Rant against anti-atheist agnostics.

[fr0d0]

Yes I've seen that lots of times thanks Simon.

How is that absurd? A: It reverses the moral of the story. Once more for the crowd... God isn't punishing you because you're wrong. You're refusing to accept the gift of forgiveness, therefore punishing yourself.

Now this is in particular the Christian metaphor if you like. In the situation of someone nothing to do with Christianity, the same problems exist. As Christianity deals with real life, this would have to be the case. As I've said above, you have a choice if you know of the Christian option. You can choose to make the most of the hand that you're dealt. Accept your flaws and live with them. Or you can choose life. Overcome those flaws by accepting forgiveness. To me it's a no brainer. I know, I understand how it makes sense, so I choose to take the gift. Incredibly it was made for me, incredible the suffering endured as Rhythm correctly observes, and I'm not about to spit in the face of the giver.

[The Grand Nudger]

Can't accept the gift Frodo. Ill gotten gains. Don't trust me? Try proverbs 10:2.

[fr0d0]

Then you should read the thread. It's not as though I haven't explained it many times over, mostly for your trollish benefit.

-Don't hurt people, don't share stolen cookies.

No, everyone -would not-. Michael made his position on the matter plain. You and I would prevent it (despite the gospels comments on the matter). Why? Even though you would prevent it, you are still satisfied with profiting -from it-. Why?

It should be easy for you to answer those "ridiculous comparisons" in a way that doesn't compromise your position...being ridiculous..I'd suppose. If you don't like those....read the thread....I've offered many, many more.

Apologies R I was or and about with poor signal, and didn't intend to post that. I guess God had other plans.

I don't see you making any relevant points in this thread. I see you drawing wild examples, but I'm trying to forgive you those as I believe that you genuinely misunderstand. To an extreme level.

Who wants to hurt people? Me? Like I said, it's a great sadness that is wonderfully overshadowed by the far more powerful greater good. Easter Monday is a celebration of the liberation of mankind no less. You think no sacrifice is worth that. You'd rather billions of people go through suffering rather than God choose this method of solving the problem.

This is Gods choice. The perfect solution. As has been said, God isn't hurting himself. Jesus still exists. He took on the full pain of a human to make it real to us. You shouldn't forget that fact when you decry the violent act.

For cookies to be stolen, they would have to have been taken from someone against their will right? As Jesus pretty thoroughly explained, he was fully complicit with it. God gave this gift freely, at a cost to his human incarnation. So those cookies are on the table with a note: please take these Rhythm, for free.

So on your two points I find nothing immoral or abhorrent.

You're twisting Michaels words. Innocently I believe. Would we want the sacrifice never to have happened? The single greatest accomplishment in the history of mankind? I'd have to be incredibly selfish or evil to say no. Would anyone as a human being not have empathy and not wish to see another suffer? Of course not.

[The Grand Nudger]

Rhythm. Would I travel back and try to kidnap Jesus? No. If we trust in the main messages of scripture then our Lord's Passion was, and is, necessary for the new Kingdom to be established. Jesus spoke sternly to Peter when Peter objected to the idea of Jesus's death, and later told him to put away the sword so that Jesus may drink from the cup given to him by the Father.

Try again Frods.

You don't deserve them, you cannot pay for them. If they're just being given to you for free then morality and goodness and what you deserve or don't deserve - all that's out the window Frodo. So why the bloody charade of crucifixion? Is such an abrogation a moral act (now you're making god/jesus out to be the dick..way to go)?

You don't find vicarious redemption to be immoral or abhorrent, fine. Lets string somebody up to a lightpost to pay for your parking tickets? That okay with you..lets imagine that they volunteered - all better now? After we kill them, we'll resuscitate them...so that they "don't die". Even better, right? Fuck it...lets just go ahead and say that this pays -everyones- parking tickets. Hallelujah, amiright?

(you really need to learn the difference between having a difference of opinion...and someone misunderstanding a concept, btw)

[fr0d0]

Rhythm. Would I travel back and try to kidnap Jesus? No. If we trust in the main messages of scripture then our Lord's Passion was, and is, necessary for the new Kingdom to be established. Jesus spoke sternly to Peter when Peter objected to the idea of Jesus's death, and later told him to put away the sword so that Jesus may drink from the cup given to him by the Father.

