Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am glad you don't see it as appeasing a wrathful God. But let me ask you, is reaping what we have sown not taking the responsibility and the consequences for our own thoughts, deeds and actions? And did he not come preaching repentance? I believe that it would be his love, mercy and forgiveness (goodness) that would lead us to repentance, not because he was a substitute, but because he loves us and wants us to walk as he walked without sin (or the fear of death). It's called participation for without it, we would have no real reason to change.
I absolutely do believe that repentance is essential. I actually think your statement which I put in boldface is perfectly stated. I could not have expressed it better myself.
I want to keep typing here, but I keep changing my mind on how to express myself. Maybe it's because I'm in a real rush this morning and am having trouble collecting my thoughts. I'm probably not going to be online much more at all until tomorrow (i.e. Sunday) evening, so watch for something more from me then.
God does NOT need killing to forgive. God NEVER did need killing to forgive. It is a primitive barbaric belief that should never have survived the enlightenment, let alone into the 21st century. The absurd belief that we needed to believe what our ignorant ancestors believed as a sign of faith in God is what has perpetuated this primitive ignorance. Katzpur thinks that declaring these TRUTHS is somehow insulting her and others who for some unknown reason still believe in blood sacrifice, appeasement, and the need to atone for something our forebears did.
It's insulting the way you put it, Mystic, and I don't believe I'm the first person to have ever pointed that out to you. Your TRUTH, my friend, is no more valid than my TRUTH, so you can stop demeaning me for seeing things differently than you.
Quote:
God was not angry when our forebears learned their first lesson about the difference between right and wrong or Good and Evil. Why would He be? Without such knowledge, our Spirits could never evolve or develop beyond the urges of our animal drives, instincts, and needs. We would have remained superior animals. It is by employing that knowledge of Good and Evil that we control our baser urges and produce a Spirit that characterizes our humanity.
And I agree with this statement 100%. Adam's "Fall" was absolutely essential to his growth and development and it happened exactly as God knew it needed to happen.
how can a god die? If god is all knowing, dying is not that traumatic nor is it that sincere of an offering is it?
Kind of like someone's suicide being used as salvation? So the evangelical argument is god committed suicide by government?
Because He became a man. Jesus left the splendor of heaven to become a man and then accepted all man’s sin on Himself and the humiliation of the cross.
...If you don't believe in the Substitutionary Atonement, what do you believe Jesus Christ's role on earth to have been? Was He divine at all? Did His death accomplish anything for us?...
Christ could not have died to pay the price of anyone's sin. The Law of God forbids it (24:16). God will not justify, clear or acquit the wicked (Ex 23:7; 34:7; Nahum 1:3). Anyone that condemns the just or justifies the wicked is an abomination to God (Pro 17:15).
The Law of God was executed to put evil out of Israel (Deut 17:1-7). Since Christ was not evil in the sense that He ever sinned (Heb 4:15), the Law would forbid Him dying for anyone else and if He could, somehow die in another's stead, He would be complicit in breaking God's Law by putting good out and keeping evil in and dying for another.
Christ came to redeem (buy back) HIS people and was truly Divine as He is the "Lord God" (Luke 1:68). His death accomplished a New Covenant with His people (Heb 8:8-10) which allowed for the redemption of the sins that were under the first covenant (Heb 9:15).
This was necessary because God had divorced and sold His people (Isa 50:1; Jer 3:8) which put them outside a covenantal (marriage) relationship with God (Eph 2:12) with no way to get back in (Deut 24:4) and had to be "redeemed" or "bought back" because they were sold. Being outside the covenant or marriage with God took away their ability to have their sins forgiven (Lev 5:17-18).
His death brought and bought the New Covenant which allowed them to have their sins forgiven (Rom 11:26-27; Col 2:13), but each individual, once back in the covenant was responsible for having his sins forgiven (Acts 2:38). I think Israelites think much was accomplished (Eph 1:5-7). He did die to buy the "way" for the forgiveness of sin for His people, but not to pay the price of their sins. That's why He's "the way. (John 14:6).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
