Lol, I dunno what's more amusing.. imaging an all powerful sky being make a species that can't help sinning and then coming down to kill himself to rectify his own fault, or realising people actually believe that shit as real. C'mon Lori, listen to what you're saying.. It's daft.
wy did jesus have to be concieved without "sin"
- Thread starter raherakthy
- Start date
Why are any one of the other religions of the world, with rich histories and as much, or more, written documentation, wrong? Why is Christ and Christianity true?
Angelic Being
Registered Senior Member
superluminal said:
If you read my comments in my string U will 'see'!!
AB Jadon,
Your comments are one of the strongest reasons to reject christianity that I've ever seen. Have a nice day.
Your comments are one of the strongest reasons to reject christianity that I've ever seen. Have a nice day.
SnakeLord said:
Hmmm...daft...nice word. Usually unique vocabulary turns me on, but...
Anyway, in Genesis, it was presented to "humanity" as a choice. Do you want to know good and evil like God does or not? Apparently we chose to know the difference, and personally I'm glad that we did. I wouldn't want to be a puppet. I wouldn't want to not understand God's law and why it is what it is. I like learning about the difference between, and the consequences of, good and evil...it's the meaning of life. And it brings me closer to God, and it brings understanding and peace.
So it wasn't His "fault", it was His will. That in the "end", whatever that means given eternity, He will end up with a creation that voluntarily wants to live with Him forever, and according to His law, and because of what they know about it, and about Him, through personal experience.
superluminal said:
It's not so much that they are wrong, they're just not complete. I've found, just from an overview of the world's major religions, that they're basically the same. You know, love is good...hate is bad...duh. Well, that is, the basic resulting behaviors of said religions are the same. You know, selflessness and charity is good, stealing and rape are bad...duh. And it seems that in every sect or religion, there are those who abuse it...who are malintentioned in their "use" of it.
§outh§tar said:
It wasn't the same before Jesus came...obviously. Isn't there another thread out there about "why the need for a new testament?" Aren't the differences between the two testaments apparent enough? Jesus' life and death changed everything.
A) A choice that they wouldn't have been able to understand until they'd actually eaten the fruit
B) Beings that they wouldn't have been able to distinguish between before eating the fruit.. god/devil, it would be meaningless to them.
Until they'd eaten the fruit they had no knowledge of good or evil. This is fully attested to in the bible. So, would they have known god was good? Nope. Would they have known the serpent was evil? Nope.
They both equal the very same thing.
Lori_7 said:
Perhaps you can explain something to me.
If we do not go to Hell for sinning (please check all my Bible quotes above) then why do we wretched sinners need Jesus to stay out of Hell?
It makes no sense to me.
In one breath you say that Jesus is the only way to keep us horrible compulsive sinners out of Hell (since we are all sinners, we all need Jesus to stay out of Hell).
In the next you are saying that sinning doesn't get you into Hell.
Sounds like a contradiction to me.
You seem to be saying that God came down here to save us because we were sinning and in his infinite compassion, wanted to offer us a way out of eternal Hellfire.
So, since we would be going to Hell as sinners, he said, "OK. Come to me. Accept me into your heart and repent, and I will save you from Hell and accept you into my bosom if you are willing to be accepted.
Basically, "You are going to Hell because you sinned, but I am offering you a do-over.
Do you want it?"
If that's the case, reason dictates that sinners go to Hell, unless they turn to God, and ALL people sin, so ALL people need God.
Eternal co-dependency.
I don't understand why anyone would chose to be a member of a religion that constantly tells you that you are a piece of $hit, that does not have the capacity to live without being a selfish sinning bastard.
So, what, then, if not sinning, is the ticket to Hell?
I asked about this earlier...enton said:
Please show the Chapter and Verse that states this.
Well, YOU apparently...Lori_7 said:
...who claims to be speaking for the Bible...Lori_7 said:
Lori_7 said:
enton said:
Actually, it was meant for Lori.
She claims that (according to the Bible, mind you) sinning is not what condemns you to Hell.
She also claims, however, that mankind, being the consummate sinners that we are, will go to Hell if we do not accept the path of Jesus (who she claims to be God) into our hearts.
I think that:
a.) That sounds like a contradiction in itself.
b.) The Bible disagrees with her (and I quoted The Bible earlier in this thread to support my assertion).
The question for you, enton, was in response to this:
Where does The Bible say that Jesus was born without sin, or never sinned?
It may, I am not saying it does not, I would just like to read it for myself, because I don't know where it says that.
What I said earlier in this thread was that I was not aware that this statement was made in The Bible anywhere, and I would like a Chapter and verse if I am incorrect.enton said:
Where does The Bible say that Jesus was born without sin, or never sinned?
It may, I am not saying it does not, I would just like to read it for myself, because I don't know where it says that.
So, does that mean that he was born without sin, or that he was tempted to sin, being man, yet denied it and stayed true?dalahar said:
Is it a comment on his integrity alone, or integrity and birthright?
Thanks for the quote, by the way.
Last edited:
So, are you saying that it is the natural human condition without exception to sin, therfore we are all (being human) condemned to Hell unless we accept the provision, which is to accept the hand of Jesus in repentance?dalahar said:
I agree that it is the natural condition of mankind to sin (according to the Christian definition of "sin") which is why it seems like a stacked deck to me.
Basically, it is creating a set of rules by which we simply can not abide, by creating the rules in direct opposition of human nature itself.
If this is true, then why should humans be punished for breaking the rules that they simply MUST, by their own nature (which was created by God) break?
Am I missing something?
one_raven said:
1 Peter 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
source: http://www.addbible.com
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Pe/1Pe002.html#22