| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Truth Hunter" |
| Date: |
23 Nov 2003 12:44:10 PM |
| Object: |
"Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
"Every man shall be put to death for his own sins."
One person cannot die for the sins of another. This means that the
guilt from the sins committed by one person cannot be wiped out by the
punishment given to another person. Jesus cannot wipe out the sins of
anyone.First, in Exodus 32:30-35, Moses asks God to punish him for the
sin of the Golden Calf, committed by the people. God tells Moses that
the person who committed the sin is the person who must receive the
punishment. Then, in Deuteronomy 24:16, God simply states this as a
basic principle, "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins."
This concept is repeated in the Prophets, in Ezekiel 18 "The soul that
sinneth, it shall die... the righteousness of the righteous shall be
upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
Next, you wish to state Jesus was a sacrifice. Now, if Jesus is god,
then a god can die. If a god can die, then another god needed to
resurrect him. Now, if you believe Jesus was a man sent by god...
What, EXACTLY does God say about human sacrifice in the TaNaCH? In
Deuteronomy 12:30-31, God calls Human sacrifice something that He
hates, and an abomination to Him, "for every abomination to the
Eternal, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even
their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their
gods. In Jeremiah 19:4-6, God tells us that Human sacrifice is so
horrible a concept to Him, that it did not even come into His mind to
demand it from His creation, "They have built also the high places of
Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal,
which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind." We
see the same thing in Psalm 106:37-38, and in Ezekiel 16.20. This
means that God would not accept Jesus's death on the cross as a blood
sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. The very idea of that God would
accept a human sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins is UnBiblical.
do realize that in the OT that no man can be held accontable for
anothers sins. Yet you have us believe god sent his "son" to die for
sin. You also realize that human sacrifice is an abomination to the
lord..how is it that Jesus could sacrifice himself?
That blood is required for atonement. How come the people of Ninevah,
in the Book of Jonah, received atonement without shedding blood? All
they did was repent.
Did you ever read Ezekiel Ch. 18? It is all about repentance and there
is no mention of blood. God requires NOT the sinner's death but,
rather, that he repent and live.
.
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
23 Nov 2003 07:36:48 PM |
|
|
"Truth Hunter" <hunter77099@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e164e783.0311231044.3c576912@posting.google.com...
"Every man shall be put to death for his own sins."
There is no such thing as sin so that no one has a right to put anyone to
death for sins.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
23 Nov 2003 08:19:08 PM |
|
|
(Truth Hunter) wrote in
news:e164e783.0311231044.3c576912@posting.google.com:
(snip religious crap)
Since all of this is fantasy, most of us in alt.atheism really don't give a
***** about your crossposted attempts to incite religious flame wars.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stormin Mormonn" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
04 Jan 2004 04:41:22 AM |
|
|
But, as both fully God and fully Man, Jesus was the mediator between God and
man. A rough concept to try to understand.
--
Christopher A. Young
Jesus: The Reason for the Season
www.lds.org
www.mormons.com
"Truth Hunter" <hunter77099@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e164e783.0311231044.3c576912@posting.google.com...
"Every man shall be put to death for his own sins."
One person cannot die for the sins of another. This means that the
guilt from the sins committed by one person cannot be wiped out by the
punishment given to another person. Jesus cannot wipe out the sins of
anyone.First, in Exodus 32:30-35, Moses asks God to punish him for the
sin of the Golden Calf, committed by the people. God tells Moses that
the person who committed the sin is the person who must receive the
punishment. Then, in Deuteronomy 24:16, God simply states this as a
basic principle, "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins."
This concept is repeated in the Prophets, in Ezekiel 18 "The soul that
sinneth, it shall die... the righteousness of the righteous shall be
upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
Next, you wish to state Jesus was a sacrifice. Now, if Jesus is god,
then a god can die. If a god can die, then another god needed to
resurrect him. Now, if you believe Jesus was a man sent by god...
What, EXACTLY does God say about human sacrifice in the TaNaCH? In
Deuteronomy 12:30-31, God calls Human sacrifice something that He
hates, and an abomination to Him, "for every abomination to the
Eternal, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even
their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their
gods. In Jeremiah 19:4-6, God tells us that Human sacrifice is so
horrible a concept to Him, that it did not even come into His mind to
demand it from His creation, "They have built also the high places of
Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal,
which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind." We
see the same thing in Psalm 106:37-38, and in Ezekiel 16.20. This
means that God would not accept Jesus's death on the cross as a blood
sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. The very idea of that God would
accept a human sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins is UnBiblical.
do realize that in the OT that no man can be held accontable for
anothers sins. Yet you have us believe god sent his "son" to die for
sin. You also realize that human sacrifice is an abomination to the
lord..how is it that Jesus could sacrifice himself?
That blood is required for atonement. How come the people of Ninevah,
in the Book of Jonah, received atonement without shedding blood? All
they did was repent.
Did you ever read Ezekiel Ch. 18? It is all about repentance and there
is no mention of blood. God requires NOT the sinner's death but,
rather, that he repent and live.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shan" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
04 Jan 2004 10:42:56 AM |
|
|
"Stormin Mormonn" <cayoung61@hotmail.com.remove> wrote in message news:<bt8s1o08o5@enews3.newsguy.com>...
But, as both fully God and fully Man, Jesus was the mediator between God and
man. A rough concept to try to understand.
One person cannot die for the sins of another. This means that the
guilt from the sins committed by one person cannot be wiped out by the
punishment given to another person. Jesus cannot wipe out the sins of
anyone.First, in Exodus 32:30-35, Moses asks God to punish him for the
The Bible is wrong. Not every text your read in the Bible is true by
itself and it cannot be used as a single source of a teaching.
Next, you wish to state Jesus was a sacrifice. Now, if Jesus is god,
then a god can die. If a god can die, then another god needed to
resurrect him. Now, if you believe Jesus was a man sent by god...
God did not die when Jesus died but his incarnate form in his body
died as we do while the spirit was and continued to be with the
Father.
The argument is meaningless to begin with therefore no more comments
are required to correct the other errors which you commit.
Shan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill, The Avender" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
04 Jan 2004 10:51:24 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 4 Jan 2004 08:42:56 -0800,
(Shan) wrote:
<snip>
God did not die when Jesus died but his incarnate form in his body
died as we do while the spirit was and continued to be with the
Father.
The argument is meaningless to begin with
<snip>
Finally, one of 'em actually ADMITS it! ;-)
--
L8r,
Bill
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
"Guido regurgitated a squid. Let's eat."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- Berkeley Breathed, "Opus", 11/23/03 -
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shan" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
04 Jan 2004 03:57:12 PM |
|
|
(Bill, The Avender) wrote in message news:<3ffb4440.93682822@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...
In alt.atheism on 4 Jan 2004 08:42:56 -0800,
(Shan) wrote:
<snip>
God did not die when Jesus died but his incarnate form in his body
died as we do while the spirit was and continued to be with the
Father.
The argument is meaningless to begin with
<snip>
Finally, one of 'em actually ADMITS it! ;-)
Don't open the champaign yet. I am not one of them. I am one of me.
Most folks in this forum are stupid including the whatchamacallthem,
Latter Day Morons.
Shan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill, The Avender" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
04 Jan 2004 07:29:24 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 4 Jan 2004 13:57:12 -0800,
(Shan) wrote:
Avender@SpamMeNot.com (Bill, The Avender) wrote in message news:<3ffb4440.93682822@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...
In alt.atheism on 4 Jan 2004 08:42:56 -0800,
(Shan) wrote:
<snip>
God did not die when Jesus died but his incarnate form in his body
died as we do while the spirit was and continued to be with the
Father.
The argument is meaningless to begin with
<snip>
Finally, one of 'em actually ADMITS it! ;-)
Don't open the champaign yet. I am not one of them. I am one of me.
Most folks in this forum are stupid including the whatchamacallthem,
Latter Day Morons.
I'm in alt.atheism. It was just a joke and, for the record, wasn't
meant in an insulting way. ;-)
--
L8r,
Bill
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
"Guido regurgitated a squid. Let's eat."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- Berkeley Breathed, "Opus", 11/23/03 -
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shan" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
05 Jan 2004 08:09:03 AM |
|
|
(Bill, The Avender) wrote in message news:<3ffabdc7.17606876@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...
In alt.atheism on 4 Jan 2004 13:57:12 -0800,
(Shan) wrote:
(Bill, The Avender) wrote in message news:<3ffb4440.93682822@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...
In alt.atheism on 4 Jan 2004 08:42:56 -0800,
(Shan) wrote:
<snip>
God did not die when Jesus died but his incarnate form in his body
died as we do while the spirit was and continued to be with the
Father.
The argument is meaningless to begin with
<snip>
Finally, one of 'em actually ADMITS it! ;-)
Don't open the champaign yet. I am not one of them. I am one of me.
Most folks in this forum are stupid including the whatchamacallthem,
Latter Day Morons.
I'm in alt.atheism. It was just a joke and, for the record, wasn't
meant in an insulting way. ;-)
Oh! alt.atheism is a different story. I am sorry; I thought you were
one of the looney Xtians pontificating.
Cheers,
Shan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "HotDog" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
04 Jan 2004 08:14:37 AM |
|
|
"Stormin Mormonn" wrote
But, as both fully God and fully Man, Jesus was the mediator between God and
man. A rough concept to try to understand.
How could a man be 100% black *and the same time* 100% white?
Can the finite and the infinite be one?
According to most Christians. Jesus was God-incarnate, full man and
full God. But can the finite and the infinite be one? To be full God
means freedom from finite forms and from helplessness. And to be full
man means the absence of divinity.
To claim that salvation can be secured only through the blood of
Jesus, as the "lamb of God and the perfect sacrifice" is untenable on
many grounds. Let us examine one issue. Who died on the cross
(according to the Biblical story)? If it was Jesus the man, then it is
not the perfect sacrifice. No man, however perfect, can atone for the
sins of all mankind or meet the requirements of perfect sacrifice. And
if the one who died on the cross was God. Then was god dead for "three
days"? It is consistent with the Old Testament to utter this? And if
the Giver of Life Himself is dead, who else can bring Him back to
life? Who looked after the universe before His resurrection? If the
All Merciful and Loving God wanted to forgive, what prevents Him from
doing so in a direct, simple and straightforward manner? Why must the
"requirement of justice" be satisfied by grave injustice, the
suffering and agony of the innocent Jesus? Would this gross injustice,
if it were true? Be consistent with the quality of divine love? How
appropriate is it for a Judge, who instead of sentencing a criminal or
forgiving him, which is within his authority, to order the execution
of his "only" son so that the criminal will go free and appreciate how
much the Judge loves him? Where did the notion of the suffering and
dying God come from?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Black" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
04 Jan 2004 12:02:50 PM |
|
|
Perhaps The Almighty was delegating.
"HotDog" <uitiuit7uitui@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:90ffe527.0401040614.3fa010ef@posting.google.com...
"Stormin Mormonn" wrote
But, as both fully God and fully Man, Jesus was the mediator between
God and
man. A rough concept to try to understand.
