dlrht

Yes, I know all of this and get it. I get that you're tired of it. But all I see is someone being unnecessarily snarky in someone else's conversation and you defending and justifying it with "we're tired of it". I didn't make a big deal of it at all, if someone's going to disrespect me like that I'm not giving it the time of day, but you're here justifying it so now I have to reply why it's not an ok response and have to justify my own reply because you projected that I am trying to convert this random drive by commenter when I was clearly not

Why don't we just accept that you two are being unnecessarily disrespectful? I do not enter other people's conversations and reply with "I don't want to hear this". That's all there is to it

You make a really excellent point, and I think I retract what I have posited. But I think nobody being exempt of fault is quite true, no?

I don't know what part of "death-cultsplainin'" and me replying with "copium" makes you think there was a "conversation" going on

Let me explain my thoughts. I have taken time to write up something for someone else and someone- an unrelated party, barges in and pretty rudely replies with no intention to say anything, just to write a snide one word comment as if it's supposed to be anything other than a disrespectful comment.

Does it seem like when I said "thanks for contributing nothing to our discussion" I was trying to convert someone? I don't know where you got that idea. I was expressing that one word replies aren't good conversation at all. It's just annoying. My thoughts here are that it's pretty rude to come into a conversation just to go "haha cultist". I think people who look down on religion need to stop finding every opportunity to disrespect and be condescending to others who are invested in the topic.

Someone asked questions and I was just answering them. And for some reason you think I am in the wrong here when someone is clearly replying to me without an interest in actually talking to me. You know that person could have easily said nothing. If someone "may not want to hear it again" there are numerous solutions to this: close the thread, collapse the comment, reply with "sorry I really don't like this". Snarkily replying with "cultist" is not one of them. It's just rude and disrespectful. Maybe you guys should stop conflating disrespect with actual expression of disinterest, because it's not.

In no circumstance do I find one word snarky replies a sufficient or respectful way to reply to someone engaging in an actual discussion. Like ever. Religious discussion context or not, it's just a terrible reply. Idk why you think me replying with "yes whatever you want" is somehow me trying to convince him into a religion, like what. You are projecting and inserting things into this situation that are not there

The notion is mind boggling because being guilty by proxy is not how it works anyway. If you could find a 100% objectively guiltless man I'd totally concede that guilt by proxy is how it works, but let's face it, literally everyone on this earth is not perfect or blameless. You don't need a proxy to be guilty, everyone already is, its not hard to see when you look at the people in the world

If every man after Adam is guilty by proxy, Jesus would've been guilty as well as soon as he was born. But Christianity clearly posits the opposite of that

I don't have exact answers for this, but if you look at it as if Adam was indicative of all of mankind (which he was), you can see it less like people are condemned when theyre born but more like all people are inherently broken/flawed/sinners. Original sin was just the first example of it. If there were people out in the world who were objectively flawless and sinless I'd take a totally different stance, but mankind being broken and evil is just pretty consistent with history and with the bible

Christianity doesn't exactly say it's a grievous error to be born and that you're condemned for it, it more says that you're inherently broken but you can still be redeemed

I mean, even in a society you have free will and get punished for not confirming to it? Do you think societies as a whole with laws and rules are tiresome and you don't want words like "criminal" tossed around? Are you going to just leave society and not live in community with others?

You can do your own thing for sure. But everyone, even people who believe and are Christian, are sinners. Literally everyone is a sinner. You can still be at peace with your own thing anyway, even in a religious context. Christians find peace while admitting to being sinners. I'm not saying you need to, you're totally free to do your own thing. I'm just explaining things really

Yes sir whatever you say great discussion

Seems you could have read my comment better

What a well formulated response. You're right about everything you've said in regards to what the text literally says, but you've still missed the point.

I was speaking hyperbole, the bible is massive and definitely lends itself to missing the significance of certain events, especially if you blitz through it. But Jesus dying is still a significant event of the book, without it the whole book itself loses its narrative cohesion and collapses on itself. And handwaving mentions of the cross/Jesus dying on the cross away as "a few mentions of it in the epistles" (which is 21/27 books in the NT btw) is exactly what you're doing, downplaying the significance of the event. The epistles arent random side stories in the bible, they're one of the most applicable and relevant portions of the whole text

Jesus coming and dying is alluded to before it happens, prophesied, then recounted and written about multiple times throughout the whole text. It is indeed a significant event. You don't need the text to focus literally on the cross itself for it to be a symbol of the event that occurred. Which is what I've already said prior. "the cross as a symbol is directly supported in the text" is exactly what I already said is not being discussed. You seem to be arguing points that no one is arguing.

Look, you read the Bible, you study the text, and you realize Jesus death which happened on a cross is a big deal, the cross then is merely a symbol of that event. It's that simple. The cross is not a symbol of itself, which is what your analysis seems to imply. The cross being a symbol is not some conspiracy about gaslighting people on what the bible says about the cross. It's just an easy way to represent what is one of the most significant events of the bible in addition to the direct references to it

Copium

So... these are excellent questions and I'm afraid I personally can't answer all of them since I'm not that knowledgeable here. But I do believe people smarter than I have come up with better answers than I will give too. I'm afraid I don't understand your question regarding original sin being forgiven. I'll try to answer the rest from my experiences, though

So think of it this way: if God created humans to have free will, this means they can choose to be bad. You may be asking, why would God create a world where bad can exist? Doesn't that seem flawed? But if God were to create a world where bad can't exist, then humans wouldn't have true free will. God didn't create the world with bad things in it, he created the world as good (in Genesis, the first chapter of the bible, he continually says "it is good" after everything he creates.)

So God creates the world as good and put humans with free will into the world. And because they have true free will, they also have the choice of making the world bad, which is what ended up happening. The pint is, "Bad" as a concept must exist in order for there to be true free will

So if bad can exist, then logically there has to be consequences for bad things. Otherwise it's not bad. If there are no consequences it can't be bad, it just doesn't make any sense. So sinning, which is the bad we've been talking about, has the consequence of death. I hope that kind of answers the question of "why do people have to be punished for sins"

Humans were not intended to be ignorant, and they were already intelligent. They just didn't have specific knowledge. And this is true even to this day. We as humans don't know everything and we never will. But humans had free will even before they had the knowledge from eating the fruit. They willingly disobeyed God's instructions before they even ate the fruit. They were already intelligent. I guess in a sense they were designed to be ignorant if by ignorant you mean "does not have unending knowledge about everything in existence". Then indeed, humans were never designed to have 100% of all the answers. If they did, they would be no different from God. And this is clear even to this day. Not even science can explain everything and we're always discovering/learning new things. An aside: from here you can kind of see that the bible is pretty accurate about the way it describes humans objectively, from having free will to having gaps in complete knowledge of the universe

God didn't take anything out on Jesus, but Jesus sacrificed himself for other humans. I'm not sure of the imagery of hell, note that I could be wrong here , but Hell is separation from God, not necessarily a physical torturing session. And this makes sense, when you sin, you go further away from God since you're disobeying him. And when you disobey someone, that means you don't trust them. And if you don't trust them, you're not getting any closer to them. And hell is just eternal separation from God, which, to a Christian, is the worst thing you can experience if you truly believe God is the greatest gift and biggest form of love you can experience. That's kind of the gist of it

I couldn't answer your questions on humans in hell before crucification since I need to sleep now, but I do have some ideas/potential answers. I do think it is a question worth looking into, for both you and I!

You seemed to have wholly misinterpreted the comment you're replying to in your condescending rambling. Kinda crazy that you even mentioned RFID payments somehow in your tangent. You lost the plot big time

No one said "the bible says the cross is a symbol for the religion of Christianity". Not a single verse says that, and no one claimed so. but the cross in the text is important and is symbolic of redemption/love/sacrifice. You don't need the text to say that, it's just a simple literary analysis. That's how symbols work.

Like what are you even saying with your last paragraph there? If you read the Bible, the importance and significance of the event where Jesus died on a cross is kind of hard to miss. It's wild to me that you can make a comment like yours and then pretend you're so wise and intelligent and above other people while you're rambling nonsense about RFID payments. Get a grip, dude.