What is uniquely Christian?

[Darth Wong]

what (if anything) makes Christianity either unique or worthwhile

Considering the title of the thread and its original purpose was to explore the unique elements of Christianity, I must ask if you are equating 'unique' and 'worthwhile' or if you are adding a dimension to the thread discussion.

I didn't add that dimension; others did. But it's easy to see how a discussion of one will lead to the other, because people will attempt to raise "unique" points that are actually mere trivialities, so one will naturally have to discuss whether those points of uniqueness are important, hence worthwhile.

Regarding

is it agreed that the only really "unique" Christian ideology is the notion of salvation through Christ, which is in fact merely the logical extreme of human and animal sacrifice rituals and beliefs, particularly those which value a "pure" sacrifice?

I would unpack 'salvation of Christ' a bit to explain that this is indeed a one-time thing that negated the need for future sacrifices and - think this is the correct word - sanctified all past sacrifices. That the sacrifice of Christ is perceived as an event that touches on all points in the timeline of creation (past, present, future) and fundementally alters creation once and for all. This would help distringuish it from Mithraism that I've come understand would be close, but different in that it calls for continued sacrifices. It is upon this understanding that the Christian theology of 'through faith alone' follows, althoug I admit that that part is not unique to Christianity.

How does this make it a unique concept? It's still the idea of scapegoating; absolving one's own crimes by making a third party pay the price. The magnitude of the absolution and the quality of the sacrifice are mere points on a spectrum, and do not alter the basic idea one iota.

[chaoschristian]

DW wrote:

I didn't add that dimension; others did. But it's easy to see how a discussion of one will lead to the other, because people will attempt to raise "unique" points that are actually mere trivialities, so one will naturally have to discuss whether those points of uniqueness are important, hence worthwhile.

Aah, just to that we don't talk past another here. . . There is a difference, is there not, between what you say above and what you say below:

what (if anything) makes Christianity either unique or worthwhile

Regarding the former: yes I agree - some trivialities in an argument on some attribute of Christianity and whether or not it is unique could be seen as not important - and hence not worthwhile. Example: your pointing out that my expansion on the nature of the cruxifiction didn't really add anything to its basic nature to make it more unique - point conceded.

Regarding the latter: what makes Christianity unique? what makes Christianity worthwhile? Two different questions, yes? Or are you saying that something must be unique to be worthwhile? Or are you saying that since this discussion has led to the apparent conclusion that the only attribute unique to Christianity in comparison to its contemperaneous 'competitors' is the element of salvation through human sacrifice that it is not worthwhile as a religion? Or are you saying something entirely different?

Just attempting to understand, that's all.

[Darth Wong]

Do you have anything to add besides nitpicks, asshole? Should I carefully word every goddamned statement in precise legalese so that you don't harp on the distinction between "worthwhile unique aspects of Christianity" and "making Christianity unique and worthwhile?"

Either address the goddamned question I asked, or shut the fuck up.

[chaoschristian]

What the hell is wrong with you? If you do not have the patience to carefully say what you mean to say, then maybe you should shut the fuck up.

I responded to your question - I conceded the point. Upon reflection my expansion of the cruxifiction did not add anything more to it to make it more unique beyond what was required for the discussion.

If 'nitpicking' - to use your term - is against the rules, then I did not see it in the FAQ. If it irritates you for some reason - then I don't give a shit. I like this board because its participants 'nitpick' at logic, reasoning, science, etc. So why it is any less valid to 'nitpick' at the use of language when how something is used can mean extremely different things?

[Darth Wong]

What the hell is wrong with you? If you do not have the patience to carefully say what you mean to say, then maybe you should shut the fuck up.

Listen fucktard, the difference between "unique and worthwhile aspects of Christianity" and "making Christianity unique and worthwhile" is absolutely INSIGNIFICANT except to a nitpicking fucktard such as yourself. Either answer the fucking point or SHUT THE FUCK UP right now, asshole.

If 'nitpicking' - to use your term - is against the rules, then I did not see it in the FAQ. If it irritates you for some reason - then I don't give a shit.

Nitpicking is a fucking fallacy, you stupid asshole; it's called the Red Herring.

I like this board because its participants 'nitpick' at logic, reasoning, science, etc. So why it is any less valid to 'nitpick' at the use of language when how something is used can mean extremely different things?

It DOESN'T mean "extremely different things", you shit-eating moron. If something is unique and worthwhile, it must have some unique and worthwhile features. If something has unique and worthwhile features, then it's unique and worthwhile. Distinguishing between "X is unique and worthwhile" and "X has a unique and worthwhile feature" is literally pulling gnatshit out of the corners of my argument with fucking tweezers, you cretinous mass of monkey vomit.

So I say again: either present something unique and worthwhile about Christianity or SHUT THE FUCK UP. Because that's the thread subject, not nitpicking about whether you totally change the meaning of "unique and worthwhile" if you include the word "aspects".

[chaoschristian]

Point 1:

Please prove, by quoting my text that I ever stated there was a significant difference between the two points in your quote:

Listen fucktard, the difference between "unique and worthwhile aspects of Christianity" and "making Christianity unique and worthwhile" is absolutely INSIGNIFICANT except to a nitpicking fucktard such as yourself.

As you will see, I most definetely did not.

Point 2:

Either answer the fucking point or SHUT THE FUCK UP right now, asshole

I did, as you will see if you read the post, unless you are incapable of reading carefully and properly, as your recent posts would indicate.

Point 3:

Nitpicking is a fucking fallacy, you stupid asshole; it's called the Red Herring.

As found on this board's FAQ: Red Herring- Distracting readers with sensational, irrelevant material.

This would apply if I were attempting to distract others from the point you made in your post about the unquiness of Christianity as quoted here:

Well, now that this tangent has hopefully been put to bed, is it agreed that the only really "unique" Christian ideology is the notion of salvation through Christ, which is in fact merely the logical extreme of human and animal sacrifice rituals and beliefs, particularly those which value a "pure" sacrifice?

As you recall, or perhaps don't as your mental facilities seemed to be impaired at this particular point in time, I agreed with your point. Now, why in the hell would I later attemtpt to distract others from the point if I were supporting it?

Point 4:

It DOESN'T mean "extremely different things", you shit-eating moron. If something is unique and worthwhile, it must have some unique and worthwhile features. If something has unique and worthwhile features, then it's unique and worthwhile. Distinguishing between "X is unique and worthwhile" and "X has a unique and worthwhile feature" is literally pulling gnatshit out of the corners of my argument with fucking tweezers, you cretinous mass of monkey vomit.

While I agree with your point here on principal, I must say it is totally irrelevant to the question I asked, since I was not even remotely attempting to counter your argument.

Point 5:

So I say again: either present something unique and worthwhile about Christianity or SHUT THE FUCK UP. Because that's the thread subject, not nitpicking about whether you totally change the meaning of "unique and worthwhile" if you include the word "aspects".

What in the hell are you smoking? I know that the thread is about you insignificant mote of sea-cucumber flatulance. Am I making a point about the word "aspect" in any of my posts? No.

Point 6:

what (if anything) makes Christianity either unique or worthwhile

The question "what (if anything) makes Christianity unique" was the original point of this thread and I contributed to it and ended up agreeing with your point.

The question "what (if anything) makes Christianity worthwhile" leads the discussion in a different direction and all I asked was whether or not it was your intent to lead it that way and therefore expect posts of that nature.

[Darth Wong]

Point 1:
Please prove, by quoting my text that I ever stated there was a significant difference between the two points in your quote:

Listen fucktard, the difference between "unique and worthwhile aspects of Christianity" and "making Christianity unique and worthwhile" is absolutely INSIGNIFICANT except to a nitpicking fucktard such as yourself.

As you will see, I most definetely did not.

Yes you did:

I didn't add that dimension; others did. But it's easy to see how a discussion of one will lead to the other, because people will attempt to raise "unique" points that are actually mere trivialities, so one will naturally have to discuss whether those points of uniqueness are important, hence worthwhile.

Aah, just to that we don't talk past another here. . . There is a difference, is there not, between what you say above and what you say below:

what (if anything) makes Christianity either unique or worthwhile

You did claim that there is a difference between the two, and later you called it an EXTREME difference in order to dodge my accusation of nitpicking.

I did, as you will see if you read the post, unless you are incapable of reading carefully and properly, as your recent posts would indicate.

Speak for yourself, asshole. You actually quoted the part of my post which clarified what I was saying, and then ignored the clarification while still asking theatrically what I was trying to say.

