One question for Christians

[Dionysius]

Skepticism is certainly warranted but out right denial would seem to be intellectually hasty.

As hasty as outright credence in the face of all the evidence ever presented? Not to mention that I'm not denying anything, for to do so would necessitate something to deny. I'm just sitting here looking at a naked Emperor and being told what a natty dresser he is.

A belief in God can be reduced to the question of whether discarnate consciousness is possible. For example a compelling argument can be developed if we view the ostensible perpetuity of the universe as a self-regulating intelligence where it wills a continual existential balance; a symmetry of elemental interactions necessary to sustain life. While no definitive agent known as nature can be isolated we know that such a corporation of influences do indeed exist which comprise nature.

That's all the metaphysical speculation I have for the moment.

Well, now you're using applied Dolphinetics and switching from the existence of "God" to the belief in it. Metaphysics, like all philosophy, only has as much power in that world that the believer needs at any one time. We can argue back and forth all day about whether Smurfs have blue blood or just blue skin; but unless we can acknowledge that there aren't actually any Smurfs, it's all a huge circlejerk without the fun of the climax.

I prefer to speculate on the phenomena of God from a more intellectually palatable - yet still religiously accurate- vantage. I'm ascertaining the plausibility of blue-blooded smurfs not on their actual existence which can't as yet be proven but on their rather undeniable footprint - something caused these poor sods to run 'round apeing religion all over the place.

[Cyberman]

Ok, so if I understand you correctly we're going down the "xtianity spread so rapidly it must be true" route. Am I right, before we proceed? I don't want to put words in your mouse.

[Dionysius]

Ok, so if I understand you correctly we're going down the "xtianity spread so rapidly it must be true" route. Am I right, before we proceed? I don't want to put words in your mouse.

Let's not isolate this to just Judeo/Christianity but rather we must take into account all religions.

[ronedee]

Jesus did say that: "He & the Father were the same".

So, maybe God Himself paid the price for sin?

But alas, that for the "unbeliever" means nothing either.

It shouldn't mean anything to you guys either: you're essentially admitting that god sacrificed himself, to himself, to allay the consequences of a set of concepts that are only bad because they are offensive to him that a middle of the road sense of empathy and common sense would allow him to simply forgive without the circuitous spectacle.

No... that's what YOU say! Where does Jesus/God say He sacrifices Himself to Himself?

What you're describing isn't a sublime sacrifice. It's the contortions of a mind with OCD trying to accomplish a thing in the most indirect, histrionic way possible.

But alas, the believers don't even see this Gordian Knot, let alone the way to cut it.

You don't understand.... so just admit it.

The funny thing for me, is watching atheist squirm over this concept.

[Esquilax]

No... that's what YOU say! Where does Jesus/God say He sacrifices Himself to Himself?

Simply a logical consequence of what you yourself said, my friend. Here:

Jesus did say that: "He & the Father were the same".

So, maybe God Himself paid the price for sin?

Don't disagree with me when I'm agreeing with you.

You don't understand, so just admit it.

The funny thing for me, is watching atheist squirm over this concept.

Hey, let me just ask you this: is it possible for someone to understand christianity to your satisfaction without agreeing with it?

[Faith No More]

It shouldn't mean anything to you guys either: you're essentially admitting that god sacrificed himself, to himself, to allay the consequences of a set of concepts that are only bad because they are offensive to him that a middle of the road sense of empathy and common sense would allow him to simply forgive without the circuitous spectacle.

This makes sense actually if you think of god as an abusive spouse.

God comes down and kills himself, and then is all like, "LOOK WHAT YOU FUCKING MADE ME DO!!" And then just like an abusive spouse's victim, Christians not only accept it, they praise him for it.

[ronedee]

What is sin?

sin
/sin/Noun
An immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

Verb
Commit a sin.

Abbreviation
Sine.

Synonyms
noun. trespass - guilt - offense - transgression - offence
verb. transgress - err - trespass - offend

[Faith No More]

So, since there is no divine law, we can conclude sin does not exist, yes?

[ronedee]

Hey, let me just ask you this: is it possible for someone to understand christianity to your satisfaction without agreeing with it?

LOL!

You are taking the literal and throwing the concept out the window!

"Our sin" is what Jesus died for. He paid the price for our actions!

We were'nt coerced to sin. We did it of our [free will]. But, God made the opportunity available to us. And that is why He needed to also justify His condemnation of our actions. aka.... "He was treated as a criminal".

He paid for doing that! "He became sin, and put sin to death on the cross." Sin isn't "necessarily" a death sentence as it was before Christ!

We are now in His grace...IF we so chose. Because free will still exists...as evident by your resistence to His grace for you!

[Cyberman]

So, since there is no divine law, we can conclude sin does not exist, yes?

It's actually worse than that, FNM. since sin is "An immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law", ronedee now has to establish what precisely constitutes an immoral act, what divine law is and how one transgresses it. It's a vital part of his stance because he's postulated that "maybe God Himself paid the price for sin" and yet we're no further forward.