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_fjBkw...re=related
Regards
DL
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_fjBkw...re=related
Regards
DL
