Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
John 3:16 --god loves you so much he murdered his own son for you.
back then we would make sacrifices to atone for our sins. God sent Jesus to earth to live a perfect life which no one had ever done so he would be able to take the sin of the world. He gave his life (Jesus chose to) and became the ultimate sacrifice so that whoever accepts it may have all their sins forgiven. It seems a waste to not accept it doesnt it?
back then we would make sacrifices to atone for our sins. God sent Jesus to earth to live a perfect life which no one had ever done so he would be able to take the sin of the world. He gave his life (Jesus chose to) and became the ultimate sacrifice so that whoever accepts it may have all their sins forgiven. It seems a waste to not accept it doesnt it?
True, but a lot of us have a good knowledge of Christianity, but still reject it. On the other side of the coin all creationists reject evolution regardless of what ever knowledge or proof they have of it....Their dogma requires this rejection.
That's quite the broad statement you're making there.
I've seen the evidence for evolution. I don't buy it.
back then we would make sacrifices to atone for our sins. God sent Jesus to earth to live a perfect life which no one had ever done so he would be able to take the sin of the world.
From a believer's perspective, you have two problems here.
The scriptures are pretty clears that animal sacrifice and burnt offerings were NOT required and NOT the will of God (Hos 6:6, Psa 40:6 & Heb 10:8)
1. If some came to this realization, why would it be necessary to sacrifice His Son?
Animals were never on the menu card anyway and was merely a way of appeasing guilt.
Quote:
He gave his life (Jesus chose to) and became the ultimate sacrifice so that whoever accepts it may have all their sins forgiven. It seems a waste to not accept it doesnt it?
The Christus Victor perspective is far more logical, google it.
2. If The "sacrifice" was enough, why is it that we need to accept this?
The whole premise of "sacrifice" is deflection of our own weaknesses/guilt and as they say "you cannot unring the bell"
Thus you get to blame the good things on God and the bad things on ol' red guy - called deflection and avoids responsibility
One of the biggest absurdities in the bible: (pardon for any minor errors, I am typing this from memory)
"In the beginning there was the word and the word was god and the word was with god."
You can't be with yourself...it makes no sense whatsover--unless you are referring to multiple gods.
One of the biggest absurdities in the bible: (pardon for any minor errors, I am typing this from memory)
"In the beginning there was the word and the word was god and the word was with god."
You can't be with yourself...it makes no sense whatsover--unless you are referring to multiple gods.
3 persons, 1 God. This is a reference to the Trinity.
3 persons, 1 God. This is a reference to the Trinity.
That is another thing that makes no sense...
I read the whole bible--cover to cover...I never saw any reference to the trinity. I saw passages that could be intrepreted that way. I saw passages that denied it. But I saw no passages that directly defined the trinity. So, like much of the bible, one has to conclude that the concept of the trinity is just man-made balony.
That is another thing that makes no sense...
I read the whole bible--cover to cover...I never saw any reference to the trinity. I saw passages that could be intrepreted that way. I saw passages that denied it. But I saw no passages that directly defined the trinity. So, like much of the bible, one has to conclude that the concept of the trinity is just man-made balony.
It's there. The concept was not formalized until later...but there are all kinds of passages mentioning all 3 members of the Godhead, and there are plenty of passages explicitly referring to God as monotheistic. Put 'em together, you got the Trinity.
It's there. The concept was not formalized until later...but there are all kinds of passages mentioning all 3 members of the Godhead, and there are plenty of passages explicitly referring to God as monotheistic. Put 'em together, you got the Trinity.
CONCEPT? I thought that christians beleive it as fact. ...perhaps I am just griping about the use of a word...sorry...but seriously.
Mono=1.
Poly=many
Trinity=3
Poly=trinity.
Trinity=polythiesm.
Simple.
Silly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
