Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to Victim.

[logical4u]

[

Yeshua made men and women "equal" when he told the group of men that the one without sin could throw the first stone. The Hebrews, like many of the other cultures subjugated women over the centuries. Yeshua reminded "men" that "women" were capable of going and sinning no more... that they each had souls and were "individually" responsible for them.
In primative times, it was necessary to have men "protect" women. That is not the case in the more advanced societies. Those societies were influence by Christianity, where men and women are "brothers" and "sisters" in Christ. Please demonstrate where "equality" is more advanced than primarily Christian cultures.

Canada and the E U. for two.

The U.S. is way behind in rights for women and Gays and not letting their people face hardships because they cannot afford medical bills.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iMBUoxLOmA]Republicans, Get In My Vagina!.flv - YouTube[/ame]

Regards
DL

Canada and the EU???? Both of those were predominately Christian and still have large Christian populations. And both are denying elderly medical proceedures offered by the gov't.

 

[logical4u]

Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to Victim.

Sin, by it’s very nature must have a victim. Without a victim, there is no sin.

The one sinned against has the first right of forgiveness.

If Jesus usurps that right then I think it would be unjust.

Closure is being denied the victim thus victimizing is twofold.

Jesus would not condone such a thing.

Secular law now demands a victim assessment report before sentence is given.

To think that Jesus would ignore this requirement is unthinkable.

This means that, “Why have you forsaken me? “, is answered by God with; because what you do is immoral. You deny the victim her or his rights. It is also unjust to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. In fact, that notion is insane.

In the scenario shown here the victim is ignored thus showing the flaw in the judge’s ruling, if he accepts substitutionary atonement.

Richard Dawkins schools Howard Conder on morality - YouTube

Regards
DL

Before the "New Covenant" ().

If your God had not screwed up on the old covenant, he would not have had to introduce a new one.

You trust such a loser?
If so, you are as foolish a loser as he is.

Regards
DL

The Lord was not the one that "messed" up, the people were "stuborn" and "arrogant", it was thier fault.

 

[logical4u]

[

An excellent question. But Christianity is not a system of laws or justice. It is a relationship that, when fully embraced, changes lives and imposes a unique dignity and respect into the human condition. .

If as you say, why then did Moses come down the mountain with commandments, which are laws, instead of preaching for a relationship?

In fact, Moses almost immediately put, what was it, 3,000, to death because they had broken the law and idol worshiped and broke, not a relationship, but the first commandment or law.

You also wrote "And when a value system is infused into the society, it will be reflected in that society's laws. "

One would have to be insane to put bible laws in place in any community.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-2_LqOS3uo]Martin Sheen burns a hypo-christian - YouTube[/ame]

Regards
DL

Will you please "comprehend" what you read in the Bible? The Hebrews begged Moses to ask the Lord for a set of laws that they could follow (so they would not stir His anger). When Moses came down the mountain with the "requested" laws, he found way too many Hebrews acting like Egyptians and worshipping a god they carved out of wood and covered with gold (artificial). In a Christian society, most people "police" their own actions (they don't need a nanny gov't) to tell them how to live and act.

It is easy to see that the Lord is not a priority with many in gov't, or in the 'takers' of gov't handouts. The forefathers believed that a "Christian" population would not need a lot of laws, they would use their beliefs to govern themselves.

It is those that break the Commandments that clamor for laws (technicalities) to avoid truth and justice. It is ironic that in this nation where people are screaming about "Christians" forcing their faith on them, that the "Christians" are not the people demanding that laws and regulations be added so the nanny gov't can watch/control people. It is the groups that claim to be "tolerant", "intellectual", and "peaceful" that are seeking to elevate the status of their particular groups above all others.

 

[whitehall]

Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to Victim.

Sin, by it’s very nature must have a victim. Without a victim, there is no sin.

The one sinned against has the first right of forgiveness.

If Jesus usurps that right then I think it would be unjust.

Closure is being denied the victim thus victimizing is twofold.

Jesus would not condone such a thing.

Secular law now demands a victim assessment report before sentence is given.

To think that Jesus would ignore this requirement is unthinkable.

This means that, “Why have you forsaken me? “, is answered by God with; because what you do is immoral. You deny the victim her or his rights. It is also unjust to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. In fact, that notion is insane.

In the scenario shown here the victim is ignored thus showing the flaw in the judge’s ruling, if he accepts substitutionary atonement.

Richard Dawkins schools Howard Conder on morality - YouTube

Regards
DL

Where do you come up with this logic? Who says a sin has to have a victim? According to Christian theology you can sin in a hundred ways without a "victim". Why in the world would an agnostic be against forgiveness anyway? If ignorance was a sin you would be a victim.

 

[GreatestIam]

[

An excellent question. But Christianity is not a system of laws or justice. It is a relationship that, when fully embraced, changes lives and imposes a unique dignity and respect into the human condition. .

If as you say, why then did Moses come down the mountain with commandments, which are laws, instead of preaching for a relationship?

In fact, Moses almost immediately put, what was it, 3,000, to death because they had broken the law and idol worshiped and broke, not a relationship, but the first commandment or law.

You also wrote "And when a value system is infused into the society, it will be reflected in that society's laws. "

One would have to be insane to put bible laws in place in any community.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-2_LqOS3uo]Martin Sheen burns a hypo-christian - YouTube[/ame]

Regards
DL

Well I can't answer that since Moses lived more than a thousand years before the birth of Christ, long before Christianity was even a word, much less a became religion or concept of Faith.

And once more you seem to have a reading disorder or an inability to grasp a concept when you suggest that infusing a value system into a society translates to Bible laws. However, are our laws against murder, against stealing, penalities for adultery, against cheating for personal gain, against committing perjury all Bible laws? They were put into place by mostly Christian people, most likely were judged to be right or wrong at least in part by virtue of the Christian beliefs of the lawmakers. Are you suggesting that they all be tossed out because they all also can be found somewhere in the Bible?

"You also wrote "And when a value system is infused into the society, it will be reflected in that society's laws. "

My reading disorder kicked in while reading and all I could think of was all those original Christian laws are all from the book of the dead.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

Every knee will bend before "Him" (Yeshua). He will be the judge at that time, and every person will be punished for their sins. It is possible you will still join "Him" for eternity, but not until after you have been punished for your sins (the Lord is "JUST").

Get off your knees.
God has had enough of your lip service.

Regards
DL

I am not on my knees. When the Lord judges ALL the people, every knee will be bent before Him. You are pretending that you have the "authority" of the Judge. You are amusing.

And you give authority to a delusion.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

[

The Lord was not the one that "messed" up, the people were "stuborn" and "arrogant", it was thier fault.

Then your God screwed up when he created them.

I hear that free will B S coming so here.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to Victim.

Sin, by it’s very nature must have a victim. Without a victim, there is no sin.

The one sinned against has the first right of forgiveness.

If Jesus usurps that right then I think it would be unjust.

Closure is being denied the victim thus victimizing is twofold.

Jesus would not condone such a thing.

Secular law now demands a victim assessment report before sentence is given.

To think that Jesus would ignore this requirement is unthinkable.

This means that, “Why have you forsaken me? “, is answered by God with; because what you do is immoral. You deny the victim her or his rights. It is also unjust to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. In fact, that notion is insane.

In the scenario shown here the victim is ignored thus showing the flaw in the judge’s ruling, if he accepts substitutionary atonement.

Richard Dawkins schools Howard Conder on morality - YouTube

Regards
DL

Where do you come up with this logic? Who says a sin has to have a victim? According to Christian theology you can sin in a hundred ways without a "victim". Why in the world would an agnostic be against forgiveness anyway? If ignorance was a sin you would be a victim.

Name some of these victimless sins or show your ignorance. Again.

Regards
DL

 

[Foxfyre]

I think most sin is victimless if 'victim' is defined as showing visible wounds or direct harm. I don't think any sin is truly victimless, however, otherwise it would not be sin as I define sin. Sometimes sin can be nothing more than harboring unhealthy grudges or hate or resentment for somebody and being unwilling to let that go. It might be that nobody even knows that it exists other than the person, but it withers away at the person's soul and perhaps even harms him/her physically and that makes it sin.

Or maybe we pour a cup of something polluting into a lake. Quickly dissipated and undetectable. No harm, no foul, right? But over years, thousands or tens of thousands or millions of people each pouring a little pollutant into that lake will eventually change its chemistry and make the water into something harmful to drink or use for other purposes. So we can't say there was no vicitim. The act was a tiny sin but there are long term consequences to others, perhaps long after we are gone.

The Bible instructs us that we have all fallen short and there are none without sin. By God's grace he offered himself up as the human sacrifice to pay our penalty for sin, that for which we know to ask forgiveness, and that we don't yet know was sin. Were we able to perfectly align ourselves to the will of God and choose only what He wants, there would be no sin and we would not spoil His perfect creation. But since none of us are God, we need His grace and His forgiveness.

 

[Sky Dancer]

IMO, more to the point, is how do we help victims of crime to heal? One way we do that is to help the person affected know that it really WAS as hurtful as it was.

Let the person feel it, and find a way to be friendly toward the entire series of reactions.

Religion can be supportive, but many times it's not. I don't think you really have to "forgive" the man who killed your child. You have to learn to accept it, because it's the truth of what happened.

