What was a reason for God to sacrifice His Son?

[Mindful]

How was it a sacrifice, if Jesus did not die?

The Resurrection is central to the belief in Christianity.

He suffered death and then defeated it. He still died.

That doesn't make sense.

The wages of sin is death. Man dies because of sin. Jesus took our sin, died, and rose from the grave. Jesus defeated death. We will die, but rise again in the resurrection.

What for? What's the point?

 

[Mindful]

How was it a sacrifice, if Jesus did not die?

The Resurrection is central to the belief in Christianity.

He suffered death and then defeated it. He still died.

That doesn't make sense.

Why not?

Are you sure you want to change subjects? There is only so much time before Homeland.

I can handle several subjects at the same time.

Your call.

Answer my question. About original sin. Or I can't proceed.

 

[ding]

Anyway Ding.

Before we get into it; I have to ask you this:

Do you believe you were born into original sin? Before you even had a chance to transgress?

Not in the sense that others do per se. Genesis is allegorical. It starts with the allegorical account of Creation. After every step God would say "and it was good." So basically everything God created was good. Which makes sense because things like evil, darkness and cold or not extant. They don't exist on their own. They exist as the absence of something else. Cold is the absence of heat. Darkness is the absence of light. And evil is the absence of good.

Man knows right from wrong, but when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong, he rationalizes that he didn't violate it. After Adam and Eve had sinned and realized they were naked, they hid when they heard God coming. They hid because they knew that they had done wrong. Then when God asked point blank if they had done it, they rationalized that it wasn't their fault. Adam, did you eat the apple? The woman you made gave it to me. Eve did you eat the apple? The serpent deceived me.

Man is the only animal capable of knowledge of good and evil. No other creature has this concept. Sure animals can have empathy, but not like man. Animals function on impulse and instinct. Man functions on these too, but in man's case he has the unique ability to override his impulses and instinct for the sake of good. That is free will. It's a choice. Everything is choice.

I don't believe that Genesis is implying that had Adam and Eve never committed the original sin, we would live in paradise forever. I believe Genesis is saying that man has the capacity to do good and evil. So then the question begs why did God create such a world. I believe that that is an artifact of life. In other words, I don't believe God had a choice. It is part and parcel of the extant nature of good. I know people will howl that I said God had no choice but the reality is there are things God can't do. For instance, God can't oppose Himself; He can't go against His own nature.

So there are two very interesting things which come out of free will. One is that evil has the effect of making good better. It's like salt and sugar. Salt makes sugar taste sweeter. We are told elsewhere that He uses all things for the good of those who love Him. Among other things the Jews discovered is that there is meaning in suffering. 07 Judaism

The other interesting thing is that good has no meaning unless there is evil. In other words, it is not virtuous if you are forced to be virtuous.

In closing, man prefers good over evil. We don't do evil for evil's sake. We do evil for the sake of our own good and when we do, we rationalize that we didn't do evil. But from these acts, goodness will arise and we will be stronger for it. It is a self compensating feature whose sole purpose is to propel consciousness to the next rung in the anthropological ladder.

 

[ding]

He suffered death and then defeated it. He still died.

That doesn't make sense.

Why not?

Are you sure you want to change subjects? There is only so much time before Homeland.

I can handle several subjects at the same time.

Your call.

Answer my question. About original sin. Or I can't proceed.

Please have some patience. I am only human.

 

[BS Filter]

How was it a sacrifice, if Jesus did not die?

The Resurrection is central to the belief in Christianity.

He suffered death and then defeated it. He still died.

That doesn't make sense.

The wages of sin is death. Man dies because of sin. Jesus took our sin, died, and rose from the grave. Jesus defeated death. We will die, but rise again in the resurrection.

What for? What's the point?

The point is God loves us and wants us to live with Him. We can't do that unless the sin problem was resolved.

 

[emilynghiem]

As far as I am aware, according to Christian beliefs after Adam's fall all humanity became sinful and doomed to perdition. Then Son of God was sent by Father to save mankind and give eternal live for those believing in Him.

‌Why was all this needed? Why didnt God simply send a prophet with instructions how people can save themselves? Why did God have a need to make sacrifice for himself?

Dear ESay the analogy I use to explain this process,
I compare it with installing an anti-virus cleanup program into a hard drive that is already infected,
where malware is already embedded in files and programs.

