Why did Jesus have to die?

[hashi92]

Can all u devout catholics and christians please answer this question. It just seems like a senseless death to me. What kind of god would let his only son suffer so that the sins of man could be forgiven? How come God couldnt just open up his heart and say all those who believe will be forgiven? Why did he have do sacrafice someone for this to occur?

Do you not see the symbolism in the ultimate sacrifice that Jesus suffered on the cross?

Have you even read the Bible? I suggest you do this first before turning to an internet forum to ask such questions.

[hashi92]

I went to catholic school and studied religon every year. Why should one man have to suffer so that all of man can be forgiven for their sins. If God is a just and morale go shouldnt faith alone be enough. Jesus dying on the cross is a sensless death. Maybe if his dying closed some cosmic hole to hell it would be more acceptable. But go sacrificiing his only son is just a pile of crap. Jesus would have been better off alive continuing to preach the word of God.-

Statements/questions such as

[ QUOTE ]
If God is a just and morale go shouldnt faith alone be enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus dying on the cross is a sensless death. Maybe if his dying closed some cosmic hole to hell it would be more acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
But go sacrificiing his only son is just a pile of crap

[/ QUOTE ]

...make me seriously question the validity of your claim to have "gone to a Catholic school and studied religion every year." Have you graduated yet?

Three other things are also clear: you have not read the Bible, you are not in any sense educated towards the words "Martyr", "Sacrifice", "Resurrection", or "Symbolism", and finally, it does not appear that you even seek an answer, but rather you are looking for some back-patting by your fellow skeptics, atheists, and otherwise rejecting malcontempts.

No short couple of sentences typed in an internet forum can come close to answering a question that theologists, scribes, and philosophers have dedicated their lives to, but if you sincerely care, then I suggest you research the following:

[ QUOTE ]
the blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
'I am the good shepherd. I am willing to die for my sheep.'

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
'I am willing to give up my life in order that I may receive it back again. No-one takes my life away from me. I give it up of my own free will. I have the right to give it up, and I have the right to take it back. This is what my Father has commanded me to do .'

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
'This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
See, my servant will prosper; he will be highly exalted. Many were amazed when they saw him - beaten and bloodied, so disfigured one would scarcely know he was a person. And he will again startle many nations. Kings will stand speechless in his presence. For they will see what they had not previously been told about; they will understand what they had not heard about.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Bork]

None of the things you mention address his question of why an all powerful and good god requires a painful death on the cross in order to get people into heaven.

Just saying symbolism, martyrdom, 'my blood is the seed of the church', is not a coherent or adequate explanation. Good all powerful beings dont require human sacrafice.

God would presumably have known he'd be back a couple of days later anyway - so does that really constitute death?

[ QUOTE ]
Just saying DURRRRR symbolism, martyrdom, 'my blood is the seed of the church'

[/ QUOTE ]

I missed the part where I typed "DURRRRR"

Hashi, is this the kind of back patting you were looking for? You've come to the right place.

It is a fundamental mistake in understanding the Christian faith, of which you appear to be an outsider, to wonder why "an all powerful loving God" would let "bad things happen to good people" among other things. The "why's" are important questions, but certainly are questions you must ask yourself, and merely discuss amongst peers with the knowledge that there clearly is no definitive answer, nor is it likely one will be revealed in black and white to you any time soon.

[hashi92]

You still have not answered my question. The passages that you have quoted still do not answer the why. Why did he have to die in order for our sins to be forgiven. Why did he have to die for his sheep. I just dont see the reasoning. u can quote the bible all you want i was just hoping u could explain the reasoning. why would any sane father figure ask his son to needlessly die so that others could be saved. God is almighty all powerfull he could forgive everyones sins on a whim yet he asked his only son to suffer and die. please explain the reasoning behind this.

[ QUOTE ]
is not a coherent or adequate explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

And clearly they were not intended as adequate explanations in and of themselves, as I clearly suggested that Hashi research these historic contexts further to continue to investigate his question.

It's because "without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness". See, it takes blood to be forgiven, because... well... because God is a hemomaniac. He first created vampires in his image, because they like blood too. But they got out of control. And, well, that's why he created the sun to kill them. Catholics appease him by turning the wine into blood at every mass.

[ QUOTE ]
God is almighty all powerfull he could forgive everyones sins on a whim

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose God could, on a whim, eliminate every single thing that is wrong in the world, too. He could just snap his fingers and eradicate cancer, AIDS, murder, rape, plague, starvation, death.

Why doesn't he do such things?

In my personal opinion, perhaps it because such utopia only exists in heaven. Worthiness through sacrifice must be proven to enter heaven, and such exemplary worthiness and sacrifice was clearly demonstrated for all to see, hear, and read about by Jesus Christ on the cross, thus answering your question as to why Jesus needed to die in such a horrific way upon the cross.

Of course that is my opinion. You will do yourself better to formulate your own based on your own years of reading, research, and investigation. I'll warn you, faith is probably a prelimary requisite.

[hashi92]

This is exactly why there is so much violence in the world people shedding blood for their religon. I wonder if the world would be a more peaceful place if there were no religon.

[hashi92]

why do u need to shed blood. why not do a good deed or shed some tears.

[ QUOTE ]
This is exactly why there is so much violence in the world people shedding blood for their religon. I wonder if the world would be a more peaceful place if there were no religon.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not so convinced that religion is the reason why there is "so much violence in the world". I think there are very clear aspects of human nature that lead to violence. Absent religion, do you honestly feel that there would be nothing to fuel these innate human(animal) drives, actions and reactions?

Nor do I see the direct correlation between religion and universal physical acts such as murder, rape, theft, assault, torture, etc.

[hashi92]

If the ultimat goal of God was for all good people to live in utopia. Why didnt he just make everyone start of in heaven with no suffering and than eliminate the bad seeds. Why would he go through all the troubles he's been through especially if he is all powerfull. If i had the power to do anything i sure would take the path of least resistance.
I would try to do things right the first time with the least amount of work possible. that is unless i got bored. could it be that God is a bored eogmaniac.

