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.
So let's see: because sin is ugly, God requires something ugly in return. I mean it's not like he couldn't just say, "I forgive you" the way he requires us to forgive our neighbor. I guess asking God to be a little more civilized would be asking too much of him. God's just gotta see that blood running to muster a little forgiveness...hmmmm...just like Ba'al.
You are saying it would be preferable for God to declare "I forgive you" without any contrition, sacrifice, or action on our part? What would this accomplish, and what would be the tangible benefits of this to humanity?
I answer that, As the Philosopher teaches (Metaph. v), there are several acceptations of the word "necessary." In one way it means anything which of its nature cannot be otherwise; and in this way it is evident that it was not necessary either on the part of God or on the part of man for Christ to suffer. In another sense a thing may be necessary from some cause quite apart from itself; and should this be either an efficient or a moving cause then it brings about the necessity of compulsion; as, for instance, when a man cannot get away owing to the violence of someone else holding him. But if the external factor which induces necessity be an end, then it will be said to be necessary from presupposing such end—namely, when some particular end cannot exist at all, or not conveniently, except such end be presupposed. It was not necessary, then, for Christ to suffer from necessity of compulsion, either on God's part, who ruled that Christ should suffer, or on Christ's own part, who suffered voluntarily. Yet it was necessary from necessity of the end proposed; and this can be accepted in three ways. First of all, on our part, who have been delivered by His Passion, according to John (3:14): "The Son of man must be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting." Secondly, on Christ's part, who merited the glory of being exalted, through the lowliness of His Passion: and to this must be referred Luke 24:26: "Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into His glory?" Thirdly, on God's part, whose determination regarding the Passion of Christ, foretold in the Scriptures and prefigured in the observances of the Old Testament, had to be fulfilled. And this is what St. Luke says (22:22): "The Son of man indeed goeth, according to that which is determined"; and (Luke 24:44-46): "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning Me: for it is thus written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead.
Anyone ever noticed the incredible similarities in the story of Jesus' blood sacrifice to God to the pagan sacrifices of humans to pagan gods?
The world tends to take the authentic and make their own version. In other words - God's standards are the authentic. Humans try to duplicate what God did to bring glory to themselves.
I answer that, A thing may be said to be possible or impossible in two ways: first of all, simply and absolutely; or secondly, from supposition. Therefore, speaking simply and absolutely, it was possible for God to deliver mankind otherwise than by the Passion of Christ, because "no word shall be impossible with God" (Luke 1:37). Yet it was impossible if some supposition be made. For since it is impossible for God's foreknowledge to be deceived and His will or ordinance to be frustrated, then, supposing God's foreknowledge and ordinance regarding Christ's Passion, it was not possible at the same time for Christ not to suffer, and for mankind to be delivered otherwise than by Christ's Passion. And the same holds good of all things foreknown and preordained by God, as was laid down in I:14:13.
So let's see: because sin is ugly, God requires something ugly in return. I mean it's not like he couldn't just say, "I forgive you" the way he requires us to forgive our neighbor. I guess asking God to be a little more civilized would be asking too much of him. God's just gotta see that blood running to muster a little forgiveness...hmmmm...just like Ba'al.
You would be rightfully upset if our civil courts dismissed crimes so easily.
Jesus' blood sacrifice was a fulfillment, not a reworking.
All of the ancient pagan practices point to the Truth, and confirm Christianity's validity.
So why don't the really devout follow in his footsteps? (some actually do in the Philippines...a very catholic culture that is far more rowdy than Thailand's...so presumably disgusting in your eyes).
You are saying it would be preferable for God to declare "I forgive you" without any contrition, sacrifice, or action on our part? What would this accomplish, and what would be the tangible benefits of this to humanity?
Saying ten our father and ten hail marys doesn't tangibly benefit humanity.
You are saying it would be preferable for God to declare "I forgive you" without any contrition, sacrifice, or action on our part? What would this accomplish, and what would be the tangible benefits of this to humanity?
If God ask us to forgive our neighbor without any contrition, sacrifice, or action on their part then why should we expect any less from him? I mean who's the more omniscient and more omnipotent in our relationship with him--us or him? It appears that God demands us to act in a more civil manner than he is capable of acting. Doesn't that make sense to you? Remember, Mike
The world tends to take the authentic and make their own version. In other words - God's standards are the authentic. Humans try to duplicate what God did to bring glory to themselves.
Any pagan rituals are fake and worthless.
Even though the pagans were making sacrifices to their gods hundreds of thousands of years before Jesus came along. Who copied who?
Isn't God capable of just forgiving us the way he asks us to forgive our neighbor"
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike
I answer that, A thing may be said to be possible or impossible in two ways: first of all, simply and absolutely; or secondly, from supposition. Therefore, speaking simply and absolutely, it was possible for God to deliver mankind otherwise than by the Passion of Christ, because "no word shall be impossible with God" (Luke 1:37). Yet it was impossible if some supposition be made. For since it is impossible for God's foreknowledge to be deceived and His will or ordinance to be frustrated, then, supposing God's foreknowledge and ordinance regarding Christ's Passion, it was not possible at the same time for Christ not to suffer, and for mankind to be delivered otherwise than by Christ's Passion. And the same holds good of all things foreknown and preordained by God, as was laid down in I:14:13.
A rather long-winded way of saying, "No he isn't" isn't it?
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.
I mean it's not like he couldn't just say, "I forgive you" the way he requires us to forgive our neighbor. I guess asking God to be a little more civilized would be asking too much of him. God's just gotta see that blood running to muster a little forgiveness...hmmmm...just like Ba'al.
