F00028:
i dont know what would happen.
but an All Loving, All Merciful God could have just forgiven adam & eve and not hold it against me.
adam didn't ask me before eating the apple.

You missed the point of my question. It is not about Adam and Eve. My question is simply: If there was no bad consequences for sin, would sin be wrong generally?

Mr_Anony:
You missed the point of my question. It is not about Adam and Eve. My question is simply: If there was no bad consequences for sin, would sin be wrong generally?

There are no consequences for slavery in the bible, does that mean slavery is not wrong?


Evil is evil regardless of consequence. You are quite wrong.

Mr_Anony:
You missed the point of my question. It is not about Adam and Eve. My question is simply: If there was no bad consequences for sin, would sin be wrong generally?

right and wrong is not about the consequence or expected consequence.people do bad things to "good" people.doesnt mean that those "bad" people always reap what they sow.like i always say,the concept of good and bad is dependent on the times and practices prevalent in the society

Delafruita:
the "normal" christian teachings sound sillly to a logical mind.then you come with your analogies which make the "normal" christian teachings sound very logical.then i begin to wonder how possible it is for a person to actually believe in these things you profess which then brings me to the conclusion that you are the "nigerian in diaspora" clone of the "antichrist".you,brother are out to deceive the "elect" which by the way includes my humble self.

another scoffer fulfilling prophesy

Mr_Anony:
You missed the point of my question. It is not about Adam and Eve. My question is simply: If there was no bad consequences for sin, would sin be wrong generally?

no. you missed the point. my orisinal question is not to debate about consequenses or lack of. simply why doesnt the biblical God simply forgive, why the meek and gentel Jesus gotta die?

Delafruita:
right and wrong is not about the consequence or expected consequence.people do bad things to "good" people.doesnt mean that those "bad" people always reap what they sow.like i always say,the concept of good and bad is dependent on the times and practices prevalent in the society

you mean there can come a time when R.APE, MURDER, I.NCEST are good

There is a mechanism that delivers consequences for every action or deeds, positive or negative, of every being existing in this reality already built into this physical existence that works well and sidesteps the necessity of a punishing deity. It is called KARMA. What you sow you reap.

Mr_Anony:
You missed the point of my question. It is not about Adam and Eve. My question is simply: If there was no bad consequences for sin, would sin be wrong generally?

F00028:
you mean there can come a time when R.APE, MURDER, I.NCEST are good

i mean there was a time when incest was the normal practise.there was a time when murder was seen as a noble action .dont tellme you dont know twins used to be sacrificed in calabar.babies born with more than 5fingers and toes used to be sacrificed.at the time it was believed that such kids were evil hence it was "good" to kill them.
just recently,the world rejoiced when osama bin laden was murdered.when ghadaffi was killed,jubilation was widespread.those were murders,but in the context in which they occured,they were deemed to be good steps

Delafruita:
i mean there was a time when incest was the normal practise.there was a time when murder was seen as a noble action .dont tellme you dont know twins used to be sacrificed in calabar.babies born with more than 5fingers and toes used to be sacrificed.at the time it was believed that such kids were evil hence it was "good" to kill them.
just recently,the world rejoiced when osama bin laden was murdered.when ghadaffi was killed,jubilation was widespread.those were murders,but in the context in which they occured,they were deemed to be good steps

when exactly was incest ever good? it may have been/is practiced by a certain people...but good?
murder has not been good since cain and abel. ditto human sacrifice even when people from calabar do it...and the "world" didn't rejoice the killing of osama and ghaddafi.
unlawful killing may be condoned when the powerful do. it but that still doesn't maké it good.

F00028:

when exactly was incest ever good? it may have been/is practiced by a certain people...but good?
murder has not been good since cain and abel. ditto human sacrifice even when people from calabar do it...and the "world" didn't rejoice the killing of osama and ghaddafi.
unlawful killing may be condoned when the powerful do. it but that still doesn't maké it good.

what do you call a situation where abraham marries his sister?what about when god asked his people to slaughter others?does that mean god is also bad?

F00028:
no. you missed the point. my orisinal question is not to debate about consequenses or lack of. simply why doesnt the biblical God simply forgive, why the meek and gentel Jesus gotta die?

I got your question the first time and that is why i asked you mine.
You see, if God is such that He simply forgives and God is not partial then he must equally just keep forgiving everybody no matter the crime.

What does that mean for you? if sin was such that anytime you sin, God will just forgive like that without you paying any price, then you will do and undo because immediately God punishes anyone, then God would be partial because He is punishing someone else while you are going scot-free and both of you are sinning. Do you see the dilemma here? By the mere act of God being "merciful", He would be doing so at the expense of justice. Do you agree thus far?


@Delafruita & Macdaddy, you guys missed the point of my discourse with F00028.

Delafruita:
what do you call a situation where abraham marries his sister?what about when god asked his people to slaughter others?does that mean god is also bad?

you have to ask bible believing brothers for those answers. you know, those who say its the word of God from cover to cover.

Mr_Anony:
I got your question the first time and that is why i asked you mine.
You see, if God is such that He simply forgives and God is not partial then he must equally just keep forgiving everybody no matter the crime.

What does that mean for you? if sin was such that anytime you sin, God will just forgive like that without you paying any price, then you will do and undo because immediately God punishes anyone, then God would be partial because He is punishing someone else while you are going scot-free and both of you are sinning. Do you see the dilemma here? By the mere act of God being "merciful", He would be doing so at the expense of justice. Do you agree thus far?


@Delafruita & Macdaddy, you guys missed the point of my discourse with F00028.

-why not if the sinner is sorry, repents, turns to God, makes amends?

-where's justice if one person is also punished for the sin of another? and wheres the love if God has to demand a pound of flesh at every turn no matter what?

-mercy and justice dont have to be mutually exclusive.

F00028:

-why not if the sinner is sorry, repents, turns to God, makes amends?

-where's justice if one person is aksi punished for the sin of another? and wheres the love if God has to demand a pound of flesh at every turn no matter what?

-mercy and justice dont have to be mutually exclusive.

Justice and mercy are mutually exclusive: To forgive means to withhold justice.

Let me make this a bit more personal:
If someone rapes your sister and when he comes before a judge, all he has to do is say he is sorry and then he goes scot-free only to rape your sister again and another person's sister and appear before the same judge, say sorry and go scot-free,
then maybe at this point you get fed up and kill the man and when you are brought before the same judge, you say sorry and go free,
then the man's brother takes revenge and kills your mother and appears before the judge, says sorry and goes scot-free.

What does this say of the judge?

Mr_Anony:
Justice and mercy are mutually exclusive: To forgive means to withhold justice...

no. to forgive means to be merciful. and in that case not to punish is, justice.

you also overlooked, "make amends".

if a man transgresses against ME and I forgive him what would that say of the judge that insists on punishing him? if he did that he would be punishing one who is without sin.

besides, wheres the justice in sacrificing poor Jesus when he wasnt even there when Adam ate the apple?

It always pain me ,if i hear that some people do not still understand what christians mean by saying Jesus had died for our sins. I will take time to explain wha it mean tomorrow ,just watch out. I have been written books on this before but its still in progress.i will share it with you tomorrow by open another thread.

F00028:

no. to forgive means to be merciful. and in that case not to punish is, justice.

you also overlooked, "make amends".

if a man transgresses against ME and I forgive him what would that say of the judge that insists on punishing him? if he did that he would be punishing one who is without sin.

besides, wheres the justice in sacrificing poor Jesus when he wasnt even there when Adam ate the apple?

I am trying to get you to grasp the divide between mercy and justice but somehow you keep missing it.

Justice means to punish a crime, forgiveness means not to punish a crime.

If a man sins against you and you forgive him, God does not hold the mans sin against him. However, that is not the case we are discuss we are discussing. We are talking about you sinning against God.

Now God is a merciful and a just God. If God forgives without you making amends, then he won't be just. The reason why Jesus was punished for our sins is that God because He loved us, decided to pay for our sins. That way, the price for sin has been paid and God is justified by offering us forgiveness. It is now up to us to accept Christ's sacrifice. If we insist on rejecting it, then we leave God no other choice than to punish us for our sins.

If you still don't get it, perhaps you should read Ayomivic's book.

obadiah777: great read but you came up with all this stuff out of your own vain opinion. you have to remember now, scripture is of no private interpretation 2 peter 1 vs 20 . However i agree with the direction you are going with this which is that those who genuinely do his will and seek him diligently will be pulled into the fold.

Luke—14:26 to 27

“If any one comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple’’.

The knowledge is compared to a sword. Bhagavatgita says “Chhitva Jnanasinatmanah”. This means that the ignorance should be cut by the knowledge, which is like a sword. The bonds with wife or husband and children are due to ignorance. Such bonds should break when the Lord in human form competes with them to conduct His test. Lord comes in human form in every human generation to preach and give His direct presence. If the Lord comes in only one human generation, God becomes partial to that human generation because other human generations are not blessed with such opportunity. To see, to touch, to talk and to live with the human incarnation, He comes down as per the prayers of the devotees. The Lord comes to preach and so He will not enter the statues or animals or birds. Veda says “Na tasya pratima asti’’ which means that God will not enter the inert statues.

Gita says “Manusheem tanu masritam” which means that God enters the human body only because the main purpose is to preach the human beings. Gita strongly says that he who worships the inert statues will be born as an inert stone (“Bhootani yanti”). The Christians should be commended on this point who are worshipping the Holy Jesus only, who is the most powerful human incarnation of God. Veda says “Na tat samah” which means that nobody and nothing should be equal to the Lord in human incarnation. One should leave everything and everybody for the sake of the Lord in human form. Only the bond with a new human being can break the bond with the human beings. Such new human being must be very powerful who can be only God in human form.

A new bond existing with formless God or statues cannot break the human bonds. Only the bond with another living being can cut the bond with the living beings. The bond with formless God is impossible. The bond with inert statue has no use. The above statements of Holy Jesus indicate that one should cut the bonds with his family and with the wealth. In Hindu religion also it is said that God (Datta) cuts all the bonds of family and wealth (“Dattam Chinnam”). Even the bond with the body should be cut for the sake of the God. Gita says the same thing as “Mat Gata Pranah”. Holy Jesus says that one has to carry his own cross (death) for the sake of the Lord. This means that one has to invite his own death with his own hands for the sake of God. Holy Jesus did like this as an ideal example for others. This means that you have to cut your bonds not only with your family and wealth but also with your life if necessary.

Hanuman, a top devotee, tore his heart with his own nails for the sake of the Lord and was blessed by the Lord to be immortal. So when the devotee sacrifices his life, his life gets protected forever. The essence of this gospel is that the love is proved only by the practical sacrifice. Veda says “Dhanena Tyage nyke…” which means that sacrifice of money proves the real love.

Money is the fruit of the work. So money is another form of work. If it is inconvenient to sacrifice the money, atleast they should sacrifice the other form of money, which is work for the sake of God. Depending on the money all the family members are attached to you. If money is not there all the family will leave you. You are also giving the money to your family only. Therefore if the bond with money is cut and if the money is sacrificed to God, the family bonds are considered as vanished, even though the family exists externally. The work of God in human form is the propagation of His divine gospel. For doing such divine work the family also stands as an obstacle because most of your energy is diverted for the family only. Therefore you do not have any energy to work for the sake of Lord.

Hence Holy Jesus wants His disciples to leave their families for the sake of God. The propagation work needs both money and work. Generally every body works to maintain his family. In the name of maintenance, several luxuries are introduced, which look like essential needs and thus there is no end for your work to earn the money for the sake of your body and your family. Your blindness increases and you will be putting more and more efforts to work and earn money for the sake of the family bonds. In such a case you can never even see the human form of God. At least you should remove your blindness by the divine knowledge if not the actual bonds. People of very high devotion only can cut the actual bonds. You are giving money to your family but you are giving words to God by prayers and you are giving mind to God through meditation.

Let me expand on your analogy, anony. A man rapes a woman and the judge punishes the rapist when he is caught. But the judge does not stop there. He goes on to punish every male in that city for the negative deed of one man. The judge even goes further to punish every male in that country, on that continent, heck even ion the whole planet for the bad deed of one rapist. Does that make any sense to you? What does that say of that judge? Answer that, anony.

And it gets even better.. The judge now offers himself as his own son to go and die(?) to cleanse the bad deed of the rapist and that of the falsely condemned population of men on the planet. In short, this is so stupid i gotta stop. That is the ludicrous story of the bible god.

Mr_Anony:
Justice and mercy are mutually exclusive: To forgive means to withhold justice.

Let me make this a bit more personal:
If someone rapes your sister and when he comes before a judge, all he has to do is say he is sorry and then he goes scot-free only to rape your sister again and another person's sister and appear before the same judge, say sorry and go scot-free,
then maybe at this point you get fed up and kill the man and when you are brought before the same judge, you say sorry and go free,
then the man's brother takes revenge and kills your mother and appears before the judge, says sorry and goes scot-free.

What does this say of the judge?

sigh...I am trying to get you past your narrow construction of justice but it's proving impossible.

Mr_Anony:

If a man sins against you and you forgive him, God does not hold the mans sin against him....

its strange that you will consider it possible for humans to forgive but the Loving God has to have blood...and the blood of the innocent for that matter.

Mr_Anony:

Now God is a merciful and a just God...

didn't you just say mercy and justice were mutually exclusive ?

you cant forgive a debt and demand its repyment at the samé time. that would be irrational.

i may very well read his book. i hope he makes better sense.

F00028:
sigh...I am trying to get you past your narrow construction of justice but it's proving impossible.


its strange that you will consider it possible for humans to forgive but the Loving God has to have blood...and the blood of the innocent for that matter.



didn't you just say mercy and justice were mutually exclusive ?

you cant forgive a debt and demand its repyment at the samé time. that would be irrational.

i may very well read his book. i hope he makes better sense.

Nice selective quoting you did there............however, I think you have come to understand what I have been trying to get you to understand
you said:

you cant forgive a debt and demand its repayment at the samé time. that would be irrational.

Good that's what I have been saying. Justice and mercy are mutually exclusive.

Without the shedding of blood, there can be no remission of sin (the price of sin is death)
God in order to grant us mercy and still punish sin, God had to come as a man and bear our sins upon Himself. By giving up His life, He paid the price for the sins of everyone.
Now when we stand before God, we stand forgiven already. By accepting God's forgiveness and forsaking our sins, God can legally dismiss our case and will not count our sins against us (that's the good news a.k.a. gospel)

.....but when we reject His forgiveness, you leave God no other choice than to give you your due punishment.

I hope you get it now.

Jenwitemi: Let me expand on your analogy, anony. A man rapes a woman and the judge punishes the rapist when he is caught. But the judge does not stop there. He goes on to punish every male in that city for the negative deed of one man. The judge even goes further to punish every male in that country, on that continent, heck even ion the whole planet for the bad deed of one rapist. Does that make any sense to you? What does that say of that judge? Answer that, anony.

And it gets even better.. The judge now offers himself as his own son to go and die(?) to cleanse the bad deed of the rapist and that of the falsely condemned population of men on the planet. In short, this is so stupid i gotta stop. That is the ludicrous story of the bible god.

I think you are referring to "original sin". If that is true, then I'm afraid you don't know what original sin is all about. If you are willing, I'll try and explain. If you've already dug ur heels into ur bias then I'm sorry I can't help u.

Mr_Anony: . . . .

Without the shedding of blood, there can be no remission of sin (the price of sin is death)
God in order to grant us mercy and still punish sin, God had to come as a man and bear our sins upon Himself. By giving up His life, He paid the price for the sins of everyone.
Now when we stand before God, we stand forgiven already. By accepting God's forgiveness and forsaking our sins, God can legally dismiss our case and will not count our sins against us (that's the good news) .....but when we reject His forgiveness, you leave God no other choice than to give you your due punishment.

I hope you get it now.

Fabulous! This is a central theme of Christianity that many people simply do not grasp.

Bros, even in the Old Testament we often read of God complaining and "railing" about the unfaithfulness of Israel sometimes even threatening to punish them ---- but by the time we get to the end we see God saying something like "but I will have mercy on my people" or "for my own sake, I will have mercy" etc etc

Enigma:

Fabulous! This is a central theme of Christianity that many people simply do not grasp.

Bros, even in the Old Testament we often read of God complaining and "railing" about the unfaithfulness of Israel sometimes even threatening to punish them ---- but by the time we get to the end we see God saying something like "but I will have mercy on my people" or "for my own sake, I will have mercy" etc etc

Word bro...........we really need to break bread one of these days.

Mr_Anony:
Word bro...........we really need to break bread one of these days.

cassava bread ?

Explain it to me,then. Even though, to me, sin is sin whether it is original or not. They are all the same to me. I am sure there will be nothing new about your explanation for i would have heard it many times before, but explain away, anony. Let me hear your own spin on why original sin should be seen differently.

Mr_Anony:
I think you are referring to "original sin". If that is true, then I'm afraid you don't know what original sin is all about. If you are willing, I'll try and explain. If you've already dug ur heels into ur bias then I'm sorry I can't help u.

And while you are at it, explain how dying for another person cleans that person's sin away. Remember that that is one of the dumbest teachings of many dumb teachings in christianity.

Jenwitemi: Explain it to me,then. Even though, to me, sin is sin whether it is original or not. They are all the same to me. I am sure there will be nothing new about your explanation for i would have heard it many times before, but explain away, anony. Let me hear your own spin on why original sin should be seen differently. And while you are at it, explain how dying for another person cleans that person's sin away. Remember that that is one of the dumbest teachings of many dumb teachings in christianity.

The phrase in red is the reason why I won't bother explaining anything to you. My words will be wasted upon you. If you get it, you get it. If you don't get it, that's just too bad.

You've just chickened out because you know fully well that your own spin on it won't bring any clarification whatsoever. Never mind, anony.

Mr_Anony:
The phrase in red is the reason why I won't bother explaining anything to you. My words will be wasted upon you. If you get it, you get it. If you don't get it, that's just too bad.

Jenwitemi: You've just chickened out because you know fully well that your own spin on it won't bring any clarification whatsoever. Never mind, anony.

Not so. I just don't see the sense in trying to get you to understand what you have already closed your ears to

I usually close my ears to what does not make sense to me. If you know that what you are going to say is senseless, then you might as well keep it to yourself. You do know that Christian ideas are full of senselessness and that's why a healthy dose of faith of the blind type is needed to swallow them.

Mr_Anony:
Not so. I just don't see the sense in trying to get you to understand what you have already closed your ears to

Unbeknownst to its adherents, christianity is just another cult religion founded on the same principles of occult ritual, blood sacrifice and ritual cannibalism practised by many of the world's ancient religious traditions. Their hero, 'Jesus' is a victim of human sacrifice ordered by his 'father' etc etc, to cleanse the earth of all sin etc etc. The same themes - sacrifice made for atonenment/cleansing of the land, for soothing the anger of the gods etc. These were the very same reasons given by many of our forebears for their sacrifices - animal and human.

Followers of 'Christ' are also required to indulge in ritual cannibalism (the 'Eucharist') - eating the flesh and drinking the blood of their god (a very ancient practise common to pre-christian faiths). So the christian god is merely a repackaged or rebranded member of these group of ancient 'gods' who seemed to love the spilled blood of humans and animals. In fact I recall a chapter in the Old testament where it was written that the smell of burning flesh 'went up to the heavens' and 'was pleasing to the Lord' etc. Very bizarre.

This is why it is impossible for a rational mind to accept that the bible has anything at all to do with the Creator of the universes.

Jenwitemi: I usually close my ears to what does not make sense to me. If you know that what you are going to say is senseless, then you might as well keep it to yourself. You do know that christian ideas are full of senselessness.

Wow, ever heard of something called willful ignorance?