@ghost-of-a-duke saidAnd I am expressing my take on it ~ which is that it is incoherent ~ I am not expressing a Christian point of view. If you believe that Jesus allowing himself to be killed is actually the greatest expression of altruism in history, then so be it. But I don't think you do. If you're just trotting out some dogma that you don't believe in, then why?
I didn't ask if you found it coherent. I presented the atonement as the greatest expression of altruism in history, from a Christian's perspective.
@medullah saidAn admirable attempt sir. 🙂
There are times when I won’t understand a question. If you aren’t happy with the answer give me another bite at the cherry.
Jesus was human and was executed; we could debate what on but let’s for argument sake accept cross.
Did he have a divine nature yes, but he was still human. I think that’s the bit you are interested in?
I don’t know of any Christian sect/denom ...[text shortened]... ne nature could experience death, but I don’t think that’s what your after.
Does that do the job?
@medullah saidThe principal makes sense, but we are still left with the problem (certainly from my perspective) that science has discounted the biblical narrative of creation. It is therefore impossible for me to accept that Adam (as presented in the narrative) existed as an actual person. And if he didn't exist as an actual person the whole house of cards collapses. No Adam = No original sin = No need for a last Adam.
I do not share you view on the bible account, but it shouldn’t prevent us still discussing your point.
You can’t take Adam off if the table, otherwise the proposition of Jesus being the last Adam won’t make sense; you can’t say there is no Adam then discuss Jesus being the last of something that you decline to say has existed. So allow me to reposition the proposition.
...[text shortened]... be directed.
Does the principal make sense - it’s a bit like swapping out a faulty part of a car?
The Adam and Eve account (again from my perspective) was clearly intended as figurative. We evolved as a species, and far from falling, continue to progress.
@fmf saidWhy are you pretending you didn't read that last 4 words of this sentence:
And I am expressing my take on it ~ which is that it is incoherent ~ I am not expressing a Christian point of view. If you believe that Jesus allowing himself to be killed is actually the greatest expression of altruism in history, then so be it. But I don't think you do. If you're just trotting out some dogma that you don't believe in, then why?
'I presented the atonement as the greatest expression of altruism in history, from a Christian's perspective.'
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI am not pretending anything. Read my post again. I don't think you trotting out some dogma that you don't believe in is of any interest. Its convolution and incoherence are more interesting.
Why are you pretending you didn't read that last 4 words of this sentence:
'I presented the atonement as the greatest expression of altruism in history, from a Christian's perspective.'
@ghost-of-a-duke saidPretending that you haven't read any of divegeester's posts about atonement and "The Trinity" over the last 6-7 years is a very low-grade kind of discourse on your part.
Do you agree your understanding of God is as convoluted as the Trinity?
-Removed-The answer is simple, but you do not want to hear it. They have to stop living sinfully and await the judgment of God. The problem is that your church preaches to people this 'once saved always saved' nonsense doctrine, which is not in the bible and then ask these questions when faced with clear statements from Paul and other Apostles that there is no inheritance in the Kingdom of God if the born-again Christian reverts to a sinful lifestyle.
@fmf saidPerhaps you are simply unable to see something from someone's else's perspective.
I am not pretending anything. Read my post again. I don't think you trotting out some dogma that you don't believe in is of any interest. Its convolution and incoherence are more interesting.
@fmf saidYou appear to have accidentally edited out this part of my post:
Pretending that you haven't read any of divegeester's posts about atonement and "The Trinity" over the last 6-7 years is a very low-grade kind of discourse on your part.
(FMF does, even if he only presents that to you rhetorically or at private soirées).
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI am fully aware of the Christian perspective. But I don't see what's the benefit of you - of all people - regurgitating it here to Christians who already know what the Christian perspective is, especially when you don't subscribe to it.
Perhaps you are simply unable to see something from someone's else's perspective.