Even if one were to accept the convoluted logic of 'sacrifice' that is proposed by Matticious and b-c, that would simply beg the question - "What degree of sacrifice are we discussing, then? " After all, what is 3 days (72 hrs) to an immortal being? And to this, I have not seen any coherent answer. As Avatar has mentioned before, the vast majority of us are destined for an eternity of torment Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. What is the "suffering" of 72 hours when compared to eternity? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Without bringing my self down to your level of langauge or thinking, I like to tell you one more time. By the way you proved me right again. thanks. What is good friday??? The day they crucified Jesus. Trials happened before midnight friday or thursday?? FRIDAY FRIDAY. You can manupilate truth as much as you want but according to you and many christians, and the way you tell the whole world, Jesus didn't full fill the prophecy. What the hell were the preparing for on thursday??? Were they going to cook jesus or were they about to make his soup??? Then why the heck on earth you are counting thrsday, day time?? First of all I am rejecting your so called explanation that you provided to save your face, then still if this curci-fiction took place on thursday, then jesus wasn't in the grave on thursday all day?............Look at this. Thurday night friday all day friday night saturday all day Saturday night. Still only makes three night and 2 days. Sunday before sunrise he wasn' in the grave. This is so close you can go by forcing your deifination but remember thursday is not even in the picture. Thurday is another one of chrstian fictions.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please take a good look at prophecy again. If you are a mentaly challanged person or have some problems reading english, I can understand your porblem and I won't hold it against you. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Also, even if for a moment If I beleive you, then Jesus still didn't full fill the prohecy. Jonah was alive in the belly of fish and Jesus was DEAD. Do you know they are two different things??? But remmeber I said even "IF" I believe your lose logic. You proved me right agian. I thank you for that. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Peace
If JFC existed, I don't think he was dead in that cave. I think he was stoned off his nut. Having a good old bender. Nailed up on a tree, stabbed in the gut... Wouldn't you want a little drink? You serious silly people. Bah, humbug! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Blonde_cupid, The point of the topic was not about how the loss occurred but the emotional effect of a loss. No, again this is your interpretation or misunderstanding of the issue. I’m not avoiding the issue I was trying to keep the issue on track. I believe your objection is to my perceived materialistic perspective by the words “and with no hope and with a belief that I would never see my daughter again”. That really covers the concept of a sacrifice being permanent. When someone dies then I would assert that this is how all rational people view the issue in physical terms. If I had given a simpler version of the example such as “If I sacrificed my daughter, whom I love dearly, so that many others could live, then that would be a true and tragic sacrifice.” then will you claim that Christians who believe in an afterlife would not see such a sacrifice as a tragic loss? That isn’t what occurs in practice of even normal deaths. Even with a belief in an afterlife and the hope that loved ones might be seen again, there is rarely any sense of certainty in that, and there is almost universal sadness and emotional damage upon the death of a loved one. Whether one is materialistic or not the result of the loss of a loved one, especially through a sacrifice is likely to result in a serious emotional state. Part of the intention in the topic is to demonstrate that the alleged sacrifice of Jesus by God could not have resulted in any similar emotional pain. But passages like John 3:16 are specifically intended to make a link that God is incurring emotional pain. And that is where I see a fraud. Now let’s consider someone who does have a feeling of certainty that they will see their loved one again if that person dies. Then doesn’t it follow that if they made a sacrifice of their loved one then there would be no remorse or any significant emotional pain? But this is exactly the case against God. He would have known with certainty that Jesus would return in 3 days and there is no need for any emotional upset. He would not have suffered, and there was no effective loss. Hence phrases like John 3:16 are fraudulent. Ok, so can you see this any other way? Of course we could consider spiritual death as part of the issue about permanence. Cris
Actually, Blonde Cupid Blonde Cupid Actually, I think what the problem you're having here is that you might be the only one I know of who doesn't recognize that yes, the daughter is sacrificed through death or other permanent means--who knows, maybe the Greys popped down in the Lazar Sport Model and whisked her away to Zeta Reticuli as a credit payment in lieu of the extinciton of the human race. Note what you consider Cris' failure to answer the question: Well, we all understand well that when he gives his daughter to a greater cause, he does not get her back. But you, Tony1, and others have all presented conditions where it becomes, For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son to see what was going on. It's why I keep asking what degree of sacrifice we're talking about here. What is the "Ultimate Sacrifice", as Loone has it? That God had to spend three days without his little buddy? I live in America. There are parents around here who work weeks on end to support their families without seeing their children. Is their sacrifice "more ultimate"? Here, let's reduce this to a single question: • Did or did not Jesus Christ know that, upon his crucifixion and death, he would be raised unto Heaven? That is, did Jesus just have faith? The only reason that one might be concerned that there would be multiple interpretations of death is that Christians keep inserting temporary death as an option. • Do you "know" or "have faith" in your resurrection through Jesus Christ? • Did Jesus Christ "know" or "have faith" in his own resurrection? Nobody is worrying about definitions or interpretations of "death" except the Christians who want so badly to show that Jesus, while having comforts to which no human being is likewise entitled ... died? Didn't die? The end of his mortal life is not, according to the story, the end of his experience. He had knowledge that his experience will continue. The rest of you merely have faith. Sir Walter Ralegh put it aptly: My God shall raise me up, I trust. He does not know. He cannot be sure. He has faith. And through that faith he trusts God. Jesus Christ knew. If Cris' daughter sacrifices herself, gives herself to death, does she know that she will be home, perfect and unblemished, by the weekend? And there's a point: given that a common phrase has it that Jesus obeyed God's will even unto death on the Cross ... what? Why, Blonde Cupid are you focusing so much energy on the idea that death isn't death and dead isn't dead? Is Jesus, then, a zombie? thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Just thought I'd grab a few ideas of what "sacrifice" means from here and there... Wordsmyth.net - The surrender of something valuable or beloved as an act of devotion or in exchange for some perceived higher good. Dictionary.com - The act of offering something to a deity in propitiation or homage, especially the ritual slaughter of an animal or a person. - A victim offered in this way. - Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim. - Something so forfeited. - Relinquishment of something at less than its presumed value. Something so relinquished. - A loss so sustained. Oxford English Dictionary (oed.com) - Primarily, the slaughter of an animal (often including the subsequent consumption of it by fire) as an offering to God or a deity. Hence, in wider sense, the surrender to God or a deity, for the purpose of propitiation or homage, of some object of possession. Also applied fig. to the offering of prayer, thanksgiving, penitence, submission, or the like. Phrases, to do, make sacrifice; also, to put in sacrifice, to devote as a sacrificial victim. - That which is offered in sacrifice; a victim immolated on the altar; anything (material or immaterial) offered to God or a deity as an act of propitiation or homage. - The offering by Christ of Himself to the Father as a propitiatory victim in his voluntary immolation upon the cross; the Crucifixion in its sacrificial character. - Applied to the Eucharistic celebration: (a) in accordance with the view that regards it as a propitiatory offering of the body and blood of Christ, in perpetuation of the sacrifice offered by Him in His crucifixion; (b) in Protestant use, with reference to its character as an offering of thanksgiving (cf. sense 1). - The destruction or surrender of something valued or desired for the sake of something having, or regarded as having, a higher or a more pressing claim; the loss entailed by devotion to some other interest; also, the thing so devoted or surrendered. - A loss incurred in selling something below its value for the sake of getting rid of it. Hence, an article sold ‘at a sacrifice’. - attrib. and Comb., as sacrifice bringer, -maker, sale; sacrifice allowance (see quot.); sacrifice bid(ding) Bridge, (making) a bid higher than the contract that one expects to be able to fulfil, in order to prevent opponents from making a score greater than the penalty one is likely to suffer; sacrifice bunt Baseball, a bunt that puts the batter out whilst allowing a base runner to advance; sacrifice fly Baseball, an outfield fly that is caught so that the batter is put out but which allows a base runner to advance after the ball is caught; sacrifice hit Baseball (see quot.); sacrifice market, a market in which goods are sold below cost price, a ‘dumping ground’; sacrifice meat, meat eaten at a feast following the offering of a sacrifice to a deity; sacrifice-offerer, one who immolates himself (said of Christ); sacrifice price, a price entailing loss on the seller. - To offer as a sacrifice; to make an offering or sacrifice of. Const. to. - To offer up a sacrifice. - To surrender or give up (something) for the attainment of some higher advantage or dearer object. Const. to. - To kill (an experimental animal) for scientific purposes. Merriam-Webster (m-w.com) - an act of offering to a deity something precious; especially : the killing of a victim on an altar - something offered in sacrifice - destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else - something given up or lost Couldn't be bothered doing any more.
tiassa, ***Actually, I think what the problem you're having here is that you might be the only one I know of who doesn't recognize that yes, the daughter is sacrificed through death or other permanent means--who knows, maybe the Greys popped down in the Lazar Sport Model and whisked her away to Zeta Reticuli as a credit payment in lieu of the extinciton of the human race.*** Oh. Thanks, tiassa.... The Greys, huh? Now, why didn't stupid li'l ol' me think of that? See what happens when I sacrifice my intellect? I just couln't think clearly and got sidetracked into thinking that Cris was talking about death. Now I see that it must have been the Greys, because according to Cris: **A good try, but you seem to have missed the point of the thread and have become sidetracked into thinking I was talking about death, which I wasn’t...***Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well ... yeah. Blonde Cupid Yes, we do. We see very clearly. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'm not sure if I get what this whole thing is about. Everyone here seems to be arguing whether God made a big enough sacrifice when He put His Son on the cross. Why is that even a point of discussion? It isn't about God's sacrifice. It isn't about Jesus' sacrifice either. It's about whatever penalty that we owed being taken on by God Himself. Since God doesn't have to play on a mortal's rules, it could have been an hour or a second that Jesus was away from Earth and it wouldn't have made a difference. It's that God set up the rules in the beginning, Satan used those rules against us, and then God pardons us through Jesus if we accept it. It's about our debt--not God's. But the price Jesus paid is far more than a "not guilty" verdict though, it is a higher status than Adam and Eve had in the garden. It is the creator of the universe calling us His friend. Why couldn't God just change the rules in the middle when Satan mucked things up? Or even better, if God knew what was going to happen (and He did--being God and all) why is He putting us through all of this? The answer is in God's character. If God is truly good, He does not deceive, and He does not go back on His word. So changing the rules isn't an option. Further, if His goal is not for us to be robots or underlings, but companions, then what better way than to show His love through humbling Himself to live and die as a human? What better way for Him to understand us? In His eyes, this whole thing is better than all the alternatives. You may disagree, but any explanation that takes into account morality, God, and humanity's place is going to be difficult.
I'm not well versed in christian literature, but I was under the impression it was all about humanity's sins being taken on by one man, not by a god who wouldn't feel any pain anyway. I can't give a damn about some friggin super-being who carries my burden; it's no damn burden at all to him/her/it. Now if a human takes on all my burdens and carries them for me, that's impressive...
Cris, ***I believe your objection is to my perceived materialistic perspective by the words “and with no hope and with a belief that I would never see my daughter again”. That really covers the concept of a sacrifice being permanent. When someone dies then I would assert that this is how all rational people view the issue in physical terms.*** No. My objection is to the contradiction in your argument. You assert, for the sake of your argument, that the resurrection is true. (Death is temporary). You then assert, in the same argument, that people would view the issue of their child's death as if the resurrection had not ocurred. (Death is permanent). It is a logical contradiction in your argument.
Hi Dan, Welcome back. But this brings us right back to the point of the thread. He didn’t live and die as a human. He knew he was special, he knew he was more than a human, and hence he was never going to be able to suffer from the doubts and uncertainties that inhibit and affect so much of true human life. Humans don’t go around performing miracles for example, or if he didn’t have the power himself then we must have had such a unique relationship with God that in effect whatever he required he received. There really is no way we can relate to Jesus’ alleged humanity because he clearly was different. It would be easy to be perfect if one has all the facts and has superior knowledge. We as humans make mistakes and errors of judgment because we aren’t perfect, but that is what makes us so human. Jesus in his perfection would never have been able to see issues from our perspective. Now if all knowledge of God and the power of miracles were removed from him, and he started out as an equal to a human, then that might have been a better test. But you say “What better way for Him to understand us?” This implies there is something that God does not understand. How does that fit in with an all powerful and all-knowing God? You are implying that God is less than perfect. The whole story reeks of a way to humanize God so we can relate to him on human terms and hence appeal to our sympathies. But with an all-knowing, omniscient and immortal God, it just doesn’t make any sense. Hence my claim that such stories are based on deception. Cris
Cris, Another problem with your attempt at proof is, indeed, the application of your secular definition of "sacrifice" to a Christian event. You see, the basis for Christian "sacrifice" is not that the Father sacrificed the Son... Although I can understand you wanting to place yourself in the Father's position. The basis of Christian "sacrifice" is Christ offering Himself to the Father, even to the point of death, and the Father's acceptance of His Son's offer. It is not the sacrifice "of" the Father, it is the sacrifice "to" the Father.
Wrong!!!!!. If he was willing to sacrifice then why would he need two circles of defense?? And swords??? Also then it raises another point, He is unlike Jonah not like Jonah. Many people over looked that fact. He said he will full fill the prohecy like Jonah not unlike jonah. When people throw Jonah overboard he was willing to die but jesus wasn't willing to die at least that's what bible said. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Blonde Cupid Blonde Cupid Since you're recycling material already discussed, I shall recycle part of that discussion. To discuss the validity of the so-called sacrifice, of the so-called giving of the Son, of the obeying unto death, we can accept for the sake of argument that it occurred. This is no different from suspending reality while reading a mystery novel to accept that a murder has occurred; or a diamond theft, or so forth .... .... For all the theists complain of atheistic stubbornness, why is it that when an atheist enters the arena and works with what is before them, they are accused of holding a priori views? Quite simply, in terms of the debate, they are respecting the existence of the a priori. I have to ask whether you're actually reading the posts? Copy and paste only means you see the words; your responses, by and large, tell us you're not paying attention. This above portion comes from a post to Matticious G, but you have commented on the contents of my exchange with him, so I would have thought you would have tried, at least, to not run face-first into it. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son .... What part of your Bible are you least familiar with? Strangely, it seems like you're forgetting what it says. Oh, did you need a verse number to look that one up? It's John 3.16; you know, the verse that's plastered all over this thread, that you see at football and basketball and hockey games, on bumper stickers and so forth that is intended to be an evangelical message to sell the idea of the Christian faith? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Thus, when we look at God giving his Son ... well, it's not the same as a human relationship. Right ... and Christ knew that he would be raised; what is death if it doesn't kill you? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! How many times do we have to point out that if Christ had no knowledge of his station unto God, then we might have grounds for a sacrifice being made? And of your distinction of whether the sacrifice was to or of the father: What does this matter? John 3.16 says God so loved the world that he gave his only son; it does not say lent, it does not say loaned. Should we, then, in ignoring the sacrifice of the father, read John 3.16 to say, For God so loved the world that he was just dicking around? This is why the "sacrifice of the Father" has been addressed. So also has the sacrifice of the Son been addressed. Jesus redeems us by delivering himself obediently unto death at the Cross. Yeah, tough sacrifice since death doesn't kill him and he knows it riding his ass in. Why are you drawing such petty distinctions? And ones that are inherently covered by the existing portions of the debate? Stop attacking the proof and start considering the faith. As long as you approach it with the idea that you are right and must discredit the proofs, you will continue to overlook the fact that Jesus Christ "died" under different circumstances and perspectives than any human being could undergo. And you are also overlooking the fact that God so loved the world that he gave his only Son (apparently not that big a sacrifice as far as you're concerned, but I do agree on that point). You know, God knew this from Creation; some even have gone so far as to assert that Jesus/Logos was the other part of the "us" to which God referred when Adam so frightened Him that he had to kick humanity out of the garden according to schedule. Think of it this way: before the Logos became flesh, it was known what would happen. It was part of God's plan that this should happen. The distinctions you're drawing in the proof have been repeatedly addressed by multiple posters, and its evident that you're not really paying attention because you just keep rehashing the same old points. What? You don't seem to care about the fact that your attacks against the proof are damaging the credibility of other portions of the Bible. I, for instance, have had to remind you of John 3.16 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Get it together, man. If you keep splitting hairs, all you'll get is really fine hair and a dull knife. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
MarkX, if you wish to continue to be an ignorant jack ass, keep talking. Good Friday is a tradition. He was crucified on Thursday night according to the Bible. If you don't know what the day of preparation is then maybe you should ask instead of being a snide asshole who knows nothing of what he's talking about. Ben
KalvinB, put your attitude away until you're not contradicting yourself KalvinB An excellent point. So is this. Perhaps, KalvinB, if you didn't waste so much effort calling people assholes, you might be a little more consistent. You provided Thursday as day 1 in order to equal 3 days and 3 nights. When was it, then? Your current insult omits that part of Thursday and reinforces Marks's point regarding the Sign of Jonah. I also recall that Jesus spent longer than an afternoon on the cross before he died. I'm going to go look that one up, though ... but a quick, easy crucifixion has never been part of the faith, whether I was learning it from the Lutherans, Catholics, Quakers, Baptists, or anyone. I've never gotten the quick cruicifixion to death process from my own readings of the Bible. Nonetheless, I shall look again. But you really should make sure that the data is the central theme of your post. Right now, the incosistencies in what you're arguing seem to be mere accessories, meant to disguise your foul tongue in the apperance of having something worthwhile to say. Seriously, Ben ... you're welcome to believe that Christians are called to be offensive prigs without compassion and dedicated to the demoralization of the declared enemy. But if you're going to go about that route, at least put some effort into it. As it is, we're all now rolling on the floor at this latest childish tantrum of yours. Are you seriously just out to be offensive? Or is it seriously that difficult for you to be consistent? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (P.S. for Blonde Cupid--While this is an acute case, perhaps an extreme example statistically deviant in its magnitude ... well, this is what the sacrifice of the intellect earns people; like I said, the difference between learning the Bible to know what it says and reading it to affirm one's dogmatic prejudices. You'll note that the only thing consistent between those two posts of KalvinB's is that he thinks Markx is an ignorant jackass.)
"Perhaps, KalvinB, if you didn't waste so much effort calling people assholes, you might be a little more consistent. You provided Thursday as day 1 in order to equal 3 days and 3 nights. When was it, then? Your current insult omits that part of Thursday and reinforces Marks's point regarding the Sign of Jonah." It's not an insult; He is an ignorant jackass. If he weren't he would have spent the five minutes I spent finding out that Christ was crucfied on thursday hence fitting the prophecy instead of being an ignorant jackass going on about brainwashing and illeteracy. Course you're too much of a jackass yourself to see when others are complete jackasses. I would only be sinning if it were slander. But you both are jackasses so pointing it out is no sin. As for thursday night; It was 6 when he was crucified. It's night or day depending on how you look at it like a half full or half empty glass. Course you're too much of a jackass to be able to see that rather opting for a cheap shot which has no merit hence wasting everyone's time just because the pot head in the back isn't paying attention. Thursday has both day and night as I said. Ben
tiassa, ***For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son .... What part of your Bible are you least familiar with? Strangely, it seems like you're forgetting what it says.*** It may seem that way to you, tiassa, based on your interpretation of that portion of that one verse. I think it would be a good idea if we finish it here… "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, so that everyone who believes in Him might not perish but might have eternal life." So, if you understand that, then you'll understand this: What we got, tiassa, was the fulfillment of God*s promise. What we got was the Word of God* made flesh. We got the Son, the Word, for the entirety of His life in the flesh, here on earth… from the moment of His birth to the moment of His death on the cross and beyond. The gift has not been taken back. After 2000 years, the Word remains with us to this very day. The gift of the Word is timeless. It is a gift for all ages. Whether you consider it for better or for worse, the Word’s existence and it’s affect on our lives is evidenced in this very discussion. As a matter of fact, the Word has been with you daily for at least the past three years (if I remember correctly, you stated that you have been coming here daily to discuss matters of the Word with Christians daily for that length of time). The best thing of all is that with the fulfillment of God*s promise of the Resurrection came the promise of eternal life for all of us. Again, in its entirety... "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, so that everyone who believes in Him might not perish but might have eternal life. God* has come through with the promise of the Word thus far and we can trust that God*s promise which came with the Resurrection will be fulfilled. ***The basis of Christian "sacrifice" is Christ offering Himself to the Father, even to the point of death, and the Father's acceptance of His Son's offer. Right ... and Christ knew that he would be raised; what is death if it doesn't kill you? ?*** As evidenced by the Resurrection of the Word, death is transient. ***How many times do we have to point out that if Christ had no knowledge of his station unto God, then we might have grounds for a sacrifice being made?*** And we now have knowledge of our station unto God*... What now? ***And of your distinction of whether the sacrifice was to or of the father: What does this matter? John 3.16 says God so loved the world that he gave his only son; it does not say lent, it does not say loaned. Should we, then, in ignoring the sacrifice of the father, read John 3.16 to say, For God so loved the world that he was just dicking around?*** As pointed out previously, as promised, God* gave us the "gift" of the Word which is still with us today. The gift is timeless. ***Jesus redeems us by delivering himself obediently unto death at the Cross. Yeah, tough sacrifice since death doesn't kill him and he knows it riding his ass in.*** As evidenced by the fulfillment of God*s promise concerning the Word, we now know that death is transient and we will know this riding our butts in... Knowing this, would you still want to endure the pain of being tied to a pillar and having the flesh of your back torn and ripped open by the viscious lash of a whip - over and over and over again - until your back was so torn and mutilated that there was no fresh meat for the whip to tear and rip - until each new lash dug deeper into a freshly opened wound? Knowing this, would you still want to endure the pain of hundreds of thorns being pushed into your scalp and forehead? Knowing this, would you still want to carry the burden of your own cross uphill for what must seem forever, tired and so exhausted from the beating and the loss of blood that you can hardly carry your own weight, never mind the weight of the cross, with the flesh of your back freshly torn and bleeding, with your head bleeding, with your tormenters prodding you and clubbing you and pushing the thorns into your head farther and farther each time you dare to stumble. Knowing this, would you still want to endure the pain of being nailed to a cross and hung up to die a slow and torturous death? Knowing this, would you still want to endure the pain of of being sliced open under your ribs and having your internal wounds drenched in a burning liquid? As long as your butt was still in tact so that you could ride yourself in, it wouldn't be tough for you if you knew where you were going? ***Think of it this way: before the Logos became flesh, it was known what would happen. It was part of God's plan that this should happen.*** Yeah. And He endured the excrutiating pain and suffering for us as promised. And the Word is still with us today as promised. And we can trust in the promise of the Resurrection - as promised.
