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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Necessity: Christ's death was necessary to pay for the sins of the world because God's holy character requires a sacrifice for sin

You think this somehow erodes my objection? Not only will i remind you that there is no such thing as "the sins of the world" I will mention that even if there were, such a requirement is completely disgusting to me, and a mystery as to why your fucking "god" is somehow bound by this requirement to the exclusion of any other less onerous thing.

Efficacy: God considers the sacrifice to be paid by Jesus, it is only necessary for the sacrifice to be considered complete by Jesus

None of which demonstrates the effectiveness of blood sacrifice or vicarious redemptuion.

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

Poof, magic..precisely why I object, you have failed to establish a mechanism by which the effect (which you also failed to establish) is achieved.

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

It's an objection to barbarism and scapegoating.

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

None of which establish any justification.

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?

I would, if I had such sins, if such a thing as sin existed, and this were the manner in which such a payment was to be made...was I unclear?

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

You've misunderstood, anyone who has someone else strung up is responsible for what they have done. I never had any fucking jesus strung up, I would not have had any fucking jesus strung up, and I certainly would not have strung any jesus up so that he could die for my "sins". IOW, Jesus did not die for my (non-existent) sins, I am not culpable for your little s&m sideshow.

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?

Have you studied the havamal seriously? Christian love and humility is entirely alien to either concept if this is it's ultimate expression - which is precisely why it erodes such concepts.

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.

No, lol, it isn't, it's a widely accepted and not quite thoroughly scrutinized representation of scapegoating, a form of sympathetic magic when elevated to these extremes.

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.

You clearly don't love "Jesus" as much as I might have - seeing as I would -at the very least- refuse to crucify the fucker while you bask in the glory of the non-event..... My point shouldn't be threatening to christian beliefs, as christian beliefs extoll the virtue of scapegoating. It would only be a threat to christian belief if the person holding such beliefs were not, themselves, kosher with scapegoating (you're obviously no such person, so plug along unphased scapegoater). My objection is based upon my revulsion towards scapegoating, and your failure to demonstrate that it actually works (and to be completely honest - even if it did...it would still be revolting to me). Nothing about scapegoating gives me any pleasure, and nothing about refusing to call it virtue gives me any pleasure either - it simply reminds me that there are people such as yourself in this world who actually have to have such a thing explained to them......

This particular christian belief is disgusting, it is absurd, and there is no substance backing it or evidence in support of it. Even if I were to assume it was an actual event just for shits and giggles I still could not be a christian. I will not punish another for what I have done, nor will I give the go ahead for someone else to punish another in my stead...again for what I have done. You're okay with it, clearly, and I cannot stress this enough....I find that completely disgusting.

So we've reached the point where you're aking demands of peoples responses to your bullshit?

Step #1 Prove the existence of your fucking god
Step #2 Blather on about vicarious redemption.
Step #3 Realize that If your god is a scapegoater I don't give a shit, I'm still going to opt out.

[jstrodel]

Put your objections in formal logic, I don't want to write a response to a one line profanity filled remark

Why do you blaspheme? What are you trying to prove?

[The Grand Nudger]

More demands from gigglesticks. At what point do you think that your macabre little tale deserves any formal logic? I saw none offered in support of it.

I don't blaspheme, there is no such thing, as there is no-one to blaspheme against. Prove? Do I have to prove that I find scapegoating revolting? You're just gonna have to take my word on that one.

[jstrodel]

There is no reason to talk to you then.

[The Grand Nudger]

Promises, promises.

[Tonus]

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.

Refusing to identify him by name doesn't show reverence. You've made numerous posts attesting to your love and reverence for god. Speaking his name shouldn't undo all of that.

Necessity: Christ's death was necessary to pay for the sins of the world because God's holy character requires a sacrifice for sin

Mark 2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”

Jesus forgave a man his sins without requiring a sacrifice. He did so by simple acclamation. When the priests who saw this questioned his authority to do so, he proved it by healing the man's paralysis.

Did Jesus sin, by not observing protocol? Keep in mind that the concept of expiatory sacrifice was so binding that god did not release Jesus from giving his own life, even though Jesus prayed to god to find another way. If a sacrifice wasn't necessary, Jesus self-sacrifice is meaningless. If a sacrifice was necessary, Jesus committed a sin by ignoring protocol... which makes his self-sacrifice meaningless, since he would not have been a perfect man anymore.

[catfish]

Mark 2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”

Jesus forgave a man his sins without requiring a sacrifice. He did so by simple acclamation. When the priests who saw this questioned his authority to do so, he proved it by healing the man's paralysis.

Did Jesus sin, by not observing protocol? Keep in mind that the concept of expiatory sacrifice was so binding that god did not release Jesus from giving his own life, even though Jesus prayed to god to find another way. If a sacrifice wasn't necessary, Jesus self-sacrifice is meaningless. If a sacrifice was necessary, Jesus committed a sin by ignoring protocol... which makes his self-sacrifice meaningless, since he would not have been a perfect man anymore.

"Protocol" does not dictate "sin" as Jesus pointed out on several occasions. So if sacrifice was necessary, he could have only violated man-made laws.

[Tonus]

"Protocol" does not dictate "sin" as Jesus pointed out on several occasions. So if sacrifice was necessary, he could have only violated man-made laws.

Can you elaborate on this? I am not sure what you mean.

[catfish]

"Protocol" does not dictate "sin" as Jesus pointed out on several occasions. So if sacrifice was necessary, he could have only violated man-made laws.

Can you elaborate on this? I am not sure what you mean.

Yeshua explained and pointed out the difference between "Moses' law" and "God's law" by citing the case of divorce and circumcising on the Sabbath.