Please God, forgive my already paid debts
By webmdave
The doctrine of propitiation isn’t something that’s talked about too much in modern Christian circles. Hell, heaven, sin, repentance, prayer, Jim Dobson… these are all topics that get covered constantly, but propitiation? Not in any church I attended. I think I know the reason. The doctrine is bizarre, inconsistent and incoherent to even the most religiously brainwashed.
The definition of propitiation is “An atoning sacrifice to gain or regain the favor or goodwill” of God. To propitiate is “to appease or pacify” God.
As in the verse quoted above, Jesus’ purported death on a cross was to placate the wrath of a god who supposedly has a considerable grudge against humanity. Humanity just didn’t work out as He intended.
So, propitiation is a blood-soaked offering lifted up to appease the wrath of blood-thirsty deity. When this deity sees hemoglobin, he feels better about things and can finally overlook offenses that normally cause his eyes to blaze with righteous indignation.
When this deity sees hemoglobin, he feels better about thingsBut modern ears and minds aren’t accustomed to thinking of God in the throes of blood-lust. Why in the world would killing something and looking at its plasma satisfy anyone’s – including a deity’s – righteous indignation? Has God got a thing for vampires? To tone things down a bit for 21st Century Christians, propitiation has been repackaged for the modern ear. Christians are now told that all humanity has a “sin debt” to God: We are in debt to God for our sin and the debt must be paid. The death of God’s only son on the cross paid that debt, so it is said.
Enough of the introduction already – get to the point.
How many reading this have ever received a traffic ticket for some driving infraction? After paying the fine, do we turn around and cry out for forgiveness? Think about begging and pleading and weeping to be forgiven by the court for the traffic violation – after already paying the fine.
If the penalty has already been paid, there is nothing left to forgive.
In Christianity, however, the payment apparently isn’t sufficient. God won’t forgive your debt even though Jesus paid the full penalty for the sin debt of the entire world!
If the penalty has already been paid, there is nothing left to forgive. If while on your way to traffic court a friend unexpectedly steps in and pays your debt for you, do you still have to appear in court and pay your debt? Do you a have to beg anyone’s forgiveness to be free of the debt? Obviously, once your debt has been paid, it’s been paid! You are off the hook. You have no legal requirements toward the court or even toward your friend.
Forgiveness and debt paying are two different things. If the court forgives my debt, I don’t have to pay anything – the debt is forgiven. If, however, someone else pays my debt, then the debt is paid and I no longer need seek mercy and forgiveness to get out of the debt.
Forgiveness of debts and paying of debts are mutually exclusive exercises. Either one pays a debt or one is forgiven of a debt, but no one paying a debt begs forgiveness of the debt. Conversely, if a debt has been forgiven, there is no longer a requirement to pay the debt.
Jesus’ death on the cross is said to have paid the debt for the whole world of humanity, but all of humanity is still supposed to actively seek the forgiveness of God!?!
Has the debt been paid or not?
What I am suggesting here is that having been placated through the blood of His son -- the debt payment He supposedly required – God has nothing left to forgive. The entire debt has been paid. Even God can’t forgive a debt that has already been paid, because if the debt is paid, there is no longer a debt!
So which is it? Does God forgive sinners of their debt, or has the debt for sin already been paid?
Somehow, in Christianity, it makes sense to have a debt that has already been paid and yet still must be forgiven. Somehow forgiveness for a debt can only be granted once payment in full is credited to the account. And, once a person becomes a Christian, regularly groveling for forgiveness of daily stumbles is a regular routine, even though propitiation has already been made.
What do you think?
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. -- 1 John 2:2
The doctrine of propitiation isn’t something that’s talked about too much in modern Christian circles. Hell, heaven, sin, repentance, prayer, Jim Dobson… these are all topics that get covered constantly, but propitiation? Not in any church I attended. I think I know the reason. The doctrine is bizarre, inconsistent and incoherent to even the most religiously brainwashed.
The definition of propitiation is “An atoning sacrifice to gain or regain the favor or goodwill” of God. To propitiate is “to appease or pacify” God.
As in the verse quoted above, Jesus’ purported death on a cross was to placate the wrath of a god who supposedly has a considerable grudge against humanity. Humanity just didn’t work out as He intended.
So, propitiation is a blood-soaked offering lifted up to appease the wrath of blood-thirsty deity. When this deity sees hemoglobin, he feels better about things and can finally overlook offenses that normally cause his eyes to blaze with righteous indignation.
When this deity sees hemoglobin, he feels better about thingsBut modern ears and minds aren’t accustomed to thinking of God in the throes of blood-lust. Why in the world would killing something and looking at its plasma satisfy anyone’s – including a deity’s – righteous indignation? Has God got a thing for vampires? To tone things down a bit for 21st Century Christians, propitiation has been repackaged for the modern ear. Christians are now told that all humanity has a “sin debt” to God: We are in debt to God for our sin and the debt must be paid. The death of God’s only son on the cross paid that debt, so it is said.
Enough of the introduction already – get to the point.
How many reading this have ever received a traffic ticket for some driving infraction? After paying the fine, do we turn around and cry out for forgiveness? Think about begging and pleading and weeping to be forgiven by the court for the traffic violation – after already paying the fine.
If the penalty has already been paid, there is nothing left to forgive.
In Christianity, however, the payment apparently isn’t sufficient. God won’t forgive your debt even though Jesus paid the full penalty for the sin debt of the entire world!
If the penalty has already been paid, there is nothing left to forgive. If while on your way to traffic court a friend unexpectedly steps in and pays your debt for you, do you still have to appear in court and pay your debt? Do you a have to beg anyone’s forgiveness to be free of the debt? Obviously, once your debt has been paid, it’s been paid! You are off the hook. You have no legal requirements toward the court or even toward your friend.
Forgiveness and debt paying are two different things. If the court forgives my debt, I don’t have to pay anything – the debt is forgiven. If, however, someone else pays my debt, then the debt is paid and I no longer need seek mercy and forgiveness to get out of the debt.
Forgiveness of debts and paying of debts are mutually exclusive exercises. Either one pays a debt or one is forgiven of a debt, but no one paying a debt begs forgiveness of the debt. Conversely, if a debt has been forgiven, there is no longer a requirement to pay the debt.
Jesus’ death on the cross is said to have paid the debt for the whole world of humanity, but all of humanity is still supposed to actively seek the forgiveness of God!?!
Has the debt been paid or not?
What I am suggesting here is that having been placated through the blood of His son -- the debt payment He supposedly required – God has nothing left to forgive. The entire debt has been paid. Even God can’t forgive a debt that has already been paid, because if the debt is paid, there is no longer a debt!
So which is it? Does God forgive sinners of their debt, or has the debt for sin already been paid?
Somehow, in Christianity, it makes sense to have a debt that has already been paid and yet still must be forgiven. Somehow forgiveness for a debt can only be granted once payment in full is credited to the account. And, once a person becomes a Christian, regularly groveling for forgiveness of daily stumbles is a regular routine, even though propitiation has already been made.
What do you think?
Comments
Jesus came to the judge and put a ton of cash (His blood)down on the table and said. If anyone wants their debt paid, I'll cover it.
The debts been paid but the offender needs to take advantage of the offer.
For each offense forgiveness is sought in order to have that debt paid.
Just a thought. I agree that wining and crying about every offense when the debt is there to be paid is over the top.
After years of Catholicism, I came to the realization that the whole notion of propiation is merely an insane and cruel way of keeping you under the yoke of guilt and once guilt sets in, the Institution (in my case the RCC) WILL manipulate you. The weird schematics of Propiation "theology" are all about control and power....and possibly midget devils...LOL! ;-)
If what you say is true, then the supernatural debt payment only provides a highly conditional possibility for the debt to be paid -- only if the debtor fulfills certain required obligations. The final application of this "free" offer of payment is entirely dependent on the action(s) of the debtor.
The debtor, in your understanding, must give up something (usually his or her entire life) in exchange for the "free" debt relief.
In this version of Christianity, the debtor virtually ends up paying his or her own supposed debt.
So what was the point of saying the cross was "the propitiation for the sins (debts) of the whole world?" It should have read "the potential propitiation of the sins or debts of the whole world."
No, it was his noodly appendages...HE would never misuse one of his midgit creations, nor, of course, trees, or mountains.
It seems as though this discussion is centered around whether Jesus' alleged sacrifice was a substitute for the payment of our sins, or whether it was an enablement for the forgiveness of our sins.
I think the most crucial point in this whole discussion is WHERE this alleged sacrifice supposedly took place.
If we look in the book of Hebrews, chapters 8-10, we can find what first century Christians thought about the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
It was in in heaven, not on earth:
"If he had been on earth, he would not even have been a priest, ... " (Heb. 8:4) (NEB)
"...The tent of his priesthood is a greater and more perfect one, not made by men's hands, that is, not belonging to this created world; ..." (Heb. 9:11) (NEB)
"For Christ has entered, not that sanctuary made by men's hands which is only a symbol of reality, but heaven itself, only to appear now before God on our behalf." (Heb. 9:24) (NEB)
The first century Christians did not believe that Christ ever came to earth. Why should we?
If it is so simple, then why have Xtians spent the last 2000 years arguing, killing, and disagreeing over it's 'simple' message?
None of it makes any sense because it is one confused lie piled upon another and another.
My favorite 'new revelation' is from the guy (Carlton Pearce?)that preaches that we are ALL going to heaven...period.
This REALLY pisses off the fundies....(how dare he claim that jesus' death paid off humanities sin-debt!!!)
Great job, Dave, of showing a clear illustration of how crazy and non-sensical the whole concept of Jesusism is.
By using the word "world" in a general sense, the problem is apparently resolved. The sacrifice is effacious - but only for those for whom it was made - the elect.
Still sucks though.
I've been steadily pointing this conundrum out to the Christian guests who waltz in here with their "Jesus died for our sins" routine, for quite a while. I've yet to see/hear a logically sound clarification/rebuttal, yet. The "debt" is paid; or it isn't. The end. Making a distinction between those who've heard the message, and who haven't, is irrelevant.
Furthermore, if "Jesus lives!!!!"(which is another one of their obnoxious, contradictory soundbites), and "He" is presumably reigning supreme in a realm of perpetual, unadulterated bliss---and further still, "He" has supposed unlimited free will at "His" disposal.....well, I hardly see that as a "sacrifice".
A sacrifice? Uh huh...yeah, sure.
