Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to Victim.

[Stone]

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

Regards
DL

NO........your point, as insane as it sounds, is that Christ sins because he asks not for revenge by the victim.
Joe got it correct.

You seem to argue in a bizarre manner that Christ is sinning for presenting/recommending forgiveness over revenge.
But revenge ( wrath ) is considered a sin as I mentioned before.

GIA.....just sit down and think this out for a change before you post

What offends you about granting forgiveness?

 

[Greatest I am]

Not a thing. It is healthy and that is why that benefit should not be usurped by an invisible super God that hangs the victim out in the rain.

Regards
DL

 

[Stone]

Not a thing. It is healthy and that is why that benefit should not be usurped by an invisible super God that hangs the victim out in the rain.

Regards
DL

I had to delete my first response as I misread your post.

Not a thing. It is healthy

And yet you call it a sin for Christ to forgive sins against God.

that is why that benefit should not be usurped

It isn't, GIA.......no one is preventing the victim from expressing forgiveness.
And that element isn't even in your first round of arguments on the issue.


Here was the first mistake in your opening post:

Without avictim, there is no sin.

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 simply don't know what you're talking about.

second mistake:

The one sinned against has the first right of forgiveness.

Because of the nature of sin, God is involved and it's his rules, lame-o.....when it comes to sin.
When a Christian sins, it's against God.
True, there may be another individual involved, but God's laws/rules are involved.
It's the nature of 'sin'.
I haven't a clue as to what 'sin' applies to in the gnostic sense.....other than from your performances, it must be against logic ( )

You are obviously confusing the distinctions of sin and secular law.

next mistake:

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

Jesus offers his forgiveness and teaches it is better for us to forgive.
The perpetrator can still ask for forgiveness from the victim and the victim still has the ability to offer his own forgiveness.....if there was a victim to start with and as I've shown, 'sin' is not a secular consideration.
But you argued it as one. In the sense of an absolute.

Closure is being denied the victim thus victimizing istwofold.

You keep forgetting what 'sin' refers to.

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

To think that Jesus would ignore this requirement isunthinkable.

Yep, there it is......the main fallacy of your argument, conceptually confusing the law of God with secular law .
Shamie, shamie
I've heard hate will blind a person.

 

[Joe the meek]

NO........your point, as insane as it sounds, is that Christ sins because he asks not for revenge by the victim.
Joe got it correct.

Thank you for at least understanding the message I was trying to convey.

If you can't tell, I'm more of a New Testament kind of guy

 

[Stone]

Thank you for at least understanding the message I was trying to convey.

If you can't tell, I'm more of a New Testament kind of guy

I usually don't do theological debates, but this thread and others by GIA seem more about abusing logic.

 

[Joe the meek]

I usually don't do theological debates, but this thread and others by GIA seem more about abusing logic.

Honestly, I'm too dumb to figure him out other than he had some kind of life altering event to give him a hard on with religion.

Even though I'm a New Testament kind of guy, I still seem to have a hard time walking in Jesus's shoes.

 

[Stone]

Honestly, I'm too dumb to figure him out other than he had some kind of life altering event to give him a hard on with religion.

Even though I'm a New Testament kind of guy, I still seem to have a hard time walking in Jesus's shoes.

Honestly, I'm too dumb to figure him out other than he had some kind of life altering event to give him a hard on with religion.

It's hard to take someone seriously that thinks they are god-like with almost infinite wisdom and knowledge and posts the way he does.
Understanding the root causes takes a professional.

Even though I'm a New Testament kind of guy, I still seem to have a hard time walking in Jesus's shoes.

I have questions, myself.
But a debate forum isn't a good place to seek personal enlightenment, imo.

 

[Greatest I am]

Thank you for at least understanding the message I was trying to convey.

If you can't tell, I'm more of a New Testament kind of guy

That being the case.

Can't blame you there. That O T God is a real prick.

As to the N T.

[video=youtube;2xH93PSZ6fQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xH93PSZ6fQ[/video]

Regards
DL

 

[Stone]

Interesting video, GIA....nothing astoundingly new in concept. Ehrman has put together an intellectual inspection that pretty much goes along the lines of what I've been inferring......Man has corrupted the Bible over time for his own purposes and taking it as the inerrant Word of God exposes one's beliefs to a rigidity that becomes so brittle in nature than any fracture in belief becomes damage faith can't overcome.
Ehrman is actually evidence of that vulnerability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman#Career

Consider....A rational and thoughtful person has a better chance of filtering out what is felt as inconsistencies and achieving a stronger belief system than the fundamentalist that begins by having to lie to himself by using perverted logic to rationalize reality with a belief system.
There is then actual strength in the position 'I don't know', 'I don't understand' and 'I believe' versus 'I know without questionable doubt' on issues that can't be known because the issue is one of faith to begin with.

If you bother to read the early life of Ehrman, you'll find him the perfect example of rigid faith put to the test and failed.



The error you make is assuming you'll be taken as an unquestionable source of logic and fact.
You're no Ehrman. Your logic often seems worse than horribly flawed.
You abuse context and present sophistry in your arguments as replacements for rational thought.

And your patterns of logic aren't really that much different to fundamentalists......present distortion and emotion as replacement for rational thought.

But what are you arguing FOR?
All I've seen are attacks on the Christian Bible.
Are you an atheist? No.....I mistook your posts initially as such and when questioned about some of your posts not 'feeling' like an atheist argument.....you were non committal.
Not until you started presenting yourself as a god-like entity with endless wisdom did I realize you were your own belief system wrapped up in a gnostic package.

Why aren't you presenting more of the concepts and beliefs of gnostic faith as arguments?
Easy to answer.
Some of it is as equally bizarre as the rationale of the Christian Fundamentalists that you so like to attack.
Ironic.


To the 'patient' readers of this thread ( )
Some interesting reading here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library
Be sure to follow the links