God sent his son to earth to serve (not to be served) and to give his life as a ransom for many ( Mark 10v45).

FirstSon01:


lemme reiterate, those soldiers fighting for their country love their country and hate the other country so god loved the Israelites and hated the jebusites?? this is what I was pointing at.

secondly I don't ever remember rebelling against god, do you??

p.s don't quote Romans 8:23 "for all have sined" cause not all have sined. a day old baby hasn't signed against anyone so that verse is technically not correct.

All have sinned does not mean all have committed the act of sin. It means all inherited the consequences or state of sin, since all were in the loins of their ancestors or ancestor Adam when they/he sinned.

It simply means the actions of our ancestors affect us.

GeneralDae:

All have sinned does not mean all have committed the act of sin. It means all inherited the consequences or state of sin, since all were in the loins of their ancestors or ancestor Adam when they/he sinned.

It simply means the actions of our ancestors affect us.

if the adamic sin still affects us then jesus's dieing was a waste don't ya think??

FirstSon01:


if the adamic sin still affects us then jesus's dieing was a waste don't ya think??

How does Jesus dying connect to the fact that the actions of our ancestors put us where we are?

GeneralDae:

All have sinned does not mean all have committed the act of sin. It means all inherited the consequences or state of sin, since all were in the loins of their ancestors or ancestor Adam when they/he sinned.

It simply means the actions of our ancestors affect us.

English teacher.
All have sinned means you did it .
Stop twisting English language.
Which one is inherited.? Na land?



The right connotation should have been "Adam sinned and fell short of the glory, and by this, we have inherited ourselves that nature that requires a redemption."

Not

All have sinned(an act) and fall short (present future tense) of the glory etc

FirstSon01:


the bible accepted and encouraged slavery, so your trust for the bible will make you accept it as well??

I don't believe that I have read any such thing in the Bible. Where do you read it? Might this be like your misconception of the Mosaic laws about rape?

Jman24:



Come on .. it's a forum. Nobody is taking away your right to believe what you wanna believe.
But you can do well by not shying away from certain questions like biblical Jesus

Hello.

I find comments like yours quite provoking.

It would help in a conversation if you try to avoid patronizing those you wish to discuss with. You have done this in the past with me too.

If you don't believe that my right to believe anything was not challenged, then explain how it wasn't. If you believe that I was shying away from questions, explain how I was.

Jman24:



English teacher.
All have sinned means you did it .
Stop twisting English language.
Which one is inherited.? Na land?



The right connotation should have been "Adam sinned and fell short of the glory, and by this, we have inherited ourselves that nature that requires a redemption."

Not

All have sinned(an act) and fall short (present future tense) of the glory etc

If a promiscuous lady gets the HIV virus and she is pregnant, her unborn child who inherits that virus coming into this world, comes in that state of sin because of the mother.

To the ancient jews, it means she was born in sin or she is automatically a sinner suffering because of the deeds of her parents.

They (the jews) answered and said to him(the blind man), “You were completely born in sins, and are you teaching us?” And they cast him out.
John 9v34

It seemed from the culture in ancient judaism, some specific people are considered to be sinners from birth either because of what was done in their family line previously or because of their past lives (reincarnation ). Paul is simply applying this belief of the first century jews to all men, because all men eventually trace their origins to Adam a sinner.

Paul is arguing this, so the jews do not discriminate only some to be born in sin ( e.g the gentiles) but rather consider that all men were born into thesame problem of sin and need freedom. Think about it, a blind man born blind was seen as a probable sinner by the first century jews and they also said he was born in sin, this to them seemed to be the reason why he was blind even as a baby.

Paul is addressing a problem which men are born into, not necessarily the act itself.

Paul also said : In Adam all die. The problem according to paul is in what Adam did.

Ihedinobi3:


I don't believe that I have read any such thing in the Bible. Where do you read it? Might this be like your misconception of the Mosaic laws about rape?

this shows you haven't read your bible much yet,

Exodus 21 vs 20 and 21
"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod, and he dies there and then, he must be avenged. But if he survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, since he is the other’s property"

FirstSon01:


so jesus's dieing on the cross was out of pure hardluck and not Divine to save men from sin as y'all say??

Exactly...
The mission of Jesus did not include death for any sins. That is unscriptural.

Even Jesus never taught so, not him, nor his disciples.

Read through the sermon of Peter after the Pentecost carefully, no such thing was taught. But repent of your evil ways and ye will be saved.

Paul taught this heresy in order to make people remain in their evil ways.

