Jesus Dying for Our Sins

[Sultan Of Swing]

I'm not sure you're getting my point.

When we decide to do an act, first we make the decision, and then we act on the decision. Adam and Eve were good until they weren't - i.e until they acted on the decision - so when they made the decision, they were still good.

... or to look at it another way: if "being good" isn't enough to stop a person from renouncing good, what exactly does "being good" entail?

Adam and Eve were made good. That didn't stop them from making their own decision to renounce God, that's true. From a Biblical perspective I don't think I can say with certainty exactly what 'being good' entailed for Adam and Eve specifically. For the Christian we attain the righteousness of Jesus, who died for us, so that in God's eyes we are truly righteous, even though everything we do is not always righteous, thanks to the remnants of sin in our lives.

Actually, I'd say that he's responsible for every specific evil that he intended. If it was part of God's plan, God's responsible.

... and if evil happens that isn't part of God's plan, then this undermines God's sovereignty.

And there's no such thing as "evil for the sake of good" when we're dealing with an omnipotent god. If God can do everything, then God can cause good without causing evil (since causing good without causing evil is part of "everything").

Permitting something to happen doesn't make you directly responsible for it, that lies with the wrongdoer.

In a diamond store they place the diamonds on a black cloth to make them shine brighter, and they really do shine brighter. God's plan incorporates evil (but doesn't directly cause it) and makes His own glory shine all the more brightly.

No, it isn't. When a punishment is cancelled, it's cancelled... not inflicted on someone else.

When a pardon is issued and a person is let out of jail early, the official granting the pardon doesn't serve the remaining sentence in the name of "justice".

The debt is paid. If a debt is cancelled, that still incurs a loss on the lender of that money of the same amount.

 

[Ingledsva]

You want me to prove truth from narrative, the narrative is questionable ,full of ifs no factual proof . Adam and Eve not Jewish is a fact .
Adapa or Adam was Arabic is proof they had religion before Judaism was even thought about , oldest relics of religion come from 3400 km further East .So if civilization was 3400 km away how can Adam and Eve be Jewish ?
Jog on

Adam and Chav'vah (Eve) are NOT real!

That is a Hebrew teaching story.

Most of the stories go back to other religions - where they were also teaching stories, - NOT true.

You say the narrative is questionable, - but then apparently believe it, as you are arguing Adam and Eve, - AND - you obviously believe the Christian narrative about Jesus!

So again, - which is it?

PS. The people that became the Hebrew/Jews had religion before Judaism - too.

*

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Adam and Chav'vah (Eve) are NOT real!

That is a Hebrew teaching story.

Most of the stories go back to other religions - where they were also teaching stories, - NOT true.

You say the narrative is questionable, - but then apparently believe it, as you are arguing Adam and Eve, - AND - you obviously believe the Christian narrative about Jesus!

So again, - which is it?

PS. The people that became the Hebrew/Jews had religion before Judaism - too.

*

You know with various ip and device can make 10 accounts for rf.
Every post condems christianity and supports Judaism from perspective of a heathen .
Is only a few conclusions can be drawn , Christianity you have bad experience or you have hidden cloaked agenda
Enjoy the internet Ingledsva
Without Jack and Jill is no human civilization of course adapa real however 100% not Jewish

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Adam and Eve were made good. That didn't stop them from making their own decision to renounce God, that's true. From a Biblical perspective I don't think I can say with certainty exactly what 'being good' entailed for Adam and Eve specifically. For the Christian we attain the righteousness of Jesus, who died for us, so that in God's eyes we are truly righteous, even though everything we do is not always righteous, thanks to the remnants of sin in our lives.


Permitting something to happen doesn't make you directly responsible for it, that lies with the wrongdoer.

If God set every action in motion knowing its consequences, then he didn't just "permit" evil to happen; he purposely caused it.

... and I disagree with the idea that someone who merely permits evil to happen can wash their hands of responsibility. Have you heard of Kitty Genovese? Her case was famous: she was attacked coming home, managed to fight off her attacker, screamed for help for quite some time (at least 10 minutes, IIRC), but nobody in her neighbourhood came out to help or called the police. In the meantime, her attacker tracked her down again and killed her.

I have no problem condemning the people who heard Kitty Genovese's screams but sat by and did nothing. And if your God is real, that's precisely what he did, too... and what he did for every murder in human history. You might not see this as contemptible, but I do.

In a diamond store they place the diamonds on a black cloth to make them shine brighter, and they really do shine brighter. God's plan incorporates evil (but doesn't directly cause it) and makes His own glory shine all the more brightly.

This reminds me of a joke my father would tell:
"Why are you banging your head against the wall?"
"Because it feels so good when I stop."

