Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[1robin]

They say God can do anything, but can he do anything without consequence. Does God create, or does he format?

Right off, I will say I don't know the answer but hear me out. I have always found it interesting how there must be opposites of symmetry. God and Devil. Angels and Demons. Heaven and Hell. Son of God and Son of Devil. I theorize that for God to let something happen he must also let the opposite happen. Good cant be good if there isn't something bad relative to it. He didn't kill the Devil, but banished him to his own dimension and allows him to have equal influence in the world.

That being said and following these same laws of symmetry. Maybe something pure needed to die for those who are impure to live. Just a thought.

This is an interesting but I am not sure how useful topic. I would like to suggest some amendments to it if you deem them reliable. God and satan do not have equal influence. The bible states that Satan at times must ask permission before an action, but God never does. It seems he has freereign within certain boundaries but must ask before he may operate outside those limits. I would add that God may have decided to balance his actions out but I see no imperative that is suffecient to force him to do so.

 

[jasonwill2]

This is an interesting but I am not sure how useful topic. I would like to suggest some amendments to it if you deem them reliable. God and satan do not have equal influence. The bible states that Satan at times must ask permission before an action, but God never does. It seems he has freereign within certain boundaries but must ask before he may operate outside those limits. I would add that God may have decided to balance his actions out but I see no imperative that is suffecient to force him to do so.

The only reason it seems that "Satan" is less powerful than "God" is because you are misinterpreting the passage of Job.

The Satan in this case was asking Yahweh's permission to try Job because he was an angel in Yahweh's court. It would be exactly like if I was a detective and asked my boss if I could do a sting operation to see if the person would bite when offered the chance to commit a crime.

There's nothing evil about that; "Satan" was a neutral title when used in the original context, it didn't actually mean that the satan in question was evil, though they could be as it was when the title was given to the enemies of Israel, but not in cases like when David was accused of his adultery with Bathsheba, in which case the prophet was not just a Satan, but an agent acting on the behalf of Yahweh. (Satan means accuser as well as opposition).

 

[waitasec]

Right. Which is why not everything about Jesus is politicized against the Romans. some sources skew that way -- others don't.

but i never said it was.

i said jesus was a political figure.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

There was no law.....only that one choice.
And the setup was performed only to be sure the alteration had taken hold.

Man was then released back into the environment.
And this digression helps your relationship with that Carpenter?

There was always law. God was right there.
But I guess it's necessary to change the playing field at will to remove all the annoying
problems with this story.
I don't need a relationship with the carpenter.

 

[Thief]

There was always law. God was right there.
But I guess it's necessary to change the playing field at will to remove all the annoying
problems with this story.
I don't need a relationship with the carpenter.

Then go back and see Chapter One of Genesis.
The creation of Man was dealt as a species.
No law...no restrictions...no names....

THEN Chapter Two....

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Then go back and see Chapter One of Genesis.
The creation of Man was dealt as a species.
No law...no restrictions...no names....

THEN Chapter Two....

You should go back and read it yourself.

 

[Thief]

You should go back and read it yourself.

That you disagree, doesn't bother me...nor will I change my stance.

Got a better rebuttal?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

The choice was predicated on there being a law.

Without any law present, the choice would not be necessary, nor would it have had any impact. East of the Tree; don't eat of the Tree. Nobody would care, with no law.
Ergo, there was a law.

Simple, really.

[I know you won't change your stance. That's one of the symptoms.]

 

[Thief]

The choice was predicated on there being a law.

Without any law present, the choice would not be necessary, nor would it have had any impact. East of the Tree; don't eat of the Tree. Nobody would care, with no law.
Ergo, there was a law.

Simple, really.

[I know you won't change your stance. That's one of the symptoms.]

Exactly correct.
Day Six...Man as a species....no law...no problem.

Chapter Two...upgrade.
Greater expectations....and greater conflict.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Exactly correct.

We both knew I was, before

 

[Thief]

We both knew I was, before

You're coming up short.
And I don't see you were ever correct.
Unless of course you have changed your mind and agree with me.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Why would I agree with someone who is wrong?

The point here is to unveil the truth, not be popular with those who are mistaken.

 

[Thief]

Why would I agree with someone who is wrong?

The point here is to unveil the truth, not be popular with those who are mistaken.

Oh I doubt my popularity.
My viewpoint is hardly mainstream.

That you don't like my viewpoint bolsters my posting.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Oh I doubt my popularity.

It's baffling sometimes how you misconstrue context; perhaps you merely skim for words... But i think I've wasted enough of my time.

We were discussing the obvious malicious intent of God holding an ingenue pair responsible for a moral choice they were incapable of making, thanks to his deliberate meddling with their awareness. Also at issue was what the manner of transformation their punishment took: genetic or spiritual. Can any valid posters take a shot at either of these issues?

 

[Thief]

It's baffling sometimes how you misconstrue context; perhaps you merely skim for words... But i think I've wasted enough of my time.

We were discussing the obvious malicious intent of God holding an ingenue pair responsible for a moral choice they were incapable of making, thanks to his deliberate meddling with their awareness. Also at issue was what the manner of transformation their punishment took: genetic or spiritual. Can any valid posters take a shot at either of these issues?

If the question had been properly constructed....

But then in proper construct...the question is almost self answering.

 

[jasonwill2]

Obviously there was a rule, since they were told to not eat of the tree. does it matter when it was made?

 

[Thief]

Obviously there was a rule, since they were told to not eat of the tree. does it matter when it was made?

Yes...it matters.

Mainstream wants to hold to the idea that Adam and Eve were the creation of Man....right from the dust.
And right from the beginning there was a problem.
But that isn't what the book says.

Here you go...
Day Six....Man as a species.
No names ....no law..... no garden.

In that form Man would have overrun the planet without developing an great amount of spirit.

Giving a choice to an animal won't increase his spirit.
Especially when that choice id of mind and heart....not body.

Man had to be self aware enough to consider the consequence.
And the choice was extreme.

Not something the previous form would have been able to cope with.

Try it with a horse.
Eat this apple and you will die.
Think the animal will refrain?

 

[jasonwill2]

Try it with a horse.
Eat this apple and you will die.
Think the animal will refrain?

Are you saying that they already had the impulse to sin? to eat of it anyway because it was tempting? or that the animal does not understand? and if it doesn,t why offer it the apple in the first place?

Also apples didnt exist in that area and time period, so it couldnt of been an apple as they wre thousands of miles away. not that it matters anyway as its just a creation myth made in response to the Babylonian creation myths.

 

[Thief]

Are you saying that they already had the impulse to sin? to eat of it anyway because it was tempting? or that the animal does not understand? and if it doesn,t why offer it the apple in the first place?

Also apples didnt exist in that area and time period, so it couldnt of been an apple as they wre thousands of miles away. not that it matters anyway as its just a creation myth made in response to the Babylonian creation myths.

More to point....and the apple is a metaphor btw....
Offer an animal the choice.
Will he not lean to his nature?
So then is he really partaking in his freewill?

The choice given....knowledge of good and evil with the consequence of death.

The choice was made.
To the better I think.

And digression to terms of myth is to say God and Man have never met.
Do you really think so?

 

[jasonwill2]

More to point....and the apple is a metaphor btw....
Offer an animal the choice.
Will he not lean to his nature?
So then is he really partaking in his freewill?

The choice given....knowledge of good and evil with the consequence of death.

The choice was made.
To the better I think.

And digression to terms of myth is to say God and Man have never met.
Do you really think so?

I have no idea what you mean by those last two lines, your writing style is very hard to understand at times. Why do you type like that?