Why did God need to sacrifice Jesus to forgive sin?

Yes but it doesn't "magically make" it false either.

Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to actually read the explanations sometimes.

I have never said; "that it must be true because that's the only explanation that makes the scenario believable". What I have said is that it is a reasonable explanation and that if someone comes up with a better explanation I will give it due consideration.

I have already said that there are several other explanations, including that God doesn't exist. Please try to keep up.

Yes that is possible but it does not fit with what the rest of the Bible says about God and you may find comfort in believing it but for someone like me, who is looking for an explanation that fits with all that the Bible says, it just doesn't fit the bill.

Once again you can believe what ever you want if it makes you feel superior but to me the Bible does not need "shoring up" it is fine the way it is. All I'm doing is trying to understand an area that the Bible does not cover and what I've said fits that bill for me, if it doesn't do it for you, that is your problem.

I don't know what you are asking here? Are you really asking for me to summarize all of some 40 years of discussion on this subject in less than a couple of million words?

Okay here is the best summary I can give you that is less that a couple of million words; God can limit the exercise of his powers if he wishes to do so and since God wanted to give us free will, he limits his foreseeing the future when it comes to individual choices.

And what I am saying is what you quoted me saying; "just because a person may not "experience" a consequence does not mean that there is not a consequence".

 

Problem is, what the rest of the bible says in your mind is influenced by your hierarchical doctrine which is synthesized by the things that have influenced
you in life, i.e., years of debating. This instance is not the only one in your repertoire.

If the bible does not cover it, perhaps it is not relevant, to what "the bible says" What makes it a matter of curiosity is the fact that you can't explain your epistemology of the bible without it.

I'll ask you this question again that you did not bother to answer on two other occasions. Which is more likely, god made himself blind, or man has been mistaken?

Except that will is not free if there are punishable consequences for exercising that will, if payment must be rendered to exercise it. This is just non-sense and no reasonable explanation at all.

 

What makes your point of view any more valid than any of the other million creationists, most of whom have different gods altogether, yet all claim they're the right ones.

Where is the rest of the bible by the way? I mean the accounts of the other 8 apostles?

 

OWB:

Yes it does, for that person.

OWB:

Yes it does, for that person.

OWB:

Yes it does, for the person.

You yourself say that the dead feel and think nothing, and if the consequence is that the person is not resurrected to live with God in Heaven, ( your "answer" to what Jesus is supposed to have gained from his being murdered ) then it is of no consequence for that person at all.

Stop pretending your 'loss for a loss' "justice" can itself be justified by an explanation. You offer a supposition, a belief, a suggestion, and nothing more.

 

Nothing makes my point of view any more valid than any of the other million creationists, although I'm not a creationist, they have some very specific beliefs that I don't agree with. But then my viewpoint isn't really very important is it, it is God's viewpoint that matters. And that should your be question, is there anyway to know the true God? Although you probably believe that God doesn't exist.

There is no "rest of the Bible", the Bible is complete the way it is.

 

Except for the parts of your narrative that it doesn't cover.

 

OWB:

Only by proxy, judging by everything you write. If God were incarnate, I'm sure he'd forgive you for attempting to sanction the murder of Jesus, then he'd utter a succinct "Get thee hence" in the hope you'll stay got, in self-forgiveness, for as long as it takes you to approach him with anything more than an apology.

 

No it doesn't, just because a person who is dead doesn't "experience" being dead doesn't mean they are any less dead.

No it doesn't, just because a person who is dead doesn't "experience" being dead doesn't mean they are any less dead.

No it doesn't, just because a person who is dead doesn't "experience" being dead doesn't mean they are any less dead or that their death is not a consequence.

I really don't think you have any idea what the word consequence means so here you go:

consequence - noun
1. the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier: The accident was the consequence of reckless driving.
2. an act or instance of following something as an effect, result, or outcome.
3. the conclusion reached by a line of reasoning; inference.
4. importance or significance: a matter of no consequence.
5. importance in rank or position; distinction: a man of great consequence in art.

There is no definition of the word consequence, that someone has to "experience" it for it to be a consequence. So even if the dead do not "experience" death, it can still be a consequence of their actions.

The consequence is quite simply death.

I'm not pretending anything, in fact it seems it is you that is pretending that I haven't already answered and invalidated your "'loss for a loss' "justice"" "reasoning". I mean if want to consider Jesus buying back mankind from sin and death a "loss", then I guess it is really your loss.

I have offered you much more than a supposition, a belief and a suggestion but you are so hung up on trying to prove you have something to say, that you just aren't listening, too bad.

 

Truly full of yourself aren't you?

No need for God to forgive me for repeating what he has already said.

 

No, you most definitely have not, except in your own imagination, invalidated Dejavu's statements. You can't buy back something that never was for sale. God gives life, he does not sell it. You have made god's kingdom seem one of robbers and thieves.


.

I am most definitely listening and if you have offered any more than those things, it is faulty reasoning.

 

OWB:

Yes it does. You're saying a dead persons death is of consequence to them. You are mad?

It is not being said that death is not a consequence, but that it is not a consequence for the dead themselves. No-one is suggesting the dead are less than dead, except you, since you believe they can be resurrected.

It's you who do not understand. Certainly death can be a consequence, but not to the dead. You consider yourself a debater, just as anyone can who can offer up objection in words.

Not to the dead themselves, only to the living who survive them.

Quite apart from the fact that I don't believe Jesus has made any sort of purchase on your behalf, the issue was what he himself has gained after death. For which you only have to offer a vague belief, that you cannot explain, but zealously uphold.

How? You just can't answer the question.

Which is...?

 

You really can be poor at reading comprehension. Definitions 3 thru 5 require experiential considerations. You are wrong.

 

Ok fair enough..

I suppose I believe in god, but I don't like calling it god because the word implies a being of some sort, and that just seems far too simple to me. It's typically human, and therefore flawed. As humans, all we do is recognise patterns physically and mentally, we're spammed with an incredibly vast array of all sorts of sensory input, then our brains add it up to make a feeble attempt to understand it all.

There is an infinite amount of shit that goes on in the universe that we can't even imagine to begin to be able to describe.. we're completely unaware of 99.99% of it.
Our bodies are limited to 5 senses, and within those 5 sense we base our entire conscious existence.. and think how vast that is to begin with.. then upgrade ourselves so we can pick up on everything there is to sense in the universe.

Whatever we can come up with in terms of god is wrong.. no matter how big you say your god is - the very idea that a very human impression of a "creator" created a magnificently un-human world is absurd. No matter how un-human you think your perception of god is, if you're believing it it's human.. therefore wrong.



But having said that, I feel that not searching out some enlightenment in life would be a rather dull existence.. but trying to explain that moment of enlightenment to someone else will always fail, because those life changing moments are experienced. Unfortunately though, a description of the experience can't evoke the experience.. just an idea. The crucial information is left behind, the meaning, the feeling, the very essence of the experience itself.

This is why I feel dogmas are a waste of time. They tell you to follow stale ideas of original experiences bathed in Truth, but Truth is lost in translation. So most of us just don't pay attention to the feelings that actually make us happy(the "essence" of your 10 commandments) because they're expecting something else, or that they're only expecting to get the reward for being good after death.. and seeing as God is so loving I can be a **** all my life, say sorry at the end and yay that's it. Live happily ever after.
I understand that that's a generalisation, and I realise a lot of people have experienced It or Truth or God or whatever you want to call it.. but by looking at the state of the world right now the large majority have completely fucked it.

 

I guess since waterbrother chooses not to rebut my comments we shall assume he stands corrected and that his argument has been shown to be wanting on several points.

 

You are mad? Reread the definition of consequence. There is no definition of of consequence that says that a person has to "feel", "know", "understand" or "experience" the consequence of their actions for it to be a consequence to them.

Reread the definition of consequence. There is no definition of of consequence that says that a person has to "feel", "know", "understand" or "experience" the consequence of their actions for it to be a consequence to them.

Reread the definition of consequence. There is no definition of of consequence that says that a person has to "feel", "know", "understand" or "experience" the consequence of their actions for it to be a consequence to them.

Reread the definition of consequence. There is no definition of of consequence that says that a person has to "feel", "know", "understand" or "experience" the consequence of their actions for it to be a consequence to them.

He made the purchase on your behalf as well.

What he himself has gained after death? Is that all you wanted to know? why didn't you just say so?

First helping others can bring tremendous happiness and he has achieved the goal he set for himself. Next Jesus is now back with his father who he deeply loves. But you probably don't care about that so how about some of the other things Jesus gained?

(Daniel 7:14) And to him there were given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him. His rulership is an indefinitely lasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom one that will not be brought to ruin.
(Matthew 28:18) And Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.
(Acts 2:36) Therefore let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom YOU impaled.”
(Philippians 2:9) For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name,
(Revelation 17:14) . . .Lord of lords and King of kings. . .
(Ephesians 1:20-22) . . .in the case of the Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name named, not only in this system of things, but also in that to come. He also subjected all things under his feet, and made him head over all things to the congregation,

And these are just some of the other things he has gained.

But I have answered your questions, all of them and most of them several times.

Like I thought you haven't even been reading my answers, perhaps you should just read the Bible and see for yourself.

 

What's to rebut? You barely make sense as it is, why would you want me to continue to point that out to you? And when I do, you ignore it anyway and go off on some tangent, so really what is the point?

 

Okay?

Okay?

Okay?

What if we didn't come up with it, what if God did?

Again if it is God that is describing the experience don't you think he might be able to do it justice? But one thing that we need to do is put ourselves in the "right frame of mind" first, while reading that "description of the experience".

I find that most people really don't want the experience, they just want to justify their lives.

That's not the way I would phrase it but I like the way Jesus said it; "broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it"

 

OWB:

Nor does it say they have to be alive. I guess whoever wrote the dictionary didn't know they'd be contending with you OWB. So how is it of consequence to them then? You can't tell me, let alone the poor old dictionary.

A supposition, a belief, a suggestion, and nothing more.

Not the how, and your answer to the why is deficient without it.

Why if "Jesus bought back mankind from sin and death" do people still die?
Ukr-Cdn tried to answer that one. He seemed to suggest there was a cooling-off period on the sale, but he didn't stick around to answer my further questions.

You think Jesus had to be killed to pay the price etc etc. and yet you once wrote that it would have been 'OK' with you if he had died a natural death. What are we all to think? That it would be ok with you that Jesus didn't pay your "ransom-sacrifice" and save you from sin and death?

Which is it OWB?

 

Which is exactly my point.. that experience is justification, however you interpret it.. being visited by "God", "Allah", or whoever.

No, unless you view God as an experience.

The "right frame of mind" could be anything, and it's certainly not whatever you come up with. That's your frame of mind.

 

The fact that you are mistaken about the definition of consequence and that being dead is a consequential to the dead.

The fact that god is the creator of life not the merchant of life.

That a negative plus a negative, is not a positive.

That mercy, forgiveness, is the way to redemption from the slander against man, not the belief is human sacrifice.

That retribution is not justice.

If you think I don't make sense, it must be because you are dimly lit as the others in this conversation seem to comprehend me just fine.