How exactly was Jesus' crucifixion a sacrifice?

originally posted by: JackReyes
No one is, well, was, immortal but God himself. You see immortality means the impossibility of dying. So the very fact that Jesus died shows that he was not immortal. He had to give up his life.

I understand that the body of Jesus was extinguished. Again, that's not really the issue here. The issue is that he had previous knowledge for what he was going to do, and he knew exactly how it would unfold, and he knew exactly where he would be after his body was killed. Once again, He never really 'lost' anything at all.

originally posted by: JackReyes
Jesus subjected himself as a human and learned obedience to his Father. And then died, he gave up his life for all humankind.

Except for he never really 'gave up his life' because the whole process was to give him a living body in the first place. It's not the same as us, where, to our knowledge, this is all we've ever known. If a human were to do what jesus did, that would make it a sacrifice because in all actuality, they have no clue what would happen once they died here on earth. Jesus knew beforehand that he was from heaven, there for his body was nothing more than a disposable shell.

originally posted by: JackReyes
He was not immortal. He died for our sins, and remained dead for parts of three days, a perfect, innocent, humble, loving person.

Except for he didn't really die for our sins, he just existed in heaven before hand, and then came down for a brief period of time before returning back to heaven. There is no sacrifice in that.

originally posted by: Leahn
That was not what you claimed. Your exact words were 'How did all humanity start from single family, when today we know that minimum number of humans for humanity to survive is around 10,000?!' Since you claim that we KNOW that, go ahead and prove it?

No, actually, I didn't say that. You're quoting the wrong person. Superfrog said that. It was posted on Page 12

originally posted by: LeahnEverything you say is irrelevant.

You claim that humanity started from two individuals, I showed you that incest born children have a massively increased chance with life threatening birth defects, how is that irrelevant?

originally posted by: Leahn
Considering that I am a father, and that the doctor does teach you about birth defect (there is always a chance of birth defects for any woman older than 25 years, so they have to explain it to you), you are essentially talking about something you know nothing about to someone who had to recently study about the subject.

Perhaps you need to go study what I claimed before you post your continued fallacies. I never claimed that non-incest born children don't have a chance of birth defects. In fact, the graph I posted even shows that there is still a percentage of life threatening birth defects in non-incest born children.

Are you even paying attention?

originally posted by: Leahn
To make it clear to you how irrelevant your statistics are, the chance of birth defect for a second-degree relationship, that is, if you had a children with your cousin, is about the same as the chance of birth defect for a woman who is 45 years old on her first child. It is a exponential curve that starts at 25 years old for women.

I am well aware of the fact that the older a woman is, the higher chance there is for complications in this area. Again, How is showing you that we have statistical evidence that a massive percentage of children born from incest is not relevant when claiming a two-individual start to humanity?....

originally posted by: Leahn
No, I am saying that radioactive dating is a method that depends on assumptions that can be changed to suit whatever finding the researcher needs to find.

Perhaps you're unaware that there is more than one dating tool that we have, and that they can, and are used to cross verify dates.

Also, you're free to back up your claim for once, and actually show that your stance is accurate.

originally posted by: Leahn
I need to remind you because you believe you can lecture me about theology.

Well considering you haven't actually made a rebuttal to that comment, why should I think anything other than simply "you don't know what you're talking about"?

Not only that, but there are a number of surveys out there that all show that Atheists actually know more about the bible than Christians do (statistically speaking). So yes, I do believe it is my right to lecture you about theology, Unless of course you wrote the book?

originally posted by: Leahn
Do you want to act as if you know more about theology than I do? Then I will have to keep reminding you that you are the one that are here asking for help to understand the subject

I'm not asking about the theological matters within the subject, I'm showing how it is not logical to say that Jesus made any sort of sacrifice when he came down to be crucified.

Since not a single one of you theists have answered me this, perhaps you can. Which of the following is a greater sacrifice?

1) Jesus came down, knowing that he had to die for our sins, and then went back to heaven shortly after
2) Jesus came down, knowing that he had to die for our sins, and also knowing that in order to save us he had to go to hell for the rest of eternity

Here is the logical answer

#1 is not a sacrifice, it's a nano-scaled bump in the road of infinite time
#2 Jesus actually sacrificed his eternal life in the best place in existence (heaven), and chose to go to hell for us.

originally posted by: Leahn
It takes a lot of hubris, not to mention ego, to act like you know more about the subject than the people that are teaching it to you.

I don't claim to know everything about the bible, but I will point out false notions when I see them.

originally posted by: Leahn
Again, you are a person with a poor recollection of what you learned of Newtonian Physics on high school, acting all high and mighty about Quantum Physics, talking everybody down and declaring it to make no sense and be wholly wrong because you cannot grasp it. When everyone else clearly sees that the faulty lies on you and on your ignorance. Be humble. Remember that you were the one that asked the question. At least, be humble and try to learn, instead of acting like you are superior to the ones that are teaching you. Or at least be courteous and pretend to.

Everyone else? Looks like the posts with the most stars here seem to agree with me.

~ There is nothing arrogant about questioning illogical claims
~ There is nothing arrogant about correcting a claim using the same source material as the opposition is using (in fact, that's just good debating)
~ I don't see anyone but yourself claiming that you know more or less about the bible

So exactly who is the culprit here?

originally posted by: Leahn
You only consider so because you refuse to acknowledge people's answer

I acknowledge their answer perfectly fine. That doesn't mean I have to accept it as factual. Especially when it's clearly an illogical answer to begin with.

originally posted by: Leahn
and demand that God follows your rules of sacrifice instead of His.

How can I make demands to something that does not exist? The only 'rule' to sacrifice is to follow the definition of sacrifice. In the context to the subject we are discussing, Jesus never lost anything or gave up anything for anything else.

He was given a living body with knowledge that he'd go back to heaven. How is that a sacrifice?

originally posted by: Leahn
Loss of life is not a sacrifice. There are multiple examples of resurrections in the Bible, all clearly demonstrating that death from sin is not eternal, not irreversible. Death was never intended to be eternal.

It is a sacrifice if you're not eternal. If I were to push my wife out of the way of a moving vehicle, knowing full well that I will be hit instead, that is not a sacrifice? It is for us humans because we don't know that Heaven exists, or that there is an afterlife, or that we existed before hand and will exist after.

Jesus did know these things, that is why (as you seem to agree now), his 'loss of life is not a sacrifice'.

originally posted by: Leahn
Again, your disagreement lies in the fact that you are demanding that God follows your rules of what would constitute an acceptable sacrifice, instead of His. The problem does not lie on people's explanation. It lies on your hubris to consider your standard of sacrifice to be superior to God's, and the demand that God subjects Himself to your standard.

There is no "my sacrifice". Sacrifice, as defined by the English language dictionary is: an act of giving up something valued for the sake of something else regarded as more important or worthy.

As you have stated, in Jesus' case, loss of life is not a sacrifice. So, you must agree with me then that Jesus never lost anything, Jesus never gave up anything, Jesus' Crucifixion was not a sacrifice.

originally posted by: Leahn

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: JackReyes

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: JackReyes
Yes, you are correct, I should have said 'eternal'.
However, how would that make my argument any less valid?

Because of the difference between immortality and everlasting life. Do you know what it is?

I thought it was eternal? Nevertheless, enlighten me

I already did explain it to you here. Yet, you refuse to acknowledge people's answers to you, all the while claiming that the whole subject does not make sense, even when it is becoming clearer and clearer to everyone that it is you who are refusing to even attempt to understand it.

You make a lot of judgements on people considering you're from a religion that teaches only God can judge....

If I ever don't acknowledge someone personally, it's because someone else already did it for me, or because I honestly missed the comment.

originally posted by: Murgatroid
originally posted by: vethumanbeing

vhb: I am Gnostic and hold no belief systems.

Murgatroid: Gnosticism is no different from all of the other fake 'belief systems'...
They all have a hidden agenda and just like all other cults, they think that they alone know the truth.
Gnosticism a dead end in any search for ultimate truth and a complete waste of time...
Studying it makes just as much sense as studying Scientology.

No study required; not a cult not a religion not a dead end; what is tiresome is those that haven't looked at what this is (self awareness/enlightenment) Western capitalistic style.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Leahn

ah, thank you. i have read the post you linked, and while i find myself wholly unable to agree with it, i also dont challenge your right to an opinion.

i do agree with hecate666. jesus was never in any danger whatsoever. and his sacrifice wasnt a sacrifice anymore than driving my volkswagen directly into a tree and using the insurance payout to upgrade to a lockheed sr-71.

The handshake deals [by others] were made before Jesus's incarnation; the only thing HE had to do was remember them (in the short time of 33 years) as a human being and carry out what was tasked to him to accomplish. I would imagine the better question would be "what did that that 'deal' entail"?

a reply to: TzarChasm

what does incest have to do with anything? i wasnt aware that jesus was a product of incest nor that incest was a contributing factor in his crucifixion.

My post was in answer to SuperFrog's question which was

We still did not get answer, who did Adam and Eve's children make babies with?? How did all humanity start from single family, when today we know that minimum number of humans for humanity to survive is around 10,000?!

I believe the post was right on and not a trolling. I think you have misunderstood as at times you seem to do.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Leahn

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Yep, Hecate666 is not entitled to opinion...

I forgot why... please do remind us.

Ad-Hominem at its best, where at least Hecate666 is on topic...

Yes, because answering a question of "how was Jesus' death a sacrifice" with "it was not a sacrifice, the true sacrifice is people that die every day" is completely on topic and a matter of opinion.

It is like answering a history question of "how did world war I start" with "I don't consider it a war, the true war is what the politicians do to us every day."

i might have missed it in all the ruckus of the last 17 pages, but did you provide an actual explanation of how jesus' death constitutes as a legitimate sacrifice?

Or the reasoning behind it (initial proposal, [can you do this], time allowed and following through). There was so much information left out of this scenario Jesus was privy to prior to incarnation ; and if realized the entire con (tract) would never have taken this burden upon himself to become in future a 'Godlike worshiped icon dynasty' ripe for corruption. Something went wrong; he only remembered the good parts of the 'con', totally unaware of the potential negatives. "Hey You" created yet another dogmatic religion (which was never Jesus's purpose). The message he imparted was the idea; not the religion that followed.

originally posted by: windword
What rules?

God's rules. Romans 1:32: "Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death."
God's game, God's rules.

originally posted by: windword

Genesis 4:6
Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7"If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.

There's no hope of "mastering sin" by believing that someone else's spilled blood will magically remove "sin". There is no such natural law or rule that says the murder of an innocent victim will "save the world".

Again, God's rules.

Leviticus 17:11 "For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life."

Hebrews 9:22 "In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."

originally posted by: windword
Everybody has to die. If Jesus existed, so did he. Those are the rules. Jesus' death was no greater sacrifice than my own death. We are ALL spiritual being have a temporary physical experience.

No, the rule is that he who sins has to die. It does not ever say that he who is without sin will also die. In fact, the Bible says the exact opposite of it. ""I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die."

a reply to: Leahn

See what I wrote above. As I said to another poster who raised the same argument, is not the death itself that is relevant. There are multiple examples of resurrections in the Bible, both in the OT and the NT showing that death was never intended to be eternal. To point was to die sinless. While human, Jesus was, in fact, human. He was subjected to the same temptations that we are, with the sole difference that he was not naturally inclined to sin. He was, in fact, very much like Adam. A perfect human, with no natural inclination to sin, being subjected to temptation to sin.

and what is your interpretation of sin?

The sacrifice lies in that he was under no obligation to help us. He choose to. The sacrifice lies in that he would be subjected to all of our troubles, under no fault of his own, and under the obligation to not to fail, while bearing the whole destiny of mankind on his shoulders. And yet, he choose to.

with that explanation in mind, i still think eternity in hell would have been a more suitable "sacrifice".

And because he did not fail, he was rewarded, yes, and royally so, and deservingly so. But there was no guarantee that he would not fail. He would have to face Satan, both directly and indirectly. And if he failed, he would actually die because he would be a sinner, then. And yet, he was under no obligation to help us. And yet, he still choose to.

the bolded part is where it stops being a sacrifice.

How was that not a sacrifice? As I said before, I beg to differ.

he didnt lose anything. he gained everything. where is he right now? what condition is he in right now? according to your tales, he is alive and well and blessing people all over the world. that doesnt sound dead to me.

originally posted by: Ghost147
I understand that the body of Jesus was extinguished. Again, that's not really the issue here. The issue is that he had previous knowledge for what he was going to do, and he knew exactly how it would unfold, and he knew exactly where he would be after his body was killed. Once again, He never really 'lost' anything at all.

Yes, no, and no, respectively.

originally posted by: Ghost147
No, actually, I didn't say that. You're quoting the wrong person. Superfrog said that.

