Why did Jesus have to die?

mossieh

Answer: For our sins he was sacrificed.

Ok.

But why? The christian god is supposedly a being of infinite mercy and compassion. Why could he not forgive the sins of humanity without a blood sacrifice?

If you have children, put yourself in his position. Imagine deciding to hand your son over to a bloodthirsty mob so that they could torture and kill him. Imagine doing this despite the fact that you are omnipotent and nothing ever needs to happen unless you say it should.

I saw a crucifix today and that's when again I was struck by the overwhelming callousness of a being who could allow this to happen.

The usual response to this is 'We cannot know the mind of god, he moves in mysterious ways.'

Hmmm...he certainly does.

It seeems to me that either;

A: There is no god and Jesus was a man, who died an appalling death at the hands of a mob and that's it.

or

B: God is a twisted lunatic who kills on a whim.

Sorry if this seems lke a bit of a rant but I constantly hear the phrases 'merciful god' or 'god is good' and I find it hard to reconcile this with the deity who, when his son knew he was about to be slaughtered, begged his father to protect him and was ignored.

kelly1

mossieh wrote:

Answer: For our sins he was sacrificed.

Ok.

But why?

Mossieh, the answer is God's justice demands that the price be paid for sin. And Jesus paid that price. It's like an economy. When we sin,
we incur a debt which has to be paid for.

In the scales of justice, only suffering can balance (atone for) sin.

God bless,
Noel.

Puck

Whenever there is wrong done there is a debt to be paid.

Imagine someone came into your room now and smashed the computer you are at to bits. Someone has done wrong and there is a debt. Now you can demand (and I don't think anyone would blame you) that this person pays you back for the damage that they've caused.

On the other hand you can say to the person "I forgive you" and not demand a repayment from them. But then who pays the cost? You do! You'll either decide to go without a computer or to buy a new one yourself, not to mention you bear the pain of having someone smash your personal belongings. You have paid the debt for their wrongdoing.

That's what God did. I think you are forgetting that Christians believe that this Jesus who was tortured and murdered was and is in fact God Himself.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote:

Mossieh, the answer is God's justice demands that the price be paid for sin.

Why exactly?

kelly1 wrote:

And Jesus paid that price. It's like an economy. When we sin,
we incur a debt which has to be paid for.

The debt wasn't paid for.

Jesus was God. God paid himself for our debt? That doesn't make sense. Why didn't God just forgive our sins, since it was basically the same thing. What purpose does creating and then killing Jesus serve?

Say you owe me €500.

Now you could pay me back, in which case the debt is paid.

Or I could be nice and forgive the debt and say "Don't worry about it".

Or I could be mean and say if you don't pay me back I'm going to break your thumbs, because some how the debt must be cleared, either with money or with your suffering.

But seriously, would it make much sense if I said "Don't worry about it, you don't have to pay the debt. But someone has to pay! I know, I'll break my own thumbs. That should do. Fair is fair after all"

You would probably look at me as if I was a mental patient.

MooseJam

or option C: there is no God and Jesus didn't exist either

mossieh

kelly1 wrote:

Mossieh, the answer is God's justice demands that the price be paid for sin. And Jesus paid that price. It's like an economy. When we sin,
we incur a debt which has to be paid for.

In the scales of justice, only suffering can balance (atone for) sin.

God bless,
Noel.

I get that Noel but why did his son have to pay the price? What sense did that make? Jesus didn't commit the sins. What (supposedly loving) father would allow his son to die for the sins of others? It's incomprehensible to me how you can believe that god is both merciful and vengeful, that he forgives all, but only if the 'price be paid', that he loved his son but handed him over for sacrifice. Do you see no contradictions here?

Puck

Wicknight wrote:

Or I could be nice and forgive the debt and say "Don't worry about it".

... thereby taking on that debt of €500 yourself.

Zombrex

Puck wrote:

But then who pays the cost? You do!
...
That's what God did.

