Christianity is based on substitutionary atonement

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Gnostic Bishop

I do my fathers will and not my own.

You are so busy trying to put your responsibility on someone else's shoulders that you will immorally try to get a free ride on a scapegoat into heaven.

God wants responsible men in heaven. Not whiny children like you who will not pick up their own cross as Jesus says you should.

Regards
DL

Ah, all caught up now. While I prolly agree with your overarching premise here, your personal premises are revealed here. This is ungracious at best, imo.

[Gnostic Bishop]

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

Regards
DL

[shazeep]

Exactly. My point is that you grant death, @ "whiny children like you." To use gnostic language, you have objectified the poster and elevated yourself, creating a subject/object relationship, and not granting that surely the poster is also genuinely doing their best as they understand it; equal to you.

[shazeep]

Please understand (he says to the crickets) that I am not meaning to point fingers here, but to illustrate that, spiritually speaking, you have killed...Brother Eastman, was it? And sentence has been pronounced; and yet you are still alive. Forgiven, by God, if not yet BE. And if you venture into not needing God's forgiveness for this, you must accept the consequences, it seems to me.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Gnostic Bishop

Thanks for the logical fallacy.

It is to those who believe in duel nature to prove it real. It is not to those who do not to prove it does not as that is impossible.

Try your lying type of B.S, your logical fallacy, with someone else friend.

Regards
DL

Only problem with trying to call logical fallacy is that some claims cannot be proven... It's not a logical fallacy to talk about a claim that cannot be proven and ask if it can be disproven. Without a proof or disproof it's best to look at the claim as possible (albeit either very unlikely or very likely depending on the claim in question).

---------------------------------------------

Dual nature at it's simpliest level asserts that there is some kind of connection between two otherwise non-related things.

For example a specific rock and specific tree could be described as a single meta-object that has a dual nature. There is nothing logically inconsistent with such a claim. Though it's not a very useful claim in regards to the rock and the tree.

Is it possible to prove or disprove whether the rock and the tree are the same meta-object. Nope. Does it even matter if they are in our everyday reality? Nope it makes no real difference.

I think upon inspection you will admit it's possible for the rock and the tree to be the same meta-object.

[Gnostic Bishop]

Is all that you gentlemen have left is this type of garbage, then I guess that we are done here.

Strange that no one has yet put an argument for substitutionary atonement.

Any takers out there?

Regards
DL

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Gnostic Bishop

You did not offer a worthy point.

If you had you would have restated it.

Regards
DL

Evasion on your part. We all know it.

[Gnostic Bishop]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Evasion on your part. We all know it.

You took the time for this but not the restating of whatever you are talking about and evading again. We all know it.

Regards
DL

[shazeep]

Hmm; I was developing a pretty good argument for the need for some substitutionary atonement-at least on your part-which you chose to ignore. So let's just all dismiss each other then

[Gnostic Bishop]

Originally Posted by shazeep

Hmm; I was developing a pretty good argument for the need for some substitutionary atonement-at least on your part-which you chose to ignore. So let's just all dismiss each other then

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Jesus said to pick up your cross and follow him but I see that you have taken the line that someone else should pay your dues. Quite manly and moral that. Not.

Do you really think someone else can pay your dues and allow you to shirk your just reward?

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]

As above so below.

If you had God's power, would you not be able to find a way that does not go against the wisdom of Jesus and the bible?

Perhaps like being man enough to step up to your own demands for a worthy sacrifice?

That is what a good God would do.

Regards
DL