Jesus: The ULTIMATE Sacrifice
by randomatheist
The Gospel follows as written: The individual believes in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord. The individual's "sin" is paid in full by the blood of the Lamb since 2,000 years in the past. For the individual to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, the believer must repent from his "sin", accept Jesus as his Lord and Savior, and receive forgiveness for his wickedness.
Now this may be some pretty simple stuff, but time to delve deeper into the actual details utilizing logic and common sense. There is something actually wrong with this picture. What's this? You must accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior in order to escape from your trip to hell. Biblically, your "sin" is paid in full by the blood of the Lamb, right? Well this ULTIMATE sacrifice isn't enough as it actually depends on the individual's part on belief and faith. Failure to place faith in the Lord, the full price for this individual's "sin" will be paid twice, once by Jesus, and again by the individual. This makes no absolute sense... it lacks consistency at best!
Think of it this way, if someone, like a complete stranger, decided to feel sympathy for the criminal on trial, this stranger is actually going to pay for the fines of this criminal's crime so he can be let off the hook, provided the stranger is able to afford it. Once the stranger paid the fines of this poor criminal, then there is no requirement that this criminal has to then accept this complete stranger as a friend. The crime is paid for, case closed.
Biblically, Jesus died a horrible death on the cross, paying the price for the world's "sins," including the outsiders of His religion. If this is what we call Jesus: the ULTIMATE sacrifice for your "sins" then why are we required to play the blind faith game in order to escape the eternal hell? This logic is shattered in tiny bite-sized pieces. Not to mention double jeopardy.
The Biblical Gospel is the heart of the Christian faith, and with this article in mind, the Gospel is void of any logic, common sense, and understanding. I will no longer respect the Biblical Gospel (let alone the Bible as a whole) like I did when I was a gullible little child. I am now a grown-up with a mind of one. Atheism is the best decision I've ever made.
The Gospel follows as written: The individual believes in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord. The individual's "sin" is paid in full by the blood of the Lamb since 2,000 years in the past. For the individual to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, the believer must repent from his "sin", accept Jesus as his Lord and Savior, and receive forgiveness for his wickedness.
Now this may be some pretty simple stuff, but time to delve deeper into the actual details utilizing logic and common sense. There is something actually wrong with this picture. What's this? You must accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior in order to escape from your trip to hell. Biblically, your "sin" is paid in full by the blood of the Lamb, right? Well this ULTIMATE sacrifice isn't enough as it actually depends on the individual's part on belief and faith. Failure to place faith in the Lord, the full price for this individual's "sin" will be paid twice, once by Jesus, and again by the individual. This makes no absolute sense... it lacks consistency at best!
Think of it this way, if someone, like a complete stranger, decided to feel sympathy for the criminal on trial, this stranger is actually going to pay for the fines of this criminal's crime so he can be let off the hook, provided the stranger is able to afford it. Once the stranger paid the fines of this poor criminal, then there is no requirement that this criminal has to then accept this complete stranger as a friend. The crime is paid for, case closed.
Biblically, Jesus died a horrible death on the cross, paying the price for the world's "sins," including the outsiders of His religion. If this is what we call Jesus: the ULTIMATE sacrifice for your "sins" then why are we required to play the blind faith game in order to escape the eternal hell? This logic is shattered in tiny bite-sized pieces. Not to mention double jeopardy.
The Biblical Gospel is the heart of the Christian faith, and with this article in mind, the Gospel is void of any logic, common sense, and understanding. I will no longer respect the Biblical Gospel (let alone the Bible as a whole) like I did when I was a gullible little child. I am now a grown-up with a mind of one. Atheism is the best decision I've ever made.
Comments
God is a gentleman and He does not force Himself or a relationship with Himself on anyone. It is each individual's choice to accept the price paid for them. God loves you enough to give you a choice.
That's not a choice. That's a threat.
The good news is that hell is not real and that Biblegod doesn't actually love us enough to torture us for all of eternity. Biblegod isn't real either.
Oh, and Biblegod is no gentleman.
Your god is no gentleman. A true gentleman can 'fess up when he screws up instead of blaming everyone and everything around him for his own failures and shortcomings.