Try to answer this more secular question:

Why, upon initiation into the KGB during its prominence, did a man need first to be either stabbed brutally with a knife or have his arm broken by those auditing his worthiness of "membership"?

[hashi92]

Good point. Its just that so many people have lost their lives due to holy wars. the catholic church has murdered tons of people in the name of god. i guess religon is a good excuse for other countries to invade and conquer.

Now, after your initial question has been "answered", you are just frustratingly goading with ridiculous questions based on unclear assumptions in an attempt to get more back patting.

I suggest you give up, as clearly you are not intellectually capable of the philosophical investigation that you snidely demand handed to you.

[hashi92]

I think that is totally absurd. If you are worthy why do u need to sacrifice so much. yes people in the kgb did this but was it totally necessary. how many good people didnt make it into the kgb because they couldnt pass the initiation process.

[hashi92]

im not demanding anything. im merely debating an idea. i dont know why u have to get your panties in a bunch. if u were intellectually capable you would welcome this debate.

[KeysrSoze]

[ QUOTE ]


Just saying symbolism, martyrdom, 'my blood is the seed of the church', is not a coherent or adequate explanation. Good all powerful beings dont require human sacrafice.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. The ancients had a real thing about sacrifices. Rather marginalized nowadays, but back in the day it was big big gri-gri magic, you know. Human sacrifice doubly so. Lots of human sacrifices back then to gods these people didn't consider evil.

Same thing with the sacrifice of a god, its not original or even uncommon. Jesus was sacrificed to himself because, well, in the culture of the day it sounded cool.

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus was sacrificed to himself because, well, in the culture of the day it sounded cool.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

You can't be serious. More back patting?

[KeysrSoze]

Back patting? What do you mean?

Sure I'm serious. In the Jewish culture of that time sacrifices were the most important part of their religion. Why wouldn't the most significant act of a new religion springing from that society be their messiah's individual sacrifice?

[ QUOTE ]
i guess religon is a good excuse for other countries to invade and conquer.


[/ QUOTE ]

What wars in the 20th century were initiated by religion?

[hashi92]

its what fueling terroism right now. what about ethnic cleansing if africa.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i guess religon is a good excuse for other countries to invade and conquer.


[/ QUOTE ]

What wars in the 20th century were initiated by religion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bosnia, 6 day war, Rwanda, Ivory coast, Sudan, Uganda - not to mention scores of persistent conflict areas like Kashmir, Northern Ireland, Israel, Cyprus, Chechnya. That's just of the top of my head, sure there's loads more I'm not thinking of.

[hashi92]

okay i guess the debate is over. the purpose of this question was to see if i could get a resonable answer from a person of faith. whenever i ask a how question i always get the same answer. how do u know theres a god?. the answer is always "u just gotta have faith". i dont see how this answer is good enough for people. the very people that give u this answer will question every other unknown fact in there life. riddick did it to me when he questioned that i went to a catholic school. how do people unflinchingly put faith in God yet question every other aspect of there lives. it seems hypocritical. therefore i asksed a why question that couldnt be answered with a simple u gotta have faith quote. the remarks have been limited but interesting.

thanks

[hmkpoker]

Good job, you've successfully made atheism look stupider to Christians. Don't post unless you at least have the common intellectual integrity not to use "u."

[J. Stew]

I'm no devout catholic but I'll give it a whirl.

The body died but the thing from which Jesus acted from, which would be his pure consciousness, the knowledge of what it is like to act from that source, got passed down, or was what got attempted to get passed down, through the religion of Christianity. This is like the same thing as Dharma transmission in Buddhism, but some Christians think about it in a weird way. I think they think, 'If I act like Jesus, I'll be good and be like Jesus which is good enough. That's missing the point that they already are Jesus, or they are already the thing from which Jesus acted from, his pure consciousness his the same as our pure consciousness. It's just that we don't realize it cause we have a lot of attachments to conceptual ideas that cloud our ability to see ourselves as our true selves, which is just this basic awareness that is innate in all of us, the thing that is reading this page right now, that's God. Hashi is God ha ha you rule.

[hashi92]

it should be about the ideas and debate why do uuuu have to get so nit picky. im not trying to re write the theory of relativity.

[hashi92]

christians will always look down on athiest because they are blinded by their faith. So does it really matter if my grammer is terrible.

[ QUOTE ]
christians will always look down on athiest because they are blinded by their faith. So does it really matter if my grammer is terrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hiya Hashi92,


You are right, they are blinded, and it doesn't matter regarding ur grammar. It is just that some people are so used to tell others what to do and how to live their lives that they are not even conscious of it. U could say that, al least, in that respect, but probabbly with regards others too, they are of limited consciousness and little capable of empathy.

One of the interesting phenomena you can observe on this forum where the balance of believers to non-believers is not so usually highly weigthed against atheists, is that believers seem to be very uncomfortable with this fact and with the fact that thier fundamentals could be questionned at all. It may very well indicate that the herd mentality isrequired as propicious ground for the growth of religion. I have often wondered what would give cause to so many abrogating reason and choosing unreason. Must be some form of cognitive dissonance effect. Not that this is a bad thing, as you will see from the many postings, most of them are psychopaths which need religion to keep their propensities and proclivities in check. What I mean is that most express the view that religion is what keeps the world moral. /images/graemlins/smile.gif That there would only be rape, murder and other mayhem if they were not kept in check by their religion.

Now, to answer your original question, the only thing I can think of, is that since they have not got the moral sense found in non-believers, that, in some way, they have projected all those unconscious evils in themselves to a god which, thus ,become the epitome of all the immoral (ie ask sacrifices, kill his son, inflict suffering, etc...) albeit as a projection.

In Jungian terms it is a pure projection of the shadow. Unusually, that projection is somehow on an archetype, thus displacing/interfering with the archetype usual functionning.

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Can all u devout catholics and christians please answer this question. It just seems like a senseless death to me. What kind of god would let his only son suffer so that the sins of man could be forgiven? How come God couldnt just open up his heart and say all those who believe will be forgiven? Why did he have do sacrafice someone for this to occur?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I'm more than a little surprised that no one actually made an effort to answer your honest question. This is at the core of what it means to be a Christian.

Sin does not come without penalty. We all sin and our sin will be punished. The bible says that the wages of sin is death. Old Testament priests would take an animal and lay the sins of the people on the animal and the sacrifice would be effective to cover their sins. The penalty of death was carried out. The sacrifice was imperfect and so the priest would repeat the sacrifice every year.

Hebrews 10:4 says that it was impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Therefore Jesus Christ, the Son of God came into the world to bear our sins. The punishment we deserve is inflicted on the perfect spotless Lamb of God. Our faith in this sacrifice of Christ is the basis of God's forgiveness.

If I steal $10,000 from someone and am brought before a judge, his job is to render justice. He cannot just release me and say "not guilty". Justice is not done. Someone is still out $10,000. Similarly, God cannot simply pardon sin without payment of the penalty. It was an act of supreme love for God to offer his son to save those who believe in him. It was an act of supreme justice to sacrifice the perfectly sinless, willing son of God.

When we put our trust in the faithfulness of God to save those who believe in Jesus Christ who has overcome death, God reckons to our account the righteousness of Christ. So, not only are we now forgiven with a clean slate, we bear the righteousness of his Son, Jesus. We stand before a righteous, loving and holy God without spot or wrinkle. He sees us as he sees his Son and says "well done."

Hope this helps.

-Zapp

Hiya Zapp,

Doesn't help much with my sense of justice. I mean, we all are still paying for Adam & Eve transgression. Ah well. It is all in how we define justice I guess.


MidGe

[ QUOTE ]
Hebrews 10:4 says that it was impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Therefore Jesus Christ, the Son of God came into the world to bear our sins.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot to mention the vampires. That's very important, as it shows why God first made the light when he re-created the world -- that was to kill the vampires.

[Peter666]

"Why did Jesus have to die?"

He didn't. He just did it to make us realize the horror of sin.

KipBond, did Christians beat you up when you were a kid? Seriously, don't hold it against all of us just because you were routinely beaten up as a kid.

[ QUOTE ]
Riddick, did Atheists beat you up when you were a kid? Seriously, don't hold it against all of us just because you were routinely beaten up as a kid.

[/ QUOTE ]

[hashi92]

but why does God ask for such sacrifices. it really is unecessary. the god of christians and catholics seems to be a very vindictive god. he demands extreme sacrifices even from his most devout followers. when people do not do his will he rains down fire onto them (sodom)or floods the earth. yet at the same time he demands us to be morale and law abiding. at times he can be very contradicting. sometimes he says and eye for and eye than he says to turn the other cheek or whoever has not sinned may cast the first stone. why cant this god demand people to be just and morale. why does he need the extreme sacrifice of anybody.

in your $10000 example people can make up for their sins by going to church and confessing. doing a zillion hail mary's and our fathers. why cant that be enough. its the same as someone admitting they stole $10000 dollars and paying restitution in the form of prison time or monetary reimbursment. you say god cannot pardon sin without payment. why is this so. when someone does you wrong you have to choices to forgive or not to forgive. if someone doesnt accept that they did you wrong you probally wont forgive them. if they open up their heart and ask for forgiveness shouldnt that be all that is needed.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, God cannot simply pardon sin without payment of the penalty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, he can. God is all-powerful. Are you telling me that, even if he willed it, he couldn't remove the sin from a person and let them into heaven?

The notion of justice you propose is absurd. If I steal ten grand and get punished, should my great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchild also be punished for this deed?

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
but why does God ask for such sacrifices. it really is unecessary. the god of christians and catholics seems to be a very vindictive god. he demands extreme sacrifices even from his most devout followers. when people do not do his will he rains down fire onto them (sodom)or floods the earth. yet at the same time he demands us to be morale and law abiding. at times he can be very contradicting.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are pointing out consistency and not contradiction here. The fact that Sodom was destroyed was a display of God's judgement for sin. God was moral and just to destroy the wicked inhabitants of Sodom.

[ QUOTE ]

sometimes he says and eye for and eye than he says to turn the other cheek or whoever has not sinned may cast the first stone. why cant this god demand people to be just and morale. why does he need the extreme sacrifice of anybody.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, pardoning sin without payment may be merciful, but it is not moral and just. God is perfectly merciful while at the same time being perfectly moral and just which is why sin cannot go unpunished.

[ QUOTE ]

in your $10000 example people can make up for their sins by going to church and confessing.

[/ QUOTE ]

No they can't! The only think that "makes up" for their sin is the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

[ QUOTE ]
doing a zillion hail mary's and our fathers. why cant that be enough. its the same as someone admitting they stole $10000 dollars and paying restitution in the form of prison time or monetary reimbursment. you say god cannot pardon sin without payment. why is this so. when someone does you wrong you have to choices to forgive or not to forgive. if someone doesnt accept that they did you wrong you probally wont forgive them. if they open up their heart and ask for forgiveness shouldnt that be all that is needed.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where your concept of forgiveness is at odds with God's. The wrath of God burns against sin. He detests it. This is a fact that cannot be denied. We all sin and therefore the wrath of God burns against us. At the same time he provided the perfect sacrifice for sin. This is an awesome act of love that instead of justly punishing us for our own sin (which he must do if he is righteous), he places the sins of all who have faith in Christ onto his own son and he bears our punishment and the righteousness of God is upheld.

Consider this from Romans:
through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it--
Rom 3:22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:
Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Rom 3:24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Rom 3:25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
Rom 3:26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

-Zapp

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, God cannot simply pardon sin without payment of the penalty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, he can.

[/ QUOTE ]

You contradict scripture:

(Mat 26:28) for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

(Eph 1:7) In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,

(Heb 9:22) Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

[ QUOTE ]
KipBond, did Christians beat you up when you were a kid? Seriously, don't hold it against all of us just because you were routinely beaten up as a kid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they treated me like the Jews treated Jesus. It was brutal. They said it was to please God... and who am I to argue with that logic. To this day, I still drink vinegar... it's horrible, but it reminds me of God's grace & mercy.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
You contradict scripture:

[/ QUOTE ]

Scripture contradicts itself.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, God cannot simply pardon sin without payment of the penalty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, he can. God is all-powerful. Are you telling me that, even if he willed it, he couldn't remove the sin from a person and let them into heaven?

[/ QUOTE ]
You are missing a key point concerning the nature of God. God is so righteous that He is the ultimate defintion of good. Therefore, anything that separates us from God is a sin.

There are certain things that even God cannot do. Sinning is one of those things. Having been born into sin, we cannot enter the presence of God (Heaven) without the sacrifice of Jesus. Were it not for Jesus, we would be left to etnernal separation from God (Hell).

Does this help it make more sense?

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You contradict scripture:

[/ QUOTE ]

Scripture contradicts itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I reject your assertion. Would you care to demonstrate it?

-Zapp

[Bork]

[ QUOTE ]
The only think that "makes up" for their sin is the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, pardoning sin without payment may be merciful, but it is not moral and just. God is perfectly merciful while at the same time being perfectly moral and just which is why sin cannot go unpunished.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not see the contradiction here? Sins must be punished because thats the moral and just thing to do. Oh wait just kidding we crucified some innocent guy so sins dont have to be punished anymore...

How could a man's sacrafice possibly shake the foundations of morality.

Also you seem to be putting limitations on God's power in that he cannot do anything unjust or sinful. Well if he is going around changing morality so child rapists can get into heaven thats pretty unjust if you ask me.

I contend that if an action was a sin before jesus's sacrafice that same action must be a sin after, and they morally require the same punishment.

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you not see the contradiction here? Sins must be punished because thats the moral and just thing to do. Oh wait just kidding we crucified some innocent guy so sins dont have to be punished anymore...

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say that. Sins do have to be punished. All sin without exception. You will pay for your own sins apart from faith in Christ. To all who believe, their sins were nailed to the cross with Jesus and paid for in full.

[ QUOTE ]
How could a man's sacrafice possibly shake the foundations of morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

This man is the son of God--fully man and fully God which qualifies him to stand in our place and live the perfect life as a man and to forgive our sins based on faith in him.

[ QUOTE ]
Also you seem to be putting limitations on God's power in that he cannot do anything unjust or sinful.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what he reveales about himself. It is not a restriction that *I* am putting on him.

[ QUOTE ]
Well if he is going around changing morality so child rapists can get into heaven thats pretty unjust if you ask me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, he is not "changing" morality he is upholding it. He counts faith in Christ as righteousness. And all who have a saving faith will live righteous (although imperfect) lives. Being a child rapist is not a mark of someone who has been born of God through faith in the gospel.

[12AX7]

Well, I haven't read all the responses. And I don't really know anything about religion.

But, I have often question that statement, "For god gave his only begotten son for our sins"... or whatever it is.

Since god supposedly created everything, including sin, why does sin have to be paid for? And who was god paying for our sins.

The whole statement seems flawed to me. But then I find many of man's dogmas to be this way. Just flowery speech that is trying to sell you something. Basically marketing speak that is trying to overcome your "objections". Come to think of it much of the current psyco-farmacological arguments sound the same way. LOL! "Sure your kid need Ritalin, he has ADD". LOL!

Right...

So it would seem preachers, psychiatrists and clergy are all the same thing. People that screw with your head to take your money.

LOL!

[Bork]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say that. Sins do have to be punished. All sin without exception. You will pay for your own sins apart from faith in Christ. To all who believe, their sins were nailed to the cross with Jesus and paid for in full.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, however I don't see how my sins could be paid for by somebody else. It seems like the opposite of what is just and moral. If I murder a kid would it be just for somebody else to be punished in my place out of love for me? I think not, even if that somebody is God.

On top of this why does faith in Christ make it so one gets all of his sins paid for by Christ, but those without faith MUST pay themselves? How can a simple belief or non-belief allow us to defer our just punishment to somebody who was punished over 2000 years ago.

To me this just sounds like people trying to scare other people to follow their religion through threat of punishment, and the allure of not being morally responisble for the bad things we do as long as we have faith.

Take the example of two men, both live lives full of terrible sin the only difference is one near the end of his life has faith in what the bible says about jesus, the other does not. The first gets the best possible reward the second gets the worst possible punishment. Why should an apparently morally irrelevant faith swing ones treatment the maximum possible amount.

Do you think it is just for people that speed on the highway to be be burned at the stake? Obviously punishment and reward should be at least a bit proportial to the seriousness of the actions. This business of faith making all the difference completely contradicts this. Faith in jesus is not the best thing somebody can do and non-faith is far from the worst. Also it is questionable whether many can even choose to have faith.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You contradict scripture:

[/ QUOTE ]

Scripture contradicts itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I reject your assertion. Would you care to demonstrate it?

-Zapp

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.biblestudyguide.org/topical/god-omnipotence.htm

God is omnipotent. Explain why the removal of sin from a human being is outside of his range of power.

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
God is omnipotent. Explain why the removal of sin from a human being is outside of his range of power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe we are getting bogged down where we shouldn't. Let's approach it from a slightly different angle.

1. God is all powerful.
2. God is all knowing.
3. God is truthful.
4. God has revealed to us that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood.

I affirm all of the above. Scripture affirms all of the above.

To your question. If God is all powerful, then he therefore can forgive sins without the shedding of blood.

What is the point of such a statement? He is also truthful and all knowing and has revealed to us that forgiveness is impossible without the shedding of blood.

Seems to me that you can accept the notion that God is all powerful but not that he is truthful and/or all knowing.

-Zapp

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You contradict scripture:

[/ QUOTE ]

Scripture contradicts itself.

[/ QUOTE ]
It follows from god's omnipotence that jesus didn't have to die to achieve whatever god wanted. Its interesting how many religous folk use their religon to deny god's omnipotence.

They seem to believe in their religon more than they believe in god.

chez

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
It follows from god's omnipotence that jesus didn't have to die to achieve whatever god wanted. Its interesting how many religous folk use their religon to deny god's omnipotence.

They seem to believe in their religon more than they believe in god.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Does my previous reply not address this sufficiently? If not, please explain where it is lacking.

1. God is all powerful.
2. God is all knowing.
3. God is truthful.
4. God has revealed to us that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood.

I reject none of the above. To affirm your position that an all-powerful god must have the power to forgive sins without sacrifice, is to ignore other truths about God.

So the real question is can an all-powerful, all-knowing, truthful God who has revealed that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood forgive sins without the shedding of blood?

Of course not.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It follows from god's omnipotence that jesus didn't have to die to achieve whatever god wanted. Its interesting how many religous folk use their religon to deny god's omnipotence.

They seem to believe in their religon more than they believe in god.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Does my previous reply not address this sufficiently? If not, please explain where it is lacking.

1. God is all powerful.
2. God is all knowing.
3. God is truthful.
4. God has revealed to us that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood.

I reject none of the above. To affirm your position that an all-powerful god must have the power to forgive sins without sacrifice, is to ignore other truths about God.


[/ QUOTE ]
An all-powerful god doesn't have to be truthful or shed that blood stuff. That you insist god does have to, is using your religon to confine god.

An all powerfull god can make anything the way he wants just by willing it.

chez

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
4. God has revealed to us that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the correct answer. God is blood-thirsty. Simple as that.

[hashi92]

can you please explain why blood needs to be shed in order for our sins to be forgiven. does that mean if my son lies he needs to sacrifice his pet goldfish to be forgiven.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
can you please explain why blood needs to be shed in order for our sins to be forgiven. does that mean if my son lies he needs to sacrifice his pet goldfish to be forgiven.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you mean to ask someone else.

chez

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
An all-powerful god doesn't have to be truthful or shed that blood stuff. That you insist god does have to, is using your religon to confine god.

An all powerfull god can make anything the way he wants just by willing it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not using my religion to confine God. I am using what God says about himself to "confine" him.

I thought this discussion was about the God revealed in the pages of scripture. Oh, wait. It was.

-Zapp

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An all-powerful god doesn't have to be truthful or shed that blood stuff. That you insist god does have to, is using your religon to confine god.

An all powerfull god can make anything the way he wants just by willing it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not using my religion to confine God. I am using what God says about himself to "confine" him.

I thought this discussion was about the God revealed in the pages of scripture. Oh, wait. It was.

-Zapp

[/ QUOTE ]
No it wasn't. it was was about whether jesus had to die to ....

Clearly if god is omnipotent then he didn't.

chez

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An all-powerful god doesn't have to be truthful or shed that blood stuff. That you insist god does have to, is using your religon to confine god.

An all powerfull god can make anything the way he wants just by willing it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not using my religion to confine God. I am using what God says about himself to "confine" him.

I thought this discussion was about the God revealed in the pages of scripture. Oh, wait. It was.

-Zapp

[/ QUOTE ]
No it wasn't. it was was about whether jesus had to die to ....

Clearly if god is omnipotent then he didn't.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, sorry. Who then is this Jesus you are referring to? Please point me so some source of who exactly you are talking about.

-Zapp

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
does that mean if my son lies he needs to sacrifice his pet goldfish to be forgiven.

[/ QUOTE ]
If he doesn't have a goat, I guess his goldfish will have to do.

Seriously, the whole sin-and-redemption thing is messed up in Christianity.

Original sin is a crock because Adam couldn't have sinned when he didn't know the difference between good and evil. Even if he did know the difference, he didn't sin: all he did was disobey God. But disobeying someone isn't ipso facto a sin.

Even if eating the apple was a sin, it was Adam's sin and he is responsible -- not the rest of us. The way moral responsibility works is, people are responsible for their own wrongdoings, not the wrongdoings of others. So the rest of us don't need to be redeemed for Adam's "original" sin.

Even if we are somehow responsible for Adam's sin, we are the ones who must then redeem ourselves. You can't redeem someone else by dying for his sins. The guilty parties must redeem themselves by paying restitution to their victims, promising not to do it again, etc.

And even if we could be redeemed by having Jesus take our punishment, Jesus didn't take our punishment. Our punishment was supposed to be hell, but Jesus ascended into heaven.

So like I said -- it's all messed up.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An all-powerful god doesn't have to be truthful or shed that blood stuff. That you insist god does have to, is using your religon to confine god.

An all powerfull god can make anything the way he wants just by willing it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not using my religion to confine God. I am using what God says about himself to "confine" him.

I thought this discussion was about the God revealed in the pages of scripture. Oh, wait. It was.

-Zapp

[/ QUOTE ]
No it wasn't. it was was about whether jesus had to die to ....

Clearly if god is omnipotent then he didn't.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, sorry. Who then is this Jesus you are referring to? Please point me so some source of who exactly you are talking about.

-Zapp

[/ QUOTE ]
What's that got to do with the price of a few loaves?

chez

[hashi92]

if god is all powerful
all knowing
all truthfull
shouldnt he have a list like santi clause of whos naughty and nice.
santi clause doesnt ask for blood

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
And even if we could be redeemed by having Jesus take our punishment, Jesus didn't take our punishment. Our punishment was supposed to be hell, but Jesus ascended into heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not entirely correct.

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An all-powerful god doesn't have to be truthful or shed that blood stuff. That you insist god does have to, is using your religon to confine god.

An all powerfull god can make anything the way he wants just by willing it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not using my religion to confine God. I am using what God says about himself to "confine" him.

I thought this discussion was about the God revealed in the pages of scripture. Oh, wait. It was.

-Zapp

[/ QUOTE ]
No it wasn't. it was was about whether jesus had to die to ....