Paul deceptively taught "believe his death has washed away your sins and you're good to go".
Notice why the entire Christian religion is full of hypocrites; holy on Sunday, sinners the rest of the week.

In4matic:


Exactly...
The mission of Jesus did not include death for any sins. That is unscriptural.

Even Jesus never taught so, not him, nor his disciples.

Read through the sermon of Peter after the Pentecost carefully, no such thing was taught. But repent of your evil ways and ye will be saved.

Paul taught this heresy in order to make people remain in their evil ways.

Paul deceptively taught "believe his death has washed away your sins and you're good to go".
Notice why the entire Christian religion is full of hypocrites; holy on Sunday, sinners the rest of the week.

I agree that most of these misconceptions that Jesus came into the world simply to die only and shed blood for sin comes majorly from the epistles.

Jesus mission was to " Teach and prove the kingdom of God" when you read the gospels properly.

FirstSon01:


so god can't control his anger?

I understand the confusion, as I said, so many half thought through notions were compiled to make up a religion marketable to the larger society (gentiles/ Non jews).

The Roman empire created what you know as Christianity.

God exists out of space, time, emotional attachment that besets human intellect.

There's nothing a man can do that God hasn't already seen before...

Example 1.
While new parents may get exasperated at the antics of growing kids, it is not the same for grand parents or great-grand parents who would've seen it all.

Example 2.
Imagine the creator of a piece of machinery eg. Daimler's Benz or Bill gates Microsoft.
Can there be any operational function or malfunction that'll make the manufacturer angry or frustrated?

See God from this angle...

Dtruthspeaker:


Is Patience and Endurance Supposed to Last Forever?

Have you seen Anyone who can bear unending pain and continuous suffering for as long as He has Done and Does?

If you yourself want to receive love is it unreasonable to give love?

Is one sided love ever acceptable?

Has He not Loved enough for Him to get Love in Return?

If you want love would it not be good to soothe His Pain and Suffering at the least?

Or is it Good to continue to hurt and wound a Person simply because His Endurance is Long?

Is it not The Law An eye for an eye therefore A Hurt for a hurt?

Now if a person hurts you and you did not hurt back is that not good?

But can it be said that since you did not take your hurt back, the person is free from paying you that hurt ever again?

Jeeeezzzzzze,

God feels no pian lol....

See what I'm talking about? Human concepts used to describe God...

These concepts were fine during the time of ignorance. But since that "world ended" about 21 years ago, such notions can no longer hold water.

Lol.... So many people waited for the world to end and were disappointed... Hardly did they know that world actually ended

Ihedinobi3:



Regarding your question, God sent Jesus to come and die for our sins because sin must be paid for...

For example, if someone were to rape your infant daughter to death, I am pretty sure that you would not consider forgiveness to be the right answer or response to the crime even if the rapist were to apologize for it.

Sin is disobedience to God, a violation of His Will... That abuse must be paid for or else God would not be just.
An unjust God is an impossibility. A God Who is unjust is imperfect.

However, God is also merciful by nature

Since God is both loving and just, He must forgive sinners while punishing sin.

Therefore, God provided a bridge, a sacrifice in the Person of Jesus Christ Who Himself is God

As Man He could legally bear the responsibility for man's crimes against God.
making it unnecessary for God to punish (Man) the rest of His brothers and sisters for said crimes

Bros, read what you wrote above and see the incongruency of it all.

God must punish sin to be just...
So he takes on flesh to punishes himself so man's sins (which are now his brothers) will be given perpetual amnesty for raping a child)

Where is the justice therein?

In4matic:


Exactly...
The mission of Jesus did not include death for any sins. That is unscriptural.

Even Jesus never taught so, not him, nor his disciples.

Read through the sermon of Peter after the Pentecost carefully, no such thing was taught. But repent of your evil ways and ye will be saved.

Paul taught this heresy in order to make people remain in their evil ways.

Paul deceptively taught "believe his death has washed away your sins and you're good to go".
Notice why the entire Christian religion is full of hypocrites; holy on Sunday, sinners the rest of the week.

this is enlightening...
I've always regarded Paul as the Pioneer of the Roman Catholic church irrespective of their claims of Peter been the first Pope because most of their tenets were first mentioned and coined by Paul and not just the Roman Catholic Church but nearly all churches.

back to the issue, so if Christ wasn't supposed to die does that mean the devil won or plans changed at the last minute?

FirstSon01:


this shows you haven't read your bible much yet,

Exodus 21 vs 20 and 21
"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod, and he dies there and then, he must be avenged. But if he survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, since he is the other’s property"

Ok.... This whole back and forth with the fellow is making me have fits of laughter...

But let me clarify certain things to you which I believe you have seen but glossed over.

The essence of religion is for mankind to strive for goodness. All religions that seek good and abhors evil is good.

There is no one true religion. God a multi creator of kingdoms, species, races, tribes, cultures and gender cannot make room for one religion..
It's like saying all machinery from cars to aircraft, phones, electric shavers etc all have ONE manual. It's not feasible.

Torah is the scripted account of the religious evolution of the Hebrews and YHWH.

Elohim on the other hand refers to the pantheon headed by God...

God is been translated to mean Yahweh in the modern Bible.

There's a reason YHWH was so protective of his people if there were not other Gods

FirstSon01:


this is enlightening...
I've always regarded Paul as the Pioneer of the Roman Catholic church irrespective of their claims of Peter been the first Pope because most of their tenets were first mentioned and coined by Paul and not just the Roman Catholic Church but nearly all churches.

back to the issue, so if Christ wasn't supposed to die does that mean the devil won or plans changed at the last minute?

Your concept of christianity is still fixated on what you were taught. Read the bible for yourself, start with the gospels Mark-Matthew-Luke-John in that order.
Jesus came to teach and demonstrate the kingdom of God, in the process death was inevitable for him. Where then are you getting this whole devil and change of plans theory from?

FirstSon01:


this shows you haven't read your bible much yet,

Exodus 21 vs 20 and 21
"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod, and he dies there and then, he must be avenged. But if he survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, since he is the other’s property"

It does? I'm sorry to hear that. It would seem that you're an expert on the Bible then. But I seem to recall you having trouble remembering where the Bible teaches that a rapist is to be rewarded with his victim for his crime. I didn't seem to have a similar problem since I remembered what the Bible actually teaches on it quite easily.

Suffice to say that it is ordinarily quite insulting to accuse a professional of ignorance of his trade. It is true that many Christians are not diligent in studying the Bible, so there is often merit to the accusation that a Christian does not know his Bible, but it is still an accusation that a reasonable person should avoid making flippantly because a Christian should be assumed to know what the Bible actually teaches. When you make it flippantly, you might insult someone just as you have done twice now to me.

Regarding the passage that you shared, I don't read anything there that says that slavery should be accepted or encouraged. If you do, I'll need you to explain how you do. What I do read there is that slavery was regulated. That is, the Bible simply treated it as a human reality and provided restraints for it. That passage, after all, is not the only one that addresses the issue.

Besides the various laws that restrained wicked human impulses with respect to slavery, there are other Scriptures that make clear that slavery, like other unpleasant realities of life in this life, is only to be tolerated, if we cannot escape it, not to be aspired to.

15 No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.
John 15:15 (NASB)

21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. 22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave. 23  You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.
1Co 7:21 — 1Co 7:23 (NASB)

We who believe look forward to a world where slavery is no longer a thing. For now, we endure all the wickedness of this world as we strive for God's great rewards for all those who love Him.

Now, I strongly recommend that you stop attacking my choice to believe in the Bible. If you want to know what I believe and why, I will gladly answer you, but it is unreasonable to expect me to make you happy with my choices. I have not demanded that you stop being either atheistic or agnostic. I certainly hope that you will decide to become a Christian, and I am happy to help in every way that I can toward your becoming one, but I respect your right to believe or not believe whatever you like.

FirstSon01:


back to the issue, so if Christ wasn't supposed to die does that mean the devil won or plans changed at the last minute?

Lolz... Holy ones have assumed human form and come down to earth to dwell amongst men.

The Bible is full of them, nay history is full of them, they are sent for particular purpose.
In the Bible, we have characters like:
Enoch
Melchizedek
Samuel
Samson

Others in history, Hercules, The Pharoas, the Ogisos and several others.

And being human who are born, they can also die ..

Death is nothing but transition, I wonder at Christians morbid fear of death.

I believe it was so inculcated into the church to spread fear and keep people in check.

Because on the other side is definite molten fire..

In4matic:


Bros, read what you wrote above and see the incongruency of it all.

God must punish sin to be just...
So he takes on flesh to punishes himself so man's sins (which are now his brothers) will be given perpetual amnesty for raping a child)

Where is the justice therein?

Hello.

I wrote it myself, and if that's not enough, I often reread my own posts for their spiritual benefit.

No, I did not say that God punished Himself. I said that God the Father gave God the Son as a Man as a sacrifice for the sins of human beings.

I also did not say anything about perpetual amnesty for raping a child. I said that God forgives human sins because He provided a substitute for them. Anyone who does not accept that substitute will have to suffer the punishment that is due to their sinfulness.

I'm not sure what is unjust about all that. Maybe you could explain a little better.

Ihedinobi3:


Hello.

I wrote it myself, and if that's not enough, I often reread my own posts for their spiritual benefit.

No, I did not say that God punished Himself. I said that God the Father gave God the Son as a Man as a sacrifice for the sins of human beings.

I also did not say anything about perpetual amnesty for raping a child. I said that God forgives human sins because He provided a substitute for them. Anyone who does not accept that substitute will have to suffer the punishment that is due to their sinfulness.

I'm not sure what is unjust about all that. Maybe you could explain a little better.

So God the Father is now definitely a different being from God the son...

Ok, let's leave that there for later,

Now where is the justice in punishing one person for the sins of another ? That is against every known natural law.

God deals with laws, and everything God created is governed by laws....
Why should this be an exception?

In4matic:


So God the Father is now definitely a different being from God the son...

Ok, let's leave that there for later,

Now where is the justice in punishing one person for the sins of another ? That is against every known natural law.

God deals with laws, and everything God created is governed by laws....
Why should this be an exception?

A different Person, yes.

I'm not sure I understand. When someone buys your debts and pays them for you, what law does that break? I'm not sure I've ever heard that that is unjust in any way.

Ihedinobi3:


It does? I'm sorry to hear that. It would seem that you're an expert on the Bible then. But I seem to recall you having trouble remembering where the Bible teaches that a rapist is to be rewarded with his victim for his crime. I didn't seem to have a similar problem since I remembered what the Bible actually teaches on it quite easily.

Suffice to say that it is ordinarily quite insulting to accuse a professional of ignorance of his trade. It is true that many Christians are not diligent in studying the Bible, so there is often merit to the accusation that a Christian does not know his Bible, but it is still an accusation that a reasonable person should avoid making flippantly because a Christian should be assumed to know what the Bible actually teaches. When you make it flippantly, you might insult someone just as you have done twice now to me.

Regarding the passage that you shared, I don't read anything there that says that slavery should be accepted or encouraged. If you do, I'll need you to explain how you do. What I do read there is that slavery was regulated. That is, the Bible simply treated it as a human reality and provided restraints for it. That passage, after all, is not the only one that addresses the issue.

Besides the various laws that restrained wicked human impulses with respect to slavery, there are other Scriptures that make clear that slavery, like other unpleasant realities of life in this life, is only to be tolerated, if we cannot escape it, not to be aspired to.

15 No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.
John 15:15 (NASB)

21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. 22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave. 23  You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.
1Co 7:21 — 1Co 7:23 (NASB)

We who believe look forward to a world where slavery is no longer a thing. For now, we endure all the wickedness of this world as we strive for God's great rewards for all those who love Him.

Now, I strongly recommend that you stop attacking my choice to believe in the Bible. If you want to know what I believe and why, I will gladly answer you, but it is unreasonable to expect me to make you happy with my choices. I have not demanded that you stop being either atheistic or agnostic. I certainly hope that you will decide to become a Christian, and I am happy to help in every way that I can toward your becoming one, but I respect your right to believe or not believe whatever you like.

again I'm sorry if you feel attacked again but you're veering away from the fact that the Bible endorsed slavery and even said a man who killed another human being just because he paid another human money should be let go. the bible clearly stated and called a man another's property and as such the owner can do to him as he would have done with a goat or a dog when it annoyed him.

how you can claim the Bible accepted slavery as a daily trivial life issue that cannot be escaped but treats sexual intercourse between two consenting adults as a sacrilege but a man assaulting another man to the point of death is a trivial life issue??

hear yourself speak.

GeneralDae:


If a promiscuous lady gets the HIV virus and she is pregnant, her unborn child who inherits that virus coming into this world, comes in that state of sin because of the mother.

To the ancient jews, it means she was born in sin or she is automatically a sinner suffering because of the deeds of her parents.

They (the jews) answered and said to him(the blind man), “You were completely born in sins, and are you teaching us?” And they cast him out.
John 9v34

It seemed from the culture in ancient judaism, some specific people are considered to be sinners from birth either because of what was done in their family line previously or because of their past lives (reincarnation ). Paul is simply applying this belief of the first century jews to all men, because all men eventually trace their origins to Adam a sinner.

Paul is arguing this, so the jews do not discriminate only some to be born in sin ( e.g the gentiles) but rather consider that all men were born into thesame problem of sin and need freedom. Think about it, a blind man born blind was seen as a probable sinner by the first century jews and they also said he was born in sin, this to them seemed to be the reason why he was blind even as a baby.

Paul is addressing a problem which men are born into, not necessarily the act itself.

Paul also said : In Adam all die. The problem according to paul is in what Adam did.

Being born into something doesn't mean it was your making...

"All have sinned" is an act of which an innocent neonate is unaware of ..
The right connotation still remains.. "Adam sinned and have passed on that nature...."

Eg. The lady contracted HIV through sexual intercourse (an act)
The child got the HIV from mother (by Providence, inheritance, transmission etc)

GES 101

Jman24:



Being born into something doesn't mean it was your making...

"All have sinned" is an act of which an innocent neonate is unaware of ..
The right connotation still remains.. "Adam sinned and have passed on that nature...."

Eg. The lady contracted HIV through sexual intercourse (an act)
The child got the HIV from mother (by Providence, inheritance, transmission etc)

GES 101

Try to read before replying. This is not about English because even Paul knows it makes no sense to say that a baby has committed sin. Christians do not interprete it this way, so I wonder why your logic should work this way. I have given you the surrounding context of the passage, all you have done is tell me about English. So what does Paul mean by: In Adam all die? You have not addressed the context of the passage I gave you, but you just repeat thesame thing over and over again.

FirstSon01:


again I'm sorry if you feel attacked again but you're veering away from the fact that the Bible endorsed slavery and even said a man who killed another human being just because he paid another human money should be let go. the bible clearly stated and called a man another's property and as such the owner can do to him as he would have done with a goat or a dog when it annoyed him.

how you can claim the Bible accepted slavery as a daily trivial life issue that cannot be escaped but treats sexual intercourse between two consenting adults as a sacrilege but a man assaulting another man to the point of death is a trivial life issue??

hear yourself speak.

I think that it is obvious that you are not reading what the verse says. I don't know any part of the Bible that teaches that when any man strikes his goat or dog with a rod and it dies, the animal must be avenged. Perhaps you know some passage that teaches this, but I've personally never seen it. There is one that warns that killing another man's animal would require an exchange of a live animal for the dead one, but that is not the vengeance that I see here.

Obviously, the law here simply told the Israelites of that time to treat their slaves humanely. They were not to beat them to death like other nations were doing at the time. They were to show some restraint (which is partly why the beating was to be done with a standard disciplinary tool).

However, a slave could die a few days after he is beaten. It is true that the death may be due to the severity of the beating, but it could also not be. Either way, the owner was to be spared because he showed some restraint when he beat his slave. The Israelites were to understand from the survival of the slave after the beating that it was not his owner's intent to kill him.

I have also told you that the Bible was merely accommodating the realities of human society at the time. This is what the Lord Jesus Himself said about another issue of the Law:

8 He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.
Matthew 19:8 (NASB)

The Law accommodated the weakness of human nature. It allowed for the fact that certain demands or commands would be way too much for the humans being spoken to at the time. That it did not try to censure some things did not mean then that it either accepted or encouraged them.

This is the point: That passage neither accepted slavery nor encouraged it. In fact, the fact that it outlawed beating slaves to death would have made slavery unappealing to some potential owners. In other words, your claim is not upheld by that passage.

To put it quite simply, you are completely ignoring what the passage itself is saying and making unjustifiable accusations against the Bible.

1. The Bible neither accepts nor encourages slavery.

2. The Bible does not endorse slavery.

3. The Bible does not say that a man may treat his slave like his goat or dog.

4. The Bible does not say that a man may beat his slave to the point of death and go free.

Your claims to the contrary are all false.

FirstSon01:


this shows you haven't read your bible much yet,

Exodus 21 vs 20 and 21
"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod, and he dies there and then, he must be avenged. But if he survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, since he is the other’s property"

A pure example of justice as exists in the God-realm.

God cannot be mocked. Whatsoever a Man does, that shall he reap. You repent of evil and begin to follow the path of good will come with a long line of restitutive acts which will be atoned for within one lifetime or many.
That's why I feel sorry for who thinks they can get away with anything after repeating some few words.
You did the crime, you'll do the time. Pure and simple.

Jman 24

Being born into something doesn't mean it was your making...

That is the point, Paul is not saying it was your making, just because he said all have sinned. In the book of Hebrews, the Author says Abraham paid tithe to Melchizediek and the Author argues that because of that, his descendants who were in his loins have also paid tithe. In your Ges 101 reasoning, would that also mean the isrealites truly paid tithe literally the moment Abraham paid tithe or it simply means because their Ancestor paid tithes they are no longer required?
You have to read the bible in context and with your reasoning, it is not GES 101. It is even a translation in the first place.

"All have sinned" is an act of which an innocent neonate is unaware of ..
The right connotation still remains.. "Adam sinned and have passed on that nature...."

The right connotation from you or the jews? so why does the surrounding passage say in Adam all die? Doesn't that support what I wrote? Because of Adam's sin, a baby is already condemned by sin. That is the point, he is not saying a baby has sinned, because it is stupid to say a baby has committed sin, and that is impossible. Always learn to address the points of a post you are replying to.

Eg. The lady contracted HIV through sexual intercourse (an act)
The child got the HIV from mother (by Providence, inheritance, transmission etc)

What are you saying for God's sake? Before you jump into the arguement further, ask yourself what point was Paul trying to make? was he trying to say a baby has sinned or that we are all guilty because of Adam's sin. Bible is not GES 101, it was not written in English, you read it by comparing the context, tradition and background of the author, other writings, and using your head.

Ihedinobi3:


A different Person, yes.

I'm not sure I understand. When someone buys your debts and pays them for you, what law does that break? I'm not sure I've ever heard that that is unjust in any way.

So There is 3 Gods? Means there's a senior God bad a subordinate God?

If you believe this, then you should not find it hard to accept my position about heirachy among God's.

If you say no, then it means, that God killed himself to satisfy his anger because of the attrocities of mortals who sinned against him?

Consider this, if you throw a stone up, it falls to the ground, that's the law of gravity, if you light a fire, there's heat, smoke and ashes; that's the law of combustion.

How do you think one Rapes a child, steals from others, kills and harvest human parts from a victim who wants to live as much as youand think by merely accepting Jesus as having died for you all sins are washed away.

In4matic:


Consider this, if you throw a stone up, it falls to the ground, that's the law of gravity, if you light a fire, there's heat, smoke and ashes; that's the law of combustion.

How do you think one Rapes a child, steals from others, kills and harvest human parts from a victim who wants to live as much as youand think by merely accepting Jesus as having died for you all sins are washed away.

The justice system prescribes such a criminal sinner to be castrated, then put to death thereby experiencing the same fate you gave another person.

As I said, I don't know anything that makes it wrong for one person to buy another person's debts and pay them, do you? If you do, why don't you share it here?

If Jesus took responsibility for all the sins of such a person, then that person's sins have been completely answered for. If such a person accepts this Sacrifice made in his behalf, then he is free to come back into God's embrace as God's child.

What would be unfair would be to punish such a person again after Jesus already suffered his punishment.

If, however, you are raising the issue of temporal justice, then God's forgiveness of sin does not absolve anyone of responsibility for their crimes here on earth. A murderer will still be executed under the law here on earth, but he will not be denied eternity with God if he became a believer in Jesus Christ and remained one until death.

In4matic:


Jeeeezzzzzze,

God feels no pian lol....

See what I'm talking about? Human concepts used to describe God...

These concepts were fine during the time of ignorance. But since that "world ended" about 21 years ago, such notions can no longer hold water.

Lol.... So many people waited for the world to end and were disappointed... Hardly did they know that world actually ended

Obviously you were not in Class when God said He made us LIKE HIM!

It is Written "He that made the eyes shall He not see? Or He that made them ears shall He not hear"

Which goes on to He that made Feelings, shall Be not Feel!

That is why we rejoice to sing the Song God with us by Don Moen God with us

" He walked were I walked
He Stood were I stand
He Felt what I Feel
He understands!"

He knows my frailty
Shared my humanity
Tempted in every way
Yet without sin

Ihedinobi3:


As I said, I don't know anything that makes it wrong for one person to buy another person's debts and pay them, do you? If you do, why don't you share it here?

I believe even the Bible answered this when it said, no longer shall it be said that a father shall eat sour grapes and the teeth of the children are set on edge ...


Put differently, no longer shall this wrong notion be said that one commits a sin, and another suffers the consequence.

Also Proverbs advices all wise sons seeking wisdom to refrain from paying the debt of a stranger.

This law is upheld in every other religion