How could a man be 100% black *and the same time* 100% white?
Can the finite and the infinite be one?
According to most Christians. Jesus was God-incarnate, full man and
full God. But can the finite and the infinite be one? To be full God
means freedom from finite forms and from helplessness. And to be full
man means the absence of divinity.
To claim that salvation can be secured only through the blood of
Jesus, as the "lamb of God and the perfect sacrifice" is untenable on
many grounds. Let us examine one issue. Who died on the cross
(according to the Biblical story)? If it was Jesus the man, then it is
not the perfect sacrifice. No man, however perfect, can atone for the
sins of all mankind or meet the requirements of perfect sacrifice. And
if the one who died on the cross was God. Then was god dead for "three
days"? It is consistent with the Old Testament to utter this? And if
the Giver of Life Himself is dead, who else can bring Him back to
life? Who looked after the universe before His resurrection? If the
All Merciful and Loving God wanted to forgive, what prevents Him from
doing so in a direct, simple and straightforward manner? Why must the
"requirement of justice" be satisfied by grave injustice, the
suffering and agony of the innocent Jesus? Would this gross injustice,
if it were true? Be consistent with the quality of divine love? How
appropriate is it for a Judge, who instead of sentencing a criminal or
forgiving him, which is within his authority, to order the execution
of his "only" son so that the criminal will go free and appreciate how
much the Judge loves him? Where did the notion of the suffering and
dying God come from?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
04 Jan 2004 06:27:38 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 18:02:50 GMT, "Frank Black" <frank@millenium.com>
posted to alt.atheism:
Perhaps The Almighty was delegating.
Or perhaps saul was just drying his nail polish.
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stormin Mormonn" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
04 Jan 2004 09:25:49 PM |
|
|
Tough concept, eh? Scholars through the ages have wrestled with it. Others
accept it with faith and a witness of the spirit.
--
Christopher A. Young
Jesus: The Reason for the Season
www.lds.org
www.mormons.com
"HotDog" <uitiuit7uitui@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:90ffe527.0401040614.3fa010ef@posting.google.com...
"Stormin Mormonn" wrote
But, as both fully God and fully Man, Jesus was the mediator between God
and
man. A rough concept to try to understand.
How could a man be 100% black *and the same time* 100% white?
Can the finite and the infinite be one?
According to most Christians. Jesus was God-incarnate, full man and
full God. But can the finite and the infinite be one? To be full God
means freedom from finite forms and from helplessness. And to be full
man means the absence of divinity.
To claim that salvation can be secured only through the blood of
Jesus, as the "lamb of God and the perfect sacrifice" is untenable on
many grounds. Let us examine one issue. Who died on the cross
(according to the Biblical story)? If it was Jesus the man, then it is
not the perfect sacrifice. No man, however perfect, can atone for the
sins of all mankind or meet the requirements of perfect sacrifice. And
if the one who died on the cross was God. Then was god dead for "three
days"? It is consistent with the Old Testament to utter this? And if
the Giver of Life Himself is dead, who else can bring Him back to
life? Who looked after the universe before His resurrection? If the
All Merciful and Loving God wanted to forgive, what prevents Him from
doing so in a direct, simple and straightforward manner? Why must the
"requirement of justice" be satisfied by grave injustice, the
suffering and agony of the innocent Jesus? Would this gross injustice,
if it were true? Be consistent with the quality of divine love? How
appropriate is it for a Judge, who instead of sentencing a criminal or
forgiving him, which is within his authority, to order the execution
of his "only" son so that the criminal will go free and appreciate how
much the Judge loves him? Where did the notion of the suffering and
dying God come from?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "oz" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
04 Jan 2004 02:55:53 PM |
|
|
In article <bt8s1o08o5@enews3.newsguy.com>, "Stormin Mormonn"
<cayoung61@hotmail.com.remove> wrote:
But, as both fully God and fully Man, Jesus was the mediator between God and
man. A rough concept to try to understand.
it is a rough concept to understand because it is rubbish. It is a
misunderstanding of the use of allegory
QUOTE
Reforming Christology: He Did not Die for My Sins
"The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a
barbaric idea based on a primitive concept of God that must be
dismissed."--Thesis Number 6 from The Twelve Theses: A Call for a New
Reformation
In May of 1998 when I posted on the Internet Twelve Theses for debate,
drawn from my book Why Christianity Must Change or Die, I could not have
imagined the intensity of the response. The debate has been welcomed and
condemned, entered and avoided by countless numbers of people. The Theses
have been preached on positively and negatively in this diocese, at St.
Paul's Cathedral in London, in Australia, Canada, South Africa and New
Zealand. The most emotional response has come to Thesis Number 6 that has
to do with the interpretation of the cross and the role of Jesus in the
drama of salvation, where I have challenged the adequacy of the phrase:
"Jesus died for my sins."
That phrase has been used so often in Christian history that it has
achieved the status of a mantra. That is, it is repeated over and over
without explanation as if its meaning is self-evident. It does not lend
itself to questions or to debate. It is simply advanced again and again.
The Eucharist assumes it, many of our hymns reflect it. Yet to the modern
mind this phrase, when analyzed, is all but nonsensical.
Sometimes this sacred phrase is expanded to include what surely can only
be described as a fetish about the blood that Jesus shed on the cross. To
that "sacred" blood incredible power has been attributed. Christians have
gone so far as to talk about the cleansing effect of being washed in this
blood. One hymn that I endured twice during Holy Week proclaims that "God
on Thee Has Bled." The death of Jesus is said to have been something God
required: a ransom, a sacrifice offered to God, a payment demanded by God
for the sins of the world, the price required to achieve atonement, which
is the experience of being at one with God.
In my studies I have come to the conclusion that this language, "Jesus
died for my sins," is a violent distortion of the meaning of Jesus. It
offers me a God who is sadistic and bloodthirsty. A God whose will is
served by a human sacrifice is not a God I would ever be drawn to worship.
It is rather a grotesque idea. Yet this concept has become so normative in
the way that our faith story is told that many people seem to feel that if
this understanding of the saving work of Jesus is not accepted, then there
is nothing of substance left to Christianity.
I am convinced, however, that exactly the opposite is true. To me it is
obvious that unless we expose the barbaric quality of this ancient
interpretation of the meaning of Jesus' death and of the God who was said
to have required it and remove this spiritual monstrosity from the
Christian enterprise then Christianity has no future. I do not believe
that modern men and women will ever find appealing a God whose will is
served by the human sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.
If Christianity requires this view of the meaning of Jesus' death, I, for
one would no longer choose this household of faith. But because of its
entrenched nature, passive opposition will never be effective. Indeed,
this idea must be agressively dislodged or nothing new and more appealing
will ever emerge. That is why the Christian Church today requires, I
believe, a new and mighty reformation that must not stop until it has
examined and reformulated the most basic core doctrines of the Christian
faith. The Reformation of the 16th Century stopped short of this task and
made, we see in retrospect, only cosmetic changes. This new reformation
must shake the very foundations of traditional Christian thinking. It will
inevitably create enormous fear and anxiety in conservative religious
circles and it will elicit the kind of anger that always arises when an
ultimate threat is posed to a dying belief system. But we must nonetheless
welcome it, for it offers the only chance that the faith of our fathers
and mothers will live to be the faith of our children and grandchildren.
The view of Jesus' death as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, in my
opinion, represents bad theology designed to accommodate the bad
anthropology on which it is based.
Human life was not created good only to fall into sin, necessitating a
divine rescue that culminated on the cross of Calvary, as the traditional
Christian myth asserts. Human life rather has evolved through millions of
years of evolutionary history leaving us not just incomplete, but
distorted by that struggle to survive. We are not fallen angels, but
emerging beings. We are a work in progress, constantly victimized by the
unfinished nature of our humanity. We cannot, therefore, be rescued by a
sacrificial death of one who was making the perfect offering to an
offended Deity designed to restore us to what we have never been. We must
rather be called by the gift of love to journey into a higher
consciousness, a new and more complete humanity. The savior figure cannot
be for us one who pays the price for the sins of our life. A savior for
our understanding of humanity must instead be one who is capable of
empowering us to grow beyond our limits, to escape our distorting fears,
our blinding prejudices and our killing stereotypes and to bring us to a
place where we discover the freedom to give our lives away in love to
others. The ultimate theological question driving the new reformation is
whether or not we can strip away from Jesus this traditional interpretive
explanation without destroying the experience that people had with this
Jesus that caused them to exclaim that in him the holiness of God had been
encountered.
To do this we have to set aside the mythological framework that has
captured Jesus. Virgin births and cosmic ascensions must be seen as
nothing more than pre-modern interpretive language. Walking on water and
feeding the 5000 with five loaves cannot be literal stories. Resurrection
understood as physical resuscitation will have to be seen as the late
developing tradition that it was. But once this mythological framework is
removed, Jesus does not disappear or simply become a good teacher, as many
seem to fear. Instead a Jesus emerges as a channel for transcendence, a
person at one with the source of life, the revealer of the source of love,
a new being who makes plain the Ground of all Being. He is a God presence,
not a mythological god-man; a complete human being who becomes the life
through which the full power of God's divine reality can emerge in human
history.
Instead of looking at literalized interpretive miracles, we must begin to
look rather at the one whose wholeness called his followers beyond the
limits of their tribal identity. The Jews, who thought Gentiles were unfit
for human relationships, felt compelled by who Jesus was to go into that
Gentile world to proclaim the Gospel, and they did. The religious purists
who were convinced that the Samaritans, the primary object of their
prejudice, were rejected by God and were therefore rejectable, were
transformed by this Jesus. He taught them that when Samaritans obey the
call of the Torah to be compassionate and caring, they are more fully
children of Abraham than are a priest and a Levite who were willing to
pass the victims of life by the other side of the road.
The strict keepers of the rules about who was clean and unclean were
confronted by a Jesus who embraced the leper, allowed the touch of the
woman with the chronic menstrual flow, and refused to judge the person
taken of adultery.
God was in this Christ. That was the experience which cried out for
explanation. Yet the explanations of history were couched in assumptions
we can no longer make. These assumptions were shaped by a world view that
we no longer share. They reflected an understanding of reality that is not
ours and a worship tradition that is foreign to our own.
First century Jewish-Christians understood Jesus' death after the analogy
of the Passover lamb, slaughtered to break open the power of death. Next
they viewed him as the new lamb of Yom Kippur, sacrificed to take away the
sins of the world. They were weaving around Jesus their liturgical symbols
of antiquity, but none of these symbols will work for us. Indeed, they are
repellant. So we must be prepared to lay them aside, to treat them as the
limited and ultimately falsifying explanations that they are. Jesus did
not die for our sins! Jesus was not a sacrifice offered to God to overcome
the fall that never happened. We are emerging creatures, not fallen
creatures. Jesus was not the embodiment of the theistic deity who visited
this planet in human disguise for a brief thirty years. Jesus was the one,
in whom the God who is present in the depths of life, emerged in human
history in a dramatic and complete new way. The task of the new
reformation is to separate Jesus from this distorting material and to
recast him in new images.