Clearly if god is omnipotent then he didn't.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, sorry. Who then is this Jesus you are referring to? Please point me so some source of who exactly you are talking about.

-Zapp

[/ QUOTE ]
What's that got to do with the price of a few loaves?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You are smarter than this, chez. I'll play your little game. Ignoring what scripture has to say about God...

All we know about God is that he is all-powerful. Your question then...can God forgive sins apart from the shedding of blood? Sure.

The original question. Why did Jesus have to die?

Who is Jesus? You're talking about the God of the Bible now who has said more about himself than that he is all powerful.

Are we accomplishing anything?

-Zapp

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
if god is all powerful
all knowing
all truthfull
shouldnt he have a list like santi clause of whos naughty and nice.

[/ QUOTE ]

He does. We are all (except Jesus) on the naughty list.

Rom 3:10 as it is written:
"None is righteous, no, not one;
Rom 3:11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
Rom 3:12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An all-powerful god doesn't have to be truthful or shed that blood stuff. That you insist god does have to, is using your religon to confine god.

An all powerfull god can make anything the way he wants just by willing it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not using my religion to confine God. I am using what God says about himself to "confine" him.

I thought this discussion was about the God revealed in the pages of scripture. Oh, wait. It was.

-Zapp

[/ QUOTE ]
No it wasn't. it was was about whether jesus had to die to ....

Clearly if god is omnipotent then he didn't.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, sorry. Who then is this Jesus you are referring to? Please point me so some source of who exactly you are talking about.

-Zapp

[/ QUOTE ]
What's that got to do with the price of a few loaves?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You are smarter than this, chez. I'll play your little game. Ignoring what scripture has to say about God...

All we know about God is that he is all-powerful. Your question then...can God forgive sins apart from the shedding of blood? Sure.

The original question. Why did Jesus have to die?

Who is Jesus? You're talking about the God of the Bible now who has said more about himself than that he is all powerful.

Are we accomplishing anything?

-Zapp

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, we are seeing you say that god couldn't have achived the same outcome without jesus dying. Clearly not true if god is omniopotent.

and you believe it because it says so in the bible. Therefore the bible restricts god's might and you put your faith in the truth of the bible rather than in god omnipotence.

chez

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, we are seeing you say that god couldn't have achived the same outcome without jesus dying. Clearly not true if god is omniopotent.

and you believe it because it says so in the bible. Therefore the bible restricts god's might and you put your faith in the truth of the bible rather than in god omnipotence.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

My faith is in the God that scripture reveals. God is not a liar. If he says that there is no forgiveness apart from the shedding of blood, it does not therefore follow that he is not omnipotent.

It poses no problem from the "omnipotence" standpoint for God to forgive sins apart from the shedding of blood. It poses a "truth" problem.

You pose a false dichotomy: Either God is omnipotent or he is a liar. This is just silly.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, we are seeing you say that god couldn't have achived the same outcome without jesus dying. Clearly not true if god is omniopotent.

and you believe it because it says so in the bible. Therefore the bible restricts god's might and you put your faith in the truth of the bible rather than in god omnipotence.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

My faith is in the God that scripture reveals. God is not a liar. If he says that there is no forgiveness apart from the shedding of blood, it does not therefore follow that he is not omnipotent.

It poses no problem from the "omnipotence" standpoint for God to forgive sins apart from the shedding of blood. It poses a "truth" problem.

You pose a false dichotomy: Either God is omnipotent or he is a liar. This is just silly.

[/ QUOTE ]
No false dichotomy. There's another alternative - god is omnipotent and the bible is wrong. That you believes the bible to be true is up to you but it denies an omnipotent god.

chez

[hmkpoker]

Item #4 contradicts item #1.

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[The bible] denies an omnipotent god.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I was giving you too much credit. This statement is asinine. The bible does not deny an omnipotent god, it just says more about him than that he is omnipotent.

-Zapp

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[The bible] denies an omnipotent god.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I was giving you too much credit. This statement is asinine. The bible does not deny an omnipotent god, it just says more about him than that he is omnipotent.

-Zapp

[/ QUOTE ]
Saying more about god in a way that says he had to do something a certain way is to deny his omnipotence. Address this if you wish but insults don't make it less true.

chez

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
No false dichotomy. There's another alternative - god is omnipotent and the bible is wrong. That you believes the bible to be true is up to you but it denies an omnipotent god.

[/ QUOTE ]

God could be omnipotent, then say through scripture that he needed Jesus to die. Then he'd be omnipotent AND a liar /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]

Saying more about god in a way that says he had to do something a certain way is to deny his omnipotence.

[/ QUOTE ]

The implication of what you are saying is that an omnipotent god cannot make truthful statements about what he will or will not do.

God has said that he will not forgive sins apart from bloodshed.

To salvage God's omnipotence, for some reason you feel compelled to restrict him from making such a claim.

It is more accurate to say that God WILL NOT forgive sin apart from bloodshed rather than that he CANNOT if we are simply dealing with the divine attribute of omnipotence.

It is more accurate to say that God CANNOT forgive sin without bloodshed if we are dealing with the divine attribute of truthfulness since he has told us that he will not.

The God that put forth his son Jesus is both omnipotent and truthful--attributes that are not at odds with one another.

-Zapp

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The implication of what you are saying is that an omnipotent god cannot make truthful statements about what he will or will not do.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it isn't.

[ QUOTE ]
It is more accurate to say that God WILL NOT forgive sin apart from bloodshed rather than that he CANNOT if we are simply dealing with the divine attribute of omnipotence.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thats it. God didn't have to do it. Jesus didn't have to die for anything.

chez

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is more accurate to say that God WILL NOT forgive sin apart from bloodshed rather than that he CANNOT if we are simply dealing with the divine attribute of omnipotence.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thats it. God didn't have to do it. Jesus didn't have to die for anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is more to reality than an omnipotent God. The fact is that man is sinful and that God is righteous. This righteousness of God has as a necessary component the fact that sacrifice is necessary for forgiveness of sin in order that we might be reconciled to God. God's plan of the salvation of sinners required the suffering of Christ.

Act 17:2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
Act 17:3 explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ."

Jesus himself says:
Luk 24:25 ..."O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
Luk 24:26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?"

I understand that you do not accept the authority of scripture. I do and I accept that it is accurate in all that it says about God and his creation. Scripture says that the wages of sin is death and I accept that as truth about God's creation. I accept it when scripture says that the wrath of God can be satisfied by the sacrifice of his son for those who believe. Why did Jesus have to die? Scripture explains why and I have made an attempt at explaining it myself. To say that God didn't have to sacrifice his son carries with it more implications. Namely that the world would not be the way it is. Given that man is sinful and the wages of his sin is death, and given that God is rightous, it was necessary for him to put forth his son to save those who believe. My answers to the question why did Jesus have to die, is an answer based in the reality of our predicament as sinners in the face of a holy and righteous God. If you guys want to start from some other place than that, then have at it.

-Zapp

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand that you do not accept the authority of scripture. I do and I accept that it is accurate in all that it says about God and his creation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly and you put that before anything including god's omnipotence.

Anyway we're going round in circles. Hopefully if an omnipotent god exists he won't care that you constrain him anymore than he cares that I don't believe in him at all.

chez

[hashi92]

so your basically saying this is your belief because this is what the bible says. were saying if you sat back and thought about it jesus dying is really unnecessary.

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand that you do not accept the authority of scripture. I do and I accept that it is accurate in all that it says about God and his creation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly and you put that before anything including god's omnipotence.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I believe that what God says about himself is perfectly true and I also believe equally that God is omnipotent.

And yes, it does seem that we are going around in circles.

[hashi92]

lets put this another way.
imagine for instance your never read the bible.
you just knew that God was all powerful.
wouldnt it be logical to conclude that God could forgive the sins of man on a whim if he wanted to.

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand that you do not accept the authority of scripture. I do and I accept that it is accurate in all that it says about God and his creation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly and you put that before anything including god's omnipotence.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I believe that what God says about himself is perfectly true and I also believe equally that God is omnipotent.

And yes, it does seem that we are going around in circles.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. G-d could be omnipotent and require a blood sacrifice. However, one of two situations must be fulfilled for this to be the case:

1. G-d initiated the necessity of a blood sacrifice.
2. G-d did nothing to end the previously extent necessity of a blood sacrifice.

I believe your religious beliefs are getting in the way of you accepting reasonable arguments here. I believe you do not wish to slight your god. You shouldn't of course and I'm glad for your sake that you don't. However, you can't take away His resposibility for making a blood sacrifice necessary for the release from sin.

And while I really appreciate you making the first serious response to the original poster, you haven't accepted the (correct) assumptions in the OP's question.

A simple "I don't know" would have been the most honest and ideal response to his question. You can't slight your god, but at the same time he has placed an importance on making a trade of blood (life) for forgiveness (which is somehow inherited).


I'll tell you what I think.

Humans understand life and death extremely well.
Blood's importance gives it the (somewhat accurate) appearance of life force and it becomes associated with life and death.
Shedding of blood therefore becomes an appropriate metaphor to use in a book by a people in desperate need of something in which to believe to make up for their miserable lives (those people would be the Israelites). Much like the appearance of the Kabalists, religious zealotry gave a people hope and their lives meaning with promises of a less miserable time after their biological lives. The Torah scroll became a convenient means of transporting and proliferating that particular gospel.

Humans have shown a tremendous ability to adapt to a wide variety of situations. I would categorize the advent of religion as such an adaptation. It's a means of creating a fantasy to deal with material reality and it also satisfies the problem humans faced once we could conceptualize the notion that perhaps there is no point to our existence--that of something to believe in, of purpose.

That's what makes a lot of sense to me. I believe as an explanation is possesses internal consistency. I also believe as an explanation it is consistent with human history as it's largely understood.


I also see a problem with judging G-d from a human ethos. Sure, my ethos involves avoiding hurting others and causing them pain and making apparently unrelated sacrifices, but I don't think it's really fair to judge G-d from that perspective.


I will grant that this type of a situation certainly does make G-d appear to be an arbitrary and scary omnipotent entity, no different really than the omnipotent Billy Mumy character in the "It's a Good Life" episode of the Twilight Zone. It's all do what he wants, or else.

Excellent post.

[ QUOTE ]
I will grant that this type of a situation certainly does make G-d appear to be an arbitrary and scary omnipotent entity, no different really than the omnipotent Billy Mumy character in the "It's a Good Life" episode of the Twilight Zone. It's all do what he wants, or else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember that. I still eat peanut butter hamburgers to this day -- to make sure Billy doesn't get mad at me and cast me into eternal cartoon hell. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Hebrews 10:4 says that it was impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Therefore Jesus Christ, the Son of God came into the world to bear our sins. The punishment we deserve is inflicted on the perfect spotless Lamb of God. Our faith in this sacrifice of Christ is the basis of God's forgiveness.

If I steal $10,000 from someone and am brought before a judge, his job is to render justice. He cannot just release me and say "not guilty". Justice is not done. Someone is still out $10,000. Similarly, God cannot simply pardon sin without payment of the penalty. It was an act of supreme love for God to offer his son to save those who believe in him. It was an act of supreme justice to sacrifice the perfectly sinless, willing son of God.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're overlooking that the only reason something is a sin is because "god" says so. When some steals $10,000, yeah some is out of money and there is harm. When someone sins, it's only a sin because god says so, and god has not been harmed. (If God was harmed, he wouldn't be omnipotent, would he?) So, god merely has to stop saying it's a sin and there's no more sin.

Religious beliefs are illogical in basis. Now this is different than saying there is or is not god, IMO. All I am saying is that you can't use logic to arrive at a conclusion that god exist. You have to ignore logic to get there. If you have faith, that's fine, but your faith is illogical, and you need to stop trying to convince others that your faith is logical. It isn't. Faith is, by definition, believing in something without proof of its existence. It is the opposite of logic by definition.

