Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[filthy tugboat]

If someone gave their life for you, the least you can do is be thankful.

But apparently, he didn't give it for me, he only gave it for people that share his religious convictions. Well you know what, screw that guy. Rude!

That is the problem, ungratefulness. I assume you are a law abiding citizen, you respect mans law.

Some, certainly not all.

You do your best to obey the law. If you obey mans law, why is it so hard to obey Gods law, the same God that is the source of the man that made the law that you now obey. This is a slap in the face of the Creator.

I am unaware of "God's law", there are many claims but I see no credible reason to suspect any of them of truth.

So if i commit a crime deserving 3 years in prison, the judge can choose to give me 3 years of probation with 250 hours of community service. In other words, instead of giving me what I truly deserve, the judge cuts me slack. I am still being punished for what I did, but in slighter way. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.

Why not? Assuming a God, his commendation of what is truly deserved is absolute. If he is not giving you what you truly deserve then he is not just, nor is he righteous.

Yes, and Jesus already paid that punishment.

The animal died in the place of the person that deserved to die. The animal served as a substitute. Now under the new covenant, Jesus is the "Lamb" that was slaughtered for the sins of mankind.

How can an animal serve as a substitute? This is nonsensical, responsibility and morality do not work like this.

You dont see how it is better for one man to die for everyone relative to everyone just dying?? How about the President having to make the judgement on whether to shoot down a plane carrying 200 passengers if he knew the plane was headed towards a building in which over 3,000 people occupied. Is it better for the President to make the call of shooting down the plane carrying the 200 passengers, or to let the plane fly in to the building at which the 200 passengers on the plane are killed PLUS the 3K that are in the building??? Which decision would cause the most devastation? Or how about in basic training, where we conducted patrol missions in which we were told to patrol in wedge formations, which is perfect because in a wedge formation, everyone is spaced out enough, so that in case of a IED attack, instead of losing everyone, we only lose only a few. The more men we lose the less men we have to fight. So i think it is clear as to how and why the decision was made of one man dying for mankind.

To save lives? But the only reason people had to die in the first place was because the same being who killed the one person wanted to kill all of the people. This makes no sense. If the decision was made to save lives why did anybody have to die? How does this fit with justice and righteousness? Responsibility for actions is being absolved by a scapegoat. How? how can someone else take the responsibility and the punishment for my actions? You said it yourself, the punishment for sin is death and God cannot let sins go unjudged. But apparently he can judge a sin and kill somebody else for it? Wait what? This is ridiculous.

Naive? Ok so let me ask you a question, think about the last resteraunt that you attended. Those "strangers" that were cooking your meal, did you test your meal for poison??? How do you know that they didn't put cyanide in your drink?? Did you test it?? Well, if you didnt test it, that comes off as "naive" to me.

Good for you.

Show me.

If you'd bothered to read my post before you clicked the quote button, you would have seen it. I did it in quote brackets.

Makes perfect sense, because according to Romans 1:25 "They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator"

Hm, quoting scripture to make a point about those that don't believe the scriptures to a person who doesn't believe the scriptures...?

And would you please tell me these assumptions.

The assumption that Jesus is who he said he is AND the assumption that his words are true. Mind you we don't have any of Jesus' words, only people referring to words he may have said 30 years after his death.

First of all, lions have been known to kill hyenas just for the heck of it.

You're point? How does a species killing, even for fun, show that they have no moral capacity?

Second, when a lion mauls a human to death, is this murder???

No? Why would it be?

It applies to everyone that is willing to accept him as Lord and Savior. Everyone CAN qualify, but everyone DONT qualify.

Why does it apply only to those willing to accept him as Lord and Savior?

Well your personal opinion of what you THINK it should be is quite different from what God SAYS it WILL be.

I am unaware of God saying anything, if you mean the Bible, people said that... Sorry.

Self explanatory to me.

Not to me, feel free to support your claims of absurdity. If not, retract them.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

But apparently, he didn't give it for me, he only gave it for people that share his religious convictions. Well you know what, screw that guy. Rude!

I understand, because "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them." John 3:36

Screw that dude? but hey, "There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day." John 12:48

So keep on rejecting.

I am unaware of "God's law", there are many claims but I see no credible reason to suspect any of them of truth.

Maybe because you choose not to see.

Why not? Assuming a God, his commendation of what is truly deserved is absolute. If he is not giving you what you truly deserve then he is not just, nor is he righteous.

So if a person cuts another person some slack, that person is not just? This is silly. So since you said that you dont obey all mans laws, if you do get caught up in some foolishness and the judge is lenient on you, will you say "how unjust of you, your honor, I deserve 15 years but you are only giving me 5, I will not accept this and i do wish to serve my full 15 years." I don't think that you would. Cutting slack on someone does not mean that you are unjust, it just mean that you are compassionate and willing to forgive.

How can an animal serve as a substitute? This is nonsensical, responsibility and morality do not work like this.

What is nonsensical is to believe that can life can come from nonlife, that order can come from chaos, and that intelligence can come from non-intelligence. That is what a non-theist have to believe. Even if I wasn't a Christian and didnt believe in Christian doctrine, i still wouldnt believe that life can come from non-life. So it is clear to see which is more sensical. The very fact that you have to believe in these absurdities goes to show what lengths you are willing to take in order to not believe in God. Instead of taking the life of man, he decided to take the life of an animal as a substitute for the sin of man. Now, in order to not to think that this is just, dont worry about it, because if Christianity is true, on judgement day, you will get exactly what you want, which is punishment for your sins. Thats what you want, right?? So God will give you what you want. You dont believe that the Jesus atonement was necessary, so therefore you will get the punishment you deserve, since in your eyes, it will be more just anyway, just as you wish.

To save lives? But the only reason people had to die in the first place was because the same being who killed the one person wanted to kill all of the people. This makes no sense. If the decision was made to save lives why did anybody have to die? How does this fit with justice and righteousness? Responsibility for actions is being absolved by a scapegoat. How? how can someone else take the responsibility and the punishment for my actions? You said it yourself, the punishment for sin is death and God cannot let sins go unjudged. But apparently he can judge a sin and kill somebody else for it? Wait what? This is ridiculous.

I see you didn't answer the question but instead resorted to rhetoric. The wages of sin is death. Since we can never live up to perfection, everyone would be dead, since we all sin. God created a system to where he could dwell with man, give them free will, and also offer them atonement for their sins, without taking their lives. But as i said earlier, since you dont believe that this is necessary, if Christianity is true, on judgment day, you will get what you "deserve", even according to your own moral code. You are saying that it is not moral for someone else to die for our sins, so on judgement day, you will die for your own. It will work out fine for everyone, you will die for your own sins, and those that does/did accept and realize that Jesus died for our sins will be saved. I dont know about you, but this is a win/win situation for both you and me

Good for you.

Also good job of dodging the question

If you'd bothered to read my post before you clicked the quote button, you would have seen it. I did it in quote brackets.

haha show me again.

Hm, quoting scripture to make a point about those that don't believe the scriptures to a person who doesn't believe the scriptures...?

So it is not ok for me to quote scripture to a person who doesn't believe in the scriptures, but it is ok for me to discuss biblical theology with someone that doesnt believe in biblical theology, and yet, you are participating in the discussion, but you dont believe in the theology?? Makes no sense.

The assumption that Jesus is who he said he is AND the assumption that his words are true. Mind you we don't have any of Jesus' words, only people referring to words he may have said 30 years after his death.

First of all, the subject of Jesus is a historical subject, and all of history as we know it are based on after the fact assumptions, because none of us were around when the events took place. So this "assumption" business you are talking about applies to any historical person or event in history. Second, we do have the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels, and the "words" were not said 30 years after his death. The words were said DURING his life but only written about as Gospel accounts after his death. If I gave you alledged quotes of Martin Luther King, this would be over 30 years after his death. So if I can do this with MLK, why is it such a big deal about his followers recording his words long after his death?? This is a typical double standard and if we applied this silly logic that is applied with Jesus to every other historical figure, we would have to question all history.

