FatherOfJesus:
You cannot say that only those who are mentally deficient would harbor the believe that no God exists, that’s a fallacy of ad hominem and also there are several reasons to believe that God doesn’t exist which has not should be addressed.

I agree with you that philosophy is a weak point of view to address the existence of God, that’s why evidence is the best way to do that.


You cannot quote the Bible to proof the existence of your God. It’s a fallacy of petitio prinicpii or begging the question because the Bible has already reached the conclusion that God exists even without measurable methods to confirm that.

Again, there’s so many logical and empirical reason so to doubt the existence of a God -Lehigh have not been addressed. The cause and effect argument is so weak as this will also apply to the existence of any diety.

Quoting the Bible creates the impression that the Christian God is the God which we are referring to and that’s faulty and immitiately limits the concept of God by disregarding other religious concepts. We have to prove first of all that a diety exist before proving that the concept of a Christians isn’t actually the correct one.

Hello.

Suffice to say that I don't believe you meant to respond to my post. Very little of what you say here appears to account for what I said.

For example, I most certainly did not try to prove the existence of God by referring to the Bible. That was not in my post at all.

AntiChristian:


Thank you. I no dey judge o. Just a reminder for you all. And you can answer the question completely. Hope no be google you use instead of the Holy spirit?

I'm not sure why I shouldn't use Google if I either want or need to. I didn't in this case, since it is a very familiar Bible passage to me. A similar passage is in 1 Peter 3:3-5. A more remote one but also in the same ballpark is in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

hiddendude:
1. The universe couldn't have always existed as this is inconsistent to how we experience it. Cause and effect work with a forward computation of time from a possible point (a possible infinity).
There are two kinds of infinity (possible infinity and actual infinity). A possible infinity begins with a point in the past and continues infinitely into the future. An actual infinity exists infinitely in the past and continues infinitely into the future (e.g integers on a number line).

2. If the universe were an actual infinity, then the present epoch would be logically impossible. How? Like I posited in the first argument, cause and effect work with a forward computation of time from a possible point. We understand this because we get to present times by successive additions. To understand this, think of the number line. The number 0 stands for the present epoch/point in time, negative numbers represent past epochs and positive numbers represent future epochs. Think of a hypothetical situation in which you have to traverse the number line from negative numbers to 0 (you do this by making successive additions e.g -3, -2 (-3+1), -1(-2+1), 0 (-1+1)). Such an addition is only possible if you have a starting point from which such additions can be made. If you traverse infinitely into the negative part of the number line (i.e numbers before 0 on the number line), you'll never make successive additions because it would be impossible to pick a starting point, hence you'll never get to 0.

3. If the universe existed infinitely in the past, there can be no cause and effect because a forward computation of time would be impossible within the universe.

4. The universe must have a beginning for cause and effect to be possible.

5. If the universe had a beginning, then itself is an effect of a greater cause. Whatever caused the universe must itself not be caused as this would lead to an infinite regress which we must reject because we know it is possible to make forward computations of time which would not be possible with an infinite regress as demonstrated using the number line. This thus leads us to infer that this cause is itself actually infinite.

6. This actually infinite cause transcends the universe because it precedes it.

7. Thus God is the best possible explanation for this as the concept of God assumes actual infinity is a feature of God.

I'm open to counterarguments with logic.

Hi again.

I quite agree. I often mention, however, that philosophy is weak in these matters. It is immediately apparent even to someone who is not particularly bright that the universe is subject to change in quality, therefore, it cannot be eternal. If it is not eternal, it cannot be infinite. If it is not infinite, its existence must depend on something outside itself.

I think that every atheist who has given it any thought has come to the same conclusion, that is why they come up with all kinds of hare-brained theories and excuses to deal with the impossibility of its self-existence. There is the theory of the multiverse, for example; the theory of the nothing that is not nothing (to explain how a big bang could produce a universe out of nothing); and the cop-out of "nobody knows how."

This universe's lack of self-existence is unavoidable to everyone. This is why Psalm 19 and Romans 1 make so much sense. Both passages are unequivocal about how the very universe declares the existence of God. It is only someone mentally deficient who can look at it all and still believe that there is no God. That is why the Bible calls such people "fools." According to the Bible, a fool is really someone who willfully rejects wisdom, that is, who rejects reality and pretends that what is isn't and what isn't is. In that sense, we are all fools to one degree or another, but since the most emergent or apparent reality of life is the existence of God, it is a fool of fools who thinks that God does not exist.

The weakness of philosophy here is that the arguments made for the universe's contingency can be forced to apply to the Cause of the universe. Not reasonably, of course, but one might insist that we know nothing of this Cause and must therefore ask why what is true of the universe is not true of it too. If we go there, we end up in infinite regress, and while I completely agree that such an argument is patently insane, anyone determined to remove God from the equation will never admit its insanity. For them, a self-existing entity that is not the universe is no better than an infinitely regressing chain of causes and effects.

Believe me, the arguments can get plenty sophisticated as they get more and more hare-brained.

hiddendude:
Disclaimer: I'm a theist and this thread isn't to say morality isn't objective, it aims to highlight problems with the divine command theory.


A long surviving philosophical quandary (problem) to believing in God-dictated morality is the Euthyphro problem. It was posed by Socrates to Euthyphro in a discourse and it goes thus:

"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious or it is pious because it is loved by the gods?"

Simply put: "Is something right because it is commanded by God or God commands something because it is right?"

While this doesn't seem like it is a problem, it poses a huge one regardless of what your answer is. To explain how, I'll take each horn of the problem and explain why it is a problem.



1. Something is right because God commands it:

You might be compelled to think God only commands appealing things like "do not kill", "do not commit adultery" e.t.c. but those of us who know our Old Testament, would agree that God does command killing when he feels like it.
Now, imagine a hypothetical scenario where God appears to you and says he's reversing the 10 commandments and you can now do their opposites and not obeying this instruction would be a sin. Would you?


2. God commands something because it is right:

This implies that there is something above God. How? God commanding something because it is right means he cannot command what is wrong, hence he is obliged by such circumstance. If God could never at some point command what he pleases, it means God like us is obliged to a moral standard and is thus below it. It means morality is what God has just discovered and uses. It is not right because he commands it, he commands it because it is right. This makes God superfluous or unnecessary with regards to the grand scope of morality. It means if God did not ever exist, morality would still exist because it is independent of God's command.



Your thoughts?

Hi there.

I'm a Christian and a pastor-teacher. I'm also active to some degree in apologetics, so I can appreciate philosophy, at least to some degree.

I don't care much for philosophy, however. I am wary of it and I warn fellow Christians too to be careful of it. It carries a certain arrogance with it that is not often apparent to those who mess with it. Soon enough, one even deigns to challenge truth and demand that it meet certain standards of the challenger's own making in order to be accepted as truth. It is madness in itself.

But I don't assume that you are a Christian in spite of your mention of the Old Testament. You have not said that you are, so I will not hold you to Christian standards. I will only warn you that my answer is a Christian one and that, as such, you may not find it satisfying. I will certainly do my best to be reasonable, but I cannot guarantee your satisfaction.

The Euthyphro Dilemma is not really a dilemma from the Christian perspective. In the Christian worldview, God is right, and God is good, but God is not whimsical or inconsistent.

That is, if God commands anything, His very command of it makes it right. However, God is not changeable. His Character is the same at all times, so His commands are always of the same class. He never makes inconsistent commands even if it appears that He does.

To demonstrate, let me piggyback on one of the instances you raised. The Lord God gave a commandment that one ought never to commit murder (not to not kill, but to not murder). However, He also commands the destruction of whole communities. In order to make sense of this, we must get to what His Purpose for creation is. Why does God prohibit killing outside of military and police action but not within it? Why should military and police action exist at all?

The reason is that God wants every human being to have a fair opportunity to make a free will choice about Him. Each person must choose whether to submit to Him or to rebel against Him. If such a person is killed, then that opportunity is ended. Therefore, God prohibits wanton killing to safeguard that opportunity. But if a community has essentially set itself against such an opportunity, killing off people who might otherwise make a choice, then in order to prevent such behavior from spreading beyond that community, God can command that the community be destroyed by killing every member of it. This is what God does to the Amorite nations in Canaan through the Israelites and later to the Israelites through the Assyrians and Babylonians.

Police action is similar in that instead of communities, individuals are targeted. If someone insists on denying others the opportunity that God gives to everyone, then God commands the killing of such a person so that others can make their own free choices without undue interference from him or her.

So, while the Euthyphro Dilemma might bother someone who does not understand God and therefore only judges God by emergent actions or commands that he or she does not understand, it won't bother anyone who has learned who God is through reading the Bible and being taught it by a gifted and prepared pastor-teacher.

In conclusion, the biblical position is that "good" is defined by God's Perfect and Unchanging Character. Therefore, whatever God commands is good because God commands it, and because God does not change, God commands whatever He commands because that thing is good since it derives from His perfect and unchanging character.

AntiChristian:
Likewise, I want the women to adorn themselves with respectable apparel, with modesty, and with self-control, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, as is proper for women who profess to worship God...

How many Christian know where this verse is in the Bible? State am if ya know o


...

Does your Church denomination follow this Bible verse(s)? Why not?

Hi there.

9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
1Ti 2:9 — 1Ti 2:10 (NIV)

It's not surprising that you think as you do. Not many Christians today care what the Bible actually says. Still, what is the point of mocking Christians at all?

As for following the Scriptures here, why does it concern you? Are you the judge of Christians? Did you die for us? Are you praying God for mercy on our behalf? Why should we care what you think?

GeneralDae:

You are getting many things wrong.

Jesus is compared to the passover lamb taking away sin because it was believed that the passover lamb brought great deliverance and victory to Isreal. What the new testament authors argued for is that those were symbols pointing to the true hero who would be led like a lamb to the slaughter. He is dying to take away the guilt of his people in the eyes of the jews who gave him up to the Romans.

He was their scapegoat just thesame way the lamb was the scapegoat to the Angel of death threatening the birth of the new nation, so also jesus offered himself as the ransom to the Romans threatening the birth of the new jesus movement.

The jewish religious leaders feared that the Romans would come into the city and destroy the nation because of the many followers of Jesus who shouted Hosannah when he rode on a donkey declaring him king of the jews. The pharisees in order to protect the people reasoned that it was better to give jesus up ( whom they hated) and prevent investigation by the Romans that could have led to the slaughter of many.
Jesus in this way gave himself up as a ransom to the Romans for the life of his disciples and his new movement and he became the lamb that was slain for the birth of a new nation.

The people accused him of many sins, putting on their scapegoat the sins of all Isreal and the sins of the world, he became a transgressor even though he was innocent. Paul and the later day christian authors extended the meaning of this sacrificial death for the jesus followers in Isreal, to the entire world and rightly so because if Jesus did not die, there would have been no great spread of the gospel by the disciples, and in essence no kingdom of God on earth.

As incomplete as your discussion of the Passover Lamb is, the sacrificial lambs in the Law were not all Passover Lambs. When Jesus was called the Lamb of God, the qualification attached was "that takes away the sins of the world." Whether you understand how this applies to the Passover Lamb or not (as it appears that you don't), that makes clear that Jesus came to die just as the lambs of sacrifice in the Law died and for the sins of all mankind.

This is the most obvious truth in the Bible. Nothing else the Bible has to say gets away from this. You have absolutely no chance of making sense of the Bible if you cannot accept this fundamental truth.

sonmvayina:
It's a market strategy...
They invented the genetic disease (sin) to sell the cure (salvation). They just have to convince you that your sickness was inherited and as such you need to buy the cure.
I don buy the idea of original sin..it never occured anywhere in the old testament.


Christians over to you..

Hello.

I'm only taking advantage of a good question. I'm sure it is obvious that you and I have little chance of any meaningful discussion.

No, the Bible does not teach that sin is inherited. What it teaches is that we all inherit a sin nature if we have a human father (Romans 5:12).

What a sin nature is is the corruption of our body so that it has dictates of its own that oppose the inclination of our spirits toward good. So the promptings of our body are always in the wrong direction until we take control of it through the Spirit and force it to heel, so to speak.

Nobody is ever guilty of their father's or ancestor's sin. We are all responsible for our own sin. But we all sin because we all inherited a morally corrupted/crippled body from our fathers.

Salvation is the same. We cannot inherit it any more than we can inherit sin. But we can choose it just as we can choose to sin or not to sin.

Cheers.

Biodun556:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ln-S7ZraUc

Hi there.

Bart hasn't been a Christian in a very long time. For most of his career, in fact, Bart has been agnostic. He didn't just reject Christianity.

You can check out his website. Or look him up on Wikipedia. Most of his works are dedicated to attacking the Bible.

His own crisis arose from reconciling a good God to the existence of evil and suffering. This happened, I think, around the time that he was doing his graduate studies. I could be wrong about that last because it's a long time now since he was last on my radar and a quick browsing of Wikipedia and his website doesn't give you those details.

Cheers.

Chiechezonam:

2Peter 1:3-8, "His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. For this very reason, make every effort to possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Spiritual growth includes: (1) increasing in your knowledge and understanding of God's Word, (2) decreasing in your frequency and severity of sin, (3) increasing in your practice of Christ-like qualities, and (4) increasing in your faith and trust in God. Perhaps the best summary of spiritual growth is becoming more like Jesus Christ. In 1 Corinthians 11:1, Paul says, "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ." Jesus Christ is the ultimate example of what it truly means to be spiritual.

Spiritual Growth - How is it done?
In order for spiritual growth to occur, you first need to make sure you possess a true spiritual life through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. "And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life" (1 John 5:11-12). When you believe in Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit lives inside of you (John 14:16-17) and you are a new creation in Christ! 2 Corinthians 5:17 says, "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" Your old nature, which is dominated by sin, is replaced with a new nature that is under the influence of God's Spirit (Romans 6-7). Spiritual growth can only occur in a person who knows the Lord Jesus Christ as his or her Savior.

Learning how to grow spiritually is a life-long journey which occurs as you read and apply God's Word to your life. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 teaches us, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." In order for spiritual growth to occur, we must be taught, rebuked, corrected, and trained by God's Word. Then we will be thoroughly equipped for every good work. This is the essence of spiritual growth.

Another key to Christian growth is walking in the Spirit. Galatians 5:16-18, 24-26 explains, "So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law…Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other."

Spiritual growth is a life-long process of manifesting the acts of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21) less and less and producing the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) more and more. Notice that it is the Holy Spirit who produces the fruit in us. Yes, we must submit ourselves to the Spirit's leading, but it is the Spirit who produces the fruit of spiritual growth in our lives. What does spiritual growth look like? Galatians 5:22-23 has the answer, "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law." If you are becoming more loving, more joyful, more kind, more self-controlled, etc., then you can rest assured that spiritual growth is genuinely occurring in your life.

God works in different people in different ways. Some people grow rapidly, while others grow slowly, but steadily. Our focus should not be on comparing ourselves with others, but on comparing ourselves with God's Word. The Scriptures are the mirror to show us what we are like spiritually and to shine light on the areas that need to experience and learn spiritual growth. James 1:23-25 declares, "Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it - he will be blessed in what he does."

