The Atheist's Conversation at the Great White Throne
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-08-2014, 06:59 PM
RE: The Atheist's Conversation at the Great White Throne
(17-08-2014 06:26 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  No religious scholar thinks the way you do

I've never met a Christian scholar who denied the life, death, burial, resurrection and deity of Christ as well as the atonement on the cross for the sins of the world.

The leading scholar on the planet today is Gary. R. Habermas,
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/garyhabermas.htm
http://www.garyhabermas.com/

The leading textual critic on the planet today is Daniel B. Wallace,
http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/dwallace/

The burden remains on you to explain how something in nature can come from nothing or how there can be an infinite regress of cause and effects of nature when you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. Thus, nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is God of the Bible. We know this because you are unable to find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings testifying to seeing Jesus alive from the dead.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2014, 07:33 PM
RE: The Atheist's Conversation at the Great White Throne
(17-08-2014 06:59 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(17-08-2014 06:26 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  No religious scholar thinks the way you do

I've never met a Christian scholar who denied the life, death, burial, resurrection and deity of Christ as well as the atonement on the cross for the sins of the world.

The leading scholar on the planet today is Gary. R. Habermas,
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/garyhabermas.htm
http://www.garyhabermas.com/

The leading textual critic on the planet today is Daniel B. Wallace,
http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/dwallace/

The burden remains on you to explain how something in nature can come from nothing or how there can be an infinite regress of cause and effects of nature when you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. Thus, nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is God of the Bible. We know this because you are unable to find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings testifying to seeing Jesus alive from the dead.

I thought I already educated you on this, let me try again, perhaps, as usual, you didn't read it.

Eric ########
Professor V####### S######
Christian Spirituality Vision REL 123
###########

The relationship between incarnation and atonement

To contemplate the relationship between incarnation and atonement, with special emphasis on Anselm’s idea of satisfaction, we must first look at what incarnation and atonement means to those of the Christian faith. Incarnation is continual in that our redemption depends on the reality that the eternal son of God came to us as a man. If he did not come fully down, then we are not fully saved (Dawson 5-6). Since Jesus became what we are, accepting our very humanity and God crossed the gap between human and deity, and he overcame our sin and came to live on our behalf. He chose to leave a faithful life that was beyond our capacity, but required by the Father.

The very obedience of Jesus led him to die on the cross as penalty for human sin. Not only did he die for us, but he gave us new life for salvation, and salvation depends on our continuing union with him. The Incarnation is basically a fundamental theological teaching of Christianity, based on its understanding of the New Testament. The Incarnation represents the Christian belief that Jesus, who is the second part of the triune, God, took on a human body and became both man and deity. This can be seen in the Bible in John 1:14: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us” (Bible – King James version – John). The Christians worldview is rooted in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the belief that Jesus is God in human in one person (Mueller 141).

Atonement is a theological theory which describes human being’s reconciliation with God. This atonement is basically the forgiveness of sin through the death and resurrection of Jesus. This voluntary sacrifice by Jesus made possible the reconciliation between man and God. “God so loved the world, and gave his only begotten son” (Bible – King James version – John 3:16). This Scripture verse highlights the source of atonement by the very provision of God’s love. It is the love of God the father that Paul has in view when he speaks of him who “spared not his own son, but delivered him up for us all” (Bible – King James version – Romans 8:32). Surely God could have saved man by other means then allowing his only son to die, since God is all-powerful, other ways of forgiving sin were available to him. Some view the very necessity of his great self-sacrifice magnified his glory and enhanced the precise character of the salvation bestowed (Murray 12). Salvation requires not only the forgiveness of sin but also justification. Sin is the contradiction of God he must react against it with holy wrath demonstration of Christ on the cross is the ultimate demonstration of the love of God. The very nature of the atonement requires that it contains obedience, sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation and redemption.

Obedience is a compilation of motive, purpose, direction and intention, of which Christ was the epitome of obedience discharge of God’s will in its increasing demands leading up to his inevitable sacrificial death. Sacrifice is the removal of sin liability via the transference of liability itself. Propitiation; to pacify, and Christ’s propitiation to God was to deal with the wrath so that those loved would no longer be the objects of wrath, and God’s love would be eternal. Reconciliation is concerned with our alienation from God, and the inherent need to have that alienation removed. Redemption by Jesus’ blood, “Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation” (Bible – King James version – revelations 5:9).

This atonement can be broken down into various theories, one of which is the satisfaction theory of atonement, developed by Anselm of Canterbury (1033 – 1109). Anselm posited that sin unbalanced the order of justice in the universe. Once a sin has been performed, something good must be done in order to restore the balance. For example, a sin is incurrence of debt to God, the source of order, and that debt must be paid through true repentance (Albl 271). The work of Christ is to repair the breach human sin introduced into the relationship between humanity and God. Anselm argued in Cur Deus Homo that this work can be accomplished only by a God-man; one person equally divine and human. This doctrine of Christ is commonly called “Chalcedonian Christology” because it was created by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE (Visser 213).

One cannot explain the incarnation by appeal to any supposed obligation on God’s part to respect the devil’s rights over humanity. Since the devil had no such rights, so it appears that God would not have been acting unjustly if he had just delivered human beings the power of the devil by fiat. What reason did God have to redeemed mankind and the way he did, given that he was not under any obligation to do so? Anselm suggests that since we know God’s will is never irrational, we can be confident that God had some reason for doing what he did, even if we do not see or understand what the reason is (Visser 214).

Anselm believed he could prove, by unavoidable logical steps, that Christ was removed from the case, as if there had never existed anything to do with him, is it possible that without him mankind could have been saved (Anselm 261 – 262). A foundation of Christianity is that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins (Bible – King James version –1 Cor 15:3). In this way he fulfilled the old covenant sacrificial system, reconciled us to God, and changed our lives forever. This is the doctrine of the atonement (Mattison 1). At this point the author makes a faith claim, or commonly known as a knowledge claim, by positing “its reality is not in dispute”. I must interject here the whole subject is in dispute, and has been the center of debate for centuries. The author’s mere assertion in a knowledge claim that the atonement “reality” is not in dispute does not make it true. It does however assert that the atonement theory is an essential foundation of Christian religious belief. The author goes on to say, “we know that the atonement works; but how it works is not as clear.” Again, a knowledge claim is made; we have zero proof that the atonement works, at best it is a comforting theory for the faithful to cling to in order to validate their faith to themselves.

“The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Bible –King James version – Matthew 20:28). The statement suggests that Jesus gave his life as an extreme expression of love for mankind. Iranaeus of Lyons argued that Jesus was paid as the ransom to the devil free people’s souls. This view was known as the ransom or classic theory. The ransom theory was the dominant theological theory for centuries until dismantled by Anselm of Canterbury. He pointed out that this theory empowered the devil too much, and he posited that Jesus’s life was ransom paid to God, not the devil. Anselm viewed sin as dishonorable conduct that went against God. Since God cannot ignore this conduct, a debt or “satisfaction” is required. Since mankind is unable to make the requisite level of satisfaction, God became human to do it on our behalf. Thus, Jesus was payment to God, not the devil. But since Jesus was part of the triune god, did god merely appease himself?

The church leaders developed doctrine to reflect Jesus Christ’s fulfilling of God’s will through active obedience, vice his passive obedience through death. Basically, God requires mankind to obey and live a life of perpetual obedience (Mattison 1). This endless cycle of perpetual intellectual and spiritual slavery upon birth, where we continuously strive to bow and scrape in deference to our alleged creator’s self-centered will and ego, is hardly what a thinking person would presume a deity of such universe and life creating power, would be so obsessed with. What kind of immature supreme being would create all of this, create life, destroy life, send part of his own “body” down in the form of a man through immaculate conception, so he can die on our behalf to satisfy God’s ego requirement for sacrifice. I don’t purport to understand the consciousness of this alleged magical creature, but it is hard to conceive such childish, disingenuous manipulation of life for the entertainment of itself. This dramatic, over thought, contrite, anthropocentric theory must be the creation of man’s imagination. How could it be anything else?

