Did I miss anything?

[Esquilax]

reward them how? With attonement?
Not all who ask for it will receive it per Christ Himself on the subject in Mat 7. Even those who do great things in His name will He recognize. Only those who do the will of the Father.

That's a different kind of christianity than I'm familiar with, but it does deal with that specific problem, so... cool.

only if you believe God has no claim of ownership of anything in this world.

If a man trashes his own house big deal. But, if the same man does the exact same damage to a rented house, that man is liable to everything he has done.

"We" all live in rented homes in this life. Everything here including your skin and everything under it belongs to God.

Why does everything, including us, belong to god? Before you answer that he created us, I would argue that sentient entities are an exception to that; after all, babies don't belong to their parents. As for everything else... well, that's just entrapment, if god creates the universe and then forces us into it with no way out. If you trap me in a cell, you're not rightfully owed rent during my occupancy.

That means all the trash and damage we do to our 'lives/homes' are committed against the property owner and not the squatter or renter currently living in the residence.

Therefore we owe a debt (one we can not pay.)

Except that "creation therefore ownership" is a complete non sequitur. What's the logic behind it? I suspect your answer is just going to be to restate the problem, but that doesn't actually tell us why.

actually the bible is very clear and mentions in several places that the wage for sin is death. Which is why Christ had to die the way He did.

The cost of forgiveness for god, I meant.

because you make assertions based on the ideas and principles found in the bible. When you do the bible becomes a valid point of reference. (Whether you believe it infallible or not.)

My problem is that the answer is inappropriate: I asked what the cost to god was for forgiveness, and you answered with "the bible says it costed god to forgive us." That's why you believe that there was a cost, but it doesn't tell me what that cost is. Given that I can't envision the object of that cost, nor can the bible tell us, seemingly, I have no reason to believe there was a cost beyond that the bible says so... and I don't automatically credit the bible with being correct. The rational conclusion, from that point, is to conclude that the bible was simply wrong when it asserts a cost, in order to magnify the supposed sacrifice.

my "theology" has little bearing on when you ask a biblically based question or make an assertion about the bible or the God of the bible. At that point any biblically based answer or correction has little to do with personal theology and more to do with what the bible says.

... And what the bible says varies greatly depending on the personal theology of the person making the claim. For example, you stated earlier that not every believer will get into heaven, but there are others that claim the only requirement for salvation is belief in Jesus. Two people, two mutually exclusive claims, both claiming theirs is what the bible says. We obviously need something else to point to, rather than the say-so of individual believers.

Romans 6:23 is where to find the cost of sin

Is the wages of sin death for god? That's what I'm talking about, here.

what in the bible makes you believe this?

If they were in a garden where death didn't happen, from whence were they to derive a concept of what death means?

The fact that God used it as a deterrent says otherwise.

Yeah,I don't exactly think god was at his most rational during the Genesis days. It's fairly likely he threatened them with death without realizing he hadn't explained what death was to them. Hell, his own understanding of the subject seems pretty hazy: in the threat he says they'll surely die if they eat the fruit, but the end result was them living far longer than any normal human would and dying after living a life. Who the hell knows what god was talking about there?

what is the alternative in your opinion?

You not put the tree in the garden at all, and just let your peeps live out their days in happiness. They'd still have free will, because will has nothing to do with your ability to physically accomplish a thing, but there wouldn't be that obvious entrapment set up there.

Hey, come to think of it, if the big rule was not to eat of the tree, were all the other morally evil things, as we understand them, still against the rules? If so, I guess it'd still be possible to disobey god, and the choice would have been there with or without the tree, making it purely entrapment that accomplishes nothing, and if all those things that are evil were allowed... well, that's pretty screwed up on its own.

what about the sins you have committed?

Like what? I don't steal, I don't hurt other people, I'm strictly a pacifist who donates his time to charity, loves his family and tries to do good in the world. What in my life is so terrible, without original sin, that would make forgiveness by some outside, unconnected agent even necessary, let alone required?