Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site digi-g.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!digi-g!brian
From: brian@digi-g.UUCP (Brian Westley)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Re: QUESTIONS FROM A FRIEND
Message-ID: <506@digi-g.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 11-Mar-85 15:17:11 EST
Article-I.D.: digi-g.506
Posted: Mon Mar 11 15:17:11 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 13-Mar-85 01:14:06 EST
References: <109@gymble.UUCP> <1206@aecom.UUCP>
Reply-To: brian@digi-g.UUCP (brian)
Distribution: net
Organization: Digigraphic Systems Corp., Mpls, MN
Lines: 25
Summary: 

<booooorinnnngg>

>> >God supposedly sent his only son, Jesus, to die for man's sins.  Why?
>> >....
>> >It seems God was making a sacrifice.  To whom?  Himself?  Huh?  Is there
>> >a more powerful being?  If so, God can't be omnipotent.
>> 
>> To himself.  Strange-sounding stuff like this is one reason for having the
>> doctrine of the trinity.  The basic idea is that God wanted a perfect
>> sacrifice for sin, but of course, only he himself could come up with one.
>> This perfect sacrifice was God's gift to man.
>
>	The Jewish perspective is much easier to follow. Jesus was a man like
> any other person, and died just as others die. His death was in no way an
> atonement more than any other person's death is. One doesn't need the idea
> of trinity.

Aww, the atheist perspective is even *easier*!

Life's a bitch, then you die.
No supernatural being need apply.

(I'm a poet, and I'm not aware of it!)
Merlyn Leroy
"Fo qunny notes"