jakee

I take it that means you don't know how to answer any more questions? No. Just yours which have nothing to do with the topic of the thread. But you can take it however you want. Just don't have the time for the usual back and forth political garbage. Who is it you think you’re talking to? Look at my username. You and I have only been talking about the topic of the thread. You allowed yourself to get sidetracked talking to someone else about political garbage but frankly, that’s your own damn fault. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I take it that means you don't know how to answer any more questions? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I do. You've ignored them since you got sucked up into this off topic gun nonsense. He's ignored all of the serious questions. That's what he does. I wouldn't say he's ignored them this time around (not many, anyway), mostly it's been a case of giving intentionally incomplete, vague, obscure or downright non-sequitur answers. Come to think of it, I'm not really sure whether that's better or worse than just ignoring them. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I do. You've ignored them since you got sucked up into this off topic gun nonsense. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

No three strikes laws. No politically motivated, ludicrously long mandatory sentences for small time drug offences and other 'hot-topic' crimes that aren't warranted by the actual danger posed to society by the criminal. Honestly, this is just obvious common sense stuff. It's not rocket surgery. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I'm not talking about friends. Ah. So when you say "Mexican" you mean "criminal, welfare seeking, drain on society", not "a person from Mexico"? Once again, like the death thing, if you're going to speak in code you shouldn't expect people to understand you. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

In this regard, punishment is certainly a consequence of sin which is transgression of the Law. Just like in our judicial system. However, it is not “the ‘only important thing’ that has to happen” as a result. I never said that. That’s only half the story. I went on to describe the rest. The part where God stepped in sending his Son, to pay the fine which was due us, in our place, because it is impossible for us to do so, imputing his righteousness to us, and our guilt to him, both undeserved. But again, to me it sounds like everything you're describing there is about the punishment. The punishment is the only thing that moves the narrative forward, the rest is window dressing. Without the punishment, none of the rest of it matters. Without the punishment, none of it would make any difference to us, correct? Jesus had two complete natures. In essence, he was fully human and fully divine. It’s called the hypostatic union. I fail to see how that answers or even addresses the question in any sense whatsoever. Is either of the Jesuses currently spiritually dead and in the process of being punished forever? Again, he suffered infinitely more than the obvious. The Bible says that “It pleased Yahweh to crush him.” God did not withhold judgment on him in order to ransom his people. But he doesn't withold judgment on us either, does he? Except he doesn't withold judgment on us, forever. He didn't withold judgment on Jesus for 3 days, then he did withold it, and has been ever since. How did Jesus suffer enough in 3 days to match how much we suffer for infinity? I think you said something earlier about hope, right? Well Jesus knew what was going to happen, didn't he? No matter what god was doing to him he had more than hope, he had the knowledge that it was temporary, and pretty soon everything would be amazing again. But you said dead people have no hope at all. if you're not in, you're out forever. How can Jesus have been through anything that matches that? No, I'm focusing on three days of spiritual death. How many times do I have to say spiritual? Spiritual, spiritual, spiritual. Unless you think spiritual death is just being dead in a tomb, then why on earth do you think that's what I'm talking about? Whatever it is you think it means, that's what I mean when I say it. You said the punishment due was spiritual death. If you're now saying that focusing on spiritual death is is totally wrong, then you are being an ass. What does the worthiness have to do with the severity of the punishment? How can temporary punishment followed by eternal reward be worse than eternal punishment with no hope of escape? How is that possible? God did not withhold punishment on his Son. That’s the point. How is that the point? He clearly did withhold punishment. He withheld it almost immediately after he started it. Why can't god decide to stop punishing us after he starts? You said we only get one chance, why that arbitrary decision? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Death row itself is hugely expensive, let alone the additional legal costs involved. Get rid of the death penalty and you can afford to keep several times more lifers in prison than you would otherwise have executed. No doubt, but it would also be nice to know that the person sentenced to life in prison isn't going to be your neighbor in a few years. So get rid of the death penalty and you'll be closer to that goal. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

You said the punishment is the only important thing that has to happen as a result of sin. Jesus is in fact currently alive and in a place of honor with God. He will return again to judge the world in righteousness. Right, so how did he suffer the punishment that was due to us? Jesus is not spiritually dead, therefore he did not spiritually die. In what sense did he serve as the recipient of the eternal punishment that will happen to us? How does that work, then? If three days of spiritual death is enough to satisfy the requirement then why isn't that what will happen to me if I don't believe in god before I die? How can you tell me that god is perfectly just if you're telling me that only 3 days of wrath is sufficient punishment for a life of sin, then the ensuing eternity of wrath is completely unnecessary? I'm not focusing on the physical crucifiction. I didn't say anything about the physical crucifiction. It's patently obvious that the physical crucifiction couldn't possibly be a substitute for eternal punishment. Look, it's not my fault you chose to use such ambiguous terms to describe what you think is going on, but I was very clear that I was using 'death' to mean your term 'spiritual death' not 'death' death. Please try to pay attention. Now, what unseen spiritual suffering did take place, and why was it enough to satisfy everyone's sin when each individual sinner will actually face far worse punishment? I have no idea what you're talking about. It's really pretty simple. I asked what would happen if I changed my mind after I died when it became clear that god really does exist.You said it was too late and I'd still be punished forever, god only makes that decision once. But with Jesus, god started punishing him, then stopped punishing him. Why can't he do that with us? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Death row itself is hugely expensive, let alone the additional legal costs involved. Get rid of the death penalty and you can afford to keep several times more lifers in prison than you would otherwise have executed. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Amazing, but not relevant to what you were saying earlier where the punishment was the only important thing. A little focus would make this easier to follow. But Bigun says he isn't dead (spiritually dead). Bigun says he is alive at the right side of God. Which of you is correct? Suffering the wrath of God for (according to Bigun) 3 days. That's not the ultimate punishment, is it? I thought the ultimate punishment was eternity. Why can God change his mind after he starts punishing Jesus but he can't change his mind after he starts punishing us? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Us? Did Jakee just reveal his "inner" Christian? Nope, just paraphrasing your statements. Would you agree with the way I stated the situation? If so, does it make sense to you? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Jay came into this thread with a question tailored to invite a Socratic debate. Now he's got one. Pretty sure we're both happy with that

And that's the punishment due to sinners? I'd quite happily take that on myself, so what do I need him for? No, but you guys are definitely fucking with us. Jesus took the ultimate punishment for us... by going to the best place in the universe for all eternity. And if you don't accept that you have to take the punishment yourself.... of going to the worst place in the universe for all eternity. Ummm. Whaaaa? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Good question. Yeah. I know What happened to him then? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Yes. There are different kinds of death. Ok. You should consider that this is not obvious, and adjust your style of explaining accordingly

Then how did god pay the penalty for us? God can’t be in the absence of god, therefore god can’t fulfil the punishment due for sin, surely? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

What "is" the penalty? Death (Romans 6:23) Ummm.... but when it comes time for me to go to heaven or not.... I'll be dead. Everyone dies. Are there different kinds of death? Because, as was said, it is impossible for us to settle our own debt. Not through death? Repentence is fine, I can get with 'you need to feel guilty about doing bad stuff' as a requirement. But why faith? I just don't see any reason to think any of this stuff is real. What's wrong with that? If I die and find out any of it is real, then I'll change my mind. Freedom to 'not sin'? What does that mean? People who have faith still sin, right? You already said it's impossible for them not to. So what is the meaning of having the freedom to do something it's impossible to do? Why don't I have the freedom to not sin without faith? Why? I do the same stuff as people who do have faith, so actions have nothing to do with it. Why does not being a sycophant make me an enemy? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

No, the reasonable interpretation is still that you're assuming more from his post than was written, because you assessed it based on what other people have said before. Which you clearly stated several times. "The argument goes back much further than states' struggles to get the actual killing aspect of the executions. No need to assume a new interpretation." If you're not using a new interpretation of his new post, you are by definition using an old interpretation. Then that old interpretation would be of an old argument, not of his new post. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

But why? See, this is again where I thought you were going to have a reasoned argument but you're just coming back to 'because god says so'. What was the penalty? Why through faith? What does faith have to do with it? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Well two things then; you said we shouldn’t be allowed to live with god because he’s holy and we’re not. Now you say holiness is perfect adherence to the law. Well, I’ve never perfectly adhered to my national laws, and neither have you. Yet we’re both allowed to live in society, because to be expelled just for any of the petty crap I’ve done would be unconscionably harsh. Why is our society fairer and more forgiving than god? Second, you said I have to take responsibility for not getting it right, now you say it’s impossible to get it right. So again, isn’t it gods responsibility for setting an impossible standard? Yes, that’s exactly my point. You asked how I could have any idea what a perfectly just being should do.... you’ve answered your own question. What you just said, that’s how I know. So do you want to revisit your earlier reply? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

You're reading WAY more into posts than what is actually written. Don't confuse what I've said with what you've (incorrectly) inferred. Whaaaat? In post #7 you clearly and definitely explain that you interpreted his post the way you did because of a common belief among other people. That's why you read more into the original post than was actually written. Really not sure what you're trying to gain by lying about it now? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I read his whole post. It was the basis of my interpretation. You just said that a pre-existing argument made by other people was the basis for your interpretation. You're assuming something beyond what was actually said. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I fail to see why the statement would seem inconsistent with my interpretation. The argument goes back much further than states' struggles to get the actual killing aspect of the executions. No need to assume a new interpretation. Ok.... You see the thing is that I'm replying to what he said, and you're replying to what a bunch of other people who aren't here have said. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

No, I think he means how on earth do you guys keep fucking up the actual act of killing someone? A common belief among many death penalty proponents is that the death penalty would better serve as a deterrent if those who are sentenced to death went directly from sentencing to the death chamber. I interpreted his comment as Billvon did. So you didn't read any of what he said after the quoted sentence? Not sure how you explain that context if you interpret the statement your way. Do you want to have an ideagasm?