Dear Atheists

[ParagonLost]

---

The argument is about God who is devastated by sin, and that sin was a offense to his divinity. God sent his son to take our place on the cross and bear the world's sins.

This is what doesn't make sense to me.  Was God really "devastated" by something that was built into the creatures that he created to populate a world he created that exists in the universe that he created?  And if he was --if the exercise of the freedom to act by his creation was so offensive-- why were his options so limited that only a long and complicated plan that ended with the sacrifice of a temporary human body would do?  People forgive one another all the time (for offenses far worse than ignoring their wishes!) without having to spill a single drop of blood.  God cannot possibly be forced into anything.  The possible solutions to Eve's disobedience are endless, and none of them were outside of the reach of God.

Starting with making sure that snakes couldn't talk a young woman into believing that God was a liar.

Good point, I think you got it right about penal substitution atonement. I don't believe in a God that has foreknowledge of future events. Except for the fact that i think Jesus knew if he continued doing what he did, raising awareness for the kingdom of God: he would get killed.

What i think of the distinction is that it has to do with sins, Jesus died by our sins, not for our sins. But we all know how some people interpret sin. The idea that  someone is obsessed with their sin, or the idea that sin is so cosmic and we should be worried about what sex you sleep with, constantly eager to claim what is a sin or not. I think sin is absence of love and when we don't love or be compassionate we are sinning. Am i doing what is lovely? John mentions that love has no greater place in the heart than to sacrifice ones life for their friends.