3996
Comments (484)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
18
TheRealPizzaPope 18 points ago +22 / -4

You’re claim about non-sequitur isn’t valid. You didn’t even ask what he is “saving” us from. The answer would be he is saving us from God’s wrath, which was poured out on His Son rather than us.

9
JesusisKing 9 points ago +10 / -1

God loved us so much the Word became flesh as to change the nature of flesh through conquering death. :) it’s a much happier than an angry God who need blood to have his ego fulfilled, a common misunderstanding from Greek translations. Logos is rising! Christo Anesti!

9
MouthAgapeForBLMJizz 9 points ago +10 / -1

Why did God create something (humankind) that also needed to be saved from his wrath?

Genuine question.

8
SpaceCadet 8 points ago +8 / -0

He created mankind with free will because no one can truly love without free will. The downside of free will Is the choice to also choose wrong. And so we chose wrong, yet He still gives us all opportunity to choose love and to choose Him, The hallmark of His example of love is choosing to take our Deserved death Upon his shoulders so that we might be saved through Him.

There are lots of stories of gods throughout the ages, but how many of those gods sacrifice their own life for the undeserving mortals He created, so that they may know Him and have a chance to live with him eternally. It’s a story of love from beginning to end.

0
ERansom 0 points ago +1 / -1

This is borderline Pelagianism. It was condemned as heretical 1600 years ago.

1
SpaceCadet 1 point ago +1 / -0

A key difference being that I never once mentioned that humans are inherently good. I think man is flawed and sinned thus needing saving , thus needing mercy and thus needing grace. We are given the free will to repent from our sinful nature and choose Christ our Lord and Saviour who takes away the sin of the world.

The history of the church is filled with as many flaws as anything so I would be careful using the term heresy all Willy nilly without any Biblical references.

7
DontTouchMyRice 7 points ago +7 / -0

Tough Question. But I’ll take a stab.

Your question can be broken down into: (1) why did God create Man? and (2) why does Man need saving? Firstly, we cannot know why God would do something because He is all-knowing and we are not. But here’s my guess: God is an embodiment of Love. Love cannot be displayed without having something to love. Hence, God created man to love him, and for us to love God. Secondly, God did not make us to automatically love Him. Why? Because love is made more powerful only by the fact that we have the option to not love. When we sin we choose not to love God and because God is infinitely perfect and loving, he is going to take offence to that. That’s why He sacrificed his Son, out of an act of Love, to bring us back into good standing.

These are just some musings of a new Christian. I would encourage you to seek a local church and find someone who would do a better job than I can.

5
Butt-or-Face 5 points ago +5 / -0

Your changing of heart is your own miracle.

It was to me, at least. I was a militant atheist once upon a time.

3
MouthAgapeForBLMJizz 3 points ago +3 / -0

Thank you for the explanation and reply. Much appreciated.

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
6
lmao 6 points ago +6 / -0

I think because God gave everyone complete freedom and with that freedom complete responsibility.

Then he gave commandments how not to use that freedom for evil.

Then everyone was disobedient to God and failed to keep his commandments in one way or another. Therefore God's wrath.

But God didn't create everything to be destroyed, so he wanted to save people from his own righteous wrath, so Jesus gave his life in our place, satisfying God's wrath for us, so everyone can now also be saved through Jesus.

So if you're not under Jesus' mercy, you're still under God's wrath.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
3
MouthAgapeForBLMJizz 3 points ago +3 / -0

Thanks for the reply (:

-38
libman -38 points ago +3 / -41

You didn't even ask where the rain on Mars comes from. The answer would be it is urinated out by a magical Martian dragon that no one has ever seen, but if I shave my mustache the dragon stops urinating for some reason.

24
Coat_Confiscator 24 points ago +25 / -1

Fedora tipping intensifies

17
TheRealPizzaPope 17 points ago +18 / -1

You’re not even making sense, buddy. You’re not even making sense of what I’m trying to explain. Did the church hurt you or something?

7
tombombadil 7 points ago +7 / -0

The church told him that he shouldn’t masturbate. To the atheist, that is the church hurting him.

-1
libman -1 points ago +1 / -2

The church told him that he shouldn’t masturbate. To the atheist, that is the church hurting him.

"The church" is entitled to its opinion - it does not hurt me.

Masturbation is harmful to people who have potential of finding a mate.

Masturbation is beneficial to people who choose or must remain celibate - and want to control their emotions and urges, lest they lead to a greater sin.

0
libman 0 points ago +1 / -1

You’re not even making sense, buddy.

I've demonstrated, by analogy, the absurdity of that "sacrifice" claim.

To a rational person that hasn't been programmed it makes zero sense.

Did the church hurt you or something?

No, it didn't. I'm actually a big fan of many Christian programs. But I don't agree with your supernatural claims.

13
VoterIDMatters 13 points ago +15 / -2

Man. You should study philosophy so that you can engage in actual substantive debate about things humans have pondered since the first human.

Being someone who dismisses it out of hand with utterly ridiculous mockery doesn’t make you smart or persuasive, it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a complete buffoon.

-1
libman -1 points ago +1 / -2

I do study philosophy, and I do engage in actual substantive debate. But if my arguments go over your head - that isn't my fault.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
3
ObamasLooseButthole 3 points ago +3 / -0

I’ll pray for you

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
0
libman 0 points ago +1 / -1

There is more logic behind there being a Creator than not.

There's zero "logic" to there being a "creator", because to "create" that "creator" you need another "creator", and so forth. Your pre-programmed answer is that the "creator" is magic, but that has nothing to do with "logic".

Furthermore, this "creator" would have to deliberately have created a universe with evidence for emergent processes (like biological evolution) and no evidence for a creator.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1