Would You Go On The Cross?

todangst's picture

Christians tell us that "jesus' died for us, and that he was a sacrifice.

I have two simple questions for our christian friends:

The first: What did this 'jesus' sacrifice? Is this jesus dead? Don't you hold that this jesus is now in eternal bliss, in heaven, where he receives the undying love and gratitude from a multitude?

Sacrifice means loss. Sacrificing doesn't involve gain. It certainly doesn't involve no loss and infinite gain. Yet this 'jesus' loses nothing, and gains everything.

Some theists respond by saying that he lost his physical body. But what does paul say about the nature of flesh?

"For I know that in me that is in my flesh dwelleth no good thing...." (Rom 7:18) which contradicts: "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me...." (Gal. 2:20).

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption" (1 Cor. 15:50)

So where's the sacrifice?

There is none. "Jesus" sheds something worthless.

Some theists then announce "But he suffered pain!"

But everyday people suffer far worse pain. A child with Leukemia suffers eggregious amounts of pain, without any purpose, without any guarentee of an eternal reward in a blissful afterlife. They die without the hope of 'giving' their lives (and then getting it right back!) to save countless billions of others, without the pleasure of knowing that they are a 'hero' and without the eternal love and accolades that such an act would bring.

So don't insult yourself and logic itself by holding that this 'pain' is a sacrifice.

Some theists then insist that jesus, as an 'infinite being' suffered infinite pain.

But this is nonsense. Leaving aside the problems with an 'infinite being' for the sake of argument, for an infinite being to suffer 'infinite' pain, the being would need to suffer infinite harm. Infinite loss. But again, there is no loss, and the pain is finite.

So none of these responses work, or even make sense.

For those who still don't get it:

Remember that It makes no sense to state that something is a sacrifice when

1) there was no loss, and

2) the gain for the behavior was infinite.

Here's the ultimate irony: every person in the world suffers more than Jesus!

Jesus could not suffer even as much as a normal person:

Here is why:

1) He knows he's not really going to die in the first place
Mark 8:34 Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If
anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and
follow me.
2) He knows that he will be loved and adored for his act
3) He knows he will save billions of souls with his act.
4) He knows his reward is infinitity in bliss.
5) He knows he will not lose anything, ergo, no sacrifice.

This is not a 'sacrifice' therefore, at all. In fact, its the biggest, best deal in the world, and I challenge a theist to respond as to whether they would go on the cross. I've never seen a theist dare respond at all.

So why do theists call this a 'sacrifice'? Because they don't bother to think it through. It takes compartmentalization. You have to forget that millions die every day in doubt, for no reason. That's the real pain in the world. A child dies of starvation, with no reason, no reward, nothing. A cancer patient watches his body whither away, in pain. He's not getting any reward, any recognition, no assurance that he will go to some heaven. He just faces death without any comfort.

How many people in the world have sacrificed real blood for others? A mother or a father dies to save their own child - no reward, no assurances. They just do it.

Every day, every person suffers more pain than this supposed savior could ever have suffered "for us". We all live in doubt, we all suffer pains. We do it because we must. Some of us even give more - we sacrifice our time, our blood, even our lives, for others.

No rewards. No guarentees.

A solidier gives up his life for his country. What reward does he get? A ribbon nailed to a wall somewhere, his name recorded in an unseen history book.

Now for my second question: If you were offered the opportunity to go on the cross, to save billions and also go to heaven in eternal bliss, would you go?

Before you answer:

Don't rush to find a way to sweep the cognitive dissonance away. Instead, think the question through,about it like this: imagine your child is about to be burned alive forever. And someone says to you: you can save him if you agree to go on the cross for three hours. In return, you not only save your own child, you save all children in the world. In addition, you are remembered and loved by billions. Oh, and one more thing: you go directly to heaven, in eternal bliss (after a three day tour of hell, all expenses paid!)

Would you refuse? Would ANYONE refuse? Seriously. There can be no greater gift in the world than to be offered the opportunity.

Again, I challenge a theist to answer the question: Would you go on the cross?

If you are a theist, about to respond to this by arguing that you couldn't go on the cross, please look up the word 'hypothetical' in a dictionary.

Parts taken from this thread: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rook_hawkins/biblical_errancy/59

Edison Trent's picture

Archeopteryx wrote: The

Archeopteryx wrote:

The only way you can apologetically "prove" God is by just making things up, which is very appropriate since that's God came about in the first place.

