Opinion of John 3:16

[°Leprechaun]

I am afraid I have a problem with the idea that God had to kill his own son to save anyone.

I hope that no one is offended by that.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

First and last options.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

First and last options.

[Associate Justice PiT]

First and last options.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

First and last options.

[Hindsight was 2020]

First and last options.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

First and last options.

[RI]

Of course a single verse is an oversimplification of the entire faith. Are there really people who claim otherwise?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I am afraid I have a problem with the idea that God had to kill his own son to save anyone.

I hope that no one is offended by that.

This is why it's important to read the verse in the context of the Gospel of John as a whole, esp. that which precedes this verse.   The Word, who is the God through whom all things are made, became flesh, as the Son - called alternatively the Son of Man or the Son of God.  It is difficult to apprehend but the difficulty is not the same as if we try to equate God killing his son with some person killing their son - the nature of the relationship is not the same.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's odd how often those who hang everything on John 3:16 act as if John 3:17 doesn't exist.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Obvious freedom verse, as is every verse in the Bible.

Oversimplification is probably the wrong word, so I couldn't quite bring myself to vote for that option.  It's not really fully taken out of context either, but it is half of a key passage.  I look to what follows, especially John 3:18, as equally important.  John 3:16 is more known because it sounds all good and nice.  Giving the counter example (that no one who doesn't accept Christ can go to Heaven) is very counter to the politically correct notion of religious pluralism, so it gets less attention.

[Alcibiades]

Obvious freedom verse, as is every verse in the Bible.

Oversimplification is probably the wrong word, so I couldn't quite bring myself to vote for that option.  It's not really fully taken out of context either, but it is half of a key passage.  I look to what follows, especially John 3:18, as equally important.  John 3:16 is more known because it sounds all good and nice.  Giving the counter example (that no one who doesn't accept Christ can go to Heaven) is very counter to the politically correct notion of religious pluralism, so it gets less attention.

Every verse? Even the ones about dashing infants’ brains against rocks (Psalm 137:9), and variously condoning rape, slavery and genocide?

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

This is probably a hot take, but Psalm 137:9 is an understandable verse much like "Or may your house fall down / illness may bar your way / your loved ones may turn away from you" at the end of Primo Levi's If This Is A Man are understandable verses.

[Alcibiades]

This is probably a hot take, but Psalm 137:9 is an understandable verse much like "Or may your house fall down / illness may bar your way / your loved ones may turn away from you" at the end of Primo Levi's If This Is A Man are understandable verses.

I’m not sure if it’s justifiable, although I suppose it is not God who is actually saying the verse. Anyway, I don’t think these troublesome Bible verses are anywhere near the most serious intellectual challenge to Christianity’s claims, I was just highlighting the rather absurd statement from ExtremeRepublican; I don’t think I’ve ever heard many Christian trying to claim that every single Bible verse is good.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

This is probably a hot take, but Psalm 137:9 is an understandable verse much like "Or may your house fall down / illness may bar your way / your loved ones may turn away from you" at the end of Primo Levi's If This Is A Man are understandable verses.

I’m not sure if it’s justifiable, although I suppose it is not God who is actually saying the verse. Anyway, I don’t think these troublesome Bible verses are anywhere near the most serious intellectual challenge to Christianity’s claims, I was just highlighting the rather absurd statement from ExtremeRepublican; I don’t think I’ve ever heard many Christian trying to claim that every single Bible verse is good.

Well yes, I agree that ExtremeRepublican pretty much brought it to himself.
For that matter, I was piqued by the mention of Psalm 137 because, speaking of WW2 horrors and poetry, it is most notable to me as the main inspiration for one of the most famous (and beautiful) poems of Italian literature, Salvatore Quasimodo's On The Boughs Of The Willows.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

This is probably a hot take, but Psalm 137:9 is an understandable verse much like "Or may your house fall down / illness may bar your way / your loved ones may turn away from you" at the end of Primo Levi's If This Is A Man are understandable verses.

Considering that as soon as the Jews gained independence John Hyrcanus invaded, conquered and ethnically cleansed the Edomites in revenge, I'm not sure I would say that's a defence.  

[Cokeland Saxton]

Options 3 and 4

[vitoNova]

The statement "God sent his son to Earth to die for your sins" is literally word salad that makes zero logical sense.  

I have a better one:   "This can of spaghetti-o's is banana.  The cat sees this, and is now God.  Amen."

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The statement "God sent his son to Earth to die for your sins" is literally word salad that makes zero logical sense. 

I have a better one:   "This can of spaghetti-o's is banana.  The cat sees this, and is now God."

Neither of these statements is a word salad. The second wouldn't be out of place in something by Shel Silverstein.

[Amanda Huggenkiss]

The statement "God sent his son to Earth to die for your sins" is literally word salad that makes zero logical sense.  

I have a better one:   "This can of spaghetti-o's is banana.  The cat sees this, and is now God.  Amen."

To be fair, translations from Ancient Greek and Latin do not work very well in English.