You're point? How does a species killing, even for fun, show that they have no moral capacity?

So, if i run up to an old lady, stab her, and run away, i am murdering her, right? But if a lion runs up to an old lady, kills her, and run away, the lion doesn't murder the lady. Now on your view, we are all animals anyway, so why am i murdering the lady, but the lion just "killing" the old lady. What is the difference?

No? Why would it be?

Why shouldn't it be? Human beings are animals on your view. So why when a human kills another human, it is murder. But when a lion kills a human, it isn't murder. Different words are used to described the same thing. Why??

Why does it apply only to those willing to accept him as Lord and Savior?

So you reject that Jesus died for your sins, yet you have the nerve to ask why cant you received the gift that resulted FROM him dying for your sins. Foolishness.

I am unaware of God saying anything, if you mean the Bible, people said that... Sorry.

So you are unaware of Abraham Lincoln saying the Gettysburg Address too.

Not to me, feel free to support your claims of absurdity. If not, retract them.

Dont even remember, but if it was absurd then, the chances are it is absurd now.

 

[Falvlun]

Be more specific.

Quantrill

Post 361. See the post for full specificity.

In short, the definition of forgiveness precludes the need for repayment. If payment is demanded before forgiveness, then it is not forgiveness. And if forgiveness is given, then the debt is gone.

 

[Falvlun]

He forgave his aggressors for killing him.

Okay. So God forgave the people who crucified Jesus. He forgave their sin, and did not require them to pay the debt incurred from this sin (i.e. the definition of forgiveness).

What about the rest of us, the "sins of the world"? Did God not forgive those?

 

[Falvlun]

You are comparing humans to animals my friend . That is apples and oranges. The animals life serve as a substitute for the human life, The question of whether it is just or not, the answer, is, yes. Especially given the fact that God is kind and compassionate and eager to forgive. The fact that he set this system up (an animal life for a human life) shows his compassion. He is very sympathetic and does not wish that any life be lost. A true Father

I can buy that allowing an animal, and Jesus, to die for our sins shows compassion*,**.

*Ignoring the fact, for the moment, that it was God who created the price and punishment in the first place.

** That it shows compassion for humans, and not the animals.

I am still confused, however, as to how this action would be just. If my friend broke my car windows, would it be just to punish his actions by kicking his dog?

 

[fishy]

What is nonsensical is to believe that can life can come from nonlife, that order can come from chaos, and that intelligence can come from non-intelligence. That is what a non-theist have to believe. Even if I wasn't a Christian and didnt believe in Christian doctrine, i still wouldnt believe that life can come from non-life. So it is clear to see which is more sensical. The very fact that you have to believe in these absurdities goes to show what lengths you are willing to take in order to not believe in God. Instead of taking the life of man, he decided to take the life of an animal as a substitute for the sin of man. Now, in order to not to think that this is just, dont worry about it, because if Christianity is true, on judgement day, you will get exactly what you want, which is punishment for your sins. Thats what you want, right?? So God will give you what you want. You dont believe that the Jesus atonement was necessary, so therefore you will get the punishment you deserve, since in your eyes, it will be more just anyway, just as you wish.

Define life wildy, just what is life?

 

[Falvlun]

Hahaha. For a moment there, I was wondering who the Cow was.

 

[Quantrill]

Okay. So God forgave the people who crucified Jesus. He forgave their sin, and did not require them to pay the debt incurred from this sin (i.e. the definition of forgiveness).

What about the rest of us, the "sins of the world"? Did God not forgive those?

When God forgave those who crucified His Son, it means He didn't bring the immediate judgement upon them. For those of them who never turned to Christ, they will have it visited upon them on the judgement day.

God was not forgiving the sins of the world. He paid the penalty for the sin of the world. He can as a result forgive the sins of those who are in Christ. Forgiving meaning He can forgive the sin of the Christian as the Christian walks through this life.

Those who are not in Christ, who have rejected Christ, are either judged immediately or at the judgement day. The key is to be in Jesus Christ.

Quantrill

 

[fishy]

When God forgave those who crucified His Son, it means He didn't bring the immediate judgement upon them. For those of them who never turned to Christ, they will have it visited upon them on the judgement day.

So he didn't forgive them at all, he was lying.

God was not forgiving the sins of the world. He paid the penalty for the sin of the world. He can as a result forgive the sins of those who are in Christ. Forgiving meaning He can forgive the sin of the Christian as the Christian walks through this life.

He paid the penalty to himself. I owe myself $10, I give myself $10, debt paid. Pretty stupid huh?

Those who are not in Christ, who have rejected Christ, are either judged immediately or at the judgement day. The key is to be in Jesus Christ.

Quantrill

The boogyman effect. Be afraid, be very afraid. Gonna get a shock when god shows up in a hockey mask. :biglaugh:

 

[Dan4reason]

God is all powerful, why make a man just to die to save everyone when he could just do it by thinking it happening?

Yes, I know I will get a lot of comments saying "Jesus is no man! He is God!" Well, technically isn't he a demigod? Half man half God? And even if you don't consider him to be, it just made people suffer from sadness, especially Mary the mother of Jesus.

My biggest problem is that I don't see how such a thing is just. Justice is that the people who do wrong are punished. If you punish an innocent person for the crimes of another, no matter how willing they may be to be punished, such a thing is still unjust because the guilty are going unpunished, and the innocent are being punished for crimes they did not commit.

What if a first degree murderer was about to be sentences to death. Would you as a federal judge allow his mother to be voluntary killed for him and allow him to walk out into the streets free? Such a thing is ludicrous!

 

[filthy tugboat]

I understand, because "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them." John 3:36

Screw that dude? but hey, "There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day." John 12:48

So keep on rejecting.

Plan to.

Maybe because you choose not to see.

I don't think that's actually possible. It's not really a choice.

So if a person cuts another person some slack, that person is not just? This is silly. So since you said that you dont obey all mans laws, if you do get caught up in some foolishness and the judge is lenient on you, will you say "how unjust of you, your honor, I deserve 15 years but you are only giving me 5, I will not accept this and i do wish to serve my full 15 years."

Hell no I won't but others certainly might and they wouldn't be wrong. If the justice system has set punishments for crimes and a judge chooses to over rule that and give the person less of a punishment then that is not justice according to that system.

I don't think that you would. Cutting slack on someone does not mean that you are unjust, it just mean that you are compassionate and willing to forgive.

It means both, it is unjust to subvert and over rule the justice system in question. That is the very definition of justice.

What is nonsensical is to believe that can life can come from nonlife, that order can come from chaos, and that intelligence can come from non-intelligence. That is what a non-theist have to believe. Even if I wasn't a Christian and didnt believe in Christian doctrine, i still wouldnt believe that life can come from non-life. So it is clear to see which is more sensical. The very fact that you have to believe in these absurdities goes to show what lengths you are willing to take in order to not believe in God.

Are you really trying to derail again?

Instead of taking the life of man, he decided to take the life of an animal as a substitute for the sin of man. Now, in order to not to think that this is just, dont worry about it, because if Christianity is true, on judgement day, you will get exactly what you want, which is punishment for your sins. Thats what you want, right?? So God will give you what you want. You dont believe that the Jesus atonement was necessary, so therefore you will get the punishment you deserve, since in your eyes, it will be more just anyway, just as you wish.

I think this amounts to, "ignore it... Yada yada yada... Pascal's Wager." Ahhh, no thanks, could you perhaps answer the question? It doesn't make sense to me, so perhaps you could explain the relationship between vicarious redemption and responsibility.

I see you didn't answer the question but instead resorted to rhetoric.

What question? You answered your own questions in that passage? I didn't think I had to given they were all loaded questions.

The wages of sin is death. Since we can never live up to perfection, everyone would be dead, since we all sin.

Odd that God made this system of perpetual failure and death? More nonsense.

God created a system to where he could dwell with man, give them free will, and also offer them atonement for their sins, without taking their lives.

Yes, now could you explain how that system logically works? What happens to responsibility? How does scapegoating remove the consequences for sinning? I honestly don't understand it, in every human system of laws and even social events, we can't just kill an animal or another person to absolve ourselves of our crimes, how does it work with God?

