Christians break the Golden Rule when accepting Jesus as savior.

[Greatest I am]

Christians break the Golden Rule when accepting Jesus as savior.

Jesus indicated that doing unto others as we would want done to us was a commandment.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, goes against the Golden Rule and Jesus’ commandment.

None of us would want to be punished for someone else’s sin, yet Christians ignore Jesus’ commandment and eagerly consent to let Jesus suffer for the sins they have done so that they might escape their just punishment.

From what Jesus said, Christians are showing that they are not fit for heaven as they do not follow Jesus’ commandment and thus do evil.

Should Christians step up and make themselves fit for heaven by rejecting substitutionary atonement?

Regards
DL

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Of course we're not "fit for" Heaven.

[DC Al Fine]

Of course we're not "fit for" Heaven.

[RI]

That is some seriously tortured logic. Christians never asked Christ to die, and certainly Christians today are not directly responsible in any way for Christ's death. Christ died willingly, not because we said, "hey, going to hell would suck, so let's have this innocent guy die." Accepting the meaning of Christ's death is not a "consent to let Jesus suffer" as it's already occurred. Further, the idea that someone choosing to sacrifice themself for another causes the beneficiary of that sacrifice to bear the guilt simply boggles comprehension.

[Zioneer]

Christians break the Golden Rule when accepting Jesus as savior.

Jesus indicated that doing unto others as we would want done to us was a commandment.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, goes against the Golden Rule and Jesus’ commandment.

None of us would want to be punished for someone else’s sin, yet Christians ignore Jesus’ commandment and eagerly consent to let Jesus suffer for the sins they have done so that they might escape their just punishment.

From what Jesus said, Christians are showing that they are not fit for heaven as they do not follow Jesus’ commandment and thus do evil.

Should Christians step up and make themselves fit for heaven by rejecting substitutionary atonement?

Regards
DL

The whole point is that Jesus died willingly for our sins.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

That is some seriously tortured logic. Christians never asked Christ to die, and certainly Christians today are not directly responsible in any way for Christ's death. Christ died willingly, not because we said, "hey, going to hell would suck, so let's have this innocent guy die." Accepting the meaning of Christ's death is not a "consent to let Jesus suffer" as it's already occurred. Further, the idea that someone choosing to sacrifice themself for another causes the beneficiary of that sacrifice to bear the guilt simply boggles comprehension.

[Greatest I am]

Of course we're not "fit for" Heaven.

Speak for yourself.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

That is some seriously tortured logic. Christians never asked Christ to die, and certainly Christians today are not directly responsible in any way for Christ's death. Christ died willingly, not because we said, "hey, going to hell would suck, so let's have this innocent guy die." Accepting the meaning of Christ's death is not a "consent to let Jesus suffer" as it's already occurred. Further, the idea that someone choosing to sacrifice themself for another causes the beneficiary of that sacrifice to bear the guilt simply boggles comprehension.

Christians may not have asked, but the morality is clear that to take advantage of another so as to shed ones responsibility is quite immoral.

Accepting the premise that substitutionary punishment is justice is immoral. That is why no decent court in the world uses it.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Christians break the Golden Rule when accepting Jesus as savior.

Jesus indicated that doing unto others as we would want done to us was a commandment.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, goes against the Golden Rule and Jesus’ commandment.

None of us would want to be punished for someone else’s sin, yet Christians ignore Jesus’ commandment and eagerly consent to let Jesus suffer for the sins they have done so that they might escape their just punishment.

From what Jesus said, Christians are showing that they are not fit for heaven as they do not follow Jesus’ commandment and thus do evil.

Should Christians step up and make themselves fit for heaven by rejecting substitutionary atonement?

Regards
DL

The whole point is that Jesus died willingly for our sins.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

That says he did not volunteer and that is irrelevant to the immorality of Christians shedding their responsibility that scriptures say are theirs.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

Further, read what Jesus said at Cavalry where he is clear in Jesus saying he is doing the Fathers will and not his own.

Regards
DL

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

^ Someone being willing to do something does not require them volunteering to do it. Volunteer means: "a person who freely offers to take part in an enterprise or undertake a task.". Freely means without compulsion and without any sort of requirement to do the activity. But you can be willing to do something even if you are being forced to do it. For instance, I am forced to complete programming assignments for my college courses, but I do it without argument because I want the carrot provided by completing a given assignment (getting one step closer to my degree). I am willing to do it, because I do not fight it - but I am not volunteering because I did not directly ask for the assignment (i.e. I never went up to a professor and said "I would like 7 assignments this semester, please".)The same principle applies with Jesus. Jesus is willing to die for us because he has developed absolute loyalty to God, who told him that he was to die for us. It is not volunteering because Jesus did not directly ask for or come up with the task of dying for us. But that does not change the fact that he is willing to do it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These are various components of old testament law. They do not apply to the world of the new testament or the modern day. It's like trying to claim China's laws are to be enforced in Germany. That's not how it works.

To your stuff about a Court of Law not accepting this, and Thomas Paine, well God is not a court of law, nor is he Thomas Paine. God is not bound to secular rules, laws, or systems of justice, nor is he bound to the principles of any one human or group of humans.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So? In events where the will of god and the will of one or more Christians contradict each other, Christians are called to defer to the will of god.

Also, the bible is not exactly a loud and clear call for the golden rule. The golden rule openly justifies revenge, by essentially saying that if you treat someone badly, they are justified in seeking revenge against you. Meanwhile, the bible tells us this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Antonio the Sixth]

[Greatest I am]

^ Someone being willing to do something does not require them volunteering to do it. Volunteer means: "a person who freely offers to take part in an enterprise or undertake a task.". Freely means without compulsion and without any sort of requirement to do the activity. But you can be willing to do something even if you are being forced to do it. For instance, I am forced to complete programming assignments for my college courses, but I do it without argument because I want the carrot provided by completing a given assignment (getting one step closer to my degree). I am willing to do it, because I do not fight it - but I am not volunteering because I did not directly ask for the assignment (i.e. I never went up to a professor and said "I would like 7 assignments this semester, please".)The same principle applies with Jesus. Jesus is willing to die for us because he has developed absolute loyalty to God, who told him that he was to die for us. It is not volunteering because Jesus did not directly ask for or come up with the task of dying for us. But that does not change the fact that he is willing to do it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These are various components of old testament law. They do not apply to the world of the new testament or the modern day. It's like trying to claim China's laws are to be enforced in Germany. That's not how it works.

To your stuff about a Court of Law not accepting this, and Thomas Paine, well God is not a court of law, nor is he Thomas Paine. God is not bound to secular rules, laws, or systems of justice, nor is he bound to the principles of any one human or group of humans.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So? In events where the will of god and the will of one or more Christians contradict each other, Christians are called to defer to the will of god.

Also, the bible is not exactly a loud and clear call for the golden rule. The golden rule openly justifies revenge, by essentially saying that if you treat someone badly, they are justified in seeking revenge against you. Meanwhile, the bible tells us this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Jesus deferred and referred to the O. T., --- but if you want to ignore it's moral wisdom then go ahead.

You do not seem to understand that that right cheek saying is showing how to insult the aggressor. This aside, you show you are not fit for heaven as you are willing to accept the punishment of another so that you can shed your own responsibility for your own sins.

That is a cowards way. Cowards do not end in heaven.

I do like the way you are helping kill Christianity the way this Bishop predicts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKNup9gEBdg&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs

Regards
DL

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

^ Jesus referred to the OT, as did his disciples, to illustrate what parts are still revelant to us (for instance, the 10 commandments). But that does not mean the entire old testament is still meant to be followed. The three parts you quoted are not a commandment for today.

I agree, I am not fit for heaven. No one is, because all have sinned, and the wages of even just one sin is death. But we have been provided with a savior, and we would be incredibly retarded if we did not take his offer, as the alternative is eternal suffering in hell.

[Greatest I am]

^ Jesus referred to the OT, as did his disciples, to illustrate what parts are still revelant to us (for instance, the 10 commandments). But that does not mean the entire old testament is still meant to be followed. The three parts you quoted are not a commandment for today.

I agree, I am not fit for heaven. No one is, because all have sinned, and the wages of even just one sin is death. But we have been provided with a savior, and we would be incredibly retarded if we did not take his offer, as the alternative is eternal suffering in hell.

If we all sin as you say, then you might wonder why your God cannot make us the way you think he wants us to be and why, because of his poor creative powers, he has to have his own son murdered to forgive his own incompetence instead of just forgiving himself or us outright.

Regards
DL

[Zioneer]

This is my reaction when I see a "Greatest I am" thread.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

^ Jesus referred to the OT, as did his disciples, to illustrate what parts are still revelant to us (for instance, the 10 commandments). But that does not mean the entire old testament is still meant to be followed. The three parts you quoted are not a commandment for today.

I agree, I am not fit for heaven. No one is, because all have sinned, and the wages of even just one sin is death. But we have been provided with a savior, and we would be incredibly retarded if we did not take his offer, as the alternative is eternal suffering in hell.

If we all sin as you say, then you might wonder why your God cannot make us the way you think he wants us to be and why, because of his poor creative powers, he has to have his own son murdered to forgive his own incompetence instead of just forgiving himself or us outright.

Regards
DL

God needs blood atonement (through animals in the old covenant; through jesus in the new covenant) to fulfill a fundamental characteristic of his: Being a just god. But he still offers a method for forgiveness, so he is still merciful. And that is the point of the matter. God is both just and merciful. If he forgave without atonement, he would not be just. If he did not forgive at all, he would not be merciful.

As for why God did not make us physically unable to sin, that is for him to know and him alone.

[Greatest I am]

^ Jesus referred to the OT, as did his disciples, to illustrate what parts are still revelant to us (for instance, the 10 commandments). But that does not mean the entire old testament is still meant to be followed. The three parts you quoted are not a commandment for today.

I agree, I am not fit for heaven. No one is, because all have sinned, and the wages of even just one sin is death. But we have been provided with a savior, and we would be incredibly retarded if we did not take his offer, as the alternative is eternal suffering in hell.

If we all sin as you say, then you might wonder why your God cannot make us the way you think he wants us to be and why, because of his poor creative powers, he has to have his own son murdered to forgive his own incompetence instead of just forgiving himself or us outright.

Regards
DL

God needs blood atonement (through animals in the old covenant; through jesus in the new covenant) to fulfill a fundamental characteristic of his: Being a just god. But he still offers a method for forgiveness, so he is still merciful. And that is the point of the matter. God is both just and merciful. If he forgave without atonement, he would not be just. If he did not forgive at all, he would not be merciful.

As for why God did not make us physically unable to sin, that is for him to know and him alone.

Wow. You might want to move your head from where you have it with your God.

http://i.imgur.com/m05hDnS.jpg

Just kidding buddy. But not what follows.

Strange that you know his unknowable ways on some issues yet have no clue as to why a God would need a blood sacrifice.

Ignore your own scriptures.

http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/15-22.htm

Further.


Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Regards
DL
 

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Obviously Obedience is better than Sacrifice. That is made quite clear in Matthew and 1st John. God does not delight in seeing blood spilled, that doesn't even sound possible. But it is the only way through which sin can be properly absolved once committed.

God needs a blood sacrifice to forgive sin because it is the only proper punishment for sin. God does not violate his fundamental characteristics, one of which is to be just. Why he chose to have that particular characteristic is for only him to know, but since he has recorded that he has it in his word, he is not going to go against it. God does not go against what he has stated in scripture.

I know, it's tempting to think that there is 1) some way to work yourself into heaven, or 2) a cuddly version of god who thinks whatever you do is "cool". But neither of those gods exist. The god that does exist is one that has given us commandments, which each of us have broken. But he has also offered a way out that we do not have to work for.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Greatest I am]

God needs a blood sacrifice to forgive sin because it is the only proper punishment for sin.

Lets say this idiocy is true.

As above so below.

You are to emulate your God.

If you decided a blood sacrifice was requires, would you send your child to die or would you step up?

Most asked say they would step up and show better morals than Yahweh as they think children should bury their parents and not have the parents bury their children.

What would you do?

Regards
DL

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

This is not a good argument.  Not only penal substitution but any Christian account of the atonement in some way involves people relying for their salvation on the fact of Christ's suffering and death.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

To DL: Well, the Trinity is key here. While God, Jesus, and the holy spirit are three entities, they are all part of the same "being". When God sent Jesus, he was sending a part of himself. So it's not truly "sacrificing your child to save yourself".

If I was forced to perform the sacrifice, I would obviously sacrifice myself over my child. But it is kind of silly to ask that question of me, as I am not God, so there will never be a need for me to organize a sin sacrifice.

[Ban my account ffs!]

To DL: Well, the Trinity is key here. While God, Jesus, and the holy spirit are three entities, they are all part of the same "being". When God sent Jesus, he was sending a part of himself. So it's not truly "sacrificing your child to save yourself".

If I was forced to perform the sacrifice, I would obviously sacrifice myself over my child. But it is kind of silly to ask that question of me, as I am not God, so there will never be a need for me to organize a sin sacrifice.

You don't have to explain this stuff to him, Wulfric.  He is being disingenuous with all of his arguments and he has turned gnostic Christianity into some tortured version of self worship.

[Enduro]

No one can make themself worthy of heaven.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This is my reaction when I see a "Greatest I am" thread.

It's also mine, but it wouldn't be if people didn't bother to feed the pseudo-Gnostic troll.

[Greatest I am]

This is not a good argument.  Not only penal substitution but any Christian account of the atonement in some way involves people relying for their salvation on the fact of Christ's suffering and death.

Sorry to burst your bubble on this. Scriptures say otherwise.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

All that is required for salvation is knowledge of the truth.

Part of that truth to a Gnostic Christian is that there is no hell otherwise we would all end there as we all contribute to the sins of others as we all interact together.

That conundrum is why we are Universalists.

EG. Hitler was not born evil but became so and was helped to be what he was by all those who interacted with him. He was not born evil but was made so. So who should be blamed if not all who made him what he ended up being?

Now apply that to all people and see that a God would either have to punish all f us or forgive all of us.

Regards
DL