What Major Intellectual Issue Most Keeps You From Accepting The Christian Narrative?

[Huggy Bear]

How so?

I'm not a communist and think communism was a terrible idea in execution and probably in theory as well. I'm opposed to totalitarianism all around. So position-wise, all that leaves me having in common with Stalin is not believing in God, and that's assuming he actually did not, he was not clear about that. I assume he also didn't believe in many other things I don't believe in, like faeries and Santa Clause, which presumably you don't believe are literally real, either. So just the (probable) atheism.

Now Osama bin Laden believed in the God of Abraham, as do you. He believed in the old and new testaments, as do you, though he likely did not trust their accuracy as much as you do. As a Muslim he believed that Jesus (Isa) was born of a virgin and getting crucified wasn't the end of him, and he will be back for judgment day, he just didn't believe Jesus was literally the son of God more than anyone else, just a major prophet. He was likely a creationist, believed in a global flood, all the things that come for your religions sharing some of the same roots.

That's how you have more in common with bin Laden as a Christian than I do with Stalin as an atheist.

If Osama doesn't believe the Jesus Christ IS the God of Abraham and that there is no other name whereby man can be saved, then we really have nothing in common other than a belief in a God...

[Cyberman]

I think we're making progress...

[Mister Agenda]

I'm not a communist and think communism was a terrible idea in execution and probably in theory as well. I'm opposed to totalitarianism all around. So position-wise, all that leaves me having in common with Stalin is not believing in God, and that's assuming he actually did not, he was not clear about that. I assume he also didn't believe in many other things I don't believe in, like faeries and Santa Clause, which presumably you don't believe are literally real, either. So just the (probable) atheism.

Now Osama bin Laden believed in the God of Abraham, as do you. He believed in the old and new testaments, as do you, though he likely did not trust their accuracy as much as you do. As a Muslim he believed that Jesus (Isa) was born of a virgin and getting crucified wasn't the end of him, and he will be back for judgment day, he just didn't believe Jesus was literally the son of God more than anyone else, just a major prophet. He was likely a creationist, believed in a global flood, all the things that come for your religions sharing some of the same roots.

That's how you have more in common with bin Laden as a Christian than I do with Stalin as an atheist.

If Osama doesn't believe the Jesus Christ IS the God of Abraham and that there is no other name whereby man can be saved, then we really have nothing in common other than a belief in a God...

Sure, if you strain to ignore that parts where Osama believes Jesus was born of a virgin, hung on a cross, and appointed to judge the quick and the dead, the Genesis story is much the same, so is the flood, Jericho, etc., etc.

So you're NOT a creationist? Welcome to acceptance of evolution!

[Huggy Bear]

If that is your definition of scapegoating then it doesn't apply to Christianity.

And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. - John 6:35

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you - John 6:53

So giving ones life in order for someone else to live is not evil according to your own statement.

Jesus says he takes the world's sins on himself so that we may be saved. That's scapegoating. Putting your sins on someone else so you can avoid the punishment.

Scapegoating is assigning blame to one that's innocent, the bible makes it clear that Jesus Christ is blameless, but he of his own choosing accepted the penalty of sin which was death, no one assigned to or accused him of any sin, he could have chosen not to do it, THAT is not scapegoating.

His death was needed in order for us to live, just like the food you eat needs to die in order for you to live.

[Tobie]

Jesus says he takes the world's sins on himself so that we may be saved. That's scapegoating. Putting your sins on someone else so you can avoid the punishment.

Scapegoating is assigning blame to one that's innocent, the bible makes it clear that Jesus Christ is blameless, but he of his own choosing accepted the penalty of sin which was death, no one assigned to or accused him of any sin, he could have chosen not to do it, THAT is not scapegoating.

His death was needed in order for us to live, just like the food you eat needs to die in order for you to live.

Read Leviticus 16, the origin of the term scapegoat. A priest symbolically lays the peoples' sins upon it and then sends it away. Replace priest with god and the goat with Jesus and it's the same story.

[Huggy Bear]

If Osama doesn't believe the Jesus Christ IS the God of Abraham and that there is no other name whereby man can be saved, then we really have nothing in common other than a belief in a God...

Sure, if you strain to ignore that parts where Osama believes Jesus was born of a virgin, hung on a cross, and appointed to judge the quick and the dead, the Genesis story is much the same, so is the flood, Jericho, etc., etc.

So you're NOT a creationist? Welcome to acceptance of evolution!

I never said I didn't accept evolution, I don't accept abiogenesis...

I'll just quote an old post of mine

You guys never seem to realize that creationism/evolution aren't mutually exclusive.

Evolution doesn't explain how life came to exist....

---

Scapegoating is assigning blame to one that's innocent, the bible makes it clear that Jesus Christ is blameless, but he of his own choosing accepted the penalty of sin which was death, no one assigned to or accused him of any sin, he could have chosen not to do it, THAT is not scapegoating.

His death was needed in order for us to live, just like the food you eat needs to die in order for you to live.

Read Leviticus 16, the origin of the term scapegoat. A priest symbolically lays the peoples' sins upon it and then sends it away. Replace priest with god and the goat with Jesus and it's the same story.

Does the animal have a choice?

[Tobie]

---

Read Leviticus 16, the origin of the term scapegoat. A priest symbolically lays the peoples' sins upon it and then sends it away. Replace priest with god and the goat with Jesus and it's the same story.

Does the animal have a choice?

So he's choosing to become a scapegoat - he's still a scapegoat.

[Chad32]

Jesus says he takes the world's sins on himself so that we may be saved. That's scapegoating. Putting your sins on someone else so you can avoid the punishment.

Scapegoating is assigning blame to one that's innocent, the bible makes it clear that Jesus Christ is blameless, but he of his own choosing accepted the penalty of sin which was death, no one assigned to or accused him of any sin, he could have chosen not to do it, THAT is not scapegoating.

His death was needed in order for us to live, just like the food you eat needs to die in order for you to live.

It wasn't. Even if you argue that it doesn't count as scapegoating, even though it's very similar, setting up something like that was cruel and wrong. No one should suffer for crimes they didn't commit. No one should be put in a position where they're going to suffer and die unless they beg someone else to spare them, and accept something gruesome and wrong as payment. That's a sadistic choice. It's something villains in media do, because it's so fundamentally wrong it shouldn't need explaining.

Also, lest we forget, he did not do it of his own choosing. When the day came for him to do it, he made it clear he didn't want to. "Let this cup pass from me", and all that. It happened anyway. If someone agrees to have sex with someone in the future, and then changes their mind when the agreed upon day comes, it's still rape if it happens anyway.

[drfuzzy]

---

Jesus says he takes the world's sins on himself so that we may be saved. That's scapegoating. Putting your sins on someone else so you can avoid the punishment.

---

---

Scapegoating is assigning blame to one that's innocent, the bible makes it clear that Jesus Christ is blameless, but he of his own choosing accepted the penalty of sin which was death, no one assigned to or accused him of any sin, he could have chosen not to do it, THAT is not scapegoating.

---

His death was needed in order for us to live, just like the food you eat needs to die in order for you to live.

Interesting.  Billions of billions of people live and die just fine without having some fantasy original sin expunged by some imaginary pagan bronze-age immoral blood ritual sacrifice.  I was raised Pentecostal, but I have realized that I have no need for your god-boy to spend a few hours nailed to pieces of wood for my mental or physical well-being.  In fact, I am many orders of magnitude better off for having rejected that puke-making slavish "washed in the blood of the lamb" crap.  You can make assertions about your delusional fantasies all day, enjoy wasting your time.

[Huggy Bear]

Scapegoating is assigning blame to one that's innocent, the bible makes it clear that Jesus Christ is blameless, but he of his own choosing accepted the penalty of sin which was death, no one assigned to or accused him of any sin, he could have chosen not to do it, THAT is not scapegoating.

His death was needed in order for us to live, just like the food you eat needs to die in order for you to live.

It wasn't. Even if you argue that it doesn't count as scapegoating, even though it's very similar, setting up something like that was cruel and wrong. No one should suffer for crimes they didn't commit. No one should be put in a position where they're going to suffer and die unless they beg someone else to spare them, and accept something gruesome and wrong as payment. That's a sadistic choice. It's something villains in media do, because it's so fundamentally wrong it shouldn't need explaining.

Ok so then by that logic, why does anything have to die on order for you to eat? Why is it their fault you're hungry? No creature should suffer and die for the sole reason of satiating your hunger...

Why is that not just as sadistic?

Also, lest we forget, he did not do it of his own choosing. When the day came for him to do it, he made it clear he didn't want to. "Let this cup pass from me", and all that. It happened anyway. If someone agrees to have sex with someone in the future, and then changes their mind when the agreed upon day comes, it's still rape if it happens anyway.

You forgot the whole "nevertheless, not my will but thine be done" and "no man take my life but I lay it down" part.

---

---

Scapegoating is assigning blame to one that's innocent, the bible makes it clear that Jesus Christ is blameless, but he of his own choosing accepted the penalty of sin which was death, no one assigned to or accused him of any sin, he could have chosen not to do it, THAT is not scapegoating.

---

His death was needed in order for us to live, just like the food you eat needs to die in order for you to live.

Interesting.  Billions of billions of people live and die just fine without having some fantasy original sin expunged by some imaginary pagan bronze-age immoral blood ritual sacrifice.  I was raised Pentecostal, but I have realized that I have no need for your god-boy to spend a few hours nailed to pieces of wood for my mental or physical well-being.  In fact, I am many orders of magnitude better off for having rejected that puke-making slavish "washed in the blood of the lamb" crap.  You can make assertions about your delusional fantasies all day, enjoy wasting your time.

You really won't know the answer to that question until you're at the point of death...