But as i said earlier, since you dont believe that this is necessary, if Christianity is true, on judgment day, you will get what you "deserve", even according to your own moral code. You are saying that it is not moral for someone else to die for our sins, so on judgement day, you will die for your own. It will work out fine for everyone, you will die for your own sins, and those that does/did accept and realize that Jesus died for our sins will be saved. I dont know about you, but this is a win/win situation for both you and me

More of Pascal's Wager?

Also good job of dodging the question

I didn't think the question had to be answered, it was a loaded question that you know the answer to and I don't see any point in continuing this direction for the debate, but if you really want it. No, I don't test my food because I have no reason to suspect anybody would want to poison me, further, this business profits from my being alive and eating there, they would not gain anything from my death. Based on this, it is reasonable that i would not be poisoned there.

haha show me again.

10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

Happy now?

So it is not ok for me to quote scripture to a person who doesn't believe in the scriptures, but it is ok for me to discuss biblical theology with someone that doesnt believe in biblical theology, and yet, you are participating in the discussion, but you dont believe in the theology?? Makes no sense.

It wasn't just that you were quoting scriptures, it was the content you were quoting and what I presumed was the reason you were quoting it. It doesn't make sense why you would quote that, what were you trying to achieve?

First of all, the subject of Jesus is a historical subject, and all of history as we know it are based on after the fact assumptions, because none of us were around when the events took place. So this "assumption" business you are talking about applies to any historical person or event in history.

Yep, the big difference being the content of what is claimed in the Bible and the bias of the authors of the gospels. Historically speaking, the gospels are unreliable secondary evidence. They aren't even primary because the authors didn't witness the events they describe. There is such a thing as the historical method and according to it, the accounts' of Jesus' life are unreliable.

Second, we do have the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels, and the "words" were not said 30 years after his death. The words were said DURING his life but only written about as Gospel accounts after his death.

Maybe, maybe not. The words written down 30 years later went through 30 years of other people talking and potentially false stories popping up, also the bias of the authors must be taken into account. Historically speaking, the words written down are unlikely to be the words spoken and subsequently the sources are unreliable.

If I gave you alledged quotes of Martin Luther King, this would be over 30 years after his death. So if I can do this with MLK, why is it such a big deal about his followers recording his words long after his death??

Because those quotes were recorded during his life, in front of thousands of witnesses and many different forms of media recorded them as they were being spoken, independently. Your repetition is unreliable, the primary sources are not.

So, if i run up to an old lady, stab her, and run away, i am murdering her, right?

Murder is a legal term, not a moral one. But according to Australian law, you would be murdering her yes.

But if a lion runs up to an old lady, kills her, and run away, the lion doesn't murder the lady.

No, why would he? Lions are not judged by human legal systems? Or at least not in Australia.

Now on your view, we are all animals anyway, so why am i murdering the lady, but the lion just "killing" the old lady. What is the difference?

Human law? It's only murder because of the legal system, they are both killing. You might want to put this in context of morality rather than law.

Why shouldn't it be? Human beings are animals on your view.

They should be in your view to, if not you either don't know the definition of animal or you don't know what constitutes a human. I don't understand how or why people object to humans being considered animals, it's simple biology and it's in the damn definition of the word.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I can buy that allowing an animal, and Jesus, to die for our sins shows compassion*,**.

*Ignoring the fact, for the moment, that it was God who created the price and punishment in the first place.

I dont know, because with God, I think the punishment of "death for sin" is a necessary condition. Think of it like this, have you ever had a person, or a circumstance, situation, event, that you just cant tolerate??? Have you ever heard someone say "I just cant stand to be around that person." Well if you say that, chances are, you will try your best to avoid that person. I think it is the same way with God. He is so morally perfect that any type of wrongdoing is a complete disgust to him, and disgust is an understatement. So I dont think it is God "setting the price" of punishment by "death for sin". Death, which is separation from God, is the necessary punishment for offending a holy God. Now God does set the punishment for sin after the death penalty has been removed, adn this punishment is any way he decides to disipline us for our sins.

** That it shows compassion for humans, and not the animals.

I am still confused, however, as to how this action would be just. If my friend broke my car windows, would it be just to punish his actions by kicking his dog?

Think of it more like your friend committing an act against you that deserves death, but you love your friend and is willing to forgive him. So instead of killing your friend, you kill his dog.

 

[Dan4reason]

I dont know, because with God, I think the punishment of "death for sin" is a necessary condition. Think of it like this, have you ever had a person, or a circumstance, situation, event, that you just cant tolerate??? Have you ever heard someone say "I just cant stand to be around that person." Well if you say that, chances are, you will try your best to avoid that person. I think it is the same way with God. He is so morally perfect that any type of wrongdoing is a complete disgust to him, and disgust is an understatement. So I dont think it is God "setting the price" of punishment by "death for sin". Death, which is separation from God, is the necessary punishment for offending a holy God. Now God does set the punishment for sin after the death penalty has been removed, adn this punishment is any way he decides to disipline us for our sins.

So God is overreacting to sin because he just can't emotionally take imperfect people? Wow. What an elitist. This guy has no self control. Maybe he shouldn't be the person to define what morality is? Come on, seriously. Death penalty for everything? This God is crazy.

And how in the world do you deserve death for just annoying God? I didn't know taking an action that was not directed toward God, but annoyed him, deserved death. Maybe God should just chill.

Think of it more like your friend committing an act against you that deserves death, but you love your friend and is willing to forgive him. So instead of killing your friend, you kill his dog.

When I think of a guy who kills his dog because of something someone else did, I think of some trashy drunk guy with a beer belly, not an omni-benevolent being.

 

[Quantrill]

So he didn't forgive them at all, he was lying.


He paid the penalty to himself. I owe myself $10, I give myself $10, debt paid. Pretty stupid huh?


The boogyman effect. Be afraid, be very afraid. Gonna get a shock when god shows up in a hockey mask. :biglaugh:

He forgave in that He didn't administer the judgement at that time. Who was lying?

Those who sinned are those who must pay.

Quantrill

 

[fishy]

He forgave in that He didn't administer the judgement at that time. Who was lying?

Those who sinned are those who must pay.

Quantrill

Are you serious? You're now claiming that withholding judgement is the same as forgiveness. That is simply unbelievable.
No you see that is the problem, Jesus is the one who paid himself for those who sinned. Why do you have so much trouble with all of the conflicting doctrines in your one belief system...................oh I see.

 

[Quantrill]

Are you serious? You're now claiming that withholding judgement is the same as forgiveness. That is simply unbelievable.
No you see that is the problem, Jesus is the one who paid himself for those who sinned. Why do you have so much trouble with all of the conflicting doctrines in your one belief system...................oh I see.

Yes, Jesus paid for the sin of the world.

That is not 'forgiveness'. That is payment. Because He did pay it, He can forgive.

Quantrill

 

[fishy]

He forgave in that He didn't administer the judgement at that time

I'm sorry, what language do you speak?

 

[Koldo]

Logical to you. Not to God.

Accept what you like.

Quantrill

There aren't two different logics.
It is the same logic for everyone.

 

[Quantrill]

There aren't two different logics.
It is the same logic for everyone.

Logic is affected by ones beliefs and what they are presenting. Its not a question of different logics. Its your logic based on your belief. The consistancy of your argument.

The Bible presents God as righteous and Holy and Who must judge sin. Your logic disagees. But, your 'logic' is not based on God as presented in the Bible.

Not different logics. Different beliefs.

Quantrill

 

[Thief]

Logic is affected by ones beliefs and what they are presenting. Its not a question of different logics. Its your logic based on your belief. The consistancy of your argument.

The Bible presents God as righteous and Holy and Who must judge sin. Your logic disagees. But, your 'logic' is not based on God as presented in the Bible.

Not different logics. Different beliefs.

Quantrill

Have you read anything of St. Thomas Aquinas?

He set about proving catholic dogma...logically.
Try that and see if it works for you. (homework)