Of course it was an inconvience, but only in the sense that I think that Jesus would have rather NOT had to lower his Godly position in heaven, and come on earth as a mere man, get betrayed, beat, and put to death by man that he created.
If Jesus preferred not to do the things that he supposedly did, why did he do them? I think the Bible presents it as though Jesus actually wanted to save humanity and do what he did. The difference here is that in the analogy you are God, not Jesus, Jesus is the money you payed to cover the damages.
But thats all water under the bridge. Jesus said (John 20:29), that we are blessed if we believe that he raised from the death. So the damage has been done, and now it is water under the bridge. The next step is the acceptance part, which is the problem.
My problem with it is the actual damages becoming "water under the bridge".
Jesus' death removed the hell sentence, which is the eternal separation from God.
OK so the consequences are no longer death, sin no longer equals death? So given your previous notion that punishing sin with death being a part of God's nature, God's nature was changed by Jesus. The eternal, unchanging God was changed by Jesus.
No. It only covered the consequences of us going to hell. John 3:16 ".......whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life"....so in contrast if you dont believe in him, you will perish, and not have everlasting life. Jesus gave his life so that you wont perish in hell.
Apparently not because I don't believe in him. He gave his life specifically for those that do, he only supported his fan club.
Jesus DID remove the consequences, as I said before, we dont go to hell because of this. This doesnt remove the consequences of God disciplining us for sin in general. As I said before, If i rob someone one day and God disciplines me by allowing me to sprain my ankle badly, then I am suffering the consequences of my actions.
If the punishment for sin is death and that punishment is removed, then sin is not punished. Unless you are suggesting that Jesus removed sin as a punishment but made a whole new system of punishment?
We deserve hell. Anything less than hell is just a slap on the wrist based on any human standards of punishment
Yes, i know that people think this but why? I don't know what standard is being used to determine who deserves what.
I gave an analogy that is similiar to someone that is sacrificing something of their own to cover for someone elses actions. If someone is driving drunk and totals my parked car. I have a choice one whether I can call the police, or we can work out some other sort of settlement. The damage was done to me, and it is my choice on how I want to have resitution for my damages. In the analogy, whichever one that is used, a person is sacrificing from their own personal resources, whether it is invested time or money, to help someone else out. Regardless of the consequences that the person "in the wrong" faced, his friend offered to help him in his time of need. Thats the only point that I was trying to drive home.
This analogy doesn't match up though, God cannot just be "not informed" of crimes. His law, which is presumably our law in the analogy would be enforced regardless of if you reported the crime. So the fine and jail time would still apply. Personal damage costs are the only thing this analogy shares with your conclusions.
Okay, is the punishment for sin death?
As I said before, under the old system, man had to sacrifice animals as atonement for their sins, because God, in his holiness, requires justice.
How is that justice? How can responsibility for a sin be passed from man to a different animal?
But under the new convenant, instead of sacrificing animals every time we sin, one man sacrificed himself, and his death covered everyone. So one man paid the penalty for everyone. Even Jesus said in John 11:50 "You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than the whole nation perish." That is how he changed it.
Supposedly, how does it work though?
And I am uncautious of people that have given me no grounds to not trust.
So you trust everyone that has not let you down before? Even strangers? This just comes off as naive to me.
Show me a scripture where God lied.
I can show you one where God says that he lied himself.
2Thessalonians 2 said:
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.
If it wasnt true, then I wouldnt have said it
No, it seems that you believe many absurdities and untruths so the fact that you are the one who said it already lends doubt to it's truth. But again, let's not derail the thread on off topic issues.
If Jesus was who he said he was, then his words are true.
Maybe, maybe not even in being the son of God or God himself, I see no reason to believe the propaganda in the bible about how righteous they are, I don't even find them moral, they appear malevolent to me.
So based on that we would have good grounds for believing in the Christian God, and the Christian God (Jesus) is the standard and basis on how we should live our lives.
Based on that massive assumption, sure. That's a bit of a stretch though.
Instead of taking your life, God accepts the animal sacrifice. This is being lenient. Kind of similiar to a plea bargain.
How is it similar to a plea bargain? How can God accept the animal sacrifice is he is truly just or righteous?
So when a lion takes the life a hyena, does it kill it, or does he murder it??
It kills it and does so for food, when a man takes the life of a cow for the purpose of food, does it kill it or does it murder it? The fact of the matter is that morality exists in other species, we do not run a monopoly on it.
Why do you have to believe?
Very good question, feel free to answer it because I don't know the answer.
Why should his death apply to people who dont believe in him???
Why shouldn't it? I don't think his death applies to anyone, you are the one advocating it only applies to believers. Why?
Why should his death apply to anyone that doesn't accept the fact that he even existed, let alone died for our sins.
Why shouldn't it? I don't think his death applies to anyone, you are the one advocating it only applies to believers. Why?
So you are telling me that you should be able to reject him AND get the free gift of eternal life???
I don't see why not.
Feel free to explain this absurdity.