I especially loved this part:
When this deity sees hemoglobin, he feels better about things and can finally overlook offenses that normally cause his eyes to blaze with righteous indignation."
This touches on a question that I hope to deal with in a blog/letter/post/whatever one of these days: What is SO fucking special about BLOOD??!
I also think that people believed if they sacrifice a valuable possession, like a goat, or a first born lamb, that the bible god would look favorably on them and forgive their supposed sins.
It's further not mentioned that the bible god said to hold on, stay tuned, to be continued, I'll introduced a conditional love savior later on with a flaming hell for those that do not believe.
I think the Hebrews later on invented the jebus salavation plan to start a new religion to direct the attention towards them, so they could control the masses and their money.
That one about Jesus entering Heaven - "For Christ has entered, not that sanctuary made by men's hands which is only a symbol of reality, but heaven itself, only to appear now before God on our behalf." (Heb. 9:24)" - implies that Jesus at one point was NOT in Heaven. Or else it wouldn't say "has entered," because you can't enter something you've always been in.
What is God? Or who was Jesus?
If God exists, is omnipotent, omniscient etc and the creator of the world and humanity, then the blame must fall on God for creating faulty human beings.
As simple as that.
God should hang himself for his numerous stupid mistakes.
1) an infinite being spends 3 days out of eternity being tortured. 3 days out of his infinite life which he knows (since he's god) that he will return to. He's lived trillions of years before the 3 days and will live trillions of years after the 3 days and still this is supposed to be something that is awesome?
2) Jesus died to save all of mankind. When I think of all the people who martyr themselves to save a single human being (mothers in labor come to mind), what is so awe-inspiring about saving BILLIONS of people by offering your own life? How many would offer their lives (especially, again, knowing that they are god anyway and it really doesn't matter) just to eradicate poverty or childhood preventable death through maleria or other conditions known to plague humanity? It seems like a deal like that might be palatable to more than just Jesus. And he did it for everyone EVER. People on earth would probably do it for just helping those alive right now.
So, yeah, not too awe-inspiring to have an infinite being being tortured for 3 days to save BILLIONS of people and return to his infinite god-life.
So when John 3:16 is quoted by a Calvinist, it doesn't mean God loved the world, it means that God loves his chosen frozen.
However, that reinforces the primary point which is that if the debt is already paid, why is something still required? If only the debts of the elect are paid, then they are paid in full and the elect need not be even slightly concerned about begging and pleading for forgiveness and mercy. When a debt is paid, there is no debt to forgive!
He is GOD (for chrissake) but he sends billions to hell on a tiny rule that HE wrote.....all the while claiming to have the greatest of love for us all.
It sounds more like he put the fine print in the contract to fuck us over but good.
The point of Hebrews 8,9,10 is a comparison between the earthly priesthood with its imperfect, earthly sacrifices as delineated by the rites of the Old Testament and the heavenly priesthood with its perfect sacrifice made in heaven by Jesus Christ - the significance being that the sacrifice of Jesus (crucifixion) was not on earth, but in heaven.
Where was Jesus before "entering into heaven"? It can be argued that he was in a higher level of heaven. The Jews believed that heaven was divided into various levels "We especially see the first systematic organization of Biblical hosts of heaven into a hierarchy of different castes of angels governing and serving on different levels of heaven."
(http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/angels.html)
According to the Bibilical scholar, Earl Doherty, in his book "The Jesus Puzzle,"
the Greeks, to whom Paul was ministering, believed that the place where their Gods dwelled was above the firmament (the sphere of blue by day and the sphere of stars by night) "...in the air between the earth and the moon." (pg. 315) The New Testament also clearly mentions different levels in heaven, " ... a man ... was caught up to the third heaven." (2 Cor. 12:2)
Subsequently, if we understand how people at that time thought about heaven and where their gods abode, we can have a better understanding of verses like " ... Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor ..." (Heb. 2:9), meaning that Jesus was sent down to a lower heaven to be sacrificed and after resurrection returned to a higher level.
As a further testament to the physical placement Jesus, the Pauline epistles do not write about the historical Jesus of Nazareth that we find in the gospels, but of a heavenly saviour that is expected to come.
For Example, you will find that there is no mention of the events found in the gospels: no Bethlehem, no Nazareth, no Sermon on the Mount, no conversations with Pharisees, no Gethsemane, no Calvary, no Joseph of Arimathea. Paul apparently did not know of these things.
In addition, the epistles do not mention Jesus' return. They mention the coming of Jesus. Look up these verses: 1 Cor.16:22, Phil 1:6, Phil 3:20, 2 Thess.1:7, 1 Peter 1:7. They are all anticipating the coming of the Lord. They do not say "come back," "come again," or "return." They say "come."
Furthermore, Paul says that what he knows of Jesus entirely comes from personal revelation (Gal.1:12) despite the fact that Paul claims to have stayed with Peter and James (the disciples who allegedly lived with Jesus day and night for three years) for 15 days (Gal.1:18,19).
Don't you think that Peter and James could have told Paul something about Jesus if Jesus had actually come to the earth? Apparently, Peter and James didn't know anything about Jesus' life on earth either.
When Paul quotes Jesus, he doesn't refer to his teachings in the Gospels, but to Isaiah (Hebrews 2:12) Did Paul not know of the teachings of Jesus found in the gospels?