But we must never lose the experience. God was in Christ. The transcendent
power of life, the eternal fountain of love, the ineffable Ground of All
Being erupted in his whole and free humanity to call us into a new
consciousness. The call of this Christ is a call to move beyond the
evolutionary limits set by our quest for survival. The Holy Spirit of God
who was so present in Jesus, that people said that the Spirit actually
conceived him, is still his gift to give to each of us. We who are in
Christ can, like Christ, become God bearers in our world, new incarnations
of the eternal divine presence. We can reveal the source of life and love,
which calls us and others into the fullness of our being.
That is an avenue through which we can speak of Christ in our time, and
that is where the coming reformation might lead us. For the Christian
Church to cling to the literalized formulas of yesterday is nothing less
than to pursue the pathway of death. Abandoning those formulas to enter
the Christ experience anew is the hope of the future.
I pray for the arrival of this reformation, even though I recognize that
it will appear to many to be destroying what they think the Christian
faith is. We must not fear that, for it will also lead us to revival and
resurrection and give us the ability to sing the Lord's song in the third
millennium.
(Spopng)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
04 Jan 2004 10:54:30 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 05:41:22 -0500, "Stormin Mormonn"
<cayoung61@hotmail.com.remove> wrote:
But, as both fully God and fully Man, Jesus was the mediator between God and
man. A rough concept to try to understand.
If you can't first demonstrate its existence outside the mythology and
imagination of Christians you have nothing to say on the subject so
stop posting this stupidity to an atheist newsgroup.
Christopher A. Young
Jesus: The Reason for the Season
Only in the imagination of Christians who don't know any history.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
04 Jan 2004 06:30:46 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 16:54:30 GMT, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> posted to alt.atheism:
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 05:41:22 -0500, "Stormin Mormonn"
<cayoung61@hotmail.com.remove> wrote:
But, as both fully God and fully Man, Jesus was the mediator between God and
man. A rough concept to try to understand.
If you can't first demonstrate its existence outside the mythology and
imagination of Christians you have nothing to say on the subject so
stop posting this stupidity to an atheist newsgroup.
Christopher A. Young
Jesus: The Reason for the Season
Only in the imagination of Christians who don't know any history.
Don't you just love listening to Christians playing bagpipes?
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of
themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
04 Jan 2004 06:41:39 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 19:30:46 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 16:54:30 GMT, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> posted to alt.atheism:
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 05:41:22 -0500, "Stormin Mormonn"
<cayoung61@hotmail.com.remove> wrote:
But, as both fully God and fully Man, Jesus was the mediator between God and
man. A rough concept to try to understand.
If you can't first demonstrate its existence outside the mythology and
imagination of Christians you have nothing to say on the subject so
stop posting this stupidity to an atheist newsgroup.
Christopher A. Young
Jesus: The Reason for the Season
Only in the imagination of Christians who don't know any history.
Don't you just love listening to Christians playing bagpipes?
Not particularly. I've got better things to do that "discuss" anything
with the intellectually dishonest - I waste too much time trying to
correct them when they've insisted on stupid things. Like the latest
loon's (Vince Garcia) dishonesty. Instead of addressing Jim Merritt's
math and showing me why it's wrong, the liar told me I only accepted
it because it "supported my agenda".
It's impossible to hold any kind of meaningful discussion with these
guys. They don't know how to discuss anything, refuse to support what
they say, lie about why you say what you do as an excuse to cop out of
addressing it, and resort to personal nastiness.
.
|
|
|
| User: "oz" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
06 Jan 2004 03:45:36 PM |
|
|
In article <jdchvvgsnavuejsn3gg337h7na75j4ivg1@4ax.com>, Christopher A.
Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 19:30:46 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 16:54:30 GMT, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> posted to alt.atheism:
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 05:41:22 -0500, "Stormin Mormonn"
<cayoung61@hotmail.com.remove> wrote:
But, as both fully God and fully Man, Jesus was the mediator between
God and
man. A rough concept to try to understand.
If you can't first demonstrate its existence outside the mythology and
imagination of Christians you have nothing to say on the subject so
stop posting this stupidity to an atheist newsgroup.
Christopher A. Young
Jesus: The Reason for the Season
Only in the imagination of Christians who don't know any history.
Don't you just love listening to Christians playing bagpipes?
Not particularly. I've got better things to do that "discuss" anything
with the intellectually dishonest - I waste too much time trying to
correct them when they've insisted on stupid things. Like the latest
loon's (Vince Garcia) dishonesty. Instead of addressing Jim Merritt's
math and showing me why it's wrong, the liar told me I only accepted
it because it "supported my agenda".
It's impossible to hold any kind of meaningful discussion with these
guys. They don't know how to discuss anything, refuse to support what
they say, lie about why you say what you do as an excuse to cop out of
addressing it, and resort to personal nastiness.
Or as the Guardian put it:
Any British academic who drains his or her brain across the Atlantic soon
finds there is a lot of truth in the quip that Britain and the United
States are "two countries divided by a common language"
For a British University scientist who makes the big trip, one startling
discovery is 44% of Americans believe the biblical story of Creation is
true. For almost half the population the Big Bang theory and the theory of
evolution by natural selection are rejected outright. And this in a
country that leads the world in scientific discoveries and technological
advances, whose universities and research laboratories are homes to more
Nobel prize winners than anywhere else, and whose vast resources put a man
on the Moon.
You are likely to meet some of that 44% the moment you step into a
classroom. How do you teach science to someone who refuses to entertain
the overwhelming mass of evidence that makes the principles of evolution
by natural selection one of the most sure pieces of scientific knowledge
we have? It doesnąt help to point out that the evidence for evolution is
more certain than much of the medical knowledge that these students rely
on when they fall sick.
