data_link wrote:Why does God have to sacrifice himself to himself in order to change a law he made himself?
He didn't change the law. And God cannot change his nature. Even for an omnipotent being, some things are intrinsically impossible. A perfectly good being could not commit an evil act for instance. A perfectly just being could not change the law because doing so would only make it less just.
The solution to this problem - the law condemning us to Hell, with no hope of redeeming ourselves - was not to change the law, since that was impossible, but rather to remove the cause of our condemnation - sin. We cannot earn our way out of sin by good deeds, therefore it had to be removed by the willing sacrifice of perfect innocent. Only God is perfectly good therefore Jesus had to die for us so that are sins could be removed.
Next you're going to ask why, if this has been done, do we need to bother about Christianity, right? Well, in order for us to be forgiven, we have to accept God's offer. That's it.
I see. And here I thought that Jesus said "No man comes to the Father except through Me."
He did, which I've quoted a couple of times.
But if we can get into heaven just for feeling sorry if we did anything wrong, then most of us are probably way ahead of you. (I'll show you what I mean in a moment)
No, because as I said, you have to ask him to forgive your sins. And you have to do so with sincerity.
Yes. Now does your point of view have anything to do with objective reality? No.
What do you mean by objective reality?
And how is a system of ethics based on the idea that it's wrong to do things that cause harm to other people (secular humanism) less objective
How is it anything other than purely subjective. You decide the criteria for something being wrong. You decide what is harmful to people. It's all stuff you've made up, rather than being based on a reliable external source. Totally subjective, in other words.
than a system based on the whims of a God who has already admitted that he has no problem with slavery,
Wrong.
or killing people for being uncircumcised,
I'm not circumcised. Jesus never commanded people to be circumcised. Paul makes it very clear that circumcision is unnecessary. It is a mere symbol.
or stoning children to death for being disobedient to their parents?
Different time, different culture, very rare occurrence.
Really? I have a book which lists 'love your neighbour as yourself' and regards all men, even worst enemies, as neighbours, as the most important command to obey between men, for acts of torture? I'm sorry, but I don't follow your logic.
Get a brain.
And I'm the one accused of ad hominens...
Then read the above paragraph to see what our problem is with basing your morality on the Bible.
Read I said and tell me how 'love thy neighbour' can be interpreted to mean 'go torture people'.
I think you've read a lot and experienced a lot. That's why I can't understand what's gone wrong. If i thought you were dumb, I might understand. Then again, Christianity is for all, intelligent and ignorant alike.
Are you saying that you don't understand the difference between stupidity and ignorance? Excuse me while I laugh.
[/quote]
I never said that. Stupidity is lack of intelligence. Ignorance is lack of knowledge.
How is it only an opinion that a belief in an invisible man in the sky is irrational?
You don't believe in God. That is an opinion, not an objective verifiable fact. The idea of God existing is not irrational. In order for something to be irrational, there must be no reason behind it. There are, however, reasons for believing that God exists. Whether those reasons are good enough is a matter of opinion. that doesn't mean that people who hold a different view are necessarily irrational, however.
Depends what you mean by objective fact. Can I run an experiment on God in the scientific sense? No. Is there historical evidence in favour of Christianity? Yes. Many a book has been written on it. In fact I'm reading a very good one on the issue at the moment called 'The Case For Christ" by lee Strobel, former legal editor for the Chicago Tribune. Once an ardent atheist who was converted when he questioned world experts on the historical evidence for the gospel
And in at least five cases on this board alone, people turned to Atheism after reading the bible cover to cover.
Very small statistical sample from a biased source. You're bound to get more people like that on a forum for mocking Christianity. I know plenty of people who have been converted to Christianity or had their faith strengthened through reading the Bible.
And all you can think of is one isolated incident which you have no evidence for other than your word?
Eh? What do you mean? That I am the only isolated incident? Or that the book is? And why are you presuming to know what evidence I have?
Also, do think that number of books written has anything to do with the truthfulness of a phenomena? In that case, there must be little green men from Mars coming down to Earth, and fortune tellers are real.
Strawman. The existence of the books shows that people have been converted from atheism to Christianity by the evidence. Just as books about UFO show that people looking at evidence have come to the conclusion that UFOs exist. My point was that people held certain views, not that the views were correct.
Remember when I said that we're all way ahead of you when it comes to salvation? Well this is why - you apparently suffer from the delusion that we are free from guilt, which means that you can never truly repent of your sins, because you don't feel guilt for them. We don't have that problem. See you in hell.
you misunderstand me. When i say we are free from guilt, I mean it in the sense that we are not trapped by it. by repenting of our sins, we are cleansed of them and have no reason to feel guilty. We are only guilty when we are sinners and when I sin, I do feel guilty, but I know that the guilt isn't permanent because God removes it. When you have done no wrong (as is our condition when we repent and have our sin wiped way) there is no reason to feel guilty.
