Truck Month Textbook Trade In Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Mary Carpenter Fire TV with 4k Ultra HD Subscribe & Save Mother's Day Gifts Shop now Amazon Gift Card Offer seeso seeso seeso  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Fire, Only $39.99 Kindle Paperwhite UniOrlando Shop Now SnS
Customer Discussions > Christianity forum

Christianity is founded on four absurdities

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 126-150 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Oct 2, 2010 11:06:16 AM PDT
emac says:
Army

I suspect that guys like McDowell are not really atheist turned Christians, but atheist who saw a business opportunity to write what Christians want to hear.

Why do I say this? Because he writes his books in a manner that side steps the real problems with the Bible. Of course, Christians who have not read the rest of the theological spectrum cannot know this. He knows this too, but writes in a manner that makes Christianity seem bullet proof---because it sales to Christians who are desperate to have a religion of proof rather than of faith.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 2, 2010 11:38:44 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Oct 26, 2011 4:17:28 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 2, 2010 11:40:14 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Oct 26, 2011 4:17:28 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 2, 2010 12:04:03 PM PDT
Joe Anthony says:
Celsus says:

Absurdity #1: The Scapegoat solution, or the premise that the guilty can be pardoned by the death of an innocent.

I say: This may not be absurd when one takes into account how sacrifices were seen in terms of the ancient peoples. Almost all our ancestors did it, some with animals and others with humans.

Celsus says:

"Absurdity #2: The notion that in order to forgive sins, God had to sacrifice Himself to Himself."

I say: Is it so absurd to think that God has the power to forgive? However, in order for this to have meaning to those of us who are not God, perhaps the narrative of God "sacrificing his son" is a way to allow us to comprehend that forgiveness is not so easy and God understands that.

Celsus says:

Absurdity #3: You must believe that God sacrificed Himself to Himself in order to obtain salvation...

I say: During the time of early Christianity, there was no such thing as theology for most people. The ancients lived in a world that was rough and harsh and very sad most of the time. They spent most of their time working and their was not a lot of time to think esoterically. Many of the early Christians were poor and they found a light of hope in a God that loves and forgives; indeed, is it not understanadble that they might have seen the crucifixion and ressurection as the ONLY way to salvation?

Celsus says:

Absurdity #4: That Jesus' death qualified as a sacrifice. Real sacrifice entails real loss. Jesus didn't really die...

I say: According to the narrative Jesus is publically crucified and humiliated. That sounds like a sacrifice to me.

The idea of sacrifice in Christianity is to teach us that God suffers with us and we are here to love each other and sacrifice for one another.

What's so absurd about that?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 2, 2010 12:12:25 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Aug 28, 2011 8:53:15 AM PDT]

Posted on Oct 2, 2010 12:47:01 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 2, 2010 12:56:23 PM PDT
M. J Jensen says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 2, 2010 12:58:24 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 2, 2010 1:55:05 PM PDT
IFeelFree says:
MJJ: the concept is that forgiveness requires sacrifice on the part of the one granting the pardon. how else would a God who has everything show that granting unmerited favor did indeed cost him something?

IFF: The belief that God must forgive us for our sins is a central error of Christian theology. Christians have replaced Christ's gospel of forgiveness and universal love with a theology of sin, punishment, sacrifice, and judgment. It is not that God must forgive us, but that we must forgive those who oppose us, those who trespass against us. When we forgive completely, we find healing from the subconscious guilt that causes our suffering. God, being Holy, sees all as pure and innocent. It is we who believe ourselves to be sinful and separated from God.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 2, 2010 1:42:02 PM PDT
RKG says:
Just curious.... how do you know Satan is in hell suffering eternal torment right now?

If you are correct, who then is responsible for all the evil in the world? God? Satan's assistants? Or does evil operate independently of either God or Satan?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 2, 2010 1:50:57 PM PDT
D. Duarte says:
IFF, I like your explanation.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 2, 2010 1:52:31 PM PDT
RKG says:
What I find fascinating and that no one has quite actually touched on is that God is actually the one who designed things to be exactly as they are.

He could have simply changed the definition of what "sin" is and ergo there would not have been any need for a sacrifice.

He could have simply said, "ok - this is what we will call sin and if you do it - throw a handful of salt over your back while standing on your right leg and facing east - and you will be forgiven."

But no ! In this reality we all are locked into a perception of reality that we have no say in and yet here we are arguing about it.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 2, 2010 1:57:43 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 2, 2010 4:05:53 PM PDT
D. Duarte says:
that's not true, JJB, I touched on that. you're not the first.

JJB says: But no ! In this reality we all are locked into a perception of reality that we have no say in and yet here we are arguing about it.

DD says: "All"? Speak for yourself.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 2, 2010 2:15:53 PM PDT
A customer says:
"the major evidence for the resurrection of Christ..."

You keep speaking of this evidence. I know that I, and I think others, have asked you to show us this evidence you speak of.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 2, 2010 2:49:19 PM PDT
Mr. Krinkle says:
So, your post mocking atheists for their dependence on sense observations only goes so far until you desire to make generalizations based on a limited personal experience and limited personal observation?

Why does what you happened to think as an atheist transfer to what thoughtful and informed atheists actually think?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 2, 2010 2:52:15 PM PDT
Mr. Krinkle says:
Few to no atheists assert that they KNOW that God does not exist.

Atheists claim that there is no knowledge of God's existence, or non-existence.

Hence, they don't believe in God.

Christians assert that God does exist, though they can provide no evidence or reason outside of personal testimony to support their claim.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 2, 2010 2:54:12 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 2, 2010 2:55:14 PM PDT
ColdShot says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 2, 2010 6:16:53 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 2, 2010 6:30:58 PM PDT
RKG says:
My apologies then DD; wasn't aware that you had touched on the same thing.

I will have to admit that I have not read every post. I have done more of a scan.

Yes all of us DD are tied into this reality. From what I can see we may all think we are masters of our own destiny, but is that really true?

You may think otherwise but I think none of us truly have any say. We may think we do, but we are fooling ourselves methinks.

Posted on Oct 2, 2010 6:17:09 PM PDT
cbk says:
>>If you are correct, who then is responsible for all the evil in the world? God? Satan's assistants? Or does evil operate independently of either God or Satan?

Um... The people that do the evil??

Posted on Oct 2, 2010 7:10:00 PM PDT
brunumb says:
Coldshot : "one of the most obvious pieces of evidence, which is almost always overlooked is when the world went along with changing the calender to A.D."

If scientists over the centuries relied on this type of 'evidence' we would all still be travelling by donkey and curing leprosy with pigeon blood.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 2, 2010 8:39:08 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 2, 2010 8:39:59 PM PDT
ColdShot says: one of the most obvious pieces of evidence [for the resurrection of Christ], which is almost always overlooked is when the world went along with changing the calender to A.D.

JC: Ummm, Coldshot, the "A.D." dating system of numbering years from the "birth of Jesus" was not devised until the 6th Century, and it wasn't very widely used until the 9th.

How does this constitute an "overlooked," "obvious piece of evidence" that Jesus rose from the dead?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 2, 2010 8:41:42 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Oct 26, 2011 4:17:40 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 2, 2010 10:15:47 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 2, 2010 10:17:25 PM PDT
ColdShot says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 2, 2010 10:34:39 PM PDT
I don't think that your "court of law" would consider "indirect evidence" to be "an obvious piece of evidence." In fact, I'm pretty sure that a court wouldn't consider this to even qualify as "indirect evidence," either.

I asked a simple question, because it looked very much like you weren't aware of the history of the use of the "A.D." You'd look much better simply letting it go at that, rather than trying to distract with all the added irrelevant stuff.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 2, 2010 10:37:21 PM PDT
ColdShot: but for many like yourself, there will never be enuf proof til you see the King of Kings and Lord of Lords with your own two eyes

JC: Not only is this ridiculously untrue, but there you go again, carelessly flinging the word "proof" around where you should be using the word "evidence."

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 3, 2010 3:53:17 PM PDT
Sarah says:
CS A.D. was also used by the anglo-saxons [ sax-sons...for Isaacs sons ],

Sarah: How incredibly entertaining! "Saxons" means "Isaac's sons"? Well, then, since the Hebrew name we spell "Isaac" in English is actually Yitzkhaq in Hebrew, the Anglo-Saxons should actually be called "Anglo-Tzkhaqsons." Let me know when you figure out how to pronounce that one. I'll be waiting up late. Or tskhaqlate.

Posted on Oct 3, 2010 4:05:52 PM PDT
Terry L says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the Christianity forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Christianity forum
Participants:  336
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Sep 29, 2010
Latest post:  May 25, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 14 customers

Search Customer Discussions