Then your argument is irrelevant. It does not support the original statement. In fact, it has nothing to do with the original statement whatsoever. Why exactly did you post it again?

originally posted by: Ghost147
You claim that humanity started from two individuals, I showed you that incest born children have a massively increased chance with life threatening birth defects, how is that irrelevant?

It is irrelevant because the life expectancy was so low that they would die from a myriad of causes before 'life threatening birth defects' had a chance to kill any of them.

originally posted by: Ghost147
Perhaps you're unaware that there is more than one dating tool that we have, and that they can, and are used to cross verify dates.

Yes. Perhaps you ignored what I said the first time. The results vary wildly, and are based on assumptions that are cherry picked to produce the results that they desire.

originally posted by: Ghost147
Also, you're free to back up your claim for once, and actually show that your stance is accurate.

Sure. Let's deal with a subject that is more in tone with the website's original purpose. The dating of the moon rocks the Apollo mission brought back. Let's assume for the sake of the argument that the rocks are real, the moon landing did occur, and all that.

This table lists all the published results from the radioactive dating of the rocks, which vary from 0.04 million years to 8.2 million years. Those results were used to confirm that the moon is, in fact, 4.43 million years old. Except the ones that don't confirm it and were discarded because it does not fit the narrative.

originally posted by: Ghost147
Well considering you haven't actually made a rebuttal to that comment, why should I think anything other than simply "you don't know what you're talking about"?

Yes, I have.

originally posted by: Ghost147
Not only that, but there are a number of surveys out there that all show that Atheists actually know more about the bible than Christians do (statistically speaking). So yes, I do believe it is my right to lecture you about theology, Unless of course you wrote the book?

Yes, of course, there are. Also, I have a bridge to sell you.

originally posted by: Ghost147
I'm not asking about the theological matters within the subject, I'm showing how it is not logical to say that Jesus made any sort of sacrifice when he came down to be crucified.

Since not a single one of you theists have answered me this, perhaps you can. Which of the following is a greater sacrifice?

1) Jesus came down, knowing that he had to die for our sins, and then went back to heaven shortly after
2) Jesus came down, knowing that he had to die for our sins, and also knowing that in order to save us he had to go to hell for the rest of eternity

Hell does not exist. What are you talking about?

originally posted by: Ghost147
I don't claim to know everything about the bible, but I will point out false notions when I see them.

You are the only one with the false notions.

originally posted by: Ghost147
Everyone else? Looks like the posts with the most stars here seem to agree with me.

~ There is nothing arrogant about questioning illogical claims
~ There is nothing arrogant about correcting a claim using the same source material as the opposition is using (in fact, that's just good debating)
~ I don't see anyone but yourself claiming that you know more or less about the bible

So exactly who is the culprit here?

Agreed to the first, second and third. Are you under illusion that you have done any of those things?

originally posted by: Ghost147
I acknowledge their answer perfectly fine. That doesn't mean I have to accept it as factual. Especially when it's clearly an illogical answer to begin with.

The only illogical thing here is your refusal to acknowledge people's answer, and then complain that no suitable answer was given.

originally posted by: Ghost147
How can I make demands to something that does not exist? The only 'rule' to sacrifice is to follow the definition of sacrifice. In the context to the subject we are discussing, Jesus never lost anything or gave up anything for anything else.

He was given a living body with knowledge that he'd go back to heaven. How is that a sacrifice?

I already answered that to you. You simply refuse to acknowledge the answer. I am not going to link it to you for the third time.

originally posted by: Ghost147
It is a sacrifice if you're not eternal. If I were to push my wife out of the way of a moving vehicle, knowing full well that I will be hit instead, that is not a sacrifice? It is for us humans because we don't know that Heaven exists, or that there is an afterlife, or that we existed before hand and will exist after.

Again, the multiple instances of resurrections that happened in the Bible demonstrate that the death, even if you are not an eternal being, is not the end. God can bring anyone back to life, any time He wants, regardless of when the person died.

Anyway, for the sake of the argument, I will repeat myself once more. The death itself is not the relevant part. The relevant part was to die sinless. Now, please go ahead and keep ignoring the answers that are being given to you, pretending that no one gave them.

originally posted by: Ghost147
There is no "my sacrifice". Sacrifice, as defined by the English language dictionary is: an act of giving up something valued for the sake of something else regarded as more important or worthy.

