Thread: Couple of q's about jesus

I'm not particularly religious, and I don't know many specifics. But...

Well about the "where's the sacrifice part".. the whole point (I think?) was that Jesus didn't know he was immortal and would be resurrected and all that. So it sounds like more of a sacrifice on his part, not necessarily God's.

The second question I'm confused about as well. It's not like anyone's sins vanished after Jesus died.. *sigh*.. and the whole Adam and Eve story makes me a little angry. lol

Who the heck is Yahweh?

I know, I should read the whole thing before answering. So here I go.

Ok I'm back. and I think by Yehweh, you mean GOD, but he does have a name, but I wont post it because of respect of it from getting slandered. But the reason He sent his son to earth was because (I'll try to explain this in the most simple way I can) because of a "universal law". Which us mortals couldn't possible pass. And also because of Adams fall it just made the whole matters worse. Thus the Plan of Salvation comes in. Jesus was a huge sacrafice, in return for humans to surpass this Universal law. He knew what he had to do and knew the steps and when it was coming when he was alive. He basicly paid for our sins. Because our own sins would not let us pass this law, something had to be done to recompence this judgement. If it werent for his sacrafice, we would go streight to hell, and only a few good would pass into exaltation. So, Jesus paid for our sins, and we are in dept of him, because now we dont need to be very perfect to reach his kingdom. alright

Simple enough? Any questions?

Originally posted by Scwigglie
I'm not particularly religious, and I don't know many specifics. But...

Well about the \"where's the sacrifice part\".. the whole point (I think?) was that Jesus didn't know he was immortal and would be resurrected and all that. So it sounds like more of a sacrifice on his part, not necessarily God's.

The second question I'm confused about as well. It's not like anyone's sins vanished after Jesus died.. *sigh*.. and the whole Adam and Eve story makes me a little angry. lol

Yeah but it's not really much of a sacrifice is it? Jesus isn't a seperate entity of the trinity. While he might have been ignorant of his immortality at the point of cruicifixion.. he would have died (he might have spent 3 days in hell, I've heard that) and been ressurected. A sacrifice on his part is a sacrifice on god's part. And it wasn't much of a sacrifice in light of his immortality. Imagine it "owww these nails hurt. dieing sucks. *dead* oh what? eternal life? ressurection? meh dieing isn't that bad"

And about the sins vanishing, didn't jesus die to forgive us our sins? Original sin is still a sin.

Oh and IZ:

Yahweh, jehovah, el, god, g-d - they're all the same. The judeo-christian god. The "father" in the NT mythos.

Originally posted by IZ
Ok I'm back. and I think by Yehweh, you mean GOD, but he does have a name, but I wont post it because of respect of it from getting slandered. But the reason He sent his son to earth was because (I'll try to explain this in the most simple way I can) because of a \"universal law\". Which us mortals couldn't possible pass. And also because of Adams fall it just made the whole matters worse.

I see we posted at the same time. Anyways, yes i do mean god when i say yahweh. That IS his name... what name are you posting for fear of slander?

Ok, I know a bit about the bible and I've never heard this \"universal law\". The only possible universal law in the bible that I can think of is that of original sin, which we are all guilty of. On that topic, what use is a \"universal law\" which noone can pass? What'd he just create himself into a corner?

Wait I just read that properly, it's not original sin... that just made it worse? Dude, theres nothing of that sort in the bible. We were perfect and ignorant and sinless before the fruit was eaten.

Jesus was a huge sacrafice, in return for humans to surpass this Universal law.
[/b]

That was the whole point of my post. He was NOT a sacrifice. He was created as 1 aspect of an immortal trinity, and therefore was never EVER going to be a sacrifice. He had eternal life from the moment he was born, sure he was cruicified, but so were a DAMN lot of other people - people who didnt have the gift of immortality. Their sacrifice was more than jesus'.

We knew what he had to do and knew the steps and when it was coming when he was alive. He basicly paid for our sins. Because our own sins would not let us pass this law, something had to be done to recompence this judgement.[/b]

Since I've said I'm a believer for the purposes of this argument, I know that he died for our sins. But why didnt he die for our original sin. If he died for that, allowing us into heaven - why arent we all 900 years old and dont have painful childbirth?

So, Jesus paid for our sins, and we are in dept of him, because now we dont need to be very perfect to reach his kingdom. [/b]

So let me get this straight, Yahweh created us so we'd never be able to get to heaven. Then he sends his immortal son to "die" to forgive us. And we're in debt to him for it?

Also, there was a 4000 year gap between creation and jesus. So..... he created us so we couldn't go to heaven. Then the added problem of original sin. THEN he waited 4000 years to "save us" with his sacrifice?

Also, there was a 4000 year gap between creation and jesus. So..... he created us so we couldn't go to heaven. Then the added problem of original sin. THEN he waited 4000 years to \"save us\" with his sacrifice?[/b]

You mean like creation of the world was 4000 years ago according to this religion? Do they not take fossils into account?

Imagine it \"owww these nails hurt. dieing sucks. *dead* oh what? eternal life? ressurection? meh dieing isn't that bad\" [/b]

lol It was a bit more brutal than that. Apparently, he suffered for a long time before the crucifiction. I was in some church or something, and there was an inscription below a statue of Jesus saying something like, "He experienced more sorrow than any man on Earth."

Originally posted by Scwigglie
[

You mean like creation of the world was 4000 years ago according to this religion? Do they not take fossils into account?

Well, you'd have to be a biblical literalist. Or a Young Earth Creationist (YEC). But yes. According to the bible the earth is..... ~6600 years old? And no they dont like fossils. And carbon dating is a lie apparantly

Not all christians believe that mind you.

It was a bit more brutal than that. Apparently, he suffered for a long time before the crucifiction. I was in some church or something, and there was an inscription below a statue of Jesus saying something like, \"He experienced more sorrow than any man on Earth.\"[/b]

Yeah, it was the night before now that I remember. Something about experiencing all the worlds sins? So it wasn't even ABOUT his death? Why make a big deal about the cruicifixion then.

Also, why the hell didnt Yahweh just forgive us? Why all the rigamorole with virgin births and jesus and cruicifixion. Seems like hes awfully tied up in the physical world for a creator.

Also, why the hell didnt Yahweh just forgive us? Why all the rigamorole with virgin births and jesus and cruicifixion. Seems like hes awfully tied up in the physical world for a creator.[/b]

Omg, exactly.. that's precisely why I don't follow a particular religion, because I think it's ridiculous that an all-mighty being would be so obsessed with the "sins" of the crazy little people running around Earth. And remember the puritans, who thought God was all full of punishment.

Not to offend anyone, though. I'd like some questions answered, too.

Ok, let me shine some light on this. (First off, I'll PM you on his name) And this may shock you, but the bible is NOT complete or a perfect testomony of the life of jesus or any other related religious acts and information. Now, There are "gods" and other forms of life above God. The "universal law" has always existed. its like judgement. Even God himself must follow it for he did not create it, because its been existing as from the beginning. Well you may say that the bible says that there is only one god and that he is the creator of all, This is because we should only believe in one god and none other. because he is "our" creator and god. So before jesus was born he knew in his premortal life his mission. He knew the steps to take to satisfy this law.

Ok the law is like this. Say I let you borrow 1,000 dollars. And I told you by the end of some days you will have to pay me back or you wont be let in my lets say house again. So the day comes and you have spent your money on things that didn't help you and didn't help you get the enough money to pay back. So you are doomed to live in the streets. And there is no way you can get in my house unless I get my 1,000. SO "someone" steps in and tells me, I will pay the money he ows you so he can go inside, and he will have to make it up me. So this is the only way that you were able to get back inside my house because you spent you life doing bad things and sinning, that you didn't have the enough good things to pass this Universal law. Thus the atonement to pay this law. Understand?

But back to Jesus. He knew his perpose, he could see the future. The steps were as he lived, and he was crusified for our sins. Making the Payment full of his sufering of is life to pay for our sins to get into heaven. But this does not exempt judgement.

And to answer you questions. Why arent we 900 years old? Because we corrupt our bodies with deasieses and cause us to live shorter lives from generation to generation. You could see your self the chronological order of the ages in the prophets who wrote in the bible reducing.

And God didn't create us so we can to straight to hell. We were sent to live to get closer to him. Only by passing this "Test" of life is the only way to proove ourselfs worthy of his presence. But there was a "Block" in the plan. Men are naturaly evil. and the universal law demans only good to pass. So god had a plan to lower the standereds by sacraficing his only son.

And you must take in notice that the time in the life beyond is not the same and here. Time there is not time, there is no time, eternity. God knew and watched humans. We were corrupt, and prophets prophisied of jesus coming.

So I hope I answered everything to your understanding. I think you may have more question on the shocking thing about the bible not being everything.

Okay, I have some answers. First of all, let it be known that I am Chrtistian, but not Catholic. I'm LDS (Mormon). Anyway, on to the answers. First of all, to the 'where's the sacrifice'. Jesus suffered all of the pain, guilt, and sorrow that anybody and everybody on this world has or will ever feel in order to allow us to REPENT for those sins. We aren't immediately forgiven, but we can be. Now for the 'Original Sin' bit. To quote the second Article of Faith (The Articles of Faith are kind of a brief outline of the Mormon beliefs), "We Believe that all men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression." Which makes sense, doesn't it? Why should we be punished for something we didn't do and had no control over?
Now, to shift gears. According to the Bible (KJV), the world has been around for some 5 or 6 thousand years. True, that doesn't explain the fossils and all that right there. But this world didn't just appear out of thin air. It was created out of several bits of other worlds that existed before this one. So you could say that it's just been recycled a few times, and there's still some pieces of what used to be here left. Anyway, about the whole not living 900 years and all. If Adam and Eve had stayed in the Garden of Eden, they never would have died, never would have had children, never would have known happiness or sorrow, right or wrong, etc. While there, there was no percieved good nor evil. Satan brought evil there, and Adam and Eve partook of the fruit. When they did this, they percieved the difference between right and wrong, and so brought pain, happiness, sorrow, sin, righteousness, etc into the world. It was part of the original plan for Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit, otherwise we would never have existed. So, why should we be punished for living? Another reason why I believe that we will not be punished for the original sin. Hope it was enlightening
And I'd be glad to answer other questions as best I can!

Nicely said Tsen. I cant argue with one of my brothers. if you know what I mean.

Originally posted by IZ
Ok, let me shine some light on this. (First off, I'll PM you on his name) And this may shock you, but the bible is NOT complete or a perfect testomony of the life of jesus or any other related religious acts and information.

..... then why follow it? If it is niether complete or perfect than how can you base a faith offa it. By the way, my best friend's a mormon - as far as I know then name's not a secret. I even included it abbreviated in my above list. I thought it was jews who didnt like god's name being used (which is why they write g-d). But I wont say it as you don't want me to.

Now, There are \"gods\" and other forms of life above God. The \"universal law\" has always existed. its like judgement. Even God himself must follow it for he did not create it, because its been existing as from the beginning.
[/b]

I'd assume that this is probably a part of the mormon faith? This universal law is never mentioned in the OT/NT as far as I know. Does joseph smiths book overwrite the bible in some cases? I know it add's in a lot of \"history\" for the american continent, plus a bit more of who god is/what happens in heaven. And god is NEVER below other beings in the OT/NT. Civilisations have been wiped out for presuming such (canaanites as an example)

Well you may say that the bible says that there is only one god and that he is the creator of all, This is because we should only believe in one god and none other. because he is \"our\" creator and god. So before jesus was born he knew in his premortal life his mission. He knew the steps to take to satisfy this law.

....


But back to Jesus. He knew his perpose, he could see the future. The steps were as he lived, and he was crusified for our sins. Making the Payment full of his sufering of is life to pay for our sins to get into heaven. But this does not exempt judgement.
[/b]

One question, if he could see the future - why the famous \"why have you forsaken me\" directed at god (from the cross).

Ok the law is like this. Say I let you borrow 1,000 dollars. .... [snip]
[/b]

So fllowing that analogy... god has only LOANED us life? And we're expected to pay him back for it? Selfish creator

And to answer you questions. Why arent we 900 years old? Because we corrupt our bodies with deasieses and cause us to live shorter lives from generation to generation. You could see your self the chronological order of the ages in the prophets who wrote in the bible reducing.
[/b]

Ummm, we live longer lives than ever before. As we progress from generation to generation our life expectancy gets longer, not shorter. Excepting some countries at the moment (I just read that zimbabwe now has a life expectancy of 40 for example).

Now why do we have painful birth? That is not a product of some disease, it is our nature as humans. And according to the OT, it happens because of the fall.

And God didn't create us so we can to straight to hell. We were sent to live to get closer to him. Only by passing this \"Test\" of life is the only way to proove ourselfs worthy of his presence. But there was a \"Block\" in the plan. Men are naturaly evil. and the universal law demans only good to pass. So god had a plan to lower the standereds by sacraficing his only son.
[/b]

Few things about that. God created us in his image, before the fall (eating the fruit) we were perfect. The only \"block\" in the plan that I can see is original sin. Please provide some sort of reference for this \"universal law\" or whatever that caused the block.

Don't you find it slightly insulting for a religion to say: \"you are all evil, believe and you'll be saved\".

So I hope I answered everything to your understanding. I think you may have more question on the shocking thing about the bible not being everything.[/b]

For the purposes of this thread I believe in the bible. But it is NOT a shock to me (an unbeliever) that the bible is not everything. What IS a shock to me is that people base thier faith on a book that they know isn't perfect. If one thing is wrong, why not the whole lot?

I'd assume you mean that the bible isn't everything, because of the lost gospel of christ (the book of mormon). No offence, but you know how that was discovered, 1/3 translated and lost right? Very dodgy. Plus the total lack of any archaelogical evidence for the nephite/other-ite wars in america.

That being said, I know a lot about christianity, and very little about mormonism. Feel free to call me on any wrong facts. And I'd REALLY like to hear verse references for this "universal law"

-spoon

bah this thread makes me type too much!

Originally posted by Tsen
Jesus suffered all of the pain, guilt, and sorrow that anybody and everybody on this world has or will ever feel in order to allow us to REPENT for those sins. We aren't immediately forgiven, but we can be.

So.... jesus' sacrifice was not only not much of a sacrifice (for reasons I mention above) but it wasn't even effective? So basically Jesus dies for mankind, but only for the small portion (especially at the time) who believes in him?

Now for the 'Original Sin' bit. To quote the second Article of Faith (The Articles of Faith are kind of a brief outline of the Mormon beliefs), \"We Believe that all men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.\" Which makes sense, doesn't it? Why should we be punished for something we didn't do and had no control over?
[/b]

Don't ask me, but original sin is a big part of the OT/NT. AFAIK the book of mormon doesn't overwrite these books, but call me on that if im wrong.

Now, to shift gears. According to the Bible (KJV), the world has been around for some 5 or 6 thousand years. True, that doesn't explain the fossils and all that right there. But this world didn't just appear out of thin air. It was created out of several bits of other worlds that existed before this one. So you could say that it's just been recycled a few times, and there's still some pieces of what used to be here left.
[/b]

That.... is something I've never heard before. All geographical/arcaelogical and biological evidence suggests that it's wrong though. As far as science can tell, this world has been this world for billions of years. Not created out of bits an pieces of other worlds.

Anyway, about the whole not living 900 years and all. If Adam and Eve had stayed in the Garden of Eden, they never would have died, never would have had children, never would have known happiness or sorrow, right or wrong, etc. While there, there was no percieved good nor evil. Satan brought evil there, and Adam and Eve partook of the fruit. When they did this, they percieved the difference between right and wrong, and so brought pain, happiness, sorrow, sin, righteousness, etc into the world. It was part of the original plan for Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit, otherwise we would never have existed. So, why should we be punished for living? Another reason why I believe that we will not be punished for the original sin.
[/b]

But we WERE punished for eating the fruit (as god intended). We were kicked out of the garden, we were given painful childbirth and we no longer live 900 years.

If original sin is not true, how are we judged evil?

Anyways as I said above, I know too much about christianity and not enough about mormonism.

-spoon

On the topic of being punished for other's sins (original sin and the like)

I just found this. Seems its not just original sin we get punished for.

the second he died he was on the right hand of god, sure in his immortality. [/b]

Well, technically he rose from the grave a day - or three days - bah, can't remember - after he was crucified. Easter Sunday. He then said some things to his disciples and such and then was supposedly lifted on a cloud to heaven.

One question, if he could see the future - why the famous \"why have you forsaken me\" directed at god (from the cross). [/b]

The way we were taught in a bible study course I took, you could interpret this however you would like. Some believe he was simply in anquish and cried out against God through the pain. Others believe it was him making a reference to the people distrusting God.


The bible is all about interpretation. You could read it in many different ways; that's what gives the radicals room to scream sins upon all people. Personally, I'd like to take an objective approach to the text. I enjoy studying the 'miracles' proclaimed therein and trying to find the truth hidden between the lines. Overall, though, the bible and Christianity is ridiculous in many respects.

However, like I've said before, I don't follow a particular God - Jesus faith. But I enjoy reading about it.

I might try Buddism, though.

Originally posted by spoon
Well, as you all probably know by now i'm a nonbeliever (particularly when it comes to xianity) but these question's have been bugging me for a while. *For the purposes of this discussion lets just suppose that the xian faith is real, so I'm a believer for this one (so no arguing \"but gods not REAL\")

So the whole point of jesus is that yahweh sent him down to die for our sins. Yah?

This is always portrayed as a big sacrifice on yahweh's parts (he sent his only son down to die for our sins, etc). * But what people seem to forget (or not know??) is that jesus, while being a man, is in fact one third of a truine god (its not pantheism, theres only 1 god - but it has 3 \"aspects\"). *Now if this was supposed to be a sacrifice by god to show how much he loves us.. wheres the sacrifice? *Sure he was born to get crucified, but he's infinte. *He was always going to rise again, and he was always going to sit on the right hand of god in heaven. *

It doesnt seem Yahweh made a sacrifice in sending an immortal son to \"die\". *The only sacrifice I can see in the story is the pain of cruicifixion by jesus - the second he died he was on the right hand of god, sure in his immortality. *But the same sacrifice was made by 2 criminals on either side of him, 1 of which did not get eternal life after it. *Isn't his sacrifice a bit more than jesus'?

Also, jesus died for our sins right? *One of the main things of xianity is the doctrine of originial sin. *We're all sinners because adam/eve ate the fruit. *Because of this childbirth is painful and we dont live to the same age as adam did (900~ years). *If jesus died for our sins, what about the original sin?

[edit to take out a double negative]

You're missing the whole point of the sacrifice. For one the "sacrifice" was much more then you think since he had the coice not to go through with it, instead he withstood excrusiating pain.

Jesus God and the Holy Spirit are the same yet diffrent the best way I can discribe it is Jesus is the body God is the mind and the Spirit is the soul. Unfortunantly it is out of human comprehention what the trinity is all about. (or out of My comprehention)

Like I said you missing the point.. The point of jesus was we would be able to directly have our sins forgiven and not needing to go through priests and taking lambs blood.. Because now his blood makes up for it.

The criminals were symbolism of the saved and the doomed, Crusifixion(sp) on the cross was commen back then, so Jesus was obviously on the spot light for -WHY- he was being killed.

Also Jesus died because of the condition of the world today, think of how many less believers would be here if not for him, almost none (besides the jews which I could see being sugnificantly smaller in number.)