The debt is paid. If a debt is cancelled, that still incurs a loss on the lender of that money of the same amount.

So God's currency is suffering? If God doesn't get to torment someone, he experiences a loss?

Hmm... that explains a lot, actually.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

If God set every action in motion knowing its consequences, then he didn't just "permit" evil to happen; he purposely caused it.

... and I disagree with the idea that someone who merely permits evil to happen can wash their hands of responsibility. Have you heard of Kitty Genovese? Her case was famous: she was attacked coming home, managed to fight off her attacker, screamed for help for quite some time (at least 10 minutes, IIRC), but nobody in her neighbourhood came out to help or called the police. In the meantime, her attacker tracked her down again and killed her.

I have no problem condemning the people who heard Kitty Genovese's screams but sat by and did nothing. And if your God is real, that's precisely what he did, too... and what he did for every murder in human history. You might not see this as contemptible, but I do.

Those people in the neighbourhood had a moral obligation to help. God has no such moral obligation, His purpose is a greater one, to make His own glory shine the more brightly, that is the morally right thing to do.

So God's currency is suffering? If God doesn't get to torment someone, he experiences a loss?

Hmm... that explains a lot, actually.

God took the punishment Himself. And He takes no pleasure in punishing the wicked, the Bible is clear on that.

 

[Ingledsva]

Several Christian churches do not take all the biblical quotes as literal. If they did Hell is also not everlasting according to revelations King James Bible
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. Revelations 20:14.

....

Yep, a mix taken from the Hebrew ideas about Sheol.

ALL people both good and bad DIE (First Death,) and go to Sheol to await the coming Messiah.

The Messiah when he comes is supposed to Judge in Sheol.

The Second Death is for those whom don't make the grade.

They go to death eternal. Not Hell.

Here is the Christian -

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

*

 

[Ingledsva]

You know with various ip and device can make 10 accounts for rf.
Every post condems christianity and supports Judaism from perspective of a heathen .
Is only a few conclusions can be drawn , Christianity you have bad experience or you have hidden cloaked agenda
Enjoy the internet Ingledsva
Without Jack and Jill is no human civilization of course adapa real however 100% not Jewish

BULL to all of that.

I have ONE account.

I debate what the texts say. That has nothing to do with believing in those texts. I don't believe in the Abrahamic religions - or their God.

I have no hidden agenda.

My STUDY of the Abrahamic texts led me to the conclusion that their God - could not actually be GOD.

These texts are often used against people, - such as the so-called anti-homosexual verses, - thus it is imperative to find what they actually say, in their original languages, and discuss them.


*

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Those people in the neighbourhood had a moral obligation to help. God has no such moral obligation,

Why not? He's infinitely more capable of helping and can do so with zero risk of harm to himself. If anything, I'd say this gives him more obligation than the average bystander, not less.

His purpose is a greater one, to make His own glory shine the more brightly, that is the morally right thing to do.

So... God didn't stop the rape and murder of Kitty Genovese because her rape and murder serves God's aims in a way that couldn't be achieved otherwise?

Edit: in what way did Kitty Genovese's rape and murder "make God's glory shine more brightly"?

God took the punishment Himself. And He takes no pleasure in punishing the wicked, the Bible is clear on that.

But he values suffering, no? That's what was suggested by your analogy. You compared the "debt" of sin to a debt of money and said that there's a loss if it isn't paid.

IOW, God is lessened if someone isn't made to suffer on his behalf. That's the implication of what you're arguing. God values suffering the way humans value money; that was the message of your analogy, no?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Why not? He's infinitely more capable of helping and can do so with zero risk of harm to himself. If anything, I'd say this gives him more obligation than the average bystander, not less.

God's glory is far more important.

So... God didn't stop the rape and murder of Kitty Genovese because her rape and murder serves God's aims in a way that couldn't be achieved otherwise?

Edit: in what way did Kitty Genovese's rape and murder "make God's glory shine more brightly"?

I can't speak to specific incidents and explain to you what purpose they had, but I trust in God.

But he values suffering, no? That's what was suggested by your analogy. You compared the "debt" of sin to a debt of money and said that there's a loss if it isn't paid.

IOW, God is lessened if someone isn't made to suffer on his behalf. That's the implication of what you're arguing. God values suffering the way humans value money; that was the message of your analogy, no?

Wrongdoing deserves punishment. God takes no pleasure in suffering, or inflicting suffering on others. As long as that caveat is accepted then yes there is value but only when in relation to wrongdoing, not suffering on its own. So Jesus' suffering had value in relation to mankind's wrongdoing that He was atoning for.

 

[arthra]

NOTE, ALL MY REPLIES ARE IN REFERENCE TO CHRISTIANITY.


