Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[idea]

The reality here is that all is God..

I disagree with that - evil is not part of God, dualities exist, good/evil exist, just/unjust exists.

 

[idea]

Love conquers Justice, not the other way around.

Those who stress Justice, want to be able to punish.

Love does not punish, ever.

A God of Love, would release the need for Justice, for his heart would hold no record of wrongs.

If you want it both ways, you're wrong about it.

The point of the atonement is to satisfy both mercy and justice. Justice requires a price be paid, mercifully our Savior paid the price. Not one or the other - both are needed.

 

[sojourner]

I disagree with that - evil is not part of God, dualities exist, good/evil exist, just/unjust exists.

So, you're saying that God is not omnipotent -- that there are equally-strong things, such as evil, that God cannot eradicate without our help? If so, that elevates these other things to the status of "god," meaning that you are polytheistic?

 

[Thief]

Separation is illusory.
God is not "separate of [God's] creation.

so then you previous post ....'justice keeps it separate'....
does not apply to God?

 

[beerisit]

The point of the atonement is to satisfy both mercy and justice. Justice requires a price be paid, mercifully our Savior paid the price. Not one or the other - both are needed.

Why?..............Why would an omnipotent God require a price be paid? That's simply ridiculous.

 

[sojourner]

so then you previous post ....'justice keeps it separate'....
does not apply to God?

Our insistence is that "the bad stuff" be kept separate. To our way of thinking, that's what "God's justice" does. The illusion is that there really is "bad stuff" and that it, somehow can be "separate" from God.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

The point of the atonement is to satisfy both mercy and justice. Justice requires a price be paid, mercifully our Savior paid the price. Not one or the other - both are needed.

As I said: Love negates your desire for punishment.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Who's love?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

God's if it were true, and perfect

In other words the idea is unworkable

You see, the actual love of a God, or anyone, even not perfect, would not require atonement. Those stressing teh punishment aspect don't actually grasp what love is. They simply want the visceral satisfaction of infliction of punishment, even vicariously.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

God's love does not redress the pain and suffering one may cause others; God's love may be enough for -God- to forgive you (be it for sins against God or against oneself), but not nearly enough for true forgiveness for the outcomes of your actions and inactions, no God has the authority to forgive the pain and suffering you inflict on others.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

God's love does not redress the pain and suffering one may cause others; God's love may be enough for -God- to forgive you (be it for sins against God or against oneself), but not nearly enough for true forgiveness for the outcomes of your actions and inactions, no God has the authority to forgive the pain and suffering you inflict on others.

That's an irrelevant point. the person you hurt will not be inflicting the punishment we are talking about.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

That's an irrelevant point - they do not need to be the person inflicting the punishment (plus you do not know that they will not be).

 

[Heathen Hammer]

In other words, you were trying to divert. I didn't go for it. Your question was irrelevant to what we were talking about.

God's punishment does not in any way 'redress the pain and suffering inflicted by you on someone else' in any way. It's God's own vengeance. In fact, as an added weakness to the question, the Christan faith, which we are discussing, doesn't even really discuss redressing the grievances of those you've hurt; so bringing it up was even more non sequitur.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Actually my question was not intended to divert but rather to clarify which love you were referring to (especially since a lot of people say 'god is love'), because I was not sure if you were talking about the love of the people that you have wronged (which matters in terms of forgiveness) as opposed to the love of one whom you have not wronged (which does not matter in terms of forgiveness); it was never intended to be antagonistic nor to divert the flow of the conversation into another direction, merely to attempt to understand what you were attempting to convey when you said "As I said: Love negates your desire for punishment."

 

[Heathen Hammer]

It pays for me to be proactive


The 'your' in that case was directed toward the poster 'Idea', since he was stressing the vindictive aspect.

 

[willowjoy]

I am of the opinion the dogma which requires you to be 'born again or else' is highly unpleasant. The idea that someone as evil as Hitler could in theory make a deathbed conversion and be waved through pearly gates, but a good, decent unbeliever is chucked into hell, makes no sense on any level!

 

[Thief]

I am of the opinion the dogma which requires you to be 'born again or else' is highly unpleasant. The idea that someone as evil as Hitler could in theory make a deathbed conversion and be waved through pearly gates, but a good, decent unbeliever is chucked into hell, makes no sense on any level!

Consider....Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.(fair warning)
Then picture what happens when someone like Hitler shows up.

As for born again...yeah.
You came into this life naked and into the arms of someone who cared.
You leave naked.
Will the spirit standing over you care?
Will they lift (bear) you up from your dust?

You did not put yourself into that body.
You might need some help getting out.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I am of the opinion the dogma which requires you to be 'born again or else' is highly unpleasant. The idea that someone as evil as Hitler could in theory make a deathbed conversion and be waved through pearly gates, but a good, decent unbeliever is chucked into hell, makes no sense on any level!

...and Scripture basically agrees with you.
No one that lived and died before Jesus lived was 'born again' [John 3 v13]
That covers the majority of mankind that ever lived as not required.
Some are chosen [born again] to reign with Christ for a thousand years over earth or earthly subjects. That leaves the majority of mankind living on earth.
-Rev. 20 v 6; 14 v 4; 5 vs 9,10; Psalm 72 v 8

Jesus was a decent believer that was chucked into hell. [Acts 2 vs 27, 31]
That is because the 'biblical hell' [sheol] is just the common grave of mankind.
*Jesus taught the dead sleep the unconscious sleep of death.
'Sleep' until resurrected to heaven, or resurrected back to life on a paradisaic earth during Jesus 1000-year reign over earth.- Acts 24 v 15.
The Bible's hell is temporary. Jesus has the keys to unlock hell [Rev. 1 v 18]
After everyone is 'delivered up' [resurrected] out of the Bible's hell, then emptied-out hell is cast vacant into a symbolic 'second death' according to Revelation 20 vs 13, 14.

*-John 11 vs 11-14; Ecc. 9 v 5; Psalms 6 v 5; 13 v3; 115 v 17; 146 v 4

Scripture does Not teach death-bed confession as a get-out-of-jail-free card.
-Hebrews 10 v 26
There are those who Not be resurrected to heaven, or on earth, because of committing the unforgivable sin. - Matthew 12 v 32; Hebrews 6 vs 4-6

 

[filthy tugboat]

Based on what?

The laws of the universe. It acted in an orderly fashion. Expanding outwards.

It has every thing to do with probability. The numbers are to much for you to deal with so you deny the probability altogether.

This doesn't make sense? It is directly related to energy input, entropy cannot decrease in any system without energy input. Therefore unless that energy input is based on probability then it is not probabilistic. What is the probability of energy being put into the universe and how is it calculated?

I keep stressing these factors (blind, unguided, and non-intellectual) because we have an immune system, digestive system, circulatory sytem, respitory system, and reproductive system, things with a purpose, all from a blind, unguided and non-intellectual process.

Yep!

My point is, with unguideness and non-intellectual-ness....you dont get purpose. With purpose comes intent, and how can you get intent from something that cant think and is unguided and blind? Makes no sense. And no, I dont think that these "things" can warrant these kind of results.

What purpose are you talking about? You talked about circulatory systems and all that and now you added in this "purpose"?

What....no, not at all. First off, the numbers are not a matter of placing value on them. They are what they are. In order for our universe to be life permitting, certain parameters have to be met. Life will not be permitting with just any old universe out there. To the tiniest degree, our universe has so much precision that it is just laughable to think that we are here by some randon shot in the dark that met its target. Second, in the analogy, that was an example of specified complexity.

All of the parameters that permit life. That's the point, you are adding value to a universe that permits life, you think that inherently more valuable than a universe that does not. Remove that value and what conclusions can be drawn? Well, this universe is just as likely to occur as any other universe and subsequently the argument of design applies to every universe in the exact same way. No matter what exists or what laws control what exists someone can say that those laws and that existence is "precise" and therefore could not exist without being designed by intelligence. This renders the argument from design meaningless.

Ok, put it this way. Lets say there are 999,999,999 black balls in a huge box. There is also one white ball in this box, which makes a total of a million balls in the box. A killer has a gun to your head, and he blindfolds you, and tells you to reach your hand in the box and pick a ball. If you pick a black ball, you will be executed, but if you pick the white ball, you will live. Each ball has the SAME PROBABILITY of being picked, but add to the probability the indepedent color pattern of the balls, which is in favor of the black balls. That makes it even more improbable that you will pick the white ball in the pile. Now if the man told you to reach in the pile and pick a black ball, you wouldnt be worried, because the probability of you picking a black ball is in your favor based on the specified complexity, which favors the black balls. This is how the universe works, based on entropy, it is highly improbable that our universe will be life permitting, and the Penrose number shows how improbable it is, compared to our universe being life prohibiting.

And this further demonstrates my point. You are envisioning that our universe is the white ball. Why? Why isn't it one of the black balls? Simple, you think it being life permitting is valuable and it distinguishes our universe from all of the others.

10(10(123). That is what makes it special.

Funny how according to your argument, every universe is just as special based on the exact same method of calculation. Why is life permitting entropy levels any different to non-life permitting ones? How does that make our universes necessarily designed and other universes not so?

Any other universe would have to met these same parameters if it will contain life a life permitting earth. So all you are doing is taking the improbility factor, picking it up, and placing it elsewhere. Same thing, different location.

"If it will contain life". Why does it have to? The subjective value and meaning you put on life's existence is not explained by your argument, it is just assumed.

Wait a minute, who said anything about God being incapable of creating life and intelligence through the natural processes he created?? Who said that?? Thats exactly what he did!!!! If I had magic powers and i loved to paint, i could create a paint shop supernaturally, and use the paint to paint a picture. God created the universe supernaturally, and used nature to create mankind.

But you said that life couldn't come about through natural processes? Are you saying that evolution and abiogenesis is potentially true? That intelligence came from non-intelligence? Because I could have sworn you've said the exact opposite all of this argument. Do you believe that the natural processes of the universe caused life and intelligence directly that God had no more hand in it than creating the natural forces of the universe? If so, I don't know what we're arguing about.

Thats because I took away all of the fluff and feathers, and once you do that, you are left with absurdities, which is why neither you nor science is able to figure out how and why this could have happened naturally. Take away the fluff and feathers and get to the meat and potatos of the matter lol.

What you are doing is unveiling your unrealistic expectations and your reliance on ignorance. If we don't know exactly how life came from non-life or intelligence from non-intelligence or even whether it could well it must not have! It must have been God! That's what your arguments have amounted to, you haven't put anything forward, you've just asserted that science can't answer the question.

I dont think it is adequate. If the zygote was out there independently forming intelligent beings, then I will grant your explanation 100%. But since it doesnt, and its origins are based on intelligent beings, I dont see how you can logically use this as an example of intelligence coming from non-intelligence.

Because that's exactly what it did. This goes a long way to demonstrating the possibility of intelligence originating from non-intelligent organisms. it doesn't show that it's true and I never claimed that it did but it certainly shows potential and possibility.

You completely skipped the part about the intelligent parents that jump started the process in the first place.

And I plan to again, it's off topic and pointless to discuss due to your unrealistic expectations. You won't get an answer and you don't want one.

As long as God was content in his being, it really doesn't matter.

What really doesn't matter is whether God was content in his being, without time God would be as he always was when time began God was capable of change. Before time, God was not, he could not cause himself to move, to think, to create. God relied on time's beginning to do anything.

How come he couldnt?

Because thinking is a form of change and it takes time. Without time, thinking cannot be done.

Unaware of time?

Of course. Without time, how could one be aware of time?

LOL, dude, for the fifth time. If I have been sitting perfectly still in a chair for eternity (in a timeless state), there is no before or after i began sitting.

Saying perfectly still is meaningless in this situation, you have no option but to be still, without time you cannot move, think or do anything.

If you take away these temporal terms, you are left with timelessness. If I begin to move my leg, that is the first change. There were no moments leading up to me moving my leg, but there is moments after.

How could you begin to move your leg though? Without time, the thought process that goes into moving your muscles does not occur, time has to exist prior to your movement, prior to the thought of your movement.

Nobody knows scientifically. Theistics know theologically.

They think they know. They couldn't all know because there are many different theories that conflict with each other. And I don't think any of them actually know.

This wont work because this will only lead to infinite regress, which is impossible from a logical standpoint. So postulating preexisting matter or universes doesn't help the problem, but only lead to more absurdity.

It is fine to say, "I don't know." Scientifically speaking, emperically speaking, nobody knows.

 

[willowjoy]

Consider....Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.(fair warning)
Then picture what happens when someone like Hitler shows up.

As for born again...yeah.
You came into this life naked and into the arms of someone who cared.
You leave naked.
Will the spirit standing over you care?
Will they lift (bear) you up from your dust?

You did not put yourself into that body.
You might need some help getting out.

I don't understand what you are trying to say!