Islam - The religion of freedom.

Precisely my point! You already admitted you don't know because you're not God and there might be a loophole for the Jews.

Why should we listen to your beliefs regarding celestial crime and punishment when you freely admit you don't know yourself? Can you categorically say there is no loophole for Atheists? Or people who have never heard the Bible? Or people who wear brown shoes?

Do you have no idea what facetious means?  Re-read what I said.

Why are we still asking Wardogg questions on this stuff? It's been clearly demonstrated he doesn't care what the Bible says, and instead uses what he'd like Christianity to be as the primary basis for his beliefs.

I pity you.

Quote from: Mykael on November 23, 2010, 05:23:35 PM

Why are we still asking Wardogg questions on this stuff? It's been clearly demonstrated he doesn't care what the Bible says, and instead uses what he'd like Christianity to be as the primary basis for his beliefs.

I pity you.

Passive Aggressive, check!

Post moar, Wardogg. I've almost got a full line on my Christian Stereotypes Bingo.

So if you die before you're of an age old enough to be able of believing that someone died 2000+ years ago for our sins you'll go to hell? I thought baptism was there to save the little kids.

ITT: Any form of the bible that doesn't fit Wardogg's interpretation is incorrect.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on November 19, 2010, 07:29:49 AM

Quote from: Marcus Aurelius on November 19, 2010, 07:23:28 AM

Apparently the words of John overrule the words of Jesus, who explicitly stated that there is unforgivable sin.

The only unforgiving sin is denying His sacrifice for your other sins. 

Not according to Jesus.

When Jesus sends out the disciples to preach his message, he says to them "...it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you." (Matthew 10:20)

He also said to them "The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life." (John 6:63)

So when he refers to blaspheming against the holy spirit, it would make perfect sense if the spirit is given by the teachings of Jesus and spread via his disciples. Everyone is guilty of sin, and if we blaspheme/disrespect the teachings of Jesus, rather than accept them, then we must face judgment for our sins.

So if you die before you're of an age old enough to be able of believing that someone died 2000+ years ago for our sins you'll go to hell? I thought baptism was there to save the little kids.

Google - age of accountability

Do you have no idea what facetious means?  Re-read what I said.

Since it's almost identical to your earlier claims it isn't easy to tell when you're being facetious.

Google - age of accountability

So really all atheists could be saved from hell if god killed them as children.

I propose an appointed baby-murderer in every parish to ensure the destruction of all children before the age of accountability, the appointee will need to be a really strong believer who can daily repent for his murdering and re-accept the Holy Spirit. Over two generations, I predict an ascension rate of 74% at which point we need to appoint a secret Clerical police force to assassinate the children not killed by the Appointee or who were hidden by the parents.


Oh, and because those who haven't heard the message also get a free pass, the Appointee and the Secret police's agenda must be kept hidden from the general public, this should increase ascension rate to somewhere in the regoin of 90%

Or maybe I'll just write a short-story about it...

Quote from: Beorn on November 23, 2010, 07:03:37 PM

So if you die before you're of an age old enough to be able of believing that someone died 2000+ years ago for our sins you'll go to hell? I thought baptism was there to save the little kids.

Google - age of accountability

Then, logically, wouldn't abortion be one of the most ethical and moral actions possible? It's granting that child a direct ticket to Heaven.

 

I was suggesting that you break down the same statement(s) being offered against you as opposed to countering with alternate quotes with alternative messages. Dissect the verse, perhaps by subject or predicates. Unless I'm missing something, you still believe that the quotes that contradict yours are words of Jesus, correct? So unless Jesus was constantly changing his divine rules, shouldn't any examination of any of his quotes be sufficient for you? I'd suggest Wilmore examines your quotes as well, but I believe he already contends they are contradictory and is using that as a means of fundamentally discrediting the source.

Well pick some verses and we will go from there.

Belief 'a' = Belief that Jesus Christ was god, and that he died on a cross for humanity's sins.
If not belief 'a', then not heaven.
Therefore:
If heaven, then belief 'a'.

This current form shows universal application. Any loopholes would have to require that this rule is not the only determining factor in going to heaven, in which case, the root belief is not the only determining factor. If belief is assumed to be the only factor, a loophole allowing heaven cannot exist.

  Was that too facetious?

  You know me.  You cant do math with letters.

 

Sacrifices as in killing animals?  
How is that beneficial/pleasing to god? After all, it's no detriment to ourselves... no punishment to the ones committing sin.
In essence, it's a process where we do wrong, and murder something else to show god we're sorry.
Isn't random animal abuse also rather sinful? It's inflicting unnecessary suffering, and it's wasteful of "god' gifts". Does god not love all animals (in addition to humans)?

I havent studied the old testament for a long time.  But before Jesus came and shed his blood, and sacrificed his body for our sins, God asked for a sacrifice for atonement.  And he was very picky, the sacrifices were always supposed to be the fattest lamb or the top pick of the crops. 

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 21, 2010, 07:57:34 AM

Sacrifices as in killing animals?  
How is that beneficial/pleasing to god? After all, it's no detriment to ourselves... no punishment to the ones committing sin.
In essence, it's a process where we do wrong, and murder something else to show god we're sorry.
Isn't random animal abuse also rather sinful? It's inflicting unnecessary suffering, and it's wasteful of "god' gifts". Does god not love all animals (in addition to humans)?

I havent studied the old testament for a long time.  But before Jesus came and shed his blood, and sacrificed his body for our sins, God asked for a sacrifice for atonement.  And he was very picky, the sacrifices were always supposed to be the fattest lamb or the top pick of the crops.  

Okay, I'm thinking we might as well stick to one topic at a time for convenience and clarity. I am most intrigued with this one atm.  
Your post already confirms that you believe god demanded sacrificing animals so I have two more questions.

Would you agree that god did not benefit from sacrifices other than satisfaction? (his mana points didn't go up)
Would you agree that it was primarily the animals that suffered from this deal, not the people?

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on November 27, 2010, 08:05:24 PM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 21, 2010, 07:57:34 AM

Sacrifices as in killing animals?  
How is that beneficial/pleasing to god? After all, it's no detriment to ourselves... no punishment to the ones committing sin.
In essence, it's a process where we do wrong, and murder something else to show god we're sorry.
Isn't random animal abuse also rather sinful? It's inflicting unnecessary suffering, and it's wasteful of "god' gifts". Does god not love all animals (in addition to humans)?

I havent studied the old testament for a long time.  But before Jesus came and shed his blood, and sacrificed his body for our sins, God asked for a sacrifice for atonement.  And he was very picky, the sacrifices were always supposed to be the fattest lamb or the top pick of the crops.  

Okay, I'm thinking we might as well stick to one topic at a time for convenience and clarity. I am most intrigued with this one atm.  
Your post already confirms that you believe god demanded sacrificing animals so I have two more questions.

Would you agree that god did not benefit from sacrifices other than satisfaction? (his mana points didn't go up)
Would you agree that it was primarily the animals that suffered from this deal, not the people?

I agree, God did not benefit in any way from the sacrifice.  But the same could be said about any sort of worship, or signs of faith.  There is no benefit to God.

Only in a physical sense of pain.  At the time these animals they were sacrificing were food and clothing.  Im sure a loss of one animal every so often wasn't a small deal to these people.

I agree, God did not benefit in any way from the sacrifice.  But the same could be said about any sort of worship, or signs of faith.  There is no benefit to God.

Only in a physical sense of pain.  At the time these animals they were sacrificing were food and clothing.  Im sure a loss of one animal every so often wasn't a small deal to these people.

Sorry, I need to start keeping better track of what topics I'm carrying on.

So, how is that not unnecessary cruelty? If god is omnibenevolent, this seems like endorsing a system of inflicting pain without good reason, and advocating waste.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on November 28, 2010, 04:24:44 AM

I agree, God did not benefit in any way from the sacrifice.  But the same could be said about any sort of worship, or signs of faith.  There is no benefit to God.

Only in a physical sense of pain.  At the time these animals they were sacrificing were food and clothing.  Im sure a loss of one animal every so often wasn't a small deal to these people.

Sorry, I need to start keeping better track of what topics I'm carrying on.

So, how is that not unnecessary cruelty? If god is omnibenevolent, this seems like endorsing a system of inflicting pain without good reason, and advocating waste.

I will admit, He is a jealous God and wishes to be worshiped and sacrificed for.  Before His own Son made the ultimate sacrifice, He required the people do the same.  Asking them to sacrifice themselves (Abraham aside) would be a little harsher, don't you think?  So the next best thing would be fruits of their hard labor.

Quote from: ?ingula?i?y on December 03, 2010, 09:22:02 AM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on November 28, 2010, 04:24:44 AM

I agree, God did not benefit in any way from the sacrifice.  But the same could be said about any sort of worship, or signs of faith.  There is no benefit to God.

Only in a physical sense of pain.  At the time these animals they were sacrificing were food and clothing.  Im sure a loss of one animal every so often wasn't a small deal to these people.

Sorry, I need to start keeping better track of what topics I'm carrying on.

So, how is that not unnecessary cruelty? If god is omnibenevolent, this seems like endorsing a system of inflicting pain without good reason, and advocating waste.

I will admit, He is a jealous God and wishes to be worshiped and sacrificed for.  Before His own Son made the ultimate sacrifice, He required the people do the same.  Asking them to sacrifice themselves (Abraham aside) would be a little harsher, don't you think?  So the next best thing would be fruits of their hard labor.

How can a omnipotent being be jealous???

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on December 03, 2010, 09:22:02 AM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on November 28, 2010, 04:24:44 AM

I agree, God did not benefit in any way from the sacrifice.  But the same could be said about any sort of worship, or signs of faith.  There is no benefit to God.

Only in a physical sense of pain.  At the time these animals they were sacrificing were food and clothing.  Im sure a loss of one animal every so often wasn't a small deal to these people.

Sorry, I need to start keeping better track of what topics I'm carrying on.

So, how is that not unnecessary cruelty? If god is omnibenevolent, this seems like endorsing a system of inflicting pain without good reason, and advocating waste.

I will admit, He is a jealous God and wishes to be worshiped and sacrificed for.  Before His own Son made the ultimate sacrifice, He required the people do the same.  Asking them to sacrifice themselves (Abraham aside) would be a little harsher, don't you think?  So the next best thing would be fruits of their hard labor.

Why is it that they were required in the first place.  Also, why is God incapable of forgiveness, without blood being spilt.

Jealousy stems from insecurity, and feelings of inferiority. It is a irrational and primitive emotion defined as "feeling resentment against someone because of that person's rivalry, success, or advantages".

If you wish to characterize your god this way, I have no objections. It actually raises a few more questions. However, how does killing sheep doesn't make god feel less insecure?

Jealousy stems from insecurity, and feelings of inferiority. It is a irrational and primitive emotion defined as "feeling resentment against someone because of that person's rivalry, success, or advantages".

If you wish to characterize your god this way, I have no objections. It actually raises a few more questions. However, how does killing sheep doesn't make god feel less insecure?

Killing sheep has nothing to do with insecurity.

My use of the word jealousy may have been erroneous in this discussion.  God does not want any idols before him, which makes him jealous.  Besides the point.

Adam and Eve cut us all off from God with the original sin.  Before there was sin man and God lived together in harmony in Eden.  Sin has cut man off from God and from the tree of life.  Mans expulsion from Eden made sacrifices necessary.

Sacrifices have been made since the time Adam and Eve sinned - as a physical reminder that the consequence of sin is death and of the atonement Christ would make to redeem us from death and give us eternal life with God.

Mans expulsion from Eden made sacrifices necessary.

The question remains, why? It does nothing except result in an innocent animal's death. It's shifting the sentence and punishment onto something else. If the system was fair, shouldn't the sacrifice be confined to the person responsible for the crime? Giving up eating meat is an example.

Wait now y'all are talking about sacrifices?

Geeze...
It's not hard to understand.  Cultures were sacrificing animals and people for thousands of years before Judaism came along.

Sacrifice animals makes Gods happy because they love getting stuff from their followers.  It shows how sincere they are at wanting said God to be pleased with them.

Wait now y'all are talking about sacrifices?

Geeze...
It's not hard to understand.  Cultures were sacrificing animals and people for thousands of years before Judaism came along.

Sacrifice animals makes Gods happy because they love getting stuff from their followers.  It shows how sincere they are at wanting said God to be pleased with them.

Doesn't God know how sincere people are?

Quote from: Lorddave on December 04, 2010, 04:35:18 PM

Wait now y'all are talking about sacrifices?

Geeze...
It's not hard to understand.  Cultures were sacrificing animals and people for thousands of years before Judaism came along.

Sacrifice animals makes Gods happy because they love getting stuff from their followers.  It shows how sincere they are at wanting said God to be pleased with them.

Doesn't God know how sincere people are?

No.
He asked that one guy to sacrifice his son didn't he?

Sacrifice animals makes Gods happy because they love getting stuff from their followers.

Animal guts?

It shows how sincere they are at wanting said God to be pleased with them.

God is not omniscient now?

God isn't nearly as omniscient in the Old Testament. If he was, he wouldn't test people the way he does. He acts more like other older gods.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on December 03, 2010, 12:09:35 PM

Quote from: ?ingula?i?y on December 03, 2010, 09:22:02 AM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on November 28, 2010, 04:24:44 AM

I agree, God did not benefit in any way from the sacrifice.  But the same could be said about any sort of worship, or signs of faith.  There is no benefit to God.

Only in a physical sense of pain.  At the time these animals they were sacrificing were food and clothing.  Im sure a loss of one animal every so often wasn't a small deal to these people.

Sorry, I need to start keeping better track of what topics I'm carrying on.

So, how is that not unnecessary cruelty? If god is omnibenevolent, this seems like endorsing a system of inflicting pain without good reason, and advocating waste.

I will admit, He is a jealous God and wishes to be worshiped and sacrificed for.  Before His own Son made the ultimate sacrifice, He required the people do the same.  Asking them to sacrifice themselves (Abraham aside) would be a little harsher, don't you think?  So the next best thing would be fruits of their hard labor.

How can a omnipotent being be jealous???

Because he is omnipotent. Congrats on answering your own question. 

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on December 04, 2010, 07:48:33 AM

Mans expulsion from Eden made sacrifices necessary.

The question remains, why? It does nothing except result in an innocent animal's death. It's shifting the sentence and punishment onto something else. If the system was fair, shouldn't the sacrifice be confined to the person responsible for the crime? Giving up eating meat is an example.

If you are asking me to know why God demanded a blood sacrifice to cleanse mankind of sins instead of just giving up meat, then I have no answer for you. Nothing ive read or seen in the bible will tell you either.  You are asking a "What is/was God thinking" question and no one knows that.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on December 04, 2010, 12:43:54 PM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on December 04, 2010, 07:48:33 AM

Mans expulsion from Eden made sacrifices necessary.

The question remains, why? It does nothing except result in an innocent animal's death. It's shifting the sentence and punishment onto something else. If the system was fair, shouldn't the sacrifice be confined to the person responsible for the crime? Giving up eating meat is an example.

If you are asking me to know why God demanded a blood sacrifice to cleanse mankind of sins instead of just giving up meat, then I have no answer for you. Nothing ive read or seen in the bible will tell you either.  You are asking a "What is/was God thinking" question and no one knows that.

What I am really asking is why do you think god is fair, just, and/or benevolent when he whimsically demands the unnecessary blood of the innocent (of both animals and humans for that matter).

What I am really asking is why do you think god is fair, just, and/or benevolent when he whimsically demands the unnecessary blood of the innocent (of both animals and humans for that matter).

*pic of God's compassion*

What are you talking about the "innocent"?  Animals are just that, animals.  They are for our enjoyment, they are for our food, they are for our clothing, I dont see how killing an animal as a sign of atonement, is killing an "innocent".

As for your picture....well you should finish that story.   God has only taken the blood of one human.  His own Son.

Try to keep the strawmen to a minimum please.  I expect more than that from you.

What are you talking about the "innocent"?  Animals are just that, animals.  They are for our enjoyment, they are for our food, they are for our clothing, I dont see how killing an animal as a sign of atonement, is killing an "innocent".

They sure struggle a lot considering they're made to be eaten.