It isn't enough just to run it and then keep going.
the computer has to be shut down completely,
then rebooted for the program to infiltrate all the files and locations
and restart with the program fully embedded and protecting the system.

Jesus represents perfect Universal Laws of Justice coming from a divine level
and being sent down into man's corrupt worldly level already messed up.

So Jesus had to be incarnated INTO this system, then "killed off while on this level"
so that when the system is "rebooted" then there is synchronizing on all levels.

The purpose of this process of "establishing justice" is to reconcile
man's laws and life on earth with the higher laws of justice beyond our limited lives and perception as humans.

We cannot receive this higher justice if we continue to divide and reject
according to our manmade justice where we punish and judge each other by groups blaming one another.

We must forgive and let go the past garbage that junked up our system of justice;
in order to receive Mutual corrections to restore true peace and justice for all.
this is what it means for all people to submit to Equal Justice as the Law for All,
or Jesus being Lord of all. We are not in charge of justice that is greater than any of us.

This comes from higher level than just us, who as human beings are imperfect
and biased by our personal "conflicts of interest." We will always favor our own interests and groups we identify with, over groups we don't relate to, or we even exclude or reject other groups and don't treat each other equally. We are biased and not going to be perfectly fair
and all inclusive of all people. We are not that perfect in our judgment, so our justice system is flawed and fails to protect and include all people equally under law as the ultimate goal.

The point of divine grace is to break through the vicious cycle we cannot get out of
because we keep blaming each other in circles. Humans cannot forgive what we can't correct.

so it takes Divine Justice to correct these wrongs on a global scale of saving all humanity from injustice and wrongs, where we can forgive and heal
and one day learn to live in peace instead of living in the past.

 

[Mindful]

Anyway Ding.

Before we get into it; I have to ask you this:

Do you believe you were born into original sin? Before you even had a chance to transgress?

Not in the sense that others do per se. Genesis is allegorical. It starts with the allegorical account of Creation. After every step God would say "and it was good." So basically everything God created was good. Which makes sense because things like evil, darkness and cold or not extant. They don't exist on their own. They exist as the absence of something else. Cold is the absence of heat. Darkness is the absence of light. And evil is the absence of good.

Man knows right from wrong, but when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong, he rationalizes that he didn't violate it. After Adam and Eve had sinned and realized they were naked, they hid when they heard God coming. They hid because they knew that they had done wrong. Then when God asked point blank if they had done it, they rationalized that it wasn't their fault. Adam, did you eat the apple? The woman you made gave it to me. Eve did you eat the apple? The serpent deceived me.

Man is the only animal capable of knowledge of good and evil. No other creature has this concept. Sure animals can have empathy, but not like man. Animals function on impulse and instinct. Man functions on these too, but in man's case he has the unique ability to override his impulses and instinct for the sake of good. That is free will. It's a choice. Everything is choice.

I don't believe that Genesis is implying that had Adam and Eve never committed the original sin, we would live in paradise forever. I believe Genesis is saying that man has the capacity to do good and evil. So then the question begs why did God create such a world. I believe that that is an artifact of life. In other words, I don't believe God had a choice. It is part and parcel of the extant nature of good. I know people will howl that I said God had no choice but the reality is there are things God can't do. For instance, God can't oppose Himself; He can't go against His own nature.

So there are two very interesting things which come out of free will. One is that evil has the effect of making good better. It's like salt and sugar. Salt makes sugar taste sweeter. We are told elsewhere that He uses all things for the good of those who love Him. Among other things the Jews discovered is that there is meaning in suffering. 07 Judaism

The other interesting thing is that good has no meaning unless there is evil. In other words, it is not virtuous if you are forced to be virtuous.

In closing, man prefers good over evil. We don't do evil for evil's sake. We do evil for the sake of our own good and when we do, we rationalize that we didn't do evil. But from these acts, goodness will arise and we will be stronger for it. It is a self compensating feature whose sole purpose is to propel consciousness to the next rung in the anthropological ladder.

You see, from my position, sin involves straying from the path.

I wasn't born that way, carrying the inherent burden of my forefathers. Having to be baptised to clear that debt.

 

[ding]

Anyway Ding.

Before we get into it; I have to ask you this:

Do you believe you were born into original sin? Before you even had a chance to transgress?

Not in the sense that others do per se. Genesis is allegorical. It starts with the allegorical account of Creation. After every step God would say "and it was good." So basically everything God created was good. Which makes sense because things like evil, darkness and cold or not extant. They don't exist on their own. They exist as the absence of something else. Cold is the absence of heat. Darkness is the absence of light. And evil is the absence of good.

