Without the Shedding of Blood There is No Remission of Sin

[Harry Nevis]

If god’s definition of words like justice and love is so different from ours, then what was the purpose of writing a book that never means what it says or says what it means? The church offers no consensus of meaning since Christians adjust the meaning according to secular moral standards. [1]

Case in point: because it makes god look like a draconian psychopath to the secular mind, the church has now toned down its preaching of hellfire and brimstone, and now teaches that hell is just eternal separation from god. By disagreeing with this, you only betray the lack of consensus in the church, so be my guest. [2]

1. Where is the Bible inconsistent with the meaning of those two words? 
2. I don't believe the verses on Hell in the NT have been changed recently. Your logic is that if some Christians are wrong in their doctrine that proves then all Christians are wrong--and that's just nonsense.

i love my kids and, no matter what they do, I would not punish them eternally.  If behaviour is so important, I would be as clear as possible about what is expected of them. If they end up not doing what I want them to, I wouldn't kill them all and start over, or stone them to death.

If christians say that god told them what a bible passage means, and there are multiple answers among them, what is the most logical explanation?  More than one god is telling them these things? No evidence for even ONE god.  God tells people conflicting stories?  That would explain the bible's contradictions, I guess.  That they're lying or mistaken that that the voice in their head is god?  Bingo.

[SteveII]

[Harry Nevis]

Really I'm just astounded how someone can write something so psychopathic. Do you not have any sense of compassion? Try putting yourself in their shoes. I mean imagine if you had a son and he got some severe disease and died in most excruciating pain. Are you telling me you would be happy because he is now with Jesus?

Or let's say you have a mother and some soldiers one day came into the house and brutally raped her and killed her (like YHWH usually ordered Jews in OT). Again are you telling me you would be happy because she is with Jesus and this life is insignificant?

You are applying my answer to one question to another. 

My answer above was to the post that said God solved his problems by killing. In context, I took this to mean the age old objection to God's actions in a few instances in the OT.

I don't believe God causes disease--so your conclusion does not follow from what I believe. 

You invented your last objection so I don't feel the need to address it.

Boy, when you can just pick and choose what you want to believe, there are no hard questions, are there/

[SteveII]

You are applying my answer to one question to another. 

My answer above was to the post that said God solved his problems by killing. In context, I took this to mean the age old objection to God's actions in a few instances in the OT.

I don't believe God causes disease--so your conclusion does not follow from what I believe. 

You invented your last objection so I don't feel the need to address it.

Boy, when you can just pick and choose what you want to believe, there are no hard questions, are there/

There are so few hard question because most have been answered for millennium. It is a matter of just looking them up--which is probably better than learning about Christianity from an atheist blog. But, since most of you have done/do that, the answers are even easier because half the time you don't even understand enough of doctrine x to properly form your objections.

[Harry Nevis]

Boy, when you can just pick and choose what you want to believe, there are no hard questions, are there/

There are so few hard question because most have been answered for millennium. It is a matter of just looking them up--which is probably better than learning about Christianity from an atheist blog. But, since most of you have done/do that, the answers are even easier because half the time you don't even understand enough of doctrine x to properly form your objections.

Riiight.  I bet most of the atheists here were raised christian.  Just because you're satisfied with any answer that supports your bias doesn't mean they actually answer the questions.  You're like Trekkies arguing about discrepancies in the Star Trek Universe.

[SteveII]

There are so few hard question because most have been answered for millennium. It is a matter of just looking them up--which is probably better than learning about Christianity from an atheist blog. But, since most of you have done/do that, the answers are even easier because half the time you don't even understand enough of doctrine x to properly form your objections.

Riiight.  I bet most of the atheists here were raised christian.  Just because you're satisfied with any answer that supports your bias doesn't mean they actually answer the questions.  You're like Trekkies arguing about discrepancies in the Star Trek Universe.

Don't confuse being 'raised Christian' as knowing anything about doctrine. If anything, your example of the atheists here prove that daily. 

