Conquer Club

Logic dictates there is a God: if one views the disciples actions there are clues to supernatural events. For example: if we heard some dude claim to be God, we would think he is a lunatuc, but we would check to see if he did anything that was supernatural. If he can't do anything supernatural, then he is confirmed a lunatic. So this gets some of the men to check out Jesus. But his stinking message is that he has no money and says to the disciples they won't get money either? Strike 1. Then he demands to be celibate or monogomous? Strike 2. And then Jesus promises no fame but persecution? Strike 3. I'm out of there!
No one would follow a crazy Jesus and no money, no chicks & persecution. So the logic is that Jesus had to perform miracles as recorded. But then he dies? Common! I'm out of there again! No one would follow a guy that provides no wealth no chicks & promises persecution, and then dies! At this point I'm discounting the earlier miracles, what good are they the dude died! Game over, I'm out of here. Unless I see resurrected from the dead, & that was the final motivation for the disciples to follow Jesus with no wealth no women and martyrdom.
Logically their actions testify they saw supernatural events, yet following God is still illogical according to my primal instincts & base desires, but I chose to obey because the Bible is supernatural.

Gosh, I thought they were following him before the resurrection, not after. Which bible are you reading?

2dimes.... To me it's illogical. God ransoms himself to himself in order to forgive man of his sins. Doesn't seem right. Isn't man made in the image of God? So are we not "God like"? If so, that means we are a form of God. If we are a form of God then we should be able to become more like a God. Mormons maybe? In my research into Ancient Mystery Religions there seems to be a few common denominators in Christianity. If Jesus was the founder of Christianity, how much of Ancient Mysteries Religions did he borrow? Or was most of the Ancient Religions injected into modern Christianity to misdirect the masses to never know true knowledge or religion?

universalchiro wrote:Logic dictates there is a God: if one views the disciples actions there are clues to supernatural events. For example: if we heard some dude claim to be God, we would think he is a lunatuc, but we would check to see if he did anything that was supernatural. If he can't do anything supernatural, then he is confirmed a lunatic. So this gets some of the men to check out Jesus. But his stinking message is that he has no money and says to the disciples they won't get money either? Strike 1. Then he demands to be celibate or monogomous? Strike 2. And then Jesus promises no fame but persecution? Strike 3. I'm out of there!
No one would follow a crazy Jesus and no money, no chicks & persecution. So the logic is that Jesus had to perform miracles as recorded. But then he dies? Common! I'm out of there again! No one would follow a guy that provides no wealth no chicks & promises persecution, and then dies! At this point I'm discounting the earlier miracles, what good are they the dude died! Game over, I'm out of here. Unless I see resurrected from the dead, & that was the final motivation for the disciples to follow Jesus with no wealth no women and martyrdom.
Logically their actions testify they saw supernatural events, yet following God is still illogical according to my primal instincts & base desires, but I chose to obey because the Bible is supernatural.

Jesus demanded celibacy? What?

I'm pretty sure the early Christians were cult-like and bred like rabbits.

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

universalchiro wrote:Logic dictates there is a God: if one views the disciples actions there are clues to supernatural events. For example: if we heard some dude claim to be God, we would think he is a lunatuc, but we would check to see if he did anything that was supernatural. If he can't do anything supernatural, then he is confirmed a lunatic. So this gets some of the men to check out Jesus. But his stinking message is that he has no money and says to the disciples they won't get money either? Strike 1. Then he demands to be celibate or monogomous? Strike 2. And then Jesus promises no fame but persecution? Strike 3. I'm out of there!
No one would follow a crazy Jesus and no money, no chicks & persecution. So the logic is that Jesus had to perform miracles as recorded. But then he dies? Common! I'm out of there again! No one would follow a guy that provides no wealth no chicks & promises persecution, and then dies! At this point I'm discounting the earlier miracles, what good are they the dude died! Game over, I'm out of here. Unless I see resurrected from the dead, & that was the final motivation for the disciples to follow Jesus with no wealth no women and martyrdom.
Logically their actions testify they saw supernatural events, yet following God is still illogical according to my primal instincts & base desires, but I chose to obey because the Bible is supernatural.

Jesus demanded celibacy? What?

I'm pretty sure the early Christians were cult-like and bred like rabbits.

-TG

Early Christians also had different gospels of the new testament that are considered books from heretics now. So UC is more or less delusional when he is writing about them.

[quote="warmonger1981"]2dimes.... To me it's illogical. God ransoms himself to himself in order to forgive man of his sins. Doesn't seem right. Isn't man made in the image of God? So are we not "God like"? If so, that means we are a form of God. If we are a form of God then we should be able to become more like a God. Mormons maybe? In my research into Ancient Mystery Religions there seems to be a few common denominators in Christianity. If Jesus was the founder of Christianity, how much of Ancient Mysteries Religions did he borrow? Or was most of the Ancient Religions injected into modern Christianity to misdirect the masses to never know true knowledge or religion?[/quoteTruth always circulates, but is often in distorted form.

You can say that Christianity "borrowed" from ancient religions, or you can say that religion answers some basic questions and that those other attempts just brushed the edges of truth, while Christianity fulfilled it. Note also, though that Judaism has a special place as the foundation.

warmonger1981 wrote:2dimes.... To me it's illogical. God ransoms himself to himself in order to forgive man of his sins. Doesn't seem right.

I'm with you there. It's possible but I don't see how or why. The son of man is our mediator, "I am the light, the truth and the only way to the father."
If he just was the same how would that work?

warmonger1981 wrote:Isn't man made in the image of God? So are we not "God like"? If so, that means we are a form of God. If we are a form of God then we should be able to become more like a God. Mormons maybe?

Mmmm, can't see that. I'm quite unlikely to bother typing much out about the latter day sts.

warmonger1981 wrote:In my research into Ancient Mystery Religions there seems to be a few common denominators in Christianity. If Jesus was the founder of Christianity, how much of Ancient Mysteries Religions did he borrow? Or was most of the Ancient Religions injected into modern Christianity to misdirect the masses to never know true knowledge or religion?

He was not the founder of Christianity, he spoke about how the kingdom of God was not something to seek but within us at the present. Accessed easily by loving others even our enemies.

Something interesting to me is how we know more than ever before yet so many things from so many of the ancient mystery religions has become lost knowledge. Why? If it was simply up to our own ability to perform mericals why isn't there more people than ever performing them?

I suspect as we grow further from him via the separation caused by sin. The less we can access the powers he allowed humans to utilize for a period of time.

patrickaa317 wrote:

2dimes wrote:

warmonger1981 wrote:Can someone explain to my something? If Jesus was God in the flesh, why would Jesus/God sacrifice himself to himself to ransom humanity from his sins? Seems illogical doesn't it?

isaiah40 wrote:Would you run out into the street and push your son/daughter out of the path of an oncoming car, thereby possibly getting killed just so your son/daughter would live?

No that's not logical. Instead of getting out of the moving vehicle I'm driving to push the kid out of it's way getting killed myself. I would use the horn to warn them. If that did not help I would use the brakes to stop the car or finally the wheel to steer around the kid.

A better analogy in my opinion is.

I set up an automated slaughter machine for sheep that can't be stopped. I then move to Australia for 30 years because I like Roos and it's the only place I can develop replacement bodies for people. People are morons so they keep going into the thing and getting killed. I send my son with the only key to shut the thing off. Unfortunately anyone using the key is maimed. But gets the only prototype permanent body I have currently. After he shuts off the machine there is an air ambulance waiting three days to bring him back to Australia to finish making permanent replacement bodies for everyone else.

I think you must have misread the post. You weren't supposed to be the driver in the car.

Warmonger asked why Jesus would sacrifice himself to himself. Therefore there is only one who is both driving the car, then pushing the pedestrian out of harms way. What's the purpose.

I standby my opinion, it would be more logical to just apply the brakes.

God can not co-exist with sin

Sin entered the world separating us from God

For the removal of sin there must be "the shedding of blood" (from a spotless or SINLESS sacrifice)

All men have sinned

Therefore.....


God became man to become the sacrifice man needed to have a relationship with God (without that sacrifice man would die in sin and be separated from God for eternity)

jay_a2j wrote:God can not co-exist with sin

Sin entered the world separating us from God

For the removal of sin there must be "the shedding of blood" (from a spotless or SINLESS sacrifice)

All men have sinned

Therefore.....


God became man to become the sacrifice man needed to have a relationship with God (without that sacrifice man would die in sin and be separated from God for eternity)

Must be, huh? Amazing. So God couldn't have done it any other way because you say so?

Did you hear about the dyslexic insomniac agnostic?

Spoiler

Stays awake all night wondering if there really is a Dog.

Sin can not co-exist with God, all men have sinned but one.

The entirety of God can not be contained in a man who carries some sin from his ancestors. Therefore even though the son is a part of him they must have been separated for the son to be contained in a man and experience carnal life.

jaya2jay wrote:God can not co-exist with sin

Hm. I think you've just invalidated all of your arguments.

-TG

2dimes wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

2dimes wrote:

warmonger1981 wrote:Can someone explain to my something? If Jesus was God in the flesh, why would Jesus/God sacrifice himself to himself to ransom humanity from his sins? Seems illogical doesn't it?

isaiah40 wrote:Would you run out into the street and push your son/daughter out of the path of an oncoming car, thereby possibly getting killed just so your son/daughter would live?

No that's not logical. Instead of getting out of the moving vehicle I'm driving to push the kid out of it's way getting killed myself. I would use the horn to warn them. If that did not help I would use the brakes to stop the car or finally the wheel to steer around the kid.

A better analogy in my opinion is.

I set up an automated slaughter machine for sheep that can't be stopped. I then move to Australia for 30 years because I like Roos and it's the only place I can develop replacement bodies for people. People are morons so they keep going into the thing and getting killed. I send my son with the only key to shut the thing off. Unfortunately anyone using the key is maimed. But gets the only prototype permanent body I have currently. After he shuts off the machine there is an air ambulance waiting three days to bring him back to Australia to finish making permanent replacement bodies for everyone else.

I think you must have misread the post. You weren't supposed to be the driver in the car.

Warmonger asked why Jesus would sacrifice himself to himself. Therefore there is only one who is both driving the car, then pushing the pedestrian out of harms way. What's the purpose.

I standby my opinion, it would be more logical to just apply the brakes.

You were replying to the question that isaiah40 posed though.

BigBallinStalin wrote:
because you say so?

No, because God says so. Go ahead and argue (with God).... I'd grab some popcorn but it would be over before I got back!

patrickaa317 wrote:

2dimes wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

2dimes wrote:

warmonger1981 wrote:Can someone explain to my something? If Jesus was God in the flesh, why would Jesus/God sacrifice himself to himself to ransom humanity from his sins? Seems illogical doesn't it?

isaiah40 wrote:Would you run out into the street and push your son/daughter out of the path of an oncoming car, thereby possibly getting killed just so your son/daughter would live?

No that's not logical. Instead of getting out of the moving vehicle I'm driving to push the kid out of it's way getting killed myself. I would use the horn to warn them. If that did not help I would use the brakes to stop the car or finally the wheel to steer around the kid.

A better analogy in my opinion is.

I set up an automated slaughter machine for sheep that can't be stopped. I then move to Australia for 30 years because I like Roos and it's the only place I can develop replacement bodies for people. People are morons so they keep going into the thing and getting killed. I send my son with the only key to shut the thing off. Unfortunately anyone using the key is maimed. But gets the only prototype permanent body I have currently. After he shuts off the machine there is an air ambulance waiting three days to bring him back to Australia to finish making permanent replacement bodies for everyone else.

I think you must have misread the post. You weren't supposed to be the driver in the car.

Warmonger asked why Jesus would sacrifice himself to himself. Therefore there is only one who is both driving the car, then pushing the pedestrian out of harms way. What's the purpose.

I standby my opinion, it would be more logical to just apply the brakes.

You were replying to the question that isaiah40 posed though.

Correct, because he said the entirety of the father was contained in a human body while the son was here on earth. So he must be both driving the car ( analogous to sin leading to death for humans ) and somehow pushing someone out of the way of the car, himself contained in the son.

My analogy sucks too. No analogy like a human body mind and spirit can even fully comprehend possibly most things about God never mind contain many of the parts. That is part of why I believe the son was separated from the father while here.

Now don't get me wrong I do believe the son is the only one that fully contains all parts of God our father that no other being does or has. I also believe he was with/part of the father before anything else was created and all things were created through him/them. I just believe the father, the son and Holy Spirit to be separate and the son was caused to wonder, "Father why have you forsaken me?" because he briefly felt the bleak helplessness of being separated from him while being human and experiencing death which he had to conquer for us. The father can not co exist with sin. The son while here did.

jay_a2j wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
because you say so?

No, because God says so. Go ahead and argue (with God).... I'd grab some popcorn but it would be over before I got back!

So, God said that that was the only way to do it? Then he's not really all powerful.
Do you ever sense a difference between "what you say" and "what you attribute as God saying"?


Oh, by the way:



You can't win with logic in religious matters because it's self-defeating. Suffer your losses by proclaiming your underlying 'taking it on faith' position.

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Oh, by the way:



You can't win with logic in religious matters because it's self-defeating. Suffer your losses by proclaiming your underlying 'taking it on faith' position.

Sorry it took a minute to respond.... The Bible proves itself to be the Word of God.

The things in it are:

a) historically accurate
b) prophetically accurate
c) CAN NOT be shown to be in error (in it's entirety)

jay_a2j wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Oh, by the way:



You can't win with logic in religious matters because it's self-defeating. Suffer your losses by proclaiming your underlying 'taking it on faith' position.

Sorry it took a minute to respond.... The Bible proves itself to be the Word of God.

The things in it are:

a) historically accurate
b) prophetically accurate
c) CAN NOT be shown to be in error (in it's entirety)

That's quite a caveat you've got at the end there. You mean that it can be shown to be in error, in particular? But somehow not in the end?

Jay! Hurrah. Never yet agreed with you as far as I remember, but always good to hear from you.

That's possibly the strangest necrobump in recent memory.

Shut up. n****bumping doesn't even exist. It's just a meaningless slur against free-thinkers and historians.

Symmetry wrote:
That's quite a caveat you've got at the end there. You mean that it can be shown to be in error, in particular? But somehow not in the end?

Quite the non-response you have there...

jonesthecurl wrote:Jay! Hurrah. Never yet agreed with you as far as I remember, but always good to hear from you.

Yeah, I was just going along living life when I thought to myself, "Hey, I haven't been to ConquerClub in awhile". So I stopped in. Nice to see a lot of those familiar names....

jay_a2j wrote:

Symmetry wrote:
That's quite a caveat you've got at the end there. You mean that it can be shown to be in error, in particular? But somehow not in the end?

Quite the non-response you have there...

Look- if the caveat is "it's all right, no matter how wrong at the end". That's a caveat that erases all wrongs,