Man knows right from wrong, but when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong, he rationalizes that he didn't violate it. After Adam and Eve had sinned and realized they were naked, they hid when they heard God coming. They hid because they knew that they had done wrong. Then when God asked point blank if they had done it, they rationalized that it wasn't their fault. Adam, did you eat the apple? The woman you made gave it to me. Eve did you eat the apple? The serpent deceived me.

Man is the only animal capable of knowledge of good and evil. No other creature has this concept. Sure animals can have empathy, but not like man. Animals function on impulse and instinct. Man functions on these too, but in man's case he has the unique ability to override his impulses and instinct for the sake of good. That is free will. It's a choice. Everything is choice.

I don't believe that Genesis is implying that had Adam and Eve never committed the original sin, we would live in paradise forever. I believe Genesis is saying that man has the capacity to do good and evil. So then the question begs why did God create such a world. I believe that that is an artifact of life. In other words, I don't believe God had a choice. It is part and parcel of the extant nature of good. I know people will howl that I said God had no choice but the reality is there are things God can't do. For instance, God can't oppose Himself; He can't go against His own nature.

So there are two very interesting things which come out of free will. One is that evil has the effect of making good better. It's like salt and sugar. Salt makes sugar taste sweeter. We are told elsewhere that He uses all things for the good of those who love Him. Among other things the Jews discovered is that there is meaning in suffering. 07 Judaism

The other interesting thing is that good has no meaning unless there is evil. In other words, it is not virtuous if you are forced to be virtuous.

In closing, man prefers good over evil. We don't do evil for evil's sake. We do evil for the sake of our own good and when we do, we rationalize that we didn't do evil. But from these acts, goodness will arise and we will be stronger for it. It is a self compensating feature whose sole purpose is to propel consciousness to the next rung in the anthropological ladder.

You see, from my position, sin involves straying from the path.

I wasn't born that way, carrying the inherent burden of my forefathers. Having to be baptised to clear that debt.

What path would that be?

And isn't straying from a path being distanced from something? Such as a destination?

 

[Mindful]

Anyway Ding.

Before we get into it; I have to ask you this:

Do you believe you were born into original sin? Before you even had a chance to transgress?

Not in the sense that others do per se. Genesis is allegorical. It starts with the allegorical account of Creation. After every step God would say "and it was good." So basically everything God created was good. Which makes sense because things like evil, darkness and cold or not extant. They don't exist on their own. They exist as the absence of something else. Cold is the absence of heat. Darkness is the absence of light. And evil is the absence of good.

Man knows right from wrong, but when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong, he rationalizes that he didn't violate it. After Adam and Eve had sinned and realized they were naked, they hid when they heard God coming. They hid because they knew that they had done wrong. Then when God asked point blank if they had done it, they rationalized that it wasn't their fault. Adam, did you eat the apple? The woman you made gave it to me. Eve did you eat the apple? The serpent deceived me.

Man is the only animal capable of knowledge of good and evil. No other creature has this concept. Sure animals can have empathy, but not like man. Animals function on impulse and instinct. Man functions on these too, but in man's case he has the unique ability to override his impulses and instinct for the sake of good. That is free will. It's a choice. Everything is choice.

I don't believe that Genesis is implying that had Adam and Eve never committed the original sin, we would live in paradise forever. I believe Genesis is saying that man has the capacity to do good and evil. So then the question begs why did God create such a world. I believe that that is an artifact of life. In other words, I don't believe God had a choice. It is part and parcel of the extant nature of good. I know people will howl that I said God had no choice but the reality is there are things God can't do. For instance, God can't oppose Himself; He can't go against His own nature.

So there are two very interesting things which come out of free will. One is that evil has the effect of making good better. It's like salt and sugar. Salt makes sugar taste sweeter. We are told elsewhere that He uses all things for the good of those who love Him. Among other things the Jews discovered is that there is meaning in suffering. 07 Judaism

The other interesting thing is that good has no meaning unless there is evil. In other words, it is not virtuous if you are forced to be virtuous.

In closing, man prefers good over evil. We don't do evil for evil's sake. We do evil for the sake of our own good and when we do, we rationalize that we didn't do evil. But from these acts, goodness will arise and we will be stronger for it. It is a self compensating feature whose sole purpose is to propel consciousness to the next rung in the anthropological ladder.

You see, from my position, sin involves straying from the path.

I wasn't born that way, carrying the inherent burden of my forefathers. Having to be baptised to clear that debt.

What path would that be?

And isn't straying from a path being distanced from something? Such as a destination?

How about a path of righteousness?

 

[Mindful]

I think Saint Augustine (354-430) was the first theologian to teach that man is born into this world in a state of sin.

The question, Ding, is: do you think we are?

 

[ding]

I think Saint Augustine (354-430) was the first theologian to teach that man is born into this world in a state of sin.

The question, Ding, is: do you think we are?

Didn't I already answer this?

Man is the only animal capable of knowledge of good and evil. He is born into that. He will do things that distances himself from God. He is born into that. That is what I perceive original sin to be.

Are you ever going to answer my questions?

 

[ding]

Anyway Ding.

Before we get into it; I have to ask you this:

Do you believe you were born into original sin? Before you even had a chance to transgress?

Not in the sense that others do per se. Genesis is allegorical. It starts with the allegorical account of Creation. After every step God would say "and it was good." So basically everything God created was good. Which makes sense because things like evil, darkness and cold or not extant. They don't exist on their own. They exist as the absence of something else. Cold is the absence of heat. Darkness is the absence of light. And evil is the absence of good.

Man knows right from wrong, but when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong, he rationalizes that he didn't violate it. After Adam and Eve had sinned and realized they were naked, they hid when they heard God coming. They hid because they knew that they had done wrong. Then when God asked point blank if they had done it, they rationalized that it wasn't their fault. Adam, did you eat the apple? The woman you made gave it to me. Eve did you eat the apple? The serpent deceived me.

Man is the only animal capable of knowledge of good and evil. No other creature has this concept. Sure animals can have empathy, but not like man. Animals function on impulse and instinct. Man functions on these too, but in man's case he has the unique ability to override his impulses and instinct for the sake of good. That is free will. It's a choice. Everything is choice.

I don't believe that Genesis is implying that had Adam and Eve never committed the original sin, we would live in paradise forever. I believe Genesis is saying that man has the capacity to do good and evil. So then the question begs why did God create such a world. I believe that that is an artifact of life. In other words, I don't believe God had a choice. It is part and parcel of the extant nature of good. I know people will howl that I said God had no choice but the reality is there are things God can't do. For instance, God can't oppose Himself; He can't go against His own nature.

So there are two very interesting things which come out of free will. One is that evil has the effect of making good better. It's like salt and sugar. Salt makes sugar taste sweeter. We are told elsewhere that He uses all things for the good of those who love Him. Among other things the Jews discovered is that there is meaning in suffering. 07 Judaism

The other interesting thing is that good has no meaning unless there is evil. In other words, it is not virtuous if you are forced to be virtuous.

In closing, man prefers good over evil. We don't do evil for evil's sake. We do evil for the sake of our own good and when we do, we rationalize that we didn't do evil. But from these acts, goodness will arise and we will be stronger for it. It is a self compensating feature whose sole purpose is to propel consciousness to the next rung in the anthropological ladder.

You see, from my position, sin involves straying from the path.

I wasn't born that way, carrying the inherent burden of my forefathers. Having to be baptised to clear that debt.

What path would that be?

And isn't straying from a path being distanced from something? Such as a destination?

How about a path of righteousness?

You can't answer a question with a question, my dear.

What is your destination and does sin distance you from it?

Because it seems we are saying the exact same thing.

 

[Mindful]

Anyway Ding.

Before we get into it; I have to ask you this:

Do you believe you were born into original sin? Before you even had a chance to transgress?

Not in the sense that others do per se. Genesis is allegorical. It starts with the allegorical account of Creation. After every step God would say "and it was good." So basically everything God created was good. Which makes sense because things like evil, darkness and cold or not extant. They don't exist on their own. They exist as the absence of something else. Cold is the absence of heat. Darkness is the absence of light. And evil is the absence of good.

Man knows right from wrong, but when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong, he rationalizes that he didn't violate it. After Adam and Eve had sinned and realized they were naked, they hid when they heard God coming. They hid because they knew that they had done wrong. Then when God asked point blank if they had done it, they rationalized that it wasn't their fault. Adam, did you eat the apple? The woman you made gave it to me. Eve did you eat the apple? The serpent deceived me.

