What sin has God condemned you for?

or you could look at is like the rest of the world does. You are catholic, therefore condemned to hell. Looks like the whole world is condemned to hell, per the other people.

 

No.

He did.

God had a son.

The syntax of this sentence is bad. Re-read and make the necessary
corrections. At any rate, God gave his son as a sacrifice for the
sins of humanity. I hope this is the answer you're looking for.

Wrong, he did.

No. Not once.

I'm not sure what you're expecting. In fact I'm not sure as to why you're
asking these questions.

Do you read my posts? These questions say you don't.

 

excellent post, DA!

ftr, I also had problems deciphering that second one. a timely reminder not to drink and post.

 

How silly. The obvious and only answer is, I don't cheat, and no, I'm not a sock of crank. See, it is easy to answer when one is truthful. Dodging happens when one can't be truthful. As you well know and use as your M O.

 

OH... really... then crank sent you a notice authorizing you to speak for him/her? yeah right. Uh huh... sure... lol. It is always easy to answer when you are usurping the position of another person. You can say anything and that anything does not necessarily apply to that person whose position you have usurped.

 

To summarize.
God impregnated a virgin. You agree.
The baby is jesus, born to sacrifice himself for the sins of humanity. You agree.
jesus is god. you stated this many times.

But you said god did not have his son sacrificed.. You stated that many time.

Do you understand english?

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=361596&p=1064148154#post1064148154

 

Not one single time. I believe that's something you read into whatever
post I wrote.

In plain English:
God gave his son as a sacrifice.

God didn't murder his son.

 

Yet when you usurp, you do it to avoid. You do it to troll. Except when it's the sock. Then confusion.

1 2 3

- - - Updated - - -

I don't need plain english. I posted a link to your exact words. Nice try.

 

No, I do it for entertainment. You see you are making presumptions again.

 

Do you blame the hammer for the work of the carpenter? Do you blame the soldier for the faulty work of the smith?

 

If someone deliberately mowed PP down with a mack truck, he/she would blame the truck. or the road, or the street lights, or the grass on the kerb, or the weather, or the bored saps sitting in the traffic control centre, staring at flickering monitors for 9 hours a day, or satan, or his/her great grandfather for moving the family to such a dangerous location, or .... ad nauseum.

 

Funk what THEY would blame. What do YOU blame? Are you as blind as one who blames a tool?

 

why, the carpenter of course. who wouldn't? (apart from our hero)

 

And more than probably you and some others would blame God when you argue against the existence of God. Amazing... arguing that something does not exist and then willing to blame that something for things that are "bad" or "immoral" or "sinful" or "inhuman"..... etc.....

 

yep. we 'blame god' in the same way that you blame unicorns. for what, is unknown, but there it is.

 

Now that is absolutely absurd. Are you now suggesting that unicorns do exist and that because of your belief, that others can assume the right to blame unicorns?

 

He definitely believes in fluffy unicorns and some kind of magic man in the sky.
I'm waiting for him to provide evidence of his dogma. He mentions them quite
often.

 

I know exactly what you mean. Hang in there.

 

I will. And he has the gall to call us crazy, or something as such.

 

Get used to it. That is one of the favorite quoted passages from the non-theists. It means nothing because they have no PROOF of claim.

 

John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

Sent is not volunteered. And a voluntary suicide does not forgive anyone anything and only the immoral would sit under the cross waiting for their drop of blood.

Regards
DL

 

That and with such a belief, the sinner never has to apologise to his actual victim and that is not good for any society and was certainly not the Jewish way of thinking of forgiveness.

http://www.thepowerofforgiveness.com/pdf/A_Jewish_Perspective_on_Forgiveness.pdf

That sin against the holy spook is funy when you consider that the three heads of God are supposed to all reside in the same one God yet we cannot cure just that one third somehow when we curse the other two.

That hurt my head and it is no wonder that Christians do not think of their foolish theology.

Regards
DL

 

Why? Is he evil?

Are you saying that God would let evil overcome him and that he would respond with such an evil response?

Romans 12:21
Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Regards
DL

 

Three days of R & R is not killing anything and is not a sacrifice to an omnipotent God.

Regards
DL

 

Ahhh... but the flesh was killed... the flesh contains the ego....
"e·go (g, g)n. pl. e·gos 1. The self, especially as distinct from the world and other selves.
2. In psychoanalysis, the division of the psyche that is conscious, most immediately controls thought and behavior, and is most in touch with external reality.
3. a. An exaggerated sense of self-importance; conceit.
b. Appropriate pride in oneself; self-esteem."

You have to remember that in the OT God required a 'blood sacrifice' for the atonement of sins.... The blood of Jesus was spilled and the body of Jesus died..... was killed.