Finally, Biblical scholars generally agree that the Pauline epistles were written in the middle of the first century and the gospels were written near the end of the first century. Accordingly, Christians claim that the gospels were maintained in an oral tradition among the first century Christians from the time of Jesus up to the time that they were committed to paper. However, the Pauline epistles, a record of first century Christian thought, does not refer to these oral traditions at all. Therefore, we can assume that the knowledge of Jesus' life on earth did not begin until the gospels were written, i.e., the gospels are fictions and Jesus never existed.
You see, if you take all of these things into account, the significance of Hebrews 8,9,10 becomes much clearer.
When I was a teenager, my youth minister told me that Jesus' death was the worst suffering anyone has ever endured. That may or may not be any church's official position, and may or may not be crucial to any doctrine, but the idea never sat right with me. First of all, many people were tortured and crucified- even the two thieves supposedly beside Jesus. And they didn't have any sort of reassurance that they were saving mankind or that God's plan was in action or that they'd rise again or live eternally as a god or anything! Furthermore, they might have had young children or elderly relatives who they knew would live a life of despair and destitution without them. Jesus had no dependents and he had been living a fine life until a week before. Other crucifixion victims' suffering would have far exceeded Jesus's supposed suffering (not, of course, that his suffering wouldn't have been absolutely horrible- IF it actually ever happened.)
The shed blood of the executed Jesus was imputed by God to suffice as if it were the shed blood of all guilty men and women whom God chose to save from Hell.
(Creator makes the rules - ask Him why) Mt 26:28
The execution of Jesus only applies to saving the 'chosen' from Hell. It saves none of the chosen from earthly punishment. The thief on the cross was granted Paradise by Jesus, but was still executed.
Contrary to today's popular teaching, God alone calls, chooses, elects all whom He decides to save. Man, woman do not choose God. John 6:44, 65
Thus, those who are uncalled, unchosen, unelected will serve Satan in Hell, as they now serve him on earth.
Many say they are Christian, but they are not. Mt 7:13-14, 22-23
Similarly, many say they are atheists and are not. Ro 1:19-20
Regarding forgiveness when the debt has already been paid, Christ's execution had many purposes. Another purpose was to establish a "blood" covenant with the 'chosen'. Many will try to enter this covenant of vows and baptism, but again God makes the rules, and has decided to give His Spirit only to the 'chosen'. Mt 22:14
You DO NOT belong to Christ and you have NO PLACE in His Kingdom, if His Spirit is not living in your body and leading your heart. Rom 8:9
Thus, the death of Christ DOES NOT substitute for your spiritual death, and it is certain you will be condemned to eternal Hell by God's Law. Mt 13:41-42
When one of the 'chosen' sins, he is out of covenant with Christ. He must first grant forgiveness to others before he asks for forgiveness from God for his own sin. Mt 6:14-15
The asking for forgiveness enables reentry into the covenant. (Again, Creator makes the rules - ask Him why)
Christ does not shed blood again. He never gets out of covenant with His chosen.
Jesus Christ did not come to save everyone.
Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save HIS PEOPLE from their sins.
BTW, why would God lie to you? Men lie because of fear or to gain. What does God fear, and what does He not already have?
Can you punish Him? Are you so valuable to Him that He would lie to you to "shanghai" you, especialy since He is eternal, and you age and die?
It seems folly to me to put such stock in the atheist opinions of men who die, but have trouble putting stock in Jesus, who as God, has certain knowledge. Jn 1:1-3, 14
After all, He came down from Heaven (Jn 6:38), was executed, resurrected, seen by hundreds (1 Cor 15:6), returned to Heaven, and is alive today.
Why would so many disciples endure torture and death to substantiate a lie?
But, that's just me.
I can think of a much simpler scenario than your merry romp through Calvinist madness: It's called "It's just a story."
Anyway, this is my favorite part of your post: "The shed blood of the executed Jesus was imputed by God to suffice as if it were the shed blood of all guilty men and women whom God chose to save from Hell. (Creator makes the rules - ask Him why) Mt 26:28"
This is a blatant admission on your part that the doctrine of the shedding of blood for the remission of sins doesn't make a damned bit of sense to you either.
Think about it. Adam and Eve are cursed and have to physically die because of "sin." Jesus physically dies on a behalf of the chosen-frozen, but the chosen all still physically die. So what was the point of a physical death by the redeemer of all mankind? Why not just "spiritually die?"
Jesus died for his elect, but his elect all still die. His blood somehow washes away their guilt, but they are still encumbered with guilt every day of their lives for their many "sins."
No relief from guilt. No escape from death. No promise of health or good harvest. No satisfying explanation for why dripping hemoglobin is believed to have the ability to cleanse away supernatural, spiritual stains.
I know, I know. It's just something you have accept on faith.
The thing is, if I am one of the elect, chosen to salvation, nothing can take it from me -- nothing. If I am not one of the elect, chosen to salvation, I can do nothing to obtain it -- nothing. I can't resist HIM and I can't move HIM. It's all HIM and none of me. Therefore I have absolutely nothing to worry about spiritually because there is nothing I can do about it one way or the other!
Five Point Calvinism is great. It is even better than Catholicism. In Catholicism you have to perform the occasional ritual to maintain your salvation, but in Calvinism, there are no requirements at all.
Which all leads back to the original point. If all the sins of the "Elect" have been covered, why are the Elect still crying out for forgiveness? Why are they begging to be forgiven for fines that have already been paid?
“This touches on a question that I hope to deal with in a blog/letter/post/whatever one of these days: What is SO fucking special about BLOOD??!”
You see blood throughout the Bible from Genesis to Revelations. Blood is red, and red is god’s favorite color.
I doubt any 'proof' would suffice for you, yet you believe in magnetic power because you see its results, but don't see its lines of force.
You believe in radio, television, and telephone waves because you see their results, but you don't see their waves of force.
You believe in a builder of homes because you see the results, not because you saw the construction.
You know of the moon, stars, and the earth because you see the results, not because you saw the construction.
In each of these results that we see, we take note of an intelligence behind these results. Television, radio, & telephone waves demonstrate the intelligence of man. Magnetism, electricity, planets & solar systems demonstrate an intellience beyond that of man.
For thousands of years, the relatively constant revolution of earth around the sun every 365 days, its rotation every 24 hours, its tilt of 23.5 degrees demonstrates an intelligence far beyond that of man.
That intelligence is God, the Creator of these things that man cannot create.
Other Proof:
Why would so many disciples endure torture and death to substantiate a lie?
Muhammad wrote of Jesus in the Koran. He is not a Christian. Why would he lie, or support a lie?
Secular historians--including Josephus (before A.D. 100), the Roman Tacitus (around A.D. 120), the Roman Suetonius ( A.D. 110), and the Roman governor Pliny the Younger ( A.D. 110)--confirm the many events, people, places, and customs chronicled in the New Testament.
(from www.ovimagazine.com/art/2398)
Why would these non-Christians lie, or support a lie, risking their reputations? Besides, Christians could not make them create these writings, they were not in power.
Most believe in the existence of the U.S. Constitution, though they did not see it written, nor have they seen the document.
One definiiton of "empirical" is: depending upon experience or observation alone.
What I've written above seems to qualify. And not one Bible reference is mentioned.
Regarding my "imaginary friend and his bad-cop buddy", just because you can't see or understand the electricity, doesn't stop it from killing you & sending you to your final eternity. It is the same with my Friend and His Buddy.
BTW, I don't know much about Calvinism, but I have read the Bible several times, as well as the writings of believers.
If all the sins of the "Elect" have been covered, why are the Elect still crying out for forgiveness?
I answered that.
"When one of the 'chosen' sins, he is out of covenant with Christ. He must first grant forgiveness to others before he asks for forgiveness from God for his own sin. Mt 6:14-15
The asking for forgiveness enables reentry into the covenant. (Again, Creator makes the rules - ask Him why)"
What is SO ....... special about BLOOD??!”
Leviticus 17
11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you on the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.
14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said to the children of Israel, You shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whoever eats it shall be cut off.
Deuteronomy 12
23 Only be sure that you eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and you may not eat the life with the flesh.
Again, God makes the rules. Ask Him why He chose blood.
Magnetism can be consistently measured using physical instrumentation. To the best of My knowledge, no one has yet invented a god-o-meter.
"You believe in radio, television, and telephone waves because you see their results, but you don't see their waves of force."
I can listen to the radio, watch television or talk on the phone. Your god is oddly silent except when people "listen" with their imaginations.
"You believe in a builder of homes because you see the results, not because you saw the construction."
Wrong! I do most of My own renovations, and as a child I regularly rode My bike over to local construction sites to check things out.
"You know of the moon, stars, and the earth because you see the results, not because you saw the construction."
What "construction?" Unsupported assertion.
"Magnetism, electricity, planets & solar systems demonstrate an intelligence beyond that of man."
Unsupported assertion. You really don't have a clue about physical cosmology, do you?
"For thousands of years, the relatively constant revolution of earth around the sun every 365 days, its rotation every 24 hours, its tilt of 23.5 degrees demonstrates an intelligence far beyond that of man."
Allow Me to draw your attention to the word 'relatively' in your statement above. The axial tilt of the Earth is not steady; it fluctuates. We have "leap years" because one "sidereal year", one revolution of the Earth around the Sun, does not work out in terms of 365 days. Damned messy work for a god, if you ask Me.
"That intelligence is God, the Creator of these things that man cannot create."
No, it's cat-warriors from the Pleiades. I even have two books about them. What's your point?
"Why would so many disciples endure torture and death to substantiate a lie?"
Did they? No extra-Biblical records of these alleged disciples even existing.
"Muhammad wrote of Jesus in the Koran. He is not a Christian. Why would he lie, or support a lie?"
Better question: Why would someone copy from a book of religious fiction to support his newer version of religious fiction? Because it's a quick and dirty way to pseudo-credibility when attempting to convert large numbers of extremely naïve people.
"Secular historians--including Josephus..."
The Josephus passage that references Jesus is an interpolation -- A pious forgery probably committed by Eusebius several centuries after the original was written. And none of your other examples are contemporary accounts, but nearly a hundred years after the alleged events.
May the cognitive dissonance in your beliefs cause your faith to travel in ever-decreasing circles, until it vanishes into the drain of reality.
But that's the point, Robert. If the sins of the elect are already covered under the blood -- the blood confirms the covenant, btw. -- then the debt is already paid. The debt was paid well in advance.
Covenant theology is just as convoluted as all the rest of the Christian theologies. Don't ask me why, ask logic -- she knows.
The stories of the martyrs of the supposed apostles are all legendary. They rank up there with the stories of Paul Bunyan.
All your physical "proofs" are like comparing apples to oranges, unless you are saying that your God can be easily measured and calibrated by machines. Electricity, magnetism, etc., are neither supernatural nor magical.
Your assertion that all things require a creator is self-defeating to your position. You seem amazed that anyone would dare suggest that planets weren't created by an intelligent creator, but your logic is contradicted by the Christian assertion that this tremendously complex planet builder exists without being created!
If in your hypothetical version of reality an incomprehensibly powerful deity is allowed to just exist without any satisfying explanation as to how or why, then having a universe that simply exists without a creator isn't an unreasonable position to hold.
Said another way: You cannot imagine how the universe could exist without having been created, yet you I bet you have no problem accepting that this creator exists without having been created.
The real answer to the mysteries behind the genesis of the universe is "I don't know." Neither of us know. You don't know. Even if you say you believe your creator did it, you still have no idea how it happened. Just saying "God Did It" explains nothing. How did your god do it? Electricity, magnetism, and all the sciences can be quantified, put on paper, understood, practical application made, and in many cases replicated (turbines, electro-magnetism).
So, how shall we measure your immaterial, invisible, silent god's creative abilities? Hmm?
Don't ask me, ask reason. She knows.
A: I doubt any 'proof' would suffice for you, yet you believe in magnetic power because you see its results, but don't see its lines of force.
For Robert, or any on-looking Christians---the fallacy of the above argument/analogy is that it attemps to equate an impersonal, impartial type of "energy", to an "energy" that is presumed to have a personal interest in human affairs. You are comparing it to an "energy" with a presumed "personality". Furthermore, magnetism/electromagnetism, etc., can be measured, and can produce consistant results upon testing its effects. We can make predictions on those effects. Conversely, this "personal energy" that you claim exists, cannot be tested in such a way, nor is it predictable---far from it.
Robert...You know of the moon, stars, and the earth because you see the results, not because you saw the construction.
Yes, we ALL see the moon and stars, etc. However, no one is disputing that we can see them, or that they exist. If you think they got there in some way other than natural means, the burden is on you to prove it(or offer evidence that it is the case). Mind you, the ancients believed thunder and lightening were the handy work of a supernatural "GOD"..i.e.."Thor". We now know differently.
Robert...For thousands of years, the relatively constant revolution of earth around the sun every 365 days, its rotation every 24 hours, its tilt of 23.5 degrees demonstrates an intelligence far beyond that of man.
Firstly, where do you get the figure "thousands of years"? Secondly, the earth hasn't always been "tilted" on its axis to that exact degree. The earth actually has a slight wobble. Call me crazy, but that doesn't sound like the work of a "Divine engineer".
Robert...Why would so many disciples endure torture and death to substantiate a lie?
Assuming that really happened...
Why would 19 disciples of Allah fly jet-liners into skyscrapers to substantiate a lie? Why would a child risk humilitation and run into mommy and daddy's bedroom crying "monsters under my bed!" if it's untrue?
Robert...Muhammad wrote of Jesus in the Koran. He is not a Christian. Why would he lie, or support a lie?
Did the Koran state the Divinity of "Jesus", and that he was the Prophet of God(.i.e "Allah")?
BTW, do you know that the Greeks wrote of "St. Nicholas"? Yes, a real mortal being. But yet, I'll wager that you don't have a good reason to believe the legends of him flying around the sky in a deer-powered sleigh, do you?
Robert...Most believe in the existence of the U.S. Constitution, though they did not see it written, nor have they seen the document.
The constitution was designed and written by normal, everyday folks; not "Prophets". In other words, they weren't subcontracted by the Creator of the Universe. Furthermore, you are free to reject its legitimacy without any threats of bodily harm. Perhaps you can try to author your own, new and improved constitution. Keep us posted.
Robert...Regarding my "imaginary friend and his bad-cop buddy", just because you can't see or understand the electricity, doesn't stop it from killing you & sending you to your final eternity. It is the same with my Friend and His Buddy.
'Sorry---we can "see" electricity, and we do "understand" it. Further, we can use the knowledge we've aquired about electricity, and do our best to avoid coming into direct contact with it. And once again, you attempt to compare impartial, unbiased "energy", to "energy" with an alleged "personality".
Okay, I'm bored; I'll stop here.
**Extreme sarcasm intended**
We Atheist rarely use the curse words frequently used in the bible, such as: shit, hell, damn, whore, bitch, bastard, piss, ass, dung, jezebel, harlot, maybe more?
The bible is the main source of curse words used in society.
The colorful word fuck, is not listed in the bible, unless it was taken out when it was redacted to suit you believers.
or....
3 is the fucking sum of 1 + 1 + 1, NOT "1", you Triune-god-believing fundies.
Hey George?....use your free will to pick the statement that best suits you; they're both true.
Such expletives have nothing to do with whether an argument is intelligently stated or not.
- God doesn't speak to me, thus He does not speak to anyone.
- I didn't see the builder of the house, thus he doesn't exist, and he has no intelligence that is superior to mine.
- I won't believe the Bible because I didn't meet any of the writers, thus the Bible is false and the writers are are only legends.
- The ancient writers that support as fact the existence of God, the truth of the Bible, that Jesus is God (who became Man) who functioned as the "Extinguisher of guilt", that disciples were martyred, are all decieved, but the other writers who characterize them as charlatans, are pillars of truth and understanding, and cannot suffer deception.
- The planets and solar systems are facts, but the deduction that an intelligence beyond man's created them is an unreasonable conclusion, an assertion.
- The fluctuating tilt of the earth can't be a purposeful design, but the work of a messy God, a really inept Devine engineer.
- That the creation of these planet and star systems are the work of the "cat-warriors from the Pleiades". We need to just accept these cats as being of the type that I am familiar with, accept that they are capable of systematic war, and that they were born of the seven daughters of Atlas, or . . . they mysteriously evolved from a source we have yet to name, simultaneously from a cluster of stars, that we have named Pleiades.
It does puzzle me though, why these cat-warriors have never claimed this system of planets and stars as their own creation. In fact, only One has claimed this to be His creation. I would think the "cat-warriors from the Pleiades" would want to set Him straight.
I bet Jesus would love to have that level of faith used to follow HIm, but alas you trust in cats, (reportedly born of women) who make war, and who create the universe, though you have never seen these creatures . . . who may actually be from a cluster of stars. And you say Christianity is a farce.
- Mankind somehow allows a Deity to exist, though we die and He is eternal. It seems it is the eternal One who allows this foolishness of men.
- That it must be hypothecation if a Deity exists who does not bother to explain His origin to my satisfaction. What nerve, that this Deity dare not satisfy me as to how and why He exists. I am due an explanation since I allow Him to exist. BTW man still cannot explain the origin of light, but it exists, whether the how and why is explained to us or not, or whether the explanation satisfies us or not.
ref:
http://cache.search.yahoo-ht2.akadns.net/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=%22origin+of+light%22&fr=yfp-t-501&u=dao.mit.edu/%7Ewen/pub/light.pdf&w=%22origin+of+light%22&d=AqU7WC72Q-7J&icp=1&.intl=us
- That an "energy" exists that cannot have a personality. Yet, you offer no proof that energy cannot have a personality. One definition of 'personality' = something apprehended as reflective of or analogous to a distinctive human personality, such as the atmosphere of a place or thing: This house has a warm personality.
BTW God is a Divine Personality that has and controls infinite energy.
- That thunder and lightning cannot be the work of God because we have an understanding of some of the physics. Which is like saying because we understand the workings of a stove, we have concluded that no one controls the starting or stopping of its operation.
- That it is not possible for the writers of the Constitution to be prophets of God, or that they were assigned that work by God, but you have NO WAY OF KNOWING that, yet you accept it as truth, doing the same thing you vilify Christians for doing.
- That you can actually "see" the electrons and protons as they interact to generate electricty. Gee, I wonder who created those electrons and protons and caused the phenomena of imbalance, where the rushing of electons to balance their number with the number of protons would create the energy that we call electricity. Must be the "big bang" theory, or the "cat-warriors from the Pleiades".
- That it makes no sense that One would pay in full, the price to create an exclusive sphere of acceptance, to retain the right that He alone chooses those included into that sphere, where they would enjoy benefits exclusive to that domain, contract (covenant) with the chosen to adhere to certain policies, that
when they did not adhere would forfeit many of the exclusive benefits until they recant their actions and apply for reinstatement (ask for forgiveness) to regain those lost benefits. (They will have the contract (covenant) eternally, which cannot be forfeited once entered.)
If men can make golf courses and yacht clubs exclusive, that once lifetime memberships were purchased, they could not be forced to forfeit, even though the club put up the membership money, I don't see what is so hard to understand about what Jesus did for His chosen.
If the member breaks the rules he agreed to, then the clause in his membership can be enforced that permits him to be suspended until a fine is paid, or until a time requirement is met for reinstatement. So what is the big deal if Jesus requires from His chosen, an apology and a request for forgiveness for the chosen to be reinstated? The offender still does not forfeit his eternal residence in Heaven, just many of his benefits temporarily on earth, until he does what is required to be reinstated.
Finally, thank you for permitting me this discourse. Yet, I have discovered a definite sadness within, that such intelligent, articulate people are so sold-out to Satan, having great faith in one that cannot save.
I have asked the Father if He would consider choosing at least some of you for salvation. I hope some of you ask Him for that blessing.
Goodbye
aservantry@gmail.com
www.faithtofaith.org
Incorrect interpretation. More like this---no talking, invisible, conscious beings have ever spoke to me, and until one does, I don't believe in talking, invisible, conscious beings. As for the deity of the Christian bible as describe IN the Christian Bible, and by the attributes that "CHRISTIANS" ASSIGN TO IT, no such being can exist. The same way "married bachelors" cannot exist.
Robert...I didn't see the builder of the house, thus he doesn't exist, and he has no intelligence that is superior to mine.
Incorrect interpretation. If I have doubt that there exists a builder of a particular house, or that houses were built by intelligent beings, I can simply find another construction site and SEE the builders, along with how the construction takes place, all with my own eyes. I don't have to rely on second-hand revelation.
Robert...I won't believe the Bible because I didn't meet any of the writers, thus the Bible is false and the writers are are only legends.