Man is the only animal capable of knowledge of good and evil. No other creature has this concept. Sure animals can have empathy, but not like man. Animals function on impulse and instinct. Man functions on these too, but in man's case he has the unique ability to override his impulses and instinct for the sake of good. That is free will. It's a choice. Everything is choice.

I don't believe that Genesis is implying that had Adam and Eve never committed the original sin, we would live in paradise forever. I believe Genesis is saying that man has the capacity to do good and evil. So then the question begs why did God create such a world. I believe that that is an artifact of life. In other words, I don't believe God had a choice. It is part and parcel of the extant nature of good. I know people will howl that I said God had no choice but the reality is there are things God can't do. For instance, God can't oppose Himself; He can't go against His own nature.

So there are two very interesting things which come out of free will. One is that evil has the effect of making good better. It's like salt and sugar. Salt makes sugar taste sweeter. We are told elsewhere that He uses all things for the good of those who love Him. Among other things the Jews discovered is that there is meaning in suffering. 07 Judaism

The other interesting thing is that good has no meaning unless there is evil. In other words, it is not virtuous if you are forced to be virtuous.

In closing, man prefers good over evil. We don't do evil for evil's sake. We do evil for the sake of our own good and when we do, we rationalize that we didn't do evil. But from these acts, goodness will arise and we will be stronger for it. It is a self compensating feature whose sole purpose is to propel consciousness to the next rung in the anthropological ladder.

You see, from my position, sin involves straying from the path.

I wasn't born that way, carrying the inherent burden of my forefathers. Having to be baptised to clear that debt.

What path would that be?

And isn't straying from a path being distanced from something? Such as a destination?

How about a path of righteousness?

You can't answer a question with a question, my dear.

What is your destination and does sin distance you from it?

Because it seems we are saying the exact same thing.

No we're not. Because I'm beginning to decipher that our concept of sin differs, fundamentally.

 

[ding]

Not in the sense that others do per se. Genesis is allegorical. It starts with the allegorical account of Creation. After every step God would say "and it was good." So basically everything God created was good. Which makes sense because things like evil, darkness and cold or not extant. They don't exist on their own. They exist as the absence of something else. Cold is the absence of heat. Darkness is the absence of light. And evil is the absence of good.

Man knows right from wrong, but when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong, he rationalizes that he didn't violate it. After Adam and Eve had sinned and realized they were naked, they hid when they heard God coming. They hid because they knew that they had done wrong. Then when God asked point blank if they had done it, they rationalized that it wasn't their fault. Adam, did you eat the apple? The woman you made gave it to me. Eve did you eat the apple? The serpent deceived me.

Man is the only animal capable of knowledge of good and evil. No other creature has this concept. Sure animals can have empathy, but not like man. Animals function on impulse and instinct. Man functions on these too, but in man's case he has the unique ability to override his impulses and instinct for the sake of good. That is free will. It's a choice. Everything is choice.

I don't believe that Genesis is implying that had Adam and Eve never committed the original sin, we would live in paradise forever. I believe Genesis is saying that man has the capacity to do good and evil. So then the question begs why did God create such a world. I believe that that is an artifact of life. In other words, I don't believe God had a choice. It is part and parcel of the extant nature of good. I know people will howl that I said God had no choice but the reality is there are things God can't do. For instance, God can't oppose Himself; He can't go against His own nature.

So there are two very interesting things which come out of free will. One is that evil has the effect of making good better. It's like salt and sugar. Salt makes sugar taste sweeter. We are told elsewhere that He uses all things for the good of those who love Him. Among other things the Jews discovered is that there is meaning in suffering. 07 Judaism

The other interesting thing is that good has no meaning unless there is evil. In other words, it is not virtuous if you are forced to be virtuous.

In closing, man prefers good over evil. We don't do evil for evil's sake. We do evil for the sake of our own good and when we do, we rationalize that we didn't do evil. But from these acts, goodness will arise and we will be stronger for it. It is a self compensating feature whose sole purpose is to propel consciousness to the next rung in the anthropological ladder.

You see, from my position, sin involves straying from the path.

I wasn't born that way, carrying the inherent burden of my forefathers. Having to be baptised to clear that debt.

What path would that be?

And isn't straying from a path being distanced from something? Such as a destination?

How about a path of righteousness?

You can't answer a question with a question, my dear.

What is your destination and does sin distance you from it?

Because it seems we are saying the exact same thing.

No we're not. Because I'm beginning to decipher that our concept of sin differs, fundamentally.

Can you explain the fundamental differences in a non-cryptic sort of way?

I promise I can handle it.

 

[Mindful]

You see, from my position, sin involves straying from the path.

I wasn't born that way, carrying the inherent burden of my forefathers. Having to be baptised to clear that debt.

What path would that be?

And isn't straying from a path being distanced from something? Such as a destination?

How about a path of righteousness?

You can't answer a question with a question, my dear.

What is your destination and does sin distance you from it?

Because it seems we are saying the exact same thing.

No we're not. Because I'm beginning to decipher that our concept of sin differs, fundamentally.

Can you explain the fundamental differences in a non-cryptic sort of way?

I promise I can handle it.

I do not accept that we are born into sin. We transgress, along the way. But there is always the opportunity for redemption.

Now you.

 

[ding]

What path would that be?

And isn't straying from a path being distanced from something? Such as a destination?

How about a path of righteousness?

You can't answer a question with a question, my dear.

What is your destination and does sin distance you from it?

Because it seems we are saying the exact same thing.

No we're not. Because I'm beginning to decipher that our concept of sin differs, fundamentally.

Can you explain the fundamental differences in a non-cryptic sort of way?

I promise I can handle it.

I do not accept that we are born into sin. We transgress, along the way. But there is always the opportunity for redemption.

Now you.

I believe that we will sin as it is in our nature to love created things (mostly ourselves but not limited to that) more than we love the creator.

 

[Mindful]

How about a path of righteousness?

You can't answer a question with a question, my dear.

What is your destination and does sin distance you from it?

Because it seems we are saying the exact same thing.

No we're not. Because I'm beginning to decipher that our concept of sin differs, fundamentally.

Can you explain the fundamental differences in a non-cryptic sort of way?

I promise I can handle it.

I do not accept that we are born into sin. We transgress, along the way. But there is always the opportunity for redemption.

Now you.

I believe that we will sin as it is in our nature to love created things (mostly ourselves but not limited to that) more than we love the creator.

You still haven't addressed the issue of whether we are born into sin. And Jesus was supposed to have absolved that burden.

 

[ding]

What path would that be?

And isn't straying from a path being distanced from something? Such as a destination?

How about a path of righteousness?

You can't answer a question with a question, my dear.

What is your destination and does sin distance you from it?

Because it seems we are saying the exact same thing.

No we're not. Because I'm beginning to decipher that our concept of sin differs, fundamentally.

Can you explain the fundamental differences in a non-cryptic sort of way?

I promise I can handle it.

I do not accept that we are born into sin. We transgress, along the way. But there is always the opportunity for redemption.

Now you.

Yes, there is an opportunity for redemption. It is all part of the pruning process. However, there are no guarantees as we are the ones responsible for transforming ourselves. Sure, we are given feedback but ultimately we must make the choice. And that choice starts with recognition.

 

[ding]

You can't answer a question with a question, my dear.

What is your destination and does sin distance you from it?

Because it seems we are saying the exact same thing.

No we're not. Because I'm beginning to decipher that our concept of sin differs, fundamentally.

Can you explain the fundamental differences in a non-cryptic sort of way?

I promise I can handle it.

I do not accept that we are born into sin. We transgress, along the way. But there is always the opportunity for redemption.

Now you.

I believe that we will sin as it is in our nature to love created things (mostly ourselves but not limited to that) more than we love the creator.

You still haven't addressed the issue of whether we are born into sin. And Jesus was supposed to have absolved that burden.

I think we disagree on what Jesus was supposed to have done. He defeated death. He defeated sin. He reconciled mercy with justice. But he did not change our nature. He only showed us how we can change our nature. We still have to transform ourselves.

And yes, I did answer your question.

 

[ding]

You can't answer a question with a question, my dear.

What is your destination and does sin distance you from it?

Because it seems we are saying the exact same thing.

No we're not. Because I'm beginning to decipher that our concept of sin differs, fundamentally.

Can you explain the fundamental differences in a non-cryptic sort of way?

I promise I can handle it.

I do not accept that we are born into sin. We transgress, along the way. But there is always the opportunity for redemption.

Now you.

I believe that we will sin as it is in our nature to love created things (mostly ourselves but not limited to that) more than we love the creator.

You still haven't addressed the issue of whether we are born into sin. And Jesus was supposed to have absolved that burden.

What is your destination?

That is a question that was never answered.