| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Andrew W" |
| Date: |
28 Dec 2003 03:44:03 PM |
| Object: |
Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us? |
Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us?
If Jesus were to decide to go to prison in place of an axe murderer, would
that axe murderer then stop killing people?
If not then which sector of society would respond to Jesus' sacrifice on the
cross?
Obviously only the good and the meek, and all the truly evil people would
continue business as usual.
The result is that now the good and the meek are disempowered and de-willed
and the evil ones have more freedom of movement and thus more power.
If christianity hands over more power to the evil sector then christianity
cannot possibly be good.
--
Andrew.
Religion is the character assassination of man followed by the appointment
of a hero to redeem him.
Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/ajwerner/
.
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us? |
28 Dec 2003 04:31:37 PM |
|
|
"Andrew W" <nosp@m_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3fef4eaa$0$18390$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us?
If Jesus were to decide to go to prison in place of an axe murderer, would
that axe murderer then stop killing people?
If not then which sector of society would respond to Jesus' sacrifice on
the
cross?
Obviously only the good and the meek, and all the truly evil people would
continue business as usual.
The result is that now the good and the meek are disempowered and
de-willed
and the evil ones have more freedom of movement and thus more power.
If christianity hands over more power to the evil sector then christianity
cannot possibly be good.
If only the meek accept Jesu8 then by definition anyone who accepts Jesus is
meek. Your premise is circular. By the way, why assume that the axe murderer
hasn't accepted Jesus, and then continues on his merry way. Axe but don't
tell.
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew W" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us? |
28 Dec 2003 11:48:03 PM |
|
|
"Dr. DuFonet" <accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote in message
news:dRIHb.22705$Pg1.4741@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
If only the meek accept Jesu8 then by definition anyone who accepts Jesus
is
meek. Your premise is circular.
I could be wrong but I don't think you have much of an argument there
especially since the christian bible is the king of circular reasoning.
By the way, why assume that the axe murderer
hasn't accepted Jesus, and then continues on his merry way. Axe but
don't tell.
Maybe one or two would but not all, and what would be the point if he
continued killing? (like christians used to).
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
"Intellectual Property" can make no claim on absolute fact.
--
Andrew.
The only thing that the scriptures prove is that people wrote things down
2000 years ago. Nothing more.
Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/ajwerner/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us? |
29 Dec 2003 09:56:56 PM |
|
|
"Andrew W" <nosp@m_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3fefc018$0$18750$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
"Dr. DuFonet" <accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote in message
news:dRIHb.22705$Pg1.4741@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
If only the meek accept Jesu8 then by definition anyone who accepts
Jesus
is
meek. Your premise is circular.
I could be wrong but I don't think you have much of an argument there
especially since the christian bible is the king of circular reasoning.
By the way, why assume that the axe murderer
hasn't accepted Jesus, and then continues on his merry way. Axe but
don't tell.
Maybe one or two would but not all, and what would be the point if he
continued killing? (like christians used to).
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
"Intellectual Property" can make no claim on absolute fact.
Are you saying that axe murderers aren't meek? Maybe being too meek causes
them to snap mentally and whack people. Also they have to own at least one
axe, or have some experience using it.
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "onegod" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us? |
29 Dec 2003 12:50:32 PM |
|
|
"Andrew W" <nosp@m_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3fef4eaa$0$18390$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us?
If Jesus were to decide to go to prison in place of an axe murderer, would
that axe murderer then stop killing people?
If not then which sector of society would respond to Jesus' sacrifice on
the
cross?
Obviously only the good and the meek, and all the truly evil people would
continue business as usual.
The result is that now the good and the meek are disempowered and
de-willed
and the evil ones have more freedom of movement and thus more power.
If christianity hands over more power to the evil sector then christianity
cannot possibly be good.
It depends on DEFINITION of good. For example, if there is heaven and
dying(non-suicide) is a requirement, then being killed is one way to get to
heaven.
Other example and definitions.... Long ago, it was thought that GOOD men
can own slaves AND woman, aka wife. :-) Of course there is a country that
has one of its motto "all men are created equal" which include blacks as
well as woman.... "freedom and pursuit of happiness"
Irony is that economic refugees are NOT accepted. So once again, it is
acceptable to discriminate based mostly on basically geological location of
birth. This is not much different than racism or some upper elite class
cast system of past.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Smol" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us? |
29 Dec 2003 02:46:19 AM |
|
|
"Andrew W" <nosp@m_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote in message news:<3fef4eaa$0$18390$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us?