As you have stated, in Jesus' case, loss of life is not a sacrifice. So, you must agree with me then that Jesus never lost anything, Jesus never gave up anything, Jesus' Crucifixion was not a sacrifice.

Here it is, again, you demanding that God follows your standard of sacrifice, instead of His.

originally posted by: Ghost147
You make a lot of judgements on people considering you're from a religion that teaches only God can judge....

And here we go again with atheists acting like they know more about Christian religion that actual practicing Christians. Please, amuse me. Where does the Bible teach this?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
what is your interpretation of sin?

The same of the Bible. Anything that goes against the laws of God. (1 John 3:4)

originally posted by: TzarChasm
with that explanation in mind, i still think eternity in hell would have been a more suitable "sacrifice".

Hell, as understood by the majority of people, does not exist.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
the bolded part is where it stops being a sacrifice.

Let me make an human analogy. Suppose you start your own company. You struggle, you pay your bills on time, you advertise, you put in the extra hours, you lose nights of sleep, you lose weekends with your friends, with your family, you avoid purchasing anything that is not absolutely necessary for you to save money, missing the opportunity to have the best games, the best cell phones, the best cars. In the end, after all was said and done, you find yourself in a good situation financially, and you can relax and enjoy your life a little more. Was none of it a sacrifice because you were rewarded by it in the end?

originally posted by: Leahn
Yes, no, and no, respectively.

Thank you on elaborating on your position, you've really nailed me to the T on this one....

originally posted by: Leahn
Then your argument is irrelevant. It does not support the original statement. In fact, it has nothing to do with the original statement whatsoever. Why exactly did you post it again?

I never said I agreed with Superfrogs wording in his original statement, did I?

I posted it because:

~ we do have evidence of a general number for a stable and healthy population.
~ we know that it would be impossible for two individuals to create the diversity we see today, let alone have healthy enough offspring to sustain a population without dying off
~ we have tons of evidence that shows various different cultures in various different times and in areas where they could not have gotten to in the last 6000 years
~ Virtually everything we see around us counters the position of biblical liberalism.

So how about you actually county my information, instead of just attempting to slander my position?

originally posted by: Leahn
It is irrelevant because the life expectancy was so low that they would die from a myriad of causes before 'life threatening birth defects' had a chance to kill any of them.

I'm not sure how many times I need to explain to you that when the term "Life threatening Birth Defects" is used, it means that the child dies within a few hours to a few weeks (or at the very least the first year).

So yes, it is entirely relevant, you just seem to continue ignoring what I'm saying.

originally posted by: Leahn
Yes. Perhaps you ignored what I said the first time. The results vary wildly, and are based on assumptions that are cherry picked to produce the results that they desire.

No, They aren't based off of assumptions. I don't ignore you, you just don't realize what I'm responding to. It's quite apparent that if you cannot handle a basic conversation with someone and understand what they are saying (let alone remember it), you certainly aren't capable of fathoming the functioning behind Radiometric Dating methods.

I can still explain it to you if you want. But first, as I have already asked before you do to before, please explain to me how you've come to the conclusion that Radiometric dating is incapable of producing accurate dates.

You certainly like to make a bunch of claims and never, ever back them up with actual information.

originally posted by: Leahn
Sure. Let's deal with a subject that is more in tone with the website's original purpose. The dating of the moon rocks the Apollo mission brought back. Let's assume for the sake of the argument that the rocks are real, the moon landing did occur, and all that.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not when you say "lets assume they are real" and then immediately claim that the moon landing was real.

originally posted by: Leahn
This table lists all the published results from the radioactive dating of the rocks, which vary from 0.04 million years to 8.2 million years. Those results were used to confirm that the moon is, in fact, 4.43 million years old. Except the ones that don't confirm it and were discarded because it does not fit the narrative.

Firstly, you cannot possibly think that a website that looks like that is at all factual, let alone honest.

Secondly, You do realize that many of the samples taken to date the rocks were from various different locations on the moon, which is why there are varying results. Sorry, but using an obvious unreliable source, and using various samples from different sites which are known to be of different ages, you haven't shown the inaccuracies at all.

Here, this is how you prove someone wrong.


1) Independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques, give consistent results (Dalrymple 2000; Lindsay 1999; Meert 2000). Such results cannot be explained either by chance or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions.

2) Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods. For example:

The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot (Rubin 2001).

Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity (Hilgen et al. 1997).

Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method (Thompson n.d.; Thorne et al. 1999).

Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "deeper is older" (Lindsay 2000).

3) The creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rest on a relatively few examples. Creationists ignore the vast majority of radiometric dates showing consistent results (e.g., Harland et al. 1990).

Here are all my sources. All peer-reviewed, and from reputable scientists.


Dalrymple, G. Brent, 2000. Radiometric dating does work! Some examples and a critique of a failed creationist strategy. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 20(3): 14-17. www.ncseweb.org...
Harland, W. B., R. L. Armstrong, A. V. Cox, L. E. Craig, A. G. Smith, and D. G. Smith, 1990. A Geologic Time Scale 1989. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hilgen, F. J., W. Krijgsman, C. G. Langereis and L. J. Lourens, 1997. Breakthrough made in dating of the geological record. EOS 78(28): 285,288-289. www.agu.org...
Lindsay, Don, 1999. Are radioactive dating methods consistent with each other? www.don-lindsay-archive.org...
Lindsay, Don, 2000. Are radioactive dating methods consistent with the deeper-is-older rule? www.don-lindsay-archive.org...
Meert, Joe, 2000. Consistent radiometric dates. gondwanaresearch.com...
Rubin, Ken, 2001. The formation of the Hawaiian Islands. www.soest.hawaii.edu...
Thompson, Tim, n.d. Luminescence and radiometric dating. www.tim-thompson.com...
Thorne, A. et al., 1999. Australia's oldest human remains: Age of the Lake Mungo 3 skeleton. Journal of Human Evolution 36(6): 591-612.

originally posted by: Leahn
Yes, I have.

Can you show me the post you made where you directly responded to the one I made using scripture? A rebuttal is actually addressing the context within a response, not simply trying to slander me and say "how dare you use scripture and claim you know more than me"

originally posted by: Leahn
Yes, of course, there are. Also, I have a bridge to sell you.

Here's your proof....
U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey

Here's a video on the subject


(continued in next post)

This one is actually from a preacher

Less than 10% of Professed Christians have read the entire Bible!

Hell does not exist. What are you talking about?

You've lost me.

You are the only one with the false notions.

You continue to slander, yet you haven't backed up your claims to actually show mine were wrong? Have you been to a debate before?

Are you under illusion that you have done any of those things?

I'm going to go ahead and assume that you meant ' are you under illusions that you HAVENT done those things", because if you did mean have, then you're agreeing that I haven't done any of those things

originally posted by: Leahn
The only illogical thing here is your refusal to acknowledge people's answer, and then complain that no suitable answer was given.

You just said exactly what I was responding to in the same way without refuting what I actually said.

Acknowledgement does not equal acceptance. I have acknowledged every person who has commented here (unless someone already responded to their statements before hand). Just because I address their claims doesn't mean I have to accept them.

originally posted by: Leahn
I already answered that to you. You simply refuse to acknowledge the answer. I am not going to link it to you for the third time.

And I've responded to all of your points, you simply refused to acknowledge that I have responded to them and that you logic, is really illogical.

originally posted by: Leahn
Again, the multiple instances of resurrections that happened in the Bible demonstrate that the death, even if you are not an eternal being, is not the end. God can bring anyone back to life, any time He wants, regardless of when the person died.

The difference which eludes your consciousness is that a person who committed to an action of saving another, without the previous knowledge that they will be resurrected is making a sacrifice.

A person who had committed to an action of saving another persons life, with the knowledge that they will be rewarded for doing so, is not making a sacrifice.

How can you not realize this?

originally posted by: Leahn
Anyway, for the sake of the argument, I will repeat myself once more. The death itself is not the relevant part. The relevant part was to die sinless. Now, please go ahead and keep ignoring the answers that are being given to you, pretending that no one gave them.

Here I go again, acknowledging that you made yet another illogical statement. It makes no difference what you do or how you do it to save another person, if you know you are going to be rewarded for your actions, it is not a sacrifice, it's a trade.

originally posted by: Leahn
Here it is, again, you demanding that God follows your standard of sacrifice, instead of His.

Here it is again, there is no such thing as "my standard of sacrifice". The English language has a definition for a sacrifice. Jesus' actions do not apply to that definition.

If you think there is a difference between the English definition for the word 'Sacrifice' and you acknowledge that Jesus didn't abide by that definition, then why don't you just say "you're right, according to the English language's definition of the word "sacrifice" Jesus did not Sacrifice anything"?

originally posted by: Leahn
And here we go again with atheists acting like they know more about Christian religion that actual practicing Christians. Please, amuse me. Where does the Bible teach this?

Better yet, let's look at more of what you've committed, rather than just judging.
We'll start with:

Speaking poorly of one another Ja 4:11
Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaks evil of his brother, and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law, and judges the law: but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law, but a judge.

Accusing: Jude 9; 2 Pe 2:11
Arrogance: Mk 7:22 NIV; Isa 2:17,11 NIV; Ro 1:30; 2 Cor 11:20; Isa 13:11
Debating: Ro 1:29
Speaking in boastful words: 2 Pe 2:18 NIV
Arguing: Pv 17:14; 18:6; Titus 3:9; 2 Tim 2:23
Despising his neighbor: Pv 14:21
Bitterness: Acts 8:23; Ro 3:14; Eph 4:31; Heb 12:15

Trust me I can go on and on....

originally posted by: Leahn
The same of the Bible. Anything that goes against the laws of God. (1 John 3:4)

So I've just counted 8 of your sins above. As I cannot fully go into your mind and see what you're thinking, I'll say that the accuracy of those can be between 62%-100%, to be fair.

originally posted by: Leahn
Hell, as understood by the majority of people, does not exist.

The Bible, understood by every person who reads it, is inaccurate in one way or another. Hence the 40,000+ denominations of Christianity that simply cannot agree on what the bible means to say. What makes your position 'right'?

originally posted by: Ghost147
Thank you on elaborating on your position, you've really nailed me to the T on this one....

Good. One less for the count.

originally posted by: Ghost147
I posted it because:

~ we do have evidence of a general number for a stable and healthy population.
~ we know that it would be impossible for two individuals to create the diversity we see today, let alone have healthy enough offspring to sustain a population without dying off
~ we have tons of evidence that shows various different cultures in various different times and in areas where they could not have gotten to in the last 6000 years
~ Virtually everything we see around us counters the position of biblical liberalism.

Prove it. And by 'prove it' I do not mean link to an Wikipedia article about a theory full of holes, suppositions, assumptions and unknown variables.

originally posted by: Ghost147
I'm not sure how many times I need to explain to you that when the term "Life threatening Birth Defects" is used, it means that the child dies within a few hours to a few weeks (or at the very least the first year).

Yes. Did you bother to study history as I told you? No? Then that's why you still fail to see how that is irrelevant. To put it in mathematical terms, the life expectancy of the early 20th century was 31 years old.

According to the Encyclopedia:

Although we can only estimate levels and trends of infant mortality prior to the most recent centuries, it seems probable that through much of human history 30 to 40 percent of all infants born died before they could celebrate their first birthdays.

What we know about the historical mortality patterns of today's highly developed nations suggests that through the seventeenth century infant mortality averaged between 20 and 40 percent and fluctuated substantially from year to year, occasionally hitting extremely high peaks when epidemics, famines, and war created mortality crises for the general population.

In the Americas and in southern Europe the presence of malaria could push infant mortality to over 50 percent. So too could the introduction of new diseases.

Hence, irrelevant. Most people are simply not aware that life expectancy greatly arose only after World War II, and has been steadily increasing since. They assume that it has always been like this. It wasn't. If you add to that the low expectancy of a child to reach 5 years old, impact from child birth defects is effectively null.

originally posted by: Ghost147
No, They aren't based off of assumptions.

Yes, they are.

originally posted by: Ghost147
I have already asked before you do to before, please explain to me how you've come to the conclusion that Radiometric dating is incapable of producing accurate dates.

They are based off on assumptions cherry picked to suit whatever finding they want.

originally posted by: Ghost147
Firstly, you cannot possibly think that a website that looks like that is at all factual, let alone honest.

Straight to genetic argument. Way to go!

originally posted by: Ghost147
Secondly, You do realize that many of the samples taken to date the rocks were from various different locations on the moon, which is why there are varying results.

Yes, that's why website sorted the results by sample (leftmost column). Way to go with the genetic argument. Let's not address the data, at all. Why bother with truth when you can use fallacies to dismiss it, isn't it?

originally posted by: Ghost147
Here, this is how you prove someone wrong.

