Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to Victim.

[logical4u]

You can forgive someone and still throw his ass in jail.

Don't confuse "forgiveness" with "justice".

True. To protect others.
In the case of Jesus forgiving, the perpetrator walks.

That is not justice.

Regards
DL

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").

 

[logical4u]

Jesus restores that which the perpetrator took from the victim. He paid the price of Justice with His blood. He has every right to forgive the sinner. The greater sin is not forgiving them.

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

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.

 

[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" (after the risen Christ), sins were passed from generation to generation (one of the reasons, habitual sinners were put to death, to reduce the family's sins). People were held accountable for what their ancestors did before them. The Lord was the one that kept account of those sins (kind of like a debt). Those sins could be "forgiven" if a spiritual person belonged to a family or even a "people", by piety before the Lord.
Yeshua was asked why He told a person that their sins were "forgiven" instead of just healing them. He responded which was easier to say "you have been healed, get up and go home" or "your sins are forgiven". My interpretation of that is: people are crippled by their feelings of guilt toward themselves and their anger at others to the point that it causes health problems. Forgiveness is a way to realize we are all fallible and make mistakes, but by forgiveness we can move forward and not be crippled by past occurences. Most of us have a problem with "forgiving" ourselves. The Lord "forgiving" us, allows us to follow His example: if the Creator of everything can forgive me, then surely, I can forgive myself (and am worthy of forgiveness because He is the Almighty).

 

[GreatestIam]

[
You might wonder why you use certain versus, that have nothing to do with each other, to try and prove your ignorance. I do not wonder, I know you are ignorant. Stop trying to prove otherwise.

I like to see Christian anger. It means I burst one of your illogic bubbles.
Thanks for showing your true stripes.
The truth hurts eh?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao_PdmERD_U]Bill Maher : the hypocrisy of evangelical christians. - YouTube[/ame]

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

You can forgive someone and still throw his ass in jail.

Don't confuse "forgiveness" with "justice".

True. To protect others.
In the case of Jesus forgiving, the perpetrator walks.

That is not justice.

Regards
DL

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

 

[GreatestIam]

[

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

 

[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

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

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I really would not go down this road.

 

[AmericanFirst]

[
You might wonder why you use certain versus, that have nothing to do with each other, to try and prove your ignorance. I do not wonder, I know you are ignorant. Stop trying to prove otherwise.

I like to see Christian anger. It means I burst one of your illogic bubbles.
Thanks for showing your true stripes.
The truth hurts eh?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao_PdmERD_U]Bill Maher : the hypocrisy of evangelical christians. - YouTube[/ame]

Regards
DL

I am not angry. I am just pointing out that you are ignorant. You are only fooling yourself.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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

Our God did not screw up, man screwed up. Learn something before you keep lying, liar.

 

[Katzndogz]

The biggest error is in assuming that without a victim there is no sin. Sin is not a synomyn with crime.

 

[Foxfyre]

The biggest error is in assuming that without a victim there is no sin. Sin is not a synomyn with crime.

No, probably most sin is not associated with crime. But all that which harms us and/or others, intentionally or inadvertently, is sin and is never without consequence or victims. For example, there is no crime, as defined by criminal law, in intentionally serving a consistently unhealthy diet to your family or in eating one yourself. I think both are 'sins' in the strictest definition of the term however, and there will be consequence. But, in times of famine or other deprivation, one might not sin in serving the same food when that is all that is available.

 

[GreatestIam]

The biggest error is in assuming that without a victim there is no sin. Sin is not a synomyn with crime.

Chastisement without correction is just cruelty.
Thanks for showing your character.

People who are sure of their facts show them.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

The biggest error is in assuming that without a victim there is no sin. Sin is not a synomyn with crime.

No, probably most sin is not associated with crime. But all that which harms us and/or others, intentionally or inadvertently, is sin and is never without consequence or victims. For example, there is no crime, as defined by criminal law, in intentionally serving a consistently unhealthy diet to your family or in eating one yourself. I think both are 'sins' in the strictest definition of the term however, and there will be consequence. But, in times of famine or other deprivation, one might not sin in serving the same food when that is all that is available.

Well put. Surprising that we do not agree more elsewhere.

Regards
DL

 

[Foxfyre]

The biggest error is in assuming that without a victim there is no sin. Sin is not a synomyn with crime.

No, probably most sin is not associated with crime. But all that which harms us and/or others, intentionally or inadvertently, is sin and is never without consequence or victims. For example, there is no crime, as defined by criminal law, in intentionally serving a consistently unhealthy diet to your family or in eating one yourself. I think both are 'sins' in the strictest definition of the term however, and there will be consequence. But, in times of famine or other deprivation, one might not sin in serving the same food when that is all that is available.

Well put. Surprising that we do not agree more elsewhere.

Regards
DL

We do not agree more often because on this thread you have spent more time reading into the posts of others what is likely not even there and personally insulting them. Which for you might be sin, and is most certainly sin if you harm anyone else by such activity.

 

[amrchaos]

Considering what some people are saying, a question keeps popping up.


What, pray tell, from Jesus teachings influence our justice system? What about our system of laws?

The way many of you explain Jesus teachings, it has no bearing on what is pertinent, such as our system of law and punishment. If this is the case, what contributions does christianity makes to Justice.

 

[Foxfyre]

Considering what some people are saying, a question keeps popping up.


What, pray tell, from Jesus teachings influence our justice system? What about our system of laws?

The way many of you explain Jesus teachings, it has no bearing on what is pertinent, such as our system of law and punishment. If this is the case, what contributions does christianity makes to Justice.

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. For those who used the Church as the vehicle for self servng or authoritarianism, the results were disastrous--think the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Papal, Anglican, and Puritan theocracies. But that was not Christianity.

Christianity, in its original form, changes the person, the society, and, given opportunity, would change the world for the better. Communities/neighborhoods in which the Church is very much visible and active and part of the community enjoy a stability, secured property values, and the poorest citizens are cared for. When the Church is absent or margninalized, there is very often far more crime, deteriorating property values, and a less cohesive and caring society.

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

 

[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

 

[Foxfyre]

[

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?

 

[logical4u]

True. To protect others.
In the case of Jesus forgiving, the perpetrator walks.

That is not justice.

Regards
DL

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.