No, since even according to the myth he was alive again
3 days later.
If Jesus were to decide to go to prison in place of an axe murderer, would
that axe murderer then stop killing people?
Of course not.
If not then which sector of society would respond to Jesus' sacrifice on the
cross?
The braindead.
Obviously only the good and the meek, and all the truly evil people would
continue business as usual.
"Good", "meek" or "evil" are unrelated to any religion.
The result is that now the good and the meek are disempowered and de-willed
and the evil ones have more freedom of movement and thus more power.
If christianity hands over more power to the evil sector then christianity
cannot possibly be good.
Duh... you just need to read the OT to find that out...
RS
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dmitry C." |
|
| Title: Re: Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us? |
30 Dec 2003 08:43:55 PM |
|
|
"Andrew W" <nosp@m_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote in message news:<3fef4eaa$0$18390$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us?
If Jesus were to decide to go to prison in place of an axe murderer, would
that axe murderer then stop killing people?
If not then which sector of society would respond to Jesus' sacrifice on the
cross?
Obviously only the good and the meek, and all the truly evil people would
continue business as usual.
The result is that now the good and the meek are disempowered and de-willed
and the evil ones have more freedom of movement and thus more power.
If christianity hands over more power to the evil sector then christianity
cannot possibly be good.
All kinds of people "respond to Jesus' sacrifice on the cross," both
what you consider to be "good" and what you consider to be "evil". All
men are sinners and it is unclear what group of people responds how.
Further, self-defense is not against proper morality, even by the
meek.
Further, strong willpower is a virtue; in fact, fortitude is one of
the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and self-control is one of His fruits.
Finally, even if we suppose for the sake of argument that Christianity
does "hand over more power to the evil sector," it does not make it
false.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us? |
28 Dec 2003 04:37:16 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 08:44:03 +1100, "Andrew W" <nosp@m_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote:
Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us?
Maybe.
If Jesus were to decide to go to prison in place of an axe murderer, would
that axe murderer then stop killing people?
If not then which sector of society would respond to Jesus' sacrifice on the
cross?
Obviously only the good and the meek, and all the truly evil people would
continue business as usual.
The result is that now the good and the meek are disempowered and de-willed
and the evil ones have more freedom of movement and thus more power.
I don't believe anything leads us to believe Jesus was trying to influence
such things.
If christianity hands over more power to the evil sector then christianity
cannot possibly be good.
The idea is to make available a good life after death, which would be
good imo.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew W" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us? |
29 Dec 2003 12:00:51 AM |
|
|
<dh_ld@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:fimuuvs7srq4ak96jnak7s1an0cevruqna@4ax.com...
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 08:44:03 +1100, "Andrew W"
<nosp@m_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote:
The result is that now the good and the meek are disempowered and
de-willed
and the evil ones have more freedom of movement and thus more power.
I don't believe anything leads us to believe Jesus was trying to
influence
such things.
I have no doubt that Jesus had good intentions but we don't know what really
went on all those centuries ago.
What's in the bible are the twisted lies of the religious elite and that's
what christianity is almost entirely based on.
If christianity hands over more power to the evil sector then
christianity
cannot possibly be good.
The idea is to make available a good life after death, which would be
good imo.
But they're just endless promises.
Jesus was supposed to return a long time ago but he didn't.
In one part of the scriptures it implies that he would return in his own
lifetime.
--
Andrew.
Religion is an invisible teddy bear which the followers cannot part with.
Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/ajwerner/
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us? |
29 Dec 2003 08:52:56 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:00:51 +1100, "Andrew W" <nosp@m_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote:
<dh_ld@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:fimuuvs7srq4ak96jnak7s1an0cevruqna@4ax.com...
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 08:44:03 +1100, "Andrew W"
<nosp@m_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote:
The result is that now the good and the meek are disempowered and
de-willed
and the evil ones have more freedom of movement and thus more power.
I don't believe anything leads us to believe Jesus was trying to
influence
such things.
