Christians and Jews: why do you suppose that God demands the sacrifice of blood? Why does an omnipotent being need blood to be spilt for forgiveness? [Spirituality & Religion]
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies 禄
AuRevoir 路 36-40, M
I mean the answer is obvious.. u just gotta read the beginning basically..
Sin is death.. There was no death before sin.. Equivalent exchange.. 馃槳 it鈥檚 nothing complicated at all..
Sin is death.. There was no death before sin.. Equivalent exchange.. 馃槳 it鈥檚 nothing complicated at all..
AuRevoir 路 36-40, M
@Pikachu it鈥檚 not a demand.. it鈥檚 natures course.. he knew what death was and how it works.. think outside of the box..
It鈥檚 like someone knowing they can鈥檛 go back to a person if they found out they were cheated on.. it鈥檚 inherent in nature.. 馃槳 a natural course.. he鈥檚 a being of all knowledge.. sin is a matter of nature.. a matter of knowledge.. not a rule implied..
Contexts are keys..
It鈥檚 like someone knowing they can鈥檛 go back to a person if they found out they were cheated on.. it鈥檚 inherent in nature.. 馃槳 a natural course.. he鈥檚 a being of all knowledge.. sin is a matter of nature.. a matter of knowledge.. not a rule implied..
Contexts are keys..
AuRevoir 路 36-40, M
@Pikachu and I just told you he didn鈥檛.. it鈥檚 not him who made the rule.. and you鈥檙e saying he did.. he makes you AWARE of the rule.. but the rule simply existed and always has existed..
Imagine it with a narrative like a movie.. a genius comes into existence.. And is suddenly aware of all right and all wrong.. and all the consequences of wrong.. they are the ultimate being and therefore it is a simple thing for them to choose all that is right over all that is wrong..
Sin is sin by definition alone at this time. It does not need to be experienced in order for it to have made itself an existence.. it鈥檚 like gravity before newton naming it a law and such think of it that way.. it has a presence.. it had a cause and effect.. but only when sin occurs.. the deity of course does not sin.. but mankind who he made does..
He then in his responsibilities for creating man.. tests the heart of man to see if their worthy to once again enter into perfection away from sin..
He sends a perfect sacrifice to defeat the effects of sin.. so that one day, all who sought for an escape from death of the soul would have it..
馃槳 it鈥檚 all in order..
Imagine it with a narrative like a movie.. a genius comes into existence.. And is suddenly aware of all right and all wrong.. and all the consequences of wrong.. they are the ultimate being and therefore it is a simple thing for them to choose all that is right over all that is wrong..
Sin is sin by definition alone at this time. It does not need to be experienced in order for it to have made itself an existence.. it鈥檚 like gravity before newton naming it a law and such think of it that way.. it has a presence.. it had a cause and effect.. but only when sin occurs.. the deity of course does not sin.. but mankind who he made does..
He then in his responsibilities for creating man.. tests the heart of man to see if their worthy to once again enter into perfection away from sin..
He sends a perfect sacrifice to defeat the effects of sin.. so that one day, all who sought for an escape from death of the soul would have it..
馃槳 it鈥檚 all in order..
@AuRevoir
Well according to the bible he does. That's really all i'm talking about here.
You're kind of losing me here.
Surely sin only exists in reference to god.
It sounds like you're positing a scenario wherein god is not the creator and arbiter of the universe but simply another being existing within the laws of the universe.
Where do you get that from?
Please clarify if you're thinking about a god myth other than the god of Abraham
and I just told you he didn鈥檛.
Well according to the bible he does. That's really all i'm talking about here.
You're kind of losing me here.
Surely sin only exists in reference to god.
It sounds like you're positing a scenario wherein god is not the creator and arbiter of the universe but simply another being existing within the laws of the universe.
Where do you get that from?
Please clarify if you're thinking about a god myth other than the god of Abraham
AuRevoir 路 36-40, M
@Pikachu You're clearly not following what I'm saying.. So there's no point trying to get you to understand it.. 馃槳 And that's not what I'm saying at all.. Which is why your point of view is misconstrued and you think you understand the context, when you don't.. Even after I explained it to you.. And I don't feel like following a pattern of continuing to explain further to someone.. 馃槳 Who still can't understand it at the level I bothered to explain it at.. 馃槳 I'm not here to change your mind about anything..
