Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Tack Wrote:@Rev- in regards to forgiveness, I thought I was clear on that.
You were?
Tack Wrote:It is offered freely.
Forgiveness is not an offer. Forgiveness is MY gift to YOU regardless of wether you want it or not. Why cant you understand that?
Tack Wrote:If I offer you free food, room and board would you take it?
Will I wake up in a tub of ice missing a kidney with the words "Call a doctor" written on the wall in my own blood?
Tack Wrote:Would you expect me to bring it to you or would you come to me to claim it?
I thought we were talking about forgiveness? Why are we talking about room and board now?
Tack Wrote:That's a condition, acceptance, by definition.
That isnt forgiveness. That is blackmail. I have a torture chamber in the basement of my house, and if you dont accept my forgiveness by following this list of rules that also include worshipping me, then I will torture you. No. You will torture yourself because of your poor choice. I am blameless for this.
Tack Wrote:Covenants require 2 parties, and acceptance is a default assumption, therefore there isn't such a thing as unconditional in this sense.
Forgiveness does NOT require acceptance. Forgiveness is a ONE WAY STREET. Forgiveness is a GIFT from the one who is upset with you REGARDLESS of your acceptance, or regardless of wether you even know about it.
Stop trying to redefine "forgiveness" into "blackmail":
----
Forgiveness:
1. act of forgiving; state of being forgiven.
2. disposition or willingness to forgive.
Forgiving:
1. to grant pardon for or remission of (an offense, debt, etc.); absolve.
2. to give up all claim on account of; remit (a debt, obligation, etc.).
3. to grant pardon to (a person).
----
Blackmail:
1. any payment extorted by intimidation, as by threats of injurious revelations or accusations.
2. the extortion of such payment: He confessed rather than suffer the dishonor of blackmail.
3. a tribute formerly exacted in the north of England and in Scotland by freebooting chiefs for protection from pillage.
----
Now show me ANYWHERE in the definition of forgiveness that the other party has to be obligated for ANYTHING.
Tack Wrote:Stipulations there are none other than acceptance.
..and that LONG list of things you have to follow in the bible. Oh yeah, and you have to believe in and worship Jesus.
Tack Wrote:Repentance necessarily follows true acceptance and is an outward sign for humanity, but not a requirement.
Oh, I get it....
Tack Wrote:By grace alone we are saved, from this torment and eventual annihilation.
Fine. Then I ask Jesus Christ to forgive me. I accept his forgiveness.
I'm pretty sure from the amount of cynicism in your post that your acceptance and desire is disingenuous. But that's just my observation, your relationship with God is between you and him, and if you have then good for you. The analogy was a really simple one, it's obvious you're unwilling to accept anything. But to continue to answer your question:
Forgiveness
1. Act of forgiving; state of being forgiven. an act implies cause and effect (ie. I offer, you accept)
2. disposition or willingness to forgive. being willing to forgive is one person's side to it. When dealing with people I can be willing to forgive them just as you said you were to me, but without their implied acceptance there is no relationship it's one-sided. In that sense then God forgives everyone.
Forgiving:
1. to grant pardon for or remission of (an offense, debt, etc.); absolve. The pardon has been given and the ransom has been paid
2. to give up all claim on account of; remit (a debt, obligation, etc.). remitting is an act of absolving. It implies cause and effect see 1. above
3. to grant pardon to (a person). And if I handed you a letter of pardon, would you take it or say no thanks? It very clearly does imply acceptance
I honestly don't even see a correlation with blackmail at all, you must be a really good absurdist, because any correlation to blackmail would be absurd.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
(May 4, 2011 at 4:28 am)tackattack Wrote: I honestly don't even see a correlation with blackmail at all, you must be a really good absurdist, because any correlation to blackmail would be absurd.
OK, let me try to explain it then.
Imagine someone saying "love me and serve me or I will kill you."
That's what Jesus is saying. If we don't love, serve and accept him as lord, Jesus will toss us into a lake of fire which is the second death.
Clear?
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
(May 4, 2011 at 4:28 am)tackattack Wrote: I honestly don't even see a correlation with blackmail at all, you must be a really good absurdist, because any correlation to blackmail would be absurd.
OK, let me try to explain it then.
Imagine someone saying "love me and serve me or I will kill you."
That's what Jesus is saying. If we don't love, serve and accept him as lord, Jesus will toss us into a lake of fire which is the second death.
Clear?
That's not what Christ says, He says, I love you enough so you can choose to love me or choose to reject me and I will honor your decision by allowing you to live eternally in heaven or hell. Jesus would never force one to live with Him in heaven if that person desires not to be there with Him, that would be torture.
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
May 4, 2011 at 10:04 am (This post was last modified: May 4, 2011 at 10:07 am by reverendjeremiah.)
Tack Wrote:I'm pretty sure from the amount of cynicism in your post that your acceptance and desire is disingenuous.
Im always open for accepting forgiveness and reciving forgiveness on many topics and actions. I'm not a hard ass all the time.
Tack Wrote:But that's just my observation, your relationship with God is between you and him, and if you have then good for you.
Wait..My relationship with God? Why do I have to have a relationship with someone in order to be forgiven? All I did was ask and accept forgiveness. I also honestly asked and accepted his forgiveness back when I was a believer. What is it that i have to do to convince YOU that I have accepted forgiveness? Change my entire life? Reflect YOUR views and beliefs? What does ANY of that have to do with true forgiveness. As I have said before, forgiveness is a gift. Hell, even the bible says it is such.
Tack Wrote:The analogy was a really simple one, it's obvious you're unwilling to accept anything. But to continue to answer your question:
Fine. What do I have to do to convince YOU that I have accepted his forgiveness...and more than once.
tack Wrote:Forgiveness
1. Act of forgiving; state of being forgiven.
an act implies cause and effect (ie. I offer, you accept)
What? That isnt anywhere near the context of the definitiion... Fine. He offered, and I accepted.
Tack Wrote:2. disposition or willingness to forgive.
being willing to forgive is one person's side to it. When dealing with people I can be willing to forgive them just as you said you were to me, but without their implied acceptance there is no relationship it's one-sided. In that sense then God forgives everyone.
How is a mandatory relationship with the one giving forgiveness any part of the definition of forgiveness? Thats coercion, not forgiveness.
Wiki Wrote:Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, rewards, or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. In law, coercion is codified as the duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced. Torture is one of the most extreme examples of coercion i.e. severe pain is inflicted until the victim provides the desired information.
Coercion is the bread and butter of blackmail. In fact the two are so closely related it is difficult to tell them apart except that blackmail deals somewhat specifically with some sort of value payment to avoid punishment through injurious revelations. Which is still relevant in this discussion.
Tack Wrote:Forgiving:
1. to grant pardon for or remission of (an offense, debt, etc.); absolve.
The pardon has been given and the ransom has been paid
Ransom? And you say it isnt blackmail when at the same time you are using words related to it? Forgiveness has no strings attached, never have, never will. Forgiveness is a free gift.
Tack Wrote:2. to give up all claim on account of; remit (a debt, obligation, etc.).
remitting is an act of absolving. It implies cause and effect see 1. above
And if I handed you a letter of pardon, would you take it or say no thanks? It very clearly does imply acceptance
It does not very clearly imply acceptance and it never did. Your notes and additions clearly implied it.
Tack Wrote:I honestly don't even see a correlation with blackmail at all, you must be a really good absurdist, because any correlation to blackmail would be absurd.
Because you are too emotionally tied to the subject. You also have got absurdism dead wrong. Absurdism is the relationship between a caring human in an uncaring cosmos. The human who thinks life has value in a Cosmos that shows no preference for human values. Absurdism deals with how humanity should approach this problem.