Makes you wonder though. If "most of the atheists here were raised christian" obviously rejected Christianity, what did they actually reject if most can't even articulate the key doctrines correctly.

[Drich]

In short. Without sin there is only God's will. Only God's will =no ability to choose anything outside of it. Enter the knoweledge of god's will and of evil. Now we have choice for the first time.

Problem chose sin= choose death.

but if sinner choose to repent, they choose life and God.

God from the beginning set up the process of sin and repentance so that we may choose to be with God, or to separate ourselves from Him.

That's like saying if there were no atom bomb we couldn't choose disarmament. Since disarmament is a good thing, it was necessary to build the bomb and it's not the builder's fault if we cheese to use the bomb rather than disarmament.

(Be kind...Drich it looks lke she doesn't know any better not that she is trolling you so.. Be Kind)

That not how sin/choice works. Look at the name of the tree A&E ate from. It is the tree of the knowledge of Good and evil. Not the tree of sin, not the tree of choice, not the tree of original sin. So what is in a name? the description of what the tree represents. Simply the knowledge of good and evil. Once A&E ate from the tree they knew what it was to sin. So when they could not help themselves but to sin and they knew what they were doing and how it affected God, they were punished for their conscientious awareness to make a sinful decision.

Understand 'free will' is not what is being discussed here hence you atom bomb arguement is moot completely. "Free will is a greek construct based on nonbiblical principles."

Sin is acknowledged willful action against God. The choice we have is to hate this almost involuntary act and repent of it. to seek God even though we are sin machines that will never stop sinning. That is the choice God gave us. it's not about whether to sin or not sin it is about repenting of it. Sin is not a choice as Paul says we are slaves to sin. So enter Jesus and his sacrifice now all sin is moot. (if and when you atone) So what is left? desire to be with God or your desire to serve self/all that is not God.

This is astronomically more ridiculous when the builder is omniscient.

Or when the person I'm speaking with is far less omniscient than I myself am.

You can explain Christian doctrine all you want, but youcan't make it  coherent.

I can if you are willing to admit you know very little about biblical principle, and are willing to learn something new/you've probably never heard before.

[Chad32]

Personally I rejected the existence of a god, based on stories that are far from original or unique. I also reject the core idea of an innocent person being murdered in the place of the guilty, and eternal punishment for finite crimes. I can't say that my church got things totally right, mainly because no one can say that. I see little reason to continue this faith exercise, though.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Riiight.  I bet most of the atheists here were raised christian.  Just because you're satisfied with any answer that supports your bias doesn't mean they actually answer the questions.  You're like Trekkies arguing about discrepancies in the Star Trek Universe.

Don't confuse being 'raised Christian' as knowing anything about doctrine. If anything, your example of the atheists here prove that daily. 

Makes you wonder though. If "most of the atheists here were raised christian" obviously rejected Christianity, what did they actually reject if most can't even articulate the key doctrines correctly.

Could a similar observation be made about the theist members here in regards to their knowledge of atheism/agnosticism? How many times have theists made statements about atheism/agnosticism that were based on misconceptions or misunderstandings of what theists thought those terms meant? Hence, is it a tendency of any in-group to assume that it accurately understands the out-group without actually testing that understanding first hand?

[SteveII]

Don't confuse being 'raised Christian' as knowing anything about doctrine. If anything, your example of the atheists here prove that daily. 

Makes you wonder though. If "most of the atheists here were raised christian" obviously rejected Christianity, what did they actually reject if most can't even articulate the key doctrines correctly.

Could a similar observation be made about the theist members here in regards to their knowledge of atheism/agnosticism? How many times have theists made statements about atheism/agnosticism that were based on misconceptions or misunderstandings of what theists thought those terms meant? Hence, is it a tendency of any in-group to assume that it accurately understands the out-group without actually testing that understanding first hand?

I suppose. But atheism has no doctrines to learn that I can misunderstand.