Try again Frods.

No R. You are completely misrepresenting what Michael is saying. I've just explained why to you.

[Brakeman]

Get fucking rough dude......I've done some pretty live shit.

Done, she may not walk straight for a week, but you're forgiven.

[fr0d0]

You don't deserve them, you cannot pay for them. If they're just being given to you for free then morality and goodness and what you deserve or don't deserve - all that's out the window Frodo. So why the bloody charade of crucifixion? Is such an abrogation a moral act (now you're making god/jesus out to be the dick..way to go)?

1. Yes correct
2. So that destroyed your position then, if a free gift cannot be judged morally? Did I read you right?
3. And on no basis you dismiss salvation. It isn't immoral - we can make no judgement. Out of context, we note that crucifixion is barbaric. By nails more so. You think this isn't the point?

Maybe we could have a sanitary Rhythm version. The fairy princess doesn't brush her hair one day. Mankind will live for ever more. Sparkles and rainbow fireworks light up the sky. Happiness reigns.

I can't go on, because I really cannot second guess you're meaning. Please try to state your position more clearly.

[The Grand Nudger]

1. Yes correct

-then so be it.

2. So that destroyed your position then, if a free gift cannot be judged morally? Did I read you right?

Is that what you think? Or could it be that I was commenting about how such a gift subverts the very concept of morality (which you require in your explanation of our failings), and subverts the narrative -if the cookies are free...why did jesus need to be crucified- (which you require for your theology)?

3. And on no basis you dismiss salvation. It isn't immoral - we can make no judgement. Out of context, we note that crucifixion is barbaric. By nails more so. You think this isn't the point?

Oh my goodness, a semi-straight answer...lol...so it's barbaric, and you would prevent it. Good for you, still only halfway home.

Can you just say "no", btw, "no Rhythm..I'm not ok with stringing anyone up for my parking tickets"? I know that you aren't.......You keep insisting that I make my point clear...but to do so to your satisfaction it will be necessary for you to engage in dialogue with me, wont it?

( I didn't question Michaels motives Frodo - or whatever sort of agonizing he might do over his conclusion, I merely stated that he would not be willing to go back and stop the event, as you and I would be.)

[fr0d0]

It's freely given by God. To accept the gift involves acknowledging the sacrifice. If we don't accept the free offer, there is no other way to be forgiven. We don't deserve the gift, we cannot. But God loves us so much, he did this for us.

That's not what I think, no. I'm asking you if that's what you meant. Again you're stating your position without explaining it.

A generous act by God, causing his human incarnation terrible suffering, is somehow immoral because... WHY??? We've just cleared up one point... If the gift was given freely then it wasn't immoral.

[Mudhammam]

It's freely given by God. To accept the gift involves acknowledging the sacrifice. If we don't accept the free offer, there is no other way to be forgiven. We don't deserve the gift, we cannot. But God loves us so much, he did this for us.

I can read nothing intelligible in these statements. "Freely given" by God? What was given? The sacrifice? Strange, I thought it had something to do with a mob, a Roman procurator, and the sins of the world. Is it freely given in the same manner that brain tumors are given to children? What does it mean to "accept" a gift by "acknowledging" it? I acknowledge the claim that Jesus died, hell, I even accept it as fact that he did indeed get crucified, but what does that have to do with anything outside of a conversation about ancient history? At least Mike has a decent point about following Jesus' example in humbling one's self before injustice rather than "repaying evil for evil" so as to break a cycle of hatred, but whatever you're trying to say Frodo, it'd help if you tried to articulate it more artfully using concepts that actually have meaning in a given context. What love has to do with sacrifice in your narrative is about as cogent as my stating that I gave a homeless man in Detroit a dollar so that the next victim of ebola in Africa might feel a glimmer of hope.

A generous act by God, causing his human incarnation terrible suffering, is somehow immoral because... WHY???

In context, a question of equal sensibility might be: A generous act, beating a handicap child until blood pours out from her mouth so that she learns not to question her father's wisdom on table etiquette, is somehow immoral because.... WHY???

We've just cleared up one point... If the gift was given freely then it wasn't immoral.

And that's quite obviously where you're simply (or rather horribly) dead wrong.