Hi there.

This is very good work. I largely agree with you.

I would add a couple of things that I think are critical to the subject:

1. Spiritual growth does not come merely by reading the Bible. The Bible is not an open book to everyone. It demands that the reader also submit to a pastor-teacher who is gifted with a teaching gift and trained to teach the Scriptures.

11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
Eph 4:11 — Eph 4:13 (NIV)

2. Although, as you rightly pointed out, spiritual growth is not competitive, we are to be motivated by one another to grow spiritually everyday. We ought to use every opportunity that the Lord gives us to progress spiritually and bear fruit for Him. If we see someone who is doing it well, we are right to be motivated to do just as well. If someone is doing poorly, we are right to encourage and exhort them to do better. If we are doing well, we are right to rejoice in that gift of the Lord's. If we are doing poorly, we are right to be challenged by those who are doing better.

12 See to it, brothers and sisters, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. 13 But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called “Today,” so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness.
Heb 3:12 — Heb 3:13 (NIV)

24 And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, 25 not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another —and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
Heb 10:24 — Heb 10:25 (NIV)

Please see this link for more on the subject.

Cheers.

GeneralDae:

Oh my God, you are even quoting my favourite Jesus sayings from the gospels. None of these quotes mean what you think they mean.

Matthew 20v28 does not say that jesus came to be a human sacrifice bearing our sins to God. It says he came to be a ransom for many. What does ransom for many mean? What is the ransom being paid here and to whom?

John 11v51, what does it mean to die for the nation?

Again John 10 is simply saying he would lay his life down for his followers. How does this equate to a blood sacrifice for sin?

You want to talk about meanings? Interesting. Isn't that what everybody wants to do? What the Bible says on its surface is never what it means for people like you.

When the Lord Jesus says that He is giving His life as a ransom for many, He doesn't mean that He is?

When John the Baptist calls Him the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world, we are not to understand that in the same sense as the Lamb that is killed as a sacrifice for sins.

When we are told that He would die for the nation of Israel, it is not to be understood as a sacrifice for the sins of Israel too?

I don't think there would be any point at all in listening to anyone who wants to talk about what a thing means when the thing is as clear as daylight.

In4matic:
Ihedinobi3

If no animal ever cleansed sin, then why will a humans?

What a weird question! That you would even think that an animal can stand in for a human being is ridiculous in the extreme. It shows just how poor your understanding of the dynamics at play is.

It is human beings who sin against God. Therefore, it is a human being who must answer to God for them. This is the whole gist of Hebrews 2:14-17!

Do you even know what Christians believe and teach? Have you even heard the Gospel? Like, ever?!

GeneralDae:

I wonder where they get this sacrifice thing from. What I understand is that a lamb was slain on passover and the Israelites were delivered. This is symbolic and why Jesus' disciples believed he was the lamb of God who ushered in deliverance and a new covenant by his death.

No where in the gospels do we read that jesus would be offered as a human sacrifice to God carrying all our sins.

Hi there.

What a wild claim you just made!

28 "...just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
Matthew 20:28 (NKJV)

51 Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation...
John 11:51 (NKJV)

11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. 12 But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them. 13 The hireling flees because he is a hireling and does not care about the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. 15 As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.
17 “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”
Jn 10:11 — Jn 10:18 (NKJV)

Even if we didn't have such direct quotes, the Gospels are rich with the story of how God sent His Son to come and die for our sins so that we can be saved. I can't imagine how anyone could even dream of saying what you said.

In4matic:


Your position above is the classic reason Christians are so far behind in the journey of their soul.

Seeking a fall guy to hinge all their failing on.

Since you are a closed book, i see no need to go ahead.
When you are ready, you'll be taught.

For the silent reader, look at the above quote on sacrifice, How does it sound, an innocent, ignorant animal you bought in the market will be made to carry your sins...

Then again did Jesus death qualify as a sacrifice in Jewish standards?

A sacrifice must be
-A kosher animal, not a pig, or camel, or human
-without spot or wrinkle
-offered by a priest who is ceremonially in a pure state
- On an alter of God
- altar must be made of 12 Uncut stones

I ask the descerning mind, do you think Jesus hung like a criminal by pagan Roman soldiers qualify as a sacrifice?

Think on this

As I always say, it is not my problem what you want to believe or how you feel about my choices. I don't have to please you with my beliefs or lack thereof.

The Law of Moses was clearly an allegory. It pointed to something other than itself. No animal sacrifice ever cleansed sin. If it did, only one animal sacrifice would have sufficed. But countless animals were killed over the hundreds of years that the Law remained in force. So, they were nothing more than reminders of a far more potent Sacrifice that was yet to come.

Nonetheless, as you have said, there is no bridge between you and me. It is impossible for me to persuade you of the truth here and you obviously cannot deceive me either.

I must bid you cheers then.

In4matic:


I believe even the Bible answered this when it said, no longer shall it be said that a father shall eat sour grapes and the teeth of the children are set on edge ...

