Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to Victim.

[Greatest I am]

Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to Victim.

Sin, by it’s very nature must have a victim. Without avictim, there is no sin.

The one sinned against has the first right of forgiveness.

If Jesus usurps that right then I think it would be unjust.

Closure is being denied the victim thus victimizing istwofold.

Jesus would not condone such a thing.

Secular law now demands a victim assessment report beforesentence is given.

To think that Jesus would ignore this requirement isunthinkable.

This means that, “Why have you forsaken me? “, is answeredby God with; because what you do is immoral. You deny the victim her or hisrights. It is also unjust to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. Infact, that notion is insane.

In the scenario shown here the victim is ignored thusshowing the flaw in the judge’s ruling, if he accepts substitutionary atonement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqP_fjBkwxc&feature=related

Regards
DL

 

[Stone]

Curiously, your ramblings sound a lot like the rhetoric you claim to reject in the Old Testament....an eye for an eye.


Do you really think all sin is covered by secular law?

 

[Greatest I am]

Curiously, your ramblings sound a lot like the rhetoric you claim to reject in the Old Testament....an eye for an eye.

Do you really think all sin is covered by secular law?

No.
Some things are called sin but are not.
These are ignored by intelligent laws as well as intelligent people.

Regards
DL

 

[Stone]

No.
Some things are called sin but are not.
These are ignored by intelligent laws as well as intelligent people.

Regards
DL

Do you really think all sin is covered by secular law?

No.

Your position just took a big hit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin

Sin refers to an act that violates a moral rule of a religion. The term sin may also refer to the state of having committed such a violation. Sin can refer not only to physical actions taken, but also to thoughts and internalized motivations and feelings. Colloquially, any thought, word, or act considered immoral, selfish, shameful, harmful, or alienating might be termed "sinful".

You've committed so many fallacies in your argument, I don't know how you live with yourself

Some things are called sin but are not.

No doubt, but you really screwed the pooch on this line of logic.
Obviously, not all sin is punishable by secular law and not all sin has a two party relationship of perpetrator and victim....even under secular law.



Your argument ( see below ) seems more about slighting Christianity because it doesn't present revenge as a moral position.
Revenge ( wrath ) is often called one of the seventh deadly sins.


This is your argument:
You fault Christ for sinning because he won't sin.
That's insane logic.

This means that, “Why have you forsaken me? “, is answeredby God with; because what you do is immoral. You deny the victim her or hisrights. It is also unjust to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. Infact, that notion is insane.

You just stated that not enacting revenge is immoral.

I've been telling you you ought to think out these hate tirades a bit further.....they're just too damn illogical.

You need help

 

[Stone]

One thing that does puzzle me, aside from GIA himself ( .....) is why I seldom see any of the fundamentalist crowd confronting this rubbish.

Have you guys silently forgiven him and walked off to more pleasant pastures?

 

[TenaciousDave]

When was the last time you've been with a woman,DL? :unsure:

 

[Minor Axis]

My impression is that "sin" is an act that God disapproves of. Maybe off point, but do we have an authenticated list? And while the Ten Commandments sounds pretty good, the source has not really be authenticated...

The only way for an individual to progress under God's absentee tutilage where sins are decreed and punished, would be to allow the individual to learn, be repentant, be punished or forgiven depending on the circumstance, and then move forward. But you'd need something other than an absentee God to get involved first hand. Tossing souls into hell for eternity smacks of a human concept of how a God would function and does not add up if everlasting love is involved in the process.

 

[Greatest I am]

My impression is that "sin" is an act that God disapproves of. Maybe off point, but do we have an authenticated list? And while the Ten Commandments sounds pretty good, the source has not really be authenticated...

The only way for an individual to progress under God's absentee tutilage where sins are decreed and punished, would be to allow the individual to learn, be repentant, be punished or forgiven depending on the circumstance, and then move forward. But you'd need something other than an absentee God to get involved first hand. Tossing souls into hell for eternity smacks of a human concept of how a God would function and does not add up if everlasting love is involved in the process.

Good point on the big 10.

If they were that hot, then why did the Jews come up with their list of, what was it, 360.

One would also wonder why, if Moses actually believed in God, he would change his commandment on divorce.

Also, hell was not invented till Jesus, meek and mild, endorsed it. The Jews had no such thing and their view was that Jesus had no right to forgive sin. Forgiveness was man to man.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

When was the last time you've been with a woman,DL? :unsure:

That has never been a problem because----

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39YUXIKrOFk

Regards
DL

 

[Stone]

Good point on the big 10.

If they were that hot, then why did the Jews come up with their list of, what was it, 360.

One would also wonder why, if Moses actually believed in God, he would change his commandment on divorce.

Also, hell was not invented till Jesus, meek and mild, endorsed it. The Jews had no such thing and their view was that Jesus had no right to forgive sin. Forgiveness was man to man.

Regards
DL

Interesting, but you're not of the Jewish faith.
So when you post logic that it's a sin , not to sin......that's on you, not the Jews, Christians, Muslims, probably not Gnostics and I doubt atheists .......nor anyone, really, that's mentally competent.
It makes no sense.

 

[Stone]

Let me ask you this, GIA........if....and it's an incredible 'IF'......if you ever accomplish converting Christians to your religion, out of the remaining religions, which one would you, or perhaps you've already plans in motion.....which one do you plan to attack next?



( ok all you heathens out there, brace yourselves )

 

[Francis]

Also, hell was not invented till Jesus, meek and mild, endorsed it. The Jews had no such thing and their view was that Jesus had no right to forgive sin. Forgiveness was man to man.

Wrong...

The Jews had Gehinnom which was their Hell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehinnom


While the Hindu had Naraka + Garuda Purana

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraka

If you want to read more on how it was before Christianity, here you go..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garuda_Purana

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/gpu/gpu01.htm


While things may not exact equivalents each has its source that are similar that cannot be denied..

 

[TenaciousDave]

Don't forget about Tartarus.

 

[Minor Axis]

Let me ask you this, GIA........if....and it's an incredible 'IF'......if you ever accomplish converting Christians to your religion, out of the remaining religions, which one would you, or perhaps you've already plans in motion.....which one do you plan to attack next?
( ok all you heathens out there, brace yourselves )

As a general rule, asking questions and picking apart dogma will be viewed by the faithful as attacks, but it's viewed as reasonable scrutiny by others trying to determine validity. I also realize it makes a difference if you are trying to understand or are trying to discredit.

For myself, I've studied the Bible and despite being in an environment that encourages the individual to accept the dogma "on authority", the Bible overall is a weak, questionable document, that makes a stab at portraying the early religious history of mankind with lots of references to God and God's interactions with human beings. (Something that has not happened since. *) Even if the Bible made perfect sense and rang 100% true, (which imo it does not), ultimately it still could be just a good novel.

*So did God give up on us or is God a projection of vivid imaginations? We do have prominent people today who spend all of their time pushing God front and center making reference to the discussions they are having with God... as in God told W he'd better go to war. However, I don't believe W, but then I don't understand why God does not take the time to set the record straight?

 

[Stone]

As a general rule, asking questions and picking apart dogma will be viewed by the faithful as attacks, but it's viewed as reasonable scrutiny by others trying to determine validity. I also realize it makes a difference if you are trying to understand or are trying to discredit.

For myself, I've studied the Bible and despite being in an environment that encourages the individual to accept the dogma "on authority", the Bible overall is a weak, questionable document, that makes a stab at portraying the early religious history of mankind with lots of references to God and God's interactions with human beings. (Something that has not happened since. *) Even if the Bible made perfect sense and rang 100% true, (which imo it does not), ultimately it still could be just a good novel.

*So did God give up on us or is God a projection of vivid imaginations? We do have prominent people today who spend all of their time pushing God front and center making reference to the discussions they are having with God... as in God told W he'd better go to war. However, I don't believe W, but then I don't understand why God does not take the time to set the record straight?

If GIA were focusing on the benefits of his ideas, I would agree in this instance.
But he projects so darn much with prejudice and distortion, it's rather obvious he's attacking Christianity rather than discussing it.

I'm having fun with the logical aspects of his arguments.
The theological aspects I'll generally let someone more knowledgeable debate.



And don't forget.......he's not an atheist......he has a religious agenda.
It's not just about the Christian Bible having issues......it's about replacing the Christian belief system with his own religious beliefs and he's already represented himself as a god-like being of almost infinite wisdom.

Admit it....you just can't wait to see who is next on his hit list


I can't

 

[Greatest I am]

Let me ask you this, GIA........if....and it's an incredible 'IF'......if you ever accomplish converting Christians to your religion, out of the remaining religions, which one would you, or perhaps you've already plans in motion.....which one do you plan to attack next?



( ok all you heathens out there, brace yourselves )

Still wasting your mind I see.

It is not my plan to convert any to my religion.
They can only do that themselves.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Wrong...

The Jews had Gehinnom which was their Hell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehinnom
..

Their hell did not include purposeless eternal torture.

It took Christianity to come up with that immoral notion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF6I5VSZVqc

Better to shovel coal in hell than to spend eternity in heaven watchingfriends, neighbors and our children in torture and flame forever.
Only a sick mind would conceive of such a situation or wish it upon anyone.That is why God would not do such because then, heaven would be hell.
If those in heaven did not go insane then they could not have once beenhuman or good.


You should think of hell just a bit and recognize that God would notcreate such an immoral construct. Lose your barbaric tribal mentality. We arein 2012, not 112.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9FKn4rKXEY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTpJ8PGT2yY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaL7CkQaQpU&feature=related

Regards
DL

 

[Stone]

Still wasting your mind I see.

It is not my plan to convert any to my religion.
They can only do that themselves.

Regards
DL

I am here for a lot of the humor you provide

 

[Joe the meek]

Luke 6:27-36


[27] "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, [28] bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. [29] If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. [30] Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. [31] Do to others as you would have them do to you.
[32] "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. [33] And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. [34] And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. [35] But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. [36] Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

 

[Greatest I am]

The issue is the victim of sin Joe.
Not whatever you tried to convey above.

Regards
DL