Eternal praise and obedience to the king of the universe!

>Why does it matter to choose christ to pay for it? One thing to note is that you can’t actually choose your beliefs, if you doubt this try to not believe in christ as your savior… you can’t and similarly I can’t choose to believe in that. So it’s not true that were free to be saved and that we just have to choose to believe because we can’t choose what we believe. I also don’t understand why we need to pay for our sins if were born in a world where we don’t really have a choice. And let’s not mention the punishment of eternal torture?

Your first question doesn't make sense... Like, if you choose to get saved through Christ, you get saved through Christ. If you don't, you don't.

And yes, you're right, one cannot simply choose their beliefs on a whim, which is why I encourage you to look into the historicity of the Bible and try to give it an unbiased assessment. I would, of course, be willing to clarify anything you're uncertain or unsure about along the way. You can absolutely change what you believe if you take the time to assess the truth carefully, that's what I did.

I disagree with the notion that this makes salvation "not free", though. You misunderstood me (or perhaps I mispoke, I apologize). You CHOOSE to BE SAVED after you acknowledge the existence of this choice. This is the part that you freely opt in, the salvation itself. The difficulty many have is, of course, coming to terms with the fact that they need to be saved and the acknowledgement of the choice they are given. Considering the fact that in return, you get to avoid an eternity of agony you rightfully deserve, I don't think spending the time to carefully examine the Holy texts is all that much to ask for.

As to why we need to pay for our sins, you DO have a choice. There's nothing physically preventing you from living a life just as perfect as Jesus did. When he was on Earth, he was physically human, just like you. There have been plenty of times in your life when you could have resisted the urge to sin, yet you succumbed and sinned anyways. You will continue to do so. The fact that no human other than Jesus will achieve this perfect life, however, doesn't mean that it's impossible.

>Pay for my penalty by burning in hell for all eternity?

And yes, sin, no matter how "small" we think of it, is, by definition, the ultimate antithesis of God's goodness. As God's goodness is infinite, sinning is an act of infinite evil as well, and as such justifies eternal torment. Again, this absolutely sucks for us, or at least it would have had Christ not sacrificed himself to save us.

>Ah yes i guess i should just accept that because god loves us all am i right?

Again, circumventing Justice in the name of love is not righteous. A parent grounding their kid for doing bad things doesn't mean said parent doesn't love their child. It's just that bad actions need to have consequences.

>Seriously though i’m not complaining, I don’t know where you got that from but these arguments from analogy are unsound and don’t show any relation whatsoever.

Defend this claim

>A better analogy would be a parent complaining about a child being hungry despite not having feed them. Since we don’t choose the environment or genetics we are born with.

If hunger here is analogous to being sentenced to Hell, then Christ literally DID feed us. He sacrificed himself on the cross to feed us, in fact.

>I don’t see how why i need to take the words of the bible as fact to criticize the bible. We already talked about the resurrection in which i haven’t taken a word of the scriptures as fact. Anyway I don’t want to diverge this conversation to evolution but do you deny evolution?

Well, then we aren't talking about the same God, are we? In this case, I agree, whatever non-biblical God you're describing me is probably just as horrible as you're telling me he is, but God as described in the Bible isn't.

There is a difference between arguing about whether the Bible is true (where the Bible being true is NOT a given), and criticizing the God as described in the Bible, where neither party is allowed to contradict his depiction in the Bible... because we are discussing God AS DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE.

>You earlier said that god made adam and eve perfect and free from sin, if they had such a perfect nature how can they let themselves be deceived, it seems like god creating adam and eve made a mistake by making them able to being deceived which is a contradiction because god is supposed to be all knowing. It’s also contradictory to say that they choose to sin by their own free will and was deceived, those are mutually exclusive options.

Perfect =/= immune to deception. Perfect here means "does not suffer from a sinful nature, nor has ever sinned in his life", or, in other words, isn't the mortally dependent sin addict like modern humans are. Being deceived isn't a sin, so it's not a contradiction to say a perfect human can be deceived. I also don't know what God being all knowing has to do with any of this. Yes, he knew Adam and Eve will be deceived eventually. What exactly does this contradict? And finally... do you know what free will is? Adam and Eve CHOSE to believe the Serpent's lies, and free will is the ability to choose. Again, I don't see a contradiction here.

>This is a strawman, i never claimed a resurrection was impossible, just highly improbable. I never said it’s impossible on the basis of rejecting all evidence.

Alright, I agree, resurrection is highly improbable, yet Christ rose from the dead regardless. As proof I offer the Bible. Why do you dismiss the Bible as proof?

>It’s funny that you talk about circular reasoning because that’s the exact thing your doing when proving the bible with the bible: the bible is true because i know the bible is the word of god, i know the bible is the word of god because the bible is true.

Alright, perhaps you misunderstood me. My reasoning is as follows: The Bible is a reliable historical source by our current historicity standards (based on the reasons I offered up in my paragraph). To automatically treat as invalid because it contains improbable events isn't proper, because the improbability of a possible (you never claimed such an event is impossible, of course) event isn't grounds to dismiss the possibility of it occurring. With this in mind, the Bible, as a valid historical account, records the supernatural feats God has performed throughout the ages, which then serve to proof to God's claims (which were also recorded in our reliable historical documents) that he is God.

Then you quoted several of my paragraphs without addressing them. Usually when I write such long replies I first type them out separately and then copy paste them into the Reddit reply box, but sometimes I simply forget to paste something. I assume the same thing happened to you.

>The 60 years later part, you can literally google when he wrote the letters. I don’t know why your mentioning mathew when were talking about paul.

Honestly, my bad, I missed the part where you specifically name Paul in your reply, I'm sorry. Anyways, the first Google result, Sparknotes, dates Paul's letters to 50-58 ad. Christ is historically agreed to have died 30-36 ad. That's 28 years at most, not 60.

>The problem is that a resurrection is a fundamentally different kind of event than any other type of event, a resurrection is something supernatural and i think you would agree that it should be held to a higher standard when it comes to evidence. So with having a guy claim people saw a resurrection happen but the people themselves having no witness accounts it sounds more likely that he lied about it.

Indeed, a high standard of proof is necessary for supernatural claims, but if we automatically dismiss written accounts than it becomes impossible to prove supernatural events before the advent of photography even if they DID occur. Lying is an alternative explanation, one that I WOULD consider more reasonable than Christ performing true supernatural feats... if I had a sufficient reason to expect the Apostles to lie. As things stand, however, the Apostles would have gained absolutely NOTHING from lying about Christ's miracles; quite the opposite, they had to abandon their previous lives and devote themselves to spreading a message they were ostracized and aggressively persecuted for. Many of the Apostles suffered brutal torture and painful deaths in an attempt to get them to deny Christ resurrecting, yet they refused to. With this in mind, I see no logical reason why they would be lying.

>You presented no evidence

The Bible.

/r/PoliticalCompassMemes Thread Parent Link - i.redd.it