If Jesus knew that he was God and had God's powers, how is that considered "making a sacrafice" ?

reply to post by UrgentInsurgent

You do realize that your statement implies that it is totally unnessecary to believe in God, or Christianity, in order to avoid hell?

Completely incorrect assumption!!! It implies that everyone will receive the message someday, whether it be before or after you die. According to Revelation, all who have ever lived will rise from the grave during the end times to be judged.

reply to post by Akragon


Let's get our terminology in line here...
God may have defined sin (which i believe is anything aside from loving and revering God and loving your neighbor as yourself, and all actions which those could entail). However, God does not 'cause' sin! When i hear 'create', i hear cause or set forth precedence.

Originally posted by TomServo
reply to post by Akragon

 

Let's get our terminology in line here...
God may have defined sin (which i believe is anything aside from loving and revering God and loving your neighbor as yourself, and all actions which those could entail). However, God does not 'cause' sin! When i hear 'create', i hear cause or set forth precedence.

It would be great if you could quote what i said so i don't have to go hunting for it...

I didn't say God causes sin... I said sin is a part of God just like everything else...

reply to post by watchitburn

Ha! Finally caught one of you. You just disproved your own god. If god did not create sin then he cannot be the creator of everything, cannot be all knowing or infallible. I think that disqualifies someone from being a god.

You think you are sooo intelligent and clever. You didn't 'catch me'! Sin deals with the absence from or defiance of God. Satan, being the usher of sin, was also created by God. So take your impenetrable logic and shove it! If i cant convince you now, without a doubt, your enlightenment will come eventually. The only question is, how will you heed that enlightenment?

Originally posted by TomServo
reply to post by watchitburn

 

Ha! Finally caught one of you. You just disproved your own god. If god did not create sin then he cannot be the creator of everything, cannot be all knowing or infallible. I think that disqualifies someone from being a god.

You think you are sooo intelligent and clever. You didn't 'catch me'! Sin deals with the absence from or defiance of God. Satan, being the usher of sin, was also created by God. So take your impenetrable logic and shove it! If i cant convince you now, without a doubt, your enlightenment will come eventually. The only question is, how will you heed that enlightenment?

why so angry bro?

reply to post by Akragon


Sins are not "things" in and of themselves. They do not exist autonomously. Rather, they are the absence of the perfect which God did make. This becomes complicated, so let me give you a couple of examples. I have the ability to create a vacuum of space. Now I do this not by making something out of materials, but by removing all the air and particles out of that space. The void that remains is what we choose to label a vacuum. It isn’t a thing in itself, but it is a term we use to state that everything else is gone. Likewise we use the term cold to describe a lower temperature. Any air conditioner man can tell you that to cool something down you don’t put cold in, but you have to take heat out! Cold is the absence of energy that causes heat.

The world and all that is in it was created perfect, but the fall of man created ramifications and consequences that we are still struggling with today. They are not abilities or goals to be achieved, but they are the terms we use to convey the idea of absence of righteousness. This is why when someone reads that God cannot lie and they try to claim that God could not be omnipotent because He lacks something, they are mistaken. The act of lying is really an act of not being able to tell the truth. When you ask why God allowed humans to have the capability for evil, you are not framing your question fairly. You might as well ask why did God create us with joints that could be broken. He did not want us to break His rules, but once we did (and every one of us has) He had to take steps to repair the state we are in.

reply to post by TomServo

If i cant convince you now, without a doubt, your enlightenment will come eventually. The only question is, how will you heed that enlightenment?

With all do respect, I have a question.

Why do you think that you have to convince people of enlightenment? I believe that he made a good arguement and you told the poster to shove it. This is not very "christian" of you. This is what I have learned to look out for. A double standard for believers of faith.

Self righteousness in the name of a higher power.

Originally posted by TomServo
reply to post by Akragon

 

Sins are not "things" in and of themselves. They do not exist autonomously. Rather, they are the absence of the perfect which God did make. This becomes complicated, so let me give you a couple of examples. I have the ability to create a vacuum of space. Now I do this not by making something out of materials, but by removing all the air and particles out of that space. The void that remains is what we choose to label a vacuum. It isn’t a thing in itself, but it is a term we use to state that everything else is gone. Likewise we use the term cold to describe a lower temperature. Any air conditioner man can tell you that to cool something down you don’t put cold in, but you have to take heat out! Cold is the absence of energy that causes heat.

The world and all that is in it was created perfect, but the fall of man created ramifications and consequences that we are still struggling with today. They are not abilities or goals to be achieved, but they are the terms we use to convey the idea of absence of righteousness. This is why when someone reads that God cannot lie and they try to claim that God could not be omnipotent because He lacks something, they are mistaken. The act of lying is really an act of not being able to tell the truth. When you ask why God allowed humans to have the capability for evil, you are not framing your question fairly. You might as well ask why did God create us with joints that could be broken. He did not want us to break His rules, but once we did (and every one of us has) He had to take steps to repair the state we are in.

I don't see your point... are you trying to teach me something i already understand?

Btw the world and everything in it is still perfect... its our actions that are flawed... thank God for free will

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by TomServo

 

If i cant convince you now, without a doubt, your enlightenment will come eventually. The only question is, how will you heed that enlightenment?

With all do respect, I have a question.

Why do you think that you have to convince people of enlightenment? I believe that he made a good arguement and you told the poster to shove it. This is not very "christian" of you. This is what I have learned to look out for. A double standard for believers of faith.

Self righteousness in the name of a higher power.

Well said

Originally posted by liejunkie01
I believe that he made a good arguement and you told the poster to shove it. This is not very "christian" of you. This is what I have learned to look out for. A double standard for believers of faith.

How is this:

Ha! Finally caught one of you. You just disproved your own god. If god did not create sin then he cannot be the creator of everything, cannot be all knowing or infallible. I think that disqualifies someone from being a god.

a good argument? Seems like kind of a snotty remark that is based on a fallacious belief (that "sin" is a tangible thing.) While I would have put it differently, the response to that is not particularly offensive -- the person who claims that he "disproved god" by such a poor argument is clearly someone who is set in their beliefs to the point that it's pointless to argue with them.

reply to post by adjensen


It looks like you are pretty set in your ways, This is evident because of the way you replied. I am a non believer of faith. I used to go to church until I was 13. Then I started to ask specific questions that I felt were not being answered to an extent to where I could believe any longer. I do not like the answer, because that is why it is called "faith".

Just my own opinion and I do not wish to argue with you. I respect your undeniable ability to follow something because someone told that is, the way it is. It's god"s will. I am sorry but I need more to go on than this explanation that I got from any church or religion.

I believe in logic. I also believe that faith is illogical. Nobody or nothing can change my mind on this. Enlightenment came to me years ago. I started questioning the motives of the church and the religous beliefs it teaches. It is all set up for everybody to be followers not leaders. I can see this, but sadly most cannot. So this is where we enter the "Strawman" arguements.

Just my .02 so please do not get offended. After all ATS is a public site where if someone makes a thread we are all free to post our opinion. I was merely pointing out your ironic statement above.

Thank you
Lj01

Originally posted by liejunkie01
I believe in logic. I also believe that faith is illogical.

I believe in logic, as well, and I believe that faith is inherently logical. I came to faith through physics and maths, not through evangelism, so my perspective isn't common, but it is reasonable.

Just my .02 so please do not get offended. After all ATS is a public site where if someone makes a thread we are all free to post our opinion. I was merely pointing out your ironic statement above.

What is ironic about my statement? That it's pointless to argue with me about religion? I didn't say that, and though I wouldn't disagree with it, that's hardly the point, since I'm neither asking you to argue with me, nor am I disparaging your beliefs. I am pointing out that, while TomServo may have been a little brusque in his dismissal, he's justified in telling someone with such a limited understanding of the issues at hand that arguing is fruitless.