I have no doubt that Jesus had good intentions but we don't know what really
went on all those centuries ago.
Good point.
What's in the bible are the twisted lies of the religious elite
You have no way of knowing that, and just got through pointing it out
in your last paragraph.
and that's
what christianity is almost entirely based on.
If christianity hands over more power to the evil sector then
christianity
cannot possibly be good.
The idea is to make available a good life after death, which would be
good imo.
But they're just endless promises.
You don't know that either. How do you think you could ever learn
anything realistic about these issues, if you keep pretending that you
could know things that are impossible for anyone to know?
Jesus was supposed to return a long time ago
You don't know that.
but he didn't.
You don't know that either.
In one part of the scriptures it implies that he would return in his own
lifetime.
Where does it imply that? Where would he return from? If this is
what you're referring to:
_________________________________________________________
Matthew 24:
30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and
all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man
coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.
[...]
34I tell you the truth, this generation[5] will certainly not pass away until
all these things have happened.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=MATT+24&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
I don't believe you have the correct interpretation of it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew W" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us? |
29 Dec 2003 09:13:02 PM |
|
|
<dh_ld@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:qvo1vv0ri58muobskjhb4nf9nmk2kabvv9@4ax.com...
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:00:51 +1100, "Andrew W"
<nosp@m_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote:
<dh_ld@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:fimuuvs7srq4ak96jnak7s1an0cevruqna@4ax.com...
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 08:44:03 +1100, "Andrew W"
<nosp@m_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote:
You don't know that either.
In one part of the scriptures it implies that he would return in his own
lifetime.
Where does it imply that? Where would he return from? If this is
what you're referring to:
I meant to say in the lifetime of the apostles.
Inerrancy of Prophecy #2: Several quotes, all with the meaning that
Jesus' Second Coming was supposed to happen during the lifetime of the
Apostles:
MATTHEW 16 (KJV)
16:27
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels;
and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
16:28
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not
taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
1 THESSALONIANS 4:15 (NIV)
According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that WE WHO ARE STILL
ALIVE, WE WHO ARE LEFT till the coming of the Lord, will certainly
not precede those who have fallen asleep.
Hebrews 10 (NIV)
36
You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you
will receive what he has promised.
37
For in just a VERY LITTLE WHILE, "He who is coming will come and WILL
NOT DELAY.
JAMES 5:8 (KJV)
Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord
DRAWETH NIGH.
I PETER 4:7 (KJV)
But the END OF ALL THINGS IS AT HAND: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto
prayer.
I JOHN 2:18 (KJV)
Little children, it is the LAST TIME: and as ye have heard that antichrist
shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is
the last time.
REVELATION (KJV)
1:1
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto
his servants things which must SHORTLY COME TO PASS; and he sent and
signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
1:3
Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy,
and keep those things which are written therein: for the TIME IS AT HAND.
3:11
Behold, I COME QUICKLY: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man
take thy crown.
22:7
Behold, I COME QUICKLY: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the
prophecy of this book.
22:12
And, behold, I COME QUICKLY; and my reward is with me, to give every
man according as his work shall be.
22:20
He which testifieth these things saith, SURELY I COME QUICKLY. Amen.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
and finally, these two taken together:
MATTHEW 10:23 (NIV)
When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I TELL YOU THE
TRUTH, YOU WILL NOT FINISH GOING THROUGH THE CITIES OF ISRAEL BEFORE THE SON
OF MAN COMES.
COLOSSIANS 1:23 (NIV)
if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope
held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and THAT HAS BEEN
PROCLAIMED TO EVERY CREATURE UNDER HEAVEN, and of
which I, Paul, have become a servant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us? |
30 Dec 2003 07:14:26 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:13:02 +1100, "Andrew W" <nosp@m_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote:
<dh_ld@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:qvo1vv0ri58muobskjhb4nf9nmk2kabvv9@4ax.com...
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:00:51 +1100, "Andrew W"
<nosp@m_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote:
<dh_ld@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:fimuuvs7srq4ak96jnak7s1an0cevruqna@4ax.com...
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 08:44:03 +1100, "Andrew W"
<nosp@m_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote:
You don't know that either.
In one part of the scriptures it implies that he would return in his own
lifetime.
