Jesus died for the world's sins, so why no change?
-
filmflaneur — 9 years ago(October 20, 2016 03:46 AM)
there is no possible way to make everyone believe the truth unless God forced everyone to be robot-like creatures with no Free Will.
But even so, O Mighty Navaros, there is a way to persuade (not coerce) many more to come to God and fulfil His expressed will - which "will be done" remember: by simply making Himself known clearly and unambiguously to all. Arguing that He won't do so simply because 'some will always remain obdurate' does not explain why this same consideration did not deter God from the far more complicated, and painful, act of supposedly sacrificing Himself, er, Jesus back in the day. Either He wants more souls or not.
because any evidence God gives you, you will spin doctor away with fabricated alternative explanations dinosaurs lived recently and at the same time as humans
Find some authoritative evidence for this particular example, then that is peer-reviewed, not of the scriptural or personal-revelation type and try us then. Have any human skeletons been uncovered amongst dinosaur bones? Do we have extant any ancient recipes for tyrannosaurus steaks?
evolution is false,
In the light of this, any luck yet on explaining the appearance of antiviral resistance? lol
You are really mentally ill!
You must be homosexual.
Melanie000 -
Navaros — 9 years ago(October 26, 2016 10:46 AM)
there is a way to persuade (not coerce) many more to come to God and fulfil His expressed will
No, there isn't - because any evidence God shows you, you will fabricate excuses to deny it. Exactly like how you fabricate excuses to deny the truth that soft tissue in dinosaurs prove that they and the earth are young and that evolution is therefore undeniably false.
by simply making Himself known clearly and unambiguously to all
Again, that is impossible to do, because
no matter what He does,
darwinists like you will make excuses and deny the truth.
You are literally asking for the impossible, and then blaming God for when the impossible does not happen.
Find some authoritative evidence for this particular example, then that is peer-reviewed
You are making an appeal to authority logical fallacy. You put your faith into your darwinist dogma because peer groups of darwinists slap each other on the back and say to each other, "yeah bro, we support your darwinist stories as truth because we are darwinists too! Therefore, everything we say is true!" If darwinism has not brainwashed you
too
much, and if you can still reason, then you will see why this "logic" is inherently invalid.
not of the scriptural or personal-revelation type and try us then.
Soft tissue proves that dinosaurs lived recently, and therefore that the "billions of years" dogma which your evolution myth
needs
is false, and therefore that your evolution myth itself is false. One does not even need to open the Bible to realize any of that. It's all plain-as-day irrespective of the Bible [even though the Bible of course debunks evolution too because the Bible is the truth and evolution is a lie]. The evidence of soft tissue, in and of itself, proves all of that.
But you will deny and make excuses for that truth because the darwinist religious dogma which has infested every fiber of your being compels you to do so. And so too would every other darwinist do likewise, because they too are deeply indoctrinated with that same religious dogma.
any luck yet on explaining the appearance of antiviral resistance?
I don't need any "luck" nor "explanation" for that, because that is
not evolution.
Every single time that happens, it is either devolution or variation within a kind.
And the fact that darwinists like yourself have to
grasp at straws- like you just did there - by using shadily using the word "evolution" to mean
multiple different things - and then conflating the observable versions of your definitions with the unobservable versions of your definitions, only further corroborates the undeniable truth that you have have zero observable, testable, or repeatable evidence for any of your religious myth's outlandish, extraordinary claims.
If you
did
have evidence, then you would
need not
play shady semantic word games.
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman
- like you just did there - by using shadily using the word "evolution" to mean
-
mamu2 — 9 years ago(October 26, 2016 10:57 AM)
Again, that is impossible to do, because no matter what He does, darwinists like you will make excuses and deny the truth
Are you suggesting that something is impossible for God? Wouldn't God know exactly what it would take for every non-believer to suddenly believe? Couldn't he just do that? -
Navaros — 9 years ago(October 26, 2016 11:14 AM)
Are you suggesting that something is impossible for God
Norather, I am suggesting that it is impossible due to
the condition of
Free Will, which is something that God chooses to allow mankind to have.
Wouldn't God know exactly what it would take for every non-believer to suddenly believe?
So you want God to become the equivalent of a clown who is hired to perform balloon tricks at a kid's birthday party? Do you even know how crazy that sounds? God is the SOVEREIGN of the universe, not a personal dancing monkey. Have some respect for the LORD.
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman -
mamu2 — 9 years ago(October 20, 2016 06:21 AM)
"Why not" is because there is no possible way to make everyone believe the truth unless God forced everyone to be robot-like creatures with no Free Will.
The choice is accepting Jesus, not whether or not God actually exists. God can make his existence known to everyone on the planet and that would not negate our free will to choose Jesus or not. Not everyone would choose to worship God or accept Jesus if they knew he existed for a fact, if it really is the God of the Bible.
God sure made sure he showed his existence to people in the OT, so it shouldn't be an issue.
you would have realized the truth that soft tissue could not be present unless evolution is false, the earth is young, and dinosaurs lived recently and at the same time as humans
You may want to do some reading on that. And not from an apologist site. Something factual. -
Navaros — 9 years ago(October 26, 2016 11:05 AM)
God can make his existence known to everyone on the planet
No, He cannot -
unless
He chose to violate Free Will - because there is no possible way to "make his existence known" for which darwinists would not fabricate excuses/alternative explanations to the truth of God's existence.
What you and FF are proposing is a false premise. You false premise neglects everything I just said in the first paragraph of this post.
God sure made sure he showed his existence to people in the OT
He showed Himself to select godly people in the OT when He had good reasons to do so. He did not, however, show Himself to ungodly people out of a need to 'prove' Himself, which is what you and FF are asking for.
Something factual.
"Factual?" What makes it "factual" when it comes from darwinist sources? The truth is:
absolutely nothing.
Read the sig.
You
and your fellow darwinists
assume
that darwinist authors are "factual" because your shared religious beliefs dictate that you must. But in actual fact, darwinist-written dogma is not factual at all.
And that is also proven by how darwinists are
constantly
re-writing their stories because the facts of reality are constantly proving their stories to be bull crap. If your stories were "factual" like you allege them to be, then that re-writing would be impossible.
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman -
mamu2 — 9 years ago(October 26, 2016 11:52 AM)
unless He chose to violate Free Will
He's done that in the Bible (Pharaoh), so it's not like he wouldn't ever do that.
He did not, however, show Himself to ungodly people out of a need to 'prove' Himself,
Sure he did.
God revealed himself and his power to the ungodly Pharaoh and the Egyptians with the plagues.
God revealed himself to the ungodly Babylonian king Belshazzar by a large hand writing on a wall.
God revealed himself to the ungodly Philistine king Abimelech in a dream.
Even the Resurrected Jesus revealed himself to the ungodly Saul of Tarsus.
Etc
It almost seems like you are inventing this stuff up as you go along, instead of using the Bible to support your assertions. Many things you claim about God and the Bible can be refuted by the text itself.
What makes it "factual"
That it can be demonstrably shown to every person on the planet. Whereas God cannot. -
Navaros — 9 years ago(October 26, 2016 12:02 PM)
That it can be demonstrably shown to every person on the planet
If that is true, then "demonstrably show" me in this thread observable, testable, and repeatable evidence of bacteria "descending" into all forms of life, which is one of your most outlandish & extraordinary claims [and therefore requires extraordinary evidence to prove, which you don't have].
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman -
mamu2 — 9 years ago(October 27, 2016 06:54 AM)
You don't care to address your erroneous statements about God violating free will and proving himself to the ungodly then?
observable, testable, and repeatable evidence of bacteria "descending" into all forms of life,
Cyanobacteria are the Earth's oldest fossils from 3.5 billion years ago, which can be actually observed by everyone. Fossils are evidence.
Feel free to google the Archean and Proterozoic Periods and Cyanobacteria and you can actually see from the fossil record how life on Earth evolved from them. They provided the oxygen for Earth's atmosphere and gave rise to the appearance of plants and animals, and still exist today.
These things are known to us and can be observed, whereas God cannot. Unless you can provide observable, testable, and repeatable evidence for God? -
Rylant — 9 years ago(October 29, 2016 07:21 PM)
My biggest question regarding the crucifixion of Christ wouldn't be "why didn't the world change?", but, why was it necessary for him to die in the first place?
As an atheist, it is something that I have questioned for a long time. I try to look at it from a religious point of view, but I just don't get it. People say that Christ had to die so that we could be forgiven for our sins, and could be with the Lord. I don't understand the correlation between Christ dying, and the rest of humanity being forgiven for their sins. If God truly wanted to forgive our sins, couldn't he just do that? And how exactly does Christ dying somehow make it so God can forgive us? Why did God feel the need to torture his son to death so that he could then choose to forgive humans?
Rylant -
bastasch8647 — 9 years ago(October 29, 2016 07:32 PM)
I don't understand the correlation between Christ dying, and the rest of humanity being forgiven for their sins. If God truly wanted to forgive our sins, couldn't he just do that?
Judaism had it all worked out, and no human sacrifice was required. For Jews, their deity Yahweh had already provided them with many various ways of confessing, being forgiven, and atoning for sins. The Temple cult was only one of those ways. Judaism also held that non-Jews were bound by the Noahide covenant, which entailed Gentiles following about a half-dozen rules. Circumcision, kosher and Torah were not required for Gentiles, who, if righteous, could be saved as much as Jews. Moreover, Yahweh had promised that his covenant with Israel would last forever, never to be replaced by some weird new cult that would invalidate Torah and be supported by a human sacrifice.
Thus, the notion that salvation can only be found "in Christ" is an upstart Pauline/Johannine notion, having no roots in the Judaism practiced by Jesus and his disciples. Torah, circumcision, kosher, Law, and Prophets for Jews; and the Noahide covenant for Gentiles: both to last forever without replacement by a human-sacrifice cult or a new religion that would replace Judaism.
As to why God couldn't just forgive sins and leave it at that, I have no idea. In the Garden of Eden, Yahweh could easily have planted those two problematic trees elsewhere, thus removing temptation from "our first parents". Or, after the "Fall", he could just as easily have forgiven A&E, rehabilitated them, and given humankind a happy ending. But he didn't. -
Navaros — 9 years ago(October 30, 2016 10:11 AM)
Judaism had it all worked out, and no human sacrifice was required.
Jews sacrificed animals, and some of them still do to this day. But you conveniently omit that fact out of your post from which I'm now quoting, in order to give your readers the false impression that Jews did not perform blood sacrifices.
the notion that salvation can only be found "in Christ" is an upstart Pauline/Johannine notion, having no roots in the Judaism practiced by Jesus and his disciples
Bull crap. Jews sacrificed animals in order to atone for their sins, based on the exact same rule from God as to why Christ was sacrificed: there is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood.
I have no idea
That's because you know nothing about the Bible. You should really stop pretending as if you do.
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman -
raif-1 — 9 years ago(October 30, 2016 02:08 AM)
My biggest question regarding the crucifixion of Christ wouldn't be "why didn't the world change?", but, why was it necessary for him to die in the first place?
As an atheist, it is something that I have questioned for a long time. I try to look at it from a religious point of view, but I just don't get it. People say that Christ had to die so that we could be forgiven for our sins, and could be with the Lord. I don't understand the correlation between Christ dying, and the rest of humanity being forgiven for their sins. If God truly wanted to forgive our sins, couldn't he just do that? And how exactly does Christ dying somehow make it so God can forgive us? Why did God feel the need to torture his son to death so that he could then choose to forgive humans?
In Islam, Jesus did not die on the cross
And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.
and you are right in questioning why must a man die for sins to be forgiven because it is easy for GOD to forgive sins (if it pleases him)
If Allah had intended to take a son, He could have chosen from what He creates whatever He willed. Exalted is He; He is Allah, the One, the Prevailing. He created the heavens and earth in truth. He wraps the night over the day and wraps the day over the night and has subjected the sun and the moon, each running [its course] for a specified term. Unquestionably, He is the Exalted in Might, the Perpetual Forgiver. (Az-Zumar 39:4-5)
Seek forgiveness from God; God is Forgiver, Compassionate. (An-Nisaa 4:106)
And whoever does a wrong or wrongs himself but then seeks forgiveness of Allah will find Allah Forgiving and Merciful. (An-Nisaa 4:110)
They have certainly disbelieved who say, Allah is the third of three. And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment. So will they not repent to Allah and seek His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. (Al-Maidah 5:73-74)
But whoever repents after his wrongdoing and reforms, indeed, Allah will turn to him in forgiveness. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. (Al-Maidah 5:39) -
Rumble_McSkirmish — 9 years ago(October 30, 2016 05:33 AM)
Well, if you delve into history about this all, the Jesus that we know is a shoehorned figure. He doesn't really fit the bill.
He didn't fulfull prophecies
(1)Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
(2)Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
(3)Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
(4)Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).
(5)The Messiah will become the greatest prophet in history, second only to Moses. (Targum Isaiah 11:2; Maimonides Teshuva 9:2)
(6)The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24).
(7)The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)
Then there's the whole mistranslation issues in the book. You know, and the voting on what is holy text and what isn't by man
Jesus of that day was kind of like the Trump of today. People are stumbling over themselves to follow Donald and vote for him as some "savior of the nation" when he really is nowhere fit either in knowledge, experience, or mentallity to be the leader. It was likely the same back then. Jesus gathered a small following that was able to build a religion around him.
Panzer vor! -
Navaros — 9 years ago(October 30, 2016 10:06 AM)
I don't understand the correlation between Christ dying, and the rest of humanity being forgiven for their sins. If God truly wanted to forgive our sins, couldn't he just do that?
One of God's most ancient rules for mankind is that there can be no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood.
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman -
Rylant — 9 years ago(October 30, 2016 11:19 AM)
One of God's most ancient rules for mankind is that there can be no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood.
Yes, but why? Somebody has to suffer, so that somebody else can be forgiven? That's a little dramatic, isn't it? Besides, didn't he create these rules? It's a really weak argument; God created a very unnecessary and maybe even barbaric rule, that blood has to be shed in order to forgive people. Then, he forces himself to adhere to this ridiculous rule, which he himself created. Then, he sends his son to Earth to die so that everyone else can be forgiven, even though Jesus has nothing to do with everyone's sins. Now, God is allowed to forgive people because he followed all of the rules; he wasn't allowed to forgive anybody before this all happened
Seriously? That sounds reasonable to people?
Rylant -
Navaros — 9 years ago(October 30, 2016 09:30 AM)
You don't care to address your erroneous statements about God violating free will and proving himself to the ungodly then?
I never made any statement that God did anything ungodly, and I also never said that God never violates Free Will. So you seem to be presenting another false premise in the words of yours that I just quoted.
Cyanobacteria are the Earth's oldest fossils from 3.5 billion years ago
Bull crap.
You don't know
they are from "3.5 billion years ago." You merely
assume so
because your fellow darwinists have also assumed so, and then arbitrarily proclaimed their assumptions as "the truth"exactly like you are doing in the statement I've just quoted.
Feel free to google the Archean and Proterozoic Periods and Cyanobacteria and you can actually see from the fossil record how life on Earth evolved from them.
Those darwinist jargon terms you mentioned are words darwinists arbitrarily fabricated to give their myth labels. Those labels do not inherently exist within reality.
I am sure I could google lots of darwinist propaganda which communicates the myth you are espousing. But if I did so, that just means I'd be observing
storytelling about evolution
, not evolution itself. Your statement, "you can actually see [evolution]" is highly ambiguous. What you mean by that is not clear. Please explain in precise detail how you justify your equation of
observing darwinist storytelling about evolution
with
observing evolution itself
.
These things are known to us and can be observed
That's a false premise. You are using the phrase "these things" to conflate actual observable objects within reality (i.e. fossils) with your
unobservable, darwinist-biased assumptions
about those same objects (i.e. statements like "they are 3.5 billion years old"). Your assumptions cannot be observed. You believe in them by faith alone. And to avoid admitting that truth of the unscientific & faith-based nature of your beliefs, you attempt to pull the wool over everyone else's eyes and propagate your myth by playing those shady conflation games that I've just outlined. The continuation of your religious mythology
depends
on most people not being able to notice your shady conflation of unobservable faith-based assumptions with observable objects within reality.
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman