RE: Rant against anti-atheist agnostics.
September 22, 2014 at 4:52 pm
(This post was last modified: September 22, 2014 at 4:58 pm by Michael B.)
P.S. Just to be pedantic - the 'scapegoat' was the one not sacrificed. It was simply chased away carrying, symbolically, the sins of the people with it. Its end was much better than the sacrificial goat killed at the same time.
What is counter-factual was simply that the question was asking about something (the non-crucifixion of the Christ) that Christians don't believe happened, if you'll excuse the double negative. It's a bit like asking what would have happened if Germany had not invaded Poland. You just end up trying to say something about things that didn't actually happen and after a while you realise that such discussions, while not always uninteresting, never lead anywhere particularly useful. So Christians have always tried to make sense of what did happen (our God was crucified) rather than what didn't.
(September 22, 2014 at 4:44 pm)Rhythm Wrote: What's counter-factual about the question Mike?
What is counter-factual was simply that the question was asking about something (the non-crucifixion of the Christ) that Christians don't believe happened, if you'll excuse the double negative. It's a bit like asking what would have happened if Germany had not invaded Poland. You just end up trying to say something about things that didn't actually happen and after a while you realise that such discussions, while not always uninteresting, never lead anywhere particularly useful. So Christians have always tried to make sense of what did happen (our God was crucified) rather than what didn't.