@Pikachu For the kind of Christian (mostly creationists) who has never studied philosophy, theology or evolution, there is no referent or reality outside the Bible.
From the way AuRevoir constructs his argument, it seems that he has no idea how you draw your conclusions because he knows nothing of other ways of thinking.
He would know that people who think differently exist, but not the logic in their thinking. To him, it's as foreign as Chinese. The only thing he can hear is the tone of voice, that of the atheist. It sets him in a defensive mood, but his only armour is the Bible, and he has no way of understanding why, even though it works for him, it couldn't for atheists, agnostics, philosophers or scientists.
Part of it is that the person who has faith does not want to lose it.
If ever they do lose it, it usually due to emotional shock, some kind of immense and incomprehensible pain.
I've only once encountered a person who lost their faith on grounds of reason.
From the way AuRevoir constructs his argument, it seems that he has no idea how you draw your conclusions because he knows nothing of other ways of thinking.
He would know that people who think differently exist, but not the logic in their thinking. To him, it's as foreign as Chinese. The only thing he can hear is the tone of voice, that of the atheist. It sets him in a defensive mood, but his only armour is the Bible, and he has no way of understanding why, even though it works for him, it couldn't for atheists, agnostics, philosophers or scientists.
Part of it is that the person who has faith does not want to lose it.
If ever they do lose it, it usually due to emotional shock, some kind of immense and incomprehensible pain.
I've only once encountered a person who lost their faith on grounds of reason.
AuRevoir 路 36-40, M
@hartfire 馃樂 Nothing about my statements were defensive.. You're projecting.. A whole lot actually... @Pikachu And you talking about tissues.. If anything is an act of defensiveness or aggression it's things such as this.. 馃檮 You asked for an explanation, I gave one.. Is this asking a genuine question.. Or is this simple high horse baiting.. You come across as though you know it all when you don't.. You feign expertise over something you've limited knowledge on yourself.. You've constructed your own "Bible" by which rules of your understanding of "It's" God exist.. 馃檮 And so when an explanation is given other than your construct you say "NO!" and ridicule with things about tissues.. 馃し I'm not trying convince you of anything, I'm not trying convert you of anything.. I'm trying to give an explanation of things... 馃檮 That you clearly can't give the time to understand because you're stuck in your own "Construct" of what the "Bible" and "God" means to you.. 馃檮 I'm not sure if you're unaware of your own actions and your antagonistic nature.. Or if you're purposely trolling.. 馃槳
@hartfire 馃槳 Do go on and point out anything I've written that even correlates to your argument about me? Where did I say people can't think differently? People can think differently.. My "Explanation" in itself is DIFFERENT than the explanation of the original posters.. 馃檮 You walk around throwing double standards at that point as if it's an intelligent remark to make.. 馃檮 Hypocrisy at it's finest... 馃檮 All I stated is that if they don't understand it at that point.. And their behavior is antagonistic why should I further engage in explanations.. 馃し They're the ones who don't wish to engage in others thinking differently.. 馃し That much is being made clear, and same goes for you..
馃槳 Only thing I can assume is your brains were hard wired to experience an innocent emoji as an insult towards your character.. 馃槳 Because you "ASSUME" things without knowing my own character.. 馃槳 That I use emoji's to express myself in textual format.. And that I've been sleep deprived so I feel exhausted.. 馃槳 My friends been using it and then she got me hooked on using it as well.. 馃槳 Now you can either take the high road and admit that this was all a simple understanding or you can continue to be upset.. 馃し Either way it's your call.. And one can choose to lie to themselves and others about things.. 馃憖 Or come to different conclussions.. 馃樂 Which is the beauty of life and free will..
@hartfire 馃槳 Do go on and point out anything I've written that even correlates to your argument about me? Where did I say people can't think differently? People can think differently.. My "Explanation" in itself is DIFFERENT than the explanation of the original posters.. 馃檮 You walk around throwing double standards at that point as if it's an intelligent remark to make.. 馃檮 Hypocrisy at it's finest... 馃檮 All I stated is that if they don't understand it at that point.. And their behavior is antagonistic why should I further engage in explanations.. 馃し They're the ones who don't wish to engage in others thinking differently.. 馃し That much is being made clear, and same goes for you..
馃槳 Only thing I can assume is your brains were hard wired to experience an innocent emoji as an insult towards your character.. 馃槳 Because you "ASSUME" things without knowing my own character.. 馃槳 That I use emoji's to express myself in textual format.. And that I've been sleep deprived so I feel exhausted.. 馃槳 My friends been using it and then she got me hooked on using it as well.. 馃槳 Now you can either take the high road and admit that this was all a simple understanding or you can continue to be upset.. 馃し Either way it's your call.. And one can choose to lie to themselves and others about things.. 馃憖 Or come to different conclussions.. 馃樂 Which is the beauty of life and free will..
@AuRevoir If I'm wrong about your response having been defensive, I am sorry.
Okay, I accept that I did make a few assumptions. There was no way that I could have guessed that you were sleep deprived, and hence that this would be affecting the calibre of your answers.
You asked me to "go on and point out anything I've written that even correlates to your argument about me."
Specifically, you requested:
'Where did I say people can't think differently?'
I never said that you said this. I said, "He would know that people who think differently exist, but not the logic in their thinking." My request is that you re-read it carefully.
Could you please quote to me what I said that you believe shows that I have a double standard?
What did I say that was hypocritical?
And would you please spell out exactly how and why?
You did say that if Pikachu (or others) doesn't "understand it at that point... and their behavior is antagonistic," then you believe it is futile to "engage in further explanations."
The thing is, saying, "Sin is death.. There was no death before sin. Equivalent exchange.. 馃槳 it鈥檚 nothing complicated at all," doesn't actually work as an argument.
Here's why. "Sin is death" is a statement of belief, not fact.
In order for it to be "true", a person must first belief in the Bible as literal (not metaphorical) truth, and in particular one must believe that God decreed that all humans must die because Adam and Eve sinned against his first command.
It ignores Pikachu's argument, which, admittedly, he has not stated clearly.
The argument is that if God is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and good, then he could have and would have prevented evil from coming into existence (including not creating the angel Satan.) Since evil does exist, then god cannot be omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and good. Therefore at least one of those four criteria must be false. Therefore, the God of the Bible (as He is defined by the Bible) does not and could not exist.
From the point of view of an atheist, "sin" and "evil" amount to suffering caused by deliberate, unconscious, or ignorant behaviours - and the reasons derive from factors such as neurosis, fear, anger, greed and ignorance. Further, there is much suffering in life which is not caused by evil or by humans, but by natural phenomena which arise from the nature of life itself (disease, natural catastrophies, etc.)
For an atheist, there is nothing sinful about death; it's no more than a necessary aspect of life, and although there may be suffering in the process of dying,, after death there is none. So to an atheist, the statement "sin is death" makes no sense whatsoever,
About Pikachu. He is not trolling. The definition of an internet troll is "someone who leaves an intentionally annoying or offensive message on the internet, in order to upset someone or to get attention or cause trouble" (Cambridge Dictionary).
Pikachu's argument against the existence of the Biblical God is not his own invention but a classic of long standing. (I've outlined it above when discussing the attributes of God. For proof, see The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/ The Problem of Evil.)
I think maybe, though I could be wrong, that Pikachu is an atheist who is close to the Richard Dawkins end of the spectrum - meaning, he is evangelistic about attempting to persuade others to abandon beliefs in a Biblical God. (Most atheists are not interested in trying to convert others to their way of thinking.)
I don't believe Pikachu asks his questions in order to be deliberately offensive. I believe he is open to hearing debate - but he will only accept arguments that have 100% sound logic; each premise must be testable and the premises must add up to the conclusion. So in order to engage with him at this level, one would have to look up the arguments against his premises and conclusions. One is dealing with the world's top philosophers in this matter - so an ordinary person's responses are not going to work; they will be shot down every time because they contain logical flaws.
I guess that that emoji stands for someone weeping a tear, an expression, perhaps, of sadness or frustration. No, I didn't take it as an insult. I saw it only as an unclear expression of your feelings - whatever they might be.
Okay, I accept that I did make a few assumptions. There was no way that I could have guessed that you were sleep deprived, and hence that this would be affecting the calibre of your answers.
You asked me to "go on and point out anything I've written that even correlates to your argument about me."
Specifically, you requested:
'Where did I say people can't think differently?'
I never said that you said this. I said, "He would know that people who think differently exist, but not the logic in their thinking." My request is that you re-read it carefully.
Could you please quote to me what I said that you believe shows that I have a double standard?
What did I say that was hypocritical?
And would you please spell out exactly how and why?
You did say that if Pikachu (or others) doesn't "understand it at that point... and their behavior is antagonistic," then you believe it is futile to "engage in further explanations."
The thing is, saying, "Sin is death.. There was no death before sin. Equivalent exchange.. 馃槳 it鈥檚 nothing complicated at all," doesn't actually work as an argument.
Here's why. "Sin is death" is a statement of belief, not fact.
In order for it to be "true", a person must first belief in the Bible as literal (not metaphorical) truth, and in particular one must believe that God decreed that all humans must die because Adam and Eve sinned against his first command.
It ignores Pikachu's argument, which, admittedly, he has not stated clearly.
The argument is that if God is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and good, then he could have and would have prevented evil from coming into existence (including not creating the angel Satan.) Since evil does exist, then god cannot be omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and good. Therefore at least one of those four criteria must be false. Therefore, the God of the Bible (as He is defined by the Bible) does not and could not exist.
From the point of view of an atheist, "sin" and "evil" amount to suffering caused by deliberate, unconscious, or ignorant behaviours - and the reasons derive from factors such as neurosis, fear, anger, greed and ignorance. Further, there is much suffering in life which is not caused by evil or by humans, but by natural phenomena which arise from the nature of life itself (disease, natural catastrophies, etc.)
For an atheist, there is nothing sinful about death; it's no more than a necessary aspect of life, and although there may be suffering in the process of dying,, after death there is none. So to an atheist, the statement "sin is death" makes no sense whatsoever,
About Pikachu. He is not trolling. The definition of an internet troll is "someone who leaves an intentionally annoying or offensive message on the internet, in order to upset someone or to get attention or cause trouble" (Cambridge Dictionary).
Pikachu's argument against the existence of the Biblical God is not his own invention but a classic of long standing. (I've outlined it above when discussing the attributes of God. For proof, see The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/ The Problem of Evil.)
I think maybe, though I could be wrong, that Pikachu is an atheist who is close to the Richard Dawkins end of the spectrum - meaning, he is evangelistic about attempting to persuade others to abandon beliefs in a Biblical God. (Most atheists are not interested in trying to convert others to their way of thinking.)
I don't believe Pikachu asks his questions in order to be deliberately offensive. I believe he is open to hearing debate - but he will only accept arguments that have 100% sound logic; each premise must be testable and the premises must add up to the conclusion. So in order to engage with him at this level, one would have to look up the arguments against his premises and conclusions. One is dealing with the world's top philosophers in this matter - so an ordinary person's responses are not going to work; they will be shot down every time because they contain logical flaws.
I guess that that emoji stands for someone weeping a tear, an expression, perhaps, of sadness or frustration. No, I didn't take it as an insult. I saw it only as an unclear expression of your feelings - whatever they might be.
AuRevoir 路 36-40, M
@hartfire 馃樂 There's no need point anything out because you apologized and I'm sorry too.. cuz I'm sure we all probably get things lost in translation here and there.. 馃憖 And your current explanation of things is interesting.. 馃槳 But alas I'm still exhausted and would rather read and listen than get into my own kind of a thing..
@AuRevoir
lol put the claws away, kitty. You failed to communicate your point (whether that is your fault or mine) and explicitly declined to continue a dialogue which might have resulted in understanding...yet somehow you have plenty of time to say an awful lot about me personally. That makes me question your reason for entering this thread.
I asked if you needed a tissue because you've been obsessively posting 馃槳
lol bit of a joke. Sorry it rubbed you the wrong way.
lol put the claws away, kitty. You failed to communicate your point (whether that is your fault or mine) and explicitly declined to continue a dialogue which might have resulted in understanding...yet somehow you have plenty of time to say an awful lot about me personally. That makes me question your reason for entering this thread.
I asked if you needed a tissue because you've been obsessively posting 馃槳
lol bit of a joke. Sorry it rubbed you the wrong way.
@hartfire
Pretty good assessment of me, actually. I'm flattered.
The only thing i disagree with is that i'm not particularly interested in changing what people believe about a god. I'm just interested in the debate.
Although you praise me a bit too highly by suggesting someone needs to look up the arguments against my positions lol.
Pretty good assessment of me, actually. I'm flattered.
The only thing i disagree with is that i'm not particularly interested in changing what people believe about a god. I'm just interested in the debate.
Although you praise me a bit too highly by suggesting someone needs to look up the arguments against my positions lol.