Oh yes... I reserve a special amount of contempt for people who rest their arguments on the bible's text. Obviously, if some one wants logic, the bible is not the place to find it. It's self-serving and based on "faith", which is not logic.

Try and think of an argument that has logic, don't quote your preacher's (or your dad's) favorite passage. It demonstrates that you are completely without the ability to think for yourself. By the way, that's why Jesus is your "shepherd" and you are his "sheep." You just can't think for yourself.

all men die

"You're overlooking that the only reason something is a sin is because "god" says so. When some steals $10,000, yeah some is out of money and there is harm. When someone sins, it's only a sin because god says so, and god has not been harmed. (If God was harmed, he wouldn't be omnipotent, would he?) So, god merely has to stop saying it's a sin and there's no more sin. "

Sin is something that God cannot do, and being keen on justice, He can't let people off. If God had intended there to be no sin, then there wouldn't be. He allowed it, for His own purposes, like seeing if people would choose God or choose sin.

Couldn't God, being all powerful chose to limit Himself to being able to do only that which is good?
I don't think this is what He actually did, I think God is unchanging, he is who he is, whole and perfect, holding everything together. Because of all God is, there are laws that are in place that govern these things, like sin.

"Even if eating the apple was a sin, it was Adam's sin and he is responsible -- not the rest of us. The way moral responsibility works is, people are responsible for their own wrongdoings, not the wrongdoings of others. So the rest of us don't need to be redeemed for Adam's "original" sin."

Each of us has our own sin we need to pay for, not Adam's.

"Even if we are somehow responsible for Adam's sin, we are the ones who must then redeem ourselves. You can't redeem someone else by dying for his sins. The guilty parties must redeem themselves by paying restitution to their victims, promising not to do it again, etc."

A question I'm still seeking an answer to.. how is it just that a perfect person pay for my sin? but I think justice is an eternal issue that won't get dealt with fully on Earth. It sounds like a cop out, but I believe everyone is judged for the wrong they do in heaven.

"And even if we could be redeemed by having Jesus take our punishment, Jesus didn't take our punishment. Our punishment was supposed to be hell, but Jesus ascended into heaven."

Hell is seperation from God. The other place, that has no place in heaven. I believe that Jesus was seperated from God and it's why he cried during the crucifixion "Abba, Father, Why have you forsaken me?" (forgotten me).
Yes, very true it wasn't for eternity, but God is without blemish. Very different to our position, can't really be compared.

A very good question indeed, good sir Bork.
One that I have been wrestling withpersonally, I was struck with the overwhelming sense that this message I believed in was based around a seeming injustice. Why don't I have to pay for the wrong I do? I asked..
I think justice works itself out though, through the laws that are in place by God. Repentance is what God wants, life change, transformation. He want's us to get beyond the point where we suff up. Knowing that I am forgiven by God because of Jesus doesn't make me feel pure and clean after I commit a sin. I'd say that understanding the price that was paid makes me more aware of the seriousness of sin and guilty when I commit a sin. I think that this guilt is part of paying for sin. I know many people who sin all day long and don't feel bad, but I KNOW when I sin. A conviction that is from the holy spirit, and neccessary in promoting repentance(life change).
I also believe that justice will be sorted out in heaven, mainly because the bible says so and I trust it. I think we will be confronted with our sins in heaven, but not seperated from God. Not everyone is the same rank(for want of a better word) in heaven. Jesus speaks of "causing one of these little one's to sin, " he says "it is better for that man to throw himself into the ocean with a millstone round his neck than face God". Not quoted straight from the bible, just memory... My point is he doesn't go easy on anyone's sin, and the sin you spoke of he gave special mention. He is repulsed by it as you are.

The reason why people respond when their God is put on trial is because to these people(myself included), you are saying a lot of things that are untrue about the God who we rely on to be saved. It is personal.
One thing I don't like is, atheists putting a lot of words together to sound intellectual. The goal of sharing one's point of view, should be speaking as simply as possible while retaining the truthfulness and wholeness of the view. Not dumbing it down, but speaking so people can understand, not just those in you inner circle of big brainers.

The things that are untrue are things like, that I would look down on you. Jesus commands us not to see myself more highly than I ought, but to see myself with sober judgement(not lesser than I ought). Maturity in christians should display itself in love for others, when asked, Jesus said the greatest commands were to "Love God" and "Love people".
I think that if the teachings of Jesus such as these, were removed form the world it would make it a much worse place to live. In response to --"That there would only be rape, murder and other mayhem if they were not kept in check by their religion."

I think maturity is a goal that God wants us to accomplish, taking the focus off our selves(a baby, completely dependant, can only recieve) to others(Jesus Christ, freely gives unselfishly).

I think it comes down to the purpose of the planet Earth.
I think God made the Earth for his own purposes, his pleasure. I think that life on earth was made by God for Him to see if people would worship him or choose sin. For this reason he created this planet, this universe, with laws in place about sin. I think it gives God great pleasure in seeing a baby develop into a man, be crippled, find his strength in Jesus Christ, repent (change his life), and be prepared to serve him in heaven. That's why he gave His son, because of the love he has for us, and it was the only way because of the way He chose to created the earth. And the purpose he had for the planet.
I hope that can make some sense, but maybe not, seems kinda off the point on a re-read.

Hmmm well, getting back to one of the earlier posts, blood is symbolic of life. I remember reading a story of a doctor who had to give his own blood to save a patient because the patients family members would not because it was his lifeblood.
I think there is a lot to be learned from the symbols used in religion, like blood. It's not about murder but about life and laws, like the law that God set in place...or was in place because of who God was... That, blood is neccessary for the forigivess of sins. And it is a widespread symbol of life across all cultures, maybe a useful symbol to use.

To Zapp and Riddick,
you both deserve a pat on the back for you efforts..

Pat, pat...