This is not about whether or not he was the son of God but whether he actually existed.Most atheists agree that he did live but there are some who don't so what are you're thoughts?
Well we, the Christians, are not using Him as a scapegoat. I can see where you are coming from though, but the Bible fortells that a Savior would come and sacrfice himself for us. And Christians believe this. Thats why we worship Jesus, we don't blame Him which is what a scape goat is... so no its not equivalent in using him as a scapegoat.
Having spent much of my life as a Christian I can understand this justification. However to the lifetime atheist who is acting as an outside observer, this justification seems like just that, a mere justification for an acceptable immorality.
considering that dust is just skin flakes from animals, and that animals were just created, then what other dust could it be? also, everything on the planet has traces of stardust in them. So if god took it from the ground, then it is still stardust in its essence.
As I said, 'stardust' is NOT dust in any sense of the word. Furthermore, you touted it as if our composition of molecules formed by the explosion of stars proved the creation myth in Genesis in which God made man from the earth. These are totally unrelated concepts and you are not proving anything, merely attempting to twist the words of the bible around in such a manner as to construe them in a manner consistent with fact.
As I said before, if you have an opinion that's great. However if you cannot support it with evidence then it has no place in debate, especially in this forum.
considering that dust is just skin flakes from animals,
Dust is solid particles less than 500 micrometers. It doesn't have to be from animal skin flakes. Also the story of genesis as told in the Bible doesn't match the evidence at hand.
On the scapegoating point. How does it matter if he did it willingly or not? he was still killed for something someone else did. If this really did get us forgiven if we accept it than why would we still have to reconcile for it further? Your saying sorry for something your already forgiven for. What God had to have a human sacrifice and us constantly begging for forgiven for who we are?
As I said, 'stardust' is NOT dust in any sense of the word. Furthermore, you touted it as if our composition of molecules formed by the explosion of stars proved the creation myth in Genesis in which God made man from the earth. These are totally unrelated concepts and you are not proving anything, merely attempting to twist the words of the bible around in such a manner as to construe them in a manner consistent with fact.
No not really. I'm not really twisting anything in the bible but really just decoding it. Stardust may not be modern day dust but the bible really makes no specification on which dust it is referring to. Then you'll also disregard the bible when it says something preposterous like "man came from dust". I am simply suggesting an idea that is clarifying a passage from the bible.
To some extent, however I don't think that it is ignorance in the typical usage of the term, but rather a result of ignorance of the finer points of the dogma relating to this tradition. Certainly I can see how, on the surface, this appears to be a selfish act of delegating blame to one who is believed to be blameless. We have to consider that not everyone is versed in the traditions of the religions which they don't ascribe to, although atheists and agnostics do tend to be more educated about their detractors than the reverse.
No not really. I'm not really twisting anything in the bible but really just decoding it. Stardust may not be modern day dust but the bible really makes no specification on which dust it is referring to. Then you'll also disregard the bible when it says something preposterous like "man came from dust". I am simply suggesting an idea that is clarifying a passage from the bible.
You are trying to 'decode' something which doesn't need decoding. It says, very plainly, that God made man from the dust of the earth. Dust of the earth seems rather clear cut and decidedly not in need of any 'decoding', except in light of new evidence which proves this to be an impossibility. Now, all of a sudden, there is a need to 'decode' this passage so that it fits with reality. What you fail to realize is that this is the common tactic of the religious when reality conflicts with their scripture. Also, it's closely related to, if not blatantly, a very common logical fallacy called 'shifting the goalpost'.
You are trying to 'decode' something which doesn't need decoding. It says, very plainly, that God made man from the dust of the earth. Dust of the earth seems rather clear cut and decidedly not in need of any 'decoding', except in light of new evidence which proves this to be an impossibility. Now, all of a sudden, there is a need to 'decode' this passage so that it fits with reality. What you fail to realize is that this is the common tactic of the religious when reality conflicts with their scripture. Also, it's closely related to, if not blatantly, a very common logical fallacy called 'shifting the goalpost'.
Uh sir, decoding something that has been proven to be passed down orally. As i have said before, there are many exaggerations in the bible to make it seem more magical. How does someone advertise a product? By exaggerating the truth. Back then, the religion had to spread in order to be known. The lessons had to get the message and stories across, but add-ons were necessary in order to get it going. Since the bible was recorded in parables, it is our job as christian to decode its meanings. Really, we are just using your facts to prove what has already been proven. You, with all of your research, are just feeding the fire that is 'Religion'.
On the scapegoating point. How does it matter if he did it willingly or not? he was still killed for something someone else did. If this really did get us forgiven if we accept it than why would we still have to reconcile for it further? Your saying sorry for something your already forgiven for. What God had to have a human sacrifice and us constantly begging for forgiven for who we are?
We've gone over this 'apologizing for beIng humans' thing. For the rest of it, it would seem to me that you are saying we should be able to walk through life doing what ever we want and get away with it. Jesus opened up the gates of heaven for everyone through his death also. Now why do we have to be reconciled? Because Jesus isn't a scapegoat, believing in him isn't a straight path to heaven. A man can believe Jesus is God and that God is real, but if he just says "I don't care, I'm gonna ignore you God and live life my how I want and be as sinful as I please" and goes off an kills a man, still he doesn't care. Chances are he's not going to be saved. Please excuse the length of my example.
Uh sir, decoding something that has been proven to be passed down orally.
So then you admit that there are inconsistencies, errors, and falsehoods? Good. Now we are on the same page. That being said, as there is no 'guide' to tell use what is accurate and what is inaccurate, the only logical choice would be to withhold assertion until such time as there is evidence to support said claims. Any attempt to the contrary is futile and rather comical to be perfectly honest. I have never found it anything less than laughable that one could freely admit that a book contains falsehoods, then base their idea of the world off of said book.
As for continuing this conversation, as I've said already, if there is no evidence then it is pure speculation. This is not a speculation forum, and personal opinion based on pure guesswork is not an acceptable position for a debate. Either put forth evidence in support of your claims, or admit that you have nothing other than an opinion and quit trying to argue against facts. I get bored and short tempered having to say the same things over and over again. It's kind of like talking to my wife.
As i have said before, there are many exaggerations in the bible to make it seem more magical.
You mean like adding miracles or talking bushes?
For the rest of it, it would seem to me that you are saying we should be able to walk through life doing what ever we want and get away with it.
No I'm saying the system doesn't make sense in an applicable manner.
Jesus opened up the gates of heaven for everyone through his death also.
I'm not seeing why that was necessary for that to happen.
Now why do we have to be reconciled? Because Jesus isn't a scapegoat, believing in him isn't a straight path to heaven.
This seems contrary to what I've heard from many others. This also seems to indicate he didn't die for our sins then.
A man can believe Jesus is God and that God is real, but if he just says "I don't care, I'm gonna ignore you God and live life my how I want and be as sinful as I please" and goes off an kills a man, still he doesn't care. Chances are he's not going to be saved.
What if he goes off and lives a decent life? If this whole denial of God is a ticket to hell than you have to accept all this to be saved.
This seems contrary to what I've heard from many others. This also seems to indicate he didn't die for our sins then.
He did though, just because I didn't add that to my post doesn't mean he didn't. Now my example was directed to the people who try and take advantage of christianity. People say they believe and then dont do anything else, they don't live out their belief which annoys me.
What if he goes off and lives a decent life? If this whole denial of God is a ticket to hell than you have to accept all this to be saved.
We're making some ground! Live a decent life, believe in God, chances are you are saved. Depending on how close of a relationship with God you'll be saved. Now, I have my doubts about then people I described in the past paragraph.
Lol Cinna. You know we can't do that Beside, one of these days we are going to run into someone that DOES have proof of their position, or at least enough evidence to cause us to have to reconsider our position. Or perhaps we are right and there is no God, no Jesus, no Krishna, none of that. Either way, discussing it is a great pastime until then.