 

[amrchaos]

IMO, more to the point, is how do we help victims of crime to heal? One way we do that is to help the person affected know that it really WAS as hurtful as it was.

Let the person feel it, and find a way to be friendly toward the entire series of reactions.

Religion can be supportive, but many times it's not. I don't think you really have to "forgive" the man who killed your child. You have to learn to accept it, because it's the truth of what happened.

Would it not be better to live a delusional lie and not confront the pain? Would not forgiveness be easier in such a situation?

You Buddhists and your "actuality"! Why can't one believe in a lie and make it their truth? Do you really want to feel the pain of losing a loved one? Are you really that strong?

A good bottle of Jack Daniels and some one to dump your anger on sometimes is better than accepting the truth!

 

[Sky Dancer]

IMO, more to the point, is how do we help victims of crime to heal? One way we do that is to help the person affected know that it really WAS as hurtful as it was.

Let the person feel it, and find a way to be friendly toward the entire series of reactions.

Religion can be supportive, but many times it's not. I don't think you really have to "forgive" the man who killed your child. You have to learn to accept it, because it's the truth of what happened.

Would it not be better to live a delusional lie and not confront the pain? Would not forgiveness be easier in such a situation?

You Buddhists and your "actuality"! Why can't one believe in a lie and make it their truth? Do you really want to feel the pain of losing a loved one? Are you really that strong?

A good bottle of Jack Daniels and some one to dump your anger on sometimes is better than accepting the truth!

It's better to acknowledge the truth that the "unacceptable" happened. No one wants to feel the pain of losing someone, yet we all do.

Forgiveness, as it is practised by religious is not the same as radical acceptance. We can accept that something horrible happened, and that our lives are forever altered by it.

It's been possible for me to forgive the perpetrators of my childhood abuse, but it's been much harder to heal from the damage they caused.

 

[GreatestIam]

I think most sin is victimless if 'victim' is defined as showing visible wounds or direct harm. I don't think any sin is truly victimless, however, otherwise it would not be sin as I define sin. Sometimes sin can be nothing more than harboring unhealthy grudges or hate or resentment for somebody and being unwilling to let that go. It might be that nobody even knows that it exists other than the person, but it withers away at the person's soul and perhaps even harms him/her physically and that makes it sin.

Or maybe we pour a cup of something polluting into a lake. Quickly dissipated and undetectable. No harm, no foul, right? But over years, thousands or tens of thousands or millions of people each pouring a little pollutant into that lake will eventually change its chemistry and make the water into something harmful to drink or use for other purposes. So we can't say there was no vicitim. The act was a tiny sin but there are long term consequences to others, perhaps long after we are gone.

The Bible instructs us that we have all fallen short and there are none without sin. By God's grace he offered himself up as the human sacrifice to pay our penalty for sin, that for which we know to ask forgiveness, and that we don't yet know was sin. Were we able to perfectly align ourselves to the will of God and choose only what He wants, there would be no sin and we would not spoil His perfect creation. But since none of us are God, we need His grace and His forgiveness.

And for that you are willing to sell your soul to Satan by embracing a God who had his son needlessly murdered to form an immoral religion based on barbaric human sacrifice.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

IMO, more to the point, is how do we help victims of crime to heal? One way we do that is to help the person affected know that it really WAS as hurtful as it was.

Let the person feel it, and find a way to be friendly toward the entire series of reactions.

Religion can be supportive, but many times it's not. I don't think you really have to "forgive" the man who killed your child. You have to learn to accept it, because it's the truth of what happened.

That is closure and that is healthy.
Holding grudges sours the soul.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

IMO, more to the point, is how do we help victims of crime to heal? One way we do that is to help the person affected know that it really WAS as hurtful as it was.

Let the person feel it, and find a way to be friendly toward the entire series of reactions.

Religion can be supportive, but many times it's not. I don't think you really have to "forgive" the man who killed your child. You have to learn to accept it, because it's the truth of what happened.

Would it not be better to live a delusional lie and not confront the pain? Would not forgiveness be easier in such a situation?

You Buddhists and your "actuality"! Why can't one believe in a lie and make it their truth? Do you really want to feel the pain of losing a loved one? Are you really that strong?

A good bottle of Jack Daniels and some one to dump your anger on sometimes is better than accepting the truth!

It's better to acknowledge the truth that the "unacceptable" happened. No one wants to feel the pain of losing someone, yet we all do.

Forgiveness, as it is practised by religious is not the same as radical acceptance. We can accept that something horrible happened, and that our lives are forever altered by it.

It's been possible for me to forgive the perpetrators of my childhood abuse, but it's been much harder to heal from the damage they caused.

All of us work on our individual characters as we go through life. Even S O Bitches.
We need to recognize that we are all doing the best we can with what we have. Many just do not have much. Unfortunately, with the perpetrators, we must realize that they were made to be what they are. None are born that way. Evolutions default in us is to the good. We must learn to be evil.

Regards
DL

 

[Youwerecreated]

I think most sin is victimless if 'victim' is defined as showing visible wounds or direct harm. I don't think any sin is truly victimless, however, otherwise it would not be sin as I define sin. Sometimes sin can be nothing more than harboring unhealthy grudges or hate or resentment for somebody and being unwilling to let that go. It might be that nobody even knows that it exists other than the person, but it withers away at the person's soul and perhaps even harms him/her physically and that makes it sin.

Or maybe we pour a cup of something polluting into a lake. Quickly dissipated and undetectable. No harm, no foul, right? But over years, thousands or tens of thousands or millions of people each pouring a little pollutant into that lake will eventually change its chemistry and make the water into something harmful to drink or use for other purposes. So we can't say there was no vicitim. The act was a tiny sin but there are long term consequences to others, perhaps long after we are gone.

The Bible instructs us that we have all fallen short and there are none without sin. By God's grace he offered himself up as the human sacrifice to pay our penalty for sin, that for which we know to ask forgiveness, and that we don't yet know was sin. Were we able to perfectly align ourselves to the will of God and choose only what He wants, there would be no sin and we would not spoil His perfect creation. But since none of us are God, we need His grace and His forgiveness.

And for that you are willing to sell your soul to Satan by embracing a God who had his son needlessly murdered to form an immoral religion based on barbaric human sacrifice.

Regards
DL

You are confused he is so righteous that all sin has to have atonement. God sacrificed himself for that atonement, Not someone else.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Would it not be better to live a delusional lie and not confront the pain? Would not forgiveness be easier in such a situation?

You Buddhists and your "actuality"! Why can't one believe in a lie and make it their truth? Do you really want to feel the pain of losing a loved one? Are you really that strong?

A good bottle of Jack Daniels and some one to dump your anger on sometimes is better than accepting the truth!

It's better to acknowledge the truth that the "unacceptable" happened. No one wants to feel the pain of losing someone, yet we all do.

Forgiveness, as it is practised by religious is not the same as radical acceptance. We can accept that something horrible happened, and that our lives are forever altered by it.

It's been possible for me to forgive the perpetrators of my childhood abuse, but it's been much harder to heal from the damage they caused.

All of us work on our individual characters as we go through life. Even S O Bitches.
We need to recognize that we are all doing the best we can with what we have. Many just do not have much. Unfortunately, with the perpetrators, we must realize that they were made to be what they are. None are born that way. Evolutions default in us is to the good. We must learn to be evil.

Regards
DL

No doing evil things is not taught it just comes naturally because of our imperfections. Do you think hitler was taught to be a murderer by his parents ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

IMO, more to the point, is how do we help victims of crime to heal? One way we do that is to help the person affected know that it really WAS as hurtful as it was.

Let the person feel it, and find a way to be friendly toward the entire series of reactions.

Religion can be supportive, but many times it's not. I don't think you really have to "forgive" the man who killed your child. You have to learn to accept it, because it's the truth of what happened.

Would it not be better to live a delusional lie and not confront the pain? Would not forgiveness be easier in such a situation?

You Buddhists and your "actuality"! Why can't one believe in a lie and make it their truth? Do you really want to feel the pain of losing a loved one? Are you really that strong?

A good bottle of Jack Daniels and some one to dump your anger on sometimes is better than accepting the truth!

Adversity makes a person better and stronger.

 

[GreatestIam]

[

You are confused he is so righteous that all sin has to have atonement. God sacrficed himself for that atonement, Not someone else.

You think human sacrifice is moral do you?

Even as it goes against your scriptures.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Psalm 49:7

None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:


It was God's plan from the beginning to have Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or God damned sin.

If God had not intended humans to sin from the beginning, why did he build into the Creation this "solution" for sin? Why create a solution for a problem you do not anticipate?

God knew that the moment he said "don't eat from that tree," the die was cast. The eating was inevitable. Eve was merely following the plan.

This then begs the question.

What kind of God would plan and execute the murder of his own son when there was absolutely no need to?

Only an insane God. That’s who.

The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice, thus showing it‘s immorality.

One of Christianity's highest form of immorality is what they have done to women.
They have denied them equality and subjugated them to men.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqN8EYIIR3g&feature=related]Women Part 1 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dspWh9g3hU&feature=related]Women Part 2 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c0RFxXrYzg&feature=related]Holy Bible - Epic Fail - YouTube[/ame]

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

[q

No doing evil things is not taught it just comes naturally because of our imperfections. Do you think hitler was taught to be a murderer by his parents ?

Are you not a product of your environment and upbringing?

So was Hitler.

Regards
DL