I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

Indeed. Look it up.

[Jon Paul]

Uranium changes spontaneously into lead through decay. There are statistical laws that describe the phenomenon. But you cannot predict for an individual atom its decay. Some decay sooner, some decay later. No one knows why they do what they do. So empirical evidence to sustain the claim that this phenomenon is causal is absent. Indeed the pattern of decay for a group of atoms follows the characteristcs of a random process. There is evidence for randomness, there is absence of evidence for the claim that these events are caused. Yet you here claim again from ignorance that they are caused. This is special pleading to support your model which is so crude that not a single prediction on a natural phenomenon or a single explanation of such a phenomenon can be made.

It was Kant who proposed that causality may be nothing more than a notion of the human mind that does not exist in reality. The scientific consensus at the moment is that some events are uncaused. Tunneling of particles through a barrier is one. Another uncaused phenomenon is the random creation (my note: causally indeterminable) of virtual particles from the vacuum (vacuum fluctuations). Virtual particle pairs are predicted to have a calculable effect upon the energy levels of atoms. The effect expected is minute - only a change of one part in a billion, but it has been confirmed by experimenters. In 1953 Willis Lamb measured this excited energy state for a hydrogen atom. No doubt remains that virtual particles are really there.

It seems the errorneous assumption in your idea is that "the vacuum" (or void, as I call it) is 'empty'. Which it is certainly not. An insight from someone else which is very interesting to this:

It is certainly too limiting to define “nothing” as the absence of matter (that which has mass). E=mc^2 is not just a license to blow things up. It literally means what it says. Matter and energy are interchangeable, and just as a particle can spontaneously decay into energy, so a particle can spontaneously emerge from the void, even when it would appear that there is insufficient energy for it to do so (via quantum-mechanical tunneling). The “void” then becomes merely a word describing the absence of matter, but it is in no sense empty. This discussion leaves out dark matter and dark energy. Science is not clear yet on what exactly these things are, or even if they are, but clearly there are aspects required to explain the observed universe that are outside of the simple big bang cosmology of the 70s and early 80s. The void is filled with conventional energy, conventional gravity, dark energy, dark matter, gravity-like fields from dark matter, and possibly other entities we do not yet know of. The appearance or decay of a particle in a quantum vacuum may thus be said to be spontaneous, but cannot be said to be uncaused.

[Jon Paul]

The discussion of quantum physics seems to be at least partially offtopic. Me defending causality is not because my theological model depends upon it, but because I consider the attack against causality to be disordered and unwarranted, not for theological reasons, but simply for logical reasons.

If we were to go back to my theological model, what we would find is that my model does not rely on causality; it describes causality.

To the contrary, it relies on contingency or potentiality. That potentialities become actual, even though they needed not in and of themselves become actual before they actually became so. If quantum physics is truly acausal (which I don't believe it is), then that would even add to the fundamental contingency and potentiality I am talking about in my theological model.

The issue is rather that I don't want to sacrifice the highly empirically attested and highly reasonable principle of causality, no matter whether it supports or doesn't support my theological model. Luckily, my model is compatible both with causality and acausality, even though I used it to describe causality.

That there is causality within the universe is not a controversial claim, either, though my theological model doesn't even rely on that (though it is compatible with that being the case). The matter is rather if that causality is universal or not. Even anti-causalist QM perspectives affirm that there is causality in the universe, even if they don't ascribe it universally due to the indeterminacy of some causes; the wave function equation is fully causal, for instance, and the general causality on the macroscopic level is never denied.

In my theological argument I do affirm what I also call causality; but only because my model is broad enough to do so. I realise it is confusing of my model. What I did was describe causality with my model; "clothe" my model in causal terms, to make it easier to understand my model in familiar (causal) terms.

I was trying to show what causality is in terms of my model; but this doesn't mean my model relies on causality. I was just describing causality in terms of my model, naively so, because a) my model doesn't depend upon it, b) I hadn't thought that anyone would deny causality and use that as an argument against my model. Which in turn, is a fallacious argument, but maintaining that causality is real, I simply counter-attacked instead of pointing this out.

The way I described causality was namely the actualisation (which I ascribe as cause) of a potential (which I ascribe as effect). However, this is a much broader notion, which does apply to causality; and therefore it is causality, in that it encompasses causality; but it also applies to acausality.

Because the actualisation of the potential does not depend upon there being a "preceding causal constellation" which mandates that actualisation. It's fully independent of that detail. Indeed, this actualisation of a potential only depends upon a potentiality (such as a particle) being actualised (even if it appears spontaneously), before we can say it has happened. It doesn't depend upon there being a causal explanation.

In other words, my model is fully compatible with both what you call "causality" and "acausality". Because acausality does not mean a-actuality/un-actuality (of a potentiality); and if it did, we would not be speaking of an actuality, and thus not of something demanding antecedent causal explanation to begin with. And causality does not mean unactuality either, since both ideas are merely describing actualities but disagreeing on whether there is a causal explanation of them.

[chatpilot]

I can run a marathon of questions for you Jon Paul.

1.Why do Catholics worship idols when it is strictly forbidden in the scriptures?
Exodus 20:4,5
4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

2.Why do Catholics cannonize men or women that they deem to be holy and then worship them when it is strictly forbidden in the scriptures?
Acts 10:25,26
25And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.

26But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

It is even forbidden to worship angels too did you know that?
Revelations 19:10
10And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

3.Why do Catholics worship Mary when she is not supposed to be an object of worship?
John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

This last verse also applies to the Pope whom many Catholics believe is Gods intercessor on Earth although the bible teaches that that is what Jesus came for.

We'll start with those I have a thousand more or so.

[Jon Paul]

1.Why do Catholics worship idols when it is strictly forbidden in the scriptures?
Exodus 20:4,5
4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Catholics don't worship anything except God. Catholics don't believe any image, or any creature, or any other created thing, to be God, and thus do not worship it.

For instance, the word God is a symbol, pointing to something outside of the word itself: God. We don't worship the symbol of God, namely the word God; we worship that which it symbolises and points to, namely God.

An image of Christ is a SYMBOL, which points to something outside of itself (Christ). It is not in itself the Christ (obviously); it is not in itself God (obviously). Therefore, Catholics do not worship any image, any symbol; symbols are strictly pointers towards things outside of the symbols themselves. Symbols are themselves empty, only what they are pointing to has any meaning.

Catholics only use symbols to point to something outside of the symbol that they do worship.

For instance, the word "Christ" is not itself Christ. It's simply a symbol pointing TO Christ.

The word "God" is not in itself God. It's a symbol pointing to God.

And we do worship God, but we don't worship the symbol.

5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

2.Why do Catholics cannonize men or women that they deem to be holy and then worship them when it is strictly forbidden in the scriptures?
Acts 10:25,26
25And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.

26But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

We do not worship St. Peter or any other canonised saint.

We only worship God.

Saints are friends of God, created human beings, who have followed the will of their Creator and our Creator, and been given His graces, and become holy. In this they set an example for their human brethren in the faith (us). We revere the Saints for their holiness, but we don't worship them, and we don't consider them anything else than most holy, created human beings. They bring us closer to our common Creator, and we thank God for them.

It is even forbidden to worship angels too did you know that?
Revelations 19:10
10And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

We do not worship angels or any other created beings.

3.Why do Catholics worship Mary when she is not supposed to be an object of worship?
John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Mary is certainly not worshipped. Mary is the Mother of God; she is a woman who followed in accord to Gods will and therefore was given many graces by God to bear God incarnate himself.

We thank Mary for bearing God and for giving God to the world; because it's in Gods incarnation that we receive our salvation and forgiveness of sins, and spiritual restitution to holiness, and in whom we live and breathe, so nothing is more important, and Mary is the holiest and most important human being before Christ for this fact, and the example she sets is for all humanity. So yes, we revere her holiness. But we do not worship her, and we don't consider her anything else than a most holy, created woman and human being.

This last verse also applies to the Pope whom many Catholics believe is Gods intercessor on Earth although the bible teaches that that is what Jesus came for.

Jesus was not merely Gods intercessor, but God himself incarnate.

As to the Pope, he is merely a human being, and is not worshipped. His only role is to follow Gods will, guide the Church after Gods will while it is in this world; and to lead humanity to Christ.

We'll start with those I have a thousand more or so.

The objections you raise are all based on the false grounds that "Catholics worship something else than God". They do not. Your objections are typically raised by ignorant, fundamentalist indoctrinated American evangelicals, so I can only guess that is what you are, or that is what your background is. No wonder you became an atheist.

[chatpilot]

Jon Paul all of your rebuttals are nothing more than empty responses.First of all to say that Mary was holy and the mother of God is a contradiction since God was never created he always was,is and will be.Mary was nothing more than a mere vessel for God to be able to come forth in the world and I don't know what time period you are living in but most Catholics pray to Mary and yes they worship her.The so called saints have been and continue to be worshiped by Catholics to this day.At least most hispanic Catholics worship and pray to the so called saints for intercession of some sort or another.

And the bible does not teach that you should build idols as symbols, remember God did that once with Moses.And the end result was that the people ended up worshiping the idol itself.
Numbers 21:6,8,9
6.And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.
8.And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
9.And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

2 Kings 18:4
4He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

As you can see as it was then so it is now building idols to serve as so called symbols just leads to the veneration of those idols in the future.

I am an atheist but yes I did come from a fundamental pentecostal church but unlike them I actually read the bible and studied it thoroughly.In fact,it was exactly that that made me become an atheist.After having read the bible in its entirety I realized how stupid the whole thing was and realized that it was nothing more than a book of myths.And regarding tolerance and virtue that is a lesson your church could use since as they have proven throughout history if they could today they would kill everyone that disagreed with them.In fact the Catholic church has the most bloodiest history and has grown to epic proportions through the use of coercion with the governments and force.Nothing to be proud of.

---

So I guess dismembering so called saints was symbolical too right?Your religion is the most disgusting and depraved belief system in the world.Sin all week long and come back on Sunday and be absolved so you can go on the following week and do it again.no wonder you have so many adherents.Your religion requires no self sacrifice no living right before the Lord.
John 14:21
21.He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

[chatpilot]

Why do Catholics believe in purgatory when it is nowhere stated in the bible that such a place exists?
Just another invention by the Catholic clergy to extract money from the masses.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Why do Catholics believe in purgatory when it is nowhere stated in the bible that such a place exists? Just another invention by the Catholic clergy to extract money from the masses.

They don't any more, they got rid of it in 2007 ... though quite what happened to all those consigned there when it was "real" is anybody's guess!

Kyu

[Jon Paul]

First of all to say that Mary was holy and the mother of God is a contradiction since God was never created he always was,is and will be.

God was never created, but we are talking about Christ who is both God and Man, both created and uncreated.

It would be a contradiction if Christ was merely transcendent God. But he has two (duo) natures (physis). He is both fully God and fully Man. Not 50% God and 50% Man, but fully both at the same time. But he is still only one person, meaning that Mary gave birth to his person into the world, and she gave birth to the full Christ both in his divine and human natures, fully incarnate into the world as one person. That does not mean she gave him his divine nature, or created God; it means she gave birth to God into the world.

So she is the Mother of God; because Christ, in both his divine and human nature, is one person, and Mary gave birth to one person, Christ, not two persons. Christ did not suffer from multipersonality disorder, he was not two persons.

So if you say she is not the mother of God, you are taking the heretical position of Nestorius, which is anathema.

Mary was nothing more than a mere vessel for God to be able to come forth in the world

"A vessel for God to come forth in the world", and you are saying this is not the same as a mother?

and I don't know what time period you are living in but most Catholics pray to Mary and yes they worship her.The so called saints have been and continue to be worshiped by Catholics to this day.At least most hispanic Catholics worship and pray to the so called saints for intercession of some sort or another.

Remember, everyone who makes it to heaven is a saint. Saint just means those who made it to heaven. So when we pray to saints, we appeal to those who sit next to God for their intercession.

We don't worship them. And if you repeat that, then you are going nowhere except circular argumentation.

And the bible does not teach that you should build idols as symbols, remember God did that once with Moses.And the end result was that the people ended up worshiping the idol itself.

We don't build any kind of idols. We don't build "symbols as idols".

An idol means something which is worshipped in and of itself.

A symbol means anything which points to something else outside of itself - an icon, in short.

And the Israelites had such symbols too. The world Elohim, or any of the other words used for God, were symbols of God, used to point to God lingually. Just like the word GOD. You cannot even talk about God without using a symbol - the word God. We are no different from the Old Testament Israelites in this regard.

What the Israelites could not do was make a picture of Christ - because they had not seen the Christ.

The only way for God to show himself to us, was to empty himself and humble himself to be incarnate human. This is kenosis. This means that, we can see the face of God in Christ, as a human, but we can only see the Christ. While he was here, we could walk up and touch him, and take a photograph of him, whereas, the Fathers face we can never see.

I am an atheist but yes I did come from a fundamental pentecostal church but unlike them I actually read the bible and studied it thoroughly.

I trust that you read the bible. Just like 12 year olds have read the bible and even memorised it. But that is no virtue.

Understanding the bible and actualising it is virtue - and that is where proper hermeneutics and biblical exegesis comes in, which is clearly what American Protestants know nothing of.

Why do Catholics believe in purgatory when it is nowhere stated in the bible that such a place exists?

There is certainly lots of scriptural basis for it. Whether you call it purgatory is irrelevant, that is just a name we give to what scripture implies. It's a state of purification really, which is not yet heaven or hell.

Scriptural basis for purgatory from Scripture Catholic:

Matt. 5:26,18:34; Luke 12:58-59 – Jesus teaches us, “Come to terms with your opponent or you will be handed over to the judge and thrown into prison. You will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” The word “opponent” (antidiko) is likely a reference to the devil (see the same word for devil in 1 Pet. 5:8) who is an accuser against man (c.f. Job 1.6-12; Zech. 3.1; Rev. 12.10), and God is the judge. If we have not adequately dealt with satan and sin in this life, we will be held in a temporary state called a prison, and we won’t get out until we have satisfied our entire debt to God. This “prison” is purgatory where we will not get out until the last penny is paid.

Matt. 5:48 - Jesus says, "be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect." We are only made perfect through purification, and in Catholic teaching, this purification, if not completed on earth, is continued in a transitional state we call purgatory.

Matt. 12:32 – Jesus says, “And anyone who says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but no one who speaks against the Holy Spirit will be forgiven either in this world or in the next.” Jesus thus clearly provides that there is forgiveness after death. The phrase “in the next” (from the Greek “en to mellonti”) generally refers to the afterlife (see, for example, Mark 10.30; Luke 18.30; 20.34-35; Eph. 1.21 for similar language). Forgiveness is not necessary in heaven, and there is no forgiveness in hell. This proves that there is another state after death, and the Church for 2,000 years has called this state purgatory.

Luke 12:47-48 - when the Master comes (at the end of time), some will receive light or heavy beatings but will live. This state is not heaven or hell, because in heaven there are no beatings, and in hell we will no longer live with the Master.

Luke 16:19-31 - in this story, we see that the dead rich man is suffering but still feels compassion for his brothers and wants to warn them of his place of suffering. But there is no suffering in heaven or compassion in hell because compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are deprived from God's graces for all eternity. So where is the rich man? He is in purgatory.

1 Cor. 15:29-30 - Paul mentions people being baptized on behalf of the dead, in the context of atoning for their sins (people are baptized on the dead’s behalf so the dead can be raised). These people cannot be in heaven because they are still with sin, but they also cannot be in hell because their sins can no longer be atoned for. They are in purgatory. These verses directly correspond to 2 Macc. 12:44-45 which also shows specific prayers for the dead, so that they may be forgiven of their sin.

Phil. 2:10 - every knee bends to Jesus, in heaven, on earth, and "under the earth" which is the realm of the righteous dead, or purgatory.

2 Tim. 1:16-18 - Onesiphorus is dead but Paul asks for mercy on him “on that day.” Paul’s use of “that day” demonstrates its eschatological usage (see, for example, Rom. 2.5,16; 1 Cor. 1.8; 3.13; 5.5; 2 Cor. 1.14; Phil. 1.6,10; 2.16; 1 Thess. 5.2,4,5,8; 2 Thess. 2.2,3; 2 Tim. 4.8). Of course, there is no need for mercy in heaven, and there is no mercy given in hell. Where is Onesiphorus? He is in purgatory.

Heb. 12:14 - without holiness no one will see the Lord. We need final sanctification to attain true holiness before God, and this process occurs during our lives and, if not completed during our lives, in the transitional state of purgatory.

Heb. 12:23 - the spirits of just men who died in godliness are "made" perfect. They do not necessarily arrive perfect. They are made perfect after their death. But those in heaven are already perfect, and those in hell can no longer be made perfect. These spirits are in purgatory.

1 Peter 3:19; 4:6 - Jesus preached to the spirits in the "prison." These are the righteous souls being purified for the beatific vision.

Rev. 21:4 - God shall wipe away their tears, and there will be no mourning or pain, but only after the coming of the new heaven and the passing away of the current heaven and earth. Note the elimination of tears and pain only occurs at the end of time. But there is no morning or pain in heaven, and God will not wipe away their tears in hell. These are the souls experiencing purgatory.

Rev. 21:27 - nothing unclean shall enter heaven. The word “unclean” comes from the Greek word “koinon” which refers to a spiritual corruption. Even the propensity to sin is spiritually corrupt, or considered unclean, and must be purified before entering heaven. It is amazing how many Protestants do not want to believe in purgatory. Purgatory exists because of the mercy of God. If there were no purgatory, this would also likely mean no salvation for most people. God is merciful indeed.

Luke 23:43 – many Protestants argue that, because Jesus sent the good thief right to heaven, there can be no purgatory. There are several rebuttals. First, when Jesus uses the word "paradise,” He did not mean heaven. Paradise, from the Hebrew "sheol," meant the realm of the righteous dead. This was the place of the dead who were destined for heaven, but who were captive until the Lord's resurrection. Second, since there was no punctuation in the original manuscript, Jesus’ statement “I say to you today you will be with me in paradise” does not mean there was a comma after the first word “you.” This means Jesus could have said, “I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise” (meaning, Jesus could have emphasized with exclamation his statement was “today” or “now,” and that some time in the future the good thief would go to heaven). Third, even if the thief went straight to heaven, this does not prove there is no purgatory (those who are fully sanctified in this life – perhaps by a bloody and repentant death – could be ready for admission in to heaven).

Gen. 50:10; Num. 20:29; Deut. 34:8 - here are some examples of ritual prayer and penitent mourning for the dead for specific periods of time. The Jewish understanding of these practices was that the prayers freed the souls from their painful state of purification, and expedited their journey to God.

Baruch 3:4 - Baruch asks the Lord to hear the prayers of the dead of Israel. Prayers for the dead are unnecessary in heaven and unnecessary in hell. These dead are in purgatory.

Zech. 9:11 - God, through the blood of His covenant, will set those free from the waterless pit, a spiritual abode of suffering which the Church calls purgatory.

2 Macc. 12:43-45 - the prayers for the dead help free them from sin and help them to the reward of heaven. Those in heaven have no sin, and those in hell can no longer be freed from sin. They are in purgatory. Luther was particularly troubled with these verses because he rejected the age-old teaching of purgatory. As a result, he removed Maccabees from the canon of the Bible.

Top



II. Purification After Death By Fire

Heb. 12:29 - God is a consuming fire (of love in heaven, of purgation in purgatory, or of suffering and damnation in hell).

1 Cor. 3:10-15 - works are judged after death and tested by fire. Some works are lost, but the person is still saved. Paul is referring to the state of purgation called purgatory. The venial sins (bad works) that were committed are burned up after death, but the person is still brought to salvation. This state after death cannot be heaven (no one with venial sins is present) or hell (there is no forgiveness and salvation).

1 Cor. 3:15 – “if any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” The phrase for "suffer loss" in the Greek is "zemiothesetai." The root word is "zemioo" which also refers to punishment. The construction “zemiothesetai” is used in Ex. 21:22 and Prov. 19:19 which refers to punishment (from the Hebrew “anash” meaning “punish” or “penalty”). Hence, this verse proves that there is an expiation of temporal punishment after our death, but the person is still saved. This cannot mean heaven (there is no punishment in heaven) and this cannot mean hell (the possibility of expiation no longer exists and the person is not saved).

1 Cor. 3:15 – further, Paul writes “he himself will be saved, "but only" (or “yet so”) as through fire.” “He will be saved” in the Greek is “sothesetai” (which means eternal salvation). The phrase "but only" (or “yet so”) in the Greek is "houtos" which means "in the same manner." This means that man is both eternally rewarded and eternally saved in the same manner by fire.

1 Cor. 3:13 - when Paul writes about God revealing the quality of each man's work by fire and purifying him, this purification relates to his sins (not just his good works). Protestants, in attempting to disprove the reality of purgatory, argue that Paul was only writing about rewarding good works, and not punishing sins (because punishing and purifying a man from sins would be admitting that there is a purgatory).

1 Cor. 3:17 - but this verse proves that the purgation after death deals with punishing sin. That is, destroying God's temple is a bad work, which is a mortal sin, which leads to death. 1 Cor. 3:14,15,17 - purgatory thus reveals the state of righteousness (v.14), state of venial sin (v.15) and the state of mortal sin (v.17), all of which are judged after death.

1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter refers to this purgatorial fire to test the fruits of our faith.

Jude 1:23 - the people who are saved are being snatched out of the fire. People are already saved if they are in heaven, and there is no possibility of salvation if they are in hell. These people are being led to heaven from purgatory.

Rev. 3:18-19 - Jesus refers to this fire as what refines into gold those He loves if they repent of their sins. This is in the context of after death because Jesus, speaking from heaven, awards the white garment of salvation after the purgation of fire (both after death).

Dan 12:10 - Daniel refers to this refining by saying many shall purify themselves, make themselves white and be refined.

Wis. 3:5-6 - the dead are disciplined and tested by fire to receive their heavenly reward. This is the fire of purgatory.

Sirach 2:5 - for gold is tested in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of humiliation.

Zech. 13:8-9 - God says 2/3 shall perish, and 1/3 shall be left alive, put into the fire, and refined like silver and tested like gold. The ones that perish go to hell, and there is no need for refinement in heaven, so those being refined are in purgatory.

Mal. 3:2-3 - also refers to God's purification of the righteous at their death.

---

Sin all week long and come back on Sunday and be absolved so you can go on the following week and do it again.no wonder you have so many adherents.Your religion requires no self sacrifice no living right before the Lord.

It certainly does require sacrifice. There is no absolution without genuine regret, change of mind, and then as a requirement, there is penance.

But that does nothing to compromise forgiveness.

“Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.” Matthew 18:21-22

[Kyuuketsuki]

God was never created, but we are talking about Christ who is both God and Man, both created and uncreated.

The universe (the wider universe or multiverse) was never created, has always existed ... where does that leave your dumb [expletive deleted] god?

Kyu