Even ancient Zambia, Burma, Brunei, and the Sultanate of Malacca? I don't think so.


If they fail to convince they may very well be. I've certainly seen inept preachers here in the USA. Goofball Christian preachers who've probably driven as many people away from Christianity as attracted them.


Think the opportunities are there in North Korea? They ain't. And how about all the bush natives who still cling to their "primitive" religions, bypassed by missionaries for one reason or another. Zippo opportunities. What's to happen to them? Even in the bowels of cities like Calcutta people today have no idea what Christianity is and don't care. Zippo opportunities.


.

Skwim,

Over the past three thousand years God has sent many Messengers and Prophets and people have had ample opportunities to receive Divine Guidance.
Consider the dispensations from Moses to Buddha to Jesus and Muhammad and more lately the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

 

[Geoff-Allen]

Awesome; thanks for the suggestion; I've put in a request
for it at my local library!

I actually did a little thread about the book -

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/conversations-with-god.182086/

It challenges nearly all the assumptioons of conventional religion ...

Enjoy your day!

 

[Astravalon]

Jesus' sacrifice was certainly sufficient for everyone who ever lived. But it was intended for some, His people whom He saves. Jesus doesn't fail to save anyone.

Why would it need to be sufficient for everyone who ever
lived if it was never intended for everyone who ever lived?

And if there are those who end up not being saved, how can
it be said that Jesus didn’t fail to save them, especially if
his sacrifice was sufficient enough to do so?

God ordains all things to pass, sure, but the blame lies with the human being for hating God and rebelling against Him.

The product will perform only as well as the manufacturer
designs it to. The manufacturer can’t blame the product for
performing in a way that the manufacturer doesn’t like.

Being good, doesn't necessarily make everything you do good.

Then the word “good” in reference to an individual is
meaningless.


-

 

[James Lyon]

I like this view I have a similar view on Genesis, "god" made Adam Eve and the Serpent, In omniscience knew of the temptation ahead of time and did not protect the tree, on purpose, because it was the plan. It was god fault for the "decline" awakening of man, not Eves fault for taking the temptation.

 

[InChrist]

Christianity says it's impossible for a human to do this this because of sin nature. .

Jesus was born of Mary who is not regarded as being sin free, so it would follow that Jesus must have inherited sin nature same as a human.

I believe there is biblical support for the idea that the sin nature was passed down through the father. Since according to the scriptures, Jesus had no literal, biological human father, the sin nature was not passed down to Him. Eve was the one who sinned first. However, sin did not enter the world through her. It entered through Adam. Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned. Romans 5:12

Jesus is then said to have been resurrected showing his hands and side to the disciples. Is the sacrifice then conducive with the amount of pain and suffering endured? It can't be considered a true sacrificial death in light he was subsequently brought back in the same body.

How would that be addressed?[/QUOTE]

While the physical pain and suffering Jesus endured on the cross would have been extreme and is important in that it met the physical death penalty for sin. I think the physical suffering pales in comparison to the spiritual suffering of separation which occurred between the Son and the Father, therefore also meeting the eternal penalty of death (separation). Only the Son in His God nature could have bore this separation on behalf of humanity. I consider it a real sacrifice, both spiritual and physical, because He did willingly bear the eternal spiritual judgement for sin and sacrifice His human life and finite body resurrecting to new life in an eternal, glorified body.

 

[psychoslice]

Of course Jesus never died for our sins, he or the story of him represented our death to sin, sin being, not truly realizing our true self, that self being the Christ, just as the story of Jesus becoming the Christ himself, the story of this man Jesus, is in fact our story. Sadly we have put this man Jesus up on a pedestal, so far up that we ourselves could never reach. I say its time to knock him off this pedestal and claim our own true inner Being the Christ.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Wrongdoing deserves punishment. God takes no pleasure in suffering, or inflicting suffering on others. As long as that caveat is accepted then yes there is value but only when in relation to wrongdoing, not suffering on its own. So Jesus' suffering had value in relation to mankind's wrongdoing that He was atoning for.

No it doesnt. I have a Christian friend. When she had her first child, learning from her childhood experiences, she never punished the child for his wrongdoings. Instead, she continuously taught him by telling him to question his actions and comparing them what his parents and god expects of him to do.

After awhile (he is 16 now I think), he became a very inquisitive young man. I have met him personally and he is very well mannered. It wasnt because of punishment, but because his parents treated him with respect and taught him how his actions affect himself, his parents, others, and most important to their faith, they affect Christ.

Punishment isnt needed for wrongdoings. Just half our world feels that if you do wrong, there should be some sort of pain. It was plain killing, then torture, then later in the years we spank with whips (and some still do) other parents beat their children, then slap them on the risk, and we yell as the laws are comign down on people who punish their children. If only we learned to teach children how to live with each other as we should learn as well, and if we were all Christians, learn to live how God wants us to live, no punishment is needed.

Only constant education and learning from our mistakes. How?

Constant repentence.
Study of scripture
Prayer
Living like Christ
Dying like Christ
and
Being resurrected like Christ

Why do we need to be punished by wrongdoings, when we (pretending we are christians) have Crist?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

No it doesnt. I have a Christian friend. When she had her first child, learning from her childhood experiences, she never punished the child for his wrongdoings. Instead, she continuously taught him by telling him to question his actions and comparing them what his parents and god expects of him to do.

After awhile (he is 16 now I think), he became a very inquisitive young man. I have met him personally and he is very well mannered. It wasnt because of punishment, but because his parents treated him with respect and taught him how his actions affect himself, his parents, others, and most important to their faith, they affect Christ.

Punishment isnt needed for wrongdoings. Just half our world feels that if you do wrong, there should be some sort of pain. It was plain killing, then torture, then later in the years we spank with whips (and some still do) other parents beat their children, then slap them on the risk, and we yell as the laws are comign down on people who punish their children. If only we learned to teach children how to live with each other as we should learn as well, and if we were all Christians, learn to live how God wants us to live, no punishment is needed.

Only constant education and learning from our mistakes. How?

Constant repentence.
Study of scripture
Prayer
Living like Christ
Dying like Christ
and
Being resurrected like Christ

Why do we need to be punished by wrongdoings, when we (pretending we are christians) have Crist?

That is indeed how God teaches His children, sometimes through discipline as well but also guiding and leading them.

We aren't all infants though. People are adults and responsible for their actions. Those who are not God's children deserve punishment for their wrongdoing, they do not reform and they rebel against Him till their deaths.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That is indeed how God teaches His children, sometimes through discipline as well but also guiding and leading them.

We aren't all infants though. People are adults and responsible for their actions. Those who are not God's children deserve punishment for their wrongdoing, they do not reform and they rebel against Him till their deaths.

Teaching doesnt involve pain and isolation as discipline. Teaching, as in my example of my friend and her child, is based on educating. One cannot guide someone in love through pain unless that is dependency (or like medical term) where the patient has been abused by the father and as an adult seeks love through abuse.

Those who are not god's children have not technically disobeyed him. That is like a mother I do not know punishing me for wrongdoings that dont apply to me "because I am not her child."

There is no rebellion among those who did not know and love god to begin with...

Hence no need for punishment. No sin.

But my concern, since the above is a inproper teaching in itself, discipline should involve education not isolstion and pain.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God's glory is far more important.


I can't speak to specific incidents and explain to you what purpose they had, but I trust in God.

And the idea that "God's glory" could be served by God causing - or allowing - rape, murder, or any other form of suffering just seems to make no sense at all. This is why I'd like you to give even one example to step me through how that might work. If you have a better example than Kitty Genovese, please use that one instead.

IMO, a God who permits these things would be less than a God who prevents them. You describe a God who makes himself seem more mighty by pulling his creation downward - or allowing it to be pulled. It seems to me that an even greater God would be one who doesn't need his creation to suffer for his creations to recognize him as glorious.

Not to mention that what you're saying doesn't seem to square with Christian theology: if human suffering makes God great, why would God send Christ to help as many humans avoid suffering as possible (over the long term)?

Wrongdoing deserves punishment. God takes no pleasure in suffering, or inflicting suffering on others. As long as that caveat is accepted then yes there is value but only when in relation to wrongdoing, not suffering on its own. So Jesus' suffering had value in relation to mankind's wrongdoing that He was atoning for.

Punishment is only punisment when it's inflicted on the wrongdoer. Inflict it on someone else instead - e.g. Jesus - and becomes suffering on its own... the thing you say God doesn't value.

The implication of what you're arguing is that God finds intrinsic value in suffering.

 

[rusra02]

What you wrote is not far from what mainstream "Christians" believe, but bears no resemblance to what the Bible really says, IMO. Just a few discrepancies, based upon what I believe the Bible really teaches:

• Jesus is not God. (John 17:3)
• God did not create a fiery hell to punish sinners. There is no such place. (Romans 6:23)
• Jesus was a perfect man, the equivalent of Adam before he sinned. (1 Corinthians 15:45)
• Most people, including those who died before Christ came, will be resurrected back to life on earth. (Acts 24:15)
• Gods motivation for providing the ransom for sins was love for mankind. (John 3:16)
• Without the ransom, we would have no hope. Because of what Christ did, we can live forever. (Revelation 21:3,4)