Why did God need to sacrifice Jesus to forgive sin?

I would call wanting your money back to satisfy your sense of justice, building up treasure for yourself that is susceptible to corruption.

You are penny concerned but pound stupid. It is profoundly foolish to look for justice from as system of things you claim is ruled by and belongs to satan.

No reason even to call yourself christian. What is done is done, and you don't owe anything for your acts.

 

If to sin means to miss the sign of god, (an error in perception), then it is education that is needed to overcome sin, not sacrifice. The truth it is said, sets us free.

 

Didn't know I was evading. What did you want to know? If you make a choice that results in non-existence then isn't non-existence a consequence of that choice?

The ransom is perfect life for perfect life, not pain and torture.

I meant exactly what I said and your just posting a post number appears to be an attempt make it look like I said something I did not.

Here is what I said in post #358; "he didn't get angry about it so much as he immediately acted to do something to correct the situation we had gotten ourselves into." This in no says that God didn't get angry about it. Please get it straight next time and stop implying things that aren't true.

How is that coercion? If I said the exact same thing to you, how have I coerced you? Even if I tell you that it is not good for you and may cause long term damage, I have in no way forced you not to do it and you can still use your free will to do it anyway.

That's the point, you are saying that it doesn't hurt anyone and that is just your opinion and you have no way of knowing whether that is true or not. Just because there appears to be no immediate physical damage from your act, does not mean that damage has not occurred and since God can see the long term effects of such actions, not just years but millions of years down the road, he is in a better position to let us know what is best in a given situation.

Sure, as long as you met it out according to what the entire Bible says and not just what you pick and choose from it.

God is the author of the Bible, thus making what is written in it the word of God. Just because the Bible is written so mankind can better understand it does not make it any less the word of God.

It is you that didn't understand. The fact that rain water, which is all fresh water is what flooded the Earth, the salt water would have more than likely been diluted to the point that fresh water fish could have survived, at least till the earth was restored.

As for your probable next question what about salt water fish, they have been known to swim in fresh water and no doubt there was enough salt in the water to accommodate them.

No there is no contradiction. Adam and Eve no longer being perfect could not have perfect children and they are the ones that passed sin and death to all mankind and so sin and death was not given to mankind by God but by their parents.

No one had to pay for Satan's error but Satan. Adam and Eve could have refused to go along with Satan but they didn't and so it is their sin that we are living with.

You seem to be under the impression that Adam and Eve were two year olds, they were married adults and good parents generally assume that their married adult children no longer need constant supervision. To think otherwise would be unreasonable.

 

Sin literally means missing the mark, so no, it does not mean miss the sign of God.

 

What mark? Is it not God's mark that we miss. Regardless to miss the mark is still an error in perception.

 

It is almost painful sometimes to watch you flop around on the end of your polarity.

There is precedent in nature as we speak, for fish to live and be acclimated to both salt and fresh water. Salmon species are born in fresh water and migrate to sea, changing physiologically as they go and then reverse the process when it is time to spawn. There are also fishes that live in brackish water, neither quite salt nor quite fresh.

Adam did not create man, god did. My parents did not create me, I was created by god through them. Just as god created woman through the
substance of a man. Sin is a matter of tradition, of education, not of heredity.

To be corrected of error is possible, but you cannot change a single hair on your head nor do you know their number.

 

To whom it may concern,

First, where did the rain water come from that covered the mountains? Did it come from evaporated water from the oceans? If so, then the salt content would have been concentrated before the great deluge.

Saltwater fish are evolved to deal with water constantly rushing out of their bodies. The salt in the surrounding water exerts what is called osmotic pressure on the fish. Thus saltwater fish have evolved to be constantly drinking water and excreting salts. When you put a saltwater fish into freshwater, it continues to drink heavily and excreet salt. Thus the fish quickly loses too much salt, and its body begins to react accordingly; nervous impulses are unable to travel, and the fish's CNS shuts down, causing it to die.

If you put a freshwater fish into saltwater, most fish would lose weight (from losing water from its body) and eventually die. Approximately 2% of all 21000 species of fish actually move from freshwater to saltwater or from salt to fresh at some point in their lives, the move would kill any other fish. But even with these special varieties of fish, the move must be gradual so their bodies can adjust, or they too, will die from the change. If you want to learn more about why the freshwater fish will lose water, (or why a saltwater fish in freshwater would gain water), look up the words "diffusion" and "osmosis".

So, the question remains: how did the freshwater fish survive the salt water?

You said that all choices have consequences, some good and some bad. I've asked you twice now to explain the consequences of being God's enemy. I said that death is a state of unawareness, and therefore, of no consequence as far as being good or bad. So you must agree that the consequence of being God's enemy is of no consequence. If you do not agree, then please clarify.

You speak of Adam and Eve as if they were experienced in the ways of Satan's cunningness, when they were not so much as given warning about him. If our guilt is the result of Adam and Eve, it goes to follow that Adam and Eve's guilt is the result of God--the ultimate parent. Does that make sense to you?

". . . he didn't get angry about it so much as he immediately acted to do something to correct the situation . . ." What you were saying is that it wasn't anger he was expressing when he drowned humanity, but rather an act of correction. Anyway, from what you say now, I gather that God allows free will, but somehow he is still surprised and angered when someone does something out of line with his will. I had no idea that I have the power to influence God's mood.

And you've neglected to inform me of the punishment I will receive for having sex with the neighbor lady.

 

OWB,

"Thus when God gave mankind freewill, he also chose not to foresee what they would do, because as soon as foresaw what they would do they would no longer have freewill in the matter. So, Adam and Eve had the freewill to chose to eat the "apple" or not as they saw fit, because God did not chose to foresee what they would do."

