Did I miss anything?

[Drich]

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

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.

that is the most insane thing you have said to date. If babies/kids do not belong to their parents, then who is responsible for them?

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.

first things first, so what? So what if you were put in a cell and told to do x.. If you were in that situation then that is how you would have to perform.

Second thing how do you know you were not given and or elected to live this life to prove yourself to God?

Except that "creation therefore ownership" is a complete non sequitur.

what are you a communist? Where do you live that does not allow you to own what you create?

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.

you assume too much. I am not willing to blindly accept the idea that anything I create belongs no one.
Are orangutans sentient? Are dolphins sentient? When man finally creates a viable AI (if we haven't already) will it belong to someone? Of course it will. Just like babies belong to their parents, orangutans and dolphins to their owners. If you do not think any of these beings do not belong to someone, have one do damage to something that belongs to someone else's, and see who the damaged properity owner goes to for retribution, the sentient being who's ownership is being discussed, or the one who has taken ownership/responsibility of the beings care. Have one of these being die and see who is responsible.

Even in a macro sense we as citizens of nations and or other religious/secular groups belong communally to that group and can do things that impact that group as a whole with our actions. We may be individuals but we never truly stand alone we will always belong to someone or something.

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.

The price of sin period, is Death. Our God died on the cross because He was paying for our sin. This death was a physical representation of the Spiritual death that God the Son Experienced, As He for our sake was separated from the Father while on that Cross.

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."

No I said the cost was Death.

That's why you believe that there was a cost, but it doesn't tell me what that cost is.

death is the cost (do you see a pattern emerging yet?)

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...

you also have no grounds to question God outside the parameters the bible lays out, as without it you would know nothing of Him. Therefore to give you an answer from the bible based on a question constructed from the very same book is valid for no other reason than it is the only authoritiave source in which an answer can be given.

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.

we were never charged for being correct. We are only charged with being responsible to what we have been given, much like how the educational system works in this country.

When I was growing up Pluto was a planet and their was a coming ice age expected to create glaciers that would span from the north pole to Washington DC because of the global cooling that was taking place due to all the pollution being created by our cars and factories. If we had a test and it asked us about pluto's planetary status or the coming ice age, and we put the currently known truth down as our answer do you think we would have been rewarded for our effort, or do you think it would have been marked wrong?

Same here. God judges us on what we have been given to work with and our faithfulness to our understanding of it, which in truth is no different than how the rest of the world works.

... 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.

not according to Christ:
Mat 7:
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [n]miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’

Surely one who prophesy and cast out demons simply believes... That fact that they call out lord, lord says the simply believe.

Again my theology has nothing to do with what is written in mat 7, for these are the words of Christ Himself on the subject matter.
Not my own.
To construct a doctrine that contradicts or at the very least does not take this passage into consideration is that 'theology' you were speaking of, which differs considerably from what I did for you when the question was asked.

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.

does Christ Himself not have final authority in the matter? Again his words not my own personal doctrine constructed from verse fragments scattered across the NT.

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.

did God the Son not die on the cross? I do not understand why your having such a hard time with this concept. All of Christianity recognizes and does not argue this point.
Christ died on our behalf for our sins.
We owed a death for our sin. Christ died so we do not have to.

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

what makes you believe that death was not apart of the garden life?
Their were two special trees in the garden. The tree of knowledge of good and evil (which brought death) and the tree of life which according to genesis brought eternal life. Adam and Eve were allowed to eat from all trees in the garden (including the tree of life) they could not eat from the tree of knowledge. Eating from the tree of life is what made them Immortal. For everything in the garden to be untouched by death, the garden as a whole would also have to eat of this tree. Otherwise the garden and everything in it would be as it is now, and be subject to death.

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.

now who is wandering off into his own special brand of theology? (Speaking where the bible is silent.)

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?

they were immortal, they died, that life ended, and their mortality began. Then they were expelled from the garden so as not to eat from the tree of life and begin anew. (They proven them selves to be untrust worthy in their word about not eating forbidden fruit.)

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.

so you think God should have set things up with man as He did with the angels? Are you not familiar with lucifer's (and 1/3 of the angel population) fall from grace?
No tree there, no planned opportunity to chose, no plan for redemption. Just one mistake/insurrection, and eternal damnation. to you that is better?

Thanks, but I'd rather live in God's world rather than yours. Here I have been given a choice to choose salvation over damnation.

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.

again no, we are only responsible to what we have been given over to understand, and not the whole complete truth/standard.

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?
[/quote]
Do I really need to make a list, or can't you just admit that you do things God considers to be a sin?