And in the meantime, in all your posts on page 7 you never even attempted to address the part of your post on page 6 which I showed to be utter bullshit in the first post on page 7, ie- your latest attempt to claim that the Christian human sacrifice is somehow special. Instead, 100% of your posts on this page attack what you perceive to be my conduct, not even ONCE addressing the subject matter. The last time you tried to address the actual subject matter, I responded immediately, and YOU went silent in favour of this nitpickery.

Do you know what nitpicking is? It's when you IGNORE the substance of an argument in order to focus on something that has nothing to do with that substance. You tried to make a case for something being unique. I answered that argument. You chose to IGNORE that part of my post in order to focus exclusively on this bullshit. Do you understand now what is wrong with your behaviour, fucktard? Or are you just playing games and daring me to do something about it?

[chaoschristian]

DW wrote:

How does this make it a unique concept? It's still the idea of scapegoating; absolving one's own crimes by making a third party pay the price. The magnitude of the absolution and the quality of the sacrifice are mere points on a spectrum, and do not alter the basic idea one iota.

chaoschristian wrote:

yes I agree - some trivialities in an argument on some attribute of Christianity and whether or not it is unique could be seen as not important - and hence not worthwhile. Example: your pointing out that my expansion on the nature of the cruxifiction didn't really add anything to its basic nature to make it more unique - point conceded.

IGNORE it did I?

As for the first part of your recent post, I am obviously not making myself clear, and so cannot lead you to understanding what I am trying to point out. So I will, 'shut the fuck up' as you say.

I am no fool, Wong. I do not play games and I am most certainly not daring you to do anything about it.

[Darth Wong]

yes I agree - some trivialities in an argument on some attribute of Christianity and whether or not it is unique could be seen as not important - and hence not worthwhile. Example: your pointing out that my expansion on the nature of the cruxifiction didn't really add anything to its basic nature to make it more unique - point conceded.

IGNORE it did I?

Yes, because it was not at all clear which iteration of your various unique crucifixion arguments you were referring to here, since you've tried taking the same tack many times. You certainly did not make it clear that you were conceding the latest iteration as opposed to one of your earlier ones, and you did not specifically reference anything about the latest iteration or my rebuttal to it.

As for the first part of your recent post, I am obviously not making myself clear, and so cannot lead you to understanding what I am trying to point out. So I will, 'shut the fuck up' as you say.

I am no fool, Wong. I do not play games and I am most certainly not daring you to do anything about it.

On the contrary, I think it's quite clear that you're trying to point out. You think that I'm somehow contradicting myself or changing the subject if I ask people to show how Christianity is unique and/or worthwhile rather than saying just "unique", as if "unique" has any positive value if the points of uniqueness are worthless.

The problem is that you seem to think that your accusation of a subject change has importance and that I should concern myself with it.

[Battlehymn Republic]

Well, I'm still looking for an example of a supreme god dying for humanity for something wrong that humanity did.

"Supreme", "pure", "pretty pure", "pretty good", and "not diseased" are all just points on the same spectrum. If that's your idea of a unique or original idea, you need help. And all animal and human sacrifice religions atone for the sins or inadequacies of man by sacrificing others to the gods on his behalf. This has all been mentioned previously; did you not read it?

Conceded. I thought that you could call different ideas unique if they occupy different places on the spectrum. Guess not.

[Hedgehog's Roommate]

Not to get into any pissing matches with anyone but I thought I might add my particular sect of Christianities view on the sacrifice made. Maybe that will clear things up, but maybe not.

Like all children Jesus received certain aspects from his mortal mother and some from his Father. The aspects he received from Mary were the ability to feel pain, hunger, thirst, sorrow, and of course experience death. The aspects he received from his Father were a higher understanding of the events around him, a closer connection with the Father, and most importantly the ability to lay down his life and take it up again. So it's not two seperate beings living in one body, just one being with characteristics of the mortal and divine.

Christ suffered to "balance the scales". God is a being of laws as such these laws have to be obeyed. Even by him, otherwise what would be the point? Why create humans, allow them to suffer and sin if you just plan to wave your hand and make it all go away? Why do anything at all if you're just going to render all your work invalid? The point is that humans have sinned. Think of this as going into debt. We are so in debt that nothing we do can get us out of it. Now here comes our older brother. He is not in debt, in fact he has the money to get us out of debt. He does just that, and all he asks is that we do our best not to put ourselves further into debt, to curb our spending so to say. Christ suffered in Gethsemane to pay the debt. It's the mercy vs. justice debate really. His susequent suffering was simply to fulfill prophecy. His death could have come from anything. All that mattered was he die, again prophecy said though that he would be crucified.

