If Jesus was a god his death wasn't a sacrifi

[zep73]

Just now, Dejarma said:

i'm not sure what you mean by: 'reverse the big bang'  in ths context? 

Did you not start this hypothesis query yourself, when you told how you imagined the universe being made from another imploding? Or did I get that wrong?

[Dejarma]

4 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

That there is objective truth about God.

 

 

where is it? do you have an example?

[Will Due]

Just now, Dejarma said:

where is it? do you have an example?

 

It's everywhere.

 

 

[Dejarma]

5 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

Did you not start this hypothesis query yourself, when you told how you imagined the universe being made from another imploding? Or did I get that wrong?

you haven't explained the use of the word 'reverse' in your statement!? what is the 'reverse' of my query?

[cormac mac airt]

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

It's everywhere.

That’s your opinion and not remotely a fact. 

cormac

[zep73]

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

It's everywhere.

We can't access your delusions. Please specify!

[quiXilver]

Jesus gave up his three day weekend for your sins... show some respect.

[Dejarma]

2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

It's everywhere.

 

 

a boring get out reply Will... you can do better than that= or can you?

come on, be more specific,, i'm sure you can coz you're clever, aint ya? hmmm, interesting

[zep73]

51 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

my theory is the big bang is the result of the collapse of the previous universe

You call it a collapse, I call it a crunch or a reversed big bang.

Past my bedtime. See ya!

Edited July 6, 2019 by sci-nerd

[Dejarma]

Just now, sci-nerd said:

You call it a collapse, I call it a crunch or a reversed big bang

you're boring me now!! explain what you mean by reverse in this context? what is the reverse of the big bang?--- in your opinion of course

[zep73]

1 minute ago, Dejarma said:

you're boring me now!! explain what you mean by reverse in this context? what is the reverse of the big bang?--- in your opinion of course

I am on my way to bed. Let's continue another day!

[Dejarma]

Just now, sci-nerd said:

I am on my way to bed. Let's continue another day!

well maybe while you're in bed you can think of a reply, mate- make it a good one sunshine because you're talking to me 

i'm sure you'll do well- have a good sleep

[Jodie.Lynne]

1 hour ago, cormac mac airt said:

By Odin's beard this thread is getting long.

cormac

 

44 minutes ago, Wes83 said:

Ra almighty, this thread is getting long!

By Isis' left teat, why do guys always argue about size!

[SHaYap]

3 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

If we have to get technical, we should use the real name: Yeshua 

Or to his close ones and friends, Esa, that's The Lord for the rest of you lot. 

~

1 hour ago, sci-nerd said:

Jesus, this thread is getting long...

~

1 hour ago, Dejarma said:

God, this thread is getting long...

~

1 hour ago, cormac mac airt said:

By Odin's beard this thread is getting long.

cormac

~

45 minutes ago, Wes83 said:

Ra almighty, this thread is getting long!

~

Just now, Jodie.Lynne said:

 

By Isis' left teat, why do guys always argue about size!

~

Oh man, this is long enough... 

~

[Jodie.Lynne]

29 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

you're boring me now!! explain what you mean by reverse in this context? what is the reverse of the big bang?--- in your opinion of course

You are the one who mentioned "the big crunch", which, I presume is an implosion of all matter in the universe? An inverse of the 'big bang'?

If, as has been theorized, the universe is continuing to expand, then the force of gravity on other objects is becoming weaker with distance. This is NOT the same as  rubber band reaching the limits of its elasticity and 'snapping back'.

 

[Dejarma]

6 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

You are the one who mentioned "the big crunch",

no i did not- i mentioned the big bang which apparently isn't the same thing= i'm still waiting for someone to explain the difference! can you do that?

 

10 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

If, as has been theorized, the universe is continuing to expand, then the force of gravity on other objects is becoming weaker with distance. This is NOT the same as  rubber band reaching the limits of its elasticity and 'snapping back'.

 

how's it not the same, or at least a rough equivalent?

[Jodie.Lynne]

1 minute ago, Dejarma said:

how's it not the same, or at least a rough equivalent?

OK, imagine gravity as being able to affect anything within the reach of your arm span, without moving your body. Now, objects closer to your body, you can easily reach and manipulate, yeah? but those objects further from your center of mass become more difficult to maneuver. And that object, just almost out of reach of your outstretched fingertip, is the most difficult to try to influence, while those beyond your reach, cannot be affect by you at all.

THAT is gravity.

Now, imagine two objects, connected to each of your hands with a long elastic string. You can throw them, hold them in your hands, reel them in, even juggle them, if you wish. And you can throw them with all your might. BUT, when they reach the utmost extent of the elastics ability to stretch, they will come zinging back, right at you.

And that, is what you are proposing: that the universe will reach "stretching point" and snap back to the beginning.

 

Or have I misinterpreted your position?

[Dejarma]

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Or have I misinterpreted your position?

all due respect but i've no idea what to say to that.. i'm going haggis hunting now

[+and-then]

4 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

It is like a parent saying don't eat the cookie and walking away then beating the hell out of the kid who ate the cookie whether he was in the room at the time the parent made the rule or not

The parent-child relationship is a good analogy.  If the parent is trying to teach the child about good nutrition that will keep the kid healthy in life then having rules about cookies seems like a positive.  Of course, beating the kid for having the cookie would be counterproductive.  The little addendum of yours about punishing the child even if he didn't know the rules isn't valid.  The "rules" are plainly written and it is the parent's responsibility to make sure the child knows them.  After that, the choice is up to the kid.  If they choose the route of pleasing their sweet tooth and have health problems later in life, that isn't the parent's fault, is it?  

And we absolutely have free will.  If we didn't, we'd just be shells of beings instead of self-aware individuals in charge of their own destiny.  The choice is ours.  Those who choose to reject that message do so out of their free will.  When a person really takes the time to read and understand Christ's message, they have to admit that there is nothing evil or harmful in it.  He offers a way to live in harmony with others - within each person's ability to understand and obey - and leaves the choice to us.  He told His followers not to spend time with those who heard the message and rejected it.  He told them to move on.  Christians today who judge others and demand compliance with their way of life are, frankly, in error.  It isn't their place to convert anyone.  It's only their duty to relay the good news of Christ's way.  

[darkmoonlady]

Beyond all the universe measuring the idea that Jesus dying on the cross is hugely impactful to millions of Christians not just because of sin. It's literally for them the key to salvation, believe he died on the cross for YOU ( meaning that specific believer and I guess all Christians). Yet a deity knows they can't ever die. According to them he isn't dead now, he ascended to heaven. So how do they reconcile him as a being that apparently lives forever but being crucified makes their sin washed away? 

I'm pagan and kind of agnostic pagan, I've read the mythology of the year king dying for the fertility of the land, at least in that the sacrifice was (even metaphorically) real, that individual was dead dead. Jesus really is a biblical superhero archetype but he knew he was untouchable. He allows himself to "die" after he resurrected Lazarus so he knew he could even on himself. I just find it weird Christians don't see the lack of truth even in the story itself. 

[+and-then]

4 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

That stuff worked for their society, and their mythology, but not all of it works for today.

Those statutes and rules were laid down for the descendants of Israel to teach them the character of God.  He was very harsh with those who stepped out of line, possibly because of their background following idols.  I really don't know.  What is clear is that Christ came to change all that and He said, Himself, "I make all things new".  Many Christians think of Paul as a kind of Moses character, delivering the message of the new covenant between God and man.  Once the Jews proved that life under the law and keeping it perfectly (which was required) was impossible for man, another way was provided that didn't require perfect adherence, only submission of their will and being dedicated to doing their best to have relationship with God through prayer and absorbing His word.  That's really all.  We will never be perfect in the flesh.  We must be willing to learn and do our best to follow His way.  THIS is where most people turn aside.  They want nothing and no one telling them how to live.  Remember that free will?  It must be a choice or it means nothing to have followers seeking to know Him.  He wants followers, not slaves.  

His crucifixion was about Him following the tradition in the Jewish covenant with God.  When they sinned (broke God's laws) they could bring a spotless lamb and sacrifice it in the temple to receive temporary reprieve.  The idea behind shedding blood was that blood was equivalent with life.  So when Christ allowed Himself to be crucified, He was making Himself that same kind of sacrifice for ALL who would believe.  And it wasn't temporary.  

[Jodie.Lynne]

To me, the entire 'trinity' is a mish mash of ideas. I have had Christians (educators and laymen) tell me that the 3 are separate, yet one. I've been told that 'god made himself flesh & blood', in order to cleanse Man of his sins.

So he was either a man, or a god. If he was a god, then he knew, subjectively AND objectively, that any suffering he experienced would be brief & transitory.

If he were a man, he couldn't KNOW with 100% certainty that what he preached was 100% factual, no matter what his beliefs were.

Yet Christians accept both of these propositions as true.

And to the poster who claims that

22 minutes ago, and then said:

takes the time to read and understand Christ's message, they have to admit that there is nothing evil or harmful in it.  He offers a way to live in harmony with others

Please explain why the "son of God" was tolerant of slavery, to the point of instructing 'slaves obey your Masters, even the cruel ones."

[Dejarma]

3 minutes ago, and then said:

Those statutes and rules were laid down for the descendants of Israel to teach them the character of God.

a dictatorship then?? oh wonderful

[+and-then]

9 minutes ago, darkmoonlady said:

So how do they reconcile him as a being that apparently lives forever but being crucified makes their sin washed away? 

Excellent question.  We believe that He IS God but that He chose to be born into human form and to live among us.  He then allowed Himself to suffer the humiliation and horrific death by crucifixion to be the blood sacrifice that we needed.  Remember that He was an earthly Jew and followed their customs.  Blood was required for the covering or remission of the penalties of those laws that they broke.  His choice to suffer crucifixion doesn't mean less because He is God, it means MORE.  Even today, there is no execution worse than what He endured.  He did it willingly.  It wasn't His crucifixion that removes the condemnation for the lawbreaking we ALL do.  It was our acceptance of His gift that does that.  It was for people everywhere, of all time.  But only those who believe and claim it are forgiven and guaranteed life after this one.  It doesn't make believers better in any way than other people.  If anything it should just make them more humble.  A really good description of what it is to hear the gospel and believe is that it's like a starving person who finds food, then tells others about it.  Freely sharing the truth but demanding nothing from anyone.

[Jodie.Lynne]

8 minutes ago, and then said:

Once the Jews proved that life under the law and keeping it perfectly (which was required) was impossible for man, another way was provided that didn't require perfect adherence, only submission of their will and being dedicated to doing their best to have relationship with God through prayer and absorbing His word. 

So the 'perfect god' set in place rules that were impossible to adhere to?

It seems to me that this god has an impressive record of failures.