RE: Rant against anti-atheist agnostics.
September 27, 2014 at 7:21 am
(This post was last modified: September 27, 2014 at 7:26 am by fr0d0.)
A once and for all solution. Yes exactly. That's what it is. No less. It's not discounted if the offer is exactly the same to everyone. But is harder for some to accept than others. Why? Because of what they've made of themselves. If you're rich. If you pretty much have an easy life. Think 1st world problems, then you're going to find it harder to accept help. Another fact of life.
You have masses of cogent support for that. It remains undefeated and has done some 2000 years already. Not that that should matter. It's undefeated now. Unless you know different. I'd love to know your defeater.
The very fabric of the story rests on the immorality of the act. That's what gives it its potency. Who committed that immoral act? We do. Now.
So the homeless man is us, and the one giving food to us is God. To give humanity life, God had to take his own life to make it happen. He doesn't force you to take it/ take away your ability to choose. He gives you the choice to accept it. Accept it and life is yours. Reject it and you carry in as before.
No, not Jesus and not Jesus. Jesus and God. 2 persons.
God didn't demand the debt be paid in blood. We did. The traditional sacrifice of the era and preceding it was a blood sacrifice. We're using the language and cultural references of the time. Nothing else would make sense to them. Hence the bible story follows. Yes it's brutal. So is killing animals to eat them. Most 1st world people are shocked at animal slaughter. We gladly take the product though.
It wasn't a lesson for the child. No kind of rebuke or punishment. It was a freely offered gift. Your rejection of that gift causes you suffering. God isn't holding anything back. Only you are causing yourself any ill effect.
You have masses of cogent support for that. It remains undefeated and has done some 2000 years already. Not that that should matter. It's undefeated now. Unless you know different. I'd love to know your defeater.
The very fabric of the story rests on the immorality of the act. That's what gives it its potency. Who committed that immoral act? We do. Now.
So the homeless man is us, and the one giving food to us is God. To give humanity life, God had to take his own life to make it happen. He doesn't force you to take it/ take away your ability to choose. He gives you the choice to accept it. Accept it and life is yours. Reject it and you carry in as before.
No, not Jesus and not Jesus. Jesus and God. 2 persons.
God didn't demand the debt be paid in blood. We did. The traditional sacrifice of the era and preceding it was a blood sacrifice. We're using the language and cultural references of the time. Nothing else would make sense to them. Hence the bible story follows. Yes it's brutal. So is killing animals to eat them. Most 1st world people are shocked at animal slaughter. We gladly take the product though.
It wasn't a lesson for the child. No kind of rebuke or punishment. It was a freely offered gift. Your rejection of that gift causes you suffering. God isn't holding anything back. Only you are causing yourself any ill effect.