(August 1, 2014 at 3:46 pm)professor Wrote: Well Robie if you don't like the price paid for you, and it is certainly your choice.
You can pay it yourself.
But why would you choose that?
Well Profefsfesorr, that's not what I was talking about, but thanks for the non sequitur. Also, my choice is one made out of a lack of supporting evidence for Christian claims.
(August 1, 2014 at 3:46 pm)professor Wrote: The principle is, the soul that sins shall die.
That was spelled out in the first Covenant and the animals that were killed (prior to roasting) were a shadow and type and a temporary "Covering" for sin until God established the New and final Covenant paid for in His blood.
If you think His sacrifice was bogus- go to the first paragraph above.
So, why did he set up the new covenant that the old one was paid for by having a third of himself sacrificed temporarily to himself? Seems rather pointless.
(August 1, 2014 at 3:49 pm)alpha male Wrote: Unbalanced, yes, but that's what I would expect, comparing God to man. It's nonsensical to expect the two to be identical.
Protip: when using something someone says against them, it doesn't count if when using false equivocation.