His death was necessary so that the bonds of death could be broken. Thus allowing people to be resurrected. Death would no longer be the end. He also went into Hell at this time to begin spreading the word to those who had already died. Allowing everyone to partake of the Atonement.

Now on the cross he stated "my God why hast thou forsaken me", and there has been some debate what this means. Christ came to earth to experience life, it's highs and lows. As he lived he experienced love, anger, sorrow, hunger, and temptation. However throughout his life the one thing he had never experienced was an absence of his Fathers spirit. He always had that with him, however we do not. Therefore he had to experience it just once, else he'd not have all the knowledge he would need. So for that short time God removed his presence from Christ, and Christ didn't know what to think. Here his constant companion has suddenly left, and that probably scared him. In that fear he utters the above phrase. Now you may ask why he needed to come and experience life? The answer is simple, after it is all said and done Christ is supposed to judge us based upon our life. What we did and what we failed to do. How could he deliver a righteous judgement if he had never experienced similar things.

So Christs life was to have many aspects. Experience to allow for righteous judgement, atone for the sins of the world, defeat death, fulfill the law of Moses and bring a fuller gospel to the children of man, and allow us to have an example to emulate in our own lives. This was why Christ came.

As for the original op I'd have to say resurrection. Unless someone knows of another religion that teaches we'll be raised from the dead, in perfected immortal bodies?

If anyone has questions/ wants clarification on anything in my post just say so, and I'll do so at the earliest time possible. Thanks.

[Molyneux]

Not to get into any pissing matches with anyone but I thought I might add my particular sect of Christianities view on the sacrifice made. Maybe that will clear things up, but maybe not.

Like all children Jesus received certain aspects from his mortal mother and some from his Father. The aspects he received from Mary were the ability to feel pain, hunger, thirst, sorrow, and of course experience death. The aspects he received from his Father were a higher understanding of the events around him, a closer connection with the Father, and most importantly the ability to lay down his life and take it up again. So it's not two seperate beings living in one body, just one being with characteristics of the mortal and divine.

So, the savior of Mankind is the product of adultery - said adultery being performed by an innocent woman (rape?) and the all-powerful, all-good Lord of Creation. Got it.

Christ suffered to "balance the scales". God is a being of laws as such these laws have to be obeyed. Even by him, otherwise what would be the point?

Thou shalt not kill...thou shalt not commit adultery, for that matter.

Why create humans, allow them to suffer and sin if you just plan to wave your hand and make it all go away? Why do anything at all if you're just going to render all your work invalid? The point is that humans have sinned. Think of this as going into debt. We are so in debt that nothing we do can get us out of it. Now here comes our older brother. He is not in debt, in fact he has the money to get us out of debt. He does just that, and all he asks is that we do our best not to put ourselves further into debt, to curb our spending so to say. Christ suffered in Gethsemane to pay the debt. It's the mercy vs. justice debate really. His susequent suffering was simply to fulfill prophecy. His death could have come from anything. All that mattered was he die, again prophecy said though that he would be crucified.

What prophecy?
I'd really appreciate a clarification of to exactly what prophecy you are referring.

Also, an innocent man suffering in a sinner's stead != justice by any stretch of the imagination. I'll suffer for my own sins, thank you.

So Christs life was to have many aspects. Experience to allow for righteous judgement, atone for the sins of the world, defeat death, fulfill the law of Moses and bring a fuller gospel to the children of man, and allow us to have an example to emulate in our own lives. This was why Christ came.

Uh-huh...how exactly did he fulfill the law of Moses? Or the covenant of Abraham, for that matter? My people are still bound by that particular covenant; there wasn't any expiration date in it.

As for the original op I'd have to say resurrection. Unless someone knows of another religion that teaches we'll be raised from the dead, in perfected immortal bodies?

Well, Judaism, for one thing. That's one of the views we have of the Messianic Age. And we had it for quite awhile before you "borrowed" the idea.


Sorry if I sound a bit snappish, but I got ambushed by an evangelist on my way to see a guest speaker last night. Nice girl, but really didn't know how to let someone out of a conversation.

[The Guid]

Actually technically it is neither adultery nor rape since God and Mary didn't have sex - not by a biblical account of the events anyway. I can't help but think it changes very little from a modern standpoint if Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary.

[CaptJodan]

Don't Muslim's believe in a resurrection of sorts as well? Though maybe they came later, not sure. I do know the Jews certainly had it before the Christians did.

God is a being of laws as such these laws have to be obeyed. Even by him, otherwise what would be the point? Why create humans, allow them to suffer and sin if you just plan to wave your hand and make it all go away? Why do anything at all if you're just going to render all your work invalid?

God was masacuring people before he event INVENTED laws forbidding certain acts. Let's not forget the poor soul who came and was killed for bringing bad news to God. I don't remember a rule forbidding such things. There are countless other examples of God going around telling perhaps the Jews that X civilization or city has sinned, so either he, or they, should burn it to the ground, all without God actually even telling them what the hell they were doing wrong first.

Why must "His work" invovle the torture and deaths of others? His work could have been to create souls in Heaven in the first place, and made that place a haven from sin. He could have blocked sin out of the world. He's God, after all. His work didn't have to focus around the option for humans to even have the chance to meet up with sin. And he sure as hell could have invented rules which had punishments FAR less severe than the ones he thought up. The question doesn't become why does God not help us, it's why does he create humans TO SUFFER AND SIN IN THE FIRST PLACE! And why am I suffering for a mistake made by two people from (in your view) the beginning of time? Our society now is not so cruel as to pass down the sins of the father onto the son, let alone this many generations down.

God is a GOD. He can change the rules as he damn well pleases. He HAS DONE THIS (the two versions of the 10 Commandments). God's grand creation could have been far more moral and just had he created a world without sin, or without the capability for us to sin. It's not like we would have known what we were missing. He would have made the physics of the universe such that there was no sin, and thus, we would have no concept of it.

Sorry, God doesn't really get out of this by pretending that he is bound by his own rules.

[SirNitram]

As for the original op I'd have to say resurrection. Unless someone knows of another religion that teaches we'll be raised from the dead, in perfected immortal bodies?

.....You have heard of Valhalla and Ragnarok, right?

[Darth Wong]

Not to get into any pissing matches with anyone but I thought I might add my particular sect of Christianities view on the sacrifice made. Maybe that will clear things up, but maybe not.

Like all children Jesus received certain aspects from his mortal mother and some from his Father. The aspects he received from Mary were the ability to feel pain, hunger, thirst, sorrow, and of course experience death. The aspects he received from his Father were a higher understanding of the events around him, a closer connection with the Father, and most importantly the ability to lay down his life and take it up again. So it's not two seperate beings living in one body, just one being with characteristics of the mortal and divine.

Christ suffered to "balance the scales". God is a being of laws as such these laws have to be obeyed. Even by him, otherwise what would be the point? Why create humans, allow them to suffer and sin if you just plan to wave your hand and make it all go away? Why do anything at all if you're just going to render all your work invalid? The point is that humans have sinned. Think of this as going into debt. We are so in debt that nothing we do can get us out of it. Now here comes our older brother. He is not in debt, in fact he has the money to get us out of debt. He does just that, and all he asks is that we do our best not to put ourselves further into debt, to curb our spending so to say. Christ suffered in Gethsemane to pay the debt. It's the mercy vs. justice debate really. His susequent suffering was simply to fulfill prophecy. His death could have come from anything. All that mattered was he die, again prophecy said though that he would be crucified.

His death was necessary so that the bonds of death could be broken. Thus allowing people to be resurrected. Death would no longer be the end. He also went into Hell at this time to begin spreading the word to those who had already died. Allowing everyone to partake of the Atonement.

Now on the cross he stated "my God why hast thou forsaken me", and there has been some debate what this means. Christ came to earth to experience life, it's highs and lows. As he lived he experienced love, anger, sorrow, hunger, and temptation. However throughout his life the one thing he had never experienced was an absence of his Fathers spirit. He always had that with him, however we do not. Therefore he had to experience it just once, else he'd not have all the knowledge he would need. So for that short time God removed his presence from Christ, and Christ didn't know what to think. Here his constant companion has suddenly left, and that probably scared him. In that fear he utters the above phrase. Now you may ask why he needed to come and experience life? The answer is simple, after it is all said and done Christ is supposed to judge us based upon our life. What we did and what we failed to do. How could he deliver a righteous judgement if he had never experienced similar things.

So Christs life was to have many aspects. Experience to allow for righteous judgement, atone for the sins of the world, defeat death, fulfill the law of Moses and bring a fuller gospel to the children of man, and allow us to have an example to emulate in our own lives. This was why Christ came.

That's a really, really long-winded way of failing to refute my point that it's still the animal-sacrifice mentality. You just buried that away in the body of this excess verbiage by mumbling about how God has rules (like the one about how he must be appeased by sacrifice, just like Apollo or Huitzilopochtli).

As for the original op I'd have to say resurrection. Unless someone knows of another religion that teaches we'll be raised from the dead, in perfected immortal bodies?

You honestly think that life after death in some form is a unique feature of Christianity?

[TimothyC]

Now on the cross he stated "my God why hast thou forsaken me", and there has been some debate what this means.
....
If anyone has questions/ wants clarification on anything in my post just say so, and I'll do so at the earliest time possible. Thanks.

Minor point. The common translation the the quote in question is infact wrong.

A better translation would be: "Oh God, My God, For this purpose was I spared?"

[Hedgehog's Roommate]

Okay apparently I wasn't as clear as needed to be.

So, the savior of Mankind is the product of adultery - said adultery being performed by an innocent woman (rape?) and the all-powerful, all-good Lord of Creation. Got it.

Neither. No intercourse took place so little case for either. Though she wasn't married so adultery is impossible, and she agreed to this so no rape. (The archangel Gabriel came to her telling her what was about to happen, if she had a problem with it I doubt God would have forced her.)

Thou shalt not kill...

Yet Moses did just that and God didn't seem to have a problem. Also this is not murder. That's like saying that if you die saving someones life murder was committed.

What prophecy?
I'd really appreciate a clarification of to exactly what prophecy you are referring.

Isaiah mainly. A lot comes from chpt 53. My understanding is that 53 isn't the same as Jewish apocrypha. I'll try to find some more for you if you want.

Also, an innocent man suffering in a sinner's stead != justice by any stretch of the imagination. I'll suffer for my own sins, thank you.

This is the debate of mercy vs. justice I spoke of. It was kinda buried so I'd not be surprised if you didn't see it mentioned. Basicaly the debate goes like this. Justice demands that you suffer your punishment for any crimes committed. No time off for good behaviour or other leniency. Mercy says that all is forgiven and no punishment is required. Christ acted as a proxy in our stead allowing him to plead to God that justice is satisfied because some punishment will happen, however mercy can be extended. If there was no sacrifice everyone would have to suffer for there sins even as Christ suffered in Gethsemane.

Uh-huh...how exactly did he fulfill the law of Moses? Or the covenant of Abraham, for that matter? My people are still bound by that particular covenant; there wasn't any expiration date in it.

I never mentioned the Covenant of Abraham, and you're right it is still in effect. The Law was fulfilled through Christs sacrifice. I mean the Children of Israel sacrificed lambs "in similitude of My son, who will come". This is because of the events at Sinai. They showed up, God spoke to them in a cloud. Gave them his law, then Moses went up to the mountain and was gone "for forty days and forty nights". During that time they decided that Moses was dead and began to break Gods law. God told Moses that the people had sinned and he should return. Upon his return he chastised the people, then received the ten commandments. Then he began giving the people the Law. Christs coming as the Messiah fulfilled the Law, and he brought a higher law to replace it.

Well, Judaism, for one thing. That's one of the views we have of the Messianic Age. And we had it for quite awhile before you "borrowed" the idea.

Didn't realize the Judaic veiw on resurrection was that similar. Thanks for the info.

Sorry if I sound a bit snappish, but I got ambushed by an evangelist on my way to see a guest speaker last night. Nice girl, but really didn't know how to let someone out of a conversation.

Understandable, I've been in that situation a few times myself.

.....You have heard of Valhalla and Ragnarok, right?

Yes actually I have. What I've read of their beleifs was that you died went to Valhalla where you suddenly have a new body that was immortal. Not their old body perfected and made immortal.

Don't Muslim's believe in a resurrection of sorts as well? Though maybe they came later, not sure.

Islam didn't come on the scene until the seventh century AD.

God was masacuring people before he event INVENTED laws forbidding certain acts. Let's not forget the poor soul who came and was killed for bringing bad news to God. I don't remember a rule forbidding such things. There are countless other examples of God going around telling perhaps the Jews that X civilization or city has sinned, so either he, or they, should burn it to the ground, all without God actually even telling them what the hell they were doing wrong first.

God told the Israelites to kill the people in Caanan before they moved into those areas. The reason for this was because the people of Caanan worshipped Baal. The sacrifices made to Baal were children thrown living into a fire. God didn't want His people to be tempted to follow the same path. He also told the Israelites why they needed to do this.

Let's not forget the poor soul who came and was killed for bringing bad news to God.

What are you talking about? I have no idea where this is coming from.

The question doesn't become why does God not help us, it's why does he create humans TO SUFFER AND SIN IN THE FIRST PLACE!

I think this is the core of your next point, so I'm going to deal with this. As stated earlier this is all according to my particular form of Chistianity. Others might disagree. Humans are born to be tested to grow and develop and prove that we are capable of bettering ourselves. Also we were born to gain our "first estate" (a body) so that later we can be perfected and made immortal. Without all these things we would be unable to gain eternal life. Even Christ had to be born and gain a body, and he was perfect. So how much better than him are you?

And why am I suffering for a mistake made by two people from (in your view) the beginning of time?

You're not. Adams fall simply allowed sin into the world, we chose to commit those sins. Since we have sinned something must happen to allow us to return to God. Nothing impure can abide in His presence so we must be washed clean of our sin. Hence the Atonement.

God is a GOD. He can change the rules as he damn well pleases. He HAS DONE THIS (the two versions of the 10 Commandments). God's grand creation could have been far more moral and just had he created a world without sin, or without the capability for us to sin. It's not like we would have known what we were missing. He would have made the physics of the universe such that there was no sin, and thus, we would have no concept of it.

He has never changed the rules. The rules are and always will be the same. Without the capability of sin where is the growth ? The change? The test? The war in heaven took place because that was exactly what Satan wanted. He wanted a world without choice. A world where you wouldn't have a choice in sin. Everyone would return, and such a world goes against the whole point of Gods plan.

That's a really, really long-winded way of failing to refute my point that it's still the animal-sacrifice mentality. You just buried that away in the body of this excess verbiage by mumbling about how God has rules (like the one about how he must be appeased by sacrifice, just like Apollo or Huitzilopochtli).

Quick question. Can you explain your idea of the animal-sacrifice mentality? I thought I had refuted this, but if not then I would like some clarification.

You honestly think that life after death in some form is a unique feature of Christianity?

No, however I was unsure if the idea of a resurrection that involved a perfected and immortal body was unique.

[Darth Wong]

Quick question. Can you explain your idea of the animal-sacrifice mentality?

I already did.

I thought I had refuted this, but if not then I would like some clarification.

Nonsense; you simply re-phrased it as "balance the scales", which doesn't change the fundamental nature of the belief system at all. You still have to offer sacrifices to appease an angry god. In fact, if there's anything distinct about your version it's even more fucked up, because the idea of "balancing" a sin by taking the life of an innocent creature is abhorrent and ridiculous. It is quite literally two wrongs making a right.

You honestly think that life after death in some form is a unique feature of Christianity?

No, however I was unsure if the idea of a resurrection that involved a perfected and immortal body was unique.

How many times do I have to repeat that "different points on the same spectrum" point before it fucking sinks in?

[Hedgehog's Roommate]

Nonsense; you simply re-phrased it as "balance the scales", which doesn't change the fundamental nature of the belief system at all. You still have to offer sacrifices to appease an angry god. In fact, if there's anything distinct about your version it's even more fucked up, because the idea of "balancing" a sin by taking the life of an innocent creature is abhorrent and ridiculous. It is quite literally two wrongs making a right.

Either I didn't explain as clearly as I would have liked or you ignored certain points of both my posts. Death had nothing to do with balancing the scales. Nothing. Balancing the scales happened in Gethsemane. When Christ suffered he was paying the debt I spoke of in my analogy. Now that the debt has been paid we are capable of entering heaven through Christs grace. The taking of life is not a part of the Atonement. I don't know how much more clearly I can state that.

How many times do I have to repeat that "different points on the same spectrum" point before it fucking sinks in?

If that is your criteria then there isn't a unique form of religion anywhere. All religions have some apects of each other. I was looking at this not on a broad scale (which it seems you are doing) but on a smaller scale, looking at the details. Trying to see the trees and ignore the forest, so to say.

