Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to Victim.
Offline 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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqP_fjBkwxc&feature=related Regards DL
- Login to post comments
but a christian can always retort that, according to their theology, god is always the primary victim of every sin, since sin is first and foremost a "missing of the mark," i.e., god's law.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Yes but ...
You are objecting to the theology. In practice the gods are always silent. It is always the priests who know what that god wants and tell the believers. Who grants forgiveness? The priests. Even if a priestless protestant variant it may not be one on one forgiveness in a confessional but the minister is the arbitrator. Forgiveness is only via the spokesrat.
As to theology, when claims cannot be reconciled with reason, claims rule. Forget ever brining up theology. Believers are not rational. Claims always rule over reason. Whose claims? The priests of course. Full circle.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
Sure, but that creates its own problems since apparently then morality is determined by Gods whim, I tried pointing that out to a theist once, did not like it.
I've had this discussion before with theists.
Forgiveness must come from the perpetrator and not the victims.
Only those with really swollen heads and inflated egos will think they can hurt God in any way. God's will is supreme and he would not will harm or hurt to himself. He is not that stupid. Stupid yes, but not that stupid.
Regards
DL
No argument.
That is why it is our duty to our fellow man to fight those religions.
I hope you do so where there are more foolish believers who will see your wise words.
Regards
DL
Illogical.
What is the perpetrator forgiving if not himself?
Who else need or deserves forgiving?
Regards
DL
i said nothing about "hurting" god. sin is an offense against god.
human "hurt" is transient and ultimately unimportant in christian theology, and it is only relevant insofar as it is an offense against god. human suffering is not the soteriological problem in christianity. christianity does not offer a way out of suffering, although it often insists that relief from suffering is a typical (though not guaranteed) incidental benefit. the soteriological issue in christianity is the individual human being's return to a primordial relationship with god that was broken when humans tried to detract from god's glory.
christianity is wholly theocentric. in terms of eternal perspective, categories like "victims" and "perpetrators" have no meaning. the perpetrator has sinned because he has offended god's glory. the harm to the victim is only the accidental means by which the offense happened, it has no inherent importance.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Yet your semantics will get him sent to hell.
Thanks for hiding behind semantics.
Regards
DL
what the fuck is your problem? of course this is all semantics, because none of it is fucking real. you're talking about a fictional god sending people to a fictional hell for fictional reasons. my "semantics" didn't send anybody to hell (which, again, does not exist). my "semantics" merely spelled out the (once again, fictional) christian justification for why god can forgive sins and not be (fictionally) "unjust."
if you're butthurt because you misunderstand mainstream christian soteriology, i honestly don't understand why, since that info is basically as useful as a map of middle earth on a road trip. if you don't like "semantics," don't bring up the imaginary justness of an imaginary god.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson