Why did God need to sacrifice Jesus to forgive sin?

Okay but it could be #1

 

What comes from God is perfect, non-corrupt if you want but the nature of free will means that one can choose to corrupt themselves.

 

I have never understood why theists see it necessary to ask these kind of questions. If they have faith, then they believe in whatever their chosen religion tells them to believe. They should not seek to understand why, because faith is properly defined as belief without proof.

Asking "why" implies a logical or at least a comprehensible answer, which can only be sought in order to justify faith. Yet faith needs-indeed, must never have-justification, because then it ceases to be faith and becomes certainty.

On the other hand, these questions keep cropping up. I honestly wonder why.

 

outthere:

God exists as concept. The atheist position is only a relative one of belief.

I don't claim to have definitive knowledge about something that is "humanly unknowable."

 

OWB:

In my travels I've discovered that "true" justice is only ever poetic.

Justice 'calls' for nothing. It is a balancing as thedope says.

A question for you. Do you believe in God more than you do in Satan?

 

All are as god created.

How many thousands of years between moses and jesus? If jesus was the help then he was somewhat tardy, not immediate.

 

OWB,

Why would one of God's angels misuse his free will? Was there something more desirable to be had? If so, what was it?

And you make my point when you say that there is no free will without turning oneself into God's enemy. That's not free will, my friend; that's coercion.

As far as humans are concerned, it is true that all choices have consequences. However, the grave is not a consequence of any consequence. If you are dead, then you are unaware of where you are and what you're missing. I don't see it as any consequence. Please explain.

When you say that justice calls for the ransom, and that since mankind could not provide it, God lovingly provided it for them, all you're doing is superimposing an impersonal universal dynamic over God's face; for, you are forgetting that God is the maker of justice. Therefore, it is God who demanded a ransom. You're saying that the piper had to be paid. What you're trying to avoid is having to say that God is the piper! I think that your desire to make your beliefs true has blinded you to exactly how blasphemous your contention is; that being that your God--the creator of justice--demanded a ransom which consisted of torture and blood. Can you not see the contradiction in that idea?

Why do you say that God doesn't get angry? When he allegedly drowned every human because he was . . . angry, how is that a corrective measure? It's not like anybody was going to behave more appropriately because of being subjected to their "lesson." They're dead!!

And while we're on the subject, perhaps you'd care to explain how the freshwater fish survived being suddenly subjected to salt water during the great flood.

 

thedope,

Was God really tardy? Did you not know that a thousand years is but a day to the Lord? I'm surprised at you.

 

OWB,

If justice truly called for a ransom, then it would have delivered one. I find it puzzling when you state that mankind could not provide it, and so God lovingly provided it for them. What ever became of justice? Why didn't it deliver?

You also said that Genesis provides an account of the preparation of the Earth for human habitation from the viewpoint of someone on Earth. But humans hadn't been created yet. So, whose viewpoint are you referring to? Is Genesis the word of God, or the observation of a nonexistent person?

 

While it might be belief to you and me, atheists generally don't refer to their knowledge as 'belief.'

I never said you did. Your quote of me was to storch.

 

A day is a day to a man. The remedy was for man not for god according to waterbrother's scenario.

 

outthere:

Nor anyone else, generally. So the generalization of a particular position then makes it illogical? I'd say yours does, definitely.

Yes you did. I'm an atheist.

 

Not if you believe you know.. because if an atheist recognised the Unknown he wouldn't be a very good atheist.

 

There's a fundamental difficulty with this. You either believe, or you know.

Example. I believe my girlfriend would not cheat on me. The power of the belief will depend on how well I know her, how long we've been together, the strength of our relationship, and so on. But I know that she is taller than me, because we've stood next to each other many times.

At some point on a continuum, belief may become knowledge, but that necessitates the accumulation and analysis of evidence. Which, as I have already stated, is the antithesis of faith.

I'm not criticising faith: for those who have it, I'm sure it's a wonderful thing. But faith (belief) cannot ever become certainty (knowledge) because then it requires no commitment.

 

Ivory:

But why would it require commitment having become knowledge?

One can believe what one knows.

 

I didn't say it requires commitment having become knowledge. I said it requires NO commitment, having become knowledge.

Why would one want to believe what one knows? I KNOW my lady is taller than me. Whether I believe that depends on whether I accept reality.

 

Perhaps that is your proper definition of faith but the Bible defines Faith as the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.

 

That is probably because you look to man for justice and not God.

One for one is a balancing.

Do you believe in trees more than rocks?

 

Ivory:

But you're saying belief can't become knowledge.

It's not a matter of wanting to.

OWB:

Perhaps it is because I'm not looking for it.

Only if the 'one' happens to be the very same. Otherwise it is only an approximation.

Let me put it this way, do you believe God requires Satan?

 

Because he wanted what was not his.

He thought so.

He wanted mankind to worship him instead of God.

I never said that.

A person can make billions of law biding choices without making himself a criminal, it is the lawbreaking choices that make him a criminal.

No my friend that is not coercion, it is just being wise enough to make good decisions. You can smash your hand with a hammer if you want but the pain and suffering that results is not coercion, just stupidity.

Men were never to die but were meant to live forever right here on Earth, death is a consequence of Adam's sin.

It is you that is trying to make a contradiction where there is none.

If what is just changes from day to day how could anything ever be considered just?

What is just has to be universal and unchangeable, changing what is just would be unfair and unjust and thus God is bound to do what is just and is not free to change it every time mankind feels they don't like what is just.

Please stop trying to put words in my mouth. Show me where I ever said that God doesn't get angry? Please stop just making things up.

As for the flood, God didn't drown every human, just most. Did you even bother to find out why he did it or are you blinded by your own hatred of God?

Since when does it rain salt water?