[Darth Wong]

Nonsense; you simply re-phrased it as "balance the scales", which doesn't change the fundamental nature of the belief system at all. You still have to offer sacrifices to appease an angry god. In fact, if there's anything distinct about your version it's even more fucked up, because the idea of "balancing" a sin by taking the life of an innocent creature is abhorrent and ridiculous. It is quite literally two wrongs making a right.

Either I didn't explain as clearly as I would have liked or you ignored certain points of both my posts. Death had nothing to do with balancing the scales. Nothing. Balancing the scales happened in Gethsemane. When Christ suffered he was paying the debt I spoke of in my analogy.

How the fuck does it change anything to substitute "suffering" for "death"? You are still saying that the angry god has to be appeased; what part of this escapes you? Does it really matter precisely what he gets off on? Some gods want meat. Other gods like the smell of burning meat. And the Christian God apparently gets a hard-on for suffering.

Now that the debt has been paid we are capable of entering heaven through Christs grace. The taking of life is not a part of the Atonement. I don't know how much more clearly I can state that.

Your powers of nitpickery are great, I see.

How many times do I have to repeat that "different points on the same spectrum" point before it fucking sinks in?

If that is your criteria then there isn't a unique form of religion anywhere. All religions have some apects of each other. I was looking at this not on a broad scale (which it seems you are doing) but on a smaller scale, looking at the details. Trying to see the trees and ignore the forest, so to say.

In short, you think that unimportant trivialities constitute valid points of uniqueness. And I think that's the truth: all religions do have some aspects of each other. But a lot of Christians seem to feel that theirs is special and constitutes an exception to this rule, hence this thread. If you can't see that blindingly obvious intent behind this thread, you do really need help.

[Hedgehog's Roommate]

How the fuck does it change anything to substitute "suffering" for "death"? You are still saying that the angry god has to be appeased; what part of this escapes you? Does it really matter precisely what he gets off on? Some gods want meat. Other gods like the smell of burning meat. And the Christian God apparently gets a hard-on for suffering.

That's just it. God doesn't "get off" on suffering. One person was allowed to suffer (a fate he chose to go through) so no one else would have to. You know needs of the many, and all that. If God really got off on suffering why allow a way to exist to not suffer?

Your powers of nitpickery are great, I see.

Yes they are, it seems the only way to get a concept through to you.

In short, you think that unimportant trivialities constitute valid points of uniqueness. And I think that's the truth: all religions do have some aspects of each other. But a lot of Christians seem to feel that theirs is special and constitutes an exception to this rule, hence this thread. If you can't see that blindingly obvious intent behind this thread, you do really need help.

WTF? If you created this whole thread just to say "RAR! chrrr1st1ins sux! LOL" then you have some serious issues to deal with. I knew you didn't like christians, but to create a whole thread just so you can bag on them? Man I don't even know what to say. That is just so wrong on so many levels to me.

[LordShaithis]

That's just it. God doesn't "get off" on suffering.

No, he just demands it. And apparently isn't picky about from whom he gets it. He could just push his godly "delete all sins" button WITHOUT waiting for them to tear Christ apart, but... nah... he wants to see some blood first. Apparently, he just can't be motivated toward "forgiveness" without seeing an innocent tortured.

One person was allowed to suffer (a fate he chose to go through) so no one else would have to. You know needs of the many, and all that. If God really got off on suffering why allow a way to exist to not suffer?

So because he allows one (rather illogical) means by which to avoid the horrible torture (Hell) he has devised for everyone, suddenly he's a humanitarian?

Your powers of nitpickery are great, I see.

Yes they are, it seems the only way to get a concept through to you.

WTF? If you created this whole thread just to say "RAR! chrrr1st1ins sux! LOL" then you have some serious issues to deal with. I knew you didn't like christians, but to create a whole thread just so you can bag on them? Man I don't even know what to say. That is just so wrong on so many levels to me.

Oh noes! Why don't you cry about it?

Of course, this thread could have actually been productive had anyone actually come up with something of substance. Rather than... say... repeating the old "God sacrificed himself to himself to overturn some rules he made himself AND IT ALL MAKES SENSE REALLY!" routine.

[LordShaithis]

bloody misquotes...

[WyrdNyrd]

WTF? If you created this whole thread just to say "RAR! chrrr1st1ins sux! LOL" then you have some serious issues to deal with.

It seems, sir, that you have the issues, here. It's clear to me that this thread is not about mocking Christians, it's about making a point. You're the one who reacted defensively.