LISTEN, CHRISTIANS!

[Spooky]

He did. His name was Jesus.

[Ravenshire]

Get bent GC. You're no better qualified than any of the other ass-hats to tell us what we feel.

Why you write it down and present it for all to see, most atheist here parrot each other, so much so nothing new is being added to good conversation by atheist. Look at your language, that seems to me to be an indication of what's in your heart.

GC

That I'm sick and fucking tired of assholes like you Huggies and the Randy cathy-lick coming here and telling me what I believe. I think you ass-hats are the only ones who haven't figured it out yet. I'm not mad at your gawd GC. I'm just sick to death of you willfully ignorant imbeciles telling me what I think, feel and believe. You want to read that as hate? Feel free to continue being that willfully ignorant.

[Ravenshire]

He did. His name was Jesus.

Oh, but the old testament stuff was just the made up part. Only the stuff in the new testament matters and I'm sure, somewhere in there, there's an unequivocal message that gawd is all powerful and all knowing. You just haven't read it. Or, read it right. Or, had it explained properly by someone who read it right, during the right season, under a full moon while Jupiter was ascending!!!!!!

[Redbeard The Pink]

Semantic bullshit, semantic bullshit, and more semantic bullshit.

If god the son and god the father are the same person, then who is he the son of? I get whose father you think he is (everyone's...how lucky we all would be...), but whose son is he?

You're applying human limitations on God.

God created for himself a body in Jesus Christ and since the body was begotten or produced by God, God is the Father.

Here is an easy way to visualize it.

God = God above us

Son = God with us

Holy Spirit = God in us

It's the same God, just fulfilling different roles.

Semantic. Bull. Shit.

Also, good job honing in on the easiest point to quibble over and acting like you're done. Regardless of what mental gymnastics you have to do to convince yourself that Jesus was his own daddy without being from Arkansas, you still haven't really addressed the important question: why demand a human sacrifice at all? Why demand a blood sacrifice at all, for that matter?

The logic seems to be that SOMEBODY had to be punished for all that sin, but this begs yet another question: why? What prevents a perfectly benevolent god from forgiving without blood being spilled? I can do that. I do it all the time. Why can I, a flawed human, forgive someone essentially on a whim, while the perfectly benevolent and loving god of the universe has to shed blood?

If it's because it has to be that way whether he likes it or not, then he is not all-powerful, for he can't do something that even I can do and is somehow bound by a set of rules that do not bind me. If it's because he chooses for it to be that way, then he is not perfectly benevolent, for a perfectly benevolent god would simply forgive without demanding anything.

[drfuzzy]

He did. His name was Jesus.

Groan. <facepalm> smh   Pathetic.  But ok, let's have some more fun.
Here's one for you, Randy . . . let's see your interpretation of this verse: Luke 9, verse 27 (Jesus, speaking to the 12 and others after the loaves and fishes shindig)
27 But I say to you truthfully, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.”
This verse, as you well know, follows verse 26 which describes "the Son of Man returning in the glory of God", so we're not 
talking about Judean historical events 33 - 70 c.e.  People listening were going to be alive at the second coming.  So someone
walking this earth is over 2000 years old now.  And still waiting.

Nearly forgot! Some folks claim this is about the resurrection. If you agree, then you have to 1) either provide New Testament chapter and verse for a story that begins with followers watching Jesus descend from the clouds after the crucifixion, or 2) provide another historical document that describes the frenzy of Jesus descending from the clouds and setting himself up as World Emperor before the destruction of the Temple in 70 c.e.  Or, well, you could find the immortals and get them to tell their story to some news team . . .

[Thumpalumpacus]

Jesus please us, Huggy and GC in one thread?  I've been sucked into a gravitational well of stupidity, heeeelllllllpppppppppppp

Too late to call for help. We've already passed the event horizon.

yadayyaaddaayyyyaaaaddddaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ............................

[Randy Carson]

He did. His name was Jesus.

Groan. <facepalm> smh   Pathetic.  But ok, let's have some more fun.

Here's one for you, Randy . . . let's see your interpretation of this verse: Luke 9, verse 27 (Jesus, speaking to the 12 and others after the loaves and fishes shindig)

"But I say to you truthfully, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.”

This verse, as you well know, follows verse 26 which describes "the Son of Man returning in the glory of God", so we're not 

talking about Judean historical events 33 - 70 c.e.  People listening were going to be alive at the second coming.  So someonewalking this earth is over 2000 years old now.  And still waiting.

This is a somewhat common misinterpretation, so let's take a closer look. Here is the passage in context:

20 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Peter answered, “God’s Messiah.”

21 Jesus strictly warned them not to tell this to anyone. 22 And he said, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.”

23 Then he said to them all: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. 24 For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will save it. 25 What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit their very self? 26 Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.

27 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”

Luke has pulled together a number of related thoughts in this passage. In vv. 20-21, Jesus asks the disciples who they think that he is. Peter answers, "God's Messiah", and Jesus warns them not tell anyone. In v. 22, he goes on to predict his own death and describes the cost of discipleship in vv. 23-26.

THEN, in v. 27 Jesus tells the disciples that some of them will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God. But does the "kingdom of God" refer back to the previous verses? No. Jesus is referring to the birth of the Church in general (which occurred on Pentecost) as well as the destruction of Jerusalem in particular. The downfall of the city (AD 70) will mark a turning point in salvation history that signals the end of the Old Covenant kingdom and the establishment of the New Covenant.

Hope this helps.

[Foxaèr]

Hope this helps.

You must have a completely different definition to that word than the normal individual.

[Randy Carson]

You're applying human limitations on God.

God created for himself a body in Jesus Christ and since the body was begotten or produced by God, God is the Father.

Here is an easy way to visualize it.

God = God above us

Son = God with us

Holy Spirit = God in us

It's the same God, just fulfilling different roles.

Semantic. Bull. Shit.

Also, good job honing in on the easiest point to quibble over and acting like you're done. Regardless of what mental gymnastics you have to do to convince yourself that Jesus was his own daddy without being from Arkansas, you still haven't really addressed the important question: why demand a human sacrifice at all? Why demand a blood sacrifice at all, for that matter?

The logic seems to be that SOMEBODY had to be punished for all that sin, but this begs yet another question: why? What prevents a perfectly benevolent god from forgiving without blood being spilled? I can do that. I do it all the time. Why can I, a flawed human, forgive someone essentially on a whim, while the perfectly benevolent and loving god of the universe has to shed blood?

If it's because it has to be that way whether he likes it or not, then he is not all-powerful, for he can't do something that even I can do and is somehow bound by a set of rules that do not bind me. If it's because he chooses for it to be that way, then he is not perfectly benevolent, for a perfectly benevolent god would simply forgive without demanding anything.

Don't get used to hearing from me, but your theology is flawed. The answer is simple.

The answer to "why" is because God is also perfectly just. And perfect justice demands a redress.

Consequently, at the cross, perfect justice and perfect mercy met.

[Randy Carson]

Deleted.