Ciao!

Blast...I got shot out of the sky.  Well, thanks for the arguments, it's been fun, although in the end it looks like atheism is the winner of this argument.

 

Archeopteryx's picture

Edison Trent

Edison Trent wrote:

Archeopteryx wrote:

The only way you can apologetically "prove" God is by just making things up, which is very appropriate since that's God came about in the first place.

Ciao!

Blast...I got shot out of the sky. Well, thanks for the arguments, it's been fun, although in the end it looks like atheism is the winner of this argument.

 

 

It's been a pleasure, sir. And I say that with no trace of haughtiness. 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.

    todangst "Now it

   

todangst "Now it should be clear to all why I don't post much anymore.... "

Edison Trent "in the end it looks like atheism is the winner of this argument. "

I eagerly await another todangst essay. Please bro... some extra humor, I know it's in ya, turn it up ! ... Don't leave us yet ... LOUDER ....

Archeopteryx wrote:  In

Archeopteryx wrote:

 In saying this, you're not saying what god is or where he is, you are only saying where they are not.

It's basically like saying, "God does not live in my closet". Everywhere that is not in my closet, we will call "the spiritual realm". Therefore, god lives in the spiritual realm

But where is that? You don't know! Still agnostic and not realizing it. Welcome, once again, to atheism.

 Supernatural claims are meaningless, just like all other god claims.

I don't claim to know everything.  Just because I don't know what it is doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  I only claim the spiritual realm because the Bible talks about it.

It's certainly not meaningless.  "Spiritual realm" means the realm of God, angels, and whatever goes on after a person dies. 

triften wrote: Why did they

triften wrote:
Why did they reject it? They used their own judgement? How do we know they were correct?

I haven't followed the entire process for HOT.  The biggest problem I have heard for the book of Enoch is that no one believed it was written by Enoch.  That is a big strike against it.

For New Testament books, there must be authorship by an apostle or a close associate of an apostle.

triften wrote:
Well, you said the authorities rejected it, so of course it would not have been protected by the church. Just because it wasn't as popular, it wasn't inspired? How do you know Satan wasn't trying to trick people into rejecting this inspired work?

The Bible says it is protected by the Holy Spirit.  This is directly evidenced by the protection of verses which refute teachings of the Catholic Church.  It is also implied by the lack of verses to support other teachings which should have Biblical support.

triften wrote:
But you wouldn't consider it as word-of-god-y as the rest of the bible?

No, it doesn't read like other books of the Bible.  But, as I said, I think it would be interesting to dig into if I was in that line of research. 

 

nedbrek

nedbrek wrote:
Archeopteryx wrote:

In saying this, you're not saying what god is or where he is, you are only saying where they are not.

It's basically like saying, "God does not live in my closet". Everywhere that is not in my closet, we will call "the spiritual realm". Therefore, god lives in the spiritual realm

But where is that? You don't know! Still agnostic and not realizing it. Welcome, once again, to atheism.

Supernatural claims are meaningless, just like all other god claims.

I don't claim to know everything. Just because I don't know what it is doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I only claim the spiritual realm because the Bible talks about it.

It's certainly not meaningless. "Spiritual realm" means the realm of God, angels, and whatever goes on after a person dies.

It's a meaning less term because you can't provide a definition for "spirit". You can only tell people what a spirit isn't, not what it is. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Edison Trent's picture

I AM GOD AS YOU

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

todangst "Now it should be clear to all why I don't post much anymore.... "

Edison Trent "in the end it looks like atheism is the winner of this argument. "

I eagerly await another todangst essay. Please bro... some extra humor, I know it's in ya, turn it up ! ... Don't leave us yet ... LOUDER ....

By "in the end it looks like atheism is the winner of this argument." I mean the argument of evil, not the original post. Todangst completely missed the point of Jesus, if you go and read all the previous arguments.

Quote:

It's a meaning less term because you can't provide a definition for "spirit". You can only tell people what a spirit isn't, not what it is.

A spirit is a matterless entity.

Edison Trent wrote: I AM

Edison Trent wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

todangst "Now it should be clear to all why I don't post much anymore.... "

Edison Trent "in the end it looks like atheism is the winner of this argument. "

I eagerly await another todangst essay. Please bro... some extra humor, I know it's in ya, turn it up ! ... Don't leave us yet ... LOUDER ....

By "in the end it looks like atheism is the winner of this argument." I mean the argument of evil, not the original post. Todangst completely missed the point of Jesus, if you go and read all the previous arguments.

Quote:

It's a meaning less term because you can't provide a definition for "spirit". You can only tell people what a spirit isn't, not what it is.

A spirit is a matterless entity.

Again, you've told me what it isn't - that a spirit has no matter.

As has been brought up in many forms - if one claims existence for an entity, shouldn't that entity exist as something? 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Gauche's picture

Edison Trent wrote: By "in

Edison Trent wrote:

By "in the end it looks like atheism is the winner of this argument." I mean the argument of evil, not the original post. Todangst completely missed the point of Jesus, if you go and read all the previous arguments.

 

but your argument if i’m understanding it correctly is that a sacrificial ritual need not contain an actual sacrifice. sacrifice meaning to suffer loss or give something up. you haven’t actually offered anything to convince others that your position is correct you’re kind of just asserting it. from my understanding a human sacrifice is called a sacrifice because some value is placed on human life. it involves loss. but you say that in a sacrifice no loss is necessary. offer something substantive to back up your claim.

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft

triften's picture

Ned, Mind if we continue

Ned,

Mind if we continue the discussion over in KewK since we've diverged significantly (no thanks to me) from the topic at hand?

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/kill_em_with_kindness/11306

-Triften 

Edison Trent's picture

Gauche wrote: Edison Trent

Gauche wrote:
Edison Trent wrote:

By "in the end it looks like atheism is the winner of this argument." I mean the argument of evil, not the original post. Todangst completely missed the point of Jesus, if you go and read all the previous arguments.

 

but your argument if i’m understanding it correctly is that a sacrificial ritual need not contain an actual sacrifice. sacrifice meaning to suffer loss or give something up. you haven’t actually offered anything to convince others that your position is correct you’re kind of just asserting it. from my understanding a human sacrifice is called a sacrifice because some value is placed on human life. it involves loss. but you say that in a sacrifice no loss is necessary. offer something substantive to back up your claim.

Ok, I'll post my summary.  First of all, Todangst misses the point of Jesus' human death on the cross.  The point wasn't that Jesus was sacrificing something - he didn't sacrifice anything.  The point of Jesus entire life is that Jesus was the sacrifice, the "perfect lamb".  In order for us to be free from sin a perfect human being had to die.  Jesus came down to earth and became that perfect human being, which was sacrificed on the cross.  There are no longer any perfect human beings here on earth.  I don't know why God made himself play by his own rules, but that's how it happened.

Archeopteryx's picture

Quote: First of all,

Quote:

First of all, Todangst misses the point of Jesus' human death on the cross.  The point wasn't that Jesus was sacrificing something - he didn't sacrifice anything.  The point of Jesus entire life is that Jesus was the sacrifice, the "perfect lamb".  In order for us to be free from sin a perfect human being had to die.

 

As I have also said before, Jesus could not be the perfect human sacrifice because he was not a perfect human. He was clearly partly divine, hence all the miracles.

As I said before, if I want to sacrifice the perfect donkey, I would not sacrifice a mule (since it is only half donkey).

 

Quote:
I don't know why God made himself play by his own rules, but that's how it happened.

There is probably a real name for this fallacy, but I'm going to refer to it as the "then a miracle happens" fallacy, after the famous comic strip.

Yesterday I ate my own head. But today I have a head and am still alive. I had a head two days ago, and I have a head today, so those two facts clearly do not contradict my claim. How and why all that stuff in the middle happened, I don't know. I just don't know that that's how it went down.

 

Quote:

I don't claim to know everything.  Just because I don't know what it is doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Good. I don't claim to know everything either. I'm glad we're both willing to admit that we're not omniscient.

You're right. We don't know that your god doesn't exist in this spiritual realm. BUT we also can't claim that he does. We can only say that god and the spiritual realm may or may not actually exist.

 The difference between you and me is that I say, "Well, I don't yet have any reason to believe that it IS the case, so I'm not going to assume that it is."

You, on the other hand, believe it anyway.

That is about as rational as saying, "Well, I don't know that polka-dotted penguins that play the ukalele DON'T exist, so it's okay for me to go around telling everyone that they do."

If you want to do that, go right ahead, but no one is going to convince me of something using THAT old trick.

Quote:
 

  I only claim the spiritual realm because the Bible talks about it.

And Twas the Night Before Christmas discusses Santa Claus and the way he gets things done, but I'm not going to take a book's word for it. (I know it's a song, but it also comes in book form).

Quote:
 

It's certainly not meaningless.  "Spiritual realm" means the realm of God, angels, and whatever goes on after a person dies.

This is what you've just done:

Where does God exist?

 Easy! In the spiritual realm!

Where or what is the spiritual realm?

It's the place where God exists! 

 

Good try, but that's not going to work for me. Other than all such circular reasoning, the spiritual realm and the word "God" itself have no real meaning because you can't say what they are, you can only say what they are not.

Quote:

The Bible says it is protected by the Holy Spirit.  This is directly evidenced by the protection of verses which refute teachings of the Catholic Church.  It is also implied by the lack of verses to support other teachings which should have Biblical support.

It's too bad that the Bible couldn't protect itself from getting those other books voted out of itself.

Quote:

By "in the end it looks like atheism is the winner of this argument." I mean the argument of evil, not the original post. Todangst completely missed the point of Jesus, if you go and read all the previous arguments.

I've read all the previous arguments, and I don't think you've yet established that Todangst missed the point, though you've certainly made an effort. 

 

 

 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.

Edison Trent's picture

Archeopteryx wrote: Quote:

Archeopteryx wrote:

Quote:

First of all, Todangst misses the point of Jesus' human death on the cross.  The point wasn't that Jesus was sacrificing something - he didn't sacrifice anything.  The point of Jesus entire life is that Jesus was the sacrifice, the "perfect lamb".  In order for us to be free from sin a perfect human being had to die.

 

As I have also said before, Jesus could not be the perfect human sacrifice because he was not a perfect human. He was clearly partly divine, hence all the miracles.

As I said before, if I want to sacrifice the perfect donkey, I would not sacrifice a mule (since it is only half donkey).

 

Quote:
I don't know why God made himself play by his own rules, but that's how it happened.

There is probably a real name for this fallacy, but I'm going to refer to it as the "then a miracle happens" fallacy, after the famous comic strip.

Yesterday I ate my own head. But today I have a head and am still alive. I had a head two days ago, and I have a head today, so those two facts clearly do not contradict my claim. How and why all that stuff in the middle happened, I don't know. I just don't know that that's how it went down.

Jesus was 100% God and 100% man.  Don't ask me how it works, I'm just going from the Bible's logic, sorry though it may be.

Again, I can't explain this.  I think that God set up rules and then forced himself to play by them.  Again, kind of shaky logic. 

Archeopteryx's picture

Quote: Jesus was 100% God


Quote:

Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. Don't ask me how it works, I'm just going from the Bible's logic, sorry though it may be.

Again, I can't explain this. I think that God set up rules and then forced himself to play by them. Again, kind of shaky logic.

 

Well, I tend to only believe things that make sense, or at least seem to make sense in my own head.

What you are saying here does not make sense to me.

If you were trying to talk me into believing in God, for example, this would not be very persuasive to me. 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.

todangst's picture

Edison Trent wrote: By "in

Edison Trent wrote:

By "in the end it looks like atheism is the winner of this argument." I mean the argument of evil, not the original post. Todangst completely missed the point of Jesus, if you go and read all the previous arguments.

No. In fact, the opposite is true: every theist reponse merely rand from the problem. The problem remains untouched. There is no sacrifice, nor can there be a need for one for that matter. Any theist who bothers to think it through will move towards atheism.

I literally feel sorry for theists... the pains it must take to avoid thinking....

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.

Eloise's picture

Edison Trent wrote: By "in

Edison Trent wrote:

By "in the end it looks like atheism is the winner of this argument." I mean the argument of evil, not the original post. Todangst completely missed the point of Jesus, if you go and read all the previous arguments.

Tod: you've Misquoted, "I am God As YOU" wrote that, not Edison Trent. Anyhow..

todangst wrote:

No. In fact, the opposite is true: every theist reponse merely rand from the problem. The problem remains untouched. There is no sacrifice, nor can there be a need for one for that matter. Any theist who bothers to think it through will move towards atheism.

What problem? You're inserting a problem where there isn't one. Sure, there are loads of people who ascertain, erroneously, that there was a sacrifice involved, but wherever that assumption is not held but yet there is theism, you have hastily generalised your supposed 'problem' then compouneded it with your bifurcation of ways to view this 'lack of necessity for a sacrifice' by saying one can only ignore said problem or move to atheism.  Your terms aren't that absolute Tod, don't be so vain. 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com

triften's picture

Eloise wrote: Edison Trent

Eloise wrote:
Edison Trent wrote:

By "in the end it looks like atheism is the winner of this argument." I mean the argument of evil, not the original post. Todangst completely missed the point of Jesus, if you go and read all the previous arguments.

Tod: you've Misquoted, "I am God As YOU" wrote that, not Edison Trent. Anyhow..

Actually, on page 4, the quoted text is from a post labelled: 

Submitted by Edison Trent on Tue, 2007-11-20 10:21

Now the "title" thing says "I AM GOD AS YOU" because that's the first bit of Edison Trent's post from his quoting.

-Triften 

Eloise's picture

triften wrote:

triften wrote:
Eloise wrote:
Edison Trent wrote:

By "in the end it looks like atheism is the winner of this argument." I mean the argument of evil, not the original post. Todangst completely missed the point of Jesus, if you go and read all the previous arguments.

Tod: you've Misquoted, "I am God As YOU" wrote that, not Edison Trent. Anyhow..

Actually, on page 4, the quoted text is from a post labelled:

Submitted by Edison Trent on Tue, 2007-11-20 10:21

Now the "title" thing says "I AM GOD AS YOU" because that's the first bit of Edison Trent's post from his quoting.

-Triften

Duh! My bad, I am corrected, i'll erase it. Thanks triften.

LOL oops it won't let me now I have replied. Oh well. My apologies Tod. 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com

Edison Trent's picture

todangst wrote: No. In

todangst wrote:

No. In fact, the opposite is true: every theist reponse merely rand from the problem. The problem remains untouched. There is no sacrifice, nor can there be a need for one for that matter. Any theist who bothers to think it through will move towards atheism.

I literally feel sorry for theists... the pains it must take to avoid thinking....

Todangst...the point remains untouched because that's not the point of Jesus.  You've taken a whole essay to refute something that the Bible doesn't claim.  Like I've said before, Jesus didn't sacrifice something, he was the sacrifice, a perfect human being.

zarathustra's picture

Edison Trent

Edison Trent wrote:

Todangst...the point remains untouched because that's not the point of Jesus. You've taken a whole essay to refute something that the Bible doesn't claim. Like I've said before, Jesus didn't sacrifice something, he was the sacrifice, a perfect human being.

Please indicate where the bible claims that a "perfect human being" had to be sacrificed.

And please stop quibbling over whether "jesus sacrificed something", or "jesus was the sacrifice". Does sacrifice involve loss or not? If so, precisely what was lost, and who lost it?

Jesus forgot the safe word.

πππ†
π†††

Edison Trent's picture

zarathustra wrote: Please

zarathustra wrote:

Please indicate where the bible claims that a "perfect human being" had to be sacrificed.

And please stop quibbling over whether "jesus sacrificed something", or "jesus was the sacrifice". Does sacrifice involve loss or not? If so, precisely what was lost, and who lost it?

I'll do some research on the verses that say this.

What was lost was a perfect human being.  This was, in essence, the sacrifice.  Who lost it?  I suppose you could say the world lost it, since there are no longer any perfect people here on earth.

zarathustra's picture

Edison Trent

Edison Trent wrote:

zarathustra wrote:

Please indicate where the bible claims that a "perfect human being" had to be sacrificed.

I'll do some research on the verses that say this.

You sure will.

Edison Trent wrote:

zarathustra wrote:

precisely what was lost, and who lost it?

 

What was lost was a perfect human being. This was, in essence, the sacrifice. Who lost it? I suppose you could say the world lost it, since there are no longer any perfect people here on earth.

You suppose I could say?

If I understand the storyline, the world was without a "perfect human being" up until jesus' gratuitous appearance. Then 30 years later jesus checks out, the earth returns to its sans "perfect human" state, and somehow this is a loss?

Would the world have been better off had jesus not been sacrificed?

Jesus forgot the safe word.

πππ†
π†††

I'll save some

I'll save some steps.

Hebrews 9:22 states that bloodshed is required for forhiveness.

Leviticus 4:32 states that a lamb without blemish can be used as a sin offering. It also states that this lamb is to be female. A ram is offered for the guilt offering and the burnt offering.

1 Peter 1:19 claims Jesus Christ is this lamb. If Jesus died as a sin ofering, when did Jesus get his sex change?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Archeopteryx's picture

Edison Trent wrote: What

Edison Trent wrote:

What was lost was a perfect human being. This was, in essence, the sacrifice. Who lost it? I suppose you could say the world lost it, since there are no longer any perfect people here on earth.

 

From where I'm sitting, you can't use this anymore.

Here's why: 

 

Edison Trent wrote:

 

Jesus was 100% God and 100% man.  Don't ask me how it works, I'm just going from the Bible's logic, sorry though it may be.

Again, I can't explain this.  I think that God set up rules and then forced himself to play by them.  Again, kind of shaky logic.

 

Archeopteryx wrote:

Well, I tend to only believe things that make sense, or at least seem to make sense in my own head.

What you are saying here does not make sense to me.

If you were trying to talk me into believing in God, for example, this would not be very persuasive to me.

 

I stand by my earlier response. You're not going to get me to accept something that doesn't make sense and is admittedly based on "shaky logic".

You can believe it "on faith" if you like, but that is not an acceptable means of acquiring knowledge for me.

 

If you want me to accept it, you've got to sell it.

You are not being a very good salesman.

Now get off my lawn!

 

Sorry. Entertaining self. ^_^

 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.

Edison Trent's picture

zarathustra wrote: You

zarathustra wrote:

You sure will.

After looking for a while, I found it.  This verse sums it up best:

Leviticus 17:11 (NKJV) - "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul."

Like I said, Jesus, the perfect human, died (his fleshly body, the perfect human being) on the cross for our sins.  His blood was the payment for them.

Archeopteryx wrote:

I stand by my earlier response. You're not going to get me to accept something that doesn't make sense and is admittedly based on "shaky logic".

You can believe it "on faith" if you like, but that is not an acceptable means of acquiring knowledge for me.

If you want me to accept it, you've got to sell it.

You are not being a very good salesman.

Now get off my lawn!

Sorry. Entertaining self. ^_^

Don't be so quick to sweep this under the carpet.  We can only know God (or what God is, or about God) in terms of what we know.  Therefore it is very hard to describe Him.  Let me give you an example.  Let's suppose someone from a remote, uncivilized African tribe went to New York city.  He walks around for a few days, and then goes back to his people.  How does he describe it to his fellow tribesmen?  He can really only describe it in terms of what he knows, what he has seen in his life with the tribe.  You're like a fellow tribesman saying, "Well, you can't really explain it, so I don't believe that New York city exists."  The statement is fallible.

zarathustra's picture

Edison Trent wrote: After

Edison Trent wrote:

After looking for a while, I found it. This verse sums it up best:

Leviticus 17:11 (NKJV) - "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul."

Thank you for reiterating the old testament injunction against drinking blood (I had almost forgotten).  Now:  Please indicate where the bible claims that a "perfect human being" had to be sacrificed.

Edison Trent wrote:

Like I said, Jesus, the perfect human, died (his fleshly body, the perfect human being) on the cross for our sins. His blood was the payment for them.

Like we have been asking since this thread started:  Where is the loss?  Now you're saying jesus lost blood?  Who needs blood when you're fixing to rise from the dead and be glorified?  Loss incurred:  nothing.

A blind tribesman with dyslexia couldn't describe New York as poorly as you're describing this. 

 

Jesus forgot the safe word.

πππ†
π†††

I'm still trying to figure

I'm still trying to figure out how Jesus (the Lamb of God) died for our sins (as a sin offering) when the rules for such in Leviticus called for the sin offering to be a female lamb.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

I'm still trying to figure

I'm still trying to figure out how Jesus (the Lamb of God) died for our sins (as a sin offering) when the rules for such in Leviticus called for the sin offering to be a female lamb.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

daretoknow's picture

Teh bump.

Teh bump.

todangst's picture

Edison Trent

Edison Trent wrote:

Quote:

Ok, I can see your point here, Jesus didn't sacrifice something, he was the sacrifice, much like the animals in the old testament.  But there is a flaw...he's still alive.  He didn't fully die, he shed his worthless human flesh and still lives.  Ergo, he wasn't really a sacrifice.

You're almost there MJD.  You've got the sacrifice part half-right.  I think I can explain it in more detail though, I've been thinking about this problem for a while now - My conclusion?  Like the post says, Jesus didn’t sacrifice anything.  It’s because he was the sacrifice. 

This is the sort of childish semantic gibberish that falls apart upon the slightest examination.

Making "him" the sacrifice changes nothing... the same question remains. What is lost when jesus sacrifices himself?

Nothing.

Not a thing. 

 

Quote:
Now, we ask, isn’t Jesus still alive in heaven?  Doesn’t this mean that he wasn’t a sacrifice, I mean, he’s still alive!  But no…the sacrifice required the death of a human being for our sins,

Sigh. Human death is of no value, no consequence... soma is of no value, the soul is.

Can't theists follow their own bullshit? You can't sacrifice something WORTHLESS.

Jesus loses NOTHING by going to eternal bliss

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.

Edison Trent's picture

Quote: Sigh. Human death

Quote:

Sigh. Human death is of no value, no consequence... soma is of no value, the soul is.

Can't theists follow their own bullshit? You can't sacrifice something WORTHLESS.

Jesus loses NOTHING by going to eternal bliss

This again.  Let's list out the facts from the beginning.

1. Jesus is God

2. People are sinful, they are damned to hell because of their sins

3. For people to be saved, they needed a sacrifice, atonement for the sins of mankind

4. They needed a sacrifice, a human sacrifice, and a perfect sacrifice

5. There are no perfect people

6. Therefore Jesus came to the earth and became the only perfect person in history

7. This perfect person (Jesus) died (in the flesh, not spirit) on the cross

8. Jesus did not sacrifice anything, in fact, I'd be more than happy to do what He did, spend a few hours in pain and then life in paradise with eternal worship and praise

9. But, a perfect human was required, ergo, my death would not pay for makind's sin

Overall, you wrote a very clear, consice argument and I still enjoy challenging stupid theists with it.

 A B C D E F G H I J   

 A B C D E F G H I Surprised Laughing  "jesus loves me this I know, for the bible tells me so" ( I Luv You More, sweet baby Jesus Kiss )

What a guy !  http://www.dltk-bible.com/jesus_loves_me.htm

Piano for Jesus, "Jesus Loves Me" , is 1/3 down, can't you feel it !  http://rosemck1.tripod.com/jukebox-gospel.html

MORE - Damien singing Jesus Loves Me  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le9fJY975Hg  WOW he's a good singer !

Feels good hey!, Yeah Jesus , then came more stupid religion, poor Jesus, Yicks, that cross must have really hurt Cry  Then someone said no Jesus is alive. YUP, Jesus can't die, just open your heart ! Can ya feel Jesus !  ..... of course !  Laughing  ....  he was an Atheist ..... and a Buddha ..... he said we are god, fuck the church ! ..... one small step for mankind Smile  and that's the way it was  ....

zarathustra's picture

Edison Trent wrote: This

Edison Trent wrote:

This again. Let's list out the facts from the beginning.

1. Jesus is God

Fact(?) 

 

Edison Trent wrote:

2. People are sinful, they are damned to hell because of their sins

Damned to hell...by god...who is also jesus...right?

Edison Trent wrote:

3. For people to be saved, they needed a sacrifice, atonement for the sins of mankind


4. They needed a sacrifice, a human sacrifice, and a perfect sacrifice

 And why did they need a sacrifice to be saved?  And why did they need a human sacrifice and a perfect sacrifice?  Because god said so.  Yes, the very same god...who is also jesus...right?

Edison Trent wrote:

5. There are no perfect people

So a perfect person is a contradiction in terms.  So they needed a contradiction in terms to be sacrificed.

 

Edison Trent wrote:

6. Therefore Jesus

... who is god ...

Edison Trent wrote:

came to the earth and became the only perfect person in history

 So god became a contradiction in terms, because mankind needed a contradiction in terms to be sacrificed, because god said so - god, who is jesus...and a contradiction in terms...fact?

Edison Trent wrote:

7. This perfect person [a contradiction] (Jesus) [who is god] died (in the flesh, not spirit) on the cross

So god died, because god said so; god, who is je...ah, never mind. 

Edison Trent wrote:

8. Jesus did not sacrifice anything, in fact, I'd be more than happy to do what He did, spend a few hours in pain and then life in paradise with eternal worship and praise

So did anyone sacrifice anything?  Someone has to sacrifice something in order for there to be a sacrifice, yes?

Edison Trent wrote:

9. But, a perfect human was required, ergo, my death would not pay for makind's sin

And this requirement  was set by god, who became the perfect human that god required.

Edison Trent wrote:

Overall, you wrote a very clear, consice argument ...

Fact.

Edison Trent wrote:
and I still enjoy challenging stupid theists with it.

Um..... 

Jesus forgot the safe word.

πππ†
π†††

kmisho's picture

Quote:7. This perfect

Quote:
7. This perfect person (Jesus) died (in the flesh, not spirit) on the cross

Anyone who can say this with a straight face and not realize the pre-civilized barbarism in it is someone I would be afraid to meet on the street for fear of when you might decide to randomly shoot a few people.

It's hard for me to have a lower opinion of Christianity than I already have, but you're really trying.

Edison Trent's picture

kmisho wrote: Quote: 7.

kmisho wrote:

Quote:
7. This perfect person (Jesus) died (in the flesh, not spirit) on the cross

Anyone who can say this with a straight face and not realize the pre-civilized barbarism in it is someone I would be afraid to meet on the street for fear of when you might decide to randomly shoot a few people.

It's hard for me to have a lower opinion of Christianity than I already have, but you're really trying.

wtf...??  What does me believing someone died for me have anything to do with me running around shooting random people?

aiia's picture

Edison Trent

Edison Trent wrote:
wtf...??  What does me believing someone died for me have anything to do with me running around shooting random people?
You do not just believe someone died; you believe a god died.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.

aiia wrote: Edison Trent

aiia wrote:
Edison Trent wrote:
wtf...?? What does me believing someone died for me have anything to do with me running around shooting random people?
You do not just believe someone died; you believe a god died.

And you believe that because that god died and rose again, any act of mayhem you decide to commit can be washed away simply by asking that god for forgiveness. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Edison Trent's picture

jcgadfly wrote: And you

jcgadfly wrote:

And you believe that because that god died and rose again, any act of mayhem you decide to commit can be washed away simply by asking that god for forgiveness. 

Romans 6:1-4 "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

God will forgive you for what you do, but the point of being a follower of Jesus is that you follow His rules.  Otherwise, you're no different than before.

Matthew 5:43-48 "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

There it is.  Love God, love others.  I have no freedom to randomly shoot people on the street, that would be very sick and twisted, obviously.

Hambydammit's picture

Quote: God will forgive you

Quote:
God will forgive you for what you do, but the point of being a follower of Jesus is that you follow His rules.  Otherwise, you're no different than before.

You missed a memo somewhere.  Non-Christians have been following laws and being good citizens for millenia.  In fact, a little math will give us a figure of roughly 99% of the people who have ever lived being non-Christian, and somehow, society has muddled through.

You also missed the report that secular countries have less crime and societal disfunction than religious countries.  (That is, countries where the majority are non-religious vs. those where the majority are religious.)

 

Quote:
There it is.  Love God, love others.  I have no freedom to randomly shoot people on the street, that would be very sick and twisted, obviously.

Yeah, but if you did... you'd still get to go to heaven if you asked nicely.

From where I sit, if I go out and shoot people, that's it.  Jail for the rest of my life.  Game over.  I have more of a negative deterrent than you, for you believe that even if you kill a bunch of people, you get to sing and dance for Jesus in heaven for billions of years afterwards.  Hardly punishment, if you ask me.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism

Edison Trent

Edison Trent wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

And you believe that because that god died and rose again, any act of mayhem you decide to commit can be washed away simply by asking that god for forgiveness. 

Romans 6:1-4 "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

God will forgive you for what you do, but the point of being a follower of Jesus is that you follow His rules.  Otherwise, you're no different than before.

Matthew 5:43-48 "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

There it is.  Love God, love others.  I have no freedom to randomly shoot people on the street, that would be very sick and twisted, obviously.

Why did you bring up Romans 6:1-4 when Paul wrote that Christians are no longer bound by the law in Romans 4:14-15?

No law, no transgression. No transgression, no sin. No sin, no need for forgiveness or grace.  

This stands in direct opposition to the words allegedly spoken by Jesus as Paul wrote that you are bound by no law (including Jesus&#39Eye-wink.

Your claim that you have no freedom to commit mayhem stands in direct conflict with your Bible. The only thing you have to fear is the punishment meted out by the human judicial system. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin