Quote:orangebox21 wrote: Consider what must occur for a being to be both just and merciful and the same time.

Consider what must occur for such a being to exist at all.

(July 30, 2014 at 1:16 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

(July 30, 2014 at 12:57 pm)RobbyPants Wrote: and I've already covered that elsewhere, but for sake of this thread, lets assume it counts. Why did it have to happen? By what mechanism does the death of one innocent person atone for the sins of others?

By the very nature of what atonement is.

If ever there was a non-answer, that's it.

Atonement has two meanings: "the reconciliation of God and humankind through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ"; or "reparation for an offense or injury." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atonement The first simply defines atonement as the cruxifiction of Jesus which answers nothing. You might as well say because I said so. The doesn't apply. Jesus' death didn't provide reparations to anyone. Certainly it didn't right any wrongs.

To see how odd this really is consider the following scenario. Jim kills Jane's daughter Anne. The judges orders Jim executed in the criminal case, and awards Jane $100,000 of Jim's estate in the civil case. Looks like reparations to me.

But on appeal the Appellate Judge decides to execute his own son as atonement for all the defendants past and present (not just Jim). The son, who's a little soft in the head agrees. The son is electrocuted after have been beaten. The Appellate Judge lets Jim go, and reverses the award of damage.

How is the crucifixion different?

(July 30, 2014 at 3:18 pm)Jenny A Wrote: But on appeal the Appellate Judge decides to execute his own son as atonement for all the defendants past and present (not just Jim).

Me likey!

I'm not guilty. You may keep your childish 'payment' for a crime that never occurred.

(July 30, 2014 at 2:01 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(July 30, 2014 at 12:57 pm)RobbyPants Wrote: God had to go through with it:
So, for whatever reason, this bizarre self-sacrifice was vital to God forgiving our sins, and he couldn't simply just... forgive us. It's something to which God was beholden, and something he has no control over. It makes me wonder: from where did this rule come?

From his internal sense of justice.

Are you able to simply just...forgive anyone in any circumstance? If so, teach the method to your fellow atheists, cause they sure like to point out theist offenses. They're not simply just...forgiving.

ETA: I see that orangebox beat me to this angle in saying, "From His nature. God is just. To simply overlook wrongdoing would be unjust. God cannot deny His nature."

Why doesn't Minimalist simply just...worship god?

Is it just to torture someone eternally for the small wrongs of their life? ----I don't think so.

Is it just to either victims or society to allow someone other that the perpetrator to go to jail for the perpetrator? ---- Try floating that balloon in the court room and see how the public would react.

Is it just to punish sons for the sins of their fathers (or great, great, great, great. . . . grandfathers)? ----It is not.

What you are saying is that god has a completely different standard of justice and that by his very nature he can't violate that standard of justice.

(July 30, 2014 at 3:24 pm)ShaMan Wrote: I'm not guilty. You may keep your childish 'payment' for a crime that never occurred.

BINGO! That's what it really comes down to. Even when being offered free forgiveness, and blessing on top of it, people don't want to admit that they're guilty.

(July 30, 2014 at 3:27 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(July 30, 2014 at 3:24 pm)ShaMan Wrote: I'm not guilty. You may keep your childish 'payment' for a crime that never occurred.

BINGO! That's what it really comes down to. Even when being offered free forgiveness, and blessing on top of it, people don't want to admit that they're guilty.

Yes, that is what it really comes down to. Your religion tells you that you're fundamentally ill, flawed in some way, and then provides the 'cure', if you just follow this God's rules.

No thanks.

(July 30, 2014 at 3:27 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(July 30, 2014 at 3:24 pm)ShaMan Wrote: I'm not guilty. You may keep your childish 'payment' for a crime that never occurred.

BINGO! That's what it really comes down to. Even when being offered free forgiveness, and blessing on top of it, people don't want to admit that they're guilty.

You don't know me, and your sense of 'justice' is skewed. I'm usually quite sanguine in my responses, but if you continue to judge me based upon your own interpretation of justice, then I'll kindly ask you to fuck off!

It's statements like the one I've quoted you as saying that make people dislike Christianity. That, and your blind judgment (or agreement thereto).

(July 30, 2014 at 3:25 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Is it just to torture someone eternally for the small wrongs of their life? ----I don't think so.

Do people go through life only having committed small wrongs? -- I don't think so. Note that God judges the thoughts as well as the deeds. This principle is throughout Scripture. Before the flood it was noted that their thoughts were evil all the time. The law prohibits coveting. There's no punishment given for it as we can't read each other's minds, but God knows our minds. Jesus likewise equates thought with action in the sermon on the mount.

Quote:Is it just to either victims or society to allow someone other that the perpetrator to go to jail for the perpetrator? ---- Try floating that balloon in the court room and see how the public would react.

Is it just to punish sons for the sins of their fathers (or great, great, great, great. . . . grandfathers)? ----It is not.

Who are these people without sin of their own?

Quote:What you are saying is that god has a completely different standard of justice

Not completely different, but yes, substitution is rare in human justice systems. Part of that is preventative - we don't want a criminal back on the streets. But, that doesn't apply in Jesus' case.

Quote:and that by his very nature he can't violate that standard of justice.

Yes. I don't see why this part is controversial.

(July 30, 2014 at 3:27 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(July 30, 2014 at 3:24 pm)ShaMan Wrote: I'm not guilty. You may keep your childish 'payment' for a crime that never occurred.

BINGO! That's what it really comes down to. Even when being offered free forgiveness, and blessing on top of it, people don't want to admit that they're guilty.

Forgiveness for what? Is there anything that deserves eternal torment?

The Catholic notion of purgatory at least makes some sense, though why salvation would be necessary to it is beyond me.