WHY was Jesus cricified?

[John V]

If you're saying God cannot forgive, that seems like a limitation, thus he's not omnipotent. Changing his mind or not, it's a limitation.

And? Doesn't bother me. Most Bibles don't even have the word omnipotent in them.

Also, why does God tell us to forgive yet he doesn't forgive, himself?

Huh? I've been forgiven. As Jesus died for the sins of the world, anyone can be forgiven.

Is he asking us to behave in a more exalted way than himself or a less exalted way?

What specific passages are you referring to?

[orangebox21]

Where did God get his nature and character from?

Nature is inherent to a being. If God is eternal, then He didn't 'get his nature and character' from anywhere, He always had it.

The thing is that God tells us in the Bible that we have to forgive and turn the other cheek- why can't he unless you kiss his ass?

This is a very interesting point. God does command that we forgive one another. Who was the command for and why was it commanded? The command was for believers because they are forgiven. As far as my understanding goes, the non-believer is under no obligation to forgive anyone anything. We (believers) forgive others because we were first forgiven (Ephesians 4:32, Colossians 3:13, Matthew 18:21-35, etc.).

By the very nature of what atonement is.

If ever there was a non-answer, that's it.

Atonement has two meanings: "the reconciliation of God and humankind through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ"; or "reparation for an offense or injury." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atonement The first simply defines atonement as the cruxifiction of Jesus which answers nothing.
You might as well say because I said so. The doesn't apply. Jesus' death didn't provide reparations to anyone. Certainly it didn't right any wrongs.

So you don't believe the dictionary is truthful?

By the very nature ("reparation for an offense or injury.") of atonement. Either definition applies. The first definition (above) is a specific example of an atonement as it relates to Christian theology.

To see how odd this really is consider the following scenario. Jim kills Jane's daughter Anne. The judges orders Jim executed in the criminal case, and awards Jane $100,000 of Jim's estate in the civil case. Looks like reparations to me.

But on appeal the Appellate Judge decides to execute his own son as atonement for all the defendants past and present (not just Jim). The son, who's a little soft in the head agrees. The son is electrocuted after have been beaten. The Appellate Judge lets Jim go, and reverses the award of damage.

How is the crucifixion different?

Jim would have killed the judge not Jane's daughter.
The judge's son would have offered himself.
The judge's son would have a fully divine and fully human nature.
The judge's son would have been guilty of no crimes against the judge.
The judge would be God.

[John V]

Sorry, you don't get to say that I only have to live up to my own judgment when you start with the premise that everyone is inehrently sinful and deserving of punishment for being human.

Sure I do.

Matt 7
2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.

Romans 2
1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)

[Crossless2.0]

I'm not guilty. You may keep your childish 'payment' for a crime that never occurred.

BINGO! That's what it really comes down to. Even when being offered free forgiveness, and blessing on top of it, people don't want to admit that they're guilty.

I'm guilty of many things but I doubt that offending the dignity of Yahweh with "sin" is one of them -- unless, of course, I am presented with something more compelling than an old collection of stories to cause me to believe in this god.

You make it sound like accepting Christian salvation is like finding a twenty-dollar bill on the ground. "Who wouldn't pick it up? It would be crazy not to!" But there's more to it than that. It's not enough that Christ allegedly paid the price for these crimes and everyone's square; that would be free forgiveness. But to reap the benefit of this gift one must accept as true stories that should embarrass a half-bright ten year old, starting with belief in Yahweh himself. And failure to believe the unbelievable results in punishment. Strings don't equal free.

Besides, how am I to know that the Christian salvation story isn't really a divine test of my credulity and stupidity? Maybe every prayer and petition, every ritual of Communion, etc. earns the believer ever more divine contempt. Perhaps the sheep and goats have been mischaracterized. That doesn't strike me as being more unlikely than most of the New Testament.

[Welsh cake]

Not true at all. Consider what must occur for a being to be both just and merciful and the same time.

Think.

You're both infinitely just and infinitely merciful.

What do you do?

[StealthySkeptic]

The forgiveness that God supposedly gives out though, demands obedience to a proposition that hasn't been proven yet and can never be proven factually, in order to save you from a place that has not be proven to exist, and so it's a gun pointed at your head. No, actually, it's more like somebody saying an invisible thief has an equally invisible gun pointed at your head.

[John V]

I'm guilty of many things but I doubt that offending the dignity of Yahweh with "sin" is one of them -- unless, of course, I am presented with something more compelling than an old collection of stories to cause me to believe in this god.

You make it sound like accepting Christian salvation is like finding a twenty-dollar bill on the ground. "Who wouldn't pick it up? It would be crazy not to!" But there's more to it than that. It's not enough that Christ allegedly paid the price for these crimes and everyone's square; that would be free forgiveness. But to reap the benefit of this gift one must accept as true stories that should embarrass a half-bright ten year old, starting with belief in Yahweh himself. And failure to believe the unbelievable results in punishment. Strings don't equal free.

That argument would have some merit if most of you said "I like the idea of salvation and wish it were true, but I just can't believe it." THat's not the case, at least not around here. The much more frequent sentiment here is that, even with proof, salvation would be rejected. So, yes, it's like not picking up the bill.

[FatAndFaithless]

Sorry, you don't get to say that I only have to live up to my own judgment when you start with the premise that everyone is inehrently sinful and deserving of punishment for being human.

Sure I do.

Matt 7
2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.

Romans 2
1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)

Sorry dude, quoting white noise from the Bible isn't making your point. I'm asking you, how can you say the only 'judgment' I need to live up to is my own (which completely lacks any concept of sin or divine punishment), while still saying that I deserve divine punishment for my sin?

[ShaMan]

Scenario:

I claim that you're guilty of a crime, and yet I provide no evidence that the crime even occurred, let alone that you were involved in any way. BUT... I get to condemn you without any evidence.

That does not sound 'perfectly just' to me, and I'm willing to bet that it sounds ludicrous to the one being accused.

That 'god' gets to fall back on some form of cosmic 'justice' which is not to be held to scrutiny, is, to me, the perfect reason why it should be ignored entirely.

[StealthySkeptic]

I'm guilty of many things but I doubt that offending the dignity of Yahweh with "sin" is one of them -- unless, of course, I am presented with something more compelling than an old collection of stories to cause me to believe in this god.

You make it sound like accepting Christian salvation is like finding a twenty-dollar bill on the ground. "Who wouldn't pick it up? It would be crazy not to!" But there's more to it than that. It's not enough that Christ allegedly paid the price for these crimes and everyone's square; that would be free forgiveness. But to reap the benefit of this gift one must accept as true stories that should embarrass a half-bright ten year old, starting with belief in Yahweh himself. And failure to believe the unbelievable results in punishment. Strings don't equal free.

That argument would have some merit if most of you said "I like the idea of salvation and wish it were true, but I just can't believe it." THat's not the case, at least not around here. The much more frequent sentiment here is that, even with proof, salvation would be rejected. So, yes, it's like not picking up the bill.

I'd have a TON of questions- but I think most people who know this for a FACT as in it's proven by science would be idiots not to avoid eternal torment. It's like surviving North Korea- believing in Kim Jong Il is just something you have to do.