toneyb:

That's because you have to first believe there is a god to believe in jesus. the premise behind him is immoral and primitive.

According to the christian hypothesis people are supposed to believe that there is an all powerful, knowing, loving entity out there who loves humanity wants nothing more than their worship but the best idea he can come up with to save people (from himself) is by killing? what kind of nutjob thinks this is a good idea or even something that would cross the mind of a being like mentioned above? he requires the wholesale slaughter of animals(and sometimes humans) as sacrifice unto him for a few thousand years resulting in millions of deaths, alters covered in blood, and then they have to set them on fire because god likes the smell (Gen 8:20,21)?

If you actually read the OT, there is no salvation, no heaven to go to, no hell to be roasted in you are just appeasing god so he doesn't kill you and your family.You cant even make it to the Jesus story without realizing it is a stupid concept and one that was made up by primitive people. god himself fails right out of the gate making Jesus a non issue.

Jesus in a further act of "love" this god decided to come to earth (himself, his son, michael, or whatever you believe doesn't matter as none of the scenarios work), in the form of a human being as the ultimate blood sacrifice. So he has this fleshly body beaten to a pulp and then killed in a gruesome way so that people don't have to kill animals(or sacrifice themselves) anymore to him and people can be saved from his own wrath.  .

Now it gets even worse (depending on your interpretation of the bible) as now this Jesus introduces a new concept- eternal torture/punishment. In this system you have to acquire salvation through Jesus (just exactly how is still open to debate after 2000 years) where if you die before being "saved"- you are toast. A man can rape and murder an unsaved girl and she will go to hell, he on the other hand can "find Jesus" in prison and live happily in heaven for eternity. 

It'd be like your god throwing everyone in the ocean and then dangling a life jacket asking "ok, who doesnt want to drown?"

Why don't i believe in Jesus? because he isn't good enough, his father isn't good enough, the whole idea and hypothesis isn't good enough. he is nothing more than a twisted, sick, idiotic concept of a thug that was invented by very primitive minds and no one in their right mind would buy into. it may sound all good on the surface when you hear about how you are loved, protected, helped in this world and you get to go to heaven when you die, but why are YOU condemned in the first place because someone ate some fruit 6000 years ago? PLEASE.

I wasn't born evil, wicked, full of "sin" and in need of salvation (and don't even try to tell me that all the lovey children I see around me were born evil), im sorry if you've been convinced you are but I know what kind of person I am. I am humane, honest, and helpful to others. i love my family and friends, i am an intellectually honest person who evaluates my situations and makes the best decisions I can can based on the available evidence. So the christian hypothesis makes no sense, it is only a feel good hypothesis that even christians themselves fail to agree and accept some some of its basic concept because of how nonsensical it is.

toneyb:

Normally when you give somebody a gift you do expect anything in return. Salvation according to the christian hypothesis is not a free gift since the bible god expects something in return you first have to believe before you can get that gift. I am only trying to point out that Salvation is NOT a free gift as christians like to claim it is according to the christian hypothesis.

You havent proven anywhere here that anything is wanted in return of salvation.

praise/worship is optional.
believe/dis-believe is optional. faith/faithlessness is not a sin. Faith is a gift and is optional.
u also have the option of not going to hell. but u dont believe in hell. . . .do u?

u honestly have not said anything thought provoking.

That's because you have to first believe there is a god to believe in jesus. the premise behind him is immoral and primitive.

According to the christian hypothesis people are supposed to believe that there is an all powerful, knowing, loving entity out there who loves humanity wants nothing more than their worship but the best idea he can come up with to save people (from himself) is by killing? what kind of nutjob thinks this is a good idea or even something that would cross the mind of a being like mentioned above? he requires the wholesale slaughter of animals(and sometimes humans) as sacrifice unto him for a few thousand years resulting in millions of deaths, alters covered in blood, and then they have to set them on fire because god likes the smell (Gen 8:20,21)?

If you actually read the OT, there is no salvation, no heaven to go to, no hell to be roasted in you are just appeasing god so he doesn't kill you and your family.You cant even make it to the Jesus story without realizing it is a stupid concept and one that was made up by primitive people. god himself fails right out of the gate making Jesus a non issue.

Jesus in a further act of "love" this god decided to come to earth (himself, his son, michael, or whatever you believe doesn't matter as none of the scenarios work), in the form of a human being as the ultimate blood sacrifice. So he has this fleshly body beaten to a pulp and then killed in a gruesome way so that people don't have to kill animals(or sacrifice themselves) anymore to him and people can be saved from his own wrath.  .

I cant believe u said all this. Am I dreaming?

was it not u that said this:

"Salvation according to the the christian hypothesis is the concept that god, as part of divine providence, "saves" humanity from spiritual death or eternal damnation [/b]by providing for them an [b]eternal life ( afterlife),"

So if according to u salvation entails a divine providence, spiritual death and damnation and an eternal life, none of which can be proven with human sensual abilities. Isnt it safe to state that to believe in salvation u must also subscribe to an after life dogma? so why are u going on about believing in Jesus or not believing? is He not the center point of focus of the "salvation" concept?

ur argument here was really intellectually poor. I am disappointed.

Now it gets even worse (depending on your interpretation of the bible) as now this Jesus introduces a new concept- eternal torture/punishment.

what do u understand by hell fire? who was it originally made for? do u have the choice of not going to hell fire?

In this system you have to acquire salvation through Jesus (just exactly how is still open to debate after 2000 years) where if you die before being "saved"- you are toast.A man can rape and murder an unsaved girl and she will go to hell, he on the other hand can "find Jesus" in prison and live happily in heaven for eternity. 

It'd be like your god throwing everyone in the ocean and then dangling a life jacket asking "ok, who doesnt want to drown?"

Why don't i believe in Jesus? because he isn't good enough, his father isn't good enough, the whole idea and hypothesis isn't good enough. he is nothing more than a twisted, sick, idiotic concept of a thug that was invented by very primitive minds and no one in their right mind would buy into. it may sound all good on the surface when you hear about how you are loved, protected, helped in this world and you get to go to heaven when you die, but why are YOU condemned in the first place because someone ate some fruit 6000 years ago? PLEASE.

Now u are talking, by making assertions.

You exercised a choice, an option by refusing to subscribe to the Jesus story/believe. why then is it difficult to gasp other people's choices of believing in the Jesus story?

christians believe in an after-life, where Jesus reigns. Toneyb, you have NOT stated any logical or intellectual reason to discredit the christian salvation doctrine. I was expecting a lot better than this. Your claims on gift, praise, worship and hell have revealed an ignorance on ur part and a contradiction as established here of ur understanding of this salvation concept.

I wasn't born evil, wicked, full of "sin" and in need of salvation (and don't even try to tell me that all the lovey children I see around me were born evil), im sorry if you've been convinced you are but I know what kind of person I am. I am humane, honest, and helpful to others. i love my family and friends, i am an intellectually honest person who evaluates my situations and makes the best decisions I can can based on the available evidence. So the christian hypothesis makes no sense, it is only a feel good hypothesis that even christians themselves fail to agree and accept some some of its basic concept because of how nonsensical it is.

All u have done here is to state an opinion of personal assessment. Nothing here adds value to the issue at hand.
You have not stated any logical reason to suggest that u were not born without sin. by providing this (logical analysis of ur sinless birth), u logically discredit one of the christian pillars of salvation.

You simply dont subscribe to the christian salvation doctrine. . . . . .that does not mean this doctrine is false. u have simply expressed ur personal opinion.

Not according to the christian hypothesis. According to the Christian hypothesis you first have to believe and do some rituals with include praise and worship before you can partake in the "gift" of salvation.

I have already clarified this, unless u have any logical explanation to my refute. This is done and dusted.

You have never heard about because you do not read your bible very well. The bible says that " He that does not believe is condemned already". Faith is not a  free gift according to the christian hypothesis because you first of all have to believe in other to be able to receive that gift, that's the point I have been trying to make all along.

I thought u understood the subjects at stake. The reward for ur choice whether u accept this gift or not is called judgement. refusal of this gift, means u owe a debt, which u must eventually pay in the after-life.

I do not believe in the hell brouhaha and I do not feel threatened by it as you are trying to suggest. I was only giving an example of a threat and I used hell as an example. I can NEVER feel threatened by hell because I KNOW it does not exist. It is only an idea and imagination of ancient primitive men, which was invented to keep people in line.

Fine. But it seems to be the defining factor of ur anti-salvation stance. Do u know how many times u directly/indirectly referred to hell?

No insults intended. But I gained nothing from ur post, I expected a robust logical argument that rubbishes the salvation doctrine, all I got here are opinions and recycled misconceptions of this doctrine, which anyone on the forum could easily have refuted. Please ensure that u state ur logical and intellectually objective basis for disbelieving anything. It helps the quality of the debate and other readers enjoy it too. No offence.

Lets assume I was in ur shoes in this debate, what would I do?
1. I would state logical emphasis/analysis that discredits the concept of a sinful nature at birth. You did not do this, all u did was to state a personal opinion that suggests otherwise.
2. I would state logical emphasis/analysis that rubbishes the concept of being accountable to an invincible deity at death, to illustrate that I have no spiritual debt to pay.
3. I would admit my dogmatic stance on the impossibility of an after life where Jesus is Lord, but respect opposite dogmas and call for a debate. And many more.

all of these would have made this debate intellectually driven and thought provoking. This posts was simply a recycling of word, no new knowledge was transmitted.

Sure, like the idea of original sin and satan.

What do u understand by the word belief/believe?

noetic2:

You havent proven anywhere here that anything is wanted in return of salvation.

praise/worship is optional.
believe/dis-believe is optional. faith/faithlessness is not a sin. Faith is a gift and is optional.
u also have the option of not going to hell. but u dont believe in hell. . . .do u?

u honestly have not said anything thought provoking.

Sorry to say but you are being very dishonest. I said according to the christian hypothesis salvation is not a free gift to all men, I also went and explained how it can not be a free gift because you first of all have to subscribe to the christian doctrine of believing before you can partake in the salvation process. I didn't even expect you to throw what the bible had to say under the bus because you want to make a meaningless point. The bible says disbelieve or faithlessness in the christian hypothesis is a sin and says that unbelievers are condemned already. If salvation according to the christian hypothesis is free then it will not require any form of belief. It will be just what it is a free gift to all mankind. Since you have to believe first then it is not a free gift because it requires some form of belief first and foremost. You first have to believe in jesus to be able to partake in the christian salvation process. That act of believing disqualifies it as a free gift since you first have to believe.

So if according to u salvation entails a divine providence, spiritual death and damnation and an eternal life, none of which can be proven with human sensual abilities. Isnt it safe to state that to believe in salvation u must also subscribe to an after life dogma? so why are u going on about believing in Jesus or not believing? is He not the center point of focus of the "salvation" concept?

ur argument here was really intellectually poor. I am disappointed.

I laid out how the salvation concept even from the bible it self has evolved from the OT to the NT, from the bible god accepting animal and human sacrifice to Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice. And I said how that concept does not make any sense to me. Your rebuttal is not even intellectual poor but does not make any sense at all.

what do u understand by hell fire? who was it originally made for? do u have the choice of not going to hell fire?

Hell fire is a concept that was developed by the christians or the writers of the gospels and new testament scriptures, as i aforementioned, If you actually read the OT, there is no salvation, no heaven to go to, no hell to be roasted in you are just appeasing god so he doesn't kill you and your family. I said hell is just a concept which evolved and was later attached to the christian belief system and you are asking me if i have a choice of not going there, , This to me is the same thing as asking me if i have a choice of not going to the home of the invisible spagethi monster that orbits the sun. I was just stating how the concept had evolved.

Now u are talking, by making assertions.

You exercised a choice, an option by refusing to subscribe to the Jesus story/believe. why then is it difficult to gasp other people's choices of believing in the Jesus story?

christians believe in an after-life, where Jesus reigns. Toneyb, you have NOT stated any logical or intellectual reason to discredit the christian salvation doctrine. I was expecting a lot better than this. Your claims on gift, praise, worship and hell have revealed an ignorance on ur part and a contradiction as established here of ur understanding of this salvation concept.

Why do you also find it difficult to grasp other people's choice to disbelieve in the jesus story? I have stated my reasons for not accepting the salvation hypothesis. Any body that reads my post knows that I did not display any ignorance at all.

All u have done here is to state an opinion of personal assessment. Nothing here adds value to the issue at hand.
You have not stated any logical reason to suggest that u were not born without sin. by providing this (logical analysis of ur sinless birth), u logically discredit one of the christian pillars of salvation.

You simply dont subscribe to the christian salvation doctrine. . . . . .that does not mean this doctrine is false. u have simply expressed ur personal opinion.

You just throw words around, what do you mean that I have not logically stated any reason to suggest that I was not born in sin. What is sin? Has any christian ever stated any logical reason to suggest that people are born with sin? Is the original sin concept logical? According to the christian hypothesis every body is born into this world with sin because some people that lived 6000 years ago ate a fruit of knowledge from a tree. . By the way how does knowledge reside in a tree/fruit and how do you get knowledge of right and wrong by eating from a tree?. Where is the said tree of knowledge of good and bad that adam and eve ate from? I find this entire concept and hypothesis outlandish. Remember you said that you were going to show me that the christian hypothesis is "true", so far you have not even attempted to show how it makes any sense talk-less of it being "true".

I thought u understood the subjects at stake. The reward for ur choice whether u accept this gift or not is called judgement. refusal of this gift, means u owe a debt, which u must eventually pay in the after-life.

I can also play the games that you love to play all the time by asking you to logically show me and provide tangible evidence to show that I or any body owes a debt to your god, but I won't, I will just say that this claim does not make any sense at all.

Fine. But it seems to be the defining factor of ur anti-salvation stance. Do u know how many times u directly/indirectly referred to hell?

No insults intended. But I gained nothing from ur post, I expected a robust logical argument that rubbishes the salvation doctrine, all I got here are opinions and recycled misconceptions of this doctrine, which anyone on the forum could easily have refuted. Please ensure that u state ur logical and intellectually objective basis for disbelieving anything. It helps the quality of the debate and other readers enjoy it too. No offence.

Lets assume I was in ur shoes in this debate, what would I do?
1. I would state logical emphasis/analysis that discredits the concept of a sinful nature at birth. You did not do this, all u did was to state a personal opinion that suggests otherwise.
2. I would state logical emphasis/analysis that rubbishes the concept of being accountable to an invincible deity at death, to illustrate that I have no spiritual debt to pay.
3. I would admit my dogmatic stance on the impossibility of an after life where Jesus is Lord, but respect opposite dogmas and call for a debate. And many more.

all of these would have made this debate intellectually driven and thought provoking. This posts was simply a recycling of word, no new knowledge was transmitted.

Yawns, too much talk no substance at all. You said that I should state what I acknowledge in the christian hypothesis and you will then show me that they are true, so far you have not even said anything at all that makes any sense other than running around in a circle telling me to disprove what you promised to show me is true. You are just running round in a circle the way you normally do. I expected to come here and see how you will show me that the christian claims are true but I expected too much as usual. So far you have not been able so tell me any thing that makes sense talk-less of showing me that it is the truth. You have only repeated the unsubstantiated ideas, thoughts, fantasy and imaginations of ancient men that live 2000-3000 years ago who though that the world was going to end during their life times.

What do u understand by the word belief/believe

What is this? You said that you were going to show me that your hypothesis is true?

toneyb:

Sorry to say but you are being very dishonest. I said according to the christian hypothesis salvation is not a free gift to all men, I also went and explained how it can not be a free gift because you first of all have to subscribe to the christian doctrine of believing before you can partake in the salvation process. I didn't even expect you to throw what the bible had to say under the bus because you want to make a meaningless point. The bible says disbelieve or faithlessness in the christian hypothesis is a sin and says that unbelievers are condemned already. If salvation according to the christian hypothesis is free then it will not require any form of belief. It will be just what it is a free gift to all mankind. Since you have to believe first then it is not a free gift because it requires some form of belief first and foremost. You first have to believe in jesus to be able to partake in the christian salvation process. That act of believing disqualifies it as a free gift since you first have to believe.

I laid out how the salvation concept even from the bible it self has evolved from the OT to the NT, from the bible god accepting animal and human sacrifice to Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice. And I said how that concept does not make any sense to me. Your rebuttal is not even intellectual poor but does not make any sense at all.

Hell fire is a concept that was developed by the christians or the writers of the gospels and new testament scriptures, as i aforementioned, If you actually read the OT, there is no salvation, no heaven to go to, no hell to be roasted in you are just appeasing god so he doesn't kill you and your family. I said hell is just a concept which evolved and was later attached to the christian belief system and you are asking me if i have a choice of not going there, , This to me is the same thing as asking me if i have a choice of not going to the home of the invisible spagethi monster that orbits the sun. I was just stating how the concept had evolved.

Why do you also find it difficult to grasp other people's choice to disbelieve in the jesus story? I have stated my reasons for not accepting the salvation hypothesis. Any body that reads my post knows that I did not display any ignorance at all.

You just throw words around, what do you mean that I have not logically stated any reason to suggest that I was not born in sin. What is sin? Has any christian ever stated any logical reason to suggest that people are born with sin? Is the original sin concept logical? According to the christian hypothesis every body is born into this world with sin because some people that lived 6000 years ago ate a fruit of knowledge from a tree. . By the way how does knowledge reside in a tree/fruit and how do you get knowledge of right and wrong by eating from a tree?. Where is the said tree of knowledge of good and bad that adam and eve ate from? I find this entire concept and hypothesis outlandish. Remember you said that you were going to show me that the christian hypothesis is "true", so far you have not even attempted to show how it makes any sense talk-less of it being "true".

I can also play the games that you love to play all the time by asking you to logically show me and provide tangible evidence to show that I or any body owes a debt to your god, but I won't, I will just say that this claim does not make any sense at all.

You have said nothing.

Yawns, too much talk no substance at all. You said that I should state what I acknowledge in the christian hypothesis and you will then show me that they are true, so far you have not even said anything at all that makes any sense other than running around in a circle telling me to disprove what you promised to show me is true. You are just running round in a circle the way you normally do. I expected to come here and see how you will show me that the christian claims are true but I expected too much as usual. So far you have not been able so tell me any thing that makes sense talk-less of showing me that it is the truth. You have only repeated the unsubstantiated ideas, thoughts, fantasy and imaginations of ancient men that live 2000-3000 years ago who though that the world was going to end during their life times.

This is called Dishonesty. when did debate mean "show u"?

What is this? You said that you were going to show me that your hypothesis is true?

Show u what? when did debate mean show? This is ridiculous.

noetic2:

You have said nothing. 

. Let me play the game you love playing all the time, prove to me logically as well as intellectually and provide adequate evidence to show that I have said nothing.

This is called Dishonesty. when did debate mean "show u"?
Show u what? when did debate mean show? This is ridiculous.

This is what you said.

ur answers and my subsequent response will establish that this assertion is indeed nothing but the truth.

I have given you my answers. You have not even tried to show me that those assertions make any sense at all talk-less of them being nothing but the "truth".

nice one toneyb

toneyb:

. Let me play the game you love playing all the time, prove to me logically as well as intellectually and provide adequate evidence to show that I have said nothing.

This is what you said.
I have given you my answers. You have not even tried to show me that those assertions make any sense at all talk-less of them being nothing but the "truth".

ok.

@ Huxley

You have not opened a thread to ask ur 20 questions. hope they would be intelligent questions though.

noetic2:

@ Huxley

You have not opened a thread to ask ur 20 questions. hope they would be intelligent questions though.

If he opens a thread you will never answer anything(because you have NO answer for anything), you will only continue you gimmicks by telling him to dis-prove what you have said you were going to provide answers for.

Huxley don't even waste your time.

toneyb:

If he opens a thread you will never answer anything(because you have NO answer for anything), you will only continue you gimmicks by telling him to dis-prove what you have said you were going to provide answers for.

I agree.
With due respect . . . . .you are not intelligent enough to sustain a debate/argument/discussion. Thats my deduction from my correspondence with u.

Huxley don't even waste your time.

Huxley, I hope u take his advice.

noetic2:

I agree.
With due respect . . . . .you are not intelligent enough to sustain a debate/argument/discussion. Thats my deduction from my correspondence with u.

Huxley, I hope u take his advice.

We are all here and still here.

Tudór:

We are all here and still here.

True, and growing in number everyday.

For me, tonyb wins this debate hands down.

His clarity of thought is nothing short of impressive.

I've very little to add to what he's said, except that I personally believe in God. However I do not believe this God is either the christian or muslim ''God'', but rather an Intelligence, Pure spirit, or Consciousness in its purest form, from which other units of Consciousness, from humans to cats, are derived.

I do not believe this Source Consciousness has an ''enemy'' such as ''satan'', or any other ''rivals'', and I do not believe it requires ''worship''.

All the other 'Gods', 'gods', and deities are NOT this Intelligence, but like humans, animals, insects, and plants are merely aspects of it.

Artificially individualised thought units of God, meaning in effect that we are ALL God.

The task of every soul is to find the God in them.

The kingdom of God is within you.

Zodiac61:

True, and growing in number everyday.

Amen