Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • That was his whole purpose in coming as a man in the first place. To save his people for their sins. The only way to do that was to be the perfect sacrifice. Being God, he *could have* saved himself at any time he wanted. He chose to sacrifice himself so that his people could have a right relationship with their God.
    • Thank you.

      I myself am not particularly religious, but I was raised in a religious manner.

      It seems to me that the entire "blame" issue seems to overlook some pretty important issues (and I'll not address the issue of Jesus and God being the same... since Jesus is referred to as the "son of God" I will refer to them as seperate entities... even tho that may not be so).

      - Did God know that Jesus was going to die?

      - Did God want Jesus to die?

      - Could God have stopped the death of Jesus if desired?

      - Did God p
      • I has to do with love. God could have created Adam and Eve as perfect beings that blindly did what he wanted. Where is the love there? Instead he created them innocent with the ability to choose to obey. God knowing they would "fall" into sin created a way that people could be reconciled back to a Holy, righteous, God who cannot wink at sin.

        Q: Did God know that Jesus was going to die?
        A: Certainly. The Bible states the plan was created even before the foundations of this world were set.

        Q: Did God want

        • It was the only way to forgive His people for their sins. -- IANAC, but I think I understand Christian mythology quite well. So I don't agree. John the Baptist was born without being tainted with the original sin -- else, he couldn't have baptised Jesus and actually "wash" him from the original sin due to his human nature. So this was not the only way -- because God is infinitely powerful -- but this was the better way to have Christians have a personal relationship with Him. How could have God demonstrated
          • Well, you'll hear different perspectives from those who call themselves Christian. I unapologetically represent myself as a "true Christian" and reject Catholicism as well as most Protestant denominations. As I stated in my original journal entry, the idea of hereditary guilt or original sin is not a Biblical doctrine and thus not a part of my religion.

            I've never heard Catholics express anything about John the Baptist in regard to original sin or not: I've only heard that claim made about Mary and Jesus

            J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
            • The idea of hereditary guilt or original sin is not a Biblical doctrine. I quite like this theology, but living in a Catholic country, I'm obviously more familiar with the Catholic doctrine, which, IIRC, teaches that babies are not sin-free, even Jesus. I may be wrong, I'll have to check my sources.

              Most Catholics nowadays think that baptism is the only way to wash away the original sin. This is actually not a truly Catholic doctrine -- Augustine explains it quite well in the City of God: during the first ce

              • The Biblical teaching is that baptism is for washing away sin (Acts 22:16), but not for washing away original sin; it washes away one's own sin. In the New Testament noone EVER delayed baptism. (Examples: Acts 2:41, Acts 8:36, Acts 10:47-48, and Acts 16:33, especially the last one.) The doctrine is that Christ is coming at any minute (I Thessalonians 5) completely unexpectedly and that after that event (or, of course, one's own death, which could also happen at any minute) there is no longer any chance to have one's sins forgiven. The Bible also teaches that one cannot be good enough to earn forgiveness of one's sins (Ephesians 2:8-9, Psalm 49:7-8), so even martyrdom cannot do that, no matter what Catholics say. (Baptism isn't an attempt to be "good enough to earn forgiveness," but is simply the commandment God gave to be initiated into the Christian faith at which point He grants forgiveness. The distinction seems lost on many Protestants, who claim all kinds of other reasons for baptism besides forgiveness of sins, as given in Acts 2:38, Romans 6, and I Peter 3:21.)

                I have never heard of anyone charging for baptism, though I wouldn't be surprised. That might be only in Europe (though I really don't know but that Catholic churches might charge for baptism here in the U.S.). Most Christians I know will gladly baptize anywhere at any time of day or night upon request, and would never think of charging. (The thought has never entered my mind before.) Most Protestants I know will gladly schedule a baptism at some convenient date (once a month or once a year) since they don't think it's important enough to do immediately, as the Bible taught; I doubt they charge, but I've never checked. Even without charging it seems like the Protestants have more to gain financially from a baptism than Catholics, assuming the new member contributes, since they generally baptize adults rather than children. :)

                J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers