Why did God need to sacrifice Jesus to forgive sin?

That's all any of us really have with respect to the existence of god. The fact is that the existence of god cannot be proven or disproven. So, we're left with the logical category of 'unknown.'

Maybe it's just me but I don't think a hard stand (yes/no) on "an assumption" either way is logical.

 

I love the image of the crown of thorns. Sure, there is the idea that the physical suffering of Christ was a part of our redemption, but also the symbol of thorns as an effect of sin. Christ is crowned with sin, becoming in our place, that which satisfies God's justice.

 

The freewill/omniscient question is a tough one.

I do not think that God necessarily limits his knowledge of our free choices. I agree with the Molinist position that God also can know our choices that we do not make, such as If Bob was in Tahiti, he would choose to go swimming over sailing (but Bob was never and will never be in Tahiti).

God also can take the initiative in an action, but the free response from humans is also required.

 

The text of the Anglelus based on the Gospel account of the Annunciation also points to Mary's free choice and complicity in the Incarnation.

 

Why is the free response from humans required?

 

Outthere,

We all assume; that's how we come to our own conclusions. Had God foreseen the fall of humans, he would not have gone through with his creation plan. Your assertion is no different than mine in that you assume it.

They say that a tree is known by its fruit. Well, if we be the fruits of God, and we be sinners, too, then what kind of a tree does that make God? Obviously, this God had parts of himself that he was unaware of. In the beginning was God. So, I would say that the first miracle was having sin--something which had no place to come from and no possible place of origin--come into existence anyway.

OWB,

Justice, as you paint it, is called revenge. Do you believe in Hell? Tell me, how does pain, torture, and blood appease a being of mercy and love? Who put/allowed the serpent into the garden? What aspect of God comprises the serpent?

 

What god gives is truly given. Why would he destroy the universe at all?

There is no free will in that scenario as you are not free to sin without recompense. Regardless of whether god knew what you were going to do or not. Your theory is convoluted in premise.

Not in the least. You are speaking of repayment, not justice. Justice is balance simply. Justice is the harmonious world of nature as god created it, wherein life yields only to more life and there is no debt or loss, nothing wasted, nothing wanting.

You cannot serve two masters. Mammon is rates of exchange where things must be evaluated, purchased, accounted for.

God gives only fine free abundant life in as much supply as you can possibly stand and your only thought is to give unto it, give all to it, without measure.

This story of the necessity for human sacrifice is simply an excuse to justify hard heartedness and violence, perpetrated by zealots. Like the parent telling the child as he beats it, this hurts me more than it hurts you. Silliness.

No, only judgement comes from that deliberation.

The estates you refer to are METAPHORICAL.

 

outthere,

Concerning the chronological order of creation, the Bible begins with the Earth being created--complete with all manner of green things--before the Sun. Do you find this to be . . . logical?

 

And OWB, how is it that you have come to worship a terrorist? Describe, in your own words, the type of being who demands a "ransom."

 

thedope,

You do understand that we could be crucified for our opinions, don't you? Which, from what I hear, would be a walk in the park compared to what God has in store for us.

 

To stand on the chronological order of creation as fact is illogical. It's not a fact; it is unknown.

That's why the theist must have faith; that's also why atheism is an illogical position.

Atheist's claim to know as fact: God does not exist. What is unknown cannot be known at the same time. That's illogical.

 

Then to believe that the Bible is correct in what it puts forth is also illogical. True?

 

For the theist, it's not a question of logic because they admit their knowledge of god is an issue of faith not fact.

For the atheist it is a question of logic because they make the claim: god does not exist. Wheather or not god exists is currently unknown; it's not a fact. What is unknown cannot be known at the same time; that's a violation of logic.

 

Theists get their ideas about God from the Bible or other text. My point is that, if the text turns out to be inaccurate, then perhaps the very idea of a God is inaccurate as well, since the idea came from an inaccurate text.

Asked how they know that the Bible is accurate and true, someone once answered: because it is the word of God. When asked how they know that this God even exists, they answered: because it's in the Bible. When I pointed out that they are using one unsubstantiated thing to prove another unsubstantiated thing, and vice versa, they said that that's where faith comes in.

 

thanks for that.

anyways

he claimed to be a king it was against the law.

 

That sounds reasonable to me.

True:
The basis for the theist claim is faith.
The basis for the atheist claim is reason. Their claim to have definitive knowledge about something that is humanly unknowable is illogical.

 

That which supposedly condemns us is the idea that we have the knowledge of good and evil. The prescription that jesus put forth for redemption was that we forgive the world what we had judged it to be. As you judge, so you are judged. It is our own verdicts that defile us. As you are forgive you are forgiven. That which you do not forgive is not forgiven you, no matter how much nor who's blood is spilled.

Has nothing to do with blood sacrifice. The idea of human sacrifice to curry favor with the gods is primitive and superstitious, pagan. Had anyone listened to the parable about putting new wine in old wine skins could have been saved this confusion. If the wine is spilled the skin and the new wine are ruined. If you use an old paradigm, (the necessity for blood sacrifice), to interpret christ's message, then you missed the new paradigm of new wine. Love fulfills the law, not sacrifice. Sacrifice never fulfilled the law but was only an expedient to satisfy, a primitive and beastly, "hardness of heart".

 

We are hard wired to find our good, or our god. God exists in practice as that which we invoke as good cause. To have our good is fundamental to our own nature.

 

outthere,

I am an atheist in the sense that I don't adhere to the popular ideas about some theoretical hierarchy of universe members, culminating in a king of the hill type being. When someone asks me how everything came into being if not for a creator, I tell them that I don't know because I wasn't there.

So, I agree with you.

EDIT: Alright, I guess that makes me agnostic.

 

thedope,

I agree with everything you said . . . though I could have said it better if pressed to do so.