what is the purpose of repentance?

[Jenyar]

So, the concept of demanding ransom came from your god? Is he little more than a loan shark?

We were held captive by our own sin - our transgressions against God and life itself - having become slaves to it. Justice demanded the "ransom" for our lives.

Why didn't your god simply have Jesus' knee-caps broken?

If the Romans thought of it, I'm sure they'd have done that, too. If that was a worse punishment than the death penalty, and a greater curse than being hung on a cross, I'm sure then the secular and religious world would have consider it to be justice well served for a man who claimed to be our King and God.

Jesus didn't come to bear certain tortures for us, He came to save our lives.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

(Q): So, the concept of demanding ransom came from your god? Is he little more than a loan shark?
*************
M*W: Assuming there is a god, he could simply deny us existence on this plane knowing that we would be sinners and reject him... But, we are here, so there has to be a higher purpose for our existence that does not rely on god(s).
*************
(Q): Why didn't your god simply have Jesus' knee-caps broken?
*************
M*W: We really don't need to give our lives to anyone except ourselves. Our life is OURS for the taking, and the taking is what we should do. If we were only created for the sole purpose of loving a creator, then there is absolutely NO free will. Further, with this thought in mind, no one would even try to make their lives worth living if all they do is worship a fairy tale.

If we're here on Planet Earth, then we deserve to be here. We deserve to have all the happiness and rewards we can manage to attain for ourselves while we are here. If that weren't the case, then we wouldn't even be here.

The god religions teach the denial of the self. That defeats our purpose for existence. Who needs a god? We've done quite nicely by ourselves.

 

[duendy]

yes i agree. and add that If you take this exploration seriously, then it demands you look closer at the myth, its pagan origins, the political strategy to guilt you to be behoven to a supposedly historical character who died for your sins
When they do that they can always say--the representaives of that belief-system--that you owe THEM, cause they represent 'HIM'. thus you need to always be their lackies

Even the fundies in the Us who claim that as soooon as you give yeeerrrself to jeeeeeeZUZ, all yer sins oer GON.....yet they want all your money keep coming in

but the crucial difference between the earth religious idea of 'sacrifice' and the patriarchal version is that the former accepts the Deep, and the latter demonizes it....! that way they are guilting you again. you are their little angst-puppets, always in doubt that you may end up in 'Hell' less you jump through their hoops

 

[ellion]

Yes: Jesus gave his life in our place, and we receive his resurrected life. Jesus, as a human being, gave all that a human being could give (or "pay"), all that death can take from us. Death can take away the life we have, but it cannot take away the life God gives: eternal life, which is the new life available through Christ, the power of God.

so how did jesus giving his earthly life for his heavenly life, make any difference to OUR lives? what did this payment do that makes it possible for US to recieve the resurrection-salvation?

 

[ellion]

yes i agree. and add that If you take this exploration seriously, then it demands you look closer at the myth, its pagan origins, the political strategy to guilt you to be behoven to a supposedly historical character who died for your sins
When they do that they can always say--the representaives of that belief-system--that you owe THEM, cause they represent 'HIM'. thus you need to always be their lackies

Even the fundies in the Us who claim that as soooon as you give yeeerrrself to jeeeeeeZUZ, all yer sins oer GON.....yet they want all your money keep coming in

but the crucial difference between the earth religious idea of 'sacrifice' and the patriarchal version is that the former accepts the Deep, and the latter demonizes it....! that way they are guilting you again. you are their little angst-puppets, always in doubt that you may end up in 'Hell' less you jump through their hoops

yeah duendy i'm in agreement here, the psychology of christianity is very clever. see trauma bonding for info on how fear and guilt create a reliance on authorities or external sources. of course there is also techniques of mind control and hypnosis.

 

[Cyperium]

Sure even if you believe in god we still sin. Jesus was supposed to have died for our sins. So why repent? Our sins were taken care of when he died on the cross for us. What good was jesus dying for our sins if we still have to ask for forgiveness through repentance? This, like god coming down to earth as jesus, is another example of redundancy to me. And what would happen if you died before you had a chance to repent for all the sins that you had committed recently? Are they automatically forgiven in heaven?

Repent from sins you have commited recently? Repentence means that you turn away from the bad habits and start to live life as it's meant, it doesn't matter how many sins you had done before!

Jesus can give forgivness of sins, but if you keep to the bad lifestyle then it's doing no good, you are still living a sinful life!

So why repent you ask? Because it's for your own good! God doesn't become weaker if you don't, and He doesn't become stronger if you do. God is the same allways.

Certain laws must be made so that we know what is sin, the law was written in our hearts so that it didn't need to be taught to us. The worldly law tells us about worldly matters (with some exceptions), the law in your heart tells you how to live according to Gods will. When you break a law in the world there must be punishment or else the law will have no effect. So it is with the law in your heart also, there will be punishment. If you don't feel pain when holding your hand over the fire, then you will keep the hand over the fire. Bad moves gives bad experiances, that's the way things are.

God is merciful though, God wants us to learn how to live a good life. Punishment can often be a learning experiance, accidents often bring alot of compassion and love, God wants us to be appreciative of what we got so that we don't destroy it because of sinful "needs". It could be better!

 

[water]

Jesus died for you so that you'd feel the obligations of reciprocity.

You are arguing from emotional blackmail.

Surely, some people do give in to "Jesus died for you so that you'd feel the obligations of reciprocity.", and then, out of pity and compassion for Jesus become Christians (" ").
But in my view, such a faith is a burden, a cross one bears, and such a faith is not worth much, neither does it do what faith could do.

One wants to get rid of it, the same as one wants to get rid off someone whom he accepted as a friend because he begged for it or emotionally blackmailed one ("If you won't be friends with me, I will die").
While it may eventually not be so drastic to get rid of that person, to get rid of such a faith (even if it came by emotional blackmail) is not easy, because of the "threats" to one's own well-being (fear of hell).
If one comes to one's faith for the wrong reasons, there will be many, many perceived threats that keep him bound to his faith.

Officially, it balanced the books so heaven avoids an audit by the accountants of sin. It was payment for the sins under the old covenant. Of course, the person who invented and policed the accounting scheme was God in the first place. However, God couldn't look the other way without violating his nature. This leads to a very interesting observation. Given that it was in God's nature to create inherently sinful people, given it was in his nature to formulate the first covenant and given that he would feel compelled to sacrifice himself, the logical conclusion is that God is inherently self-destructive. Self-harm being a mental disorder, of course.

If you go the park for a walk, and a dog attacks your child -- will you save your child? You know that in doing so, you will most likely be harmed. If you do enter to fight the dog, someone could argue that you are actually acting with the intention of self-harm! Is rescuing your child from a dog self-harm? If you know that harm can happen to you, but you do it anyway -- is that a mental disorder?

Another point of contention is that this is a half-assed sacrifice. He only endured a few hours of torment, whereas the price of sin is hell and devils raping you with pitchforks, etc, etc. If he is truly settling the score, then he should be in hell.

Someone please take a stance on this one.
If Jesus payed for our sins, why isn't he burning in hell until the end of times?

* * *

SnakeLord

So... that would then mean that everyone born before jesus died would not have the *room* in which they could act on their free will, and that *they* had no choice in the whole thing?

It would also mean they weren't forgiven, and thus anyone born before jesus existence, or anyone who's never heard of him is doomed.

Right?

Not at all. The people before Jesus were under a different law.

One of the main principles in law is nulla poena sine lege praevia -- 'no punishment without a previously existing law'. You can't be judged for something there is no law against.

As for those who have never heard of God and His law: God is omnipresent and omniscient, so He knows who has heard the Gospel and who hasn't.

To assume that people who have never heard of the Gospel will be doomed is to assume that 1. God is not omniscient and omnipresent, and 2. God is not just.

One could argue for ignorantia legis neminem excusat -- 'ignorance of the law does not excuse anyone'. This is true for the laws *man* judges by.

But to say that God judges by ignorantia legis neminem excusat is to say 1. God is not omniscient and omnipresent, and 2. God is not just.


(By the way, it is these two law principles that the Mormons are violating when they baptize for the dead. In violating these two law principles, they deny God to be omniscient and omnipresent, and they deny that God is just.)


* * *

Jesus payed our debt to justice

How?

By giving what only God could give and still live: his life.

We've had a similar argument here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=567347

The all time famous quote designed to be a real tear jerker. But the real big problem with this essential basis of Christianity is thatGod ended up not giving anything – Jesus is meant to have been resurrected which kinda blows away any concept that God has suffered some major loss for which we should feel sorry for him. Had Jesus really died and was lost forever then we could perhaps feel some sympathy for God. Otherwise John 3:16 is a lie – nothing was lost or given up or given.

* * *

Names are etymologically linked (Allegro, 1970)
In fact Jesus myth is taken FROM Dionysian-Orphic myth.

In ORIGINARY Dionysianism, the 'sacrifice' was the RIGIDITY of the individual. This is why one of the god's names (Dionysos was called the god of many names) was 'Loosener'
The celebrants drank Dionysos. and became possed by him. Do you understnd what being possessed mans? that 'you' are taken over by a mucg largder sense of Being is what. Modern psychedelicists would term it 'mind-expansion', but it means the same thing

The Bacchanal (The ritual of Dionysos) would encourage utterly free abandoned expression. An allowing of the animal within us freedom. we Are animals and it wants out!

What the Christians did--as influenced by the Dionysian reformers, the ascetic Orphics--who had created a divisive dogma (they got lost in philsophical abstractioning and took their mental operations for reality)--was create a myth, combined with Judaism which sought to 'purify' what by now they had considered was a BAd part of us, 'original sin', which included for them, animality. so THEIR myth included SECRETLT hallucinogenic gnosis, for the elite intiates, and the symbolism was of A son of God who had to be sacrificed.
As Allegro shows (ibid) underneath the surface story are severt references t hallucinogenic gnosis, but as these become forgotten, all thats left is the pseudo-historical stoy of an ACTUAL man sent from 'God' who is 'sacrificed' to help redeem 'mankind'

questions?

The problem with history (as also with any kind of human knowledge) is that it is all a theory, a matter of research -- and that can never be finished. If nothing else, any theory can be discarded for the sake of merely being a theory.

Eventually, the best we can do is to inquire whether a theory is consistent within itself.

For the "theory of God and Jesus as presented by the Bible", it -- as absurd as it may sound -- does not really matter whether the events described there have really happened, or not. What matters is if the "theory of God and Jesus as presented by the Bible" is consistent within itself. (And if there are inconsistencies -- what inconsistencies are they? Some can be expained away due to translation errors, metaphorization etc.)

The way I see it, one can find in the Bible a certain system of ethics -- and the actual historical story within which this system of ethics is presented, is not of crucial importance. The veracity of the historical story does not affect the veracity of the system of ethics.


* * *

M*W: Assuming there is a god, he could simply deny us existence on this plane knowing that we would be sinners and reject him... But, we are here, so there has to be a higher purpose for our existence that does not rely on god(s).

Non sequitur.

Just because we are here does not mean that the purpose of our existence has nothing to do with God.

And if God would deny us existence because He knew we would be sinners and reject Him would mean God is not omniscient (at least that).
Your life is not over yet, and you do not know what your future will be like. It can happen that one day you will have faith in God again. You do not know that *yet*, but God knows.

If we're here on Planet Earth, then we deserve to be here. We deserve to have all the happiness and rewards we can manage to attain for ourselves while we are here. If that weren't the case, then we wouldn't even be here.

Does everyone *deserve* what they have, be it good or bad?

The god religions teach the denial of the self. That defeats our purpose for existence. Who needs a god? We've done quite nicely by ourselves.

How can you be sure that you are by yourself?


* * *

yes i agree. and add that If you take this exploration seriously, then it demands you look closer at the myth, its pagan origins, the political strategy to guilt you to be behoven to a supposedly historical character who died for your sins
When they do that they can always say--the representaives of that belief-system--that you owe THEM, cause they represent 'HIM'. thus you need to always be their lackies

Even the fundies in the Us who claim that as soooon as you give yeeerrrself to jeeeeeeZUZ, all yer sins oer GON.....yet they want all your money keep coming in

but the crucial difference between the earth religious idea of 'sacrifice' and the patriarchal version is that the former accepts the Deep, and the latter demonizes it....! that way they are guilting you again. you are their little angst-puppets, always in doubt that you may end up in 'Hell' less you jump through their hoops

Who will be the final judge? God or people?

 

[SnakeLord]

By giving what only God could give and still live: his life.

Oh.. he gave his life? One question..

Is god dead?

One of the main principles in law is nulla poena sine lege praevia -- 'no punishment without a previously existing law'. You can't be judged for something there is no law against.

Curious.. the law didn't exist at the time when god flooded every living thing on the planet. It wasn't until later, during Moses life, that god decided to hand down the laws. So tell me then.. given your statement, why were they punished - oh and not just punished - annihilated.

As for those who have never heard of God and His law: God is omnipresent and omniscient, so He knows who has heard the Gospel and who hasn't.

What does that have to do with them? Are you saying that the best plan is to never have heard of jesus and then you're automatically saved? In that case is it worth christians going round spreading the word?

To assume that people who have never heard of the Gospel will be doomed is to assume that 1. God is not omniscient and omnipresent, and 2. God is not just.

(1.) Doesn't in any way aid an argument against people prior to the gospel being doomed. So what if god knows everything and is everywhere. It doesn't make a difference.

(2.) Is fully debateable.

One could argue for ignorantia legis neminem excusat -- 'ignorance of the law does not excuse anyone'. This is true for the laws *man* judges by.

But to say that God judges by ignorantia legis neminem excusat is to say 1. God is not omniscient and omnipresent, and 2. God is not just.

While your use of Latin is most certainly cute, there's really no need to try and impress me. But anyway:

(1.) Doesn't in any way aid an argument against anything. Not to mention that god can supposedly do whatever he bloody well pleases, whether you personally agree with it or not.

(2.) Is fully debateable.

(By the way, it is these two law principles that the Mormons are violating when they baptize for the dead. In violating these two law principles, they deny God to be omniscient and omnipresent, and they deny that God is just.)

To be honest, I have no interest in your cross-religion squabbling. They think you're assholes, you think they're assholes, they think you're doomed, you think they're doomed.. nobody cares. Kindly leave your anti-other-religion propaganda in your church where it belongs.

By judging other religions actions and beliefs, you are breaking one of jesus laws. By showing little love and compassion for humanity, (by bitching over whether the dead have the right to be baptized), you're actually breaking another of jesus laws. Enough with the hypocrisy.

 

[Voodoo Child]

You are arguing from emotional blackmail.

Faith is emotional blackmail. Try to give up your faith and you will hurt emotionally.

One wants to get rid of it, the same as one wants to get rid off someone whom he accepted as a friend because he begged for it or emotionally blackmailed one ("If you won't be friends with me, I will die").

Subtle blackmail. It is "I've died, be my friend" rather than the other way around.

If you go the park for a walk, and a dog attacks your child -- will you save your child?

But what if you made the dog, the park and the child? What if you knew the temperament of the dog and exactly what would happen? It seems to be too much of a set-piece to me.

 

[mario]

If you were a true christian and knew what was a sin and what wasn't (the 10 commandments for example) then you would not want to sin and steer away from it. And if you did that then you would have no need to repent, since you have committed no sin. What's so hard about that? Just don't sin. Use your free will.

If things turned out differently and the romans executed barabas instead of jesus, could we still be saved by believing in a son of god that lived to a ripe old age before dying of natural causes?

 

[ellion]

'be my friend or die you worthless sh!t' seems to be the message in a lot of sermons.

 

[Jenyar]

Someone please take a stance on this one.
If Jesus payed for our sins, why isn't he burning in hell until the end of times?

Exactly because his payment was valid. He took our sins on his body, and it died (1 Pet. 3:18), but hell cannot take what does not belong in it: God's Spirit - the Spirit that gives life.

Acts 22:4 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.

Revelation 1:18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.​

God judges who is innocent, and the "score to be settled" is with God, not with hell.

 

[Jenyar]

The way I see it, one can find in the Bible a certain system of ethics -- and the actual historical story within which this system of ethics is presented, is not of crucial importance. The veracity of the historical story does not affect the veracity of the system of ethics.

True, but the history in which it stands, its sitz im leben is part of its relevance. Determinism and relativism is also internally consistent, and can be based on good logic. It is where something intersects with life as it is known and experienced where it attains any relevance. Internal consistency + external consistency = coherent reality.

Something from probability theory:

"You must weight the improbability of an event occurring against the probability that the evidence would be just the same if the event had not taken place"​

In other words, something is only unlikely (improbable) if it is likely that the evidence would be the same if the event had not occurred. This relies on the coherence of reality I described above. If the internal consistency of the ethics are valid, and the external consistency of the history (in which it applies) is valid, then it is more likely to be true and dependable.

 

[water]

Curious.. the law didn't exist at the time when god flooded every living thing on the planet. It wasn't until later, during Moses life, that god decided to hand down the laws. So tell me then.. given your statement, why were they punished - oh and not just punished - annihilated.

Did they go to hell?

As for those who have never heard of God and His law: God is omnipresent and omniscient, so He knows who has heard the Gospel and who hasn't.

What does that have to do with them? Are you saying that the best plan is to never have heard of jesus and then you're automatically saved? In that case is it worth christians going round spreading the word?

Yes, the argument that "the best plan is to never have heard of Jesus and then you're automatically saved". But a person cannot really plan to never hear of the Gospel.

Whether it is worth that Christians go around spreading the word: They are people, and they have their ethical system, just like anyone else. They do what they see fit.

As I see it, the only problem with "spreading the Word" is that people act as if they have the upper hand over God's law. It is when people say "You must hear of the Gospel or you will be doomed, and this is why I am telling you about it" that they are trying to take God's law and God's justice into their own hands.
A person who says "You must hear of the Gospel or you will be doomed, and this is why I am telling you about it" is actually thereby declaring that he is your way to salvation, that your salvation depends on this person -- and not on God.

To assume that people who have never heard of the Gospel will be doomed is to assume that 1. God is not omniscient and omnipresent, and 2. God is not just.

(1.) Doesn't in any way aid an argument against people prior to the gospel being doomed. So what if god knows everything and is everywhere. It doesn't make a difference.

Again: Did the people prior to the Gospel go to hell?

Secondly, whether people who spread the Gospel are everywhere can and does make a difference in the eyes of *men*, but not in the eyes of *God*.

(2.) Is fully debateable.

How?
When has God proven to be unjust?

One could argue for ignorantia legis neminem excusat -- 'ignorance of the law does not excuse anyone'. This is true for the laws *man* judges by.

But to say that God judges by ignorantia legis neminem excusat is to say 1. God is not omniscient and omnipresent, and 2. God is not just.

(1.) Doesn't in any way aid an argument against anything. Not to mention that god can supposedly do whatever he bloody well pleases, whether you personally agree with it or not.

(2.) Is fully debateable.

All your arguments come down to you having no faith that God is anything like what the Bible says that He is.

While your use of Latin is most certainly cute, there's really no need to try and impress me.

Ahem. It is common practice that certain law terms are given in Latin.

(By the way, it is these two law principles that the Mormons are violating when they baptize for the dead. In violating these two law principles, they deny God to be omniscient and omnipresent, and they deny that God is just.)

To be honest, I have no interest in your cross-religion squabbling. They think you're assholes, you think they're assholes, they think you're doomed, you think they're doomed.. nobody cares. Kindly leave your anti-other-religion propaganda in your church where it belongs.

It is not anti-other-church propaganda. I gave a relevant example of how people take God's law into their own hands, and then claim it to be God's.

By judging other religions actions and beliefs, you are breaking one of jesus laws. By showing little love and compassion for humanity, (by bitching over whether the dead have the right to be baptized), you're actually breaking another of jesus laws. Enough with the hypocrisy.

Baseless accusations. Do you think that a believer would have to be quiet and do and say nothing?


* * *

Faith is emotional blackmail. Try to give up your faith and you will hurt emotionally.

If something that looks like faith is actually an attachment coming from emotional blackmail, then it isn't faith at all.

And it is in the nature of any faith, religious or non-religious, that it can't be given up.

But what if you made the dog, the park and the child? What if you knew the temperament of the dog and exactly what would happen? It seems to be too much of a set-piece to me.

And what if you made "the dog, the park and the child" -- and made them free?


* * *

If you were a true christian and knew what was a sin and what wasn't (the 10 commandments for example) then you would not want to sin and steer away from it.

One cannot simply be a true Christian, just like that -- one *becomes* a true Christian.
To become a true Christian also takes to experience some sin, and repent for it.

And if you did that then you would have no need to repent, since you have committed no sin. What's so hard about that? Just don't sin. Use your free will.

To "use your free will" is not a matter of course. One must first recognize that one has a free will. This can happen only after you have sinned/broken a law.

If things turned out differently and the romans executed barabas instead of jesus, could we still be saved by believing in a son of god that lived to a ripe old age before dying of natural causes?

To say "If things turned out differently ..." supposes that things happen that God *cannot* control. This is to say that God is not omnipotent.

You can argue that God is not omnipotent, surely. But then you argue in Biblical matters with non- or anti-biblical arguments. What si the point in that?

 

[water]

'be my friend or die you worthless sh!t' seems to be the message in a lot of sermons.

The person who says that in the name of God -- do you believe this person? Do you believe that what this person has said in the name of God is a veritable example of ***God's*** judgement?

 

[Voodoo Child]

" but hell cannot take what does not belong in it"
Then he can not be sacrificed in our place. The wages of sin is not death for a day, nor death in the flesh. He is taking the fall for the fall, afterall.

 

[Jenyar]

One cannot simply be a true Christian, just like that -- one *becomes* a true Christian.
To become a true Christian also takes to experience some sin, and repent for it.

I think knowledge of sin - i.e. our initial separation from God, whether by our own doing or someone else's - is enough to realize the significance of what it means to have the option to be reconciled with Him. The moment one repents (confessing sin, and turning away from life as you led it without God towards the life Christ represents) and accepts this reconciliation in word and deed (the reason for being baptised), one is a follower Christ. Then it is a matter of living a new, God-given life, and letting the old life die a natural death.

 

[Jenyar]

" but hell cannot take what does not belong in it"
Then he can not be sacrificed in our place. The wages of sin is not death for a day, nor death in the flesh. He is taking the fall for the fall, afterall.

Very poetic But to be sacrificed in our place doesn't mean taking our place in hell - we were not created for hell, which is why He came to save us from it. It means bridging the gap through which we would have fallen away from God. The wages of sin is death, and He was sinless. We are not; we are born into a fallen world, and death rules in it. God came into it to take the sting of death out of it.

There are more angles to see it from. Don't think of it as being more complicated, it's simply another way of describing the same thing:

Revelations 12:10-12
Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ.
For the accuser of our brothers,
who accuses them before our God day and night,
has been hurled down.
They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much
as to shrink from death.
Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you! He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short.”​

People don't just "go to hell" - the process is described as in a court: the world was constantly being accused of rebellion against God, of sin and injustice etc. If these accusations are true, God's verdict must be 'guilty as charged'. But Christ has silenced the accuser in heaven (the capacity we see him in Job) and now he spreads his lies and accusations among us, on earth. But he cannot touch those whom Christ has marked with his blood (like the door posts that were marked in Egypt before the last plague hit them). Satan first said we won't die (Gen. 2), but when the effects of sin started becoming evident, and we realized that death really means eternal separation from God with no hope in this life, he starts accusing us of deserving it, of being outside God's grace and unworthy of help. Christ makes these claims impossible to believe.

 

[water]

The way I see it, one can find in the Bible a certain system of ethics -- and the actual historical story within which this system of ethics is presented, is not of crucial importance. The veracity of the historical story does not affect the veracity of the system of ethics.

True, but the history in which it stands, its sitz im leben is part of its relevance. Determinism and relativism is also internally consistent, and can be based on good logic. It is where something intersects with life as it is known and experienced where it attains any relevance. Internal consistency + external consistency = coherent reality.

Arguing for the time thousands of years back being the only Sitz im Leben of Christianity is what many of us have the practical problem with, and this is where I think Christians should make a better effort in explaining.

For this is exactly what it comes across like: That Christianity's only Sitz im Leben are the events thousands of years back, while there is no present intersection of Christianity with life as it is known and experienced *now*.

It comes across like "There was once a golden time, that is now gone, and all we can do is look back with sorrow and think how fake and remote from truth our lives are nowadays".

It comes as no suprise that people demand that God is to make some miracles, or some divine intervention on a daily basis -- if we are to believe in Him to still be alive and caring for us.

So what is Christianity's intersection with life *now*? Where is its Sitz im Leben *now*?
Where is the intersection we can all see and based on which we can say that God is alive and well, and loves us -- and is everything the Bible says He is?

 

[SnakeLord]

Did they go to hell?

Of course not, the place doesn't exist. But for the sake of argument, let's say it does exist - in which case I wouldn't know, and neither would you.

Yes, the argument that "the best plan is to never have heard of Jesus and then you're automatically saved". But a person cannot really plan to never hear of the Gospel.

So you agree then that it's in the best interest of everyone to have never heard of jesus? As a result, there was absolutely no point in him coming to earth.

I'm glad we agree.

Whether it is worth that Christians go around spreading the word: They are people, and they have their ethical system, just like anyone else. They do what they see fit.

Yes, I have seen how they trample over people and force themselves and their beliefs upon all within hearing range. Surely a large part of "love thy neighbour" is allowing them to have their own beliefs and not interfering unless they ask you to do so? But of course, religious people don't honestly give a shit.

Again: Did the people prior to the Gospel go to hell?

Unanswerable question. Especially given that nobody is in heaven or hell yet - not until god goes about destroying the planet, raising people up from the dead and then judging them.

How?
When has God proven to be unjust?

That's an entirely new debate of it's own. I will provide one small example that I'm sure will receive plenty of worthless attempts at justification. Anyway..

There is not one indication to suggest that a 1 day old child, 3 month old child, fox, kangaroo, or stick insect has the ability to be evil, or to be a sinner. And yet, regardless to that, god drowned them all without mercy. With his almighty power he could have saved the diplodocus's at least. They never harmed a fly, never broke his rules, never swore or hated their neighbours. No, they were just pleasant happy creatures enjoying the life they had been given.. That is until god decided he'd made a tremendous fuck up and annihilated every living thing on the planet - from tiny little children, to animals that had never caused harm to anyone or anything.

In the history of mankind nobody and nothing can rival god in the human kill count competition. But anyway, go ahead and justify the slaughter of babies.

All your arguments come down to you having no faith that God is anything like what the Bible says that He is.

Faith is for idiots, and what does the bible say he is?

Ahem. It is common practice that certain law terms are given in Latin.

Perhaps, but you'd look like a twerp if we were discussing this in a pub. Then again, we'd both look like twerps

It is not anti-other-church propaganda. I gave a relevant example of how people take God's law into their own hands, and then claim it to be God's.

A rather pleasantly mannered way of saying other people's beliefs are bollocks, you're right, and they're all doomed to hell, burn bastards, burn. I get ya.

Baseless accusations. Do you think that a believer would have to be quiet and do and say nothing?

How are they baseless? Well? Did you not judge others when jesus specifically told you not to judge others? Did you not show contempt for your fellow human beings when jesus specifically told you to love thy neighbour?

I mean c'mon, if you're going to try and justify it then do so. Saying: "baseless accusation" is a pathetic excuse.