Most of us dwellers here in the real world know perfectly well that criminals generally do not prefer prison.
"God is a gentleman and He does not force Himself or a relationship with Himself on anyone."
(pulls out Her Clue-By-Four and lets TJames have it right in the apologia)
*BONK* Gentlemen don't torture, either.
You, sir, disgust Me. You would rather blame the victim and make pathetic and totally unconvincing excuses for your invisible friend, rather than doing the right thing and asking yourself 'Why am I worshipping a god like this? Why does somebody else have to die to save me from eternal torment?'
One of the reasons we are EX-Christians, TJames, is that we did ask questions like this... And didn't try to shout down our doubts.
If "prison" consisted of being tortured with fire on a daily routine, as opposed to having three square meals per day, a shower, and a place to sleep, I highly doubt any criminal woud "prefer" it. In other words, your comparison of being in "hell", to being in "prison", is utterly absurd.
"God loves you enough to give you a choice."
Yeah?....what if I don't want either "heaven" or "hell"? Isn't it true, according to your theology, that if I want neither of the two "choices", that I get the latter by default? And if so, what if I won't go voluntarily? Who physically puts me in "hell" AGAINST my will?
So, there you have it---the Xian apologetic that people "choose hell" is equivocal bullsh*t.
I see you've never actually read the entire Old Testament, have you?
Try reading it with an open mind, like you would any other fable and you MIGHT find the truth about your sadistic god, okay?
You point to something that bothers me too -- Are we to be saved by works or faith?
"Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight." - Romans 3:20
"…a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ…" - Galatians 2:16
"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." - Galatians 2:8-9
This contradicts:
"You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." - James 2:24
"Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth - those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation" - John 5:28-29
"…no flesh justified"…"all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"…"the wages of sin is death"… but it also says those who have "done good" are delivered. But, how much "good"? What about faith alone? The bible states, "To as many as receive Him, to them He gives the right to be called children of God."…. That's faith plus works folks. What about "…not by works, lest any man should boast"? Plus, faith in itself is an act…a work, if you will. If believers have "free" salvation, what's with these works? Is one to believe that this is the design of deity, much less, a supreme being, especially in what is presented as a very important area - humanity's well-being (corporeally and eternally)? Give me a break! At least the Universalists embrace a salvation for all humanity approach.
At the end of the day, what we are talking about here is this friggin weird concept: God sacrifices (murders) himself to himself to allow himself to break a rule (sin = judgement/death) that he created in the first place.
In my mind, the biggest question of all is:
How does a physical sacrifice solve a spiritual problem? In other words, how does someone's sacrifice - in this case by way of a crucifixion - make a sinner more suitable for or deserving of a higher spiritual inheritance? If someone's only son were to commit a heinous crime deserving of death, is there a single court that would accept my sacrifice in his place. A scenario to further prove the inherent illogic here: a 7-year old commits a minor no-no such as lying (youngster "sins" per The Babble) and is cursed in the eyes of the biblical God. A very old man with a history of great wickedness, repents on his deathbed. The old man's relationship / standing with God is somehow sound? Many embrace this scenario as biblically accurate and plausible - example again - a morally bankrupt sociopath "accepts" Jesus 5 seconds before he dies and is somehow more accepted / redeemed /regenerated than a kind, selfless, hard working soul who, unfortunately, never grasps the confusing and illogical concept and dies "in sin". The second person is somehow a better person in God's eyes that the sociopath. Utterly irrational.
I'm sure that's true---including floundering, guilt-ridden members of the clergy!
BP
"Atheism is the best decision I've ever made."
I didn't decide to be an atheist. Once I stopped believing atheism was the result.
However it seems a little quiet in here at this time though. :(
I can find more non-religious human beings that lead healthy lifestyles than I ever can Christians.
Here's the thing that gets me. Some Old Testament books were written many hundreds of years before Christ supposedly lived and died. If people witnessed the supposed miracles of Christ, why did it take so long for them to write them down. Christians argue about "oral tradition". Oh, really? People were skilled enough to write books meny centuries before Christ supposedly lived, yet they were not "inspired" to write anything about Christ in the flesh until decades after He died. Sure...
It is amazing what people will convince themselves of when they want to believe something.
Post a Comment