Biblical Inerrancy - mandatory to be Christian?

[jstrodel]

God makes the blood sacrifice though in Jesus Christ. What do you object to about it?

Its necessity, it's efficacy, the manner in which it achieves its effect, the manner in which it was carried out, the justifications given for it's being carried out, the lack of consent on the part of it's supposed beneficiaries, the implication of their communal culpability for it's being carried out, the erosion of the fundamental concepts it is supposed to have addressed if it -were- carried out and -was- effective....and finally, that people keep telling this bullshit story as though it actually happened.

In short, I object to everything about it. Go chain your goats to posts and beat them to death all day long, maybe the bad things won't "get you", I'll pass.

Necessity: Christ's death was necessary to pay for the sins of the world because God's holy character requires a sacrifice for sin
Efficacy: God considers the sacrifice to be paid by Jesus, it is only necessary for the sacrifice to be considered complete by Jesus
Manner in which it achieves its affect: When people repent of their sins and put on Christ, God considers them to be in Christ, that is they grafted in to Christ and since they do similar things to Christ, they are accepted by God as included in Christ's sacrifice
Carried out: God considers the sins of one man to be paid for by the death of another. Unsure of the nature of the objection
Justifications for it being carried out: He made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, so that we could become the righteousness of God 2 Cor 5:21
Lack of consent: Untrue, the people who repent of their sins prove that they want to receive Christ by their desire for holiness. Is this really a serious objection? Who would refuse to have their sins paid for?
Communal capability: The people who put Jesus to death by the foreknowledge of God are guilty, though they acted in the providence of God, they of their own free choices chose to put Jesus on the cross
Erosion of concepts it is supposed to address: Unsure of what this means. The crucifixion of Christ on the cross is the defining moment of Christian love and humility and appreciation of the severity of sin. Have you studied Christianity seriously at all?
The story: Christ's death on the cross is a historical fact, that has many witnesses both in the Biblical documents themselves, in the ancient world such as Josephus and the historicity of Christ's life is widely accepted among even critical scholars such as Bart Ehrman. If you are arguing that Jesus was not a historical figure, you are ignorant of basic historical facts.

Well, that took me about 15 minutes to type up, but I did it because I love Jesus. Is it possible that you could put your objection in formal logic or something like that? I don't really see where you have even come close to making a point that is even remotely a threat to Christian beliefs. Some atheist critiques of Christianity are difficult for some to rebut. You have not made a single objection though.

If you fail to respond with some sort of clearly defined argument in formal logic, I will assume it is because you have no real objection to the atonement and your rejection of Christianity is due to a desire to please the flesh rather than a serious problem with Christian belief.

---

HaShem just means "the name" and is a stand in for not pronouncing the Tetragrammaton. Christian texts translate it as the LORD.

It's kind of ironic to avoid the use of god's personal name while talking about getting to know him better.

I want to show reverence for God. Besides, H'Shem's beautiful personality cannot be compressed into a single word. God is the nicest person that you could ever meet. I love God. God is my best friend.