I first met this attitude in 1990 at a prestigious private college in the
US. As a mathematician, I donąt normally teach evolution, but I had to
lead a general education1 course for non-science students in one class. I
began by showing them the first part of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space
Odyssey, which shows our ape-like ancestors discovering language, learning
and tools, and which ends with a bone tossed into the air turning into a
modern spaceship.
I aimed to use the film to help explain how maths and science are
conceptual tools that we use in addition to our physical tools. But the
class took an unexpected turn when one young man took exception to the
film and to my assumption that Darwin's standard story of human evolution
was pretty well accepted. What had been planned as a course on the nature
and uses of maths became, of necessity, an attempt on my part to explain
the nature of science and how it is done. But it was an uphill battle I
never won.
My main antagonist was bright, articulate and‹apart from his huge
ignorance about the scientific method‹well educated and widely read. I
found it scary to encounter such blindness towards evidence in someone
with such ability.
I am not talking about belief in God here. But while no scientific
evidence suggests there is no God, there is a mountain of evidence that is
incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Genesis story of the
Creation, which implies that the entire world was made in more or less its
present form, complete with Adam and Eve, about 10,000 years ago.
The issue of teaching evolution in schools hit the headlines recently when
the Kansas Hoard of Education voted to remove all mention of evolution
from the state's school science curriculum. It joined Alabama, New Mexico
and Nebraska, which have placed severe restrictions on the teaching of
evolution.
More than a decade ago the US Supreme Court decreed that states could not
compel the teaching of creationism. Since then the creationists - a large
and powerful right wing lobby group‹have been trying to push Darwin out.
or at Ieast make sure his theory is presented as "just one opinion"
In Alabama any school book that discusses evolution must carry a warning
that says: "This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some
scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living
things, such as plants, animals and humans. No one was present when life
first appeared on Earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins
should be considered as theory, not fact."
Because state legislatures cannot exert the same control over
universities, Iecturers have greater freedom in what and how we teach. But
we have to teach the students the schools produce. Even at my college, in
the highly pro-science state of California I regularly meet students who
think science is "just one person's opinion"
This is where the real problem lies for the educator. How can you teach
science to someone who has reached 18 and thinks it's about which ideas
you find the most appealing? Having that student in your class four hours
a week for one or two semesters is unlikely to overcome the effects of 12
years of school education.
Thc US academic waters are inviting. But for some students you will have
to explain what science is, and try to convince them that it has merit.
Nothing you will have experienced in Britain will have prepared you for
that.
Keith Devlin
Guardian Weekly 23 September 1999
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
06 Jan 2004 09:15:55 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 08:45:36 +1100, (oz) posted
to alt.atheism:
You are likely to meet some of that 44% the moment you step into a
classroom. How do you teach science to someone who refuses to entertain
the overwhelming mass of evidence that makes the principles of evolution
by natural selection one of the most sure pieces of scientific knowledge
we have?
One way would be to fail students who refuse to accept facts.
Unfortunately, the feelings of a student are more important than what
he or she learns.
In Alabama any school book that discusses evolution must carry a warning
that says: "This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some
scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living
things, such as plants, animals and humans. No one was present when life
first appeared on Earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins
should be considered as theory, not fact."
Never mind that the entire statement has very little to do with
evolution, and the disclaimer itself has nothing to do with it.
Because state legislatures cannot exert the same control over
universities, Iecturers have greater freedom in what and how we teach. But
we have to teach the students the schools produce. Even at my college, in
the highly pro-science state of California I regularly meet students who
think science is "just one person's opinion"
And, if yours differs from the professor's, you fail the course.
Pretty simple.
This is where the real problem lies for the educator. How can you teach
science to someone who has reached 18 and thinks it's about which ideas
you find the most appealing?
You can't. Not everyone can kick a field goal or sink a 3-pointer,
and not everyone can understand enough science to earn a BS.
Thc US academic waters are inviting. But for some students you will have
to explain what science is, and try to convince them that it has merit.
Or you change the way things are done so that, like remedial reading
courses for entering freshmen who can't read, you have remedial
science courses for those who are scientifically illiterate. And, if
they can't pass the remedial courses, reading, math, science,
whatever, they don't progress any further.
--
There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence.
- (Will Rogers)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kix Adams" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
04 Jan 2004 09:19:45 AM |
|
|
You are trying to put limits on God almighty, just as Mohammad did and
just as Satan did and that is what holds you prisoner in darkness.
John 3:
16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal
life.
17. For God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but
that the world should be saved through him.
18. He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not
hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of
the only begotten Son of God.
19. And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world,
and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were
evil.
Had Mohammad held fast to the teachings of the followers of Jesus
Christ as they presented God's word to him instead of to the vile
words of satan's demons who hardened his heart and poluted God's word
you would not be living in such darkness.
"Truth Hunter" <hunter77099@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e164e783.0311231044.3c576912@posting.google.com...
"Every man shall be put to death for his own sins."
One person cannot die for the sins of another. This means that the
guilt from the sins committed by one person cannot be wiped out by the
punishment given to another person. Jesus cannot wipe out the sins of
anyone.First, in Exodus 32:30-35, Moses asks God to punish him for the
sin of the Golden Calf, committed by the people. God tells Moses that
the person who committed the sin is the person who must receive the
punishment. Then, in Deuteronomy 24:16, God simply states this as a
basic principle, "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins."