Where does it imply that? Where would he return from? If this is
what you're referring to:
I meant to say in the lifetime of the apostles.
Inerrancy of Prophecy #2: Several quotes, all with the meaning that
Jesus' Second Coming was supposed to happen during the lifetime of the
Apostles:
MATTHEW 16 (KJV)
16:27
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels;
and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
16:28
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not
taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
1 THESSALONIANS 4:15 (NIV)
According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that WE WHO ARE STILL
ALIVE, WE WHO ARE LEFT till the coming of the Lord, will certainly
not precede those who have fallen asleep.
I agree that those two suggest what you mentioned. But since we
believe that those people have died, if it's for real then it has a different
meaning than what we are making of it. If it's not for real then it's all
just a bunch of *****, and to me it seems like just a waste of time for
people who are convinced it's all ***** to discuss it at all.
Hebrews 10 (NIV)
36
You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you
will receive what he has promised.
37
For in just a VERY LITTLE WHILE, "He who is coming will come and WILL
NOT DELAY.
JAMES 5:8 (KJV)
Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord
DRAWETH NIGH.
I PETER 4:7 (KJV)
But the END OF ALL THINGS IS AT HAND: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto
prayer.
I JOHN 2:18 (KJV)
Little children, it is the LAST TIME: and as ye have heard that antichrist
shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is
the last time.
REVELATION (KJV)
1:1
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto
his servants things which must SHORTLY COME TO PASS; and he sent and
signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
1:3
Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy,
and keep those things which are written therein: for the TIME IS AT HAND.
3:11
Behold, I COME QUICKLY: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man
take thy crown.
22:7
Behold, I COME QUICKLY: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the
prophecy of this book.
22:12
And, behold, I COME QUICKLY; and my reward is with me, to give every
man according as his work shall be.
22:20
He which testifieth these things saith, SURELY I COME QUICKLY. Amen.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
and finally, these two taken together:
MATTHEW 10:23 (NIV)
When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I TELL YOU THE
TRUTH, YOU WILL NOT FINISH GOING THROUGH THE CITIES OF ISRAEL BEFORE THE SON
OF MAN COMES.
COLOSSIANS 1:23 (NIV)
if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope
held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and THAT HAS BEEN
PROCLAIMED TO EVERY CREATURE UNDER HEAVEN, and of
which I, Paul, have become a servant.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us? |
28 Dec 2003 10:05:43 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:37:16 GMT, posted to
alt.atheism:
The idea is to make available a good life after death, which would be
good imo.
In order for there to be a *good* life after death, there has to *be*
a life after death - which there isn't.
--
"Every sensible man, every honest man, must hold the christian sect in horror. 'But what
shall we substitute in its place?' you say. What? A ferocious animal has sucked the
blood of my relatives. I tell you to rid yourselves of this beast and you ask me what
you shall put in its place?" - Voltaire
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Newton Joseph" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us? |
31 Dec 2003 01:42:10 PM |
|
|
WHAT CHUTZPAH
By Newton Joseph
Once the concept of supernatural-
ism is accepted, there are no bound-
aries. Mysticism and magic are the
necessary corollaries of supernatural-
ism. It is very disconcerting that so
many people shun science for the nos-
trum of magic. Because 90 percent of
the population believes in the super-
natural, "therapeutic touch" would
hardly raise an eyebrow for many.
These unfortunate people are putting
themselves at risk. Because managed
health care providers pay for this form
of magic, they give these people a
false sense of security. Managed care
providers would shout with joy if all
of their insureds would accept "thera-
peutic touch;" after all, how many
pennies worth of energy can these
"healers" bill to insurers? Perhaps,
"psychic surgery" will be offered as an
alternative medical procedure.
Emily Rosa, a fourth grader who
has a good sense of reality, knew that
therapeutic touch was based on magic:
As a science project in which she and
one of several healers were separated
by a screen, Emily used a coin flip to
determine whether to put her hand
over the healer's left or right hand.
The healers were then asked to say
whether they felt energy over their left
or right hand. The subjects picked the
correct hand only 44% of the time,
worse than guessing.
I don't think that I could have set
up the experiment Emily did as a
fourth grader, but I too have an inher-
ent and innate sense of reality. I use
myself as a standard. I don't believe
for a minute that the evolutionary
process made some humans more
advanced with special magical and
mystical powers than I have. They
may "think" they have, but that is self-
deception. I wonder if these good peo-
ple took this "healing" concept from
the Bible, and if in their minds that
authenticates this procedure? It seems
the lines separating "faith healers" and
some other practitioners are blurred. I
think they are under the delusion that
they are identifying with and imitating
Jesus, who allegedly healed with the
laying of hands. What chutzpah!
Newton Joseph,
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us? |
29 Dec 2003 08:53:27 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:05:43 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:37:16 GMT, posted to
alt.atheism:
The idea is to make available a good life after death, which would be
good imo.
In order for there to be a *good* life after death, there has to *be*
a life after death - which there isn't.
You don't know that. If there is then some people could know it,
but there is no way for anyone to know if there isn't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us? |
30 Dec 2003 12:41:41 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:53:27 GMT, ejaculated:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:05:43 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:37:16 GMT, posted to
alt.atheism:
The idea is to make available a good life after death, which would be
good imo.
In order for there to be a *good* life after death, there has to *be*
a life after death - which there isn't.
You don't know that. If there is then some people could know it,
but there is no way for anyone to know if there isn't.
Ok, enlighten us, dh_ld. What objective means could a disinterested
third party learn about this life after death that people speak about?
Also, as an FYI, Al Klein actually died at one point, so he's been
"there" so to speak. On what do you base your assertion for the
possibility of an afterlife?
--
Jesus is my crush.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us? |
31 Dec 2003 06:24:36 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:41:41 -0500, Beowulf <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:53:27 GMT, ejaculated:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:05:43 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:37:16 GMT, posted to
alt.atheism:
The idea is to make available a good life after death, which would be
good imo.
In order for there to be a *good* life after death, there has to *be*
a life after death - which there isn't.
You don't know that. If there is then some people could know it,
but there is no way for anyone to know if there isn't.
Ok, enlighten us, dh_ld. What objective means could a disinterested
third party learn about this life after death that people speak about?
You tell me. How could anyone learn of it?
Also, as an FYI, Al Klein actually died at one point, so he's been
"there" so to speak. On what do you base your assertion for the
possibility of an afterlife?
It is a possibility that some experience an afterlife, and it is
a possibility that there is no such thing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us? |
02 Jan 2004 09:23:35 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 00:24:36 GMT, ejaculated:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:41:41 -0500, Beowulf <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:53:27 GMT, ejaculated:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:05:43 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:37:16 GMT, posted to
alt.atheism:
The idea is to make available a good life after death, which would be
good imo.
In order for there to be a *good* life after death, there has to *be*
a life after death - which there isn't.
You don't know that. If there is then some people could know it,
but there is no way for anyone to know if there isn't.
Ok, enlighten us, dh_ld. What objective means could a disinterested
third party learn about this life after death that people speak about?
You tell me.
Why should I tell you? I'm not the one holding forth the possibility
that such a thing exists.
How could anyone learn of it?
What leads you to believe it's a possibility?
Also, as an FYI, Al Klein actually died at one point, so he's been
"there" so to speak. On what do you base your assertion for the
possibility of an afterlife?
It is a possibility that some experience an afterlife, and it is
a possibility that there is no such thing.
On what do you base that assumption?
--
Jesus is my crush.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us? |
02 Jan 2004 06:09:57 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 10:23:35 -0500, Beowulf <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 00:24:36 GMT, ejaculated:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:41:41 -0500, Beowulf <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:53:27 GMT, ejaculated:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:05:43 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:37:16 GMT, posted to
alt.atheism:
The idea is to make available a good life after death, which would be
good imo.
In order for there to be a *good* life after death, there has to *be*
a life after death - which there isn't.
You don't know that. If there is then some people could know it,
but there is no way for anyone to know if there isn't.
Ok, enlighten us, dh_ld. What objective means could a disinterested
third party learn about this life after death that people speak about?
You tell me.
Why should I tell you?
To show that you have given it some thought. It appears that
you have not.
I'm not the one holding forth the possibility
that such a thing exists.
How could anyone learn of it?
What leads you to believe it's a possibility?
The fact that it is a possibility.
Also, as an FYI, Al Klein actually died at one point, so he's been
"there" so to speak. On what do you base your assertion for the
possibility of an afterlife?
It is a possibility that some experience an afterlife, and it is
a possibility that there is no such thing.
On what do you base that assumption?
The fact that nothing we're aware of would make it impossible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us? |
05 Jan 2004 03:01:14 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 00:09:57 GMT, ejaculated:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 10:23:35 -0500, Beowulf <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 00:24:36 GMT, ejaculated:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:41:41 -0500, Beowulf <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:53:27 GMT, ejaculated:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:05:43 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:37:16 GMT, posted to
alt.atheism:
The idea is to make available a good life after death, which would be
good imo.
In order for there to be a *good* life after death, there has to *be*
a life after death - which there isn't.
You don't know that. If there is then some people could know it,
but there is no way for anyone to know if there isn't.
Ok, enlighten us, dh_ld. What objective means could a disinterested
third party learn about this life after death that people speak about?
You tell me.
Why should I tell you?
To show that you have given it some thought. It appears that
you have not.
The point is that I don't see any reason to think there is life after
death, so I have nothing to tell you about why I think there is an
afterlife.
I'm not the one holding forth the possibility
that such a thing exists.
How could anyone learn of it?
What leads you to believe it's a possibility?
The fact that it is a possibility.
Do you not eliminate anything? Do you just as fervently hold forth
the possibility that there's a 3 ft pink elephant under my desk? Do I
need to hold that forth as a possibility forever or could I possibly
use some procedure to eliminate it as a possibility?
If I could eliminate the possibility of the pink elephant, then why
couldn't I eliminate the possibility of an afterlife?
Also, as an FYI, Al Klein actually died at one point, so he's been
"there" so to speak. On what do you base your assertion for the
possibility of an afterlife?
It is a possibility that some experience an afterlife, and it is
a possibility that there is no such thing.
On what do you base that assumption?
The fact that nothing we're aware of would make it impossible.
I think there are plenty of things I'm aware of that make it
impossible for there to be an afterlife.
There is no agreement among any of the known religions about the
qualities of this afterlife and there is nothing to be alive "after"
since there no such thing as a soul or spirit.
--
Jesus is my crush.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us? |
02 Jan 2004 06:24:11 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 00:09:57 GMT, posted to
alt.atheism:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 10:23:35 -0500, Beowulf <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 00:24:36 GMT, ejaculated:
It is a possibility that some experience an afterlife, and it is
a possibility that there is no such thing.
On what do you base that assumption?
The fact that nothing we're aware of would make it impossible.
It's also a possibility that there are invisible, immaterial gremlins
living on your monitor, but no one lives his life as if it were
probable. Nor should anyone live his life as if gods or afterlives
were probable.
--
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid
consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and
ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who
works on the basis of reward and punishment. "
- Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us? |
04 Jan 2004 09:10:36 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 19:24:11 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 00:09:57 GMT, posted to
alt.atheism:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 10:23:35 -0500, Beowulf <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 00:24:36 GMT, ejaculated:
It is a possibility that some experience an afterlife, and it is
a possibility that there is no such thing.
On what do you base that assumption?
The fact that nothing we're aware of would make it impossible.
It's also a possibility that there are invisible, immaterial gremlins
living on your monitor, but no one lives his life as if it were
probable. Nor should anyone live his life as if gods or afterlives
were probable.
Obviously billions of people disagree with you, and absolutely
no one has any reason to take your word for a statement like
that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us? |
04 Jan 2004 11:41:38 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<7ibgvv4lrivv4tdfk86e19doedjchoqj1i@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 19:24:11 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 00:09:57 GMT, posted to
alt.atheism:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 10:23:35 -0500, Beowulf <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 00:24:36 GMT, ejaculated:
It is a possibility that some experience an afterlife, and it is
a possibility that there is no such thing.
On what do you base that assumption?
The fact that nothing we're aware of would make it impossible.
It's also a possibility that there are invisible, immaterial gremlins
living on your monitor, but no one lives his life as if it were
probable. Nor should anyone live his life as if gods or afterlives
were probable.
Obviously billions of people disagree with you, and absolutely
no one has any reason to take your word for a statement like
that.
Exactly. Nobody should take anybody's word for something as ethereal
as religion. Why is it so many people do?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us? |
05 Jan 2004 03:03:44 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 15:10:36 GMT, ejaculated:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 19:24:11 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 00:09:57 GMT, posted to
alt.atheism:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 10:23:35 -0500, Beowulf <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 00:24:36 GMT, ejaculated:
It is a possibility that some experience an afterlife, and it is
a possibility that there is no such thing.
On what do you base that assumption?
The fact that nothing we're aware of would make it impossible.
It's also a possibility that there are invisible, immaterial gremlins
living on your monitor, but no one lives his life as if it were
probable. Nor should anyone live his life as if gods or afterlives
were probable.
Obviously billions of people disagree with you, and absolutely
no one has any reason to take your word for a statement like
that.
Mental hospitals are filled with people who think they are god. The
overwhelming numbers of people making these claims does nothing to
commend the proposition.
Regardless, how many of these billions have actually experienced
something that they regard as "life after death"? Probably a
miniscule fraction. What general principles can we glean from these
"afterlife experiences"? Is there any reason to reject the hypothesis
that these were hallucinations?
--
Jesus is my crush.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us? |
04 Jan 2004 04:05:36 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 15:10:36 GMT, posted to
alt.atheism:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 19:24:11 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
It's also a possibility that there are invisible, immaterial gremlins
living on your monitor, but no one lives his life as if it were
probable. Nor should anyone live his life as if gods or afterlives
were probable.
Obviously billions of people disagree with you
At one time, the entire human population didn't agree that the planet
wasn't flat. Reality isn't subject to opinion.
--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us? |
01 Jan 2004 06:34:19 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 00:24:36 GMT, posted to
alt.atheism:
It is a possibility that some experience an afterlife, and it is
a possibility that there is no such thing.
Then why has no one who has actually died (not experienced near death)
ever experienced an afterlife?
--
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your
Christ."
- Mohandas Gandhi
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us? FROM WHAT? |
03 Jan 2004 12:18:22 PM |
|
|
"Save us" FROM WHAT????
.
|
|
|
| User: "keith" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us? FROM WHAT? |
03 Jan 2004 07:03:26 PM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<3FF7076E.4411989E@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
"Save us" FROM WHAT????
From the damage you cause to yourself because of your sin, says us Christians.
keith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us? FROM WHAT? |
03 Jan 2004 09:00:15 PM |
|
|
keith wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<3FF7076E.4411989E@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
"Save us" FROM WHAT????
From the damage you cause to yourself because of your sin, says us Christians.
keith
===>What is "sin"???
What "damage" does one cause???
How does Jesus' sacrifice cure that damage?
Can you explain or are you just parroting? -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "keith" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us? FROM WHAT? |
04 Jan 2004 03:25:24 AM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<3FF781BF.6D5F1E5@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
keith wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<3FF7076E.4411989E@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
"Save us" FROM WHAT????
From the damage you cause to yourself because of your sin, says us Christians.
keith
===>What is "sin"???
Sin is doing what one ought not do.
What "damage" does one cause???
Doing wrong causes all kinds of damage, but most important is that it
interferes with having a relationship wi
th God.
How does Jesus' sacrifice cure that damage?
We're not told.
Can you explain or are you just parroting? -- L.
Parroting? I am simply tellig you what we christians believe. Woulkd
it be parroting to repeat an address you got from the phone book?
Keith
.
|
|
|
| User: "alight" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Jesus really sacrifice himself to save us? FROM WHAT? |
05 Jan 2004 07:04:52 PM |
|
|
"keith" <keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba696799.0401040125.53ad6fed@posting.google.com...
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:<3FF781BF.6D5F1E5@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
keith wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:<3FF7076E.4411989E@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
"Save us" FROM WHAT????
From the damage you cause to yourself because of your sin, says us
Christians.
keith
===>What is "sin"???
Sin is doing what one ought not do.
What "damage" does one cause???
Doing wrong causes all kinds of damage, but most important is that it
interferes with having a relationship wi
th God.
How does Jesus' sacrifice cure that damage?
We're not told.
You are not told ?
You are told.
You repent of your sins, then the blood of Jesus washes your sins away.
Can you explain or are you just parroting? -- L.
Parroting? I am simply tellig you what we christians believe. Woulkd
it be parroting to repeat an address you got from the phone book?
Keith
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|