(May 4, 2011 at 9:53 am)Godschild Wrote: That's not what Christ says, He says, I love you enough so you can choose to love me or choose to reject me and I will honor your decision by allowing you to live eternally in heaven or hell.
And this is different from what DeistPaladin wrote.... how?
Quote:Jesus would never force one to live with Him in heaven if that person desires not to be there with Him, that would be torture.
Great! And I would never force you to live in my basement. But if you don't, I'll torture and kill you.
You can't see a contradiction here?
Science flies us to the moon and stars. Religion flies us into buildings.
God allowed 200,000 people to die in an earthquake. So what makes you think he cares about YOUR problems?
(May 4, 2011 at 9:53 am)Godschild Wrote: That's not what Christ says, He says, I love you enough so you can choose to love me or choose to reject me and I will honor your decision by allowing you to live eternally in heaven or hell. Jesus would never force one to live with Him in heaven if that person desires not to be there with Him, that would be torture.
Your idea of love, honor, respect and forgiveness disgusts me. Your worship of the Lord of Hell disgusts me.
Here is to hoping your diabolical doomsday cult dies off in my lifetime.
And this is a tangent but I still say that Jesus should be begging for our forgiveness, not the other way around.
Jesus should come down to earth and beg humanity to forgive him for watching but doing nothing to stop his worshipers from torturing, murdering and oppressing people in his name. We're not talking about "free will" here, we're talking about his "servants" acting in his name. He should apologize for a religion that promoted superstition instead of science and held humanity back until finally the hold of his religion was broken. He should apologize for all those who cynically accumulated wealth and power by working this religion on the gullible.
He also needs to apologize for his own actions. He was God incarnate, sent on a mission to deliver a message to all of humanity. He could have spoken out against slavery but instead used slaves in his parables and even said the slave who does not obey should be beaten. He could have promoted equality among the genders or other social justice issues but did not. He could have left some suggestions about proper hygiene but instead told people that demons cause illness.
Given all the misery, stagnation and strife that Christianity has fostered, the creator of this disaster for humanity is the LEAST FIT being in all the world to stand in judgment of anyone.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
@DP- A lifetime of worship has no weight on your entrance to heaven.
(May 4, 2011 at 10:04 am)reverendjeremiah Wrote:
Tack Wrote:I'm pretty sure from the amount of cynicism in your post that your acceptance and desire is disingenuous.
Im always open for accepting forgiveness and reciving forgiveness on many topics and actions. I'm not a hard ass all the time.
Tack Wrote:But that's just my observation, your relationship with God is between you and him, and if you have then good for you.
Wait..My relationship with God? Why do I have to have a relationship with someone in order to be forgiven? All I did was ask and accept forgiveness. I also honestly asked and accepted his forgiveness back when I was a believer. What is it that i have to do to convince YOU that I have accepted forgiveness? Change my entire life? Reflect YOUR views and beliefs? What does ANY of that have to do with true forgiveness. As I have said before, forgiveness is a gift. Hell, even the bible says it is such.
Tack Wrote:The analogy was a really simple one, it's obvious you're unwilling to accept anything. But to continue to answer your question:
Fine. What do I have to do to convince YOU that I have accepted his forgiveness...and more than once.
tack Wrote:Forgiveness
1. Act of forgiving; state of being forgiven.
an act implies cause and effect (ie. I offer, you accept)
What? That isnt anywhere near the context of the definitiion... Fine. He offered, and I accepted.
Tack Wrote:2. disposition or willingness to forgive.
being willing to forgive is one person's side to it. When dealing with people I can be willing to forgive them just as you said you were to me, but without their implied acceptance there is no relationship it's one-sided. In that sense then God forgives everyone.
How is a mandatory relationship with the one giving forgiveness any part of the definition of forgiveness? Thats coercion, not forgiveness.
Wiki Wrote:Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, rewards, or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. In law, coercion is codified as the duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced. Torture is one of the most extreme examples of coercion i.e. severe pain is inflicted until the victim provides the desired information.
Coercion is the bread and butter of blackmail. In fact the two are so closely related it is difficult to tell them apart except that blackmail deals somewhat specifically with some sort of value payment to avoid punishment through injurious revelations. Which is still relevant in this discussion.
Tack Wrote:Forgiving:
1. to grant pardon for or remission of (an offense, debt, etc.); absolve.
The pardon has been given and the ransom has been paid
Ransom? And you say it isnt blackmail when at the same time you are using words related to it? Forgiveness has no strings attached, never have, never will. Forgiveness is a free gift.
Tack Wrote:2. to give up all claim on account of; remit (a debt, obligation, etc.).
remitting is an act of absolving. It implies cause and effect see 1. above
And if I handed you a letter of pardon, would you take it or say no thanks? It very clearly does imply acceptance
It does not very clearly imply acceptance and it never did. Your notes and additions clearly implied it.
Tack Wrote:I honestly don't even see a correlation with blackmail at all, you must be a really good absurdist, because any correlation to blackmail would be absurd.
Because you are too emotionally tied to the subject. You also have got absurdism dead wrong. Absurdism is the relationship between a caring human in an uncaring cosmos. The human who thinks life has value in a Cosmos that shows no preference for human values. Absurdism deals with how humanity should approach this problem.
You don't have to convince me of anything. My opinion of your acceptance of Christ has no bearing on your personal salvation.
As far as acceptance and relationship. I'll further your comparison to a gift. If I give you a gift for your birthday do you haveto open it? No. Can you claim it's actually your gift without accepting it from me? Not really. I can offer gifts to you all day long and you doin't have to open or use any of them. It's not your gift though until you can accept it. You could accept it take it from my hands and throw it in the trash, if you like. It's yours and once you accept it you can do with it what you like.
Fear of punishment (how would you fear nothing?), long for reward(no one knows what awaits absolutlely, so why bother wishing?) or any form of applied force isn't how or why I worship, nor do I advocate. You're right though, those that teach that those things matter are using coersion. I however don't think that it's a blanket involuntary coersion which is in your definition. I don't think anyone is forcing you to go to church to accept Jesus, and if they are they're wrong in my book. It's most certainly not blackmail. People may feel it is because they were hellfired & brimstoned out of the church, but really what would an all powerful omnipotent being really need from us?
As far as absurdism, I claim 0 knowledge of absurdism or it's adherents, it was a baseless assertion and a poor joke.
As far as your claim of acceptance, if you claim it's been offered and you accepted it, doesn't that imply that you believe Jesus exists, has a deistic role and has the power to offer forgiveness? Wouldn't that make you a theist? As you've not changed your claim of atheism I doubt you could actually support your logical acceptance genuinely.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
(May 1, 2011 at 7:06 am)Napoleon666 Wrote: My question is this, what evidence can you provide me with, OTHER than the bible, that jesus existed?
What are you referring to by the word "Jesus"? By your exclusion of the Biblical (i.e. New Testament) documents, do you mean to imply that they provide evidence for Jesus' existence or not?
Quote:Does anyone here know about Josephus in more depth?
What do you want to know about Josephus?
Quote:What i really would like is for someone to provide me with some physical evidence, like what he actually wrote, or a tomb or a piece of carpentry he made (he was a carpenter afterall). Otherwise i guess in arguements against Christians i can just use the line 'prove it'?
We sadly don't have archaeological evidence for most ancient people, which is just the nature of ancient history. We do not have any writings of any rabbis in the first century (apart from possibly the Apostle Paul, who would be a rather unique case anyway). A piece of carpentry with the name 'Jesus' on it would really prove very little, since there were doubtless plenty of people called Jesus (which was a common name in 1st century Palestine) who were also carpenters. The closest kind of evidence we have would be an ossuary claimed to be that of James, the brother of Jesus. Even if it is an authentic first-century ossuary, it is quite possible (though perhaps unlikely) that there existed some other James whose brother was Jesus and whose father was Joseph.