AGAIN, radiometric dating use assumptions cherry picked to suit whatever finding they want. It is very easy to find support for whatever you want when you make twenty different measures, find three that support your point, discard all the others and claim that multiple measures support your conclusion. You only have to ignore all the others that don't.

originally posted by: Ghost147
Can you show me the post you made where you directly responded to the one I made using scripture? A rebuttal is actually addressing the context within a response, not simply trying to slander me and say "how dare you use scripture and claim you know more than me"

Sure. Can you show me any post where you actually used the scripture? Because I found none.

originally posted by: Ghost147
Here's your proof....
U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey

On questions about Christianity – including a battery of questions about the Bible – Mormons (7.9 out of 12 right on average) and white evangelical Protestants (7.3 correct on average) show the highest levels of knowledge.

Jews and atheists/agnostics stand out for their knowledge of other world religions, including Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism.

*ahem* you're wrong again *ahem*

originally posted by: Ghost147
This one is actually from a preacher

Less than 10% of Professed Christians have read the entire Bible!

Your point is?

originally posted by: Ghost147
You've lost me.

Nah. Pretty sure you are lost since the beginning.

originally posted by: Ghost147
You continue to slander, yet you haven't backed up your claims to actually show mine were wrong? Have you been to a debate before?

Sure, I have. Failing to acknowledge people's answer does not make them go away.

originally posted by: Ghost147
I'm going to go ahead and assume that you meant ' are you under illusions that you HAVENT done those things", because if you did mean have, then you're agreeing that I haven't done any of those things

I agree that you haven't done any of those things, namely, you have not questioned any illogical claim of mine, you have not corrected any claim of mine using the same source material and you have not seen anyone besides I claiming to know more than you about the Bible. I am glad we could reach an agreement on this subject.

originally posted by: Ghost147
The Bible, understood by every person who reads it, is inaccurate in one way or another. Hence the 40,000+ denominations of Christianity that simply cannot agree on what the bible means to say. What makes your position 'right'?

But, but, my god loves me unconditionally...

Jim Jefferies - there is no such a thing as unconditionally...

Warning... following video includes some R / MA language, and might offend some believers...

originally posted by: Ghost147
Acknowledgement does not equal acceptance. I have acknowledged every person who has commented here (unless someone already responded to their statements before hand). Just because I address their claims doesn't mean I have to accept them.

Acknowledgment is not "your argument does not make any sense to me so you are wrong, your religion is illogical and only indoctrination could make you believe it."

Acknowledgment is trying to understand someone's argument, and failing that, expose your doubts, discuss them, solve them, and after you understand their argument, finding fault on it, expose those.

Finding fault is not "it does not make sense to me."

As I said multiple times already, you are the one asking the question, you are the one that does not understand the subject, so be humble. This is not Christianity 101. This is a topic about which much was written during nearly two thousands of years, and is still being written and discussed about nowadays. And we are very painstakingly trying to explain it to you, and we are being met with derision and scorn instead of the necessary humility that one should expect from the person who is actually asking the question.

originally posted by: Ghost147And I've responded to all of your points, you simply refused to acknowledge that I have responded to them and that you logic, is really illogical.

"It does not make sense to me" is not acknowledging an answer and responding to it.

originally posted by: Ghost147
The difference which eludes your consciousness is that a person who committed to an action of saving another, without the previous knowledge that they will be resurrected is making a sacrifice.

A person who had committed to an action of saving another persons life, with the knowledge that they will be rewarded for doing so, is not making a sacrifice.

That's your opinion. Why is that so to you? Justify it.

originally posted by: Ghost147
Here it is again, there is no such thing as "my standard of sacrifice". The English language has a definition for a sacrifice. Jesus' actions do not apply to that definition.

Why not?

originally posted by: Ghost147
Trust me I can go on and on....

You can go on and on for as long as you want, as long as by the end of it you give the citation of the Bible where it says that Christians should not judge. Which you somehow failed to give and tried to change the subject instead. If you cannot provide it, recant.

originally posted by: Ghost147
The Bible, understood by every person who reads it, is inaccurate in one way or another. Hence the 40,000+ denominations of Christianity that simply cannot agree on what the bible means to say. What makes your position 'right'?

Knowledge.

It wasn't, its a sadly made up story, maybe some of them thought that since they thought other crazy things that weren't true but I wouldn't waste too much time on an idea that doesn't make sense to anyone.