Who did Jesus/God pay the debt to

Seriously, this is a genuine question, that I've asked a thousand times and never got an answer. Have you guys actually thought about this at all?

Puck wrote:

I think you are forgetting that Christians believe that this Jesus who was tortured and murdered was and is in fact God Himself.

No that isn't forgotten. That is actually the entire problem, the reason why your reasoning of why Jesus died makes no sense.

If Jesus was someone else separate from God he could take on man's debt, in the same way that I can pay off my mates gambling debts. As you say, someone has to pay, my mate can't, so I do it for him. The bookie gets him payment and everyone is happy.

The problem, the bit that makes no sense, is that Jesus was in fact God. Jesus is the bookie.

It would be like the bookie paying off my mates gambling debts to himself That would be ridiculous.

The bookie doesn't need to pay himself the debt my friend has run up. That would be exactly the same as simply forgiving the debt.

If the bookie took €500 that my mate owed from his wallet and then put it straight back into is wallet what purpose does that serve?

kelly1

Wicknight wrote:

Why exactly?

Why are criminals jailed? What kind of society would we have if criminals could offend with impunity?? There would be complete chaos wouldn't there.

Zombrex

Puck wrote:

... thereby taking on that debt of €500 yourself.

2 points

Firstly, that still doesn't explain what purpose Jesus being tortured to death serves?

Secondly, God is the ultimate source of power. There is nothing higher that he needs to be beholden to. God cannot accumulate debt (who would he be in debt to?). We can accumulate debt with God, since he is above us, we can owe him. But he never owes anyone else.

If he takes on our debt that doesn't mean he then owes someone else what we once owed. It means the debt is gone, forgotten.

Using your analogy God has an unlimited supply of new computers. If we take one we owe him. If we cannot pay for it God can either smite us, or forgive us. But it makes no sense to say that he takes on our debt because he is the source of the computers in the first place. He never owes anyone for them.

Puck

Yes the bookie does end up paying his own debt. If your mate ows him €500 and the bookie lets him off then the bookie takes that loss of €500 on himself. €500 has disappeared from the bookie's accounts. The debt doesn't just go away.

Same as if you decide I no longer owe you €500 because you've forgiven me. You've said goodbye to that €500, you are €500 less.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote:

Why are criminals jailed? What kind of society would we have if criminals could offend with impunity?? There would be complete chaos wouldn't there.

Criminals are jailed because we, as humans, lack the power or ability to stop them from committing crime otherwise.

God does. It makes very little sense that all omnipotent god would allow sin to take place and then punish people when it does after the fact.

Would you allow someone to shoot someone and then arrest them afterwards? Or would you simply not allow them to shoot the person in the first place.

kelly1

Puck wrote:

Yes the bookie does end up paying his own debt. If your mate ows him €500 and the bookie lets him off then the bookie takes that loss of €500 on himself. €500 has disappeared from the bookie's accounts. The debt doesn't just go away.

Same as if you decide I no longer owe you €500 because you've forgiven me. You've said goodbye to that €500, you are €500 less.

The bookie doesn't write off the debt. He pays it himself by going out and earning it. And the books still balance.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote:

Criminals are jailed because we, as humans, lack the power or ability to stop them from committing crime otherwise.

God does. It makes very little sense that all omnipotent god would allow sin to take place and then punish people when it does after the fact.

Would you allow someone to shoot someone and then arrest them afterwards? Or would you simply not allow them to shoot the person in the first place.

God out of love for us, gives us free will. If God forced us to love Him, if God took away our freedom to love or reject Him, then His love for us wouldn't be true love, would it? It would be imperfect love.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote:

The bookie doesn't write off the debt. He pays it himself by going out and earning it.

TO WHO DOES GOD PAY THE DEBT????

Who does God pay this debt to? Seriously, this is nonsense

A bookie has to pay the debt himself because he eventually has to get things from other people, he has to pay people for bread and milk and his rent.

God owes nothing to anyone else, and can never owe anything to anyone else.

kelly1 wrote:

And the books still balance.

No they don't. That is the whole problem.

Lets say that the debt of sin is A. And lets say Jesus is B.

God's ledger

Debit Credit
A
B

---

Notice anything? That is right the books don't balance.

God is owed debt for our sin. So what happens. He loses Jesus. So now not only is God still owed for our sin, but now he has lost Jesus. He is down twice.

God could have just written off A, written off the debt. But no, he thought it was a good idea to write off A and also lose B as well.

God cannot pay himself with himself to clear the debt. That doesn't make any sense. It is simple doubt ledger book keeping. The credit has to come from from some where else external to God.

Instead of losing once God ends up losing twice.

Seriously, God should be an Enron accountant. If this was a multinational company God would be in jail for accountancy fraud.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote:

God out of love for us, gives us free will. If God forced us to love Him, if God took away our freedom to love or reject Him, then His love for us wouldn't be true love, would it? It would be imperfect love.

that is the whole point.

God is forcing us to love him and behave a certain way, by threatening punishment if we don't.

If God punishes us for our sin (sin God knows we will commit) then we are good out of fear, not love. And that, by your own definition, is imperfect love.

Perfect love is unconditional love. If God loved us he wouldn't make us love him.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote:

TO WHO DOES GOD PAY THE DEBT????

To Himself!

Wicknight wrote:

Instead of losing once God ends up losing twice.

Yes, that's the beauty and goodness of God. We put ourselves in debt to Him and yet He pays the debt back with the ultimate sacrifice of His only Son. How generous is that???!!!

God doesn't think and act like us! He gives and gives and doesn't count the cost.

BTW, he didn't loose Jesus. Jesus suffered on the cross and paid off the debt.
He's now living in Heaven in a resurrected/glorified body.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote:

To Himself!

You cannot pay off a debt to yourself. You can forgive a debt. But if God forgave the debt then, as I asked, what purpose did it serve Jesus dying? Who did God give Jesus to? He gave to HIMSELF. But he already had him to start with. So what exactly does that achieve? What does God gain?

As I said it would be like a lone shark forgiving a debt and then breaking his own thumbs, just for the heck of it.

Utter nonsense.

kelly1 wrote:

We put ourselves in debt to Him and yet He pays the debt back with the ultimate sacrifice of His only Son. How generous is that???!!!

Seriously Kelly, are you trolling or do you really not get this :rolleyes:

God started off with Jesus. He then gives himself Jesus. He now has Jesus. How is that generous? God gave himself what he already had

Heck I can do that. We can all do that. Look I just gave myself the money in my wallet. I'm so generous.

kelly1 wrote:

God doesn't think and act like us! He gives and gives and doesn't count the cost.

GIVES TO WHOM? :rolleyes:

God gave Jesus to HIMSELF. He already had him to start with!

kelly1 wrote:

BTW, he didn't loose Jesus. Jesus suffered on the cross and paid off the debt.
He's now living in Heaven in a resurrected/glorified body.

Paid the debt to whom?

mossieh

kelly1 wrote:

T We put ourselves in debt to Him and yet He pays the debt back with the ultimate sacrifice of His only Son. How generous is that???!!!

How cruel is that to his son? A living being made to suffer unbearable torture to pay off a debt that a truly forgiving father could ignore.

mathie

Wicknight wrote:

God is forcing us to love him and behave a certain way, by threatening punishment if we don't.

Believe or die. Thank you forgiving Lord for all those options.

End Bill Hicks

Zombrex

mossieh wrote:

How cruel is that to his son? A living being made to suffer unbearable torture to pay off a debt that a truly forgiving father could ignore.

It doesn't even pay off the debt. God was simply shifting assets.

It is surprisingly exactly what Enron did. They shifted around assets to make it look like they were making money when in fact they always had the same amount (or were losing it).

God is owed for sin. So he gives up an asset (Jesus) and receives a payment (Jesus' torture), but he ends up with exactly what he started with, and is still owed the original amount for the sin. He gains nothing. It is utterly pointless.

Its good to know that accountancy fraud was taking place in classical times as well :rolleyes:

kelly1

Wicknight wrote:

You cannot pay off a debt to yourself. You can forgive a debt. But if God forgave the debt then, as I asked, what purpose did it serve Jesus dying? Who did God give Jesus to? He gave to HIMSELF. But he already had him to start with. So what exactly does that achieve? What does God gain?

As I said it would be like a lone shark forgiving a debt and then breaking his own thumbs, just for the heck of it.

Utter nonsense.

Let me put it another way. God's Justice demands that the debt created by sin be paid for in suffering. Instead of making us suffer for eternity in Hell, He let Jesus suffer in our place. What's so hard to understand about that?

When a criminal commits a crime, we jail him for x years. We demand that the criminal do time. God on the other hand is so good that He did the time for us!

kelly1

mossieh wrote:

How cruel is that to his son? A living being made to suffer unbearable torture to pay off a debt that a truly forgiving father could ignore.

It may seem cruel but it's either send His Son to the cross or send us all to Hell. Would a good God send ALL of us to Hell?

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote:

When a criminal commits a crime, we jail him for x years. We demand that the criminal do time. God on the other hand is so good that He did the time for us!

But God is the one who the debt is paid too. What purpose does that serve?

Who does God appease by doing the time for us? He appeases himself by torturing himself? That makes absolutely no sense.

Think of it this way -

A man burst into your house and shoots your wife. Need less to say you are very upset. The police catch the man and bring him in front of you.

Now you would be perfectly within your right to say that the man should some how pay off his crime. He has a debt to you for your loss.

You would also have the right to say that in a moment of forgiveness you have decided that you will forgive this man and his sin against you.

Both of these options are fine.

But now imagine you said that you would forgive the man, but someone must still pay for the death of your wife, some one has to suffer.

So you decide to shoot yourself in the leg

There. Now your wife has been shot, and in payment someone else has been shot. Someone else is suffering for the debt to you. Now the debt to yourself has been paid. You have paid for the loss you have suffered with your own pain. That is justice is it not?

No of course it isn't! It is ridiculous!

You (or society) are owed for the death of your wife. Either the criminal pays that debt or you forgive him. Forgiving him and then shooting yourself is pointless.

But it is utterly ridiculous for you yourself to suffer for this debt. That doesn't do anything, it doesn't even make sense.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote:

It may seem cruel but it's either send His Son to the cross or send us all to Hell. Would a good God send ALL of us to Hell?

No a good God would have forgiven our debt (which he did), without deciding to torture himself. Torturing himself doesn't do anything, and he still ends up forgiving our sin.

JC 2K3

Hmmm....

kelly1, are you trying to say that it doesn't matter which human is punished for someone sinning, as long as someone suffers?

Like, could people be suffering in Africa because there is a murder committed in Ireland?

kelly1

For anyone who's interested:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

The reason as to *why* God requires atonement for sin doesn't appear to be fully understood. But it's clear that God does require atonement for sin.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote:

But it's clear that God does require atonement for sin.

That isn't the issue.

The issue is why God requires atonement for sin from himself

When God "sacrificed" Jesus who was he atoning to? It makes absolutely no sense to atone to oneself, any more than it makes sense for the person who has just been mugged to chop their own hands off in atonement to themselves

kelly1

Wicknight wrote:

That isn't the issue.

The issue is why God requires atonement for sin from himself

When God "sacrificed" Jesus who was he atoning to? It makes absolutely no sense to atone to oneself, any more than it makes sense for the person who has just been mugged to chop their own hands off in atonement to themselves

Because the debt incurred by sin is infinite due to God's infinite holiness and only an infinite (divine) sacrifice can atone.

