What if Jesus had failed?

[Drich]

Abraham, Isac, Jacob, Joseph, Nathaniel, and on and on were not under the law yet they still sinned...

Which is why I specifically excluded them. However, there still is the matter of:

Not to mention The penality for adultry was death of the adulturers no animal in under that covenant could cover that sin. A sin both David and soloman were guilty of...

If David and Solomon both died, then they paid the penalty for their sin of adultery. And pretty much every other sin they committed. They don't need Jesus to atone for their wrongs. They did so on their own, by dying.

It does bring up a bit of a paradox, in that it would mean that every person who dies is absolved of sin by the act of dying. Death squares the account with god. But that runs against the idea of an afterlife where bad deeds are punished. It still works as a way of providing a path to heaven as a way of rewarding people if god wishes to do so. But it's not atonement for sin. Dying took care of that.

As in the case of Adam continued physical life after the warning eating from the tree of knowledge would surly kill him, God is not warning of a physical death. God warns of Sheol/hell being the death that sin brings to the sinner. We all die in this life or as Christ puts it we "sleep" which means even though to us in this place death is final, to God from His perspective our knowledge of death is of a spiritual rest or sleep. When God Speaks of Death in this context He is referring to a Spiritual death, one that you can never come back from.

[Ryantology]

The very fact that so much compromise' is required to make sense of the Bible is proof of its poor quality even as the trash fiction it really is. And, as you have utterly failed in the past to demonstrate that your interpretation is even as valid as mine, there remains no compelling reason to look at the Bible as anything but trash fiction.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

But that would require that you believe in pretty much any creature or concept that has some evidence, because evidence that it does not exist is not available. Think of any mythical creature from past or present, and there will be some evidence of it. Stories, legends, histories, scholarly studies, pictures, paintings, footprints, even eyewitness accounts. There will be no evidence that these creatures do NOT exist.

You may have to be a little more open minded when it comes to the existence of the supernatural in general, seeing as it is kind of the idea. Otherwise what you would end up with is a kind of deism, but deism is a waste of time you may as well be an atheist than to believe in a God or a supernatural reality that does nothing at all.

What is kind of the idea? That you have to believe in things to believe in things? No shit.

What do you mean you might as well be an atheist? Look, for all the supernatural effects Christians have on reality, they may as well be atheists.

Therefore you are forced to believe in dragons, and griffins, and unicorns, and bigfoot, and the Loch Ness monster and green men from Mars in their saucer-shaped spaceships and any number of other beings for whom there is a little bit more evidence for than against.

Dragons, griffins and unicorns were originally just exotic animals and not supernatural. Bigfoot isn't supernatural but there's a chance that is some kind of undiscovered Australopithecus bipedal species of ape somewhere. The Lochness Monster could be some kind of giant eel or fish. 95% of UFO sightings have an explanation, the remaining 5% could be alien ships, alien probes or something a little more exotic and interdimensional. UFO sightings go all the way right back through history and are somewhat consistent. Fighter planes certainly have been dispatched to intercept something and we have pretty reliable reports on what they encountered. So yes you can be a little less cynical on these things.

You don't know any of this. But you're not content with saying you don't know. You're making speculations about everything and pretending they're worth more than just a person's imaginations.

[Bad Writer]

Cynicism is what the doctor orders when it comes to any outrageous claims. What do you think about the Book of Mormon or Al-Quran then?

[Minimalist]

You could say using the Bible as the evidence of Jesus/God is circular reasoning but not if you're basing your belief in God/Christ on something beyond and outside of scripture.

If only any of you clowns could do that. But you can't.

It's either - "the bible says" or "god talks to me through my cat." None of it is the least bit convincing.

[ronedee]

You could say using the Bible as the evidence of Jesus/God is circular reasoning but not if you're basing your belief in God/Christ on something beyond and outside of scripture.

If only any of you clowns could do that. But you can't.

It's either - "the bible says" or "god talks to me through my cat." None of it is the least bit convincing.

we get tormented over using "you people"?

but we are ok with "clowns"?

"you people" is sounding a lot more respectable in contrast.

[Minimalist]

Surely you understand that you have the ability to stop being a clown any time you like.

I suggest you make use of the opportunity.

(Most of the time I say "you fucking idiots." "Clowns" was in my polite stage because this guy is relatively new.)

[Sword of Christ]

What is kind of the idea? That you have to believe in things to believe in things? No shit.

It's either that or say "Cus I ain't seen it then it ain't rul" to just about anything that is possible. It's like say aliens, are we to assume they don't exist based on the fact that we happen not to have seen any yet? We can't see God does that mean he doesn't exist? No. You will need a better reason than this to discount something as even being possible or reasonable to believe.

What do you mean you might as well be an atheist? Look, for all the supernatural effects Christians have on reality, they may as well be atheists.

They have had a big effect on reality if you look at world history. Massive effect right there, you must be seeing it. And of course you can see the effect on their lives individually, this is undeniable you can see it. Harry Potter doesn't do this. Lord of the Rings do this. Christ does do this. Sure so do other religions but you will find the teachings of Christ in all of them. But the one that had the biggest impact, your proofs in the pudding. Now atheism aside from helping to found something the Soviet Union, aside from Richard Dawkins and his God Delusion book hasn't done Jack really. No fruits of any note have been produced, as Christ told his followers to look out for. He knew what he was talking about.

You don't know any of this. But you're not content with saying you don't know. You're making speculations about everything and pretending they're worth more than just a person's imaginations.

A UFO is an unidentified flying object, unidentified flying objects apparently do fly around from time to time. I don't actually know what they are myself. But this is what I mean, it's not necessary to flat out deny everything that is even remotely out of the ordinary until you know for certain. It isn't good science to do this, you have to be open to the possibility of a new discovery to begin with. If we were to set out under the assumption that something is horseshit and wait for someone to prove it isn't we would get nothing done. In years to come perhaps new light will be shed on UFOs, Big Foot and the Lochness Monster. As it is we don't know, that's fair enough.

[Silver]

It's like say aliens, are we to assume they don't exist based on the fact that we happen not to have seen any yet?

Yes, that would be the logical and sane thing to do.

[Drich]

The very fact that so much compromise' is required to make sense of the Bible is proof of its poor quality even as the trash fiction it really is. And, as you have utterly failed in the past to demonstrate that your interpretation is even as valid as mine, there remains no compelling reason to look at the Bible as anything but trash fiction.

We'll see

---

Which is why I specifically excluded them. However, there still is the matter of:
If David and Solomon both died, then they paid the penalty for their sin of adultery. And pretty much every other sin they committed. They don't need Jesus to atone for their wrongs. They did so on their own, by dying.

It does bring up a bit of a paradox, in that it would mean that every person who dies is absolved of sin by the act of dying. Death squares the account with god. But that runs against the idea of an afterlife where bad deeds are punished. It still works as a way of providing a path to heaven as a way of rewarding people if god wishes to do so. But it's not atonement for sin. Dying took care of that.

As in the case of Adam continued physical life after the warning eating from the tree of knowledge would surly kill him, God is not warning of a physical death. God warns of Sheol/hell being the death that sin brings to the sinner. We all die in this life or as Christ puts it we "sleep" which means even though to us in this place death is final, to God from His perspective our knowledge of death is of a spiritual rest or sleep. When God Speaks of Death in this context He is referring to a Spiritual death, one that you can never come back from.

Which I would like to add is why Christ died for us. So we know of the sacrifice God made in order to provide us attonement. (So we do not have to die.) As Christ had conquored death, we (meaning those who have accepted what has been done on our behalf) will also conquor death.