Also Proverbs advices all wise sons seeking wisdom to refrain from paying the debt of a stranger.

Put differently, no longer shall this wrong notion be said that one commits a sin, and another suffers the consequence.

This law is upheld in every other religion

It's not my problem what religions do. I am speaking as a Christian.

From that perspective, the Bible is clear that no one is punished just because someone they are connected to sinned. What I don't see in that passage in Ezekiel is anything to the effect that no one may take responsibility for another's failure and free them from their due punishment for it by taking said punishment on themselves.

Yes, it is true that the book of Proverbs teaches that we ought not to stand surety for strangers, but I don't see what that has to do with the issue. My question to you was whether it goes against any law for anybody to take responsibility for someone else's debts and pay them. I haven't seen your answer to that question. Proverbs certainly doesn't answer it with a "NO." It doesn't say that it is wrong to pay another person's debts, does it?

I think you know that your position is false. There is nothing wrong with anyone paying anyone else's debts if they so choose.

Jesus Christ chose to do that. The very Law taught that a kinsman-redeemer has the right to redeem a debtor from debt slavery if he wants to. The very Law taught that an animal may be killed in place of the sinner who should have been killed instead. That is to say that this principle is very deeply ingrained in Christianity. It is the very bedrock of Christianity.

In4matic:


Consider this, if you throw a stone up, it falls to the ground, that's the law of gravity, if you light a fire, there's heat, smoke and ashes; that's the law of combustion.

How do you think one Rapes a child, steals from others, kills and harvest human parts from a victim who wants to live as much as youand think by merely accepting Jesus as having died for you all sins are washed away.

The justice system prescribes such a criminal sinner to be castrated, then put to death thereby experiencing the same fate you gave another person.

As I said, I don't know anything that makes it wrong for one person to buy another person's debts and pay them, do you? If you do, why don't you share it here?

If Jesus took responsibility for all the sins of such a person, then that person's sins have been completely answered for. If such a person accepts this Sacrifice made in his behalf, then he is free to come back into God's embrace as God's child.

What would be unfair would be to punish such a person again after Jesus already suffered his punishment.

If, however, you are raising the issue of temporal justice, then God's forgiveness of sin does not absolve anyone of responsibility for their crimes here on earth. A murderer will still be executed under the law here on earth, but he will not be denied eternity with God if he became a believer in Jesus Christ and remained one until death.

FirstSon01:


again I'm sorry if you feel attacked again but you're veering away from the fact that the Bible endorsed slavery and even said a man who killed another human being just because he paid another human money should be let go. the bible clearly stated and called a man another's property and as such the owner can do to him as he would have done with a goat or a dog when it annoyed him.

how you can claim the Bible accepted slavery as a daily trivial life issue that cannot be escaped but treats sexual intercourse between two consenting adults as a sacrilege but a man assaulting another man to the point of death is a trivial life issue??

hear yourself speak.

I think that it is obvious that you are not reading what the verse says. I don't know any part of the Bible that teaches that when any man strikes his goat or dog with a rod and it dies, the animal must be avenged. Perhaps you know some passage that teaches this, but I've personally never seen it. There is one that warns that killing another man's animal would require an exchange of a live animal for the dead one, but that is not the vengeance that I see here.

Obviously, the law here simply told the Israelites of that time to treat their slaves humanely. They were not to beat them to death like other nations were doing at the time. They were to show some restraint (which is partly why the beating was to be done with a standard disciplinary tool).

However, a slave could die a few days after he is beaten. It is true that the death may be due to the severity of the beating, but it could also not be. Either way, the owner was to be spared because he showed some restraint when he beat his slave. The Israelites were to understand from the survival of the slave after the beating that it was not his owner's intent to kill him.

I have also told you that the Bible was merely accommodating the realities of human society at the time. This is what the Lord Jesus Himself said about another issue of the Law:

8 He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.
Matthew 19:8 (NASB)

The Law accommodated the weakness of human nature. It allowed for the fact that certain demands or commands would be way too much for the humans being spoken to at the time. That it did not try to censure some things did not mean then that it either accepted or encouraged them.

This is the point: That passage neither accepted slavery nor encouraged it. In fact, the fact that it outlawed beating slaves to death would have made slavery unappealing to some potential owners. In other words, your claim is not upheld by that passage.

To put it quite simply, you are completely ignoring what the passage itself is saying and making unjustifiable accusations against the Bible.

1. The Bible neither accepts nor encourages slavery.

2. The Bible does not endorse slavery.

3. The Bible does not say that a man may treat his slave like his goat or dog.

4. The Bible does not say that a man may beat his slave to the point of death and go free.

Your claims to the contrary are all false.

In4matic:


So God the Father is now definitely a different being from God the son...

Ok, let's leave that there for later,

Now where is the justice in punishing one person for the sins of another ? That is against every known natural law.

God deals with laws, and everything God created is governed by laws....
Why should this be an exception?

A different Person, yes.

I'm not sure I understand. When someone buys your debts and pays them for you, what law does that break? I'm not sure I've ever heard that that is unjust in any way.

In4matic:


Bros, read what you wrote above and see the incongruency of it all.

God must punish sin to be just...
So he takes on flesh to punishes himself so man's sins (which are now his brothers) will be given perpetual amnesty for raping a child)

Where is the justice therein?

Hello.

I wrote it myself, and if that's not enough, I often reread my own posts for their spiritual benefit.

No, I did not say that God punished Himself. I said that God the Father gave God the Son as a Man as a sacrifice for the sins of human beings.

I also did not say anything about perpetual amnesty for raping a child. I said that God forgives human sins because He provided a substitute for them. Anyone who does not accept that substitute will have to suffer the punishment that is due to their sinfulness.

I'm not sure what is unjust about all that. Maybe you could explain a little better.

FirstSon01:


this shows you haven't read your bible much yet,

Exodus 21 vs 20 and 21
"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod, and he dies there and then, he must be avenged. But if he survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, since he is the other’s property"

It does? I'm sorry to hear that. It would seem that you're an expert on the Bible then. But I seem to recall you having trouble remembering where the Bible teaches that a rapist is to be rewarded with his victim for his crime. I didn't seem to have a similar problem since I remembered what the Bible actually teaches on it quite easily.

Suffice to say that it is ordinarily quite insulting to accuse a professional of ignorance of his trade. It is true that many Christians are not diligent in studying the Bible, so there is often merit to the accusation that a Christian does not know his Bible, but it is still an accusation that a reasonable person should avoid making flippantly because a Christian should be assumed to know what the Bible actually teaches. When you make it flippantly, you might insult someone just as you have done twice now to me.

Regarding the passage that you shared, I don't read anything there that says that slavery should be accepted or encouraged. If you do, I'll need you to explain how you do. What I do read there is that slavery was regulated. That is, the Bible simply treated it as a human reality and provided restraints for it. That passage, after all, is not the only one that addresses the issue.

Besides the various laws that restrained wicked human impulses with respect to slavery, there are other Scriptures that make clear that slavery, like other unpleasant realities of life in this life, is only to be tolerated, if we cannot escape it, not to be aspired to.

15 No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.
John 15:15 (NASB)

21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. 22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave. 23  You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.
1Co 7:21 — 1Co 7:23 (NASB)

We who believe look forward to a world where slavery is no longer a thing. For now, we endure all the wickedness of this world as we strive for God's great rewards for all those who love Him.

Now, I strongly recommend that you stop attacking my choice to believe in the Bible. If you want to know what I believe and why, I will gladly answer you, but it is unreasonable to expect me to make you happy with my choices. I have not demanded that you stop being either atheistic or agnostic. I certainly hope that you will decide to become a Christian, and I am happy to help in every way that I can toward your becoming one, but I respect your right to believe or not believe whatever you like.

Peaceyw:

But people aren't appreciating God's benevolence by giving us freewill. Think about atheist for a minute, racists, oppressors. Everything is just messed up

I'm not sure I follow. Do people have to appreciate God's benevolence in giving them free will for things to not be messed up?

The point of giving some of His creatures free will is just to allow angels and humans to choose whether to submit to Him or to rebel against Him. I don't see how that messes everything up.

Jman24:



Come on .. it's a forum. Nobody is taking away your right to believe what you wanna believe.
But you can do well by not shying away from certain questions like biblical Jesus

Hello.

I find comments like yours quite provoking.

It would help in a conversation if you try to avoid patronizing those you wish to discuss with. You have done this in the past with me too.

If you don't believe that my right to believe anything was not challenged, then explain how it wasn't. If you believe that I was shying away from questions, explain how I was.

FirstSon01:


the bible accepted and encouraged slavery, so your trust for the bible will make you accept it as well??

I don't believe that I have read any such thing in the Bible. Where do you read it? Might this be like your misconception of the Mosaic laws about rape?

FirstSon01:


@ your first sentence- I'm sorry if I misconstrued you

@ your last sentence- does that make hell a figurative expression??

and then when I mean to be left alone I meant on Earth and not forcibly taken to hell, secondly if god is omnipotent then he should have known right from time that I was going to deny him right?? why still create me to come suffer for what was going to happen nonetheless?

The Lake of Fire is not figurative at all. I'm not sure why anything I said should give you the idea that it might be.

As for leaving you on Earth and not putting you in the Lake of Fire, the question again is "why?" The Earth belongs to God, not to you. So if you insist on being His enemy, why should He let you share it with Him and His family?

As for creating you knowing what you would choose, that was His prerogative as God, wasn't it? You get to decide for yourself what your relationship with God will be, but God gets to create whatever and whoever He wants. Do you wish to deny Him His right just because you want to assert yours? Does that make any sense to you?

FirstSon01:


what sin have you seen a day old commit before??
be logical.....
just cause your bible said all have seen you want to push the agenda that day olds sin??

Let me say again: I have the right to believe anything I wish to believe just as you yourself do too. I won't believe something just because you said it. If you don't like that, I'm not going to feel bad just because you don't. I will believe what the Bible says because I trust the Bible. I don't need your permission to do so.

Peaceyw:

it seems most of the problem of this world is as a result of free will. I once read on a topic from this thread that since God knew that the tree in the garden of eden will leas to sin, He could have excluded it and someone replied that if God had excluded that tree from the garden, the there will be no freewill

It is true that creature free will is why sin and all its consequent evil exist. But it would be wrong to imagine that life would be better without free will. You can appreciate the beauty and sweetness of life only because you have free will. That is why God gave us that precious gift.

FirstSon01:


you equated raping a little girl to me not wanting to accept god's religion (or way of life if you may please)


and if he loves the unbelievers why doesn't he let them be?? I don't see why I should rot in hell forever even when I don't do anything bad or hurt anyone before but just because I chose to be atheist.

Please, try to avoid putting words in my mouth. As courteous as I want to be in order to have a decent conversation with you, I do take exception to false accusations among other bad behavior in conversation. As I always say, you don't have to believe anything I say, but you certainly shouldn't ascribe things to me that I didn't say.

I made clear before and in my most recent post what I was equating to what. If you disagree with my comparison, then point out why you do. That is all you need to do.

I have explained this question as clearly as I know how to. If something is still unclear to you in my answers, I will gladly try again. But I can't repeat myself forever. It won't do you or me any good. All I have said is that the Lake of Fire is exactly what you are asking for when you insist that God leave you to your own devices. The issue with that demand is that when you get it, it won't be everything you hoped that it would be.

Everything good is God's gift. He made it all. You did not. If you want it, then you need to be friends with Him. You can't rob Him of any of it. That is simply impossible. If you try to remove Him from any of it, you will end up with none of it. That is what the Lake of Fire means.

FirstSon01:


lemme reiterate, those soldiers fighting for their country love their country and hate the other country so god loved the Israelites and hated the jebusites?? this is what I was pointing at.

secondly I don't ever remember rebelling against god, do you??

p.s don't quote Romans 8:23 "for all have sined" cause not all have sined. a day old baby hasn't signed against anyone so that verse is technically not correct.

The Bible does say that God is always angry with the wicked. Considering the wickedness of the Canaanites, even wicked human beings like us would be happy to be rid of them. I don't see why we should think that God would be different from us in that regard.

As for rebelling against God, I do remember doing so. Every time that I choose to act contrary to Him, I am rebelling against Him. You seem by your own words to actually prefer that path, so I am puzzled by your claim that you don't remember doing so.

Finally, I'm afraid I can't take your word for it that not all have sinned. I see no reason to believe that day-old infants don't sin just because you claim that they don't, do you?

FirstSon01:


hi again ,
well this is logical to an extent but not so logical, you can't equate or quantify correcting a child (which some African parents do extremely though causing lifetime trauma on their kids) to lifetime torture.
what I'm asking is different from answer, I'm asking if god loves the jebusites that he told the Israelites to annihilate for their land?

I'm not sure I see where the Jebusites showed up in your post. I'm only just seeing them here for the first time.

Also, I did not equate correcting a child to lifetime torture. I was only disagreeing with your definition of love. It is not God's love for unbelievers that sends them to the Lake of Fire. Rather, it is His Love for believers that sends unbelievers to the Lake of Fire.

His Love for unbelievers is what gives them every opportunity here in this life to avoid that fate.

FirstSon01:


this is quite long but I managed to read through. thanks for caring enough to explain that much sir.

answering to what you said I think I would be unfair to equate raping a little girl to me not accepting to be in a religion, which according to Christianity rape isn't so much of a crime as the punishment doesn't seem much of a punishment ( I'll add the Bible verse when I remember) which if a man rapes a woman he's expected to pay her bride price and marry her, so that means a woman can be raped and then forcibly married of to her rapist. sounds illogical right??

secondly, if God is love he really should understand that I just need to be on my own and not have anything to do with him is that too much to ask?? (P.s. this is just for explanatory purposes only as I do not believe in his existence).

I don't think I could agree that there is a false equivalence there.

First, the issue is that sin is a crime against God just as rape of your infant daughter is a crime against you. That is the whole point. If you disagree, then I must ask you what you think that sin is and why you think that it is what you think it is. That is where the equivalence lies.

Second, rejecting a religion is neither here nor there since Christianity neither professes to be a religion nor accepts that it is one. It is only an offer of reconciliation to the God against whom we rebelled. If you accept the offer, you are reinstated into His family as His child. If you don't, you remain His enemy.

Third, is this a small matter that one insists on remaining God's enemy? I think that you can judge that. If you insist on being left to your own self, as you went on to say, then that is exactly what God will do to you. The Lake of Fire is God's acceptance of the free will choice of His rebellious creatures to be cut off from Him eternally.

The problem here is that people who make that choice appear to fail to appreciate that it actually means that you reject all of God's good gifts as well. You can't live in God's House while insisting that He leave you alone. If you don't want Him, then you cannot live in His house too. The Lake of Fire is where God will not "be." Nothing of His will be there except His absolute rejection of those who reject Him. If anyone does not like that, then they must turn around and accept His mercy. There is no other alternative.

As for the matter of the Mosaic laws about rape, it is a different conversation. Please see this link and the subsequent discussion for my position on the matter.

FirstSon01:
Many times when walking down the street you may have been accosted by people from various Christian Churches of different denominations speaking to you about God's love with a popular phrase "God loves you", in retrospect and putting all emotional sentiments aside the "God's love" spoken about is somewhat ironical to the definition of love.
A very acceptable definition of someone you love is someone whom you wouldn't want to be hurt or hurt so why does god have a hell fire??
According to the Bible god loves everyone and would do anything to protect, provide and care for you as long as you accept him as your "lord and personal saviour" but wouldn't fail to send you to burn forever in never ending lake of fire if you don't accept him and even if you accept him and do everything for him you could still end up in perpetual pain and suffering forever if you tell a lie to save a teen from being lynched by a bloodthirsty mob by the time his "trumpet" sounds.
So is this love?

Firstson's Tales

Hi again.

On your other thread, you asked why God sent His Son to die for human beings. I already offered an answer there. Here though, it seems harder to give you an answer that will not result in unpleasantness. Nonetheless, I'll try.

I'm not sure on what authority you define love as you do. People love their children and still discipline them when they misbehave in order to prevent them from falling into bad patterns of behavior that might destroy their lives later on. I wouldn't say that their love is a lie because of that, would you?

I wonder too if you would say that a soldier who puts his life on the line to kill people who are trying to either kill or enslave his compatriots is not loving because he kills these other people.

Therefore, I can't agree with your definition of love.

Why does God have a hell fire? Because He loves the creation that He made. Not everyone does. Some people want to destroy the beautiful creation that He made. Some people only know how to inflict suffering on themselves and everything around them. Why must God's love then force Him to let these people share eternity with others whom they will only continue to do harm to? What kind of love is that?

The Lake of Fire exists to separate those who hate God and His world from those who love Him and His world. That too is God's Love.

Peaceyw:
I was reading a Christian book by Dr. D.K Olukoya (M.F.M General overseer) and in that book he said that God didn't create devil, He created lucifer. It was lucifer that turned himself into the devil. According to him, God never had any plans for a devil, satan, liar, deceiver and killer. So my question is that, if God never had any plan to create the devil, why did the devil appear?

Hi there.

It's a good question. The simple answer is free will.

God did create a perfect angel, a cherub who was to rule over all the other angels and the whole Earth as His regent.

It was because Satan also possessed free will that He could desire something that God did not give him: God's Own eternal status and throne.

Indulging that arrogant desire is what made him evil.

17 “Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty;
You corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor;
I cast you to the ground,
I laid you before kings,
That they might gaze at you.
Ezekiel 28:17 (NKJV)

FirstSon01:
Hello and good evening everyone, I'm an atheist and agnostic as well so I've been searching on many religions to find the real one( if there is any) and to unravel a few mysteries as regards creation so I have a few questions to ask and I will be glad if I get some answers.

So since this is the Easter period I have a few questions to ask the Christians...

1) why did god send his son (Jesus) to come and die on Earth??

Hi there.

I applaud your words. I encourage everyone to seek the truth and be sure of it. The trouble, of course, is when people really aren't seeking the truth but rather are looking for some excuse to reject it. But as unfortunate as that is, it is really each person's responsibility and right to deal with the truth as he or she pleases. I try to avoid infringing on anybody's right to believe or not believe whatever they want.

So, bear with me if I don't make it my responsibility to make my answers acceptable to you. I will give answers that I am convinced are true and defend them to the best of my ability under the constraint of the circumstances of our conversation, but in the end, I don't presume to be able to make you accept anything I say. You alone can choose what you will or will not believe for reasons that appeal to you.

Regarding your question, God sent Jesus to come and die for our sins because sin must be paid for in order for God to be just and God must spare the sinner in order for Him to be merciful.

It is easy for atheists today to pontificate about forgiveness, but not a single one will consider the law that exacts punishment for bad deeds a bad thing when it is they who suffer a crime. For example, if someone were to rape your infant daughter to death, I am pretty sure that you would not consider forgiveness to be the right answer or response to the crime even if the rapist were to apologize for it.

Sin is disobedience to God, a violation of His Will for the Universe that He created. The Universe belongs to Him. Whenever we sin, we abuse it in some way. That abuse must be paid for or else God would not be just. An unjust God is an impossibility. A God Who is unjust is imperfect. Imperfection cannot self-exist. Therefore, it is a contradiction for God to be unjust.

However, God is also merciful by nature. If He was vindictive, then He couldn't be loving. If He isn't loving, then He would not create a universe that would depend on Him in every single way for its very existence. Therefore, the very existence of creation contradicts the existence of an unloving God. God must be loving or else He would abide eternally alone.

Since God is both loving and just, He must forgive sinners while punishing sin. He cannot excuse sin but He also will not destroy sinners without offering them an escape from just punishment.

Therefore, God provided a bridge, a sacrifice in the Person of Jesus Christ Who Himself is God but also became Man so that as Man He could legally bear the responsibility for man's crimes against God while also making it unnecessary for God to punish the rest of His brothers and sisters for said crimes.

This, then, is why Jesus Christ was given by the Lord God to die for man's sins: so that God could forgive all sinners while ensuring that His Justice is served.