Holy shit. I must need more sleep. I just edited that instead of replying to it.

Anyway, this was my response, poet.

That wasn't the part I was saying was the best answer I had received, Frodo. The problem is that I was not asking if he did it with love to fix his father's creation. I told you both repeatedly that I was only asking if you viewed it as a sacrifice. We branched off into whether Jesus was human or god, according to your belief's, but the main question always was whether it was a sacrifice or not. Coffee went on to say there were a bunch of different interpretations of it. That is what I called honest. Quite frankly, the many different interpretations I have heard on this forum are what led me to creating this thread and then kick myself in the ass for it. There is no consensus. They shouldn't even call Christianity a religion because no two of you believe the same thing. It's a make it up as you go kind of thing. It would be like me and one other person worshiping the story "Cinderella" and one interpreting that fairy meant gay guy with style who fancied her up for the ball and me interpreting it as a magical creature, but on a much more broad scale. It's a wonder you can get a full congregation with that kind of shit.

[Godscreated]

Godschild: "no, by no means do I have a superiority complex; that, in itself, goes against Christian beliefs."
- so does sinning. Yet we all do it. Constantly. Implying that you are a perfect Christian is the very essence of a superiority complex. We can't be perfect. As humans we are fully fallible. We can only do our best to recognize our faults and try to change them. And fail and ask for forgiveness.

I have never said nor implied I was even close to a perfect christian. Where did you get such a notion as that?

[Napoléon]

Atheism is not supported by science... Science offers no opinions on God. Any belief that there is no God is faith based, and it's a faith in a pretty bleak reality at that.

1. Learn the real definition of atheism
2. Science doesn't even need an opinion on god, the factual observations of the physical universe should be indication that belief in god is entirely irrational.