I also noticed some debate on evolution, Carbon dating is the only meathod they really use and I hear it is highgly uneffective bast some 5,000 years (they keep changing the date of time after that) and all evolution dosent explain is the creator.

Originally posted by GestaltAlteration+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GestaltAlteration)</div>

I also noticed some debate on evolution, Carbon dating is the only meathod they really use and I hear it is highgly uneffective bast some 5,000 years (they keep changing the date of time after that)[/b]

Actually there are a wide variety of dating techniques used:

Superposition
Stratigraphy
Dendrochronology
Radiocarbon C14
Radiometric Dating Methods
Obsidian Hydration Dating
Paleomagnetic/Archaeomagnetic
Luminescence Dating Methods
Amino Acid Racemization
Fission-track Dating
Ice Cores
Varves
Pollens
Corals
Cation Ratio
Fluorine Dating
Patination
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio
Electron Spin Resonance
Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating

Just to name a few.

Some of these are accurate only within 5000 years as you said, others are accurate within 2-3 billion years and longer.

<!--QuoteBegin-GestaltAlteration
and all evolution dosent explain is the creator

Of course it doesn't, evolution isn't attempting to explain creation. If you want a scientific theory to explain creation, look at the cutting edge of theoretical physics (string theory, M-theory, inflation theory).

The Book of Mormon doesn't overwrite the Bible. However, the Bible isn't entirely translated correctly. It was translated thousands of years ago by scholars, and not religious men. As such, it can be expected that some of it was translated incorrectly. So, there is an extra portion of the Book of Mormon for corrected portions of the Bible. It isn't long, but it was unfinished because Joseph Smith died before he could complete it and afterwards the Mormons were forced to move West.

Er...could somebody make a simple list of simplified versions of the questions? Just cut down on the length and put them all in a list so we don't have to read five paragraphs to get the point of the topic? I'm a little pressed for time tonight, but if nobody does it before tomorrow I'll try to get to it.

Originally posted by Tsen
However, the Bible isn't entirely translated correctly. It was translated thousands of years ago by scholars, and not religious men. As such, it can be expected that some of it was translated incorrectly.

Umm, wouldn't it be more biased if it had been translated by religious men?

It was translated thousands of years ago by scholars[/b]

You mean all the separate scriptures or the bible as a whole? Because, if I remember correctly, the actual bible was written/put together by a king somewhere around 400 AD to unite his people via religion.

Originally posted by Tsen
The Book of Mormon doesn't overwrite the Bible. However, the Bible isn't entirely translated correctly. It was translated thousands of years ago by scholars, and not religious men. As such, it can be expected that some of it was translated incorrectly. So, there is an extra portion of the Book of Mormon for corrected portions of the Bible. It isn't long, but it was unfinished because Joseph Smith died before he could complete it and afterwards the Mormons were forced to move West.

If you can expect that some of it wasn't translated correctly, then all of it becomes suspect. And by the way, the entirety of the translation's of bibles (until recent times) has been by religious men. Scholars they might have been, but religion long had a hold over scholarly persuit (especially in xianty) take monks for example. The bible was solely the province of "holy" men for so long, that they could have changed it immensly from its first incarnation (to fit new beliefs, to erase errors, etc) and we would never know it. People were burned in the middle ages for suggesting the masses be able to read the bible (and that it should be translated from latin (latin right?) to do this).

The book of mormon was in no way left unfinished because of joseph smith's death. The book of mormon was roughly 1/3 translated by joseph smith (a convicted fraud - 1829 I think. look it up) from a language he had no knowledge of to king james' english. After he found it written on.. golden plates i think.. with a stone that allowed him to "see treasure in the ground" (that claim was a big part of him being convicted). It was only 1/3 translated because his wife stole it. Not his death. No impartial observer (or reliable source I like to call it) was ever to see the golden plates (if i got the meduim right) that it was written on. [edit] reading what you said again I get the idea that I read it wrong. the parts of the bible that were wrong was unfinished? Still, why not devote time to finishing the book of mormon instead of ammending the bible? Either one would have to have been divinely inspired. [/edit]

Has anyone seen the south park episode on this? (dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb! ) Despite portraying the story in a very "harsh" way according to my mormon friends, they have it pretty much correct.

The translation of thousands of years of religious scholars is questionable to me too, but not as questionable as the above story of joseph smith. If we want to get into who wrote the bible.. well, thats a whole different kettle of fish. Thats only for the OT, the NT raises a whole lot of other questions. And its only a VERY basic site by the way, the documentary hypothesis isn't very well represented there . Gives a basic outline that I like though.

Originally posted by GestaltAlteration
Like I said you missing the point.. The point of jesus was we would be able to directly have our sins forgiven and not needing to go through priests and taking lambs blood.. Because now his blood makes up for it.

So you've accepted jesus and directly had your sins forgiven? Will you be expecting a 900 year life? Will the female members of your faith have easy pregnancies? Original sin is also a sin. Moreover, can you eat poison and live, and cure people with a touch? (as believers are supposed to be able to do according to the bible - I'll look it up if you want)

Also Jesus died because of the condition of the world today, think of how many less believers would be here if not for him, almost none (besides the jews which I could see being sugnificantly smaller in number.) [/b]

Hahahahahahahahaha! Well, you're right on one part - noone would believe in jesus if the NT hadn't been written. But believers would be the same number - just different religions. We'd be doing just fine. (and would probably have a hell of a lot more cultures than we do now without the christian purging of the new world)

That claim would be fine if there didn't exist countries founded on different religions. Unless you want to claim that non-christian countries are worse than christian ones?

To understand the the value of Christ's sacrifice more fully, one would need to study the Old Testament and the Jewish concept of blood sacrifice as an atonement for sin...

AcidBasick wrote:

The bible is all about interpretation. You could read it in many different ways; that's what gives the radicals room to scream sins upon all people.[/b]

Actually, the doctrine of sin "on all people" is taught pretty clearly throughout the Bible. One example: Romans 3 (where Paul quotes the Old Testament)
"9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. 10As it is written:
"There is none righteous, no, not one;
11There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
12They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one."
13"Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit";
"The poison of asps is under their lips";
14"Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness."
15"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16Destruction and misery are in their ways;
17And the way of peace they have not known."
18"There is no fear of God before their eyes."

Too much focus is put upon the physical suffering of Christ. There are many (martyrs and others) who have suffered just as much as he (physically), if not more for what they believed in, yet their sacrifices go unrecorded or disregarded. The reason why Christ's sacrifice is so significant is because he was considered divine and therefore perfect. (let it be known that I believe Joseph Smith to be a false prophet and the book of Mormon to be rife with errant history and farout doctrine). Thus, because he was perfect and without sin, his blood was of infinite value to God. He was also the one fortold hundreds of years before his incarnation by the prophets (David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, among others) who would come as a sacrifice for "the sins of the world." The only way this could be possible is if he was divine (and thus sinless). So to me, it's not so much that he suffered physically, though this is definitely part of it, but because athough he was God, he was willing to condescend to a human level, to show the compassion of God towards mankind, making reconciliation between those who would/will believe and God the Father.

The only sense in which he was "created" (begotten by God the Spirit) is in that he was given a human form/body. Otherwise, the words of Isaiah and John in the book of Revelation indicate that the Christ has always existed and that he had no beginnning, that he is "from everlasting" the "Alpha and Omega." and the 2nd person of the Trinity.

Spoon: The miracles and powers (healing, etc.) were given to the Apostles alone (those who were in direct contact with Christ (which is why I can't understand how someone might call themself an apostle today).

And on the fallibility of scripture and it "being translated thousands of years ago by a bunch of relgios men" etc.: There are still original (1st and 2nd century) manuscripts (Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek of both the OT and the NT) that have been studied, verified, and translated by both relgious and secular scholars within the last 200 years. This is verifiable if one takes the time to research...