Sacrifice

[lilpixieofterror]

ALL this straight from the National Enquirer

Translation: "Crap, I couldn't answer what you said, so let me sound smart by saying that you got everything from a joke of a 'news source', yes that's better than answering things I can't possibility answer!"

Thus, shuny is in his last defense, just throws out ad hominems like they are going out of style. If what I am saying is so easy to refute, go ahead and show my flawed reason before all. I'll be waiting...

[Kane]

Hummm, so Christopher do sacrifices you make always last forever or do they only last for a set amount of time?

Well, in the past, I have sacrificed some things and they have not been permanent. For example, I gave up chocolate for lent once. I was eating too much of it. It's really yummy! But these years later, I continue to eat chocolate, and it's still yummy.

So, like I wrote to Crawnus, you're right that not all sacrifices are permanent. I didn't make that distinction in my OP, and you, like Crawnus, picked up on that.

For example, my parents made sacrifices for me, but do they have to do it today? No. Were they bad? Maybe in the short range, but I know they don't see them as bad in the long term. Now, let me take my own life, do I make sacrifices that last for a set amount of time? Yes I do. I deploy for a set amount of time, away from my family and friends, does this therefore mean I didn't make a sacrifice? I'm sorry, but nowhere does the definition of a sacrifice mean that the said sacrifice has to last forever, in fact, depending on your views of the afterlife, even giving one's own life isn't forever. Sorry, this is a bad argument here that shows you're just seeking excuses to reject

Sin can be an eternal barrier between a person and God if it is not forgiven, yes? If so, then human sin on the whole can eternally separate people from God, yes? That separation is eternal if people's sins are not forgiven should give some indication to you that the kind of sacrifice needed to enjoin people to God again would be an eternal sacrifice; that is, the sacrifice should be permanent if it is to be effective.

Here is where the theology of the Old Testament and the theology of the New Testament come to a subtle difference: the sacrifice of animals (expiation) was not enough to atone for the sins of people. So, a sacrifice of proportionate value to human life had to be made. Thus Jesus's sacrifice (a propitiation) was levied against the value of human life and found to be at least equal. The expiatory system was superceded by the propitiatory system, just as the Old Testament was superceded by the New Testament.

My difficulty at this point is not so much the sacrifice as is the mythology of the man behind the sacrifice. That's not to say that I'm a Christ mythicist -- I'm not -- but I do think there is really nothing substantial to show that Christ was anything more than a man. So where your faith takes you further in believing that Christ was God, I have to stop at the simple existence of a man who was unduly treated. That said, Christ's sacrifice, from my perspective, was really nothing but an execution; a termination of a human life for the alleged benefit of every other human life. Christ gave up his life, which was of equal value to every other person's life, and therefore didn't actually sacrifice anything that couldn't be gained by keeping his life and continuing to teach people nice things.

Many pagan beliefs demanded that you take a life, for your own sake. Jesus, on the other hand, gave his life for the sake of others. Night and day differences, my friend and differences you don't seem to know.

No, there's really not very much difference at all: the demands of all sacrificial-type religions begin and end in death. It's a common bond between paganism, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Taking a life is taking a life, no matter which way you look at it. It's all a compounding of the suffering that everyone recognises at some point is philosophically and existentially distressing.

There's a difference between taking a person's life for your sake and giving one's life for the sake of others.

Not really. Death is death, no matter who the recipient is.

Finally, sorry, but surely you can explain to everybody a natural process that makes a person come back from the dead, 3 days later. And before you say that Jesus might not have been dead, there's plenty of arguments that shoot this one down too, unless of course, you can explain how a person can live for several weeks, with a punctured heart. So yet again, your arguments are not as powerful as you try to make it appear.

My OP was not an argument so much as it was a reflection sprinkled with questions meant to provoke dialogue. I'd be happy if you'd like to dialogue, but please don't presume I want to continue with the kind of polemics you have displayed so far.

I tackle them though reason and logic instead of through emotion.

I think you're being a little too provincial in your self-assessment.

You not liking something doesn't make it immoral.

That's true, but I tend not to like immoral things.

Jesus giving his life for the sake of others, doesn't make it anymore suicide then a soldier dying to save his comrads means he's suicidal.

Because Christianity claims that Jesus was/is God incarnate, died, risen from the dead, and ascended into heaven, I see it as necessary to challenge Christian confidence that God's actions were at all moral. Because Jesus offered himself up for death, even death on a crucifix (Phil. 2:8) while yet being God, I do have to question his inability to come up with a system that doesn't require a sliding-sacrifice-scale (from animals to a person) and yet solves his own displeasure with the sin he made it inevitable to avoid.

Please, show that you were a preacher for several years instead of a fundamentalist atheist, that is hell bent on proving Christianity wrong, even when he doesn't show any common understanding for the belief system he tries to refute.

Christians don't show a common understanding of the many differing belief systems within their own midst, my friend. Do you find it untenable that I would work hard to jettison false beliefs and the thoughts that inform those false beliefs? Do you find it likely that I may be concentrating on reforming my understanding of the world and my place in it, not necessarily getting into all the niggling details of this-that-or-the-other Christian theological preference? Yes, I'm not as sharp on theology as I used to be; that is true. What is also true is that I'm concentrating a lot more on reality now.

As for being a minister, once my renovations are done, you're welcome to come see my ordination certificate, and my licence to perform marriage ceremonies in the province of Ontario, if you'd like. If not, then you're simply going to have to have faith (ahem!) that I'm telling you the truth.

[Kane]

No he didn't Christopher because he has tried to compare Jesus' death on a cross to giving a murderer 72 hours of community service. I wasn't aware that being beaten, flogged, made to carry one's cross, and being crucified (not counting being cut off from God the father), was the same as community service. Perhaps you can explain how they are the same...

I think what he was pointing out to you was that Jesus got off lightly. I mean really! C'mon! 72 hours in the grave and you get to come back bigger and badder than ever (please excuse the cliche)? That's nothing. People spend their lifetimes being tortured because they happened to be born into the wrong geographic region. That's suffering. Jesus, as Julia Sweeney stated, "had a bad weekend" by comparison.

Very good, not let me see if you can admit to your poor understanding of the text.

Please don't treat me as your mongrel dog to be goaded and chided on.

I'm quite busy too and I still have enough time to keep up with this thread and you're the one that wanted to insult instead of dealing with what I said. So you can see how I don't see you as being interested in having a decent conversation, at all.

No, I can't see that. I have been quite pleasant in this thread. Let's move on, shall we?

Mr King was not the son of God and didn't take on the punishment of the whole world, did he?

You have yet to establish this as a fact of reality. When you've done that, I will perk-up to your position a little more.

See, the thing I have discovered about many doubters of the faith is that they are not so much atheist, as they are anti-Christians.

I don't see this line of thinking as entirely relevant to the thread, to be honest.

Since Jesus rose from the dead 3 days later, they complain that his punishment for the entire world wasn't long enough

I'm not sure who "they" are. For myself, I argue that the punishment was entirely unnecessary to begin with; that all it did was compound the suffering it was allegedly attempting to solve. Redundancy doesn't solve many problems. Redundancy doesn't solve many problems.

(I would love to see any sort of quantification for how you came to that conclusion to start with. Bet you can't come up with it),

You seem to be using the personal information I gave as a means of a passive-aggressive attack against me. Please tell me you're not doing that. I'd rather our conversations took on a different tact.

but if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, you could then complain that he wasn't the son of God because he couldn't conquer death.

No, I would be satisfied that my conclusions that he isn't the Son of God are correct.

No matter what, the anti-Christian will seek excuses to feed his or her doubts and will do anything in their power to deny what they don't want to believe. In the end, it has nothing to do with the evidence at all, it has to do with the will and making dumb arguments like this, look better then they really are.

This also describes a great swath of believers from many different religious persuasions. Perhaps this has to do more with people being frustratingly human than right about religious claims they can't prove?

Now, perhaps you can explain to everybody, how you came to your conclusion or do you want to bring up more stories that have little relevance to the question at hand?

I'm not sure what you're referring to.

[Zombie]

Do explain how Jesus' death on the cross is the same as your situation above? Last I checked, the life of a Christian wasn't simply saying that Jesus is my savior and I can do whatever I want, but it's all about doing as well as saying (how many times did Jesus say, 'sin no more'?). Perhaps you can explain how these two situations match up. I'll be waiting for your answer.





I love grammar Nazi's. If you don't have a good argument (like the above), just whine about errors in grammar.

BTW nice emotional appeal, perhaps next time you'll give an actual argument without appealing to emotion?

the situation above? i dont think jesus's sacrifice was much of a sacrifice at all. not a popular view but hear me out.

1. first of all im not quite sure how jesus's death expunged all our sin. (whatever our sin is?)

2. for an omnipotent entity to die only to come back to life is a bit spurious in the first place. if said entity has control over death than i hardly think it could die in the first place. the fact he came back to life only lessens the severity of the death. it appears he merely zoomed off to heaven for a while, zoomed back and went on business as usual.

3a. an omniscient god would have full knowledge and experience of the crucifixion (and any other grusome end anything can meet in this reality) well before it even created reality. can an omnicient entity be surprised? i doubt it so. if god created reality to accomodate such acts, he likely knew of them and all the experiences involved for an infinite anount of time before the world came to be.

3b. now a more interesting stance could be that since god knew and experienced the crucifixion for an eternity before it happened that could be a big punishment but i think it gets trumped by any other worse scenarios/knowlege he would have AND by the supposed fact he is immortal, infinite, timeless, omnipotence, so on.
i fail to see how even the worst shaming by humans and the worst torture by humans could possibly even trifle an entity that has the powers of reality at its whim.

4. now if jesus/god sacrificed his DIVINITY on the cross, that would be a sacrifice! god loses all aforesaid powers in exchange for humanity's benefit...that would be epic. like purusha sacrificing itself in the ritual to create reality.
this leads me to believe that since the sacrifice doesnt seem so troubling to god, humanity's sin (whatever that is, which i really dont get) wasnt that major because it only warranted a god man to be ritually shamed and murdered as a human outcaste. he retained his godhood, powers and gained popularity from the happening.

so as my previous post speaks of a criminal who does an act that most human cultures would find greatly offensive, and recieves a punishment most cultures would concider light, it would be concidered unjust or unfitting.
thats pretty much how i currently view the crucifixion of jesus.

now i asked some questions in post 17 , in which Chrawnus replied.

i replied again in post 30, albeit my posting skills are kinda weak format-wise. it may be hard to read.

i supposed it comes down to motive why god would want to do the crucifixion in the first place, but, i tend to view the book of genesis a bit differently than most and most of my questions stem from it.

now as far as emotional appeal...

that seems to be flung around here quite a bit as an insult or a label indicatiing poor reasoning skills.

but concerning religious and spiritual matters i think emotional appeal plays the ultimate part in religious conversion and how religions grow and die.

i have yet to witness a single person, satisfied with their faith all of a sudden study the various faiths of the world, conduct scientific and philosophical analysis of them, and choose the one with the best/most accurate reasoning. especially since the bulk of the claims are supernatural in nature and cant be tested.

i think people choose their religions based off of experiecnces good or ill, their cultural indocrtination, and likely genetic bias as traditionalist or early addopters in culture.

so if im appealing to emotion im not denying it.

[Composer]

That still doesn't change the fact that Jesus willing choose to give his life for the defense of others.

Atheists did and still do sacrifice themselves for various reasons to save others with no expectations of divine rewards, unlike your Story book jesus that eventually did as it was told but only because it believed there were divine rewards to collect for its Unwarranted efforts! Proof -

Ezekiel 18:20 RSV

"THE SON SHALL NOT SUFFER FOR THE INIQUITY OF THE FATHER. NOR THE FATHER SUFFER FOR THE INIQUITY OF THE SON; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

Ezekiel 18:20 also "pulls the rug out from under" Christianity's main premise, that all generations of mankind are burdened with sin and death stemming from Adam's act of disobedience. Only Christ's redeeming shed blood can end this never-ending cycle of sin and death. Quite clearly Ezekiel refutes this notion. "The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father." (Online Source: http://www.bibleorigins.net/MoabiteBloodMessiah.html)

God didn't demand Jesus do anything,

Yes it did in Story book land! Proof -

#1: What the personal desire and Will Story book jesus asked for and wished for himself = “Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me. . . . . (Luke 22:42a) NET Story book

Story book jesus realised his Will was not to be taken in to consideration and so then capitulated under the divine coersion and personal selfish greeds offered to him by his god's bribery of divine promises = Yet not my will but yours be done.” (Luke 22:42b) NET Story book

Story book jesus' wish to not undergo his fathers bullying command was so great that he couldn't cope on his own and despite the divine coersion by the divine use of bribery and promises of divine rewards; an angel still had to be sent to bully him in to submission i.e to comply to his father's Will who would not accept jesus' own Self/Free-Will choice. (See #1: above) = Then an angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. (Luke 22:43) NET Story book

Story book jesus so much wanted not to be bullied by his father that he was in pain (anguish) -

And in his anguish112 he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.]113 (Luke 22:43) NET Story book

anguish n. 1 severe mental suffering. 2 pain, agony. (Pocket Oxford Dictionary/POD)

Then this selfish jesus right after succumbing to the divine bribes and promises, has the hypocrytical arrogance and blatant audacity to lecture the disciples to command them to pray NOT to fall in to temptation, without telling them he just did himself, by accepting his god's bribes. LOL! Proof -

When he got up from prayer, he came to the disciples and found them sleeping, exhausted from grief. 22:46 So he said to them, “Why are you sleeping? Get up and pray that you will not fall into temptation!” (Luke 22:45-46) NET Story book

Jesus went willing.

More of your typical BS! See #1: above that easily refutes you!

I already refuted this nonsense right in my first post so perhaps you should actually read what the Bible says instead of your strawman recreations of what it says? The Bible makes it 100% clear that Jesus gave his life because he wanted to and not because he was forced to.

More of your typical BS! See #1: above that easily refutes you!

You haven't a legitimate clue what your Story book actually does say and you repeatedly deny what it does say for your selfish purposes in preference for what you want it to say!

Your continued active military participation is yet another act of your Story book disobedience!

[lilpixieofterror]

Well, in the past, I have sacrificed some things and they have not been permanent. For example, I gave up chocolate for lent once. I was eating too much of it. It's really yummy! But these years later, I continue to eat chocolate, and it's still yummy.

You got that very good, glad to see you can admit to a mistake every now and then.

So, like I wrote to Crawnus, you're right that not all sacrifices are permanent. I didn't make that distinction in my OP, and you, like Crawnus, picked up on that.

Very good, now let us move on.

Sin can be an eternal barrier between a person and God if it is not forgiven, yes? If so, then human sin on the whole can eternally separate people from God, yes? That separation is eternal if people's sins are not forgiven should give some indication to you that the kind of sacrifice needed to enjoin people to God again would be an eternal sacrifice; that is, the sacrifice should be permanent if it is to be effective.

You got most of this right, good job for that, the problem is that you continue to misunderstand the point of my argument and simply rehash your same tired argument, again. You claim, "But Jesus' sacrifice needed to be permanent or else it doesn't count!" Yet, you do not explain why Jesus would have to stay dead forever in order for it to count. Why? Because you said so? Sorry, but you need to produce a reason and, "BUT JESUS ROSE AGAIN!" isn't an argument because after all, in the Christian system, the life we have now is only a small part of the entire picture, so does it follow that a person that doesn't repent, needs to stay dead forever? You need to explain (which you haven't done) why Jesus had to stay dead, for the cross to count. You can't explain it, all you can do is assert it over and over again, like a broken record. I want a reason, not an assertion or are you setting yourself up as the divine judge that is capable of judging the sins of the world and what price is good enough, to pay for it. I would think that God himself (which is what Christians say Jesus is) who came to earth, in human form, to give part of himself, for the sins of humanity would be in a position to judge what is required to deal with the sins of humanity a little bit better then fallible humans.

Here is where the theology of the Old Testament and the theology of the New Testament come to a subtle difference: the sacrifice of animals (expiation) was not enough to atone for the sins of people. So, a sacrifice of proportionate value to human life had to be made. Thus Jesus's sacrifice (a propitiation) was levied against the value of human life and found to be at least equal. The expiatory system was superceded by the propitiatory system, just as the Old Testament was superceded by the New Testament.

Duh, of course it wasn't enough, but you make another common error in understanding, which shows you didn't understand the Bible as well as you think you did. Paul explains this well in Romans and other Christians have written a great deal on this. Both the OT and the NT agree that sacrificing animals was not enough or else, why would you have to keep doing it, in order to deal with new sins as they come along? Second, the point of the sacrificial system of the OT is in two points, first it was to show the people how serious sin was, so they had to give part of their livelihood (which animals were a huge part of it), to God. It was to let them known how serious sin was and to be careful. The second part (which is where Christians and Jews will disagree at), is to show us the ultimate sacrifice that will eventually come, in the forum of Jesus. Finally, you don't understand Jesus' sacrifice at all, it wasn't a human life for a human life (for that is what many Pagan's did), it was the sinless nature of God, for the sins of humanity. It's basic mistakes like this, that really do make me wonder how well you understood the faith you claimed to have rejected.

My difficulty at this point is not so much the sacrifice as is the mythology of the man behind the sacrifice. That's not to say that I'm a Christ mythicist -- I'm not -- but I do think there is really nothing substantial to show that Christ was anything more than a man. So where your faith takes you further in believing that Christ was God, I have to stop at the simple existence of a man who was unduly treated. That said, Christ's sacrifice, from my perspective, was really nothing but an execution; a termination of a human life for the alleged benefit of every other human life. Christ gave up his life, which was of equal value to every other person's life, and therefore didn't actually sacrifice anything that couldn't be gained by keeping his life and continuing to teach people nice things.

That is nice and all, but if you are going to attack Christianity, within its own framework and not within yours. Attacking Christianity within your framework, isn't going to work because Christianity is going to be inconsistent within your beliefs. Taking the assumption that Jesus is everything the Bible claims about him, we must take that nature into mind if one wants to show something. Since Christianity claims that Jesus is the son of God and has a sinless nature, that all goes into the picture too. Showing that Christianity is inconsistent within your own belief system doesn't work here, you need to show it is inconsistent, within its own framework, not within yours.

No, there's really not very much difference at all: the demands of all sacrificial-type religions begin and end in death. It's a common bond between paganism, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Taking a life is taking a life, no matter which way you look at it. It's all a compounding of the suffering that everyone recognises at some point is philosophically and existentially distressing.

Wrong again, you misunderstand what Jesus is about, assert your beliefs as being right, misunderstand Christian theology and puff, you have your 'argument'. The problem is, you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about. Jesus was the son of God and by extent sinless we also add that he was willing. When we take the sacrificial beliefs of pagans, they killed people, often times against their will and they were not sinless (according to the Christian belief). I’m not too sure about Islam, but as I explained above, the Jewish sacrificial system has it's reasons to. You claim to be a minister, yet, you don't understand basic Christian theology and end up misrepresenting it so badly, I wonder how good of a minister you really were. Did you have this bad of an understanding before you became an atheist or did you have this bad of an understanding in your Christian days? If so, I can see why you become an atheist.

Not really. Death is death, no matter who the recipient is.

Not really my point Christopher, my point is that some people who have died are celebrated as heroes, some are not. It is often though those who give their lives for others, that are most celebrated (I know the US has a day for this, it's called memorial day, which is a date set aside to honor those who died in defense of this nation).

My OP was not an argument so much as it was a reflection sprinkled with questions meant to provoke dialogue. I'd be happy if you'd like to dialogue, but please don't presume I want to continue with the kind of polemics you have displayed so far.

Which was based upon your own ignorance of Christian thought and theology. I would take you reflections seriously, if you could show you understood what you were talking about. Yes, you did try to make an argument and failed at it, very hard, now you are trying to say it was to 'provoke thought'. It did, it provoked the thought that you don't understand the religion you rejected and most likely didn't understand it when you were part of that belief system.

I think you're being a little too provincial in your self-assessment.

Then show me in error, but you haven't yet because I have a feeling you can't show me in an error, I have found plenty of yours thus far though.

That's true, but I tend not to like immoral things.

Got to love circular reason. Now, what makes something immoral?

Because Christianity claims that Jesus was/is God incarnate, died, risen from the dead, and ascended into heaven, I see it as necessary to challenge Christian confidence that God's actions were at all moral. Because Jesus offered himself up for death, even death on a crucifix (Phil. 2:8) while yet being God, I do have to question his inability to come up with a system that doesn't require a sliding-sacrifice-scale (from animals to a person) and yet solves his own displeasure with the sin he made it inevitable to avoid.

I don't like some speed limits, does that mean I don’t have to pay the ticket that I am bound to get if I ignore the speed limit? No it doesn't, so why does not liking something that God does, mean it's immoral?

Christians don't show a common understanding of the many differing belief systems within their own midst, my friend.

So? Other people's ignorance is not an excuse for your ignorance. You will discover that I am just as hard on Christians about lack of understanding as I am on atheist. In order for one to reject or accept something, with confidence, one must first understanding what they are accepting or rejecting. If they don't, they merely accept or reject things blindly or out of ignorance.

Do you find it untenable that I would work hard to jettison false beliefs and the thoughts that inform those false beliefs? Do you find it likely that I may be concentrating on reforming my understanding of the world and my place in it, not necessarily getting into all the niggling details of this-that-or-the-other Christian theological preference? Yes, I'm not as sharp on theology as I used to be; that is true. What is also true is that I'm concentrating a lot more on reality now.

If you are going to come here and attack Christians and God for such and such belief or view, yes, I do expect you to show an understanding of those beliefs before you open your mouth. Is that so hard to ask? The problem is, you show a lack of understanding of Christian theology or even of basic logic, so why should I take you seriously if you don't understand what you are rejecting? Basically, you have not given reality at all, you pretty much rejected ignorance and accepted ignorance in return. That is unacceptable and one of my main issues with the new atheist. I reject the belief of reincarnation, but do I run into Hindu forms and demand that they reject it too, when I don't even understand their beliefs are reincarnation? Nope because if I did that, I would be thought of as a buffoon, by them. So, if you come into a Christian forum and show a lack of understanding of Christian beliefs (which I might add, what I am saying, on this topic, is accepted by almost every denomination out there and confirmed by the earliest church creeds) should I and others take you seriously?

As for being a minister, once my renovations are done, you're welcome to come see my ordination certificate, and my licence to perform marriage ceremonies in the province of Ontario, if you'd like. If not, then you're simply going to have to have faith (ahem!) that I'm telling you the truth.

Just because you have an ordination certificate, it doesn't mean that you know what you are talking about. Just like a degree, an ordination certificate is a piece of paper that doesn't mean a thing, if you don't have the knowledge to back it up. I really could care less if you have an ordination certificate or not. I do have to wonder how you could do it, when you show a total lack of understanding of even the most basic Christian doctrines. It does tell me about the condition of the modern church today though, which is quite scary, if you ask me.

[Chrawnus]

Of course it's a problem! Not least because there is absolutely no way for you, or anyone else to establish such claims ("Jesus being the Eternal Word and God", "Christ is infinite by nature") in reality. Such statements are faith-thrusting, not anything that could be shown to be actual. That leaves us with the next reality that unless you can prove that Jesus was what you're claiming him to be, the rest of us (whoever we are, that is) have to accept that Jesus was simply a man, and that's all. Thus, he was not worth more than any other human being. Which makes his 'sacrifice' nullified because it was the giving up of a value equal to everyone else's. In short, unless you can prove that God died for me, and that that God was Jesus, he was just another guy that met his end in a particularly nasty way.

I think this belongs to another discussion. I've always assumed that when one discusses a validity of a concept one does it from the perspective of the worldview that holds to that concept. So 'proving' that Jesus was God and showing the validity of the substitutionary atonement are two different things. I can do the latter without doing the first, it's only when I want to connect the concept of substitutionary atonement to reality that I'd need to give reasons for believing that Jesus was God. So I can still show that the concept is valid in theory, without showing that it actually happened.

Well, once the category of 'sin' is removed, the religious pretentions to some kind of cosmic overlord can be dropped, and people can start dialoguing like human beings unburdened by harmful and divisive prejudices that come as a result of competative metanarratives. That's certainly the start of a better way than to have oxen, lambs, bulls, and a Jewish carpenter bloodied and terminated.

It's not that I wouldn't like a world with less conflicts, but I don't think that is any good criteria to go by if one wants to find out which view is true or not. It should be more important whether a view is true than whether it is unifying or divisive.

But you are not free to agree with that since you are constrained by the divisive prejudices of your particular religion. And since that is the case, my admonition to have people face each other as whole, raw, wild and beautiful creatures can only meet with your disapproval. Your God requires that of anyone who would profess him.

You have to clarify what you mean by "raw, wild and beautiful creatures" before I can comment on the issue of "people facing each other" that way (though if it is what I suspect it would probably be one of the most harmful things one can do.)

The "emotional appeal" tag gets thrown around to lightly at Tweb. A person who is invested in what they are explaining will come across as a human being -- a human being with emotions. Get used to it, please. None of us are robots, and adjectives are helpfully inoffensive to a secure personality.

The "emotional appeal" tag gets thrown around so much because people appeal to emotions so frequently here. There's nothing wrong with being emotionally invested in something, but it shouldn't cloud ones issue on the subject, whether or not the emotions connected to that something are bad or good. And I'm certainly "used to it", but that doesn't mean that I won't point it out when someone does it.

Excellent: we're agreeing to not force each other's context on the other. Thank you for that. You are refreshingly interesting to converse with.

Though I'd like it if we'd discuss the validity of the sacrificial concept in a Christian context. I don't really see the meaning of discussing it from an atheistic viewpoint, since the concept is AFAIK nonsensical from that view. And figuring out which view is correct is another matter altogether. It's your thread though so you decide.

Yes, 'detrimental' and 'edifying' are comparatives. However, because the word 'sin' is laden with religious connotation, it hardly has the Occamistic ease of a simple comparative such as 'detrimental' and 'edifying.' I prefer to be direct, and human.

I wouldn't be so sure that concepts such as "detrimental" and "edifying" are really that simple. People's views on how a good/bad society should look are pretty diverse, and even if one ignores that there's still hundreds of issues (and more) to work out before one can assess whether or not a certain action or decision would actually be detrimental or edifying. So if the concept of sin is more complex than the comparison of detrimental or edifying it's most likely that the higher complexity is so insignificant that it would be useless to bring out Occam's razor.

Religion muddies the waters by introducing unfalsifiable such as God, sin, devils, miracles, etc.

And by discarding things such as "God, sin, devils, miracles, etc" you risk throwing out truth along with them.

How can anything helpful be worked out in reality when people's minds are capering off into fanciful notions of super-realities, and then pegging each other as 'sinners', 'heretics', 'blasphemers', and the like when said fanciful notions don't jive with each other?

I'm not sure how this is relevant. People tend to rip each others throats out for more reasons than which religion or supernatural worldview is true or not, so that's hardly an issue. By that logic we ought to discard every notion that "don't jive with each other" whether or not it's about "super-realities" or not including scientific theories that "don't jive with each other".

An atheistic stance on supernaturalism boils away that kind of dross and leaves the sediment of reality we can all have common contact with: the natural.

What should one do when one thinks he has good reasons to believe that there is more than the natural? Assuming that only the natural is all that is (even if I believe that the difference between natural and supernatural is contrived to a degree) would be the same as being ignorant to me.

Once the natural is accepted as all there is, it is easy to build on reality and face each other on human terms (rather than on terms that are connotative at best, and, frankly, have nothing to do with reality at worst).

It should be obligatory to drop all pretenses of truth-seeking if one rules out the supernatural from the beginning. And let's not forget that if Christianity is true it's issues are hardly just connotative when it comes to reality, but instead permeates the whole of reality. If Christianity is true then what/who one believes and puts one's faith/loyalty on is of paramount importance.

I apologise: I've run out of time again (I'm at work), and I have to go. Take care.

No problem.

[lilpixieofterror]

I think what he was pointing out to you was that Jesus got off lightly. I mean really! C'mon! 72 hours in the grave and you get to come back bigger and badder than ever (please excuse the cliche)? That's nothing. People spend their lifetimes being tortured because they happened to be born into the wrong geographic region. That's suffering. Jesus, as Julia Sweeney stated, "had a bad weekend" by comparison.

Really? So what sort of weekend did you get whipped by a cat-o-nine, beaten, tortured, made to carry your own cross, and crucified? Gosh and I thought I had a bad weekend and besides Christopher, 'come on' isn't an argument. Some people get tortured their own lives? Really? Is this some sort of revelation that Christians, for 2,000 years have been somehow unaware of? Oh thank you, oh great one, for finally showing me the light, for I didn't know that people have suffered for a life time! Now seriously, do you have any way to quantify a better level of suffering to pay for the sins of the world or do you just have more personal opinion, to back up your claim and nothing more? What would be a better level of pay out? If it was 73 hours, would it be ok? How about 96 hours, is that better? How about years? Is that better? Yet again, quantify your argument and don’t just assert that it's 'not enough' and show me how you came to that conclusion. Remember, personal opinion and 'I said so' are not arguments, but assertions.

Please don't treat me as your mongrel dog to be goaded and chided on.

Show you can make a good argument and not a bad argument that simply shows you don't understand Christian theology, how to produce a good argument, or show you can reason your way out of a paper bag. Your above argument was very bad and you haven't got any better since then. Is that so hard to ask, that you make good arguments and have to give reasons and not assertions, for your reasoning?

No, I can't see that. I have been quite pleasant in this thread. Let's move on, shall we?

If you mean that you've been subtle with your passive-aggressive back handing of Christianity, then yes, I guess you have been 'quite pleasant'. However; it's too bad that I can see right though that, huh?

You have yet to establish this as a fact of reality. When you've done that, I will perk-up to your position a little more.

And you have just hand waved away any data that goes against your pre-conceived conclusions and show you don’t know how to make a good argument, if it bit you in the rear end. You are trying to argue that Christianity is inconsistent within itself so you must argue Christianity, within its own system and not within your own beliefs. Do you understand this yet or do you still want to try to stack that deck and attempt to impress me when you pull out those four aces you have? Sorry, but that doesn't work on me. If you are going to argue that Christianity is inconsistent within itself, you need to do it, with the Christian framework in mind.

I don't see this line of thinking as entirely relevant to the thread, to be honest.

And what did your story have to do with the thread? Hey, if you can bring up meaningless stories, so can I, right? Anyway, it's an observation I have noticed with people like you.

I'm not sure who "they" are. For myself, I argue that the punishment was entirely unnecessary to begin with; that all it did was compound the suffering it was allegedly attempting to solve. Redundancy doesn't solve many problems. Redundancy doesn't solve many problems.

Again with that same tired assertion. Why? Because you said so? Sorry Christopher, you need to show it and stop trying to use your personal opinion as fact. Next, you show you don't know what you are talking about at all. Redundancy is one of the most common methods to teach with and is the reason you learned to read, write, and do math. People get faster and better at things, the more they do it or else, why do teachers have children write out their letters so much? Why does a mechanic with 10 years of experience, better than one with just a year of experience? Redundancy is one of the keys of how I learned my job and it's one of the cornerstones of education. I know you are trying to say, "BUT JESUS SUFFERING DIDN'T DO ANYTHING!" That again, is an assertion, not an argument. Learn the difference between an argument and an assertion and also, you might want to brush up on common knowledge things too since redundancy is one of the most effective ways, in which humans learn how to do a task better.

You seem to be using the personal information I gave as a means of a passive-aggressive attack against me. Please tell me you're not doing that. I'd rather our conversations took on a different tact.

Seeing insult where none exist? I am not using any sort of personal information that I didn’t glance from these public forums. Quantification means you need to show your results and not just asset it. "Jesus didn’t suffer enough!" Ok, why didn't it? What would be a better level of suffering for Jesus to have endured? This is merely an assertion based upon your personal opinion and I bet you can't prove it because you haven't proved it yet. Now, prove it, what would be a better level for Jesus to have suffered at and why?

No, I would be satisfied that my conclusions that he isn't the Son of God are correct.

Again, one must argue within the Christian system, for your argument to work Christopher. Why don't you understand this very basic aspect?

This also describes a great swath of believers from many different religious persuasions. Perhaps this has to do more with people being frustratingly human than right about religious claims they can't prove?

I'm not the one arguing by assertions, you are. Now prove your assertions, I'll be waiting.

I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Reading comprehension fail, go back and re read this and your previous response to see what I am referring to.

[lilpixieofterror]

the situation above? i dont think jesus's sacrifice was much of a sacrifice at all. not a popular view but hear me out.

Why not? Because you said so? Yet again, all I see is lots of assertions and misunderstandings of Christian theology, but not really a good argument.

1. first of all im not quite sure how jesus's death expunged all our sin. (whatever our sin is?)

And I’m not quite sure how the presence of nothing (AKA Dark Energy) can produce a force that is driving the expansion of the universe (in fact, even scientist can't really explain this). So just because people don’t understand it, does that mean it doesn't happen? You not understanding how X works, doesn't mean X doesn't work, does it? So why does it work here.

2. for an omnipotent entity to die only to come back to life is a bit spurious in the first place. if said entity has control over death than i hardly think it could die in the first place. the fact he came back to life only lessens the severity of the death. it appears he merely zoomed off to heaven for a while, zoomed back and went on business as usual.

This second objection is based upon your ignorance of Christian theology. The common Christian belief is that Jesus is both fully God and fully human and carries with him, the nature of both. What happened is that Jesus the human, died, but Jesus the God didn't die, but was more along the lines of 'cut off' from God the father (this right here is where many Christians believe this is the worst part of the atonement). Next, how does this fit into the resurrection? Well, first it's a sign of God's divine power because he was able to raise the human Jesus, back from the dead. Second, it's a symbol for our own resurrection. Finally, it's a sign the price of sin, has been paid. There is, of course, more to it than this, but this is the very basics. In other words, this objection of yours is more based upon your own ignorance, then upon anything real.

3a. an omniscient god would have full knowledge and experience of the crucifixion (and any other grusome end anything can meet in this reality) well before it even created reality. can an omnicient entity be surprised? i doubt it so. if god created reality to accomodate such acts, he likely knew of them and all the experiences involved for an infinite anount of time before the world came to be.

And where does the atonement require that Jesus be 'surprised' by it? I always thought the gospels made it quite clear that Jesus knew what was about to happen and went into it willingly, despite knowing. Can you do me a favor, actually read what you are trying to reject before you make these silly arguments?

3b. now a more interesting stance could be that since god knew and experienced the crucifixion for an eternity before it happened that could be a big punishment but i think it gets trumped by any other worse scenarios/knowlege he would have AND by the supposed fact he is immortal, infinite, timeless, omnipotence, so on.
i fail to see how even the worst shaming by humans and the worst torture by humans could possibly even trifle an entity that has the powers of reality at its whim.

So you fail to see it and therefore, it didn't happen? Hummm, so again, more ignorance upon the nature of Jesus here. Can you do me a favor and actually go and pick up a book before you say such silly things? Jesus was both fully divine and fully God, there is your mistake. Finally, did you ever think that the entire point of the atonement was just that, why would a God come down to humanity and die a shameful death, on a cross? You're not the first one to take issues with this, we find this objection in the very pages of the NT.

4. now if jesus/god sacrificed his DIVINITY on the cross, that would be a sacrifice! god loses all aforesaid powers in exchange for humanity's benefit...that would be epic. like purusha sacrificing itself in the ritual to create reality.
this leads me to believe that since the sacrifice doesnt seem so troubling to god, humanity's sin (whatever that is, which i really dont get) wasnt that major because it only warranted a god man to be ritually shamed and murdered as a human outcaste. he retained his godhood, powers and gained popularity from the happening.

You know, you might want to pick up a book upon the theology of the atonement before you make such silly arguments against it. The entire point of Jesus going on the cross was because he was sinless and only the sinless can pay for sins. Since humanity is full of sin, who else could pay for the sins of humanity? God himself, but how could God pay for the sins of humanity? By taking on human flesh and becoming flesh himself. So yet again, you show your own ignorance of Christian theology and try to use it as an argument. Again, I would advise you to pick up a book and start reading before you make such bad arguments.

so as my previous post speaks of a criminal who does an act that most human cultures would find greatly offensive, and recieves a punishment most cultures would concider light, it would be concidered unjust or unfitting.
thats pretty much how i currently view the crucifixion of jesus.

In other words, you use popular opinion and your personal opinion as an argument. Well gosh, and billions of Christians, the world over, reject your belief, so what do you have? More bad arguments, now give me an actual argument please and stop making so many basic errors of logic and understanding, if you want me to take you seriously.

now i asked some questions in post 17 , in which Chrawnus replied.

i replied again in post 30, albeit my posting skills are kinda weak format-wise. it may be hard to read.

I would advise you to learn how to format your post better then.

i supposed it comes down to motive why god would want to do the crucifixion in the first place, but, i tend to view the book of genesis a bit differently than most and most of my questions stem from it.

Because he wanted to? Really, what other answer are you expecting?

now as far as emotional appeal...

that seems to be flung around here quite a bit as an insult or a label indicatiing poor reasoning skills.

Because emotionalism isn't a way to argue and well your 'reasoning' shows you don't understand Christian theology at all.

but concerning religious and spiritual matters i think emotional appeal plays the ultimate part in religious conversion and how religions grow and die.

In some cases yes and in some cases no. It's too bad that you really don't understand the religion you are trying to debate against. Please read something on the atonement and the resurrection before you hit the 'submit post' button again.

i have yet to witness a single person, satisfied with their faith all of a sudden study the various faiths of the world, conduct scientific and philosophical analysis of them, and choose the one with the best/most accurate reasoning. especially since the bulk of the claims are supernatural in nature and cant be tested.

Maybe not, but I would expect a person who is criticizing a belief system, to actually understand the said belief system instead of speaking out of ignorance. Your understanding of the nature of Jesus, the trinity, the nature of God, and the atonement, is outright terrible. If you are going to criticize Christianity, I would suggest that you try to understand it before you try to act like an expert. All of your 'arguments' are eaisly

i think people choose their religions based off of experiecnces good or ill, their cultural indocrtination, and likely genetic bias as traditionalist or early addopters in culture.

Does this count for atheist too? Anyway, how does this work to a culture that is intolerant to the said belief? Why do those people refuse to change, even while facing death?

so if im appealing to emotion im not denying it.

So you like making logical fallacies? If your goal was to sound ignorant and show that you don't understand Christian theology, good job, you did it. I prefer though, to argue though sound reason and understanding

[lilpixieofterror]

Atheists did and still do sacrifi... blah blah blah...

Go away troll, I have more important things to do with my time.

[Kane]

LPoT,

Thank you for your latest responses. I will be sure to read them over, think about them, and then respond when I have the time. I have a few days off of work now, so I'll be mostly unavailable due to other priorities like family, farm, renovations, and personal pursuits.

Until then, take care.
C31

[FarEastBird]

Christians call Jesus's voluntary death a "sacrifice." As I see it, Christians can call what Jesus did whatever they'd like. However, it seems to me that what Jesus did was commit suicide with the knowledge that his death was temporary anyway. Given that death was final for Jesus, can it really be accurately labelled a "sacrifice"? Isn't a sacrifice a permanent thing? That is, something is given up with the expectation that it will never be returned in order that others may benefit. But that's not what is understood from Jesus's so-called sacrifice: his "bad weekend" (Julia Sweeney) resulted in his death, but he knew he'd be back and better-than-ever in a few days. So the ultimacy of what "sacrifice" implies has no muscle in the passion play.

This is what the Bible says:

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?1 2 4 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. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection: 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.3 8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: 9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. 11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:3-11

Christ's death is not merely a sacrifice, but a show of God's power over man's salvation. The death and resurrection of Christ is the likeness of man's salvation. As Paul said: For if we "have been planted" together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection. Further, in the mystery, Christ became our savior in the sense that he is the reason of God's creation(John 1:3, Col 3:16). Our election was not dependent on our free will: because we do not have free will. All the elect were destined to be saved, being predestinated according to God's will in Christ(Eph 1:11).

The death of Christ is patterned after the Mosaic Law; of the Lamb offered for the sin of all the people. In the Mosaic Law, regardless there are ways to cleanse the sins committed, yet Deuteronomy 27:26 still bound all under sin; seeing none can fulfill to do ALL the law, thus a lamb is offered to totally purge the sins of the people. Part of the mystery of the mosaic law is that it is a shadow of the Church, of the kingdom of God, of the elect.

As Paul wrote: " 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

More, is there any reason why God couldn't have resorted to a more sophisticated method than human sacrifice to rid the world of sin? I mean, Yahweh condemned Moloch for the demand of human child sacrifice (Lev. 18:21) but then turns around and feels free to sacrifice his own child! Talk about brain-contortions: why couldn't the all-knowing, all-powerful deity, Yahweh, come up with a better system than the one he roundly condemned?

Such oddities and blatant contradictions really drive home the point some atheists argue: that the Judeo-Christian God is a psychopath with blatantly capricious intentions, and cruel devices. More sophisticated lines of thought might question the veracity of the stories to begin with; i.e., that they were stories with grand embellishments written by people who didn't understand the events happening around them; so, the events in the stories are ascribed some kind of divine agency.

Yahweh's condemnation of Moloch's sacrifice is of the perspective of if humans are moral beings. However, the demonstration of God in Christ is in the perspective of God being the "creator of ALL things," that is, that the creation is actually lifeless and thus God is authorized to do anything on the creation as He wills. More to it is that God itself claimed that He did ALL things, good and evil(Isa 45:7). Paul even plainly told us that God is responsible of the vessels unto glory, as well as the vessels unto destruction; note that we are speaking of humans and their fate; so free will is out in the issue. Further, Paul explained how God is in control of man’s destiny, even of every nations, and even concluded that "in Him(God) we live, and move, and have our being."(Acts 17:28).

The demonstration of Christ's death and resurrection is not only about sin but also of God's power working in the creation; to witness of the fact that God is creating all things. Central to this is also to witness of man being void of free will. It is necessary for those elected in the hierarchy in the Church to have experience, or have knowledge of the truth; to know that man has no free will though it has knowledge. This is the reason why God disallowed Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit of the tree of Knowledge of good and evil; is not about of their willingness to follow of what is good and evil, but of their lack of free will to follow good and evil, and even to have the knowledge of what is truth.

The Bible is not made for the purpose of appealing to the readers; else the Bible presented detailed explanations. Rather the Bible is only a witness to the elect. And that the elect are those who come to know the mystery of the Bible. As written: "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter."(Prov 25:2) But, as I said, and it is commonly believed among us Christians, that God is the one who elected those who come to understand.

How do you tackle such obvious problems within scripture? And what do such discrepancies do to your confidence in biblical inerrancy? Even more, how does such events reflect on God's moral character, in your opinion?

Given my point of view of the Godhead, there is no problem in the Godhead. I do experience that man is indeed void of free will, the very reason why I come to know the power of God, and submit myself in God; not by will, but by faith(I meant that it is my faith that made me to will to submit).

I believe that the root problem of our disagreement is on free will. If man has free will, then my POV collapses.

I believe that if we follow knowledge, evidence will point to us the absence of free will. So in knowledge, we find ourselves as dead, we come to know ourselves as mere biological machine. So in essence, God had a good reason he disallowed us to live in the fruit of knowledge of good and evil; because in knowledge of truth we'll find ourselves lifeless. But our hope in God is that we see him as creator of all things, and that he set Christ as the truth and life of the creation; figuratively speaking, of course.

Now, you can also ignore knowledge, and then claim yourself having free will; which meant that you will claim yourself as a god also.

Or, just remain agnostic, and satisfy yourself to argue with theists who lack knowledge of the Truth.

Sincerely,
FEB

[Kane]

Finally, you don't understand Jesus' sacrifice at all, it wasn't a human life for a human life (for that is what many Pagan's did), it was the sinless nature of God, for the sins of humanity. It's basic mistakes like this, that really do make me wonder how well you understood the faith you claimed to have rejected.

I think it odd that you've decided on the abstraction of the Passion (that Jesus's sinless nature was crucified for the sins of humanity) while not mentioning the concrete: that a human being was tortured and killed. And for what? To allegedly stop everyone else from having to be tortured and killed, and not just for a weekend, but for eternity.

And that is a big problem for me: that a supposedly loving God, who is all-powerful, can't figure out how to love past people's misdeeds or come up with a better solution to suffering and death than bigger, badder, eternally longer suffering and death. Your God is morally incompetent, and unjustifiably wrathful.

That is my opinion. I know you disagree. And I know you're going to call me on arguments from emotion, and all the other tripe usually flung my way. And that's fine, but until you can give proof of your cantankerous sky-fairy, I'm quite happy to take umbrage with the petulant lies of Christianity.

Okay. I have to go finish building my goose corral. Gonna be some yummy eating this Christmas!

[lilpixieofterror]

I think it odd that you've decided on the abstraction of the Passion (that Jesus's sinless nature was crucified for the sins of humanity) while not mentioning the concrete: that a human being was tortured and killed. And for what? To allegedly stop everyone else from having to be tortured and killed, and not just for a weekend, but for eternity.

Again, "I don't like it, so it' can't be true" isn't an argument (despite you wanting it to be one). I don't like the fact that nations fight wars and sometimes cause a great deal of suffering of others as a result, but I also know that there are evil people in the world that don't care about the suffering of others need to be stopped too, so the only way to stop evil people, is you sometimes need to fight a war, in order to save the world. Anyway, it's too bad that I don't believe that hell is a place of eternal torture and thus, your argument falls apart again. What is it with so many atheist wanting to make hell to be a place of eternal torture and pretending other views of hell and the afterlife don't exist? Would your entire belief system come apart if you were to discover that hell is not a place of torture, but a place of shame? Sorry, but Christianity doesn't need hell to be eternal torture, in order to be true.

And that is a big problem for me: that a supposedly loving God, who is all-powerful, can't figure out how to love past people's misdeeds or come up with a better solution to suffering and death than bigger, badder, eternally longer suffering and death. Your God is morally incompetent, and unjustifiably wrathful.

In other words, "I don't like it, so it can't be true." Again, why is God required to act how YOU WANT, in order to exist? The bottom line is that justice must be served and mercy also must be served, so how do you suppose both of these can be served? The cross is how it is done. You don't like it? That's nice, now I want an actual argument of why I should care what you like. I don't like many things, does that make them any less true? My dislike or like of something doesn't make it anymore true, you need to show that your likes or dislikes should mean anything to reality. Thus far, you haven't shown anything beyond emotion so thus, I can just ignore anything you give, by a mere wave of a hand. Now produce an argument, not assertions based upon emotions.

That is my opinion. I know you disagree. And I know you're going to call me on arguments from emotion, and all the other tripe usually flung my way. And that's fine, but until you can give proof of your cantankerous sky-fairy, I'm quite happy to take umbrage with the petulant lies of Christianity.

Awe, the final argument of the emotional ranter, "DUH! I want to be the judge of God, so I don't care what truth is, I just want my will to be done!" Too bad you haven't shown 'any lies' of Christianity. All you have done is throw up emotional rants and pretend they are arguments. Sorry Christopher, but tautologies are not arguments, they are rants based upon emotionalism and not logic and thus will be treated as such, until you can produce a valid argument. Not liking something, doesn't make it true or false in any other field, so why does it work here?

Okay. I have to go finish building my goose corral. Gonna be some yummy eating this Christmas!

Have fun and maybe while you're doing that, you can produce an argument based upon logic and not upon emotion.

[Chrawnus]

I think it odd that you've decided on the abstraction of the Passion (that Jesus's sinless nature was crucified for the sins of humanity) while not mentioning the concrete: that a human being was tortured and killed. And for what? To allegedly stop everyone else from having to be tortured and killed, and not just for a weekend, but for eternity.

And that is a big problem for me: that a supposedly loving God, who is all-powerful, can't figure out how to love past people's misdeeds or come up with a better solution to suffering and death than bigger, badder, eternally longer suffering and death. Your God is morally incompetent, and unjustifiably wrathful.

The last time I checked "love" did not mean letting people do whatever they please without consequences. As I see it "love past people's misdeeds" is just another way of saying that God should let me do whatever I please. Ignoring the fact that in a Christian context God is the sovereign ruler of all creation, including you.

You also seem to have the misconception that God's purpose with the crucifixion was to find a solution to suffering and death, but that's simply not true, atleast not primarily. God's purpose with the crufixion was to tear down the wall that separated us from him and giving us a chance for reconciliation with him. It is when we come into relationship with God and trust in him that we are promised eternal life and a future life where no suffering is present.

Oh, and on another note, Dante is not a good source when it comes to hell.

That is my opinion. I know you disagree. And I know you're going to call me on arguments from emotion, and all the other tripe usually flung my way. And that's fine, but until you can give proof of your cantankerous sky-fairy, I'm quite happy to take umbrage with the petulant lies of Christianity.


Okay. I have to go finish building my goose corral. Gonna be some yummy eating this Christmas!

If you know that we're going to call you on arguments from emotions, why in the world do you not stop using arguments from emotion? It's not our fault that your arguments are fallacious.