This concept is repeated in the Prophets, in Ezekiel 18 "The soul that
sinneth, it shall die... the righteousness of the righteous shall be
upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
04 Jan 2004 10:54:01 AM |
|
|
On 4 Jan 2004 07:19:45 -0800, (Kix Adams) wrote:
You are trying to put limits on God almighty, just as Mohammad did and
just as Satan did and that is what holds you prisoner in darkness.
Why are you cross-posting this stupidity to an atheist newsgroup?
After all, you haven't yet demostrated that it is anything more than a
figment of your deluded imagination.
.
|
|
|
| User: "oz" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
04 Jan 2004 03:11:23 PM |
|
|
In article <t7hgvvoner33tsb30q6km575egq6chpulp@4ax.com>, Christopher A.
Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On 4 Jan 2004 07:19:45 -0800, (Kix Adams) wrote:
You are trying to put limits on God almighty, just as Mohammad did and
just as Satan did and that is what holds you prisoner in darkness.
Why are you cross-posting this stupidity to an atheist newsgroup?
After all, you haven't yet demostrated that it is anything more than a
figment of your deluded imagination.
You have yet to demonstrate it to a Christian group too.
Making claims to get Brownie points from God is NOT rational discussion
and argument - it is pomposity run riot
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Logos" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
23 Nov 2003 12:57:21 PM |
|
|
On 23 Nov 2003 10:44:10 -0800, (Truth Hunter)
wrote:
"Every man shall be put to death for his own sins."
One person cannot die for the sins of another. This means that the
guilt from the sins committed by one person cannot be wiped out by the
punishment given to another person. Jesus cannot wipe out the sins of
anyone.First, in Exodus 32:30-35, Moses asks God to punish him for the
sin of the Golden Calf, committed by the people. God tells Moses that
the person who committed the sin is the person who must receive the
punishment. Then, in Deuteronomy 24:16, God simply states this as a
basic principle, "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins."
This concept is repeated in the Prophets, in Ezekiel 18 "The soul that
sinneth, it shall die... the righteousness of the righteous shall be
upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
Next, you wish to state Jesus was a sacrifice. Now, if Jesus is god,
then a god can die. If a god can die, then another god needed to
resurrect him. Now, if you believe Jesus was a man sent by god...
What, EXACTLY does God say about human sacrifice in the TaNaCH? In
Deuteronomy 12:30-31, God calls Human sacrifice something that He
hates, and an abomination to Him, "for every abomination to the
Eternal, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even
their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their
gods. In Jeremiah 19:4-6, God tells us that Human sacrifice is so
horrible a concept to Him, that it did not even come into His mind to
demand it from His creation, "They have built also the high places of
Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal,
which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind." We
see the same thing in Psalm 106:37-38, and in Ezekiel 16.20. This
means that God would not accept Jesus's death on the cross as a blood
sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. The very idea of that God would
accept a human sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins is UnBiblical.
do realize that in the OT that no man can be held accontable for
anothers sins. Yet you have us believe god sent his "son" to die for
sin. You also realize that human sacrifice is an abomination to the
lord..how is it that Jesus could sacrifice himself?
And if Jesus was a man, what about his sacrifice to get better other
men? If he was not a god, he was an hero. No lilliputian like you will
be able to diminish his "beau geste".
That blood is required for atonement. How come the people of Ninevah,
in the Book of Jonah, received atonement without shedding blood? All
they did was repent.
Did you ever read Ezekiel Ch. 18? It is all about repentance and there
is no mention of blood. God requires NOT the sinner's death but,
rather, that he repent and live.
Jesus said you to love other people, do you understand?
Logos
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
23 Nov 2003 11:33:50 PM |
|
|
On 23 Nov 2003 10:44:10 -0800, (Truth Hunter)
wrote:
One person cannot die for the sins of another.
Your going to get the natives upset! They don't like the truth.
Christ says, "The blood of the innocent buys you nothing from God!"
..
**************************
A preacher is the blind
leading the blind...
The Last Church
http://www.thelastchurch.org
michael@thelastchurch.org
alt.religion.thelastchurch
alt.religion.the-last-church
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
23 Nov 2003 03:21:36 PM |
|
|
On 23 Nov 2003 10:44:10 -0800, (Truth Hunter) wrote:
"Every man shall be put to death for his own sins."
One person cannot die for the sins of another. This means that the
guilt from the sins committed by one person cannot be wiped out by the
punishment given to another person. Jesus cannot wipe out the sins of
anyone.First, in Exodus 32:30-35, Moses asks God to punish him for the
sin of the Golden Calf, committed by the people. God tells Moses that
the person who committed the sin is the person who must receive the
punishment. Then, in Deuteronomy 24:16, God simply states this as a
basic principle, "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins."
This concept is repeated in the Prophets, in Ezekiel 18 "The soul that
sinneth, it shall die... the righteousness of the righteous shall be
upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
TH, th, th - are you still out to embarrass yourself.
You're still in the OT part of the bible. You need to turn to the NT, the part
about Jesus Christ our Messiah. Before Jesus died on the cross, there was no
salvation to be had.
Next, you wish to state Jesus was a sacrifice. Now, if Jesus is god,
then a god can die. If a god can die, then another god needed to
resurrect him. Now, if you believe Jesus was a man sent by god...
Jesus the man died on the cross. Christ never involked his divinity or he
therefore would never be able to proclaim he was 100% man.
The rest of your post is snipped out of shear lack of understanding on your
part.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
23 Nov 2003 06:19:50 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sun, 23 Nov 2003 15:21:36 -0600, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> let us all know that:
On 23 Nov 2003 10:44:10 -0800, (Truth Hunter) wrote:
"Every man shall be put to death for his own sins."