See this article: http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/sscr27.htm

Does this answer the question?

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote:

Because the debt incurred by sin is infinite due to God's infinite holiness and only an infinite (divine) sacrifice can atone.

See this article: http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/sscr27.htm

Does this answer the question?

No, its just more nonsense, no offense Kelly but I suspect you don't understand any of this either.

Do you actually understand what atonement means?

God cannot atone to himself because he is the one who wants or requires the atonement in the first place. Him atoning to himself is utterly pointless.

It would like being offended by something someone did or said and then apologizing to yourself for what the other person said so you feel less offended. Would this make you feel better? Of course not, even the idea of apologizing to oneself for offense caused to you is ridiculous.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote:

No, its just more nonsense, no offense Kelly but I suspect you don't understand any of this either.

Do you actually understand what atonement means?

God cannot atone to himself because he is the one who wants or requires the atonement in the first place. Him atoning to himself is utterly pointless.

It would like being offended by something someone did or said and then apologizing to yourself for what the other person said so you feel less offended. Would this make you feel better? Of course not, even the idea of apologizing to oneself for offense caused to you is ridiculous.

Don't you realize that Christ is fully divine and fully HUMAN?

Dave!

kelly1 wrote:

Don't you realize that Christ is fully divine and fully HUMAN?

So what? Christ is god is christ -- at the end of the day any atonement or forgiveness is still to himself. What was the point in paying back his own debt to himself?

Red Hand

kelly1 wrote:

Don't you realize that Christ is fully divine and fully HUMAN?

You are denying the divinity of Christ? I thought that as part of Christian doctorine Jesus was God? What about the Holy Trinity and all that?

kelly1

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

You are denying the divinity of Christ? I thought that as part of Christian doctorine Jesus was God? What about the Holy Trinity and all that?

Notice the word divine. It's very similar to divinity, isn't it?

Christ doesn't loose any of His divinity because of His humanity. He's fully DIVINE and fully HUMAN. i.e He has a divine spirit and a human spirit and a human body.

kelly1

DaveMcG wrote:

So what? Christ is god is christ -- at the end of the day any atonement or forgiveness is still to himself. What was the point in paying back his own debt to himself?

Please read the extract below from the linked article I posted earlier:

The direct purpose for which God became man was to undo the evil done by Adam's sin. This evil was twofold: a grievous insult to God and grievous loss to mankind. Making amends for an insult is called "atonement", or "expiation". God could have pardoned man without requiring any expiation, or with a slight expiation, if He had wished to do so. But right order violated by sin is more perfectly restored by a full, or adequate atonement; this would also be more glorious to God, and, if man do his duty, more beneficial to man. An atonement for sin is adequate, if the honor done by it to God is as great as the insult offered to Him by sin. Now the insult was, in a true sense, infinite. For the more exalted is the dignity of the person offended, the greater is the indignity of the offence; but God's dignity is infinitely exalted; therefore the insult offered to Him by sin is infinite. Now all the good acts of created persons have only a finite value; therefore only a Divine Person can fully expiate sin. But God could not do so in His Divine Nature; for expiation implies an abasement, which is impossible to infinite greatness. Therefore it was most congruous that a Divine Person should make atonement to God in a finite nature.


If this doesn't make sense, I'm throwing the towel in!

God bless,
Noel.

mossieh

kelly1 wrote:

God's dignity is infinitely exalted; therefore the insult offered to Him by sin is infinite.

If this doesn't make sense, I'm throwing the towel in!

God bless,
Noel.

It's very eloquent gibberish Noel. Any sin is an 'infinite insult' to god? He sounds a bit precious if you ask me.

Seriously, the article you quote is nicely worded nonsense. It really seems like an aspect of christianity that christians are not entirely comfortable with, when they do think about it. I have yet to hear a christian give a comprehensible, logical explanation for this need for a blood sacrifice.

Spread

Mossieh! Am going to include you in my Lenten Novena. :mad:

wolfsbane

mossieh wrote: »

It's very eloquent gibberish Noel. Any sin is an 'infinite insult' to god? He sounds a bit precious if you ask me.

Seriously, the article you quote is nicely worded nonsense. It really seems like an aspect of christianity that christians are not entirely comfortable with, when they do think about it. I have yet to hear a christian give a comprehensible, logical explanation for this need for a blood sacrifice.

Let me offer a word or two:
By blood sacrifice we mean the physical death and spiritual punishment of God's Son, Jesus Christ.

A blood sacrifice is required to atone for sin because:
1. God, the offended party, says it is.
2. God, the infinitely wise creator of all, says it is.
3. God, the infinitely holy Person, cannot refuse to punish sin.
4. Sin, being a moral offence, requires a moral being to account for it.
5. Sin, being an offence against an infinitely holy God, requires an eternity of punishment if paid by sinful man.
6. Since many men are to be atoned for, only a man who was also God could take their place.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2053;&version=50;

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

If this doesn't make sense, I'm throwing the towel in!

All of that makes perfect sense right up to the point where God steps forward to pay the debt to himself. At which point it makes no sense.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Let me offer a word or two:

I don't think "God says so" is what mossieh meant by "comprehensible, logical explanation" :rolleyes:

But anyway, even if God requires an infinite blood sacrifice to atone for Adam eating an piece of fruit (why exactly is this an infinite insult to God?) that still does not explain the nonsense of God paying himself that atonement.

Jesus was not another God that decided to take responsibility for a debt like I may bail out my brother from a gambling debt. As Christians frequently remind everyone, Jesus was God and God was Jesus.

The same person seeking atonement cannot make the atonement. That is nonsense.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

All of that makes perfect sense right up to the point where God steps forward to pay the debt to himself. At which point it makes no sense.

Why blood?

Back in Abrahams time a contract was sealed in blood. Animals were cut in half, placed on either side of a trench and both parties would walk through the blood thereby sealing the deal.

If either party broke the deal, the offending party would pay in blood.

Abraham made a deal with God on behalf of his descendants. God walked through the blood. (Genesis 15)

Man broke the covcenant, therefor man has to pay in blood for breaking the deal.

But, God shed His own blood to pay for our debt incurred on breaking the covenant.

Mr. Incognito

This thread is hilarious- it reminds me of a donkey trying to catch his own tail

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

I don't think "God says so" is what mossieh meant by "comprehensible, logical explanation"

It is part of such, if the God of the Bible is real.

But anyway, even if God requires an infinite blood sacrifice to atone for Adam eating an piece of fruit (why exactly is this an infinite insult to God?)

The offence was in disobeying God.

that still does not explain the nonsense of God paying himself that atonement.

Jesus was not another God that decided to take responsibility for a debt like I may bail out my brother from a gambling debt. As Christians frequently remind everyone, Jesus was God and God was Jesus.

The same person seeking atonement cannot make the atonement. That is nonsense.

Not the same person - remember, one God in 3 persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God the Father gave His Son to the death of the cross so that sinners like me could be pardoned. Not to have punished my sins would have made God unjust. But He loved me, and Christ loved me, and so He bore my punishment for me.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is part of such, if the God of the Bible is real.

Well not actually it isn't. He is asking for the logic God uses, and you are saying you don't need to know that that it is enough that God says so.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not the same person - remember, one God in 3 persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God the Father gave His Son to the death of the cross so that sinners like me could be pardoned.

I have always understood that is the reason your religion uses for the death of Jesus. I'm saying that it simply does not make sense.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not to have punished my sins would have made God unjust. But He loved me, and Christ loved me, and so He bore my punishment for me.

Yes, but that still doesn't make God just, because it is nonsense that he would bare your punishment that you owe him. He can forgive your punishment, that is all.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Well not actually it isn't. He is asking for the logic God uses, and you are saying you don't need to know that that it is enough that God says so.

Yes, because that is the logic God uses. If He is who He says He is, then it is entirely logical for us to accept His perscribed means of atonement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Not to have punished my sins would have made God unjust. But He loved me, and Christ loved me, and so He bore my punishment for me.

Yes, but that still doesn't make God just, because it is nonsense that he would bare your punishment that you owe him. He can forgive your punishment, that is all.

But He can't just forgive - He must punish sin, or He would be unjust.

wolfsbane

wolfsbane wrote:

But He can't just forgive - He must punish sin, or He would be unjust.

How is there a "can't" in omnipotent.
I am sure an omnipotent god could make a square triangle, calling himself just while not punishing sin would be easy.

Unless you're saying god is not omnipotent.

PDN

bluewolf wrote: »

How is there a "can't" in omnipotent.
I am sure an omnipotent god could make a square triangle, calling himself just while not punishing sin would be easy.

Unless you're saying god is not omnipotent.

There are plenty of can'ts on omnipotence. Everything is subject to the law of non-contradiction.

An omnipotent God could not make a square triangle as that would violate the law of non-contradiction. Neither can He make a rock that is too heavy for Himself to lift, nor can he make something to be both in existence and yet non-existent simultaneously.

A just God who allows sin to go unpunished would also be a logical contradiction.

wolfsbane

bluewolf said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But He can't just forgive - He must punish sin, or He would be unjust.

How is there a "can't" in omnipotent.
I am sure an omnipotent god could make a square triangle, calling himself just while not punishing sin would be easy.

Unless you're saying god is not omnipotent.

Yes, the Christian definition of God's omnipotence includes the idea that He cannot contradict His own nature - He cannot lie, for example. He cannot do anything unholy, for He is infinitely holy.

If someone wants to invent an unholy holy god, they are welcome to it.

PDN

PDN wrote: »

There are plenty of can'ts on omnipotence. Everything is subject to the law of non-contradiction.

An omnipotent God could not make a square triangle as that would violate the law of non-contradiction. Neither can He make a rock that is too heavy for Himself to lift, nor can he make something to be both in existence and yet non-existent simultaneously.

A just God who allows sin to go unpunished would also be a logical contradiction.

We're not talking really powerful that gets caught by word-play here, we're talking omnipotent.
If something can create the entire universe and logic we're working by, they can also make it so that either the sin didn't exist in the first place or that waiving the punishment is not unjust. Human logic hardly applies

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, because that is the logic God uses.

What is the logic he uses? None of those 6 points actually explains why a blood sacrifice is required, over something like rocks or money or fish.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But He can't just forgive - He must punish sin, or He would be unjust.

But that is the point. All he is doing is forgiving you, and then pointlessly torturing himself an action which doesn't punish you or take the burden of your punishment.

That action cannot punish your sin because he is torturing himself and it is he who is owed atonement for your in the first place.

He is simply forgiving you because no one is paying God for your sin. God cannot pay himself, because payment involves the exchange of something. God giving to himself involves no exchange, no payment.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

What is the logic he uses? None of those 6 points actually explains why a blood sacrifice is required, over something like rocks or money or fish.

Rocks, money nor fish can make a moral restitution - only a moral being can do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But He can't just forgive - He must punish sin, or He would be unjust.

But that is the point. All he is doing is forgiving you, and then pointlessly torturing himself an action which doesn't punish you or take the burden of your punishment.

But it does take the burden of my punishment.

That action cannot punish your sin because he is torturing himself and it is he who is owed atonement for your in the first place.

He is simply forgiving you because no one is paying God for your sin. God cannot pay himself, because payment involves the exchange of something. God giving to himself involves no exchange, no payment.

God the Son makes the payment to God the Father - an exchange.

Hebrews 9:11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?