In summary, this complex, dramatic Christian theological concept is obviously a fabrication of much thought, and introspective philosophy. Perhaps they could have put all that time and effort into something more constructive. Creating a subservient, subjugative crutch for people with low mental resilience, apparent inability to use reason and logic to comprehend the world around them, and wild imaginations seems unnecessary. In my opinion, religion and faith block the believer’s ability to utilize appropriate epistemological methods to process and gain knowledge. As apparent by the fact that a recent study showed that one fourth of America believed the sun revolved around the earth. This is the perfect example of how religious thought handicaps a person’s ability to learn.

Works Cited:

Mattison, Mark. “The Meaning of the Atonement.” Mark Mattison. 1987. Web. Retrieved from http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/atonement.html

Anselm, Evans, G. R., The Major Works. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 1998. Print.

Visser, Sandra and Williams, Thomas, Anselm. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 2009. Print.

Murray, John, The Atonement. Evansville: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1976. Print.

Mueller, J.J., Theological Foundations: Concepts and Methods for Understanding the Christian Faith. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2011. Print.

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University press, Inc., 2011. Print.

Dawson, Gerrit S. Jesus Ascended: The Meaning of Christ’s Continuing Incarnation. New Jersey: P&R publishing, 2004. Print.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2014, 07:46 PM
RE: The Atheist's Conversation at the Great White Throne
(17-08-2014 03:43 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(17-08-2014 12:56 PM)hbl Wrote:  Actually Jesus wrote in the sand. But why would Jesus need to write anything down? Who are these more recognizable people you speak of that you claim wrote Paul's epistles? Critics need evidence for their claims but you provide none so you are disregarded.

Who better to write these books than those closest to their events and their own experiences. We can be confident Matthew wrote Matthew, Luke wrote Luke and Acts, Mark wrote Mark, John wrote John, 1,2,3 John and Revelation, Peter wrote 1,2 Peter, James wrote James, Jude wrote Jude, and Paul wrote his epistles. They were all in the know. Scholars and historians prefer these sources closest to their events and by those closest to the events. Of all the chapters of the NT scholars are unified the surest pieces they are sure of are 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2. In these 3 chapters Paul said he spent 15 days with Peter, and with John and James. They gave Paul the gospel derived from their eyewitness testimony of Jesus risen from the dead. This agreed with Paul's own seeing Jesus alive from the dead.

Praise the Lord!

Jesus wrote in the sand? Did he really? and you know this because??? Now don't point to fiction as proof, that is argument from authority and is the weakest way to debate and/or learn something. Haven't I schooled you enough?

Let me try it again, I will say it slooooower this time.

Matthew: The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date remains a minority view, but has been strongly supported. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source. Note the part where I said...disciple matthew honored...and anonymous writer...do some research. Knowledge is power, and quite liberating.

Luke/Acts: Luke: Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). Many modern scholars reject this view.

Mark: Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.

John: The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John.

Peter - Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery. The unknown authors of the epistles of Peter wrote long after the life of the traditional Peter. Moreover, Peter lived (if he ever lived at all) as an ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this). In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an author claiming himself to know what Peter said (hearsay), or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church. Encyclopedias usually describe a tradition that Saint Peter wrote them. However, whenever you see the word "tradition" it refers to a belief passed down within a society. In other words: hearsay. This the definition of Pseudepigrapha; a book written in a biblical style and ascribed to an author who did not write it...otherwise known as a FORGERY.

James - Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account.

Jude - Even early Christians argued about its authenticity. It quotes an apocryphal book called Enoch as if it represented authorized Scripture. Biblical scholars do not think it possible for the alleged disciple Jude to have written it because whoever wrote it had to have written it during a period when the churches had long existed. Like the other alleged disciples, Jude would have lived as an illiterate peasant and unable to write (much less in Greek) but the author of Jude wrote in fluent high quality Greek..more forgery.

paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13, he actually wrote 8. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations - Bible interpolation, or Bible redaction, is the art of adding stuff to the Bible). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

There’s no indication from Scripture that Paul and Jesus ever met before the Damascus Road incident. And Acts 9:4-7 doesn’t specify whether the Lord’s encounter with Paul was physical or not. It only says Paul saw a bright light and heard a voice. (hallucination/lie)The men with him heard a loud sound but didn’t see anything. In subsequent re-tellings of the encounter Paul never indicated that He had actually seen Jesus at that time.

and the truth, shall set you free...

[Image: 2h6xedh.jpg]

I haven't studied Paul as much as you have, but what I gathered from what I read is:

1.Crazy dude falls off horse, possibly damages brain and starts hallucinating.
2.Crazy hallucinating dude can't get respect from other apostles, so starts writing his own version of religion down.
3.Crazy hallucinating dude writes a lot of crazy things down, predicts Jesus will come back in his lifetime, is wrong, and is executed by the Romans.
4.Catholics have a lot of crazy hallucinating dudes writings and think "let's make it canon after we alter it to suit us"
5.Christians believe everything crazy hallucinating dude wrote, because the church of Rome told them to.
6.Modern Christianity is born!

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
17-08-2014, 07:48 PM
RE: The Atheist's Conversation at the Great White Throne
(17-08-2014 06:59 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(17-08-2014 06:26 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  No religious scholar thinks the way you do

I've never met a Christian scholar who denied the life, death, burial, resurrection and deity of Christ as well as the atonement on the cross for the sins of the world.

The leading scholar on the planet today is Gary. R. Habermas,
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/garyhabermas.htm
http://www.garyhabermas.com/

The leading textual critic on the planet today is Daniel B. Wallace,
http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/dwallace/

The burden remains on you to explain how something in nature can come from nothing or how there can be an infinite regress of cause and effects of nature when you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. Thus, nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is God of the Bible. We know this because you are unable to find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings testifying to seeing Jesus alive from the dead.

The church leaders developed doctrine to reflect Jesus Christ’s fulfilling of God’s will through active obedience, vice his passive obedience through death. Basically, God requires mankind to obey and live a life of perpetual obedience (Mattison 1). This endless cycle of perpetual intellectual and spiritual slavery upon birth, where we continuously strive to bow and scrape in deference to our alleged creator’s self-centered will and ego, is hardly what a thinking person would presume a deity of such universe and life creating power, would be so obsessed with. What kind of immature supreme being would create all of this, create life, destroy life, send part of his own “body” down in the form of a man through immaculate conception, so he can die on our behalf to satisfy God’s ego requirement for sacrifice. I don’t purport to understand the consciousness of this alleged magical creature, but it is hard to conceive such childish, disingenuous manipulation of life for the entertainment of itself. This dramatic, over thought, contrite, anthropocentric theory must be the creation of man’s imagination. How could it be anything else?

In summary, this complex, dramatic Christian theological concept is obviously a fabrication of much thought, and introspective philosophy. Perhaps they could have put all that time and effort into something more constructive. Creating a subservient, subjugative crutch for people with low mental resilience, apparent inability to use reason and logic to comprehend the world around them, and wild imaginations seems unnecessary. In my opinion, religion and faith block the believer’s ability to utilize appropriate epistemological methods to process and gain knowledge. As apparent by the fact that a recent study showed that one fourth of America believed the sun revolved around the earth. This is the perfect example of how religious thought handicaps a person’s ability to learn.

Works Cited:

Mattison, Mark. “The Meaning of the Atonement.” Mark Mattison. 1987. Web. Retrieved from http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/atonement.html

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2014, 07:49 PM
RE: The Atheist's Conversation at the Great White Throne
(17-08-2014 07:46 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(17-08-2014 03:43 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Jesus wrote in the sand? Did he really? and you know this because??? Now don't point to fiction as proof, that is argument from authority and is the weakest way to debate and/or learn something. Haven't I schooled you enough?

Let me try it again, I will say it slooooower this time.

Matthew: The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date remains a minority view, but has been strongly supported. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source. Note the part where I said...disciple matthew honored...and anonymous writer...do some research. Knowledge is power, and quite liberating.

Luke/Acts: Luke: Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). Many modern scholars reject this view.

Mark: Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.

John: The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John.

Peter - Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery. The unknown authors of the epistles of Peter wrote long after the life of the traditional Peter. Moreover, Peter lived (if he ever lived at all) as an ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this). In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an author claiming himself to know what Peter said (hearsay), or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church. Encyclopedias usually describe a tradition that Saint Peter wrote them. However, whenever you see the word "tradition" it refers to a belief passed down within a society. In other words: hearsay. This the definition of Pseudepigrapha; a book written in a biblical style and ascribed to an author who did not write it...otherwise known as a FORGERY.

James - Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account.

Jude - Even early Christians argued about its authenticity. It quotes an apocryphal book called Enoch as if it represented authorized Scripture. Biblical scholars do not think it possible for the alleged disciple Jude to have written it because whoever wrote it had to have written it during a period when the churches had long existed. Like the other alleged disciples, Jude would have lived as an illiterate peasant and unable to write (much less in Greek) but the author of Jude wrote in fluent high quality Greek..more forgery.

paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13, he actually wrote 8. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations - Bible interpolation, or Bible redaction, is the art of adding stuff to the Bible). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

There’s no indication from Scripture that Paul and Jesus ever met before the Damascus Road incident. And Acts 9:4-7 doesn’t specify whether the Lord’s encounter with Paul was physical or not. It only says Paul saw a bright light and heard a voice. (hallucination/lie)The men with him heard a loud sound but didn’t see anything. In subsequent re-tellings of the encounter Paul never indicated that He had actually seen Jesus at that time.

and the truth, shall set you free...

[Image: 2h6xedh.jpg]

I haven't studied Paul as much as you have, but what I gathered from what I read is:

1.Crazy dude falls off horse, possibly damages brain and starts hallucinating.
2.Crazy hallucinating dude can't get respect from other apostles, so starts writing his own version of religion down.
3.Crazy hallucinating dude writes a lot of crazy things down, predicts Jesus will come back in his lifetime, is wrong, and is executed by the Romans.
4.Catholics have a lot of crazy hallucinating dudes writings and think "let's make it canon after we alter it to suit us"
5.Christians believe everything crazy hallucinating dude wrote, because the church of Rome told them to.
6.Modern Christianity is born!

You nailed it Laugh out load

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
17-08-2014, 08:03 PM
RE: The Atheist's Conversation at the Great White Throne
(17-08-2014 07:33 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  dramatic Christian theological concept

There is nothing dramatic about God's redemptive design. It is absolutely necessary and the very best of God. Sin even a little one eternally separates you from God. We are all born into sin from the first man. God is obligated to provide a salvation offer to us at the age of accountability because to not do so would be evil to leave us hanging. In so doing free will is preserved. Since God's 3 Persons are personal and relational and God creates out of His glory it is reasonable to have relationship with us and benefit us to have a relationship with Him and all His wisdom and what He can provide. When God redeems a person it is not just for that person, but for God to make that person presentable to Him. Forgiveness is essential otherwise we carry that sin with us and weighs us down and leads to death and the second death which is Hell. Only God can ultimately forgive sins. The Bible says the soul life is in the blood. So deep down in there somewhere the ransom is paid by the precious blood of Jesus Christ. True humility is putting aside all your heady thoughts and receive the foolishness of the cross which topples the wise. Are you humbly willing to come to the cross as a helpless sinner to receive the Lord Jesus as Savior despite all your array of confused emotions and ideas or are you too self-centered and proud? You should because to this day nobody has been able to find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings seeing Jesus alive from the dead -- this is God's very best proof. And when a person gives their life to Christ they are not giving to any Christ, but the one and only who keeps His elect that whosoever believeth in Him shall never perish but possess everlasting life. I gave my life to Christ that no matter what will never let me go. Now that's a God you can trust in! Everyone who has ever given their life to Christ is still a Christian to this day and for eternity. For the Bible says salvation is not by works lest any man should boast. Abel gave an offering not of his own works and was eternally saved; Cain gave an offering of his works and perished. God is wiser than you!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2014, 08:07 PM
RE: The Atheist's Conversation at the Great White Throne
(17-08-2014 08:03 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(17-08-2014 07:33 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  dramatic Christian theological concept

There is nothing dramatic about God's redemptive design. It is absolutely necessary and the very best of God. Sin even a little one eternally separates you from God. We are all born into sin from the first man. God is obligated to provide a salvation offer to us at the age of accountability because to not do so would be evil to leave us hanging. In so doing free will is preserved. Since God's 3 Persons are personal and relational and God creates out of His glory it is reasonable to have relationship with us and benefit us to have a relationship with Him and all His wisdom and what He can provide. When God redeems a person it is not just for that person, but for God to make that person presentable to Him. Forgiveness is essential otherwise we carry that sin with us and weighs us down and leads to death and the second death which is Hell. Only God can ultimately forgive sins. The Bible says the soul life is in the blood. So deep down in there somewhere the ransom is paid by the precious blood of Jesus Christ. True humility is putting aside all your heady thoughts and receive the foolishness of the cross which topples the wise. Are you humbly willing to come to the cross as a helpless sinner to receive the Lord Jesus as Savior despite all your array of confused emotions and ideas or are you too self-centered and proud? You should because to this day nobody has been able to find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings seeing Jesus alive from the dead -- this is God's very best proof. And when a person gives their life to Christ they are not giving to any Christ, but the one and only who keeps His elect that whosoever believeth in Him shall never perish but possess everlasting life. I gave my life to Christ that no matter what will never let me go. Now that's a God you can trust in! Everyone who has ever given their life to Christ is still a Christian to this day and for eternity. For the Bible says salvation is not by works lest any man should boast. Abel gave an offering not of his own works and was eternally saved; Cain gave an offering of his works and perished. God is wiser than you!

Blink

Yup, you didn't read/comprehend my paper, doesn't surprise me.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2014, 08:27 PM
RE: The Atheist's Conversation at the Great White Throne
(17-08-2014 08:07 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Yup, you didn't read/comprehend my paper, doesn't surprise me.

Of course not, GWG -- Despite his repeated declarations of belief, I think that hbl is actually terrified of losing his faith. I surmise that he cannot allow himself to deviate one iota from the hog-swill he was taught to believe by the cynical bastard who facilitated his "salvation."

His only comfort in this world now is to ignore outside data and repeat his nonsensical "prayers" to a hostile audience, in hope of being forgiven his occasional memory of the person he used to be, and of people he used to love. A previously normal individual with normal aspirations and normal urges has been emotionally and intellectually castrated by religious nonsense. I don't think any of us here can fully comprehend the magnitude of hbl's pain, but because he insists upon acting like a self-righteous dickhead it's difficult to feel much sympathy for him.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Astreja's post
17-08-2014, 08:39 PM
RE: The Atheist's Conversation at the Great White Throne
(17-08-2014 08:03 PM)hbl Wrote:  nobody has been able to find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings seeing Jesus alive from the dead -- this is God's very best proof.

[Image: 1209679403252.jpg]

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2014, 08:54 PM
RE: The Atheist's Conversation at the Great White Throne
At least we all agree with 1-4, 6-8, and 2nd half of 5, even though you are too afraid to accept the 1st half of 5:

1) something in nature can't come from nothing or non-existence;
2) infinite regress of cause and effect in nature is impossible because you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so;
3) so nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated;
4) this uncreated Creator that is proven in 1-3 is whom we refer to as God;
5) the 2nd Person of the Godhead more specifically is Jesus because none of us can find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles when they said they saw Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings over 40 days;
6) for example, people don't willingly die for what they know is a lie, and they were all martyred for their eyewitness testimony;
7) group hallucinations are impossible; and
8) the 12 eyewitness Apostles, Apostle Paul (eyewitness), and James brother of Jesus (eyewitness) never changed their view.

I encourage you to read 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2 over and over and as deeply as you can. You will have a higher probability of giving your life to Christ if you do. Of course you will have a lower probability if you remain selfishly as you are and not read it. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing always and expecting a different result. And read John chapter 3 to see how to be born-again. My prayers go out to you that there is still time to give your life to Christ but that time is getting shorter and shorter. In fact, the longer you wait the more difficult it will become of ever giving your life to Christ. I have never met anyone past the age of 40 who ever gave their life to Christ. So if you are under 40 this prayer is mostly for you.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: