Is Jesus' Sacrifice Forever?

[syntaxmachine]

The Persian Empire held the biggest army in the known world, Darius mounted an army of 1 million men, the human population at this time was between 120-140 million, 350 bc- 2350 years ago.

The Babylonians managed to be the first world power to incorporate trade and commerce, Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom had anywhere from 500-600 thousand soldiers, population was 100 million, 550 bc nearly 2600 years ago

Sennacherib, king of Assyria carried 200 000 soldiers on campaign and that was 50% of is army, leaving half his Army in Mesopotamia, guarding cities such as Babylon and   Nineveh. World Population 80-90 million, 700 bc, 2700+ years ago.

King Solomon reigned over Israel, Egypt, Syria, Ammon and Moab (present day Jordan), Asia Minor (present day Turkey), Ethiopia, Mesopotamia (Akkad, Assyria, Babylonia and Uruk), Chaldea (present day Iran), Median and Sinai peninsula (present day Saudia Arabia),.... all of these territories made up at last 1 third of the World and his kingdom reigned with only a population of 3 million, world popluation 50 million. 1000 BC,... 3000 years ago

Between 1000 BC and 2000 BC many nations marched Armies but non exceeded 100 000 soldiers, some had several hundred thousand men that where capable o fighting, but the same men where also need for other task, nations include, Cush, Egypt, Median, Philistine, Chaldea, Elam, Accadian, Summer, Babylonians etc

Hammurabi is the first known man that historians recognize as giving the first law code "tooth for tooth, eye for eye" etc he was from Babylon and he enforced his law with an army of 20 000 men

Finally the oldest language and writings known to mankind, Cuneiform, found on clay tablets in the fertile cresent 3000 BC, and sure enough the oldest civilisation recognized by historians across every single university on the planet, the Summerians

.... Now this is funny, Sargon the great also known as Sargon of Accad is the first (yes the first), known General of all time, there is absolutely no record of an Army or any type of military power before him, 3000 BC, he mounted an Army of 5000 men, the biggest army in the world according the cuneiform tablets this information was founded on. OH you noticed the pattern the numbers keep getting smaller..

The greatest archaeological find of all time (IMO) is the Ashurbanipal library, found in present day Iraq has over 1000 documented wars dating between 600bc and 3000 bc and all of sudden nothing before this time, no nations, no civilizations, no cultures, no nothing, thousands of manuscript, biggiest library of antiquity,....

... So what's my point?...
....SO WHAT IS THIS NON-SENSE "HUMANS AROUND FOR 200 000 YEARS" ... YOU SPEAK OF?

Hey Onetime,

I am referring to our history as a species, Homo sapiens , of which we are all members. As far as I'm aware the evidence still indicates a 100-200 year ago genesis for our particular species. Check out the relevant fossils at a nearby museum of natural history (actually, they'll only be replicas, as the originals are spread about elsewhere; it's the same info, anyway).

[Butterbean]

I only have one thing on my list that says there is no God in the first place.

God lets little babies that have never EVER harmed another soul die... for no reason.

Anyone who lets that happen and has the power to stop it can get bent.

It's hard for us to understand but I believe that God makes things for eternity.  Scripture indicates that babies that die go to heaven.

tu, if God allowing little babies to die is the one thing on your list that turns you from believing in God, why do you support abortion?

[Butterbean]

I am saying that the sacrifice of Jesus is the central tenet of your religion. Would you really not want for that sacrifice to have been necessary?

Yes, I wish it would not have been necessary.  I wish He hadn't had to die such a horrible death for us.

But I see the way you are asking the question probably means that if God would just wipe the slate clean then Christ would have died for nothing if that applied to all people.

[Butterbean]

Which brings us back to my question... why this convoluted scheme to address sin? Please, don't just say "God works in mysterious ways" because that's, to put it bluntly, not an answer.

I don't know why that is the way God chose to address sin. 

I do know that in Genesis when Adam and Eve sinned that blood had to be shed (animal) which recognizes the seriousness of sin and that the skins "covered (clothed)" them (a symbolic covering up of sin)...but it still doesn't answer why that as well...my answer is I don't know why that is the plan.

For me, the first - and only - thing on the list would be "Can I define God?" I can't believe in something I cannot define. Belief in something unknown and, fundamentally, unknowable is meaningless.

OK so since you can't define something it must not exist?  Can you explain cold fusion?  Or for that matter, how about women 

I don't have such a list, but the first step would be a logical, consistent explanation of God. The second step would logical proof that the previously defined entity exists. No step should require faith, and no step should require that I accept a premise before proof of the validity of the premise can be provided.

If no step should require faith, how do you explain your acceptance of macro evolution?  (Sorry if that's not you, I get you and syntax mixed up for some reason)

[OTHstrong]

It's hard for us to understand but I believe that God makes things for eternity.  Scripture indicates that babies that die go to heaven.

tu, if God allowing little babies to die is the one thing on your list that turns you from believing in God, why do you support abortion?

             

[avxo]

I don't know why that is the way God chose to address sin.

I do know that in Genesis when Adam and Eve sinned that blood had to be shed (animal) which recognizes the seriousness of sin and that the skins "covered (clothed)" them (a symbolic covering up of sin)...but it still doesn't answer why that as well...my answer is I don't know why that is the plan.

OK so since you can't define something it must not exist?  Can you explain cold fusion?  Or for that matter, how about women 

Butterbean, I didn't say "what I can't define doesn't exist." I said "I can't believe in something I cannot define. Belief in something unknown and, fundamentally, unknowable is meaningless." Words have meaning. Can you provide me with a cogent, rational definition of what God is? If not, what exactly am I supposed to believe in? And what is it that you believe in?

Now, on to cold fusion: mentioning it doesn't help your case. I can define cold fusion. What's more, I can use an existing, validated rational framework (nuclear chemistry/physics) to decide whether it's viable or not.

If no step should require faith, how do you explain your acceptance of macro evolution?  (Sorry if that's not you, I get you and syntax mixed up for some reason)

I don't accept macro-evolution on faith. Faith is belief in the absence of (or, worse still, contrary to) evidence. I accept macro-evolution as a scientific theory on the basis of evidence, both direct and indirect. And, unlike beliefs based on faith, I am willing to reexamine my acceptance of the theory of evolution if and when new evidence that contradicts it comes to light, or a new theory that explains the evidence better is presented.

[tu_holmes]

It's hard for us to understand but I believe that God makes things for eternity.  Scripture indicates that babies that die go to heaven.

tu, if God allowing little babies to die is the one thing on your list that turns you from believing in God, why do you support abortion?

I don't know if you noticed... but I ain't god.

[Butterbean]

Butterbean, I didn't say "what I can't define doesn't exist." I said "I can't believe in something I cannot define. Belief in something unknown and, fundamentally, unknowable is meaningless." Words have meaning. Can you provide me with a cogent, rational definition of what God is? If not, what exactly am I supposed to believe in? And what is it that you believe in?

You presume that God is unknown and unknowable.  We differ on this.  You don't accept the bible as true and I do.  Any description of God I would give you will still be meaningless to you.

In short, I believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins and that He rose on the 3rd day and I have accepted His graceful gift of forgiveness by faith.

Now, on to cold fusion: mentioning it doesn't help your case. I can define cold fusion. What's more, I can use an existing, validated rational framework (nuclear chemistry/physics) to decide whether it's viable or not.

OK, go ahead please.

I don't accept macro-evolution on faith. Faith is belief in the absence of (or, worse still, contrary to) evidence. I accept macro-evolution as a scientific theory on the basis of evidence, both direct and indirect. And, unlike beliefs based on faith, I am willing to reexamine my acceptance of the theory of evolution if and when new evidence that contradicts it comes to light, or a new theory that explains the evidence better is presented.

So you believe that it is a theory.  So do I. 

But do you believe macro evolution occurs/has occured...correct?  Isn't there something missing in that theory that you are taking by faith?  Or do you believe it is thoroughly outlined..step by step (without needing any step accepted by faith)?  If you have a link that you think is good that proves this I am willing to read/watch video etc.

[avxo]

You presume that God is unknown and unknowable.  We differ on this.

OK, if you think that God is knowable then you should be able to tell me what are the attributes of God? How did you come to know them?

You don't accept the bible as true and I do.  Any description of God I would give you will still be meaningless to you.

Of course I don't accept the Bible as true. If I did, I'd be putting the cart before the horse.

In short, I believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins and that He rose on the 3rd day and I have accepted His graceful gift of forgiveness by faith.

In short you're telling us nothing.

OK, go ahead please.

Go ahead to do what? Explain cold fusion? It's a type of nuclear reaction that would occur at low temperatures (at least low when compared to traditional "hot" fusion). It's controversial, and the scientific consensus so far is that it's not likely to be possible. Please note that I don't have to first believe that cold fusion is possible in order to consider its merit as a theory.

So you believe that it is a theory.  So do I.

Yes, I believe it is a theory. But the nature of my belief is very different from the basis of your belief in God. I know what the theory claims to explain without having to believe the theory is true; I know what the evidence is without having to believe the theory is true; and I use all that information to make a decision based on the evidence: no belief required.

But do you believe macro evolution occurs/has occured...correct?  Isn't there something missing in that theory that you are taking by faith?  Or do you believe it is thoroughly outlined..step by step (without needing any step accepted by faith)?  If you have a link that you think is good that proves this I am willing to read/watch video etc.

Based on the evidence available to us, I am confident that macro-evolution explains things very well and doesn't have any obvious shortcomings; of course, I remain open to a new and better theory, but I am pretty confident that any such theory would be a superset of evolution rather that something completely new.

Is there "something missing"? No, I don't think so. I don't need a complete, unbroken causal chain from A to Z, although that would certainly be great and awesome. If you think there is something missing then the onus is on you to bring it up. I'd be happy to consider any objections you bring up, but I am telling you in advance that you would have a very high hurdle to jump over.

[OTHstrong]

No one has ever witness a species change into another species, so as far as I am concerned you are taking a big leap of faith here.

[avxo]

No one has ever witness a species change into another species, so as far as I am concerned you are taking a big leap of faith here.

So you object to speciation?

[Skeletor]

No one has ever witness a species change into another species, so as far as I am concerned you are taking a big leap of faith here.

I'll refer you to Dave Palumbo and his specimens:

[Butterbean]

OK, if you think that God is knowable then you should be able to tell me what are the attributes of God? How did you come to know them?

He is faithful, loving, graceful, just, patient, wise, holy, comforting, trustworthy etc.

I know them from the Bible as well as my personal experiences/feelings.

Didn't you say you didn't want Bible info?  Or was that syntax?

 


In short you're telling us nothing.

What choo talkin' bout avxo?  I answered you what you asked.

Go ahead to do what? Explain cold fusion? It's a type of nuclear reaction that would occur at low temperatures (at least low when compared to traditional "hot" fusion). It's controversial, and the scientific consensus so far is that it's not likely to be possible. Please note that I don't have to first believe that cold fusion is possible in order to consider its merit as a theory.

So do you think it exists at low temps or no?  Or maybe just not sure?

Yes, I believe it is a theory. But the nature of my belief is very different from the basis of your belief in God. I know what the theory claims to explain without having to believe the theory is true; I know what the evidence is without having to believe the theory is true; and I use all that information to make a decision based on the evidence: no belief required.


Based on the evidence available to us, I am confident that macro-evolution explains things very well and doesn't have any obvious shortcomings; of course, I remain open to a new and better theory, but I am pretty confident that any such theory would be a superset of evolution rather that something completely new.

Is there "something missing"? No, I don't think so. I don't need a complete, unbroken causal chain from A to Z, although that would certainly be great and awesome. If you think there is something missing then the onus is on you to bring it up. I'd be happy to consider any objections you bring up, but I am telling you in advance that you would have a very high hurdle to jump over.

I'm under the impression there are no fossil records of transitional forms between species.   

[tu_holmes]

He is faithful, loving, graceful, just, patient, wise, holy, comforting, trustworthy etc. 

How has God been these things to you?

I mean, I do these things for my children physically... How has God physically done these things?

Is it not the IDEA of God that does these things actually?

Physically God doesn't do anything right?

[OTHstrong]

How has God been these things to you?

I mean, I do these things for my children physically... How has God physically done these things?

Is it not the IDEA of God that does these things actually?

Physically God doesn't do anything right?

So it's just an idea that you love your children, you don't really love them. You can't prove to me that you love them so I don't believe you love them

Well I have experienced God's presents and his love personally, can I explain or prove to you how? NO, I can't, but I know that if you have the experience that I have you would believe in God too.  I am more certain of this feeling then that I am certain of the feeling of the love I have for my 2 children, and I love them a lot. So if you don't believe me or if you think I am deluding myself, well, there is absolutely no difference in me claiming you don't love your children, cause you can only have faith that you love them and it is not something that can be proven.

[tu_holmes]

So it's just an idea that you love your children, you don't really love them. You can't prove to me that you love them so I don't believe you love them

Well I have experienced God's presents and his love personally, can I explain or prove to you how? NO, I can't, but I know that if you have the experience that I have you would believe in God too.  I am more certain of this feeling then that I am certain of the feeling of the love I have for my 2 children, and I love them a lot. So if you don't believe me or if you think I am deluding myself, well, there is absolutely no difference in me claiming you don't love your children, cause you can only have faith that you love them and it is not something that can be proven.

No, I walk to up to them and hold them... I give them things... They touch me when they are scared... I give them food.

PHYSICALLY.

God doesn't PHYSICALLY do anything.

In your mind, he METAPHYSICALLY does things... You don't get a hug from god... He doesn't bring you a blanket when you're cold.

So no... I don't just have an IDEA... I show it by being there.

In your mind, God just magically does stuff, but he's never actually THERE to do anything.

[OTHstrong]

No, I walk to up to them and hold them... I give them things... They touch me when they are scared... I give them food.

PHYSICALLY.

God doesn't PHYSICALLY do anything.

In your mind, he METAPHYSICALLY does things... You don't get a hug from god... He doesn't bring you a blanket when you're cold.

So no... I don't just have an IDEA... I show it by being there.

In your mind, God just magically does stuff, but he's never actually THERE to do anything.

Any stranger can do what you mention that does not prove that you love them. In your mind you love them right?

[tu_holmes]

Any stranger can do what you mention that does not prove that you love them. In your mind you love them right?

Yes, and I do it with no bad intent.

With your comparison, a complete stranger does more for you than God.

Thanks for helping me out with my argument.

[OTHstrong]

Yes, and I do it with no bad intent.

With your comparison, a complete stranger does more for you than God.

Thanks for helping me out with my argument.

The fact remains you can not prove to me you love someone, no one can prove it, so it may be just a dumb idea and you might just be deluding yourself about loving your children, right?

[tu_holmes]

The fact remains you can not prove to me you love someone, no one can prove it, so it may be just a dumb idea and you might just be deluding yourself about loving your children, right?

Again... I physically show them love.

Whether you choose to believe that I do is not my issue.

I PHYSICALLY am there for them in their time of need.

God is not.

You can try to spin this as I can not PROVE that I love them, sure... go ahead... but since I'm at least AROUND and PHYSICALLY there to assist them... What the hell does that say about God?

He doesn't even get that part done.

He's not even PHYSICALLY there to assist anyone.

So is he even as helpful as a stranger?

I say nay.

[OTHstrong]

God does help physically though, he helps the ones who have faith and he has sent angels to people in need many times.

The Ashurbanipal library (that was discovered buried in Iraq) showed documents that told of Ashurbanipal's grandfather Sennecherib, king of Assyria, returning home with less then a couple hundred soldiers from a campaign of which he brought 185 000 soldiers, almost all where mysteriously killed in a single night, no bodies of an opposition was found nor did any nation fight them, 180 000 soldier's simple got murdered. God send an angel to save the Hebrews from being slaughtered. There are many times in which Gods helps humans with faith. Of course you don't believe, but that don't mean anything to any of us that do.

[avxo]

He is faithful, loving, graceful, just, patient, wise, holy, comforting, trustworthy etc.

None of those attributes tell us anything unique about the nature of God; most of them can be used to describe my Mom, and awesome as she is, she's not God.

What we need are attributes that allow us to distinguish God from non-God.

I know them from the Bible as well as my personal experiences/feelings.

Didn't you say you didn't want Bible info?  Or was that syntax?

The problem with attributes that come from the Bible is that you have a chicken and an egg problem: namely that I must believe that the Bible is the word of God before you can use to provide information about God.

So do you think it exists at low temps or no?  Or maybe just not sure?

Nuclear physics is not my forte and I am not up to date on research in the field, so my personal opinion on the subject carries little weight. With that said, I don't think that cold fusion is viable.

I'm under the impression there are no fossil records of transitional forms between species.

Even if there are no such fossils, what does that prove? The fossil record isn't complete. Here's a rather extensive list of transitional forms from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

[OTHstrong]

Whoa, whoa, wait a minute. Becoming a believer makes one eligible to receive presents? What were the presents? Were they gift-wrapped or did they just appear in your living room one morning as is? I may need to reconsider my lack of belief if God has decided to grant members a spiritual membership rewards card!

It was a typo braniac 

[syntaxmachine]

No one has ever witness a species change into another species, so as far as I am concerned you are taking a big leap of faith here.

I look forward to your presentation to the National Academy of Science demonstrating all of your reasons for supposing almost all the scientists that have studied the topic over the last 150 years are wrong about evolution. When are you scheduled to present?

[OTHstrong]

I look forward to your presentation to the National Academy of Science demonstrating all of your reasons for supposing almost all the scientists that have studied the topic over the last 150 years are wrong about evolution. When are you scheduled to present?

A childish post, don't you think?