One person cannot die for the sins of another. This means that the
guilt from the sins committed by one person cannot be wiped out by the
punishment given to another person. Jesus cannot wipe out the sins of
anyone.First, in Exodus 32:30-35, Moses asks God to punish him for the
sin of the Golden Calf, committed by the people. God tells Moses that
the person who committed the sin is the person who must receive the
punishment. Then, in Deuteronomy 24:16, God simply states this as a
basic principle, "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins."
This concept is repeated in the Prophets, in Ezekiel 18 "The soul that
sinneth, it shall die... the righteousness of the righteous shall be
upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
TH, th, th - are you still out to embarrass yourself.
You're still in the OT part of the bible.
Which jesus said to keep. And the 10 demandments are part of the
OT, aren't they, dukey? You keep the 10 demandments, don't you?
See what happens when you don't think before you write?
You need to turn to the NT, the part
about Jesus Christ our Messiah. Before Jesus died on the cross, there was no
salvation to be had.
Because there was no need. And still isn't, dukey-boy.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
24 Nov 2003 11:54:07 AM |
|
|
On 23 Nov 2003, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> screwed up his face, groaned,
pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:gt82sv4uqfghoc4vqi1v8vt7at6i3rh26p@4ax.com:
On 23 Nov 2003 10:44:10 -0800, (Truth Hunter)
wrote:
"Every man shall be put to death for his own sins."
One person cannot die for the sins of another. This means that the
guilt from the sins committed by one person cannot be wiped out by the
punishment given to another person. Jesus cannot wipe out the sins of
anyone.First, in Exodus 32:30-35, Moses asks God to punish him for the
sin of the Golden Calf, committed by the people. God tells Moses that
the person who committed the sin is the person who must receive the
punishment. Then, in Deuteronomy 24:16, God simply states this as a
basic principle, "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins."
This concept is repeated in the Prophets, in Ezekiel 18 "The soul that
sinneth, it shall die... the righteousness of the righteous shall be
upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
TH, th, th - are you still out to embarrass yourself.
You're still in the OT part of the bible. You need to turn to the
NT, the part about Jesus Christ our Messiah. Before Jesus died on
the cross, there was no salvation to be had.
Next, you wish to state Jesus was a sacrifice. Now, if Jesus is god,
then a god can die. If a god can die, then another god needed to
resurrect him. Now, if you believe Jesus was a man sent by god...
Jesus the man died on the cross. Christ never involked his divinity
or he therefore would never be able to proclaim he was 100% man.
The rest of your post is snipped out of shear lack of understanding on
your part.
Duke, would you like to make mad, passionate love to Jesus and have ten
of his babies? Now you can! Just mail me a check for $50,000 and I'll
set up your private meeting with a guaranteed messianic gigolo TODAY!
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
03 Dec 2003 06:32:56 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 15:21:36 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On 23 Nov 2003 10:44:10 -0800, (Truth Hunter) wrote:
"Every man shall be put to death for his own sins."
One person cannot die for the sins of another. This means that the
guilt from the sins committed by one person cannot be wiped out by the
punishment given to another person. Jesus cannot wipe out the sins of
anyone.First, in Exodus 32:30-35, Moses asks God to punish him for the
sin of the Golden Calf, committed by the people. God tells Moses that
the person who committed the sin is the person who must receive the
punishment. Then, in Deuteronomy 24:16, God simply states this as a
basic principle, "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins."
This concept is repeated in the Prophets, in Ezekiel 18 "The soul that
sinneth, it shall die... the righteousness of the righteous shall be
upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
TH, th, th - are you still out to embarrass yourself.
You're still in the OT part of the bible. You need to turn to the NT, the part
about Jesus Christ our Messiah. Before Jesus died on the cross, there was no
salvation to be had.
How pathetic. What sort of God creates a need for salvation yet refuses to
provide a means until appeased by a ritual?
Next, you wish to state Jesus was a sacrifice. Now, if Jesus is god,
then a god can die. If a god can die, then another god needed to
resurrect him. Now, if you believe Jesus was a man sent by god...
Jesus the man died on the cross. Christ never involked his divinity or he
therefore would never be able to proclaim he was 100% man.
The rest of your post is snipped out of shear lack of understanding on your
part.
You are unable to think outside your programming.
-Barry
========
Web page: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~barry.og
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Last Church" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
03 Dec 2003 09:43:01 PM |
|
|
Christ says, "The blood of the innocent buys you nothing from God."
" I want mercy not sacrifice!" Salvation is free to all as it always
was. It is a gift of God. You can not buy it by killing anyone.
..
**************************
A preacher is the blind
leading the blind...
The Last Church
http://www.thelastchurch.org
michaell@thelastchurch.org
alt.religion.thelastchurch
alt.religion.the-last-church
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
03 Dec 2003 11:15:02 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 23:32:56 +1100, Barry OGrady
<god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> posted in alt.atheism:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 15:21:36 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
Jesus the man died on the cross. Christ never involked his divinity or he
therefore would never be able to proclaim he was 100% man.
The rest of your post is snipped out of shear lack of understanding on your
part.
You are unable to think outside your programming.
Or spell outside it.
--
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
23 Nov 2003 07:20:43 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 15:21:36 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
major crap snip
Jesus the man died on the cross. Christ never involked his divinity or he
therefore would never be able to proclaim he was 100% man.
The rest of your post is snipped out of shear lack of understanding on your
part.
First, there is no evidence your Stick boy even existed. Second,
it's all dogmatic ***** pulled out of superstitious feces. Third,
you're stupid.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