Incorrect. I can't believe the bible because of its claims of talking snakes, talking donkeys, and talking vegetation---as well as myriad other absurdities that defy logic. For instance, a human being staying over night in a whale's digestive tract, and living to tell about it. I dismiss these things as folklore for the same reason you likely dismiss a lady who lives in a giant shoe with her kids.
Robert...The ancient writers that support as fact the existence of God, the truth of the Bible, that Jesus is God (who became Man)
How do they "support it"???? Because they presumably wrote it? Okay, L. Ron Hubbard wrote Dianetics. "Scientology" is therefore "supported", right?
continues...that disciples were martyred, are all decieved, but the other writers who characterize them as charlatans, are pillars of truth and understanding, and cannot suffer deception.
Okay, the "other writers" may have been deceived. By the same token, the nay-sayers who doubt the Book of Mormon(i.e..."Robert") may be "deceived" too, right? Maybe Mormonism is the True rendering of Jesus' life then, right? If not, why not??? Don't you see this? Most of your arguments could "work" in favor of ANY religion.
Robert...The planets and solar systems are facts, but the deduction that an intelligence beyond man's created them is an unreasonable conclusion, an assertion.
The deduction that "man" didn't "create" the planets is a reasonable deduction. Yes, it is reasonable to infer that humans did not construct the planets. To deduce that the planets came about by something other than nature is question begging. Who or what created the "planet creator"? Surely you won't tell me that it's unreasonable to posit such a senario, will you?
Robert...The fluctuating tilt of the earth can't be a purposeful design, but the work of a messy God, a really inept Devine engineer.
Fallacy of false dilemma. How about this--how about not the work of a "Divine engineer" at all? Or how about the work of transparent purple pixies??? If not, why not?
Robert...That an "energy" exists that cannot have a personality. Yet, you offer no proof that energy cannot have a personality.
You offer no proof that a staple gun has no personality. It's not unreasonable to believe a staple gun exists, because I can see that they exist. I purchase one; I can look at pictures of one; I can test one.
One definition of 'personality' = something apprehended as reflective of or analogous to a distinctive human personality, such as the atmosphere of a place or thing: This house has a warm personality.
Okay, have it your way, the Creator of the Universe has the personality of a "house". I would sooner worship a "house", than the god depicted in the Christian bible, trust me.
continued later(possibly)
Houses don't occur in nature. Houses are built by people. Now if you were to say that your house magically poofed into existence at the command of some god, then your analogy would at least be consistent.
Thunderstorms exist naturally. They are complex, orderly, powerful, etc. Are you suggesting that an intelligent being is behind every thunderstorm? Or would you be willing to admit that thunderstorms are simply the result of natural forces?
Comparing nature to man-made objects and suggesting that because man-made items are made by people that it is a simple deduction to conclude that natural things are made by supernatural, immaterial, invisible, incomprehensible entities is extremely poor logic.
We know people exist. We don't know that an incomprehensible entity exists.
Assuming that all things in the universe require the direct intervention of some super-mind in order to exist is a self-contradicting premise. If all things require a "creator" then the creator also requires a creator, and so would that creator, and so on forever. If at anything can exist without having been created then your argument implodes on itself.
It takes no faith to admit ignorance on how the universe came into being. In fact, that is the only honest answer. As a matter of fact, claiming that a god made the universe answers nothing. How did this god make the universe? What was the process? To say an incomprehensible being incomprehensibly made everything adds not in iota to our comprehension. Get it? The only honest answer is, "I don't know how the universe came to be, but I believe it was done supernaturally." I also don't know how the universe came to be, but I think the answer is more likely to be found in a natural explanation. Call me silly, but I sincerely doubt that magical powers had nothing to do with it.
Now, back to the OP: Why are Christians still required to cry out for forgiveness for already paid for debts?
Your analogy fails because I, for one, never agreed to the "rules" of this hypothetical invisible golf course.
As for the cat warriors analogy... I'm flabbergasted at your reaction. I'm a writer of fiction, and the cats in question are featured in two of My works. You did realize I was making a fiction-to-fiction analogy, didn't you?
Oh, and I reject your proxy salvation prayer. I don't want to be anywhere near your creepy little hypothetical god. No one on this planet, or indeed anywhere in the universe, has done anything that merits eternal punishment, and I refuse to apologize for being "only human."
How is it your all-powerful, cosmic, creator of the universe -- the one who fined tuned the axis of the earth and positioned the sun, in perfect correlation to it -- failed so miserably, in creating the umbilical cord, with the potentially, hazardous, design flaw, of being too long, enabling it, to wrap around babies necks, in utero, causing anoxia, leading to death or a life of pain and suffering, because of brain damage?
I await your thoroughly twisted and strained answers.
--S.
As an addendum to Sconner's last comment:
My sister-in-law, had to have her five month pregnancy aborted because there was a serious flaw in the fetus's heart, which caused the cardio vascular system to be underdeveloped, which would make the baby unable to breathe.
The grief stricken parents had endure the horror of late term abortion. The parents saw the baby writhing trying to avoid the needle on the ultra-sound monitor. One doctor had to hold the mother's belly to keep the baby from moving as the other doctor put the needle into the baby's head to kill it.
If this is intellingent design then your God is a sadistic motherfucker and I don't want to have anything to do with Him.
Post a Comment