Why did God need to sacrifice Jesus to forgive sin?

Ok.. religion is a fallacy.

 

To lots of folks , your right , but lots of folks find that believing in a church and worshiping in a congregation actually adds something to their lives....so....to those folks religion is very real.

 

Well it's completely subjective, and that's what most religious fanatics seem to forget - and then most tend to forget the actual message behind the religion and it all gets very messy, their actions start to contradict their so called "beliefs" and soon after everyone starts poking the opposition with swords and throwing rocks at each other. All because they claim that they're right.. but they're not. Only to themselves.

This is why I like poking extremists, because I think if you poke them enough they'll eventually realise this.. but so far I'm pissing against the wind.

 

AHA! A 'wind-pisser',eh?

We,the followers of The True Way,BURN wind-pissers,for believing in false gods,not hearing the truth,and having wet patches on their strides!

JOIN us,brother......or burn.........

 

In a way, I guess you could say that. If you believe that not knowing about the consequences of your actions means that your actions have no consequences, then there are no consequences to the dead for their actions.

But although the dead don't personally experience the consequence, I believe the fact that they cannot personally experience the consequence, is in itself a consequence.

 

Sorry, no can do.

The idea is a result of years of my debating, both sides of the issue of free will versus God's foreknowledge.

There are several different reasonings on this that I have run into but this one seems to be the easiest to defend without sounding too far out, once you get into parallel universes I think you lose a solid footing in reality and thus this is one I like.

But you might like the only other one that seems to make sense to me as well and that is that since both can't exist, then God must not exist.

 

I'm afraid the theory is woefully inadequate as far sounding not too far out.

There is another scenario entirely that does not strain credulity in any fashion. That is, god's will and his children's will are the same will and there has never been any conflict of interest. What there has been is a slander against the children of god.

 

Okay.

No

Because I'm only one person?

No.

Even fictional stories can tell the truth.

True but then we weren't talking about a human author but God as an author, weren't we?

Actually I was just trying to answer the questions asked of me to the best of my ability and you were the one the jumped into the disussion ego blazing and so perhaps you should take that chill pill yourself.

Since you corrected this, I will say that most religions do fall into the category of fallacy. I also feel science tends to think too much of itself.

 

What you are saying is true only if there is no God. But if God is brought into the picture, then there is an objective viewpoint and that is God's viewpoint.

 

Only problem with this is, if we are all children of God as you claim, who is doing the slandering?

 

Are you saying then that your viewpoint and god's viewpoint are identical?

 

No, I'm just saying God's viewpoint is objective.

 

We all slander each other and we do not know what we are doing. We do not appreciate the damning effects of our judgements. We create in the way that god creates, speaking these nuances into existence. Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened to you. Sin persists because we insist on guilt and punishment. Guilt and punishment is not god's will for us.

 

But yours, not being identical is not. Therefor it doesn't matter if god's viewpoint is objective if yours is not identical. God's objectivity then is beyond our reach.

 

Try Charles Hartshorne, Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes.SUNY Press.

 

OWB quote: "I believe the fact that they cannot personally experience the consequence, is in itself a consequence."

But then, them not experiencing the consequence is not a consequence to them! Therefore, the death of the non-believer is of no consequence to the non-believer who has died!

It sounds to me like you are using the "chose to not foresee" thing as a way to tie up loose ends that cannot be tied up otherwise. That is, if something you believe about God turns out to be contradictory--creating something he later deemed worthy of extermination--you take it upon yourself to invent that which is necessary to make things fit properly. The source of the idea that God chooses, or chooses not, to foresee events is . . . you.

 

So if this true.

And this is true, then it appears you are saying God is a slanderer who does not know what he's doing and who does not appreciate the damning effects of his judgements.

And suddenly the theory I mentioned isn't sounding so woefully inadequate as far sounding not too far out goes.

 

I'm not sure how you are connecting this with this:

But as for this, If you wish to look at it that way fine but if there is two ways of looking at something, one that makes it seem contradictory and one that does not, why is the contradictory way any better than the one that is not?

What if it was the other way around and I had come with the contradictory way, would would still say, you take it upon yourself to invent that which is necessary to make things fit properly?

 

Haven't read it, what's it say?

 

God's viewpoint does depend on whether anyone agrees with it or not, thus God's objectivity is not beyond anyone's reach.