Why did God need to sacrifice Jesus to forgive sin?

Haha - and dude, this is getting on with our lives.

 

Was the sarcasm really necessary?
I didn't pretend to hold all the answers,
I just asked what I thought was a relevant question to this 'debate'.

There IS no way to come to agreement regarding who is 'right' whenever religion is put under a microscope.
I have three friends who are Hindi.
One work colleague,Joe,who's Jewish.
My mate Kola is pagan. [should that be a capital P?]
And my mate Kathy chose Wicca.

To each,the others are wrong-but none of us has either persuaded the others to swap theologies,nor changed our own.

We did once sit talking about it/them,into the small hours,at Kathy's house-and agreed to differ.
I was fascinated with Ramesh's explanation of the Hindu gods and their various attributes,as I knew very little about them or that there were so many.
But they give Ramesh a lot of comfort.
Kathy was equally intriguing when she explained about Wicca.

No doubt to you these people hold incorrect beliefs-but each one is a really good,really decent person.
Isn't that all any God asks?

[whether you're blonde or not]

 

I think it was measured in exact proportion to your, 72 pages, gentlemen please.

I didn't accuse you of that. I answered that there is no dichotomy between getting along and having a debate.

The debate isn't between religions it is over a specific question regarding one leg of a theoretical outline. At this level there are legitimately debatable overarching perspectives, the purpose of which is not for one to overcome the other but that all sides have the opportunity to put their best considerations forward for public consumption.

This is an errant assumption on your part. There are no idle thoughts, each belief, premise, has a consistent outcome.

 

Puggybear, I didn't mean to offend with my sarcasm, it came from a light heart.

 

I'll second that motion.

 

All very interesting but you are aware that the OP for this thread is "Why did God need to sacrifice Jesus to forgive sin?" don't you?

Also I believe that there are some gods that ask for followers that are anything but a really good,really decent person.

 

No-the sarcasm was yours. At NO point was sarcasm required.
Show me the quote of Jesus using sarcasm when asked a genuine question.
it wasn't 'in measure',it was you being smug and attempting to assert superiority.
Another thing Jesus didn't do when asked honest questions by the bewildered.

Ok-I can accept my presence is not welcome.
I am unworthy,oh great one.
I can but apologise for being genuinely concerned that this debate may descend into a flame war and attempting to forestall that possibility.
I don't know you,but I've had several chats with OWB and I LIKE him,so I tried to help diffuse what seemed a no-win rather heated situation.

Sod it-I've had enough rucks and fights in my life-I want no more.

I apologise,and withdraw herewith from this thread.

Again,my apologies.

Peace.

 

And this statement is not designed to assert moral superiority? You aren't bewildered, you were scoffing at the effort. And... I already apologized to you.

If that were true i would leave you to your own devices.

I think you are as worthy as anyone to participate.

I like waterbrother as well and I don't think there is anyone in this forum who has spent more time with him. Considering how precious the time span of a life, I can be no more grateful that waterbrother has spent so much time discussing things with me.

Sorry to scare you. Peace to you.

 

Right... where were we?

 

Please, don't take us so seriously.

Most of us have been having these discussion for a long time and are friends or at least respect each other. Although from time to time it may not seem that way.

I can't speak for the others but these discussion, debates, whatever you what to call them are helpful to me because it forces me to continually review and gain new understanding of what I believe.

When you are forced to explain what you believe in new and different ways all the time, it gives you fuller three dimensional view of what you believe and helps you see any flaws in what you believe.

Although everyone knows there is no flaws in what I believe.

 

I don't know, I'm totally lost now...

Don't I still owe you a reply to one of your posts?

 

When did you join the Catholic Church

 

I strongly agree with this perspective. We learn to teach and we teach to learn.

 

I asked how. They're already dead.

That's what I keep asking you. Either you demonstrate it, or 'God' does. I'm not betting either way.

So you don't know why. But then you're not God. I am certain I am asking the wrong people.

"Ransoming" his life? Bananas? Be straight. Do you or do you not think Jesus had to be killed? Is it that you only think he had to die, or that you think he had to be killed?


And puggy, it's too late to apologize and bow out and all that stuff. You have entered into the covenant of somesuch now, abandon all hope ye who bear up.

 

Yes and they were alive, death being the result, means death is a consequence, the consequence of sin. You might want to go back and reread the definition of consequence.

Demonstrate? I told many things Jesus gained, which is what you asked, how do you want that to be demonstrated?

Yes I do know why and I told you so.

Maybe you are asking the wrong person, perhaps you should ask someone to teach you reading comprehension first and then come back and reread the answers I give you?

How many times do I have to give the same answer for you actually read it?

Yes, Jesus had to die.

Did he have to die a tortuous violent death, I don't know.

I don't know why he had to, perhaps there is a good reason for it but I don't know it.

That was really cheerful and up building, I hope Puggy was comforted by your words.

 

Enough about the dead and what is consequential to them!
Hold on to your dictionary!


OWB:

You still can't be straight? I'll try again. Do you or don't you think Jesus should have been killed? Is this tearing you apart or something? Tell me and I'll stop. One of you is plenty.

Comfort isn't what I was aiming for. I hope he has a laugh though. :-D

 

The consequence of dying as a sinner and unbeliever is of no consequence to the sinner who has died. If there were a consequence, the consequence is that there is no consequence. If anyone wants to call that a consequence, that is fine. But it would be inaccurate.

 

Death would be a consequence if you could live forever

 

I tried to convert to christianity once but OWB said he didn't want me to be a part of his religion.

 

He is using the single conjugation of a consequence as something that follows something else. In this he is correct. However he neglects to account for every conjugation of the word claiming that no definition of consequence requires experience for it to be consequential. However I provided the definition of the word with all of it's legitimate conjugations and three of the four entries absolutely required experiential appreciation to be considered consequential. There is a difference in meaning, although it is the same word between a consequence coming from comparisons at a distance and a consequence to the continuity of personal relations. Even though there may be a change of physical state, there needn't be a change in mental assessment. A physical consequence my be totally inconsequential in terms of ones own relations.

Again;
[1. result: something that follows as a result
This is a direct consequence of your negligence.]

This is waterbrothers treatment.

[2. relation between cause and effect: the relation between a result and its cause
3. importance: importance or significance (formal) (often used in negative statements)
Your opinion is of no consequence whatsoever to me.

4. logical conclusion: a conclusion reached through valid deductive reasoning]

And these require the living to make assessments to determine if a consequence is in fact consequential in terms of human meaning.

And this is what waterbrother claims the consequences are,

[negative results: the unpleasant or difficult results of a previous action]

The experience appears sad from the outside but in the case of death, the dead are incapable of experiencing the consequence as it happens to them and therefor not being able to make assessments, it is inconsequential to them. Things are consequential, that is significant, only to the living.

While waterbrothers position may seem rational, it's conclusions ignore living experience for the sake of imagination about death. What I have considered intellectual dishonesty on his part at times, because he is so intelligent, may in fact be a dim apprehension of life in general.

His world view looks for conformity to the way things should be and his mind is not oriented to discovering, what is. This is not his fault.
It is a mindset brought on by cultural indoctrination and he doesn't even know he suffers from it. This kind of seeking to enforce conformity, seriously compromises situational awareness:

Why worry about the speck in your brothers eye, first remove the log from your own, and then you can see to remove the speck from his.