"That's the point, you are saying that it doesn't hurt anyone and that is just your opinion and you have no way of knowing whether that is true or not. Just because there appears to be no immediate physical damage from your act, does not mean that damage has not occurred and since God can see the long term effects of such actions, not just years but millions of years down the road, he is in a better position to let us know what is best in a given situation."

I'm curious as to how you reconcile these two seemingly opposing views in your mind.

 

A glaring difficulty with the ark story that doesn't involve exotic physiology is where did the bird come from if everything was destroyed but the creatures and persons on the ark.

Never mind, I may be mixing metaphors.

Again, the estates we speak of are metaphorical.

 

Non-existence is not a state of existence and is of no consequence.

 

Before the deluge there was large amount water in cloud form that not as of yet fallen to the Earth. yes given the natural water cycle some of the water came from the oceans but considering that the deluge happen some years ago the oceans may not have contained as much "salt" as they do now.

Surely you must realize that I don't believe in evolution.

As I pointed out the water at the time was neither fresh nor salt water but more than likely a combination of both that would allow for the survival of both types of fish but if that is not to your liking, then there nothing to have prevented, given the vast quantities involved and the relative short period of time, that pockets of both types of water may have existed at the same time.

I have now answered he question several times, the only difficulty is that you don't want to accept the answer.

And I keep answering but I guess you will keep asking in hopes that I will change the answer to one you'll like better.

Yes death is a state of unawareness. As for neither being good nor bad, most consider not existing to be a bad thing.

As I've said most consider non-existence to be a bad thing, just because it doesn't allow for the punishment you seem to want it to doesn't mean that it is of no consequence.

Yeah, God is going to warn them about something that didn't exist yet, please try to think your questions through first.

No, it doesn't make sense to me, anymore than making the parents of grown adult children responsible the the crimes that their children commit.

God has a responsibility to those who wish to live good lives. If you saw hoodlums killing some apparently innocent victim, if you had it in your power to stop them, would you just stand by and let it happen? If you would bother to actually read the account of the flood, you would notice that the Earth was filled with violence, so much so that only Noah and his family were not a part of it and it was those that he saved from the violence of the times.

Ultimately the punishment for sin is death and the second death, death without a chance for the resurrection is the ultimate punishment.

As for your punishment for a specific individual sin such as "having sex with the neighbor lady" that is not something God gets involved in, life is set up so that if a person makes a bad choice, the very nature of that choice will effect his life adversely, so if you like to have life come back and bite you, just continue to make bad choices.

 

That is correct.

That is correct.

In way are they opposing?

Yes, God could see that eating the "apple" was bad and would have long term bad effects for mankind and even warned Adam and Eve about it, thus he knows what the result of actions that could be taken are but he did not choose to foresee whether or not that course of action would be taken or not and so did not rob Adam and Eve of their free will in the matter.

 

You are the one and only atheist I've ever met who refers to his/her knowledge as "belief."

You however have not disproven my statement:

Sure you do. You have to prove the non-existence of god if you're an atheist. In order to prove the non-existence of god you would need knowledge of all that exists. I’d say you’re probably not qualified.

QFT

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQBDGMj2h-c&t=53s"]In the beginning, God created injustice - YouTube

God did not give Adam and Eve the metal ability to make the right decisions, he put them in a trap and unless God was an idiot, he had to have known it.

When I was 4 years old, I told a 3 year old boy to eat some play sand, and he did it without question. Would it be fair to punish all his descendants for eternity because his 3 year old mind took my bad advice. Adam and Eve were like children, unable to distinguish right and wrong, good advice or bad advise. The garden of Eden was an evil trap, They were lied to by one devil and deceived by another.

The message behind the story is testament to the manipulative nature of religion. Do what God says without question or suffer the consequences. God's will of course actually being the religious leaders will.

 

My, I got almost two minutes into this before this guy just went south. Practically the first thing that is said in the video is that God had told Adam that it was bad to eat of the tree, thus Adam did have knowledge of good and bad, right and wrong, God had told them. Eve when questioned had even told "the Serpent" that they would die if they ate of the tree, again demonstrating a knowledge of good and bad.

So since they already had a knowledge of good and bad, right and wrong what did the fruit of the tree represent?

It meant that by taking it they were taking the right to decide for themselves what is good and bad, right and wrong, since they were deciding that it was good to eat of the tree, even though they had been told otherwise. After some 6000 years we can see how well deciding what is good and bad, right and wrong for themselves has turned out for mankind.

 

What no-one has properly addressed, in spite of all these arguments about the Noachian deluge, evolution, atheism and non-existence, is this simple proposition.

Why did God not simply punish the sinners? Why did he require the sacrifice of one manifestation of himself? If it was to purge sin, it patently hasn't worked, and as he is omniscient omnipresent and omnipotent, he must have known that.

So what was the point in the brutal and bloody torture?

 

OWB,

They were told it was bad but have absolutely no concept of what bad is, or deception, or death. Children have no understanding of these concepts until they are experienced.

 

Actually they were told they would surely die for which they had absolutely no reference point for.

However they did in fact, in the story that is, take upon themselves an occupation for which we find ourselves dying in varying degrees to this day, and that is professing to have the knowledge of good and evil.

 

Preposterous that it was to satisfy god.

It is an allegory. Jesus was crucified on the strength of accusation only, there being no evidence against him and the brutality of that verdict on the innocent relations of mankind is starkly portrayed. Jesus refused to condemn his attackers recognizing them as children of god yet not at all of sound mind, "they know not what they do". It was this act of forgiveness that redeemed him from the accusation of sin in the form of resurrection as mans verdict is overturned. In not condemning his attackers he remained innocent of sin and therefore defeated death.

Beyond that, it was a political statement by the roman authorities.

 

They were not "children" they were grown adults.